I didn't really expect the author's jokey explanation of deconstruction to be technically accurate, and I can understand why it would irritate people in the field.
I'd be more interested to hear what you think of his other arguments, and the comments quoted by Chomsky in this thread.
In particular charges of obscurantism, intellectually-vain tail-chasing, being 'epistemologically challenged', his metaphors of 'genetic drift' and 'peacock feathers' where academic communities evolve to fill the vacuum with linguistic puffery, jargon and self-referential bullshit in the absence of any clearly-stated objective or externally-imposed goals and success criteria.
Admittedly critical theory is far from the only academic discipline to be subject to these accusations. And maybe you'd argue that in this case the accusations aren't valid.
But, you'd have to admit that, by virtue of their epistemic outlook and the criterea they have available by which to assess research, some disciplines are inevitably going to be more susceptible to these phenomena than others, and hence need to work harder to combat them.
In particular charges of obscurantism, intellectually-vain tail-chasing, being 'epistemologically challenged', his metaphors of 'genetic drift' and 'peacock feathers' where academic communities evolve to fill the vacuum with linguistic puffery, jargon and self-referential bullshit in the absence of any clearly-stated objective or externally-imposed goals and success criteria.
This may be how it looks to an outsider like Chomsky, but it's not an accurate description of the academic communities that he is not a party to.
"Jargon" is what an outsider calls another discipline's terms of art. "Generative grammar" is jargon to a ballet dancer. "Battement tendu" is jargon to a linguist.
I'm sorry if Chomsky expects philosophy to have a "clearly-stated objective" or "externally imposed goals and success criteria" beyond what they've had for the past couple millenia, but there you have it.
Re jargons: I don't think all jargons are created equal.
I'd say that it's possible, and worthwhile, to investigate and make some attempt at classifying jargons with respect to properties like:
* To what extent do layers of jargon correspond to layers of depth of ideas in the field which they describe
* How precisely-defined are they, and how well-founded are the definitions
* Are there clear externally-verifiable criteria which can be used to distinguish valid use from misuse or dishonest, empty, bullshitty use of the jargon.
I didn't really expect the author's jokey explanation of deconstruction to be technically accurate, and I can understand why it would irritate people in the field.
I'd be more interested to hear what you think of his other arguments, and the comments quoted by Chomsky in this thread.
In particular charges of obscurantism, intellectually-vain tail-chasing, being 'epistemologically challenged', his metaphors of 'genetic drift' and 'peacock feathers' where academic communities evolve to fill the vacuum with linguistic puffery, jargon and self-referential bullshit in the absence of any clearly-stated objective or externally-imposed goals and success criteria.
Admittedly critical theory is far from the only academic discipline to be subject to these accusations. And maybe you'd argue that in this case the accusations aren't valid.
But, you'd have to admit that, by virtue of their epistemic outlook and the criterea they have available by which to assess research, some disciplines are inevitably going to be more susceptible to these phenomena than others, and hence need to work harder to combat them.