Can anything ever be "too theoretical"?
Can anything ever be "too theoretical"?
I spent most of my early career putting my ideas to work in spheres of "formal high politics"—those rarefied spaces occupied by figures high on the political ladder, governing matters that impact nations and regional blocs. Within these environments, I've encountered a recurring refrain worth interrogating:
When someone proposes an inventive solution to a long-standing problem, there's almost always a gatekeeper who interjects: "No, that's too theoretical. That can't be done." This dismissal assumes a clean separation between theory and reality — as though they occupy distinct ontological categories. But this binary framing fundamentally misunderstands their relationship.
The refrain itself isn’t new. It’s often wielded by people who've either forgotten how the world changes — or benefited from pretending it doesn't.
In this essay I argue for a radical reframing of the relationship between theory and reality. They are not mutually exclusive: reality is simply theory after a time lag, and sufficient resource deployment. What we call "pragmatic reality" today was yesterday's "impractical theory" that somehow secured funding, institutional backing, and the persistence of time. Most things people call "theoretical" are just reality in beta mode. They’re ideas that haven't been given a budget or any ideological support. They’re realities waiting to be bolstered by political will, and lit up by volitional flames, not metaphysical permission.
The False Binary
Traditional narratives position theory and reality as opposing forces, with "pragmatism" representing reality-based thinking and "theory" representing abstract, impractical ideation. But if we take this to the hilt, this framing collapses under scrutiny:
Pragmatism is itself a theoretical framework developed by philosophers like John Dewey and William James- This is the exquisite irony at the heart of the theory/reality binary. Pragmatism—the philosophical tradition most often invoked to dismiss "mere theory"—is itself a comprehensive theoretical system. When Dewey developed his instrumentalist account of knowledge or when James argued that truth is what proves useful in the way of belief, they weren't reporting neutral observations of reality. They were constructing elaborate theoretical edifices with their own axioms, premises, and conceptual architecture. The pragmatist who dismisses theory is wielding theory to do so—like someone insisting they don't have an accent while speaking in a pronounced dialect.
The very act of constructing a theory-practice spectrum is itself a theoretical exercise - Even the mental model that positions theory and practice as opposite poles requires theoretical work. It demands conceptual categorization, boundary-drawing, and value assignment. When someone maps concepts onto a spectrum of "theoretical" to "practical," they're engaging in abstraction, creating taxonomies, and imposing an interpretive framework on reality—all quintessentially theoretical activities. The spectrum doesn't exist in nature; it's a theoretical construction we overlay onto our experience. The anti-theorist is theorizing even in the act of rejecting theory, performing the very activity they claim to transcend.
Even our most "pragmatic" approaches are saturated with implicit theoretical assumptions - Look closely at any "purely practical" approach, and you'll find a dense network of theoretical presuppositions doing the invisible work. Market-based solutions rely on theoretical assumptions about human behavior, efficiency, and value. Evidence-based policy embeds theories about causality, measurement, and what constitutes valid evidence. Even the most hardheaded pragmatism contains embedded theories about agency, time, and what outcomes matter. These theories often go unacknowledged precisely because they've been so thoroughly normalized that they appear as simple "reality." But their theoretical nature becomes apparent when they clash with different theoretical frameworks—when, for instance, Indigenous approaches to land management confront resource extraction models, revealing the latter not as "reality" but as one theoretical framework among many.
What we're witnessing in these dismissals isn't a preference for reality over theory, but a preference for established theories over emergent ones. The traditional colleague declaring "this is too theoretical" simply privileges theories that have already materialized into infrastructures, institutions, and taken-for-granted realities.
Pragmatist philosophers like John Dewey and William James argued that truth isn't some timeless object waiting to be discovered. It's what works—what proves itself in practice. Theories become truths when enough people, resources, and institutions align behind them. The "truth" of democracy, for instance, didn't descend from the heavens; it was constructed, fought for, funded, and normalized over time. Same with abolition, human rights, the Internet.
