Intellectuals might agree that people should use plain English but they tend not to, especially with each other. Intellectual writing is about creating the appearance of intelligence for the author and the reader, it’s not about saying something interesting. Here we have a strong break between what people say they do and what they do.
When intellectuals get together at events or offices, they primarily compete with each other for recognition. Credit is the currency within intellectual groups: for generating ideas and for distributing them.
An idea will tend to earn recognition if it is true and new. It can’t be something that’s been said before. The idea also has to be argued and supported under criticism, which has a culling effect.
But even if an intellectual doesn’t create a recognition-worthy idea, they can distribute one. This is where teaching ability comes in. Good teaching means clear communication and that’s also hard to do.
Even the brightest, hardest-working people stare at blank pages far too often. The reality is one that academics know all too well. They have to meet certain publication quotas and one way around this is to brush gold paint over a pile of turds.
Intellectuals create the appearance of saying something smart in different ways.
- Use more difficult language.
- Use fashionable terms like “vector” and “data point”.
- Gesture to multiple disciplines like throwing in quantum physics.
- Mention highbrow materials like a Nature study or Nietzsche.
If you’ve been fluent in a discipline then you can read its journals, and if you do, you’ll likely have the experience that I and many others have had: Hardly anyone is saying something new, and if it’s new, it hardly qualifies. Intellectuals are producing tiny variants on what’s been said before.
To figure that out, though, you have to get through the semantic barriers erected by people in the discipline. And again, if you’ve been fluent in a discipline you know how often the language gets in the way of communication.
It is in the interest of everyone to accept the situation because it enables a much easier game to play for recognition, manipulating language, rather than discovery and innovation.
There’s nothing wrong with saying something that’s been said before, as the particular reader or listener might not know, or the point may bear repeating. But it should be stated plainly. It’s better to be recognized for real value than who made the better castle in a verbal sandbox.
Leave a Reply