By Bart
Schram’s Praxis for the Poor makes a strong argument for activist research, wherein social scientists do not shy away from political debates in pursuit of objectivity, but actively engage with them in pursuit of improving social welfare. I thought one of the most interesting, and unexpected, arguments made is in regards to accessibility and language. Would changing the language of academic writing to appeal to broader audiences increase the impacts on policy and public opinion? It might seem like the answer is obviously yes, but Schram suggests that it’s actually much more complicated.
Particularly towards critical theorists, there have been numerous public critiques of the enigmatic and esoteric language of academic writing. The journal Philosophy and Literature was known for awarding a satirical annual prize for impenetrable writing to highlight the extent to which academic prose had become dominated by awkward jargon, with awardees including Homi Babha and Judith Butler. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal supported this criticism, stating that “these kitsch theorists mimic the effects of rigor and profundity without actually doing serious intellectual work. Their jargon-laden prose always suggests but never delivers genuine insight.” These criticisms support the seemingly common-sense conclusion that the complex language of academia is a major obstacle to the diffusion of ideas into public opinion.
Schram, however, is not entirely in agreement that simple language is more effective. For Schram, there is an issue of divergence between left-leaning and right-leaning literature. On both sides of the political spectrum, a fair number of books are written in an accessible narrative, free from complex theoretical arguments, that are aimed at appealing to a broad audience. However, mass media books written in support of the welfare state, it is argued, have had little influence on public perceptions and policy. In contrast, Schram finds that “mass-marketed books on the right have greater chances of being politically successful in part because they are more likely to be reinforcing prevailing prejudices of the individualistic, anti-statist political culture ascendant in the United States.”
Schram also makes the argument that eschewing theoretical arguments in favor of facts in an attempt to sway public opinion is ineffective because facts alone do not make public policy. Instead, we need to pay attention to the role that ideology, ideas, and narratives play. Also, the public can be skeptical of facts, particularly when they contradict existing beliefs, if they are not couched in a compelling narrative.
Surprisingly, Schram makes a compelling defense of the complex language used by academics. Popular language and discourse around issues serves certain power relationships, and redefining those relationships involves the employment and even creation of new ways of describing and thinking about them. Schram suggest that if welfare scholars want their work to be politically effective, rather than simply reinforcing the prevailing structures of power, they must risk being “abstract and even unintelligible, all in the name of preserving their capacity for dissent.”
The irony then, according to Schram, is that the critical or postmodern theorist who works with a challenging vocabulary “may be the one who is ‘closest’ to the people,” especially those whose concerns have been relegated to the margins of public discourse. The contribution of theory is then to develop a destabilizing counter-discourse developed “at a distance from the vernacular of the public sphere” that can give voice to those marginalized concerns.
In 1998, Judith Butler won Philosophy and Literature’s “Bad Writing Award” for her work on gender performativity, and was criticized by fellow theorist Martha Nussbaum for creating work that was “exasperating” and obscured derivative thought, amounting to an ineffectual, passive, “hip quietism” that was unable to help gays and lesbians achieve legal protection. Today, almost 20 years later, New York Magazine is reporting on the ways in which Butler’s language has infiltrated popular culture, and contributed to a cultural shift in which the President of the United States openly advocates for the rights of transgender persons to use the restroom of their choice.
This is not to say that there are not instances when complicated language may genuinely obscure a lack of substance. In the 1996 “Sokal Affair,” physicist Alan Sokal successfully published an article in an academic journal which he later revealed to be a hoax—"a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ... structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics." (Sokal, 1996)
However, Schram convincingly argues that not only is clear, vernacular writing sometimes ineffective in changing public opinion and influencing public policy, but that the abstract and seemingly unintelligible writings of critical theorists play an important role producing counter discourses, and can actually be “closest to the people” despite the elite arenas in which they often exist.
Schram, Sanford F.. Praxis for the Poor: Piven and Cloward and the Future of Social Science in Social Welfare. NYU Press. Kindle Edition.
Sokal, Alan D. (5 June 1996). "A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 2016-10-28.