Reality as Materialized Theory
The most compelling evidence against the theory/reality binary is how consistently social reality represents someone's theory after temporal lag and substantial resource investment. Consider three pathways through which theory becomes reality:
1. Theoretical models create the phenomena they claim to describe
Sociologists and knowledge philosophers have demonstrated how economic models don't just describe markets—they generate them. Financial instruments like derivatives don't simply represent pre-existing economic realities; they actively produce new economic configurations through their conceptual frameworks and material implementations.
The Black-Scholes option pricing model didn't merely describe market behavior; it transformed it. Once traders began using this theoretical framework, markets increasingly conformed to its predictions. The theory didn't describe reality—it constructed it.
2. Theoretical frameworks become reality through deliberate exportation
My LSE research examined how neoclassical economics was strategically "exported" to the Philippines between the 1950s-1980s. American governmental actors, economic architects, and non-governmental foundations anticipated investment returns from implanting this theoretical design in neo-colonial contexts.
If a neoclassical social reality materialized during that era, it wasn't because neoclassical theory successfully described pre-existing conditions—it succeeded in being strategically implanted, developed through power and resources, and maintained until it became "reality." Theory preceded and produced the reality it claimed to represent.
3. Theory shapes perception, which shapes action, which creates reality
Even at the micro level, theoretical frameworks shape what we perceive as possible or impossible, desirable or undesirable. These perceptions guide actions, which collectively materialize into social structures, institutions, and norms—what we call "reality."
Every institution we navigate daily—from legal systems to healthcare to education—began as theoretical propositions about how society might be organized. These weren't "discovered" in reality; they were conceptualized, advocated for, funded, implemented, and eventually taken for granted as "just how things are."
4. People themselves become living embodiments of theory
Perhaps most fundamentally, we ourselves become walking repositories of theory. The neoclassical economics embedded in a young, impressionable undergraduate doesn't just influence how they think—it structures how they perceive reality, move through the world, and interact with others. After sufficient immersion, these theoretical frameworks don't feel like "theories" anymore—they feel like common sense, like reality itself.
When that student enters the job market, their theoretical training doesn't disappear—it materializes through their decisions, judgments, and actions. The investment banker who treats all relationships as cost-benefit analyses isn't simply "being practical"—they're enacting economic theory with every transaction. The policymaker who sees only certain metrics as valid evidence isn't being "reality-based"—they're operationalizing a specific theoretical paradigm about what constitutes knowledge.
Consider this inventory of seemingly mundane activities that actually activate theoretical frameworks:
Filing taxes — When we categorize our income and expenses according to government-defined classifications, we're enacting theories of economic value, public finance, and citizenship obligation.
Using a dating app — Swiping through potential matches activates theories of romantic compatibility, algorithmic optimization, and quantified interpersonal attraction.
Following a recipe — Cooking by recipe applies theories of chemical interaction, nutritional science, and cultural food categorization.
Reading a weather forecast — Checking tomorrow's temperature implements complex theoretical models of atmospheric physics, statistical probability, and risk assessment.
Taking medication — Following pharmaceutical dosage instructions activates biomedical theories of disease, pharmacokinetics, and standardized bodily function.
Using GPS navigation — Following turn-by-turn directions implements theories of spatial representation, optimal path algorithms, and satellite positioning.
Posting on social media — Sharing content enacts theories of digital identity, network effects, and information amplification.
Filling out a job application — Submitting your qualifications operationalizes theories of human capital, organizational fit, and credential valuation.
Setting a thermostat — Adjusting your home temperature actualizes theories of thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and automated control systems.
Booking a flight — Purchasing an airline ticket implements theories of risk distribution, temporal coordination, and resource allocation across complex networks.
Dismissing an idea as "too theoretical" — And perhaps most ironically, the policy gatekeeper who cuts off innovative discussion with "that's too theoretical" is enacting a theoretical position about knowledge validation, institutional conservatism, and epistemic authority.
Look closer at this last example: The same policy director who shuts down your proposal as "too theoretical" will, in the very same meeting, approve a budget allocation based on econometric forecasting models (theoretical constructs). They'll cite regulatory frameworks (theoretical legal constructions). They'll reference benchmarking data (theoretical measurement constructs). They'll use probability assessments for risk management (theoretical statistical constructs). They'll invoke stakeholder management principles (theoretical organizational constructs).
