I did some reading yesterday afternoon/last night — Talcott Parsons. It’s something of a critique of Durkheim’s theories. The problem is that I really don’t know enough about Durkheim’s thoughts to be able to see the points he’s making. I understand to some degree, but at the same time I have a little trouble figuring out what’s Parsons’ thoughts (i.e., critique of Durkheim) and what’s simply restating D’s ideas (i.e., explication). And of course there’s the whole issue of the academic voice that makes it incredibly boring reading: “In spite of these legitimate ethical objections the immense sociological importance of Durkheim’s work must not be lost sight of.” This simply makes me want to scream. Why not simply say, “We shouldn’t lose sight of . . .” or even “Social scientists should not lose sight of . . .” There’s just something about the whole tone of the article/chapter that makes it dizzingly tiring. One has to struggle with almost every sentence with all the subordinate clauses and generally poor writing.
Why is it that academia compels itself to write in such an obfuscating fashion that, unless one is not well versed in the tools and lexical developments of the particular field in question and has read said field’s entire canon (and this is not to say that those not inducted into the field in any way is somehow lacking cognitive abilities, a conclusion that, regrettably, many scholars seem drawn toward), it is completely illegible? Even when I try, as in that example, to write so pompously, I fail miserably. That’s a good sign . . .
I think of writers like Peter Berger who share incredibly profound thoughts in their writing without sounding so ridiculous — it makes me wonder why the hell everyone can’t write like that. I guess they get so involved in their research that they never bother taking courses on or reading books about good writing. Of course once you read enough of it, you tend to start writing like that yourself. It’s a sort of stylistic blackhole.
And to what end? It doesn’t seem to do much for me other than torture me — force me to struggle through something on a Saturday afternoon that I could probably read in a few moments if it were written in a little clearer fashion. I can’t understand this need, though. Granted there’s a lot of shorthand that needs to be in academic writing, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing has to be so muddy.