What’s the Point of Reading If It Doesn’t Shatter You?

The Weight of Words: On Embodied Reading and Academic Life

Can reading (and, by extension, theory) and living be so far off from each other? If so, what is the purpose of reading, knowing, and researching? Are theories that are not embodied worth their meat? But what is it to embody them?

Don't get me wrong, it is impossible to embody everything, and it becomes exhausting. Moreover, not every theory are that affective that it gives chills or it moves you. But there are some that are deeply moving and impactful. But I see these as being read and let go of after an argument or paper.

To read is to be critical, think through it, with it, and let it land, disrupt, question and then take it and use it in a way that can take you closer to yourself. To let it impact, sit with yourself and understand what that is.

I often find Sara Ahmed's work incredibly affective; it speaks to my soul and stirs action. Stefania Pandolfo's 'Knot of the Soul' held a mirror in its own way, to my grief, to the past that I did not honour, but, at the same time, it highlights the demand to let it go gently so. Saba Mahmood's work got me to listen and understand my mother's experiences at their face value and understand her piety; it made how I connect with her infinitely better. I can add more here, but you get the point here, don't you?

Photo by Olia Gozha on Unsplash

From this space, just as someone reading the same book as me can be considered a recommendation from the universe – I thought these were points to connect with people. But I am rudely awakened to the fact that it need not be the case; it is not the case. Maybe the things that affect me impact others differently; perhaps they did not impact me at all.

But to me, books like these, academia as such, help solve the itch. It helps give perspectives from people who started at a question long enough. I enjoy partaking in their confusion, concerns, and approach- all laid bare on paper. But don't get me wrong, I do not say theory overtakes lived experience because that is impossible. The theory is built on a certain opacity, an unknowability of experience, despite the in-depth interviews, holding witness to situations. It adds layers to a puzzle that cannot be solved but does say something about it. In the process, I learned a little bit more about myself, how I exist in the world, and how I can be better.

While I am slowly integrating with the fact theory, it does not speak about the people and reconciling with that. A caveat here is that I do not mean to say people who do not engage with it are not there, or no other form of experience is valid or anything like that; I am aware and deeply respectful and love to hear about different ways people engage with the world.

Here, I am wondering about those who have read yet – and to them, I ask the question – if even some of what you read doesn't shatter you, what is the point of reading?