ON THE THEORETICAL TRAPPINGS OF THE THESIS OF ANTI-THEORY - OR, WHY THE IDEA OF THEORY MAY NOT, AFTER ALL, BE ALL THAT BAD - A RESPONSE TO THOMAS,GARY

''A radically atheoretical posture is conceivable only in a purely the oretical world of wild fancy,'' writes Kanavillil Rajagopalan in respo nse to Gary Thomas's article, ''What's the Use of Theory ?'' published in the Spring 1997 issue of the Harvard Educational Review. While agr eeing with Thomas that educators and researchers often depend too heav ily on theory and that theory often does not translate; into actual pr actice, Rajagopalan points out that Thomas's call for the complete abo lition of theory does not translate into actual practice either. In fa ct, Rajagopalan asserts, in arguing against the use of theory in educa tion, Thomas winds up creating a new theory-a theory of anti-theory-fr aught with many of the same problems Thomas identifies in other people 's theories. Rajagopalan's critique focuses on three points: first, hu mans may by nature be theorizing creatures, making the call for the ab olition of theory impossible in reality; second, Thomas himself cannot help but fall into the trap of using and relying on the frameworks of theory to make his argument against theory; and third, Thomas's notio n of ''the hegemony of theory'' would be more acc accurrately written as ''the hegemony of a theory''-that is, theory is not necessarily the problem but particular theories are problematic. In the end, Rajagopa lan believes that throwing out theory is not the most effective way to deal with the increased dependence on theory in education. Instead, e ducators must first analytically break down theories to prevent indivi dual theories from being used as the basis for sweeping educational as sertions, and then ''push a number of theories to flourish and;prolife rate, trying to make each theory hegemonic.