Does the structure of THE PROGRAMME suggest that theory precedes practice? No. We do not comment here on their interaction in previous historical periods. In the twentieth century we think that practice--in the form of technology--has destabilized theory in an ever-accelerating pattern. We mean social and critical theory and forego a comment, for now, on the dynamics between scientific theories and their application to technology. It is common for us to find ourselves doing things because they become possible. (The writing of this sentence in hypertext on an electronic screen is an illustration.) We then find ourselves reflecting on the significance of what we already are doing. In his classic essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Walter Benjamin exemplifies this pattern. His use of a quotation from Paul Valery hits the nail on the head. The studies of the postmodern corporation by Steven Goldman and his colleagues at Lehigh University show us theoretical constructs growing out of the already-changed realities of corporate structure and values. When we hear an interview of Bill Gates, head of Microsoft, on the future, we hear of the inevitability of the technological change--and then, if time permits in the segment, a speculation on what it all means to the fate of humankind. We think it can be argued that the deconstructionist and poststructuralist theory of the period after the 1960s social revolutions in part, at least, came as a response to an already-altered social reality; we can see the philosophers trying to explain in theoretical terms why the New Left had already assaulted the established order.
This of course is not to argue that the theory of postmoderns has not initiated practical change. We are simply attempting to block the possible misreading of the structure of THE PROGRAMME. Theory and practice dance hand in hand down the street, feeding back to and reinforcing and changing one another.
Finally, we point out that in THE PROGRAMME activities that take place in identifiable institutional structures are found in "praxis." Concepts, purely intellectual structures, are found in "theory." This distinction may explain what we have done by way of categorizing even if it does not make it defensible to all readers.
Nevertheless, we are wondering where, in the end, the practice of multinational capitalism falls in the organization of THE PROGRAMME. Yes, it is practiced by organizations. The theorists of postmodernism, however, point to multinational capital as the epicenter of whatever postmodernism is. We wish that we could conclude that multinational capital is the quintessential conflation of theory and practice. This would show that the Ten Commandments of Postmodern theory underlie the definition and scope of multinational capital. It would show that the multinational corporations are reflexively reinforcing the theoretical base as it goes forward in practice. These insights are by no means self-evident. They require analysis, which remains to be done. Meanwhile, we are free to link multinational capital to both theory and practice as we see fit.
Return to THE PROGRAMME contents page.