[lit-ideas] Re: why can't the english (professors) learn how to speak?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:53:41 +0000 (GMT)
There are many reasons for this lack of clarity, but some are intellectual or,
perhaps, pseudo-intellectual. Somewhere along the line some academics come to
believe, or act as if they believe, something like the following:
(1) The measure of the intellectual worth of something is its level of
difficulty, and the greater the level of difficulty the more difficult it is to
understand [conversely, what is easy to understand cannot be that difficult and
cannot be worth that much intellectually].
(2) A technical jargon is more precise than plainer language, and the greater
the precision of expression the greater the intellectual worth of what is being
expressed.
(3) The reality of whatever subject-matter is complex, and so complexity in
expression must be needed to reflect that complex reality [conversely,
simplicity/clarity of expression is inadequacy of expression, and also reflects
a failure to grasp the complexity of subject-matter].
That such beliefs themselves contain confusions and fallacies is something
worth pursuing. But there is a tendency to want to impress intellectually, and
this favours such beliefs even if they do not stand serious examination. For a
start academics seek to secure their positions by impressing those whose
approval is needed to gain academic position: and this is central to
examinations and whole malarkey.
Donal
Who would recommend as light holiday reading here Popper's "Against Big Words"
________________________________
From: David Ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 23 December 2012, 6:36
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: why can't the english (professors) learn how to speak?
On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:12 PM, John Wager wrote:
> Having said all of that, I must say I'm impressed by quite a few British
> books being written for a general public in which fairly dry subjects are
> written about in intelligent and engaging ways.
>
>But these seem to all be written by slightly more senior faculty,
whose reputations with jargon is already well-established. Heaven
forbid someone attempt a popular book before one's reputation is
made in "serious" journals or books.
>
>In my own case, what drew me to my advisor for the dissertation was
partly the "style" of his own writing; it was elegant and
effective. He actually despised the "jargonistic" approach to
philosophy, so much so that he had stopped attending APA meetings,
which also meant he was of very little use to me in making
connections for my first job. Ah, well.
>
>
>
Thanks to John. These are issues which bother me, also folk on this list, all
of whom seem united on what becomes more and more an old-fashioned issue:
clarity. We, academics who are still in harness, sit through meetings in which
the language and the declared goal seem to diverge, listen to presentations
that are stuffed with blither; we agree that we will declare objectives and
measure with rubrics and (personal note) I wonder whether there is still room
for a clear sentence or two. It is as if we are all lost on a ring road
somewhere in France and the signpost says "Toutes Directions" and somehow we
think that's fine and we are getting somewhere. If you want to feel old, bring
Orwell's name up, or Graves' "Reader Over Your Shoulder."
What else makes you people feel the years passing?
Grump away. 'tis the season.
David Ritchie,
ignoring the Mayans, hoping to publish something good soon from
Portland, Oregon
Other related posts:
