<div>On 12/7/06, Eric <<a href="mailto:rayrena@realtime.net">rayrena@realtime.net</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Isn't criticizing people for not writing "clear" prose really criticizing them for not adhering to a norm? And isn't this norm developed within a society that privileges the white, the male, the heterosexual, and the European? Why are, eg, Spivak and Butler supposed to write like Chomsky, Orwell, and Bertrand Russell? ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </a> </blockquote></div> 1) As I said previously "the burden of proof that obscure language is necessary is on those who use it, as the burden of proof that a theory is useful to understanding significant portions of the world is on those who propound such theories." 2) As I said previously "in the world of history it was those who insisted upon writing clearly and in a language that others could understand who were the ones who were persecuted."  The fight for the vernacular language was a small part of the fight for "democracy." The fight to keep the language of learning separate from most of the people was a fight for class dominance.  So yes clear writing is a norm; but obscurantism is also a norm.  Of course when writing you always have to take account of your subject and your audience.  You always have to take account the level of discussion and whether you mean to have a discussion at all or whether you are simply creating a "diktat" or a doctrine.  My claim is that a person such as Bob Moses, one of the leaders of the most courageous leaders of SNCC, who started the Algebra Project, is doing better revolutionary work and understands the need for real education more than any of the people who claim that pomo theory or another describes the world.  My claim is that Myles Horton, the founder of the Highlander Folk School, could explain society and the need to change society better than Foucault.  My claim is that Septima Clark, who developed methods to spread literacy and teach organizing for social change, methods currently used in barrios, slums and favelas across the world, knew more about the "oppositional language" than Judith Butler.  3) The question is what kind of speaking and writing and organizing is needed to explain and change the social world?  If you think that " resort to obscure and needlessly complex verbiage and posturing about non-existent 'theories' can accomplish this then I think that you are wrong.  But if you believe that the world does not need changing, or that you only need to talk to people who prefer obscurantism to clarity in order to change the world, or if you believe that those who prefer obscurantism should be the ones who make and change the world, then by all means I will defend your freedom of expression in this matter.  Personally, I am assuming that most of us are in agreement about the need to change the world and the need to understand complex problems.  4) As I said previously there are many good reasons for technical language and even obscure language.  Technically precise language, or formal languages, or theoretical models, are needed in many cases and it takes plenty of hard work to learn these lexicons, models and tools.  Obscure language may also lead to creative germination and it may provide poetic ecstasy.  But if you read my previous posts all of that is actually already there.  Don't read the excerpts read the posts.  Jerry