In Favor of the Gobbledygook:

A Position Paper on Steven Pinkers Why Academics Stink at

Writing
Is academic writing really that bad? In his article, Why Academics
Stink at Writing, Steven Pinker seems to think so. He then goes on citing
eleven possible reasons to fuel and reveal that there are supporting facts to
the stereotype of academese being a bamboozling, gobbledygook mind-job
for any outsider who might be put to the task of digesting such contents.
So the issue, at hand is if academic writing, as a genre, one that is
meant to be undecipherable, complicated and inaccessible as a piece of
written material. I personally do not think academic writing stinks. Difficult
may be a more apt word to describe it. Off the top, I believe it is meant to be
difficult because one cannot be expected to break down sophisticated arenas
of knowledge subjects and convey the information into elementary concepts
which can be easily regurgitated by the brain as easily as one chows down a
bowl of cereal. Academic writing may be drab and at first, incomprehensible
to the unprepared mind, but it does not reek of agonizing stench. It is not the
all-encompassing generalization that Pinker wants you to believe and rely on.
Why should this argument matter in a now-future world where our daily
reading consists of a steady stream of Buzzfeed, listicles and click-bait

worthy internet articles? It matters because our academic institutions are

here to stay; because our professors will still continue to hold classes in the
classroom; and they will still, from time to time, publish their lifes work in
university presses and journals. The education system, the tenure track, and
these scholars will still be here, and there is no sign of them being swept off
under the rug like the newspaper and now, the FM radio. Addressing the
issue of the quality of scholarly work that is written does matter, even to
outsiders like you and me.
The Dartmouth University Institute for Writing and Rhetoric (Dartmouth
University, 2014) describes the nature of academic writing in 3 points: First,
academic writing is writing done by scholars for other scholars; second,
academic writing is devoted to topics and questions that are of interest to
the academic community; and lastly, academic writing should present the
reader with an informed argument.

Taking heed from this, we can then

contend that Pinkers stance that academic is hinged on the cognitive blind
spot, he calls the Curse of Knowledge cannot stand on all fours, primarily
because academic writing relies on the assumption that its target reader, the
fellow scholar, is also learned on the subject matter written about.
Amanda Klein (2015), in her online blog, describes this type of writing
as, Academese that slow nuanced ponderous way of seeing the world
we are told, is a symptom of academias pretensions. But I think its one of
our only saving graces. She goes on to say that, With academic writing, is

that its core the creation of careful, accurate ideas about the world are
born of research and revision and, most important of all, time. Time is
needed. But our world is increasingly regulated by the ethic of the instant.
We are losing our patience. We need content that comes quickly and often,
content that can be read during a short morning commute or a long dump
(sorry for the vulgarity, Ma), content that can be tweeted and retweeted and
Tumblred and bit-lyed. And that content is great. Its filled with interesting
and dynamic ideas. But this content cannot replace the deep structures of
thought that come from research and revision and time.
Joshua Rothman (Rothman, 2014) explains that this writing style is one
that has been created by the world the scholars live in. He states,
Professors didnt sit down and decide to make academic writing this way,
any more than journalists sat down and decided to invent listicles. Academic
writing is the way it is because its part of a system. Professors live inside
that system and have made peace with it. But every now and then, someone
from outside the system swoops in to blame professors for the writing style
that theyve inherited. While Pinker might have questioned why academics
not rely on terms that readers can easily understand, Rothman explains that,
If journalists sound friendly, thats because theyre writing for strangers.

With academics, its the reverse. So it may be then assumed that scholars
prior to churning out their jargon and their complex prose are aware of the
level of understanding their target readers are situated in.

The reverse

strategy indicates that their style of writing is not cut and dry or too
technical for their audience.
Academic writing, as opposed to populist writing, engages the type of
reader who is accustomed to the chunk of knowledge and research that
requires the use of terms and theories that seem foreign to the uninformed
mind, or to the leisurely reader-outsider.
Writing for the academic and writing for the world have different
purposes and functions and audiences. As Klein puts it:
We need to understand the conditions under which claims can be
made and what facts are necessary before assertions can be made. Thats
why articles are peer-reviewed and book monographs are carefully vetted
before publication. Writers who are not experts can pick up these documents
and read them and thencite them! In academia we call this scholarship.
(Klein, 2015)
While I may agree that everyday commonplace language might be the
perfect mode of discourse, it may be the swiftest mode of conveying
knowledge and ideas that matter; not just between scholars, but among nonscholars like you and me. Cass Sustein (Sustein, 2014) points out, Plain
language has its virtues, and some academic jargon is pointlessly obscure,
but when specialists are speaking to other specialists, its perfectly fine to
use specialized language. These passages could be translated into ordinary
language only at a high cost, resulting in a loss of precision, excessive length

and unnecessary definitions. For the intended audience, phrases such as

concavity of the utility function, the binary signal case and leximin rule
are familiar, not arcane.
I humbly contend that Pinkers symptomatic term for the case of bad
academic writing should not be likened to the all-familiar curses we have
read as children from our favourite fairy tales.

Academic writing is not a

disease we can cure with a shift towards a populist mode of relaying

discourse. It cannot be made easily digestible and comprehended by the
unlearned mind. If we veer towards simplistic jargon, the fog cannot be
cleared by switching to a different language set. Clarity and understandable
scholarly work is not equated by avoiding terminology, disdaining the use of
technicality and abstract nouns. The fog is lifted by demanding the reader,
the outsider, non-scholars like you and me, to work up the mental veracity
required by digesting these materials as necessary brain vegetables; metaconcepts, chunks and gobbledygook.
As my mother used to say, they wont taste good at first. But they do
wonders for your brain.