Academic works written in dense prose - why bother?
There are a number of philosophers, sociologists, historians and the like, who wrote in an ornate, at times excessive way. It's often thought that exuberance in language reflects intellect, wisdom and originality. Though I don't think I'm alone in believing now (to a degree) that clarity in language means effective communication of ideas; which, above all, reflects an understanding of the audience. It's especially the case when dealing in abstract thought. Maybe academics and lecturers would agree too, in preferring the succinct over the verbose. I'm not knocking florid prose used artistically, however, there is a difference between that and the incomprehensible.
What I don't get, if lecturers today, say, do agree with the above proposition, is why they still bother with densely written works, such as those of G.F.W Hegel, Marx, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Heidegger, Bourdieu, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, etc. Granted, those guys have all had to have their writing translated into English, so difficulties in interpretation are inevitable in this respect. But even for those who understand German or French fluently, if the writer's theories aren't expressed clearly, it's not wholly unfair to presume that those theories aren't worth your time. To wit, Chomsky at one time called Lacan a "perfectly self-conscious charlatan". Of course, better people than myself have trawled through such works and have been able to uncover the meaning(s) behind them. I mean, I struggle on Wittgenstein and Bourdieu, and I rely on learning about them through books written about/around their work. I have/had to study some of the other writers for some modules at uni, so I can't just ignore them. But Distinction (Bourdieu) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault) are tough for me, maybe other students "get it".
It could be argued that those writers never wrote for general consumption, or for students for that matter, just for intellectuals with a penchant for the opaque. So, then, the onus is on us who don't care much for dense writing, to do the hard work and find meaning(s) ourselves.
But why do students still have to read/study such works, as part of school/college/uni syllabi across the country? Were their theories that important, that it warrants hours of interpretation, deliberation with peers, and head-scratching? That, although densely written, their ideas are too influential to just discard, for sake of clarity? Maybe at one point in time dense and abstract prose was the currency among intellectuals and academics, and moving on from that to a reverence for clear communication is a slow process. What do others think? Gosh, I've been a bit long-winded myself
What I don't get, if lecturers today, say, do agree with the above proposition, is why they still bother with densely written works, such as those of G.F.W Hegel, Marx, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Heidegger, Bourdieu, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, etc. Granted, those guys have all had to have their writing translated into English, so difficulties in interpretation are inevitable in this respect. But even for those who understand German or French fluently, if the writer's theories aren't expressed clearly, it's not wholly unfair to presume that those theories aren't worth your time. To wit, Chomsky at one time called Lacan a "perfectly self-conscious charlatan". Of course, better people than myself have trawled through such works and have been able to uncover the meaning(s) behind them. I mean, I struggle on Wittgenstein and Bourdieu, and I rely on learning about them through books written about/around their work. I have/had to study some of the other writers for some modules at uni, so I can't just ignore them. But Distinction (Bourdieu) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault) are tough for me, maybe other students "get it".
It could be argued that those writers never wrote for general consumption, or for students for that matter, just for intellectuals with a penchant for the opaque. So, then, the onus is on us who don't care much for dense writing, to do the hard work and find meaning(s) ourselves.
But why do students still have to read/study such works, as part of school/college/uni syllabi across the country? Were their theories that important, that it warrants hours of interpretation, deliberation with peers, and head-scratching? That, although densely written, their ideas are too influential to just discard, for sake of clarity? Maybe at one point in time dense and abstract prose was the currency among intellectuals and academics, and moving on from that to a reverence for clear communication is a slow process. What do others think? Gosh, I've been a bit long-winded myself
(edited 11 years ago)
"And if something should be found, particularly in the first part of the dissertation, that one is generally not accustomed to come across in scholarly writings, the reader must forgive my jocundity, just as I, in order to lighten the burden, sometimes sing at my work "
Original post by special1ne
if the writer's theories aren't expressed clearly, it's not wholly unfair to presume that those theories aren't worth your time.
Of course that's unfair. Language is a huge barrier to ideas. Wittgenstein in particular struggled with the limits of language to convey his thoughts. Kierkegaard insisted that he was and never will be truly understood and Socrates refused to put pen to paper. Prose becomes convoluted and dense because the subjects of discussion are not easily translated into words.
