The difficult/clear language-contrast is wonderfully complicated. The assumptions behind the “clear, direct language” movement–that there is a steady, unbiased observer and that there is a steady, material reality out there–are just the assumptions that the poststructuralists deny. The “clear English” movement, however, has long roots in the past. In the recent past, Orwell’s “Politics & the English Language,” which is, I belive, the most-anthologized piece in first-year writing texts (see this week’s NYT Book Review), argues that unclear language (doublespeak) leads to a populace unable to distinguish between “freedom” and “slavery” and hence to a Fascist dictatorship (PEL written just post-WWII).

Interesting stuff—

I do think that there is a steady, material reality out there and that a steady, unbiased account (note I did not say observer) is, if not immediately available, still something worth striving for. On the other hand, the existence of a steady, material reality and the possibility of a steady, unbiased account do NOT necessarily entail that "clear, direct language" (so called) is adequate for the steady, unbiased account.

Against those who asserted the reality of universals, William of Occam said one should not multiply entities unnecessarily. Against the enemies of theoretical thought and discourse, I think we need to say that one must not neglect entities arbitrarily.

On the matters of theory and clarity; I agree that some theory is simply _difficult_ and _complex_ and thus often impossible to explain in all its nuances using Dick-and-Jane sentence structures. As a user and developer of relatively abstruse models by my field’s standards, I feel the burden of negotiating nuance and clarity keenly.

On the other hand, I do think that some writers are unnecessarily opaque. I recall, for example, one author of an “introductory” text on social constructionism who quoted a French passage without translation in notes or elsewhere in order to simply say “Different groups think differently.” That, in my opinion, is simply showing off, to no good purpose.

That said, I think it was good for the students to work through the text; it taught them a lot about audience and that there’s more to scholarship than the pap they were fed in high school.

And, yeah, there’s definitely an abundance of opaque language in academia; what bothers me is the blanket condemnation of all such language, frequently in the service of a rhetorically reductive “this issue is black and white; you’re either with us or against us” argument, or else in the service of a political argument, as frequently happens with the complexities of multiculturalism: the issues that come up when cultures intersect are tough ones, but it’s wonderfully convenient to say “This theoretical language is nonsense” and so completely avoid having to engage in any reasoned discussion of the issues themselves.

Which is precisely what you were getting at with your final sentence, Curtiss, with which I can’t agree enough. Right on, and thanks for putting it so elegantly.