[Linganth] It turns out that Jane Hill is white(!)

Sat Feb 7 00:16:30 UTC 2015

Thanks for the good replies. Just to clarify: There is a need for technical
vocabulary, and this will always be fraught with difficulty, especially in
a science of society, belief, and authority. What I am referring to is not
technical vocabulary, but the place of technical vocabulary, as well as the
question of whether the specific string of terms I referenced is really of
any technical worth, especially in that context. Getting around jargon when
possible is likely a good idea for any exposition -- everybody, including
your colleagues, may understand you better -- but I am referring
specifically to a *string* of terms of a particular grammatical form
("post-xxxxx-ist") used without apparent need in a specific forum: a course
description, which is an advertisement for one's course intended for
students.

My comment was motivated by earlier comments such as "Not sure what it
would take to instigate the monumental cultural shift in attitudes towards
the academy that would be needed for such stories to be universally deemed
ridiculous," and "we as academics value accurate explanation." One thing
that would help is acknowledging that negative attitudes towards the
academy -- particularly the humanities and cultural sciences -- are not
without justification, and not without fodder for those who would encourage
them, and that being clear champions of accurate explanation in every
context is the only long-term remedy. Technical terms have their place, and
one place may sometimes be a course description. But realize what you're up
against. In the first place, realize your audience. In the second, realize
your audiences.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Liz Crocker <lcrocker at bu.edu> wrote:

> Frank: I think you bring up an important point that jargon can be
> alienating and it serves to disconnect vital discussions from the general
> public. But it isn't just the big scary sounding terms that create
> problems. A good example is simply the term racism. For the general public
> racism simply means bigotry based upon views about race. But in the social
> sciences we often mean institutional structural racism with all of the
> theory that goes along with that. Another example is gender, which the
> general public conflates with sex yet we mean specifically the culturally
> constructed meanings and frames built upon ideas about sex. I am very
> active and moderate on some popular online subs focused on anthropology,
> social science, and science respectively and I see this problem constantly.
> When the general public stumbles upon our discussions of these subjects
> they assume we are trying to say that sex differences are made up or that
> black people cannot be bigoted or they think the big scary sounding theory
> is being used just to try and sound smart.  It is frustrating.
>
> Jargon, however, does allow us to be specific and clear with one another.
> Like any linguistic term as long as we both know what I mean by it then it
> can be useful. When we're discussing complex topics it is immensely helpful
> to be able to reference a theory and have you all understand my meaning
> without the need to spend pages paraphrasing it. Or to use a very specific
> term so that you know exactly what I am saying and so that I do not have to
> explain the concept every time I talk about it in a paper.
>
> I think where we need to be better is connecting that knowledge, which for
> internal discussions probably needs some jargon and to retain those theory
> terms, with the general public. We study fascinating, important, sensitive,
> and exciting topics that too often get trapped behind walls of Ivory and
> jargon. And as much as I'd love to make every undergrad take an intro to
> anthropology course it probably isn't going to happen anytime soon. We need
> to find ways to communicate with non-anthropologists not only for ourselves
> but our students. Because I agree that we need to equip them to go out into
> the world empowered by our courses and actually have the tools to express
> their knowledge and enact change. Simply training them to speak the
> language of academia only teaches them how to succeed within the ivory
> tower - not to change the things outside of it.
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Frank Bechter <fbechter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Critical scholars, take a critical look at your own discursive practices.
>> If the question is how to get the helpful message across, be willing to see
>> your own bad chess moves. We see in this piece,
>> http://jezebel.com/watch-these-two-white-ladies-freak-out-about-asus-white-1681368338,
>> that Fox leads with a string of specific words -- indeed, a string of
>> specific *types* of words -- found in the *course description* of the
>> disputed course, U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness:
>> "... postcolonialist, psychoanalytic, deconstructionist, feminist, new
>> historicist." The anchor omits the lead phrase, "Major critical schools of
>> recent decades," so as to make the wash of hyper-intellectual terms as
>> incoherent as possible. They are as alienating as possible, thus allowing
>> any construal of "whiteness" or "problem" to fly. One cannot stop Fox and
>> misguided students from selectively omitting phrases, but one should wonder
>> whether the string of words that Fox did latch onto for its own purposes
>> are actually helpful in any other way, i.e., in the goal of greater
>> critical awareness in the world at large, or especially in a course
>> description. If your goal is to equip students with tools to fight
>> institutional racism and disenfranchisement, these terms are not helpful.
>> They are not tools. To the contrary, they -- especially when you rattle
>> them off all in a row -- are the very discursive forms which can ensure, in
>> the minds of many readers, your complete irrelevance and hauteur. To me,
>> they ensure that you probably don't know what you're talking about. If
>> critical scholarship is to be useful in the world (which, of course, need
>> not be its function), then hit hard in your advertisements of it, explain
>> any big term you use, or simply don't use it. Realize what you're up
>> against. If a wash of such terms actually attracts select students and
>> colleagues who are content to have this discourse remain provincial,
>> consider how many more you will attract with terms that are designed to
>> arrest a much bigger audience, which hopefully is the real goal.
>>
>> Frank Bechter
>> Charlottesville, VA
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Bernius <mbernius at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Peterson, Mark <petersm2 at miamioh.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What we think of as "objective" journalism evolved in a particular
>>>> historical and economic context. Before that, it was not at all uncommon to
>>>> have the Republican and Democratic newspapers in the same city, each
>>>> sniping at different targets the other supported.
>>>
>>>
>>> And to that point, when one looks at the entire history of American
>>> Journalism, the "objective period" (which I'd argue we are approaching the
>>> end of) is more of a historical anachronism rather than the norm. To Mark's
>>> point, the reality is that the Fox News approach is, in many respects,
>>> closer to the traditional form of the press.
>>>
>>> Great discussion all,
>>>
>>> - Matt
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> Matthew Bernius
>>> mBernius at gMail.com | http://www.mattbernius.com | @mattBernius
>>> My calendar: http://bit.ly/hNWEII
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linganth mailing list
>>> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linganth mailing list
>> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20150206/43666f55/attachment.htm>