Can theory be used to bring about practical effects? And, if so, are there limits to its field of applicability? Smoking is, after all, an “everyday practice” of the smoker. If one wanted to effect a “life change” of this order one might, more likely, turn to the genre of “self-help” literature directed at everyday life than to high theory. Alternatively, a cultural studies investigation of the political economy of the tobacco trade or of tobacco advertising, conceivably for some smokers might change their understanding of their habit and the source of their compulsion by revealing its imbrications in broader cultural contexts and issues. Anti-smoking propaganda, too, might, with the intention of intervention, address populations of smokers and smoking as a cultural habit. Turning to deconstruction: is there any sense in which or any “scale” on which its relation to the everyday could produce results? Can such a theory be used to intervene concretely, to make an alteration to a particular instance of the everyday life—of an individual or a population, for example?

According to the passage, which of the following are ways in which the author hypothesizes that smokers might be able to change their habit?

A. Read books designed to aid with self-help that are written in a manner that is more theoretical than realistic.
B. Research the ways by which tobacco companies attempt to influence the public via marketing.
C. Peruse material written with the intention of dissuading people from smoking.





The passage suggests which of the following about theory’s potential role in helping people quit smoking?

A. Self-help literature written in a practical way is more useful than that written at a more theoretical level.
B. Learning the everyday workings of tobacco companies’ attempt to influence politicians is not theoretical enough to help people effect change.
C. Adding a graphic warning label to a pack of cigarettes would reduce cigarette consumption.