On the subject of communication, I'm kind of in two minds. I have some sympathy with those that say that this stuff is written for a specialised audience, rather than a general audience. Plus, difficult ideas do not lend themselves to clear writing. Jargon is the hazard of any profession. However much of the jargon that gets used in abtruse political/socialogical academic theorising seems poorly defined, and rather ambiguous. Plus a huge chunk of it is utterly redundant (ie. the same points could be used with less rarified language). Often when you cut your way through the verbal thicket, you find a paucity of ideas at the heart of it. I rather suspect that the language is often designed to hide the lack of originality in the writer's thinking, than to aid communication with fellow professionals. Or to disguise flawed thinking. And can anyone explain to me why Empire had to be so bloody difficult to read. The ideas at the heart of it were not that complex. Interesting yes. Complex, no.
The sheer pointless, mind, of writing about theories for political/social change in a language inaccessible to all but a few I shall tactfully ignore.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:28 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The postmodern prince
I think the reason that Chomsky thinks that theory (under his strict definition) is possible in the physical sciences and not in the "human sciences" is that the latter are dealing with much more complex matters. Quantity becomes quality, and electrons have a low IQ. That's why he thinks we learn more about human psychology from 19th-century novels than from all of modern psychological theorizing. --CGE
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Michael Dawson -PSU wrote:
> Chomsky argues, rightly I think, that understanding what we care about
> in society is not nearly as complex as understanding what we care
> about in the physical sciences. It's all about power structures, and
> those aren't really super-complicated. Chomsky argues that knowing
> social theory, for instance, is necessary but way over-rated. The
> task is to explain how elites organize themselves to threaten, cajole,
> entice, and trick commoners. If we can fix that problem, we will have
> solved the cardinal social issue.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk