Reconsiderations: We Got the Wrong Gal--Rethinking the 'Bad' Academic Writing of Judith Butler
Saved in:
| Title: | Reconsiderations: We Got the Wrong Gal--Rethinking the 'Bad' Academic Writing of Judith Butler |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Birkenstein, Cathy |
| Source: | College English. Jan 2010 72(3):269-283. |
| Availability: | National Council of Teachers of English. 1111 West Kenyon Road, Urbana, IL 61801-1096. Tel: 877-369-6283; Tel: 217-328-3870; Web site: http://www.ncte.org/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2010 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Opinion Papers |
| Descriptors: | Academic Discourse, Authors, Humanities, Persuasive Discourse, Writing (Composition), Feminism, Philosophy |
| ISSN: | 0010-0994 |
| Abstract: | It is hard to think of a writer whose work has been more prominently upheld as an example of bad academic writing than the philosopher and literary theorist Judith Butler. In 1998, Butler was awarded first prize in the annual Bad Writing Contest established by the journal "Philosophy and Literature," and early in 1999, was lampooned in an editorial in the "Wall Street Journal" by Denis Dutton, one of the chief architects of the contest. Quoting Butler's award-winning sentence, Dutton claimed that Butler's "inept," "jargon-laden" prose was typical of the obscurantist writing being admired and emulated in the most elite circles of today's academic humanities. In 1999, the same year Dutton took Butler to task in the "Wall Street Journal," the feminist moral philosopher Martha Nussbaum published a harsh, widely cited critique of Butler in the "New Republic," claiming that Butler's "ponderous and obscure" writing, like that of other postmodern feminists, breaks with the normal communicative practices that characterize "both the continental and Anglo-American philosophical traditions." Surprisingly, then, many who defend Butler's writing and the type of theoretical discourse it represents agree with Butler's critics that her writing is inaccessible when judged by normative standards of accessibility. While Dutton, Nussbaum, and others condemn Butler's alleged inaccessibility to mainstream readers, Butler and many of her allies praise that alleged inaccessibility on the grounds that it has the subversive potential to liberate those very same readers. But is Butler's writing really that inaccessible and unintelligible? Does her writing really depart from common standards and conventions of clarity? The author's own view is that, far from breaking from recognized standards of intelligibility, Butler's writing conforms to those standards in ways that are missed by both her detractors and most of her defenders, Butler included. Though Butler's writing certainly does have unclear moments, it would not have had the wide impact it has had were it not for its ability to consistently make recognizable arguments that readers can identify, summarize, and debate. Butler's writing has succeeded in circulating as widely as it has in academic circles and beyond not because it breaks with the traditional pattern of "trad[ing] arguments and counter-arguments," as Nussbaum insists, but precisely because it makes systematic use of this classic argumentative pattern, and does so in ways that all writers (and readers) can learn from. (Contains 3 notes.) |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Number of References: | 23 |
| Entry Date: | 2010 |
| Access URL: | https://www.ncte.org/journals/ce/issues/v72-3 |
| Accession Number: | EJ872620 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ872620 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Reconsiderations: We Got the Wrong Gal--Rethinking the 'Bad' Academic Writing of Judith Butler – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Birkenstein%2C+Cathy%22">Birkenstein, Cathy</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+English%22"><i>College English</i></searchLink>. Jan 2010 72(3):269-283. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: National Council of Teachers of English. 1111 West Kenyon Road, Urbana, IL 61801-1096. Tel: 877-369-6283; Tel: 217-328-3870; Web site: http://www.ncte.org/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: PhysDesc Label: Physical Description Group: PhysDesc Data: PDF – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 15 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2010 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Discourse%22">Academic Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Humanities%22">Humanities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feminism%22">Feminism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophy%22">Philosophy</searchLink> – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0010-0994 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: It is hard to think of a writer whose work has been more prominently upheld as an example of bad academic writing than the philosopher and literary theorist Judith Butler. In 1998, Butler was awarded first prize in the annual Bad Writing Contest established by the journal "Philosophy and Literature," and early in 1999, was lampooned in an editorial in the "Wall Street Journal" by Denis Dutton, one of the chief architects of the contest. Quoting Butler's award-winning sentence, Dutton claimed that Butler's "inept," "jargon-laden" prose was typical of the obscurantist writing being admired and emulated in the most elite circles of today's academic humanities. In 1999, the same year Dutton took Butler to task in the "Wall Street Journal," the feminist moral philosopher Martha Nussbaum published a harsh, widely cited critique of Butler in the "New Republic," claiming that Butler's "ponderous and obscure" writing, like that of other postmodern feminists, breaks with the normal communicative practices that characterize "both the continental and Anglo-American philosophical traditions." Surprisingly, then, many who defend Butler's writing and the type of theoretical discourse it represents agree with Butler's critics that her writing is inaccessible when judged by normative standards of accessibility. While Dutton, Nussbaum, and others condemn Butler's alleged inaccessibility to mainstream readers, Butler and many of her allies praise that alleged inaccessibility on the grounds that it has the subversive potential to liberate those very same readers. But is Butler's writing really that inaccessible and unintelligible? Does her writing really depart from common standards and conventions of clarity? The author's own view is that, far from breaking from recognized standards of intelligibility, Butler's writing conforms to those standards in ways that are missed by both her detractors and most of her defenders, Butler included. Though Butler's writing certainly does have unclear moments, it would not have had the wide impact it has had were it not for its ability to consistently make recognizable arguments that readers can identify, summarize, and debate. Butler's writing has succeeded in circulating as widely as it has in academic circles and beyond not because it breaks with the traditional pattern of "trad[ing] arguments and counter-arguments," as Nussbaum insists, but precisely because it makes systematic use of this classic argumentative pattern, and does so in ways that all writers (and readers) can learn from. (Contains 3 notes.) – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: ERIC – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 23 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2010 – Name: URL Label: Access URL Group: URL Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://www.ncte.org/journals/ce/issues/v72-3" linkWindow="_blank">http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce/issues/v72-3</link> – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ872620 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ872620 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 269 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Academic Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Authors Type: general – SubjectFull: Humanities Type: general – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition) Type: general – SubjectFull: Feminism Type: general – SubjectFull: Philosophy Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Reconsiderations: We Got the Wrong Gal--Rethinking the 'Bad' Academic Writing of Judith Butler Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Birkenstein, Cathy IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2010 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0010-0994 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 72 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: College English Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
