OSC cites this actual university course description, and comments upon it:
quote:"Narratives of Race
"This course takes as its central object the idea of race. Race is understood as a social construct that designates relations of structural difference and disparity. How race is treated is a crucial issue in this course. It is in this question of "the how" that the term narrative becomes salient. The term narrative intentionally focuses attention on the material practices through which we have come to define race as a social construct. This terminology, "narratives of race," spotlights an interest in investigating the historical events and visual and verbal images employed in the linking, patterning, sequencing, and relaying our ways of knowing race and its social relations. Implicated in the construction of race is its production and deployment of the moral and intellectual values that our academic disciplines bear. In considering such values as part of the investigation, this course includes careful comparative analyses of the ways in which the disciplinary systems of ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and politics are used in the making and remaking of the academic and social grammars of race. Thus the analysis necessarily includes an intertextualization of the several academic disciplines engaging the question of race."
Here is the translation: "This is a course about what we mean by 'race,' particularly at the university." All the rest is smoke, endlessly paraphrasing this slender meaning.
Why didn't they just say that? Because the unreadable language is a code that reveals the hidden message:
"In this class, there will be no content. You will not have to understand anything about the real world. You just have to have all the correct opinions -- which you already know -- and then learn to speak Theoretics fluently and parrot back to the teacher the same empty language that you see here in this course description. Anyone who thinks for himself or disagrees with the teacher will be abused and ridiculed. When you have achieved complete incomprehensibility, with the right attitude, you will pass the course."
I have a friend that takes a similar attitude towards the "intellectual elite." He glances at what I'm reading, and dismisses it as jargon-filled non-sense. He thinks the material is designed to be obtuse to suit the needs of the intellectually arrogant.
I have repeatedly pointed out to him that it's awfully arrogant of him to assume that because he doesn't understand something at first glance, it must be nonsense. As if my friend's intellect - as impressive as it is - is the boundary line of all reasonable discourse. Everything that is intelligible must apparently be readily accessible to him.
OSC's attitue is much the same. Sure, that course description is over-long, unless it's for a graduate level course. And that's what it looks like to me; the only course descriptions with that much detail I've ever seen are at the graduate level. Undergrad descriptions usually run 4 or five lines.
But is it unintelligible and over-complicated? Only if you assume that your personal understanding is the ultimate limit of humanity's intelligence.
I am, of course, in the midst of "theoretics." I'm doing an MA in European philosophy, which gets labeled "critical theory" over here.
The stuff I read is far, far more obscure and difficult than that course description. Stuff like Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. Dasein, angst, attunement; there's a lingo to it.
Does an obscure vocabulary discredit a particular discipline? Only if you can't take the time, or don't have the ability, to absorb the material.
Actually, I'll just let the dirty old nazi speak for himself:
quote:With regard to the awkwardness and 'inelegance' of expressions in the following analyses, we. . . . should compare the ontological sections in Plato's Parmendides or the fourth chapter of the seventh book of Aristotle's Metaphysics with a narrative passage from Thucydides. Then we can see the stunning character of the forumulations with which their philosophers challenged the Greeks. Since our powers are essentially inferior, and the also since the area of being to be disclosed ontologically is far more difficult than that presented to the Greeks, the complexity of our concept formation and the severity of our expression will increase.
In other words, if you want to study the humanities, you'll have to move past high school level material.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there's any comparison between the course description, and the passage you quoted. Apart from 'ontological', there's no jargon in it that I can see. Further, if you read all of OSC's column, you will observe that he draws a distinction between the jargon required to speak efficiently of a subject, and the jargon that merely creates an in-group; he has no objection to the former. It seems to me that you are attacking a straw man. But on the positive side, you sure kicked the straw out of it!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is the translation: "This is a course about what we mean by 'race,' particularly at the university." All the rest is smoke, endlessly paraphrasing this slender meaning.
Alternate trainslation:
"I am so very, very tired of minorities thinking this class will be an easy A because they are minorities. I am, if anything, even more tired of hung-over white guys taking this course so they can appear 'sensetive' to whoever they're trying to impress. Hopefully, this course description will discourage the kind of people most likely to show up to class high. Also, this class will deal with how races are represented."
