Professor Clover, a poet, cultural critic, professor of English, and social activist (he's one of the "Davis Dozen"), will argue that the global economic crisis, now entering its sixth year, is in the first place a story of global immiseration and the destructive volatility of capitalism itself. Somewhere further down the list of the crisis's effects is the way it has revealed a troubling gap between the actual struggles of humans and much of the political thought admired for decades under the name "critical theory." But if critical theory seems to have less purchase on the present, the opposite is also true. "Crisis theory," developed from a critique of traditional political economy, does not seem to offer a way to "read" and understand a great variety of human experiences, social narratives, and cultural products. Are the two kinds of theory entirely different things using the same word? Is this distance simply a feature of our moment, and a limit of both critical theory and crisis theories? Or can crisis theory provide a sort of bridge between intellectual inquiries and lived political antagonisms?