I’ve been reading some “critical theory” and “media studies” books while here at Banff, and yesterday I decided to do some surfing on the Intermedianetweb about critical theory and postmodernism. Honestly, I wanted to learn more about the people and language cited/used, as I found it quite cumbersome (for me) to understand what people were talking about here. Instead of finding that, however, I noticed there is a big debate on its value and legitimacy. Richard Dawkins even gets in on the debate, and quite harshly takes sides.

I have to admit, for all the talk about Marxism, hegemony and power structures, the language of theory is quite a power structure itself. I’m finding it hard to tell what people here at Banff are actually talking about–I have to frequently remind myself that I’m an intelligent person; at times I just feel so stupid here. It’s as if people are speaking another language. I wonder why we can’t just talk about our ideas in plain English, to make them accessible to the “proletariat” of people like me who are not so blessed with the “wealth” of theory.

Reading Wikipedia, I read that philosophers such as Strauss intended to write esoterically in order to cause readers to stop and think; interpreting slowly instead of jumping to action. Perhaps the same use of cumbersome language continues today in theory, but I feel the whole field could be moved along much faster if it wasn’t so damn hard to understand what people are actually arguing! This goal of obfuscation is just so different from those I was taught in management and design: considering your audience, and coming to their level…