I've had professors who piled on the homework in the first week of school because the class size was was too big for their liking and they wanted to thin out the heard. This seems exactly like something one of them would do.
Alternate alternate translation:
"I'm much more interested in the study I'm running with my grad students right now, and I'd find it pretty pleasing if this lengthy course description caused so few students to register that the school dropped it from the curriculum entirely. This course, for any of you be foolish enough to register for it and take up my time, will deal with race perspectives."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is it unintelligible and over-complicated? Only if you assume that your personal understanding is the ultimate limit of humanity's intelligence.
Foust, Card wasn't complaining that he lacked the intelligence to comprehend the passage. On the contrary, the problem was that an unintelligent person would read that passage and think its writer must be very smart. Card, however, reads the passage, is unimpressed with the word choice, and can think of a hundred much clearer and more interesting ways to say the exact same thing.
The use of obfuscatory language doesn't require a writer or professor to be particularly intelligent, and the fact that you treat it as a mark of intelligence seems kind of silly to me. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It's a style choice, attainable by any idiot who wants to sound impressive. As easy to replicate as pig latin, and as pointless when you want to communicate something.
I'm much more impressed by the wits of intelligent people who find ways to express complex ideas such that pretty much anyone can understand them. That ability is a rare gift that should be treasured and admired. Few enough possess it.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whether or not the description is appropriate depends on what level the course is. If it is a grad level course, the jargon should be familiar by this point and is appropriate. If this is written for a 100 level course, then it should be simplified better. It all depends on audience.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, aside from a class on race that is probably more about PC than learning, that description would probably get a C+ in the class itself. Its not about jargon. There is no jargon in the thing. Its about clarity of communication.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread makes me think of this game we played a while back, where we had a lot of fun using obscure word choice to mask a common saying.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The description seems very careful to me. Perhaps too careful for most people's taste, my own included. However, I am assuming this was in a philosophy department, where writing like that is essential. Philosophers have a dreadful, and understandable, fear of being misunderstood. Thus, they write like this
quote: 1. Desire/reason/spirit as embodied and non-hierarchical responses to the world which exists before us 2. Ethics as the more fundamental form of the worldly response 3. Ethics is always expressed as temporality.
I am joking, of course, that quote is from Jeremy Weate, a man who has deliberetly distanced himself from academia (he moved from the U.K. to Nigeria) and writes for a general audience.
A more typical academic philosopher writes like this:
quote: "What we call hyper-dialectic is a thought that, on the contrary, is capable of reaching truth because it envisages without restriction the plurality of the relationships and what has been called ambiguity. The bad dialectic is that which thinks it recomposes being by a thetic thought, by an assemblage of statements, by thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; the good dialectic is that which is conscious of the fact that every thesis is an idealization, that Being is not made up of idealizations or of things said... but of bound wholes where signification never is except in tendency
—Maurice Merleau-Ponty
To an extent, there is a reason for writing like this. To roughly paraphrase Wittgenstein, philosophical understanding is based on linguistic understanding which stems from the precise and logical use of language. However, thinker like Wittgestein, who could write clearly if with little eloquence, or Camus, who could write both clearly and eloquently, were able to work without causing undo head-scratching.
It is extrodinarly difficult to disagree with Sartre or Russel, and I have never been able to find fault with Camus, becouse their writing is such that one is easily convinced of their correctness. Of course, Sartre, Russel and Camus may have all been correct as far as I know, I think that they were all at least partialy correct, but this is not always the case.
Take the Enchiridion of Epictetus, essentialy an early second century self-help book, a work which contains little actual merit, but is almost convincing through its elegence.
quote: As a mark is not set up for the sake of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world.
A statement respledent in its elegent meaninglessness.
A more dangerous example is that of Nietzsche, a man whose suprmeme genius in writing was not matched by his ability to think. Consequently we have such works as Also sprach Zarathustra, a beutifuly written book filled with the sound and the furry, signifying nothing. Unfortunately, we mus deal with the results of this tale told by an idiot, for an amusing piece of work has been taken all too seriously resulting in the most dangerous philosophical ideas ever. Nietzsche is often noted as the most exiting philosopher, which is surely the case, for what other thinker has ever possed such a legitiment danger to humanity?
