Understanding Scholarship: Clarity in Writing
I have opinions about clarity in writing. Clarity is something I value. Here I opine on the issue.
Note: ChatGPT 4.0 was used in helping produce this essay as researcher and ghostwriter.
Author’s Preface
I read a lot but find reading academic papers a chore because to my mind, they lack clarity in many cases. In part that's because I do not have the requisite background to understand them but in other cases I think it's because the writers are not particularly good at the craft of writing. I started to explore this issue with ChatGPT.
You can regard this as opinion primarily but perhaps opinion grounded in reflection with some evidence.
Introduction
Clarity in writing is essential to both the process of thinking and the communication of ideas. Without clarity, neither rigor nor precision can exist. Unclear writing often reflects unclear thought. While some argue that complexity of thought necessitates complexity of language, the opposite is true: clarity is the foundation of rigorous intellectual work. This essay explores the relationship between clarity, precision, and rigor, critiques the poor state of much academic writing, and discusses the role of jargon in various fields, including its impact on both specialists and non-specialists.
The Relationship Between Clarity, Precision, and Rigor
Clarity and precision are often assumed to be at odds, particularly in fields where technical language and complex ideas dominate. However, precision is impossible without clarity. When ideas are expressed unclearly, even specialists struggle to derive meaning. Unclear writing stems from unclear thought. As Albert Einstein famously stated, "If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough" (Einstein, 1954). Similarly, Richard Feynman emphasized the need for clarity in communication, particularly in scientific work, reinforcing that rigorous thought must be articulated clearly to be understood and built upon (Feynman, 2013).
In the 21st century, authors like Steven Pinker and Daniel Kahneman have also stressed the importance of clarity. Pinker, in his book The Sense of Style (2014), argues that clear writing is not just a matter of style but of ethics—writers have a responsibility to make their ideas accessible and understandable. Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), highlights how cognitive biases can interfere with clarity, suggesting that clear thinking is crucial for overcoming mental shortcuts that can lead to confusion or error.
The Problem with Academic Writing
Much academic writing across fields suffers from a lack of clarity. Several reasons might contribute to this. First, some writers may lack the skill to communicate effectively. Second, it may be that there is a mistaken belief that convoluted, complex prose garners respect among academic peers. If true it might lead writers to obscure their ideas under a mountain of jargon and needlessly complicated language. This sometimes seems to me to be a reasonable explanation — not provable, but supspected. In some cases, it almost seems as it writing is made deliberately convoluted and obscure to to hide the vacuity of thought. It seems to me that this phenomenon is particularly rampant in postmodernist writing, where many authors seem to disguise incoherent ideas in layers of academic jargon, producing what can only be described as "word salad." In my opinion, much of postmodernism falls into this category of empty, overcomplicated nonsense.
This issue is not just historical. In more recent years, scholars like Helen Sword have critiqued modern academic writing for being unnecessarily complex. In her book Stylish Academic Writing (2012), Sword advocates for more engaging and readable prose in academia, highlighting how clarity benefits both writers and readers.
The Role of Jargon
Jargon, while sometimes necessary in specialized fields, can be a significant barrier to communication. When used correctly, jargon encapsulates complex ideas efficiently, allowing experts to communicate with precision. However, jargon often acts as a wall that prevents non-specialists from accessing knowledge. Worse still, even experts can find jargon-filled and acronym-heavy prose difficult to parse. Excessive use of jargon leads to opacity, even for those within the field. Scholars, like any other readers, benefit greatly from clear, concise writing, even in technical fields. A balance must be struck between using jargon for the sake of precision and maintaining clarity so that the ideas themselves remain accessible and understandable.
The key issue with jargon arises when it substitutes for clear thought or proliferates beyond reason. Even within specialized communities, clarity should remain a priority. Using jargon for the sake of sounding intellectual or gaining credibility among peers leads to a breakdown in communication and reflects poor thinking. Before using jargon, authors should reflect on whether there is a simpler way to express the same idea. In many cases, there will be a more accessible alternative that retains the necessary precision.
The Essential Nature of Clarity
Clarity is not just a stylistic choice; it is the foundation of clear thinking. Without clarity, both the reader and the writer are left with muddled ideas. The current state of academic writing is marked by a widespread lack of clarity, driven by incompetence, a desire for respect, or an attempt to obscure poor ideas. Jargon, while useful at times, should never substitute for clear thinking. Writing with clarity is not just a duty to oneself but to the entire intellectual community, ensuring that ideas are communicated with rigor and precision.
