babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Newspeak

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Newspeak
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 08 October 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Our objective should be multiple accounts that avoid privileging any single universalist or essentialist standpoint. We need understandings that can resonate with women's shared experience without losing touch with our diversity. The factors that divide us can also be a basis for enriching our theoretical perspectives and expanding our political alliances.

This appeared on the feminist forum, leading to two conjugate topics in the same thread. Luckily the semantic discussion gave way to the more on-topic feminism one. However I thought the debate over the confusing language of the above paragraph was worth discussing further. Is there any reason that so many non-words are being created by academics? Is it possible to explain complex topics using simple language that does not exclude the casual observer?


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 October 2003 12:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Closure theory may provide the answer. Groups will attempt to monopolize opportunities, advantages and privelege. Language has always been an effective way of doing this. Why do you suppose "Legalese" or "boilerplate" is so obtuse? Why did the Catholic Church in Quebec hold mass in Latin? Because if everyone understood these things, we wouldn't need academics, lawyers or priests.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 October 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cynic:

This appeared on the feminist forum, leading to two conjugate topics in the same thread. Luckily the semantic discussion gave way to the more on-topic feminism one. However I thought the debate over the confusing language of the above paragraph was worth discussing further. Is there any reason that so many non-words are being created by academics? Is it possible to explain complex topics using simple language that does not exclude the casual observer?


It's hardly obtuse. The only word not used commonly is 'essentialist' and this is a pretty basic trope in politics, sociology, philosophy.

There is nothing wrong with specialised language when talking to specialists. If the context of the statement was a group of (even mostly) academic and theoretically inclined people, what's the problem?

Try explaining what 'essentialised' means in less than one word...

To Magoo, I can only say that Closure Theory reeks of it's own essentialisation of any kind of privacy or specialised language as exclusionary and, of necessity, a negative phenomenon. From a certain political point of view, this phenomena is quite negative. But, when one considers that any group of common interests will also seek to speed the time required for the communication of complex ideas and shared concepts, than this specialisation of language takes on a more positive spin. This is to not even address the role of shared language in the cohesion of small (and large) social groups. Should we all give up English because it is incomprehensible to Chinese speakers?

Nothing is entirely one way or t'other. Whereas a specialised language creates a certain 'closure' to those not versed in it, it also creates an opening, a mechanism of creating clusters of, and connections between heretofore seperate ideas and of expressing and maintaining common experiences.

Moreover, take an example like Esperanto. Essentially, you have the creation of an entirely specialised language, inaccessible to those who do not take the effort (or have the ability) to learn it, and incomprehensible to the casual observer. However, the intent behind it's creation was actually to create a more objective linguistic platform from which could be launched a less heirarchical, less seperate, less atomised politic. Is it of necessity, then, an exclusionary (and therefore negative) phenomena? Closure Theory says so.

[ 08 October 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 October 2003 01:50 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's hardly obtuse. The only word not used commonly is 'essentialist' and this is a pretty basic trope in politics, sociology, philosophy.

It's not the words so much as how they're strung together. And what the hell is a 'trope'?

quote:
There is nothing wrong with specialised language when talking to specialists. If the context of the statement was a group of (even mostly) academic and theoretically inclined people, what's the problem?

None whatever, if one is talking to specialists in the same discipline. The problem only appears when one is addressing a general audience, some, many or most members of which haven't been taught the specialized language.
The question is of exclusion or inclusion.
Some theoreticians are very good in their field, but lousy teachers, because they can't communicate outside their specialiaty. The best teachers speak fluent trade jargon and can also translate it to plain English. If you truly understand a concept, you can express it in several different ways - and probably draw it and perform it in pantomime, as well.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 October 2003 02:01 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

None whatever, if one is talking to specialists in the same discipline. The problem only appears when one is addressing a general audience, some, many or most members of which haven't been taught the specialized language.
The question is of exclusion or inclusion.
Some theoreticians are very good in their field, but lousy teachers, because they can't communicate outside their specialiaty. The best teachers speak fluent trade jargon and can also translate it to plain English. If you truly understand a concept, you can express it in several different ways - and probably draw it and perform it in pantomime, as well.

