On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Sruthi Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote:
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? > Yes. As I see it, I think this is part of a longstanding secondary conversation among theorists, and the tide seems to turn back and forth depending on which side of the argument reflects the political climate to greater satisfaction (or has a new book out, or is the subject of a new movie - cough Zizek cough). I don't like obscurantism myself, but if it works for Judith Butler, I have no grounds for complaint. *g* I am thinking of it now as the divide between electoral politics and movement politics - whenever one part of the academy codifies and legislates from on high, others negotiate, protest, and popularise and vice versa. I don't know if this analogy works for the sciences or other fields. Supriya -- roswitha.blogspot.com | roswitha.tumblr.com
