beware of highly educated academic english
fancy words don't make your argument right or wrong, but they can obfuscate it
This week, Slow Boring covered a trend in formal debates called kritiks. Basically the idea is that if you have a debate prompt like “the U.S. should adopt universal healthcare” instead of arguing for or against the position, one side will take a kritik or critical theory position undermining the premise of the question itself.
Kritik advocates argue that the world is so systematically broken that discussing public policy proposals and reforms misses what really matters: the need to fundamentally revolutionize society in some way
To make these arguments, debaters draw on a variety of critical academic theories. As an example, someone might argue against universal healthcare on Marxist grounds that enacting universal healthcare may simply just reinforce an oppressive class dynamic and prevent society from overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
Basically, this type of nominal “root cause” argument has appeal. Why solve an epiphenomenal problem like getting people healthcare when you should instead solve the root cause problem of oppressive class relations. These types of arguments are invariably phrased in Highly Educated Academic English (HEAE), correctly using uncommon words and even aggressively substituting uncommon words for common ones.
This one-two punch of apparent root cause argumentation and HEAE are potent rhetorically. They signal erudition which gives credence to the argument, and they provide some shock and awe by making the question asker seem insufficiently thoughtful.
My opinion is that any combination of apaprent-root-cause argument in HEAE should be treated incredibly skeptically. There are two basic reasons for this.
First, there is merit in dealing with specific, tangible problems like a lack of health insurance in the United States. This is true whatever the ultimate root cause, if such a thing can even be ascertained. Someone who argues we should prolong the suffering of impoverished people in the Black Belt because of an abstract argument about class structure is demonstrating a particular type of callousness. When we find problems, we should try to solve them. This is the compassionate and humanistic position. Additionally, any root cause arguments about interlocking pieces in the macrostructure of society are difficult at best. It’s just a tough endeavor. We should default to skepticism and humility about such arguments. Arguing to deny healthcare on the grounds of such an argument is incredibly hubristic.
Second, HEAE is itself a warning sign. Sam Bankman-Fried used it to successfully dupe investors. Literary critics use it to obfuscate mundane points. There is beautiful writing for sure, but there is also writing that is so ornamented and jargon-laden it is difficult to understand what is being said. In general, if a point cannot be expressed simply, it is not understood by the speaker. It is not the listener’s responsibility to arduously deconstruct labyrinthine writing or speaking, it is the author’s responsibility to express themselves reasonably clearly.
Anyway, these are my biases: fix specific problems, be humble about how parts of society interlock, and express yourself clearly. I think it’s a good recipe.