Why do Liberals often couch their ideas in such a badly-digested, jargon-ridden, incomprehensible prose as to make anybody but a person equally well-versed in this meaningless type of blabber run away in fear? Frequently, it seems that their only goal is to scare away as many people as possible and present progressive ideas as ridiculous. See, for instance, this announcement for a creation of a new blog (or a transformation of an old one):
Elevate Difference is a forum for thoughtful critique that aims to embody the myriad—and sometimes conflicting—viewpoints present in the struggle for political, social, and economic justice. Elevate Difference offers fluid and dynamic perspectives on various items and events that represent the rich differences found in progressive communities. Emerging from the desire to dismantle progressive movements that privilege assimilation to one school of thought over another, Elevate Difference intends to make the value of difference more visible. We seek to move beyond a facile tolerance of difference that eschews its merit in favor of focusing on common ground. We believe the ways we are dissimilar should be foregrounded, engaged, and deemed of equal worth. Elevate Difference provides a challenge to ourselves and to our readers, a reflection of our ideological paradigms, and a command to reframe our actions.
I read this paragraph five times, and I still have no idea what it is trying to say. And, believe me, I have received an extensive training in deciphering crappy writing that my students regale me with.
What goal does this announcement really serve? Are readers expected to say, "Oooh, look, there is this blog that reflects the writers' ideological paradigms and commands us to reframe our actions! How cool is that! I'm dying to read about this on a daily basis!"
I'm now officially in search for a Liberal who doesn't use this meaningless jargon of "privilege," "difference," "paradigms," "visibility, " "tolerance," "fluid perspectives," etc., who understands that you can't make something's "value more visible," and who doesn't command me to reframe my actions, whatever that is supposed to mean.
15 comments:
This posts reminds me a in a way of the short story Soldiers of Spiritos by Jean Thompson. If you haven't read it, you will probably enjoy it.
I am a progressive who does not speak of privilege; at least I don't in any context I can think of.
But I thought the blog introduction was pompous and designed to scare off the illiterate, which is the joke. (And it is a joke; it is really funny!) Literate folk probably realize that it does not make sense and place the responsibility on the writer. Illiterate folk will assume the fault is with them if they do not understand, and so well not join the discussion at all.
So you think that the intention of the authors was humorous? I didn't get that at all. My sense of humor is hibernating right now. :-)
Their intent was probably not humor, alas, but their effect was, as far as I am concerned. I think their real purpose was to prove their cleverness and scare away the less clever.
It scares off the literate and the illiterate alike. The illiterate will just dismiss it as meaningless, and the literate will do the same!
I'm definitely the less clever part of the audience because I'm not going back to that blog. As Comrade Stalin used to say, "People who think clearly, express themselves clearly."
Setting aside the specific announcement, I'm curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that discussions of "privilege" are "meaningless?"
Here is a post on privilege:
http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/privilege.html
Hilarious! You made my day!
Ol.
I wrote pap like this when I was in 9th grade and trying to impress an English teacher that I had a crush on.
Except I think my 9th grade writing was actually better than this.
-Mike
I read the thing a couple of times and then gave up. I agree that there's too much of this kind of junk on liberal websites. The only thing worse is the absurd conspiracy theories that appear so often on conservative sites. They're both pretty funny, even though they aren't meant to be.
Obviously this blogger had a background in Cultural Studies, and as a former CS student myself, it made total sense to me, semantically. My problem is with the content, namely, that "difference" is romanticized. Not all communities should have equal dignity--as the late Richard Rorty pointed out quite clearly, apropos religious fundamentalists.
I agree completely on the romantic attitude to difference.
Why am I agreeing with all the readers today? what's with me? Am I sick? :-)
Perhaps this has to do with liberals showing a criminal unwillingess to embrace free market principles and the need to actually sell one's point of view to others.
A basic lesson I learned from writing is that if you cannot put your ideas across so that a college educated person not in your field understands them you have to rethink your ideas.
George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (short essay, 1946)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Every professional writer, every teacher, every college-educated person, every literate* citizen should read this essay.
*reading at >6th grade level or at "daily newspaper" level
This essay was the first reading assignment in the Freshman Composition course at Mt. Holyoke College in 1972.
Post a Comment