> As I said before, I am not arguing that people shouldn't
> use technical language, "I am just arguing that one of our goals --
> those of us who care about democracy and socialism -- should be to
> communicate and not obfuscate."
I agree wholeheartedly, and I cannot imagine anyone who uses a language who doesn't share our goal of communication. Do you really believe anyone writes for the express purpose of obfuscation? And more importantly: how could you ever verify your own imputations about the writer's motives? Should everyone--including the author--just accept Jerry's imputation that "author X is trying to communicate, and author Y is trying to obfuscate"? You're assuming all right-thinking people will share your opinions about a text; I find that wildly implausible.
For instance, earlier in the thread, bitch mentioned someone who considered Chomsky an elite academic who is difficult to read. You don't agree. Why should your assessment of Chomsky carry more weight? If we did a survey of adults in the U. S., had them read some Chomsky, and the majority claimed that he was an obscure intellectual elitist, would you denounce his work? If so, I admire your logical consistency, but the consequence would be the further stigmatization and marginalization of interesting political writing. If not, your argument is logically incoherent.
> So let me repeat: You use the lexicon and rhetoric appropriate to your
> audience. If your audience are engineers or theoretical physicists
> then you use the lexicon and techniques appropriate to these groups.
Sure, we agree completely. This is true of any community of language users, from poets to engineers to pomo lit critics.
> Now nobody blames a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at some department
> specializing in logical positivism for producing and reproducing the
> lexicon and technical goop of her supperiors. A gal has to make a
> living after all, and in general it is a better life if you can get a
> job as a professor than it is working as a taxi driver. But don't try
> to sell me on the fact that in doing this you are striking a blow
> against hierarchy.
Who claimed that was the paramount goal of specialized language? People do lots of things with language; fomenting revolution is one important use of language, but there are many others!
> It is my experience there is nothing about history, the class system,
> the division of labor, racism, gender division, economics, law,
> international relations, and literature, that cannot in principle be
> discussed in the vernacular language... and that there are no
> specialized theories of these areas of human life.
Consider this possibility: the venacular language is a product of social relations; as such it is imbricated in the political and economic systems of a society (back to the ideology thread!). The language people use is a crucial means for the maintenance of the status quo in all human societies. Thus if we restrict ourselves to the vernacular to make sense of human social life, we can do nothing but reinforce the status quo. To think in innovative ways, we typically need to develop specialized language.
Moreover, I understand that you don't like the scientific research and theory that is being done in the social sciences, but it is a gross misstatement to claim that there are no "specialized theories" of social life. There are numerous well-developed, empirically validated theories in the social sciences.
> But don't mistake the star system or institutional hierarchy in any
> field of endeavor with the pursuit and spread of knowledge (a very old
> fashion notion) or with giving people the tools of thought to help
> them understand the world.
But this "star system" is a part of our whole system of producing knowledge. This is even more common in the natural sciences than it is in cultural studies or lit crit. I share your disgust about the academic star system, but we should admit that it has significantly contributed to knowledge in many domains. --And note that this goal of increasing knowledge in a specific field is distinct from the goal of "publicizing" or "popularizing" knowledge. Let's face it, only a small number of people in our society need to understand how op-amps work or how cpus are manufactured or how to design a safe bridge. In an industrial society, it's impossible for all specialized forms of knowledge to be understood by everyone.
>
> What you refuse to answer Miles is whether you think that these forms
> pf elitism exists at all. You refuse to answer the question of
> whether you think that exclusive and esoteric knowledge and
> information, when guarded by a priesthood of intellectuals, is
> something that is worth fighting against, especially when the
> intellectual priesthood mainly exists to petrify democratic education
> or facilitate the dominance of various ruling classes.
Sure, the intellectual elitism exists. It exists in medicine, physics, poetry, theology, cultural studies, and every other field in which people specialize. Whether or not this specialized "priesthood" is a good thing or a bad thing cannot be specified a priori. I know you agree with that, because you are willing to accept specialized knowledge and language in at least some domains. We also agree that it is appropriate to assess specialized language in terms of its social effects. If a particular form of knowledge mainly exists to "petrify democratic education or facilitate the dominance of various ruling classes"--in my view, economics is the poster child here!--it deserves any ridicule we can heap on it. I just don't agree with you that people like Foucault should be put in that dust bin.
Miles