Original post by special1ne
It could be argued that those writers never wrote for general consumption, or for students for that matter, just for intellectuals with a penchant for the opaque. So, then, the onus is on us who don't care much for dense writing, to do the hard work and find meaning(s) ourselves.
This could not be argued. Hegel wrote lectures specifically for students. However, of course they are not for the general public. Nietzsche didn't set down to the task of tackling Socrates with the public eye in mind. Also, you are using the word 'dense' incorrectly - it is not the same as ambiguous, and while there are some poor philosophical writers, there are many eloquent ones, e.g. Plato and Mill.
Original post by special1ne
But why do students still have to read/study such works, as part of school/college/uni syllabi across the country? Were their theories that important, that it warrants hours of interpretation, deliberation with peers, and head-scratching? That, although densely written, their ideas are too influential to just discard, for sake of clarity? Maybe at one point in time dense and abstract prose was the currency among intellectuals and academics, and moving on from that to a reverence for clear communication is a slow process. What do others think? Gosh, I've been a bit long-winded myself
Yes, their theories were that important. The ancient Greeks still resonate with us today. You keep saying 'dense' but how clear can one be when discussing abstract subjects? You seem to think that academics and philosophers are setting out to be enigmatic when in reality they are trying to make as clear as possible their enigmatic subjects. Not to mention, there is frequently a literary element or structure to philosophy, e.g. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Plato, Kierkegaard. This inevitably makes it obscure but there is merit in poetic, dramatic and romantic work in itself.
Original post by special1ne
...
I don't think there's a catch-all answer. Some academics have worked their way towards a set of complex and subtle positions which are not easy to offer up in simple language and short sentences. For others, I'd agree (especially the self-conscious post-modernists) there is some deliberate indulgence in making their points. It's a particularly difficult situation where an academic is making an argument in, or around, language use itself, because they are often trying not to trip up with the 'tropes' or the 'framing' (or whatever) that they're including in their critique or analysis. It's also the case that academic writing from earlier eras in necessarily less easy for us to digest - just as language use changes over time so the language use of academics changes over time.
For what it's worth, material that I found unfathomable as a first-year undergraduate became gradually more intelligible over my time at university. Familiarity with certain words and ideas, especially when argued over by several scholars, usually improves with sustained attention.
(edited 11 years ago)
My use of the word "dense" was intended to mean 'heavy' (in word usage) and I've conflated it with 'ambiguous'. That's my mistake. I'm not sure if providing examples of this language from texts by, say, Deleuze, will help make clear what I'm trying to say. I'm willing to concede that these writers are often trying their best to make clearer very abstract theories and concepts without appearing arcane themselves, and I'll concede that the literary element of some philosophers' work tends to make such efforts that little bit more difficult, but what are you meant to do when they describe something very real, not abstract, like a thinker, and they produce this:
"The thinker is not acephalic, aphasic, or illiterate, but becomes so. He becomes Indian, and never stops becoming so – perhaps ‘so that’ the Indian who is himself Indian becomes something else and tears himself away from his own agony. We think and write for animals themselves. We become animal so that the animal also becomes something else. The agony of a rat or the slaughter of a calf remains present in thought not through pity but as the zone of exchange between man and animal in which something of one passes into the other. This is the constitutive relationship of philosophy and nonphilosophy. Becoming is always double, and it is this double becoming that constitutes the people to come and the new earth. The philosopher must become nonphilosopher so that nonphilosophy becomes the earth and people of philosophy" (Deleuze, What is Philosophy?)
I get your points, that these philosophers have a monumental task of transforming the abstract into something readable (I'm not saying abstract thinking isn't worth our time, it must be said, regardless of it's application to everyday life; "it should be pursued for it's own sake" and so on), I really do. But you've gotta admit, sometimes they can try to be a bit clearer in their meanings, right? They can still keep a bit of mystery behind their work, and leave them open to some interpretation, but not so much that their work is rendered near-unintelligible.
