Interesting posting. I have a doctorate in chemistry, and articles and doctor works can be obscure, too. Every science has its special vocabulary, and sometimesoften it is necessary to use it. So yes, relative clarity lies in the eyes of the beholder.
However, whenever I read a homework of a friend in "educational science" (and she hasn't even finished university) I get the fits, because the language IS obscure. It's the style that seems to be wanted and encouraged. Terrible sentence structure, long sentences, at least four unknown words in every line, a lot of blabla in between - but it's very hard to filter the empty words to get the little bit of real content the sentences have. Sometimes I think that humanities disciplines only feel like a "real science" if their texts are so complex that no one understands. And often, this complexity is not from the content, but from the bad use of language, and the same could be said better in half the length. But then, the reader might understand you and *gasp* criticize your idea! (Or find that it was only hot air.) It makes you more vulnerable if you leave the rubbery writing behind. People might nail you down on your statements ;)
Ah well. Today I'm technical writer, and this means to write with extreme clarity. So I have even less tolerance towards that kind of jargon writing as I had in the past.
no subject
However, whenever I read a homework of a friend in "educational science" (and she hasn't even finished university) I get the fits, because the language IS obscure. It's the style that seems to be wanted and encouraged. Terrible sentence structure, long sentences, at least four unknown words in every line, a lot of blabla in between - but it's very hard to filter the empty words to get the little bit of real content the sentences have. Sometimes I think that humanities disciplines only feel like a "real science" if their texts are so complex that no one understands. And often, this complexity is not from the content, but from the bad use of language, and the same could be said better in half the length. But then, the reader might understand you and *gasp* criticize your idea! (Or find that it was only hot air.) It makes you more vulnerable if you leave the rubbery writing behind. People might nail you down on your statements ;)
Ah well. Today I'm technical writer, and this means to write with extreme clarity. So I have even less tolerance towards that kind of jargon writing as I had in the past.