I just finished reading a short article by Stella Humphries titled On Language as a Mirror (found in Reflections, volume 1 number 1 pgs. 87-90). In this article, Humphries, a former scientist, outlines what she believes is wrong with the language used in scientific discourse. Her insights I believe are applicable to academic discourse in general – and I commend her greatly for finally standing up and saying it.
In concluding her article, Humphries writes
…we falsely assume that research is objective. It has its internally consistent logic, but in the context of the choices scientists make to do their work, it is highly subjective. To support the maintenance of a language that deludes us into believing that only reason is at play, is to deceive ourselves. To allow incomprehensibility to masquerade as knowledge is to disempower ourselves. What is worth saying is worth saying clearly, with personal conviction and in a style accessible to all whose interests it is meant to serve and who directly or indirectly have supported the research that it describes. (emphasis added)
The basis of Humphries argument is in the field of science, what can be applied to every day life from the results scientists get is often incomprehensible. She argues this is because when writing for journals etc. scientists often strive for objectivity. This results in what Humphries calls “writing in a disembodied voice”. She goes on to explain, “This atmosphere, in turn, creates conditions for highly specific terminology within specialized subgroupings, and the language becomes deeply encoded – and incomprehensible to most of us.”
Humphries insights are, in my opinion, right on. What she has finally said in this essay is something I’ve been waiting for someone to say (or waiting to find that someone has said). I think her argument relates very well to Jacqueline Jones Royster in that both authors are arguing for voice. They are arguing that writing for a specific audience, for the “academic discourse” community is alienating. Humphries even goes further to say that even those within the “intellectual elite” (read “academic discourse communities”) often do not even understand what their colleagues have said/written. “I know from personal experience how often colleagues would rather not comment than admit they did not understand something,” Humphries writes. I think any of us could relate to that statement.
My question is this, why do “intellectuals” find it necessary to write in this “disembodied voice” as Humphries calls it. Some composition theorists have said that students have to essentially “fake it” in academic discourse communities until they have been convincing enough to prove that they are smart enough to actually be part of the community. I think what Humphries points out, is that even once we have been convincing to our peers, we still may not actually understand. Our peers may not actually understand. And if those within our own academic discourse communities don’t understand what we have to say, because of the language we use, because of the “disembodied voice” we force ourselves to write in, then how are our theories, analyses, information etc. supposed to get out to the rest of the world? How is what we do, study, write about supposed to make a difference for anyone else if they can’t understand it?
It’s time, in my opinion, that academia write to the world. It’s time academia open their doors and be held accountable to the research they do. As Humphries writes, “On what basis can accountability to a broader society be judged if outsiders are unable to understand the work to asses its quality and its relevance?”
For teachers, there is an implication that we let students use their voice. That we understand the world around us and pay attention to how people actually talk to one another. Think about writing in terms of a conversation (Bruffee anyone?). If we find something important enough to write about, we should also find it important enough to tell our friends or our mother about. How would we tell them the information? How would we explain it to them? That’s what “academic discourse” should be … writing as if we were writing or speaking to our friends or our mother.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great topic! True, the complexity of academic research can be daunting, and the style is often mystifying. Feminist theorists have long argued against the myth of objectivity (see, for example, Patti Lather's, _Getting Smart_ on developing feminist research methodologies). Humphries joins other feminists in calling for personally engaged, committed scholarship. I agree with Susan: Right on.
I question, however, the relationship between "clarity" and commitment. Writing in the humanities has been attacked in recent decades for its (supposedly) leftist ideology as well as its complex style--often both at the same time. Jim Berlin argued (in response to such an attack) that "clarity" may carry as much ideological freight as complexity. His point: it's much easier to be "clear" and "concise" when you don't challenge the audience's beliefs and values--which are sometimes called "rhetorical commonplaces." But it's difficult to challenge those commonplaces while still being "clear": readers may willfully misunderstand your points because they don't fit within an established frame of reference.
I don't necessarily agree with Berlin. However, I noticed that many students said in their blogs they were "confused" about what Jackie Royster was saying--and as Sheena pointed out, Royster was quite clear about her main points. "Confusion" or even "incomprehensibility" may sometimes be rooted, not in the writer's style, but in readers' unwillingness to engage with the writer's premises, claims or assumptions. As readers, we may be like Royster's well-meaning listener who repeatedly insisted that one speaking voice was her "authentic" voice.
As academic writers, we have many "voices," which we can use for different audiences, purposes, and contexts. When writing to a public audience about writing issues, theorists and researchers must be clear and comprehensible to outsiders. But should academic research always be accessible to those outside the discourse community? That's a very good question, one that bears careful research and analysis.
But beware the anti-intellectualism of some writers on this topic, whose main theme seems to be "everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten." ;-)
Post a Comment