"The thinker is not acephalic, aphasic, or illiterate, but becomes so. He becomes Indian, and never stops becoming so – perhaps ‘so that’ the Indian who is himself Indian becomes something else and tears himself away from his own agony. We think and write for animals themselves. We become animal so that the animal also becomes something else. The agony of a rat or the slaughter of a calf remains present in thought not through pity but as the zone of exchange between man and animal in which something of one passes into the other. This is the constitutive relationship of philosophy and nonphilosophy. Becoming is always double, and it is this double becoming that constitutes the people to come and the new earth. The philosopher must become nonphilosopher so that nonphilosophy becomes the earth and people of philosophy" (Deleuze, What is Philosophy?)
I get your points, that these philosophers have a monumental task of transforming the abstract into something readable (I'm not saying abstract thinking isn't worth our time, it must be said, regardless of it's application to everyday life; "it should be pursued for it's own sake" and so on), I really do. But you've gotta admit, sometimes they can try to be a bit clearer in their meanings, right? They can still keep a bit of mystery behind their work, and leave them open to some interpretation, but not so much that their work is rendered near-unintelligible.
In some cases I think it can be worth the effort - consulting the original text brings you right to the source material, and if you can understand it, then it may be worthwhile. If, however, it is plainly too difficult, then it is much more practical to read about the text rather than the text itself. I suppose that they are used in courses because they represent the pure root of the ideas, and they might be seen as more academically rigorous, but it would be appropriate in my view to provide supplementary texts to facilitate the interpretation of the material in any case.
As to why people have tended to write this way, I suspect there are a number of reasons. One, that expressing their thoughts in natural language is difficult for them; two, that they may feel they aren't doing justice to the calibre of their ideas without stretching language to its limits; three, difficult works may have a tendency to be treated with greater reverence; and four, the author may also be concerned with impressing others.
As to why people have tended to write this way, I suspect there are a number of reasons. One, that expressing their thoughts in natural language is difficult for them; two, that they may feel they aren't doing justice to the calibre of their ideas without stretching language to its limits; three, difficult works may have a tendency to be treated with greater reverence; and four, the author may also be concerned with impressing others.
I stopped reading at "penchant for the opaque"
But seriously, except in cases of extreme pretension (your Deleuze quotation is particularly bewildering), I think its kind of fun to try and unravel a complicated piece of writing. In some ways you get more value out of reading a complex piece of writing than a simple one; it might take longer and feel more arduous while you're doing it, but it will equip you better to judge quality of writing in the future, may enlarge your vocabulary, and further your skills of analytical reading and discernment. Sometimes, like with Nietzsche, the language used by a writer is inseparable from the meanings they're either trying to convey or convey unwittingly. And when you read a summary of a piece rather than the piece itself, you may be missing out on that factor. Sometimes the process of reading can be as valuable or more valuable than the end product of learning that you gain from it.
But seriously, except in cases of extreme pretension (your Deleuze quotation is particularly bewildering), I think its kind of fun to try and unravel a complicated piece of writing. In some ways you get more value out of reading a complex piece of writing than a simple one; it might take longer and feel more arduous while you're doing it, but it will equip you better to judge quality of writing in the future, may enlarge your vocabulary, and further your skills of analytical reading and discernment. Sometimes, like with Nietzsche, the language used by a writer is inseparable from the meanings they're either trying to convey or convey unwittingly. And when you read a summary of a piece rather than the piece itself, you may be missing out on that factor. Sometimes the process of reading can be as valuable or more valuable than the end product of learning that you gain from it.
I'm quite sure many wrote in a deliberately baffling way. I'm absolutely convinced in the conspiracy theory that Jacques Lacan knew his theories were batty and stupid, and thus wrote in such a way as to cover this up by dazing the reader. (Consider this: "It is the connection between signifier and signifier that permits the elision in which the signifier installs the lack-of-being in the object relation using the value of 'reference back' possessed by signification in order to invest it with the desire aimed at the very lack it supports." Huh?)
