As a former professor, I totally agree that “scholars use opaque prose as a strategy to mask a lack of substantive content or to shield weak arguments from scrutiny.”
It drives me crazy. My view is that if you cannot express your ideas in 12-grade vocabulary, then you do not really understand your own views or those views are completely wrong.
I will say, however, that the legal profession beats academia by a mile.
RK: I hear you on the legal front. But the law is different in my view because much of the law turns on communication that is not cooperative. I want the words to mean one thing and you want them to mean another when we are interpreting the law or a contract. (To introduce the technical language, ironically, I would say that legal communication is not Gricean, and it violates “Grice’s Cooperative Principle.” 😉 There is some scholarship on this for those interested.) So in law practitioners have to use language that is cumbersome but admits of less ambiguity. When communication is cooperative, you should need less of that. So I give legal scholars and the law more generally a pass.
I experienced some of the nuances when I was a volunteer patient partner. I was sitting on a team of cross functional medical practitioners. Our job was to come up with specific ways to improve how care was delivered in a specific department. At my second meeting, someone used an acronym and I didn't know what it referred to. So I asked. The speaker quickly spelled it out and the meeting went on. A couple of other times someone spelled out another acronym. After the meeting, one of the medical practitioners quietly thanked me for asking. They didn't know what the acronym meant either.
Yes, and as I got more comfortable in my volunteer role I caught myself using those acronyms as well. They save time in meetings that are packed with work to do, one reason I think they become normalized in a culture. I had to remind myself to be aware of when there might be people in a meeting who particularly might not be familiar and to remind us all to spell out the acronym at least the first time it was used.
This reminds me of one of the rare times when I started a book and failed to finish it. I realize that John Rawls is highly regarded, and that _A Theory of Justice_ is considered to be one of the most significant contributions to moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. But having made it through 140 pages of language like this:
“Suitably generalized, the allocative conception leads to the classical utilitarian view. For as we have seen, this doctrine assimilates justice to the benevolence of the impartial spectator and the latter in turn to the most efficient design of institutions to promote the greatest balance of satisfaction.” (p. 77)
…I decided that the remaining 374 pages weren’t worth the effort.
No doubt Rawls was a brilliant thinker, but he could have benefited from some advice on clear writing. Luckily the basic ideas have been adequately summarized for me by others (Sandel in _Justice_, for example).
JZ: Totally agree. I came to a similar conclusion about Foucault. In my younger years I assumed I wasn't smart enough for these great thinkers. And I do think it benefited my reading comprehension to slog through such difficult prose. It was sort of like doing stuff in sports practice that was above and beyond what you'd ever have to do in a game, which made the stuff in the game easy. But now, of course, I can barely tolerate the kind of writing you mention. I just think it's bad.
Interesting article.
As a former professor, I totally agree that “scholars use opaque prose as a strategy to mask a lack of substantive content or to shield weak arguments from scrutiny.”
It drives me crazy. My view is that if you cannot express your ideas in 12-grade vocabulary, then you do not really understand your own views or those views are completely wrong.
I will say, however, that the legal profession beats academia by a mile.
RK: I hear you on the legal front. But the law is different in my view because much of the law turns on communication that is not cooperative. I want the words to mean one thing and you want them to mean another when we are interpreting the law or a contract. (To introduce the technical language, ironically, I would say that legal communication is not Gricean, and it violates “Grice’s Cooperative Principle.” 😉 There is some scholarship on this for those interested.) So in law practitioners have to use language that is cumbersome but admits of less ambiguity. When communication is cooperative, you should need less of that. So I give legal scholars and the law more generally a pass.
I experienced some of the nuances when I was a volunteer patient partner. I was sitting on a team of cross functional medical practitioners. Our job was to come up with specific ways to improve how care was delivered in a specific department. At my second meeting, someone used an acronym and I didn't know what it referred to. So I asked. The speaker quickly spelled it out and the meeting went on. A couple of other times someone spelled out another acronym. After the meeting, one of the medical practitioners quietly thanked me for asking. They didn't know what the acronym meant either.
Ha, exactly! That's a point we didn't mention, that many people are confused but too embarrassed to ask for clarification.
Yes, and as I got more comfortable in my volunteer role I caught myself using those acronyms as well. They save time in meetings that are packed with work to do, one reason I think they become normalized in a culture. I had to remind myself to be aware of when there might be people in a meeting who particularly might not be familiar and to remind us all to spell out the acronym at least the first time it was used.
This reminds me of one of the rare times when I started a book and failed to finish it. I realize that John Rawls is highly regarded, and that _A Theory of Justice_ is considered to be one of the most significant contributions to moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. But having made it through 140 pages of language like this:
“Suitably generalized, the allocative conception leads to the classical utilitarian view. For as we have seen, this doctrine assimilates justice to the benevolence of the impartial spectator and the latter in turn to the most efficient design of institutions to promote the greatest balance of satisfaction.” (p. 77)
…I decided that the remaining 374 pages weren’t worth the effort.
No doubt Rawls was a brilliant thinker, but he could have benefited from some advice on clear writing. Luckily the basic ideas have been adequately summarized for me by others (Sandel in _Justice_, for example).
JZ: Totally agree. I came to a similar conclusion about Foucault. In my younger years I assumed I wasn't smart enough for these great thinkers. And I do think it benefited my reading comprehension to slog through such difficult prose. It was sort of like doing stuff in sports practice that was above and beyond what you'd ever have to do in a game, which made the stuff in the game easy. But now, of course, I can barely tolerate the kind of writing you mention. I just think it's bad.
Abandoning doublespeak means abandoning elitism. I dont see that happening.
Also, theres such a thing as being too concise. It causes confusion at times.