In defense of words

       In my sort of rambly closing comments in our most recent Silence class, I was trying to articulate why post structuralist art has value. Why can’t the vision/purpose of the piece be expressed in the most simple/accessible vocabulary available? -- So as to reach the most people, to be inclusive. First, I think I’ll speak to the Beckett play and experimental art. 

     The language of postmodernism -- the language of theory, although lofty, although tied to privilege because it requires education and commitment which not everyone is reared to pursue/has access to, also has tremendous value. I know the question is, “why can’t their ideas/articles be expressed more simply?” My answer to that is that is that part of the philosophy of postmodernism exists in the understanding that the symbolic order of our world is largely (perhaps completely) determined by language. Structures of power are maintained and enforced linguistically, and in order to challenge those structures -- in order to be revolutionary, language is our tool/weapon. Language allows us to understand and escape these structures of power, but that requires that we apply ourselves to understanding language’s power. And theorists, those who are devoted to exposing the structural order and oppressive nature of language and society, have developed a vocabulary for that specific purpose.
        But all specialized fields develop their own lexicon -- words which belong to them and them alone. Not just academics. Bird watchers, construction workers, dentists, etc. It makes communication more fluid, more transparent, and more efficient (but only if your audience are those in your field). Perhaps the articles we’ve read have been inaccessible in some ways, but I don’t fault the authors for that. They probably expect that those reading their works are also in the academic field. So yes, there is an element of exclusion -- but not for the sake of exclusion, for the sake of writing succinctly, for conveying as much, as specifically as possible. And we can’t be a specialist in every field, but if we are interested enough, perhaps we could try investigate that vocabulary. Vocabulary is so linked to our conceptual framework -- so it would be an exploration of the subject matter too.

    Also, relating to our class -- and I see that people have started discussing this in other threads -- but I felt frustration during our discussion of Footfalls and Christine Kim’s work. I think it’s valuable to hear that people felt excluded, that the art was classed and confusing. But -- those of us who were moved/inspired by the work didn’t get the opportunity at any point in the class to actually discuss what the piece meant to us. I felt so inspired and full of questions and ideas about the Beckett play and -- I didn’t get the opportunity to express or hear the opinions of those who also felt something. There was no talking space and the environment was too hostile. 

      So I’m left with another question --- Where do we go/what do we do when not everyone understood a text? Do those who delved deeply into that text have to silence themselves? And if so -- how will they learn?