Leo Strauss thought that great philosophers hid their true beliefs in their writings to avoid persecution or so forth, and that a dedicated philosopher could uncover this esoteric message through intricate study of the language used. Whether you think that people actually did that or not, its probably the case that Strauss himself was doing the very same thing. (He reads like a bombastic automated thesaurus.)
Leo Strauss thought that great philosophers hid their true beliefs in their writings to avoid persecution or so forth, and that a dedicated philosopher could uncover this esoteric message through intricate study of the language used. Whether you think that people actually did that or not, its probably the case that Strauss himself was doing the very same thing. (He reads like a bombastic automated thesaurus.)
(edited 11 years ago)
You might find this article interesting since it focuses (at least for the most part) on why some philosophers write in an obscure manner.
^ Nice read. I've been acutely aware of my cultural illiteracy for a while now. I've had similar suspicions that some philosophical writers are unnecessarily ambiguous, perhaps even superficial, though for the most part I'd end up internalising incomprehension (just in case I wasn't getting things that were, in actuality, deep and insightful). It's a very potent motivator, "someone knows something valuable that I don't". I guess argumentum verbosium has its uses lol. Once the perceptual gap between Philosopher X and 'me' is minimised, the sooner things are demystified, and the better off the reader.
Analytic philosophers are rarely obtuse (I don't know of any really difficult analytic philosopher - some are boring, e.g. Rawls but only because he's so precise and methodical). Continental philosophers, I have no idea. I've only read Marx's more popular writings (e.g. the Manifesto).
BTW, there are perfectly clear analytic postmodernists. For example, Rorty. I have no idea why postmodernism has such a bad reputation (perhaps because I have only read the analytic postmodernists and not the original continental ones who might be as they're described).
BTW, there are perfectly clear analytic postmodernists. For example, Rorty. I have no idea why postmodernism has such a bad reputation (perhaps because I have only read the analytic postmodernists and not the original continental ones who might be as they're described).
It can be a bit overwhelming at times, but I feel with the older texts that it is worth attempting to decipher what is being said rather than look for a simplified version or summary. It does get particularly annoying when modern writers appear to be jazzing up their language just for the sake of it (think of a student who rolls through an essay hitting the 'thesaurus' button every few sentences to make themselves appear more clever).
good post.
why bother?
it's part of chasing those things that make us feel good
because those things have value even though in means trawlling
through a quagmire of old, boring, and most likely useless material
for:
money, status, knowledge, etc, etc, etc.
so i suppose they did it (the boring prose) for status
(thinking it to be high style intellectual language)
though i doubt it's a desire for external recognition
i think it's about being validated
to be seen as intelligent and 'one who knows' by others
so they themselves have internal validation
and they feel good enough and 'worthy' <--- of respect
it couldn't be that they want people to listen to them
because they're not trying to be understood.
it's either that or a result of class consciousness
it's part of chasing those things that make us feel good
because those things have value even though in means trawlling
through a quagmire of old, boring, and most likely useless material
for:
money, status, knowledge, etc, etc, etc.
so i suppose they did it (the boring prose) for status
(thinking it to be high style intellectual language)
though i doubt it's a desire for external recognition
i think it's about being validated
to be seen as intelligent and 'one who knows' by others
so they themselves have internal validation
and they feel good enough and 'worthy' <--- of respect
it couldn't be that they want people to listen to them
because they're not trying to be understood.
it's either that or a result of class consciousness
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Poet or Novelist?
- English at Oxford??
- Dissertation vs Journal Article, which should I choose?
- AQA A Level English Literature A Paper 2 (option B) 7712/2B - 20 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- How to Write an A* Prose Essay (A-level English Lit)
- FORGOT to write question number on English Lit paper..
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 3 (H443/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Reading during summer holidays
- Proofreading
- Interview tutoring
- UCL English Literature interview & submission of work this week
- Urgent: Cambridge written work for English (Thanks!)
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 1 (H443/01) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Oxford English Applicants 2021
- Nat 5 English: Reading books.....
- Can we cite articles that are not 'peer-assessed'?
- To Call or Not to Call?
- Writing essays at uni
- More precise and academic synonyms
- Disappointed by university grades
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