This is what Wittgenstein warned against when he said
quote: philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.
posted
Pel, I wouldn't take your word on what is necessary for clarity if you asserted that the overhead-arching-space is of the complementary colour to yellow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is something about the way you name drop Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, two fellows I have an enormous and complicated respect for, which makes me wonder if you've actually sat down and considered Also sprache or Philosophical Investigations.
______
Regarding the description of the class:
The class concerns how race effects moral and intellectual values, including, how and when we talk about race. The class isn't just a semantics game, and OSC's description ignores this section:
quote:
Implicated in the construction of race is its production and deployment of the moral and intellectual values that our academic disciplines bear. In considering such values as part of the investigation, this course includes careful comparative analyses of the ways in which the disciplinary systems of ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and politics are used in the making and remaking of the academic and social grammars of race.
I'm not saying that it's the most eloquently written description ever, but the class seems to address a complex phenomenon that transcends "What we mean by 'race,' especially at this university."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's time to step in, and post this wonderful comic which embodies my whole view on this issue. (*warning* - graphic harm done to stick figures)
Note that the fifth panel also applies postmodernists.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
There is something about the way you name drop Nietzsche and Wittgenstein,"
Let me be clear, I do not personaly know Nietzche or Wittgenstein (although I can get you Oscar Wilde's fax number.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there's any comparison between the course description, and the passage you quoted.
I wasn't drawing a comparision between the description and the Heidegger quote. I was using the Heidegger quote to explain why academic language can be obscure, and I think I was pretty clear about my intent: see the second to last sentence preceding the quote.
quote:Further, if you read all of OSC's column, you will observe that he draws a distinction between the jargon required to speak efficiently of a subject, and the jargon that merely creates an in-group; he has no objection to the former.
Except his distinction between efficient jargon and in-group jargon is outlined no further than bald statement. See Irami's post for one example of how that description isn't all just hot air. I would insist that OSC labels it hot air because he was uninterested in working out the fine points.
Actually, what I'd really like to see attached to articles like these are citations. The friend I mentioned in the first post almost certainly can't name off more than 2 or 3 "theoretic" books, and he certainly hasn't read any of them. Yet he feels perfectly justified in flapping his gums about one hundred year's worth of European philosophy.
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what OSC has read. This isn't the play gotcha or to point out that he isn't a part of the "in group," so let's not trot out the persecution complex. I'm wondering how close OSC is to my friend.
quote:Foust, Card wasn't complaining that he lacked the intelligence to comprehend the passage. On the contrary, the problem was that an unintelligent person would read that passage and think its writer must be very smart. Card, however, reads the passage, is unimpressed with the word choice, and can think of a hundred much clearer and more interesting ways to say the exact same thing.
See, I need somebody to put their money where their mouth is on this. You can say "Here's Plato: sun, forms, objects." You can reduce anything to a few quick soundbites if you ignore enough detail.
quote:The use of obfuscatory language doesn't require a writer or professor to be particularly intelligent, and the fact that you treat it as a mark of intelligence seems kind of silly to me.
And the fact that you think I treat obscure language as a sign of intelligence seems kind of silly to me. I have done no such thing in this thread.
What I am saying is that sufficiently efficient and technical language in the humanities will always be ignored as obfuscation by those who do not have the will or the interest to master it.
I, for one, do not have the will (and possibly not the ability, either) to master analytic philosophy. It would be the height of absurdity for me to simply deride all that symbolic logic as obfuscation. I don't have to be interested in everything, and neither does Card. Neither do any of you. We don't need to justify our disinterest in specific topics by attempting to trivialize them.
One more quote:
quote:Students who read course descriptions like the ones I quoted at the beginning of this essay are becoming cynical. They recognize when somebody's blowing smoke in their faces. More and more, the smartest students are simply turning away from these disciplines. They are becoming the refuge of the frightened incompetent -- the students who are desperately afraid that somebody will find out that they are not really very smart at all. If they can just master the language of Theoretics, then regular folks won't understand them, so they'll have to believe they're smart!
This can't be responded to, of course. There's no real way you can refute someone if they choose to psychologize your motives. It's as useless as responding "no I'm not!" when someone tells you you're being defensive.
