>There’s a huge difference, for instance, between defending academic jargon as such and defending academic jargon as the typical academic so often uses it. There’s likewise a huge difference between justifying jargon when it is absolutely necessary (when all other available terms simply do not account for the depth or specificity of the thing you’re addressing) and pretending that jargon is always justified when academics use it. And there’s a huge difference between jargon as a necessarily difficult tool required for the academic work of tackling difficult concepts, and jargon as something used by tools simply to prove they’re academics.

What I find so amusing about this paragraph is that the word "jargon" is, in this context, jargon. It is not explained when jargon is necessary, or when it isn't, or what kinds of discussions would make it necessary. In fact, it is probably ideal to be familiar with the use of some sort of jargon, and with contexts in which it is necessary and unnecessary, in order to really make sense of what the author means here.

And something important got left out, which is: jargon is often easy. Easy like reaching into the bag of chocolate-peanut clusters rather than making some actual food. Jargon has two primary functions: it increases the number of things you can talk about specifically and it removes the emotional impact of talking about those things. The cognitive-somatic empathy impact of "blunt trauma to the genital region" is less wince-inducing than "kick in the nuts". Using jargon puts a Latinate wall between you and any difficult emotions that you might have about the subject that you're discussing.

But there is another purpose of jargon, too, in which it comes closer to that other famous tool of the academic, the formalism. Language is fluid and the meaning of words changes, but in order for the academic canon to remain useful for centuries, it has to stay somewhat the same. Jargon is supposed to fulfill the need for language that doesn't change. That's why, when academic jargon like "microaggression" -- a term which has appeared in papers since 1989 ( https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3424662/Micr... ) -- becomes common in social parlance, it also stops being jargon, because it is no longer tied to its original meaning. To be brief (and somewhat wrong) jargon tries to be prescriptive, whereas real language is descriptive. And because language which is no longer jargon cannot be correctly used as though it were, having fluency in an academic field does not imply being able to communicate with ordinary people about it. In order to have conversations in colloquial language you have to learn to use colloquial language, which is a separate skill-set from what the academic is expected by their job title to accomplish.

So if you try to fix this communication problem by turning the jargon switch on and off:

>It goes without saying we are implicitly celebrating a kind of technocratic anti-politics, though, when we contribute to making the discussion of politics intelligible only to a select few. If Trump’s election didn’t teach us that this kind of thing is a death wish, nothing will.

well, maybe you should be beaten over the head with a copy of On Certainty.

Is the discussion intelligible only to a select few? No, if it were, it would be physics, and there are very few popular conspiracy theories about physics. Except for that one funded by billionaires, but that's a different problem. There are lots of popular conspiracy theories about sociology, and that's because it isn't that they hear you talking and don't get any ideas out of it, it's that they hear you talking and they think you're some kind of monster because of it. That doesn't happen when we're discussing wavefunctions.

And that's because this:

>The perpetual conceit of academics in the humanities is that translating their work into a more accessible vernacular will “dumb down” what are necessarily complex subjects. Important stuff will be lost. Behind this conceit, though, is an implicit presumption from just about every academic that they could perform this kind of translation if pressed to. It has been one of the great sources of my disillusionment with academia to realize that a staggering majority of jargonauts, when pressed, actually can’t.

doesn't happen because academics don't really understand the subject they're talking about, it happens because they don't understand the language they're trying to translate it into. So I would certainly agree that

>It requires that one goes and does the painstaking work of learning languages that express and condition the worldviews of their speakers, that are encoded with specific logical systems and empowered by cultural conventions, which must also be learned and practiced. It requires daily efforts to understand how this cultural material works for smaller and larger publics as well as repeated attempts to construct workable critical stances out of that very material.

but ordinary language is not by its naturally fluid nature an appropriate foundation for critical theory. Rather the task of communicating in ordinary language must be approached in and of itself. I think there's another question of whether the researchers themselves should be tasked with this, or a separate group of people, who may not exist.

Yet it is probably not at all comforting to academics, a generally self-assured culture, to suggest that they can't fix politics alone. In a more harmonious culture, perhaps journalists would bridge this chasm, but today, they seem more interested in dredging it.

PS:

>[the right was] shifting people’s sentiments in such a way that they’ll even support things that are fundamentally bad for them.

The words "fundamentally bad" link to a book about tax cuts in Kansas. Problem: while the whole rest of the essay focused on sociology, this book is about economics. Problem 2: Kansas's tax-reform experiment did not actually pass because of wide popular support. In fact, libertarian economics doesn't actually poll very well on its own (look at all the love for free trade agreements in 2016), it just happens to be attached to the banner of the Republican Party. If you want to be convincing, it helps not to be wrong in the ways that even laypeople can recognize.

Does my postscripted objection make sense? The context is a sentence about the right convincing people to vote for things that are bad for them in an essay about sociology; the example is something people didn't vote for which was implemented by the right and which was bad economics. I don't think that's a big deal in isolation, but consider the choice the author made, by using this example over any other example, in the context of my first paragraph. There are many things the right really convinced people to vote for that could be bad for them, such as building a goddamn wall on the Mexican border or repealing a law that everyone was suddenly in favor of when you call it by its original name, and yet the author -- while decrying jargon -- chose an example which is unfamiliar and uncontroversial. Easy. Chocolate-peanut clusters.

>What makes a subject difficult to understand — if it is significant, important — is not that some special instruction about abstruse things is necessary to understand it. Rather it is the contrast between the understanding of the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things that are most obvious can become the most difficult to understand. What has to be overcome is not difficulty of the intellect but of the will.