From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: BHA: Re: jargon and introductions
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:54:39 -0500


Hi Michael--

I'd like to second (third?) Alan's comments about the list.  I'm not sure if
there's *anyone* on the list specifically trained in philosophy--at least
not anyone who ever contributes.  Of course, many have read philosophy on
their own, with inevitably spotty results.  But there are people here in law
(like Alan and several others), sociology, economics, feminism, and cultural
analysis, plus other fields and even people who might not identify
themselves as "scholars."  (I'm an independent scholar in theater studies
myself--possibly the only one who's declared an affiliation with CR, though
I've definitely nudged a few this direction.)  So a lot of us are thrashing
about and trying to help each other find a path through the woods.

But this gets to my concerns about RB's writing.  My objection has very
little to do with "jargon," or even neologisms.  Any fairly developed field
of study requires specialized terminology in order to sharpen ideas and
definitions.  I think such terminology only counts as "jargon" if used
mindlessly, and I don't think RB can be accused of that at all.  As someone
attempting to carve out new understandings, I think he should be allowed to
create terminology that fits his meanings.  Moreover, difficult concepts can
be difficult to communicate, and there can be serious dangers in language
that oversimplies.  So difficulty is not necessarily "bad."

Nevertheless, all writing is for an *audience*.  If that audience is more
than oneself--and even in that special case--the writer has a responsibility
to facilitate the audience's work wherever possible (and I'll grant that it
isn't always possible).  The audience also has a responsibility to try to
understand, but on the whole, the author's responsibility is greater.  (The
writer who thinks the audience just better take what s/he gives them is
plain arrogant, or worse.  Not that this is unheard of among philosophers.)
I think the author's responsibility is even greater when much of the
audience doesn't share the author's background.  Papers in biochemistry are
addressed almost strictly to other biochemists; writings in philosophy often
are written solely for other philosophers, but CR clearly has become *and
was meant to become* significant to scholars who aren't philosophers.

My argument is that RB places *undue* difficulties before his primary
audience.  I don't expect him to write for beginning undergraduates, but I
do think he needs to consider the diversity of the scholars who read him.
*Maybe* this means cutting back on terminology, but I think that would be a
very minor part.  Instead, the main issue is EDITING.  I don't believe his
ideas are confused--but I do think his exposition is frequently confusing.
So: break up overly long and convoluted sentences, in order to express the
ideas through a more assimilable syntax.  Replace passive with active verbs.
Give difficult concepts concrete and well-chosen examples, now and then
elaborating the details.  Occasionally gloss terminology in the text (don't
rely too much on the Glossary).  Use typography and layout to clarify the
relationship between ideas and their aspects; don't run subpoints alpha
through epsilon (not to mention their various sub-subpoints) into one
paragraph, unless they're very brief.  And scrap the deadwood--there are
often ways he could tighten.

I really don't understand why this position has become so controvertial.
I'm not saying his ideas and writing should be easily accessible to the
average schmoe (though large chunks could be); just that they should be
accessible to the average PhD.  Given the number of PhDs on this list who
have complained about RB's writing, I think the criticism is fair.  RB ought
to edit his own writing; but if he can't (for whatever reason), he ought to
entrust that work to another.  And I say this as someone who has gained
enormously by struggling through *Dialectic*.  I can only dream of how much
more I might gain if I could more readily find my way through his prose.

Could we talk about something else please?

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gis.net
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---