Main Entry: trope
Pronunciation: 'trOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin tropus, from Greek tropos turn, way, manner, style, trope, from trepein to turn
Date: 1533
1 : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH

I agree with your last paragraph, though what I was trying to point out is that inclusion and exclusion are not opposites -- not exclusive - but dialectical.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 October 2003 02:18 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should add that I don't have any problem with sentence structure being complex or difficult to follow. I actually think that 'speed' and 'ease' are overrated when weighed against the benefits of having to slow down and be deliberate about things. Some of my favorite authors can be deliberately obtuse in order to force the reader to work harder to glean the message. In the end, the epiphenomenal message is important, but more important is the underlying message that we need to be more deliberate, more keen, and expand our attention to entertain Looooooong thoughts.
From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 09 October 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rhode's words:
quote:
Our objective should be multiple accounts that avoid privileging any single universalist or essentialist standpoint. We need understandings that can resonate with women's shared experience without losing touch with our diversity. The factors that divide us can also be a basis for enriching our theoretical perspectives and expanding our political alliances.

51 words.

andrean's words:

quote:
Our goal should be many perspectives that don't prioritize one universal or "true" position. We need ideas that can reflect the experiences that women share while still accounting for their many differences. The ways in which we are different, the things that divide us, can also be used to broaden our theories and points of view and expand political connections between groups.

62 words

I'm beginning to be sorry that I ever posted this. I just thought that it was a nice, interesting way of defending the differences within feminism, the charge that, "well, you can't even agree amongst yourselves" with a well-thought out explanation of why not only do we not have to (agree amongst ourselves) but in fact it could be preferable that we don't.

It's not newspeak. It's written with a particular audience in mind - legal scholars, as it was published in the Stanford Law Review - and the language is appropriate for that audience. I'm sorry that it doesn't seem to be appropriate for this audience. I thought babblers enjoyed being challenged in their thinking, enjoyed exercising their thoughts in new understandings. Not one of the words used in that passage is a "non-word" (a non-word if ever there was one); they're all standarad English. "Essentialist" may be uncommon, but I don't think that most people couldn't make an informed guess and wind up pretty much right on the button.

Intellectually rigourous writings are often posted on babble, especially in the ideas section. I slog through the reading of many of them; some defeat me. I don't see why this one in particular should be subject to the attack that it's "newspeak" and designed to exclude. What's the problem? Surely not that it's feminist theory - we're all above that. Maybe it's the old anti-academic that sometimes rears its ugly head.

The idea that everything has to be accessible to everyone makes me annoyed. Why, when not everyone is going to be interested in the topic? The "casual observer" is not likely to give a rat's ass about feminist legal theory; why should those who do have to direct their dialogue to him/her? Why should those who are interested in it not enjoy a level of conversation that suits their level of interest in the topic?

Is the problem that I posted it here, out of context? That stuff that is "too hard to read" doesn't belong on babble? Please! I couldn't care less about chemistry or astro-physics but if someone was excited by them and wanted to share something that they found exciting, I don't think it's fair to begrudge them. I was excited by this passage and wanted to share it. And yes, I am taking it a little personal. Reading this kind of material is slow work for me but I value it immensely. I enjoy the challenge of understanding new thoughts in new language. So the suggestion that I'm complicit in some Orwellian nightmare of obfuscation does get up my nose a little.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 09 October 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry if I offended - I didn't mean that passage was totalitarian or anything, I was just trying to make a point about academics producing such complex jargon they risk alienating the general public.
I come from a scientific background, and the papers I read in journals are much more obtuse - they have to be, in order to be as precise as possible in an article that is limited in size. Each word is chosen for its precise meaning, and must be defensible to referees. When disseminating the information to laypeople, the language has to be changed in order to make it more understandable to its audience.

From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 09 October 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I get it now. Mind you, I hope to be a professor once I get out of here, so I have to be enamoured with stuffy academic jargon
-professor Googlymoogly

[ 09 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca