Epilogue: Theory, Momentarily

14 Years. Theory

Daniela Gandorfer:

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak with you—first in London and once again digitally, given current conditions—about modes and ethics of theory as matterphorical endeavors. Now, five years on from first working with and learning from you in the Conflict Shorelines seminars at Princeton University, I can share that it shaped a lot of what lies behind matterphorical, namely a refusal to practice research and analysis detached from the physical world—and thereby detached also from the political, legal, social, and historical entanglements that create the conditions to that which we critically attend to in our analysis. It also provided a continued opportunity for researchers to practice and imagine a different kind of ethical and political commitment, one that is not simply about the question of the right kind of theory, but about a practice of doing theory, of making sense, with the material (and always also political) world.

I want to start with a question about "Lethal Theory," an essay you published in 2006 and which has remained an important piece in thinking about the often-assumed separation between theory and practice.¹ Coming from your own field, architecture, which might be dispositionally closer to practice(s) and the physical (and built) world, you challenge the assumption of pure theory, meaning something residing only in academic texts, having an impact, if at all, in university contexts. In fact, it is precisely the often even lethal impact (literally, pushing or striking against) that your essay attends to, most concretely the IDF's tactic of "walking through walls" and other forms of urban warfare developed by Israeli military strategists engaging with critical theories.² You argue that while you are not comparing the use of critical theory in architecture with its application by the Israeli military, "a close examination of the latter certainly reflects on the former, insofar as it illustrates a more general problem of the relationship between theory and practice."³ The essay demonstrates the importance of thinking theory and practice together and foreshadows the mode of investigative theory that you, and eventually Forensic Architecture, are doing today. Can you speak about the notion of "theory" in the essay's title, and, in regard to writing theory, also the challenges and complicities the essay exposed?

Eyal Weizman:

In "Lethal Theory" the problem is not with theory. The problem was "how could theory be involved in an anti-colonial struggle?" What is theory in operation, in resistance to any form of hegemonic control and domination? Now I'm not going to speak so much about what was said therein but about the controversy that erupted. The interesting thing about that was when this essay was sent to be published in Hebrew, in what was probably the most critical journal at the time, Theory & Criticism, and which still exists, the editors were worried. Rather than publishing the essay, they sent it to the military to be looked at first. So, this started a big controversy: How can the one critical journal in the country send an article to the military and give the military, which already has anyway access to all the communication channels, a voice in the journal. The military noted three problems, some factual issues with the essay; it was not about the theory, it was about numbers, and whether the electricity was cut or not, etc. The journal then suggested that I change these things according to the military's remarks and they go forward with the publishing. I declined and responded: "Well, I am not taking any orders from the Israeli Military, thank you very much." What followed in the editorial board then was a big discussion about writing theory in conflict. Structural conditions were ok to mention, but without the mentioning of names, people, events, even without mentioning the incident. It pointed to one obvious issue: there was no journalism. In that moment I understood that, for me, resistance requires theory and event.

DG:

Looking at the essay now, what has happened and changed since then in terms of the struggle you describe...