Ideation has two modes of agency against extant ideas:
A new idea will be revolutionary by definition. It will shake up or wake up it’s adherents and alert it’s detractors a storm is coming. A responsive idea will contain remnants of the ideas it’s fighting against. Many time it’s a poisoning pill effect. One usually can’t defeat an adversary by aping their style. One can’t make a liar tell the truth by repurposing lies. The pitfalls pointed out by critical theories many time exist within them. Hence the constant revision. Which ends up being circular. A dash of philosophy in critical theory is a component that’s sorely missed. The theory may “tell” you something is true but is it right? Ideas chain together and are built on over time. Ideas are also co opted and their courses changed. Yet their origins matter. Conflicting consciousness in any sort of tribal based teleological framework is a sign the idea isn’t actual tribal. If a tribes ideas about itself aren’t entirely it’s own, then who’s are they? Do they make sense in the long run? Can they be stopped if they go astray? And importantly were those ideas ever meant to benefit “you…?” Ones hustle can be stopped physically or mentally and the mental battlefield actually leaves longer scars than even a physical contest do. The reason I mentioned philosophy within critical theory is that it can tend to showcase ones cultural perspectives. This leg of the theorizing would, or could, augment and/or squelch ideas which naturally spring from CT but aren’t advantageous to a group. Of course all of this only matters of the building or maintenance of a group or culture is the reason for your ideation. Ideas without focus are like autonomous cars. They can be safe and self directing. Or programmed to crash you into a wall you won’t see till it’s too late.