Nonetheless, the beauty of the blogosphere is such that you can drop in on conversations about what you are writing to learn that a lot of others don't get it.
I never imagined it was otherwise because, for 5 years I did technical ghost writing for corporations and got immediate feedback. Before that, I worked on two projects dedicated to being work for the ordinary reader of, say, The Atlantic Monthly or Harper's. There, too, we got feedback from our literate college-degreed readers who, likewise, often found what we wrote difficult. This, in spite or rigorous editing of all twenty-five cent words.
Finally, the people of whom you complain aren't intending to write for the masses and have never claimed they do. So, what in fuck is the problem now? You are concerned on behalf of lazy ass graduate students, many of whom, like faculty, don't crack the book and just want to read *about* the theorists in question anyway? Hmmmm.
While I applaud Carrol's post, I would point out one thing: it's a no fucking brainer that academic prose has been crafted to weed people out. The institution of academia was made for that and thrives on it. It is not intended for the masses and institutional forces actively conspire against it. This has been well-known for nearly a century. To claim that it is new simply reveals a lack of historical knowledge for you need only look at the internal debates of a discipline like sociology to see the handwringing that took place in the fifties.
But for a sprinkling of Doug, I should also say that, being intimately familiar with the bullshit transvaluation of values so beloved by my sistren and brethen in the manual and lower service work occupations -- the "working classes" -- people get a *kick* out of hating on intellectuals in this country as part of a process through which their real fucking grievances are diverted at something that, even if it were to change, wouldn't change jack shit. They *like* despising intellectuals. They *enjoy* it. They get a real hoot out of it because it gives them some satisfcation in an often otherwise shit life. that some other people above them on the status ladder do too, woot! how cool. we are with the "kewl kidz" now. awesome. for once in our lives, we're with the kewl kidz.
when you examine the structured and systematic social inequality embedded in languages that exclude, it's not about the exclusion, it's about what that exclusion is used for. all i can see in this complaints is a reproduction of that transvaluation of values -- a unwitting desire to simply bolster its idiocy in the guise of a misguided attempt to be "for the people".
All it does is encourage those same peole to wallow in their ignorance like mushrooms growing in shit and thriving in the dark. No one's asking them to read zizke so why anyone cares about the masses is beyond me. Zizek is writing to an educated audience and he expects them to step up to the plate, as should any academic. If you don't want to step up to the plate and learn something new, that's your problem, not their's. Pretending that you are complaining on behalf of the masses who don't give a flying fuck is ludicrous. You're complaining on your behalf, not their's.
shorter bitch | lab: eat me.
At 09:43 PM 12/6/2006, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>By the way, I hope I didn't sound too glib; I realize there's many
>things aimed at highly technical audiences which just look like
>impenetrable notation, despite being honestly written. But in those
>situations, there are people who try explaining them to less
>sophisticated audiences.
>
>Take the Nobel-winning physicist Feynman. People love his _Lectures on
>Physics_ because it makes people feel like they can understand it if
>they devote the time. When discussing something actually hard for
>humans to grasp, Feynman says things like, "If you think you
>understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
>
>In programming, it's legitimate to criticize someone for writing
>something impenetrable code. A well-known quote is: "Programs must be
>written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to
>execute."
>
>With Zizek, I watched the documentary "Zizek!" and even he criticized
>Lacan (I believe it was Lacan) for the mystery and false profundity
>with which he spoke on TV. I vaguely recall that Zizek mentioned the
>pressure on him to just keep saying something, to maintain the image
>of the hyperkinetic intellectual. (Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I
>stopped watching after a while, as it was kinda depressing.)
>
>Certainly, a given critic might arrogantly underestimate the ease of
>something. But in general, I do think unreadability it's a legitimate
>criticism to seriously consider. It may point to a lack of good
>introductions and popularizations.
>
>
>Tayssir
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org