From theory to bricolage: indiscipline and the exemplary gestures of interpretation

Abstract

International audienceThis article suggests that our supposedly “post-theoretical” age is more than ever in need of the intellectual gestures which characterized theory in its various guises. After a brief historical schematization of the recent evolutions of theory, it distinguishes four dimensions of intellection (accounting, modeling, storytelling, speculating), which are constantly weaved together whenever we attempt to make sense of our world. It then shows that these four dimensions are all included in the activity of interpretation, which deserves to appear as a continuation of theory by other means. In dialogue with Wlad Godzich, Steven Knapp and Walter Ben Michaels, Daniele Giglioli or Claude Lévi-Strauss, it re-describes interpretation as a form of indiscipline closer to the bricolage of “the savage mind” than to the unrealistic idealization of modern “Science”. It concludes, however, by rejecting such dichotomies and by calling for “theoricolage” as an indisciplinary and cheerful mix of theory and bricolage

The writer as interlocutor: The benefits and drawbacks of bricolage in creative writing research

“…As schooled as Citton is in theory, he admits that he never believed that there was only one (la théorie). He explains: "As far as I was concerned, there were theories (in the plural), contradicting or completing [with] each other, calling for each one of us to choose, reject, discuss, denounce, correct, refine, pursue or deepen them" (Citton, 2014). Teaching postgraduates clarified his position about clinging to the exclusivity of one theory alone, which could lead to misinterpretation and frustration, as it did for his students who felt that "theory was an obstacle rather than a help …" (Citton, 2014).…”

“…He explains: "As far as I was concerned, there were theories (in the plural), contradicting or completing [with] each other, calling for each one of us to choose, reject, discuss, denounce, correct, refine, pursue or deepen them" (Citton, 2014). Teaching postgraduates clarified his position about clinging to the exclusivity of one theory alone, which could lead to misinterpretation and frustration, as it did for his students who felt that "theory was an obstacle rather than a help …" (Citton, 2014). This attitude certainly echoes that of many Australian literature undergraduates let alone those who study creative writing at the Honours or postgraduate level.…”

“…Citton's article offers a fresh interpretation of bricolage as a response to the exclusivity of Theory's proponents, arguing that the dominant discourse does not only (or even usually) facilitate intellectual or creative leaps forward: "If important knowledge mostly comes from the margins, we need to put ourselves in position to integrate without neutralising it, which is why pluralism is our most important requirement" (Citton, 2014). For Citton, "all forms of knowledge have some truth in them, and, conversely … no form of knowledge can pretend to be valid through and through" ( 2014).…”

“…Citton's flexible conception of research leads him to postulate what can be deemed the next stage of bricolage, where critique and interpretation can be considered "gestures, as performances … with their own rules along the way of their unfolding" (Citton, 2014). He names this process "theoricolage" (2014).…”

Música, som e imagens em movimento: Por uma perspectiva “indisciplinada” da experiência cinematográfica

“…O diagnóstico e as propostas de Altman convidam-nos a ir mais além do que as habituais perspectivas inter-ou transdisciplinares, arriscando um gesto mais radical de crítica das próprias disciplinas. A ideia de "indisciplinaridade" tem percorrido e assombrado os debates recentes em torno da organização e da divisão dos saberes, tanto nas ciências humanas (Wolton 2013, Citton 2014, como na musicologia (Laborde 2015) e mesmo nos estudos sobre cinema português (Ferreira 2013), ainda que com formulações e consequências muito diversas. Como afirmam Renaud Pasquier e David Schreiber, as manifestações da ideia de "indisciplina" têm-se agrupado, de forma geral, em dois tipos de posição face ao saber universitário: uma a que chamam "versão fraca", que pretende manter o dissenso com a lógica disciplinar estritamente limitado, o que deixa pouco espaço para contestar a ordem académica consensual; e uma outra, a que chamam "versão forte", que pretende criticar abertamente a própria noção de cientificidade, expondo-se ao risco da "a-disciplina" e da impossibilidade de definir um qualquer critério de veracidade dos enunciados do saber (Pasquier e Schreiber, 2007).…”