Schram’s Praxis for the Poor makes a strong argument for activist research, wherein social scientists do not shy away from political debates in pursuit of objectivity, but actively engage with them in pursuit of improving social welfare. I thought one of the most interesting, and unexpected, arguments made is in regards to accessibility and language. Would changing the language of academic writing to appeal to broader audiences increase the impacts on policy and public opinion? It might seem like the answer is obviously yes, but Schram suggests that it’s actually much more complicated.
Particularly towards critical theorists, there have been numerous public critiques of the enigmatic and esoteric language of academic writing. The journal Philosophy and Literature was known for awarding a satirical annual prize for impenetrable writing to highlight the extent to which academic prose had become dominated by awkward jargon, with awardees including Homi Babha and Judith Butler. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal supported this criticism, stating that “these kitsch theorists mimic the effects of rigor and profundity without actually doing serious intellectual work. Their jargon-laden prose always suggests but never delivers genuine insight.” These criticisms support the seemingly common-sense conclusion that the complex language of academia is a major obstacle to the diffusion of ideas into public opinion.
Schram, however, is not entirely in agreement that simple language is more effective. For Schram, there is an issue of divergence between left-leaning and right-leaning literature. On both sides of the political spectrum, a fair number of books are written in an accessible narrative, free from complex theoretical arguments, that are aimed at appealing to a broad audience. However, mass media books written in support of the welfare state, it is argued, have had little influence on public perceptions and policy. In contrast, Schram finds that “mass-marketed books on the right have greater chances of being politically successful in part because they are more likely to be reinforcing prevailing prejudices of the individualistic, anti-statist political culture ascendant in the United States.”
Schram also makes the argument that eschewing theoretical arguments in favor of facts in an attempt to sway public opinion is ineffective because facts alone do not make public policy. Instead, we need to pay attention to the role that ideology, ideas, and narratives play. Also, the public can be skeptical of facts, particularly when they contradict existing beliefs, if they are not couched in a compelling narrative.
Surprisingly, Schram makes a compelling defense of the complex language used by academics. Popular language and discourse around issues serves certain power relationships, and redefining those relationships involves the employment and even creation of new ways of describing and thinking about them. Schram suggest that if welfare scholars want their work to be politically effective, rather than simply reinforcing the prevailing structures of power, they must risk being “abstract and even unintelligible, all in the name of preserving their capacity for dissent.”
The irony then, according to Schram, is that the critical or postmodern theorist who works with a challenging vocabulary “may be the one who is ‘closest’ to the people,” especially those whose concerns have been relegated to the margins of public discourse. The contribution of theory is then to develop a destabilizing counter-discourse developed “at a distance from the vernacular of the public sphere” that can give voice to those marginalized concerns.
In 1998, Judith Butler won Philosophy and Literature’s “Bad Writing Award” for her work on gender performativity, and was criticized by fellow theorist Martha Nussbaum for creating work that was “exasperating” and obscured derivative thought, amounting to an ineffectual, passive, “hip quietism” that was unable to help gays and lesbians achieve legal protection. Today, almost 20 years later, New York Magazine is reporting on the ways in which Butler’s language has infiltrated popular culture, and contributed to a cultural shift in which the President of the United States openly advocates for the rights of transgender persons to use the restroom of their choice.
This is not to say that there are not instances when complicated language may genuinely obscure a lack of substance. In the 1996 “Sokal Affair,” physicist Alan Sokal successfully published an article in an academic journal which he later revealed to be a hoax—"a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ... structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics." (Sokal, 1996)
However, Schram convincingly argues that not only is clear, vernacular writing sometimes ineffective in changing public opinion and influencing public policy, but that the abstract and seemingly unintelligible writings of critical theorists play an important role producing counter discourses, and can actually be “closest to the people” despite the elite arenas in which they often exist.
Schram, Sanford F.. Praxis for the Poor: Piven and Cloward and the Future of Social Science in Social Welfare. NYU Press. Kindle Edition.
Sokal, Alan D. (5 June 1996). "A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 2016-10-28.