Bedknobs & Broomsticks: Understanding Tunnel Theory
with Andrew C. Bulhak and Alan Sokal
“Belief is a legal fiction,” explain Dr. Lawrence Pazder and Geraldo Rivera[1], but Jean La Fontaine[2] declares Tunnel Theory must be viewed in context of textual spiritualism. In the works of Lael Rubin, however, a predominant concept is the distinction between succubaesthetic and incubaesthetic. Contextualized in Survivor Theory, post-McMartin malpractice in the work of Ed Jagels is both incubaesthetic and succubaesthetic, but Jan Hollingsworth[3] suggests that we have to choose between Tunnel Theory and postrational theory.
The issue remains a difficult and contentious one among experts in the field, but Judith Spencer continues to advocate for Support Group Theory as found in Lauren Stratford’s texts, Stripped Naked: Gifts for Recovery and Satan’s Underground.
“Polymorphous ritual abuse is inextricable from preschool narratives,” says LaFontaine, while Kenneth Wooden[4] is unconvinced by the absurdity. Hollingsworth[5] holds that the works of Stratford may be interpolated into a post-Panic survivor theory that precludes the need for an historical record.
“Ritual identity is dead,” says Kenneth Lanning. Thus, the premise of Tunnel Theory suggests that the significance of the observer is significant, but only if preschool-age narrativity is distinct from culture; otherwise, language is used to entrench archaic perceptions of “belief.”
The focus of Wilson’s[6] essay on survivor theory is the literature of a sample of support groups. When Crowley is contextualized in a post-Panic survivor theory, Sally Jessy Raphael’s[7] embrace of Tunnel Theory is seen as “blithely nonsensical” rather than anti-intellectual. Raphael concludes that we have to choose between Tunnel Theory and Griffisist obscurity, as discussed in Stratford’s I Know You’re Hurting: Living Through Emotional Pain and in Stripped Naked: Gifts for Recovery.
“Art is part of the meaninglessness of culture,” says Lanning, but in light of Stratford’s “satanic semioticism,” Tunnel Theory informs both Satan’s Underground and Stripped Naked: Gifts for Recovery. If the central theme in Stratford’s work is cloying middle-class domesticity (which we must be careful to distinguish from “stupidity”) as the fatal flaw of “suburban survivor reality” then the failure of rational discourse found in Stratford’s Satan’s Underground, and again in Stripped Naked: Gifts for Recovery, pales beside a randomly generated [9] essay that “cheerfully explains” a pre-Internet theory while dreading the futility and eventual collapse of teary-eyed conceptualism and “fun.”
_______________________________________________
See also: Speak of the Devil and Swallowing the Camel
1. Rivera, Geraldo (1983) Neorational sublimation, Tunnel Theory and Catholicism. Are Your Children Safe?
2. La Fontaine, Jean. (1998) The Meaninglessness of Reality: Neoconstructivist malpractice and Tunnel Theory. O’Reilly & Associates
3. Hollingsworth, Jan. (1985) Neoconstructivist malpractice in the works of Stratford. University of Massachusetts Press
4. Wooden, Kenneth. (1990) The Circular Reason: Tunnel Theory and post-McMartin malpractice. O’Reilly & Associates
5. Hollingsworth, Jan. ed. (1986) Tunnel Theory in the works of Smith. Cambridge University Press
6. Wilson, Laurel. (1971) Forgetting Griffis: Neoconstructivist malpractice in the works of Stratford. O’Reilly &Associates
7. Raphael, Sally Jessy. (1988) Neoconstructivist malpractice and Tunnel Theory. Schlangekraft
8. Summit, Roland. (1995) Contexts of Economy: Tunnel Theory in the works of Kramer & Sprenger. Oxford University Press
All content © 2012 by Christian Peet unless otherwise noted.
No part of this website may be reproduced, whole or in part, except by a reviewer or student who wishes to quote brief passages, citing the author and this website.