That policy space—supposedly the bastion of hard-nosed pragmatism—is in fact saturated with theory grenades at every turn. The meeting agenda? A theoretical framework for temporal organization. The hierarchical speaking order? A theoretical model of institutional power. The cost-benefit analyses? Theoretical models of value quantification. The implementation timelines? Theoretical constructs about causal relationships across time.
There is no escape from theory. The question is never whether we're using theory—it's which theories we're materializing, with whose resources, and toward whose benefit.
In each case, we're not just performing neutral, theory-free actions—we're materializing specific theoretical frameworks that have been embedded in systems, technologies, and institutions. Our daily navigation through these systems further reinforces them, making them appear increasingly "real" and decreasingly "theoretical."
This embodiment happens at the micro level too. Every time we open a database, fill out a form, use a formula, or follow a protocol, we are activating and materializing theory. The categories in a dropdown menu on a government form aren't neutral reflections of reality—they're theoretical decisions about how to classify human experience. The algorithms that shape our digital interactions embed specific theoretical assumptions about human behavior, attention, and value.
We become so thoroughly constituted by these theoretical frameworks that we no longer recognize them as theory. They become our defaults, our instincts, our reality. This is perhaps the most profound way that theory materializes into reality—not just around us, but within us.
The Time Lag is Critical
What distinguishes "theory" from "reality" isn't some fundamental ontological difference—it's primarily time and resources:
Time lag: The period between conceptualization and materialization creates the illusion of separate categories. Yesterday's "impractical theory" becomes today's "common sense reality" not because the idea transformed, but because the world around it did.
Resource deployment: Ideas materialize into reality when they secure funding, institutional backing, and persistent advocacy. The difference between a "practical" and "impractical" idea often reduces to whether it has secured material support.
Power dynamics: Those who control resources determine which theories get materialized into reality. "Practicality" often functions as a proxy for alignment with existing power structures rather than inherent feasibility.
This means "practicality" is not a neutral litmus test. It's a performance of what the current system is willing to fund.When someone says an idea is "too theoretical," what they often mean is: This hasn't yet been implemented in a way that serves the existing order. Or more bluntly: We haven't yet allocated resources toward making your reality real.
The Correct Relationship: Theory as Reality's Future
If reality is theory after a time lag, then the correct relationship isn't opposition but temporal progression. Theory doesn't oppose reality—it precedes it.
This understanding transforms how we evaluate "theoretical" proposals. Instead of asking, "Is this too theoretical to be practical?" we might ask:
"What kind of reality might this theory help us create?"
"What resources would be needed to materialize this vision?"
"Who benefits if this theory becomes reality, and who doesn't?"
"What existing materialized theories (realities) might resist this transformation?"
But isn't that the whole point of strategy, design, policy, and storytelling? To reallocate reality? Everything that's ever shifted a paradigm started out as "theoretical." And in fact, reality itself is just theory—given enough time, enough traction, and enough institutional teeth.
Implications for Innovation and Policy
Understanding reality as materialized theory has profound implications for how we approach innovation and policy:
Dismissing ideas as "too theoretical" reflects a failure of imagination, not a commitment to practicality. It prevents us from creating new realities.
The "pragmatic" approach often preserves existing power arrangements while foreclosing alternatives that might distribute power differently.
Truly transformative ideas necessarily appear "too theoretical" at first—because they haven't yet had the time and resources to materialize.
What appears "practical" is simply what has already been normalized through previous cycles of theory-to-reality transformation.
When technocrats dismiss theory as "impractical," they reveal their own dogma: a belief that only already-existing arrangements can be real. They mistake the present for proof. But the future doesn't arrive by default. It is crafted, negotiated, and paid for.
In an era requiring unprecedented solutions to increasingly complex challenges, we cannot afford to dismiss avant-garde approaches through a false binary between theory and reality. Understanding that today's reality is yesterday's theory—and that tomorrow's reality will emerge from today's theory—might be our most practical insight yet.
So the next time someone tells your work is too theoretical, remember: Impracticality is just reality without a budget—yet. While transformation itself is a frictive enterprise, perhaps the road to it has a straightforward formula: change your line item — material or otherwise — and change the world.
