At a drama conference years ago, I heard a paper on Shakespeare by an untenured young professor from a prominent university. The paper was laced with deconstructionist jargon, and it struck me that the professor showed little conviction for his argument, whatever it was. At a reception later that day, I listened to him, in a small circle of conversation, explain that yes, he didn't really understand what he was saying either, but that's the game you have to play. In my position as a science writer, I sit in on seminars where scientists describe their research to colleagues. In graduate school, I attended many similar seminars by cultural critics.
Standard practice is to read their prose, often as abstruse as the examples here, from the page.
On one side, I see an earnest desire to convey information. On the other, I see a communication style that puts up unnecessary barriers, making it more difficult to evaluate claims and enter constructively into dialogue. My capacity for intellectual abstraction fails at about this point, and fundamentally I believe in truth, meaning and reality. They're useful and necessary concepts. Sokal does too.