So, in the end, all I'd like to see is OSC put his money where his mouth is. Theory is all BS? Than it must be simple to poke holes in it, or simple to master. I'd love to see him write an essay on, say, Gilles Deleuze. But I guess he doesn't need to, because he already knows it is empty rhetoric.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's saying theory is all BS. I think he's saying that the language used by many in academia is overly complex, that one can explain the same points without using such "intellectualized" language.
For instance, to steal from the game I linked above, why say:
quote:The ability to condense one's vebiage into a minimum quantity of language units, commonly referred to as words and phrases, is the ephemeral essence residing deep within the core of linguistic expression of humorous design.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think it's time to step in, and post this wonderful comic which embodies my whole view on this issue. (*warning* - graphic harm done to stick figures)
Aggry. Which, okay, it is obscure. But still. I didn't get the bit about "language".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm much more impressed by the wits of intelligent people who find ways to express complex ideas such that pretty much anyone can understand them. That ability is a rare gift that should be treasured and admired. Few enough possess it.
It should be noted that OSC did not offer any alternative wording that is able to say the same thing in simpler language. Instead all he did is use simpler language to make fun of a course whose content he probably doesn't really know. Therefore, I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't necessary to use the complicated language.
Having said that, I'm well aware of academia's use of bizarre language to make nothing sound like a complicated thesis. I don't think it is a matter of elitism though. I think it is just the product of a system that rewards papers that sound smart. Eventually, I think people forget how little their words can mean.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, your posts in this thread make me think that you suffer from some of the same disease that we see KingOfMen suffering from constantly: the belief that your graduate school topic is, and should be, the most important topic in the world. I don't necessarily think that your opinion of your friend is wrong though.
(Incidently I know I've suffered from this at times too, and I would venture to say that all graduate students do at some point, since most people aren't going go to graduate school unless at some level, they think their topic really is the best thing since sliced bread.)
----------------
Is the complex language necessary? Possibly. I would say that if the instructor of this course can't express what it will cover in a simpler way, they probably shouldn't really be teaching it. That doesn't preclude the use of this language in the course description though.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think it's time to step in, and post this wonderful comic which embodies my whole view on this issue. (*warning* - graphic harm done to stick figures)
Aggry. Which, okay, it is obscure. But still. I didn't get the bit about "language".
The guy says there are three words in "the English language" - i.e. "the", "English" and "language."
*pat* *pat* - Don't worry, I didn't get it at first either. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many professors are terrible communicators. They may write a terrible or misleading description. That doesn't make what they say necessarily invalid.
That said, many intellectuals are, of course, quite smug in their cleverness/learnedness and end up being awfully irritating and substanceless. This is true of any group of people.
You do not have to be a genius to have a pHD. As long as you can do the research and write the thesis, you are through. Many professors are not the clever people we think of when we think of professors- they're just very intellectual. This combination of vapidity and intellectualism does sometimes end in a poorly constructed or largely substanceless class.
There are nutcases and pompous behinds in every field of work. Intellectuals are not magically excluded.
This does not mean that every intellectual that uses complex language is stupid. This does not mean that every intellectual that believes his area is the greatest is a pompous ass. This does not mean that everything complicated, obscure or very specific is bad.
It's just the same as any other field of work. You've got your good people, you've got your bad people, you've got the idiots and the geniuses and the weirdos and the madpeople. Perhaps an intellectual environment has more than usual. This is not new. Philosophers have been incomprehensible for as long as the subject has been around. Professors have been rambling and substanceless.
I don't think there's even a discussion here.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
What happens when race is narrowly defined by structural differences and disparity? How has this social construct of race affected the way we see each other, think about each other, hear each other, talk with each other and create the communities we live in? How has this construct changed in the last century? We will carefully analyze our particular academic community, considering how our ideas of race affect our moral and intellectual values, and how those values play out in the wider world.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In OSC's recent "reviews everything" column he writes:
quote:To those who complain that in my columns I go on and on and on about things you aren't interested in, I'm going to give you a hint that will change your life: You can actually stop reading my column at any time. That's the glorious thing about print media like the Rhino Times. You don't have to click on some button or press fast forward or anything like that.
