Down these mean streets ...

[Paul Nightingale]

David Morris wrote:

> 
> But I'd like to say that PN is very defensive, thus his focus on my
> implying
> that he is elitist in his use of jargon.  As I said, elitism is not
the
> focus
> of my question, despite my challenging tone.  The value of his
language
> choice
> was my question: JARGON.
> 
More shiftiness. The question as it first appeared differs from the
revised version that has appeared subsequently. Whatever I said in reply
would be a tacit admission on my part that the use of jargon (your word,
not mine) was 'wrong'. You admitted that had been its purpose. Hence,
initially, your question wasn't designed to open a dialogue. If we now
have a dialogue, and it remains a big 'if', it's because I called your
bluff.

>From Terrance:

> > " ... the ludic summation of
> > Beckett's discourse and narrative is ironic- we are forever subject
and
> > confined to linguistic laws which compromise the ability of a word
to
> > name or signify, to exactly say."

Representation is compromised. In Beckett we see 'theatre'; when we see
two men 'pretending' to be tramps, we're not asked to suspend our
disbelief and judge the 'accuracy' with which they 'fake' it. Such
language, 'pretending' and 'fake' and 'accuracy' has become
inappropriate, even redundant; Beckett won't allow us to use it. And
then, the old man listening to tapes of the young man he thinks he used
to know: not so far removed from P in the SL Intro.

The act of naming presupposes the power to do so. It presupposes also
the kind of authority that saves the namer from being caught up in the
act of naming. Hence David's first question. It compromises him by
exposing his bias. Any response would compromise me by acknowledging my
guilt. Hence also the careful way P discusses O's intentions in the
passage we've discussed. O doesn't have the authority to describe with
complete accuracy the world he represented in 1984; it's a reading, and
so is P's account itself. By implication the readings, the chain of
signifiers, will go on for ever, because no one has the authority to
claim the final word.

Does the use of jargon name the namer. "Signifiers sliding all over the
place" was an attempt to colloquialise the original, from Lacan. Six
words instead of, say, twenty that (let's agree) might do the same job
without using the word "signifier". But "signifier" doesn't just mean
the same thing as "something that stands in for/refers to something
else". It also signifies the use of a critical language. This is when it
becomes jargon, allegedly, because it asks the reader if they're
acquainted with the ideas of, eg, poststructuralism. If they're not,
they're excluded from the discussion, it seems. But this, so far as it
goes, is a pretty flimsy argument, like saying the non-French speaker is
excluded from a conversation in French.

One can easily argue that critical language (jargon) is necessary if it
states, with clarity, where that argument is coming from. The language
evolves because of a need to be precise. That the writer hides behind
obscurity is often heard; indeed, this is what David has accused me of
doing. To defend myself against such a charge is to acknowledge the
validity of the charge, which I don't (leading to further charges of
defensiveness).

More to the point, perhaps - it's a question of will, as I've said
before. Over the past week or so, several people have contributed to a
discussion of the Foreword, a discussion in which the use of critical
theory featured. If I were talking to myself, that discussion couldn't
take place. If one wishes to participate, one can. There's no law saying
you can't acquaint yourself with the ideas/arguments being used, if you
want to make the effort. Indeed, Terrance has frequently posted links to
relevant sites; so no one's saying you have to get up from the couch and
go down the road to the library or bookshop. There are 'guides' galore,
so you don't need to read the original texts to be able to follow the
discussion. A lot easier than learning a foreign language, David. Of
course, if you wish, you can go on insisting everyone everywhere speaks
your language. Morrisese as the new lingua franca. Now there's a
prospect.