In Praise of Plain Language
Postmodernist social justice ideology is the biggest purveyor of bad language
"If academic writings were difficult because of the deep thoughts involved, that might be understandable, even if frustrating. Seldom is that the case, however. Jaw-breaking words often cover up very sloppy thinking."-- Thomas Sowell
“Plain language is writing designed to ensure the reader understands as quickly, easily, and completely as possible. Plain language strives to be easy to read, understand, and use. It avoids verbose, convoluted language and jargon. In many countries, laws mandate that public agencies use plain language to increase access to programs and services.”-- Wikipedia
Even in my academic papers and books I bend over backward to, as much as possible, use everyday language instead of insider jargon. While technical terms are sometimes necessary, and one cannot write a nuclear physics paper without using words the general public doesn’t know, I aspire for my philosophy and cognitive science texts to be understandable to everyone. My late father was a chemical engineering professor and textbook writer who thought similarly. He told me that a key to good textbook writing is “Short paragraphs and lots of pictures.”
I have long had a distaste for crowd followers and groupthink. The overuse of buzzwords and jargon makes people come across, at best, as pseudointellectuals, people unable or unwilling to express their own ideas in their own words.
Many academics tire of convoluted academic writing. The journal Philosophy and Literature had an annual bad writing contest, and University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne recently wrote about bad academic writing.
Comedies regularly satirize language. The first video below is from The Simpsons. The second is from the British sitcom Blackadder where Prince George meets Samuel Johnson.
.
Postmodernist social justice ideology is the worst offender
While bad language exists in many areas including religion, politics and the corporate world, one of the worst offenders today is postmodernist social justice ideology.
University diversity expert Amer Famed writes, “I increasingly have been hearing conversations, particularly amongst students, who seem to duel each other with language that proves that they’re more social justice-ey than someone else. It might involve someone who might say something to the effect of, ‘Like, he’s such a Cis-gendered, white, straight male who is obviously transphobic without a feminist lens that considers the intersectionality of racism, heterosexism and gender spectrum that queer people of color spaces address.’ (This is hyperbole, but not by much!)”
The social justice rhetoric often is as clear as mud. The movement created different and often counterintuitive definitions for familiar words such as racism, white supremacy, harm, and diversity.
Most of the general public assume equality and equity are interchangeable words. However, they have very different meanings and implications. The activists’ definition of multiculturalism means a diversity of races, genders and other identities but not a diversity of political, ideological and social beliefs. This isn’t multiculturalism but monoculturalism. Multiculturalism, or a multitude of cultures, will necessarily involve a diversity of viewpoints, philosophies, politics, social beliefs and behaviors. If a social justice ideologue asks you “Are you an anti-racist?,” they are not asking if you are against racism or even doing work to fight racism. They are asking if you subscribe to a particular Ibram X. Kendi/critical race theory/Tema Okun-inspired ideology.
Columbia University linguist John McWhorter writes, “Has American society ever been in less basic agreement on what so many important words actually mean? Terms we use daily mean such different things to different people that communication is often blunted considerably, and sometimes even thwarted entirely.”
Former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan argues that the obscurity is intentional. In the essay “Culture War Politics and The English Language: Orwell and the mind-deadening neologisms of our time”, Sullivan argues that not only is the impenetrable language an ideological tool but that it is a danger to democracy. He writes, “Writing the English that people speak every day is essential for a flourishing democracy.”
A common accusation is that the use of this social justice jargon often is virtue signaling and performative activism, or “activism done to increase one's social capital rather than because of one's devotion to a cause.” Barack Obama famously said in the below video, “That’s not activism.”
The jargon is elitist and separates the activists and their activism from the marginalized and oppressed people they claim they are championing. Though standard terms of activists, BIPOC is unpopular with most racial minorities and Latinx is rejected by most Latinos. Polls have shown that the large majority of every racial group is against politically correct language.
This ivory tower fixation on terminology does nothing to help the poor and working-class blacks and other racial minorities in the country. Columbia University’s Musa al-Gharbi and Cambridge University’s Rob Henderson say that social justice rhetoric is the “language of the elite” and “neglects the perspectives of those it ostensibly intends to help.”
Women’s shelter worker Bailey Lamon writes, “If you’ve ever worked in the shelter system, or any field that serves those deemed as oppressed or marginalized in any way, such as abuse victims, the homeless, or people who struggle with addictions and/or mental illness (just a few examples)…one of the first things you learn is that they usually do not frame their worldviews in terms of academic theories you learned in gender studies classes in University.“
.
Further reading
Language as an Ideological Tool
The Ambiguity of Language, and the Answer to History’s Most Famous Riddle