You can just glance down the column to see if it gets interesting later on, and if it doesn't, you can skip on to Scott Yost's stories of hitting on babes and saving the world, or Jerry Bledsoe's account of how the city fired the guy who was trying to clean up the police department and kept the guys who dirtied it up. These things are far more interesting than anything I write.
So why are you still reading this, if you hate everything I say? Why do you continue to put yourself through it? They always print coupons on the reverse side of the page from my column, so most of it will get cut out anyway. I'm just here as filler. Move on!
If the class sounds like a waste of time, don't take it! A professor has to teach something, he's got to come up with a class that he wants to teach. If you hate everything he says, don't listen. Unless you are required to take this class (unlikely), you have the choice not to.
This is generally the way it goes. Either no one signs up, or people drop out and/or the class dies a year later after review.
If it's a good class, people like it, they tell their friends, it grows etc.
There isn't a discussion here. Yes the description is atrociously written. Big whoop! Lots of professors write badly. Obviously it's better if this is not the case, but it's not the end of the world. Plenty of professors teach good classes.
posted
So, just out of boredom, I decided to take a crack at a rewording of the passage to cut the erudition to a minimum.
I'm curious, would this description be any less valid as a one paragraph snapshot of the course?
quote:This course focuses on race as a social construct, specifically on how the idea of race is treated. The term “narrative” is used here to spotlight an investigation into the historical events and images used to communicate the concept of race and its social relations. We will also address the moral and intellectual values placed upon race in the academic disciplines of ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and politics, highlighting how these fields contribute to both an academic and social understanding of race.
I'm presently taking a politics course that had a well written, concise and clear description. The topics and reading list are well defined and knowledge and analysis is required.
The course is a joke. The professor recites the readings back to us. He doesn't seem to have the intellectual or ability confidence to state any of his own opinions. He actually apologises when he adds his own ideas. Most of the class's students have more to say than the professor.
That, to me, is a bigger problem.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, being clear and concise doesn't help much when the things you want to make clear don't have much that is actually worth conveying.
Ideally, you would have good material that is well presented. If either facet is missing, it doesn't help much. Really, it sounds like your class would be better if the professor devoted more time to class discussions. If he did that, he really wouldn't have to convey his own ideas, and a well lead discussion can be a very useful learning tool.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is it unintelligible and over-complicated? Only if you assume that your personal understanding is the ultimate limit of humanity's intelligence.
Foust, Card wasn't complaining that he lacked the intelligence to comprehend the passage. On the contrary, the problem was that an unintelligent person would read that passage and think its writer must be very smart. Card, however, reads the passage, is unimpressed with the word choice, and can think of a hundred much clearer and more interesting ways to say the exact same thing.
The use of obfuscatory language doesn't require a writer or professor to be particularly intelligent, and the fact that you treat it as a mark of intelligence seems kind of silly to me. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It's a style choice, attainable by any idiot who wants to sound impressive. As easy to replicate as pig latin, and as pointless when you want to communicate something.
I'm much more impressed by the wits of intelligent people who find ways to express complex ideas such that pretty much anyone can understand them. That ability is a rare gift that should be treasured and admired. Few enough possess it.
And Card's continuing mistake in dealing with both his detractors and his targets is to suggest that we are at once smart enough to see his point, and too dumb to have come to all these conclusions on our own. Along the way, he makes grandious claims about the education system and the "intellectual elite" based on anecdotes tailor made to suit his purposes by idiots who are not intellectual at all.
Any intelligent person, and for that matter, most dim people, (like me), can see that the quotation is nonsense. But what always strikes me as funny is that OSC believes that this is somehow worthy of pointing out, and more, that it is actually representative of something important. If there are idiots in the education system (and there are) at the college level, then they will either naturally reveal themselves by failing to meet the standards of educational excellence set forth by the university; or if the university is too blind and inneffectual to see that the professor is worthless, then the university will become recognized as worthless itself. The whole is always recognized as the sum of its constituent parts: if the wheel on a car falls off, the car is "busted;" even if it looks ok from one side- it doesn't run.
