Doug Henwood wrote:
> It amazes me that anyone thinks that people
> will be persuaded by such jargon at this late date.
I'm a little confused by this. Who were they trying to persuade? People in general? Or just the comrades at the meeting? If the latter, is it not common for people who share a certain perspective to speak in some sort of shorthand when they are speaking only to each other?
For example. In the preceding paragraph "comrades," "in general," "latter," "not common," "[shared] perspective," "shorthand" (as metaphor), and even "only to each other" are jargon. And if I were speaking to people in general (which of course no one ever does -- but that is another topic), if, as I was saying, I were speaking to people in general, I would avoid such jargon, which would certainly set their teeth on edge. On the other hand, I would be intensely annoyed if someone on this list, and it is only people who have subscribed to a list called lbo-talk, to whom I am talking, if, as I was saying, someone on this list were to complain behind my back, how did those people on lbo think they were ever going to persuade anyone while they were speaking in such jargon. I would sensibly, perhaps, reply, that in fact it would be rather stupid for me to attempt to persuade anyone in this particular context. Rather, I would say that (in language that comrades in this context should have no difficulty construing) I was simply trying to put before them possibilities for us to explore in our pursuit of collective goals.
On the other hand, the jargon that over the years I have found least persuasive is a jargon heavy with such terms as "jargon," "sectarianism," "dogmatism," "style," etc., i.e., a jargon which defines decorum in abstraction from any concern with substance, goals, audience, occasion but rather assumes that there is a style of clothing fit for all occasions
and that therefore we can proceed to narrow our attention to the selection of clothing for our thought without concern for the tasks to which, ostensibly, we wish to put that thought. Is "jargon" jargon? I do not know unless I know the speaker, audience, occasion, purpose, subject matter governing the selection of that term.
I am a little curious as to what constituted the jargon to which Doug is referring in this post.
Carrol