>From: Jacob Segal <jpsegal at rcn.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A good distinction, but where does technical vocabulary end and
>obscurantism
>begin? The technical vocabulary of Kant, Hegel Heidegger is obscure but
>not
>obscurantism. Why are contemporary left academicians criticized more
>harshly than the difficult writers they are commenting on?
>
There's a difference of opinion here, but some of us thing that Kant, Hegel, & Heidegger, had something to say, and doubt that Derrida, De Man, and Butler do. Speaking just personally, as a former philosophy prof with an analytical background, but not a bigoted one, pomo jargon affects me like fingernails on a blackboard. But it's not that it's jagon or technical, it's that its willful obscurantism that (im my view) expresses not very much, or not much that is good. My own objection is that the stuff is reactionary and vapid, not that it is hard to understand, or wouldn't be useful to cut and paste into a pamphlet.
I think this jargon discussion is misconceived. It's perfectly obvious to all concerned that organizing and campaign communications have to be expressed in different and simpler language than theoretical analysis. Criticizing Judith Bitler or G.A. Cohen because they don't write pamphlets is to miss the point, unless you think no one should do theory, which is inherently hard, technical, and for the most part of interest in that form only to specialists.
--jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com