I don't suggest we do nothing about this, and I do admit that these kinds of professors are a problem- but to suggest that the educational system will at once become useless AND continue to be supported by the public is just too silly. We have a history of abolishing old systems of patronage when they become useless to us: monarchies, nobilities, fiefdoms, religions, all fall under their own weight if they do not adapt. The idea that this "intellectual elite" is some insidious force ruling over society in some subtle way, (that's the way I'm reading it, but I'm probably not being fair), is self contradictory. Either a group has power and knows how to use it, or it knows nothing and therefore has power to do nothing. You can't be stupid AND be effective (at least, not for very long, recent political trends show).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Having said that, I'm well aware of academia's use of bizarre language to make nothing sound like a complicated thesis. I don't think it is a matter of elitism though. I think it is just the product of a system that rewards papers that sound smart. Eventually, I think people forget how little their words can mean.
Ok. Look- this is SOOO easy to say, but when was the last time you actually tried writing a college paper to SOUND smart without actually saying clever things? People spout this little nugget like it has some meaning to students, but after nearly 4 years in a university, I can't see how it's the least bit true. The education system does NOT reward papers that "sound smart," or at least no paper I have ever read, that recieved a good grade, actually sounded smart without being smart. Essays that use innapropriate language- such as overcomplicated syntax, artificially elevated grammar, etc, are not graded well by any Professor who is reading them properly. They even require classes at the UC on literary criticism, so that we can have some historical context and a view of how people have viewed communication over the millenia.
My professors have always demanded substantive work in both my musicology papers and my English papers. I imagine there are a few professors who reward "smart sounding" papers, but I also think those are in the minority. Frankly I have a hard time believing that a student could actually "sound smart" without simply writing a smart paper- why not? If you really can write to sound intelligent, then you are probably smart enough to write well, and be interesting. I can't recall ever peer-reading a paper that I thought was trying to "sound smart;" probably because those that do end up sounding dumb. And that isn't a big surprise.
edit: Again I see the same kind of attitude I see all the time with OSC's columns: "The point I am making is obvious, and yet, I still believe that I might be just a tiny bit smarter than you, and so must make sure that YOU know that this is obvious." But if I recognize that a paper is trying to "sound smart," then I am pretty sure my professors are going to spot the same thing, and probably have more insight about it than I do. Every time I have aproached an academic question better prepared than my advisor or my professor, and better, knowing that I am more knowleadgable, he or she has STILL managed, in nearly all cases, to surprise me by thinking of something I have not. I have never had any illiusions about which teachers were worth talking to, and again, I can't see how anyone worth being educated could not find the guidance he or she needed to do well. Good advice is just lying around on most college campuses, waiting to be kicked by passing students with hangovers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, just out of boredom, I decided to take a crack at a rewording of the passage to cut the erudition to a minimum.
I'm curious, would this description be any less valid as a one paragraph snapshot of the course?
quote:This course focuses on race as a social construct, specifically on how the idea of race is treated. The term “narrative” is used here to spotlight an investigation into the historical events and images used to communicate the concept of race and its social relations. We will also address the moral and intellectual values placed upon race in the academic disciplines of ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and politics, highlighting how these fields contribute to both an academic and social understanding of race.
Eek, triple post sorry!
This is pretty good, and actually it says something interesting about the course. It sounds like the professor is new-ish to teaching because the original and even this description is verbose and needlessly tricky. It's quite possible that the person who wrote it (not you FC, but the original author) is simply a very poor writer who has trouble formulating his or her thoughts into comprehensible statements. I find that certain people are incapable of speaking at a level that challenges the reader without disengaging the reader's interest, and perhaps this was merely an attempt to make the description difficult in order to invite a closer reading. SIr Isaac Newton (a miserable man by most accounts) was famous for doing this in his texts so that "smaterers" would leave him alone and not read or understand his books. There is an obvious elitism in that, but it smacks mostly of poor manners and poor taste, not necessarily idiocy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, here -- try this re-write on for size:
The Idea of Race
What happens when race is narrowly defined by structural differences and disparity? How has this social construct of race affected the way we see each other, think about each other, hear each other, talk with each other and create the communities we live in? How has this construct changed in the last century? We will carefully analyze our particular academic community, considering how our ideas of race affect our moral and intellectual values, and how those values play out in the wider world.
