> If not, why not? Is it because cultural theory owes it to laypeople to be > less academic, or to adopt more egalitarian stances?
I think that in technology and science, jargon has a precise definition -- a two or three line explanation that has no room for ambiguity. On the other hand take some cultural theory that invents new language to explain the power structures within language. It questions language itself, and hence prefers to be deliberately obscure so as not to fall into the trap of a rigid reference to external reality. By being obscure, the cultural theorist is making a statement about the nature of language itself. For a layperson to understand this, does take some reading beyond two or three line definitions. Hence the impatience and the call for simpler understanding? Why does her choice of name or her reference to her background come up out of context as a matter for discussion? > Genuinely curious. > Even I am curious.