ChatGPT Produces Evidence
A prime example of an exceptionally opaque postmodernist paper is Michael James Rizza’s dissertation, Postmodern Alienation: Projecting Worlds/Feigning Subjects (2010). The work heavily relies on theoretical jargon and complex language, making it difficult to follow, especially for those unfamiliar with postmodern critiques of subject-object relationships and thinkers like Baudrillard, Jameson, and Foucault.
You can access the full dissertation at:
https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/396
Additionally, the Postmodernism Generator (see Appendix A) is an online tool that humorously creates random postmodern-style essays filled with dense, convoluted language. You can explore this tool at: https://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
Summary
In summary, clarity in writing is fundamental to intellectual rigor and precision. Without clear thought, neither scholars nor their audiences can engage meaningfully with ideas. The proliferation of unclear academic writing, driven by a desire for respect or to obscure weak ideas, undermines intellectual progress. Jargon, though necessary in some fields, must be used judiciously to maintain clarity and ensure that communication remains effective. Ultimately, clarity is the key to rigorous scholarship, and it is the responsibility of every writer to strive for it.
References
Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions. Crown Publishers. https://www.amazon.ca/Ideas-Opinions-Albert-Einstein/dp/0517884402
This work encapsulates Einstein’s belief that simplicity and clarity in explanation are key to deep understanding, a concept that is central to intellectual rigor.
Feynman, R. (2013). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Basic Books. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
Feynman advocates for clear communication in science, showing that even highly technical subjects can and should be explained clearly for broader understanding.
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. Horizon. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
Orwell’s critique of unclear language is timeless, particularly his view that unclear writing reflects unclear thinking, a cornerstone of this essay's argument.
Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Essay-Concerning-Human-Understanding/dp/0198245955
Locke’s argument that vague or poorly defined ideas lead to confusion reinforces the importance of clarity in thought and writing.
Pinker, S. (2014). The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. Viking. https://www.amazon.ca/Sense-Style-Thinking-Persons-Writing/dp/0143127799
Pinker explores the ethics of clear writing, arguing that writers have a responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly and accessibly.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.amazon.ca/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases highlights the importance of clarity in overcoming mental shortcuts that can lead to confusion, stressing the value of clear thought.
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Stylish-Academic-Writing-Helen-Sword/dp/0674064488
Sword critiques modern academic writing for its opacity and advocates for more engaging and clear prose, demonstrating how clarity benefits both writers and readers.
Appendix A - The Vermillion Key: Deconstructivist rationalism in the works of Stone
Agnes Wilson
Department of Literature, Carnegie-Mellon University
1. Debordist image and the subdialectic paradigm of narrative
“Art is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Derrida; however, according to
Humphrey[1] , it is not so much art that is intrinsically a
legal fiction, but rather the economy, and subsequent collapse, of art. A
number of materialisms concerning the bridge between society and language may
be discovered. But the subject is interpolated into a modern socialism that
includes truth as a paradox.
The main theme of Finnis’s[2] model of deconstructivist
rationalism is the stasis, and some would say the failure, of precapitalist
sexual identity. In Chasing Amy, Smith denies the subdialectic paradigm
of narrative; in Dogma, although, he affirms cultural theory. It could
be said that the primary theme of the works of Smith is the role of the poet as
participant.
In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of posttextual
narrativity. Lyotard uses the term ‘deconstructivist rationalism’ to denote a
mythopoetical whole. In a sense, Debord’s essay on Foucaultist power relations
holds that the State is capable of significance, given that consciousness is
equal to language.
The example of modern socialism depicted in Smith’s Mallrats emerges
again in Clerks, although in a more self-falsifying sense. It could be
said that the premise of deconstructivist rationalism suggests that expression
is a product of the collective unconscious.
Sartre uses the term ‘conceptual discourse’ to denote not narrative, but
subnarrative. But modern socialism states that the significance of the reader
is deconstruction, but only if Foucault’s critique of the subdialectic paradigm
of narrative is valid; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of
deconstructivist rationalism is one of “postcapitalist nihilism”, and hence
responsible for class divisions.
Baudrillard uses the term ‘the subdialectic paradigm of narrative’ to denote
the role of the artist as poet. Thus, Derrida promotes the use of the
constructivist paradigm of reality to analyse and read society.
If modern socialism holds, we have to choose between deconstructivist
rationalism and precapitalist capitalism. But Lacan suggests the use of modern
socialism to deconstruct capitalism.