Hey! I am the Queen of "plain-talk" in my workplace! The above neatly slices, dices, and disseminates the original verbose, ridiculously phrased description of the course. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Works for me, Shan. Now that's a class I'd be interested in taking... the first one, I would not.
Then again, if the professor wrote the descriptions... the second professor would be someone I'd be more intent to sit through a lecture with than the first, too. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, just out of boredom, I decided to take a crack at a rewording of the passage to cut the erudition to a minimum.
This meme in Hatrack thought bugs the crap out of me. People use words like eloquent, erudite, etc. to inappropriately describe faux-intellectual writing stuffed with difficult words that don't serve the purpose of conveying meaning. These are not the same things at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pedantry is probably closer to the word I was looking for.
In my mind, speaking in an "erudite" manner has always meant displaying knowledge through an elevated use of vocabulary. Checking dictionary.com, I see that's not quite so. I assure you, though, that this has been my understanding of the word since high school, long before I joined hatrack. While the word "erudite" does mean possessing great knowledge, it does not necessarily mean using needlessly high-falootin' words to express it.
My apologies.
The word I was looking for was definitely pedantry - making excessive or inappropriate display of one's erudition.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The words used to express a difficult idea or concept would not be "needlessly high-falootin" (emphasis on the first word), if they were appropriate and better suited than a simple word. "Play to your audience" is a key part of this debate, because there are groups of people, participants in a certain academic study who easily use certain words that most people do not hear used in conversation. For instance, as a music major, I can be comfortable in most of my classes using the words: "esthetic" (noun and adjective), "modulation" "transposition," "juxtaposition," "inversion," etc. These words are not only specific jargon, but can be used in a versatile way among people who grasp the basic meaning in the musical context. My saying "esthetic" or "idiomatic" in a musicology class is acknowledging a common understanding of the word as applied in music, and then allowing the context of my usage to define my meaning even further. This shouldn't be done TOO much, but it could easily be done within reason and still seem unreasonable to the untrained listener.
An anecdote: I recently went to a concert given by a very famous string quartet, and about 15 other musicology and theory kids went with me. The quartet was obviously on a pedagogical kick, and they spent a good 45 minutes "demistifying the music." At the end of the concert, most of my friends were quite angry to have paid 17 dollars to listen to a second rate musicology lecture instead of hearing a great quartet play. I am sure that the other audience members were edified and intrigued by the paper, thankful for its simple down to earth style and the group's willingness to play to their level, but for us it was practically unbearable. You get used to jargon and common experience when you study something for a long time; maybe you do get too used to it for your own good.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I preferred Shan's much more than the original.
But then, I'm not overly impressed by vocabulary in itself. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice, and all that. If there's a way to make your point with less complexity, it behooves you to use the simpler method.
On the flip side, though, there's Twain's comment that the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. There is a time and a place for certain vocabulary - as Orincoro pointed out.
I just don't think that course description needed to be as complexly crafted as it was. It's either indicative of an unwillingness to present the information in a more clear and direct way, or an inability to do so. At least from my perspective.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I title academic articles, I sometimes specifically choose to use a jargon word to express a certain concept. This is in part as a marker for the audience that a technical understanding of this concept is an important part of the paper and as a limiting factor, sort of a way of saying "If you don't understand the title, this article probably isn't for you." I haven't had an opportunity to write a course description yet, but, if I were writing one for an advanced one that dealt with high level concepts in my field, I'd likely again use jargon to convey these messages.
This particular description does seem unneccesarily jargony and complicated, but I really don't know anything about the course. If it were an intro level course, I'd say OSC's criticisms have a lot of merit. However, as he didn't specify, I wouldn't be at all suprised if it were meant for higher level students, in which case, while it may still be a poorly written description, I think a lot of the criticism would be blunted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The langauge of the description may be an indicator of the complexity of the language used in the course. Whether that is because the materials being read are that complex, or because the professor's discourse is so, remains to be seen.
If the latter, I'd much prefer to take the course with a professor who values clarity and simplicity. If the former, the description may serve as fair warning.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am the Queen of "plain-talk" in my workplace! The above neatly slices, dices, and disseminates the original verbose, ridiculously phrased description of the course. 
