Practice Theory

I have tried to decipher Strohm. I hope I did him and his work justice.

Crystal Dill
January 23, 2008
Response to Theory and The Premodern Text
(Strohm Pages 6-23)
Paper #2
Antidisciplinarity and Practice Theory
Strohm explains antidisciplinarity as a way for medieval theorists to “interest ourselves—and actively to prefer—those knowledges which are unrecognized within existing disciplinary terms” (33). He wants theorist to look beyond the usual norms of their field. He wants them to look closely at the obscure and the profound. I understood this portion of the text to be his way of pleading with his academic contemporaries to look at other forms of medieval media beside literature—to literarily go “outside” of their comfort zone and delve into the realm of art and anything else that might lead to a greater understanding of the period.
He goes on to say that most medievalists do not want to go outside of their comfort zone because they have a fear of the unknown and that is why some pieces of the puzzle are often left unseen. With this in mind, Strohm introduces the idea of practice theory: “At the heart of practice theory lies an understanding of human activity, as what Bourdieu calls, ‘regulated improvisation,’ as activity occurring within structure, but not structurally determined” (35). This simply means that not everything falls into neat and straight lines, and most of the time those things that are not considered “normal” are of greater importance than ritualized events.
Strohm then gives a list of practice theory’s positive attributes:
1. Expands the field of analysis. This means that practice theory gives a medievalist tools that allow them to see historical events in a wider spectrum.
2. Rejects the tyranny of structure. This attributes allows a researcher to go beyond the mundane and look at events and people that shatter societal norms etc.
3. Outflanks the question of intent. Authorial intent can not be known unless an author actually writes, “This is my intention.” With practice theory, a researcher is encouraged to look at the strategy of the text (what the text is doing of saying) instead of assuming what the author was trying to reveal about his or herself in a text.
4. Opens a theory of resistance. This is the idea that “change may result from ‘failed reproduction.’” Historically, great changes occur when a person or a group of people seek to go against societal rules and ceremonies. The outside forces that cause the resistance allow change to occur through subverting the dominate paradigm or regime. (35-37)
To expound on his thoughts about practice theory, Strohm gives three examples of historical people and events that caused change.
His first example is of Richard II and his coronation. He describes a moment when Richard is hoisted atop a knight’s shoulders and loses his shoe; Strohm then gives two interpretations of that event. The first interpretation is from a monk who is disturbed by the loss of the young king’s shoe, because it goes against the normal ritual of the coronation. The second interpretation explains how Richard’s shoe escalated to other events that would lead to Henry IV usurping the throne.
The next example he gives is of Henry IV’s coronation. Henry changed many things about the ceremony. Using a legend about anointing oil and the bumbling adventures of the previous king, Henry made himself into a mythical figure who seemed to deserve the throne of England far more than his predecessor. This was a strategic move put into place to make his own coronation appear to be far more important than Richard’s and increase the influence of his power as the new king of England.
Finally, Strohm briefly discusses, Joanne of Navarre, HenryIV’s wife. He discusses a painting that depicts her in an interesting and innovative way compared to other medieval portraits of monarchical women. She as painted as powerful and separate from her husband’s patriarchal influence. It is interesting and empowering to imagine a woman in a patriarchal society being so powerful that she is seen as her own women. From a historical stand point, this is makes her a figure of proto-feminine interest.
Essentially, I think Strohm is asking researchers to open their eyes to the small events that happened in history: a shoe dropping, a simple change in ceremony, or a painting of a female figure. Yes, the larger historical events are interesting and important, but more often, it is the small pebbles of history that make the largest ripples.