Several theories concerning Debordist situation exist. In a sense, von
Junz[3] holds that we have to choose between the
subdialectic paradigm of narrative and cultural socialism.
2. Narratives of absurdity
“Sexuality is part of the rubicon of truth,” says Bataille; however,
according to McElwaine[4] , it is not so much sexuality that
is part of the rubicon of truth, but rather the fatal flaw, and therefore the
rubicon, of sexuality. The characteristic theme of Porter’s[5] essay on modern socialism is a mythopoetical totality. But
the premise of Foucaultist power relations suggests that class, perhaps
paradoxically, has objective value.
The primary theme of the works of Fellini is the stasis, and eventually the
absurdity, of semioticist society. The characteristic theme of de Selby’s[6] critique of the subdialectic paradigm of narrative is not
theory, but pretheory. However, in Satyricon, Fellini deconstructs
neosemiotic modernist theory; in La Dolce Vita he analyses the
subdialectic paradigm of narrative.
A number of narratives concerning the dialectic, and some would say the
failure, of postsemiotic sexual identity may be revealed. Thus, Baudrillard
promotes the use of modern socialism to modify society.
The main theme of the works of Fellini is a self-sufficient whole. However,
the subject is contextualised into a capitalist paradigm of context that
includes language as a paradox.
The primary theme of Scuglia’s[7] analysis of
deconstructivist rationalism is not sublimation, as Foucault would have it, but
neosublimation. In a sense, many narratives concerning modern socialism exist.
The subdialectic paradigm of narrative holds that reality serves to oppress
minorities. However, if Derridaist reading holds, we have to choose between
deconstructivist rationalism and the postmodernist paradigm of expression.
3. The subdialectic paradigm of narrative and capitalist Marxism
“Truth is fundamentally unattainable,” says Lyotard. A number of theories
concerning the role of the writer as observer may be found. Thus, the subject
is interpolated into a deconstructivist rationalism that includes culture as a
totality.
“Sexual identity is dead,” says Debord; however, according to Finnis[8] , it is not so much sexual identity that is dead, but
rather the defining characteristic of sexual identity. Parry[9] suggests that we have to choose between modern socialism
and capitalist rationalism. However, the subject is contextualised into a
capitalist Marxism that includes sexuality as a whole.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is not, in fact, modernism,
but premodernism. Thus, Derrida uses the term ‘modern socialism’ to denote the
role of the poet as writer.
The stasis, and eventually the rubicon, of Marxist capitalism intrinsic to
Gaiman’s Death: The High Cost of Living is also evident in Death: The
Time of Your Life. However, the main theme of d’Erlette’s[10] model of capitalist Marxism is the rubicon of subcultural
society.
The subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist discourse that includes
language as a totality. But Lyotard’s essay on modern socialism implies that
sexuality is intrinsically responsible for sexism.
If deconstructivist rationalism holds, we have to choose between modern
socialism and neocultural dialectic theory. However, the subject is
contextualised into a deconstructivist rationalism that includes truth as a
paradox.
1. Humphrey, Y. U. (1974) Modern
socialism and deconstructivist rationalism. Schlangekraft
2. Finnis, C. S. C. ed. (1983) The Paradigm of Consensus:
Deconstructivist rationalism in the works of Smith. Harvard University
Press
3. von Junz, R. (1979) Deconstructivist rationalism in the
works of Glass. And/Or Press
4. McElwaine, W. M. N. ed. (1982) Neotextual
Deappropriations: Deconstructivist rationalism in the works of Burroughs.
Loompanics
5. Porter, E. (1993) Modern socialism in the works of
Fellini. And/Or Press
6. de Selby, T. L. V. ed. (1988) The Stone Sky:
Deconstructivist rationalism and modern socialism. Schlangekraft
7. Scuglia, J. (1973) Deconstructivist rationalism in the
works of Pynchon. Cambridge University Press
8. Finnis, R. T. A. ed. (1984) Deconstructing Baudrillard:
Modern socialism and deconstructivist rationalism. University of Illinois
Press
9. Parry, G. D. (1971) Deconstructivist rationalism in the
works of Gaiman. O’Reilly & Associates
10. d’Erlette, G. N. D. ed. (1999) The Collapse of
Consensus: Deconstructivist rationalism in the works of Lynch. University
of Michigan Press
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link.
If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).
This installation of the Generator has delivered 52,912,291 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.
More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks“.
More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.
If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.
To me "postmodern" should mean future.
I wonder if I was scathing enough on that abomination of pseudo-scholarship. At least I acknowledge that I may be full of it. ;-)