Don't we think this probably applies to any of the humanities though? What you described, at least, is the practice of careful, critical research followed by exegesis.
I think it applies most of the time, but some fields and academics (like Judith Butler to pick a famous example) seem to rejoice in the opposite, complicating your language to make your point more difficult to grasp. So I wouldn't be quick to generalise.
Not trying to come across as partisan by bringing up Butler's name. Here is another academic, Talal Asad, making the same point in an entirely different context that the writing style of academia tends towards unnecessary complexity:
"For some years I have been exercised by this puzzle. How is it that the approach exemplified by Gellner’s paper remains attractive to so many academics in spite of its being demonstrably faulty? Is it perhaps because they are intimidated by a style? We know, of course, that anthropologists, like other academics, learn not merely to use a scholarly language but to fear it, to admire it, to be captivated by it."
I am not sure I quite understand, is the implication here that some disciplines overtly try to stifle understanding by making things harder to grasp? Why would they do that?
It's perfectly fine to read Butler and not understand it, in the same way as it would be for another to read a textbook on quantum mechanics. There seems to be a hidden assumption in what you say that holds that the domain/area-of-discourse Judith Butler is working in is one you should be able to understand without difficulty, but you really have no good reason to feel that. It's really not her job to ELI5 to everyone, or at least, its not something her peers or publishers care about. And why should they?
Yes, like in STEM, there is false positives, paper's and researchers that rise to the top that maybe shouldn't, but that is different than saying entire disciplines are sustained by bad faith.
I can't speak for the Gellner paper, but if you spend some time with it, understand a little about where she is working, Butler is a very rewarding writer that is incredibly influential to many many people. There isn't some conspiracy or shared delusion here. And the fact that she can say things that resonate with so many people in her domain, shows huge evidence of her general abilities around information comprehension, articulation, and communication.
I think in retrospect that I was too dismissive and hyperbolic about my comment that some fields seem to enjoy having an unnecessarily complicated style, but I think the characterisation of some academic writing in the humanities having an unnecessarily complex style is ultimately fair.
I know from my own time with the humanities that some adopt that kind of style to make themselves seem more profound and out of a desire to impress others because I was one of them (although I'm happy to have comparatively flattened the ego since then).
There's obviously a diversity of intentions behind why people would adopt a complex style (although I have no doubt the motivation I had is common) and some would be justified but I don't think it's wrong of me to point out that Butler's style is needlessly complicated as an example. When reading her words in particular, I sometimes find myself rephrasing in my head to make her point more digestible to myself (and I can't help feeling that random archaic English texts like Francis Bacon's Of Simulation and Dissimulation would be more readable to most, despite the outdated and unfamiliar language).
That's a sign of needless complexity in my opinion.
> is the implication here that some disciplines overtly try to stifle understanding by making things harder to grasp?
That's how I read it. IME with social science academics, it's accurate.
> Why would they do that?
To create a mystique of knowledge or superiority; to obfuscate controversial points; to prevent mainstream scrutiny; to exclude outsiders from giving criticism.
There are times where a Big Word is more precise than a smaller, common one, and the Big Word is preferred to writing 20 small words.
Then there are times where a Big Word is not more precise than a smaller, common one, and may even be less precise -- but it's chosen because it limits who can comprehend the work.
Listen, beyond any of the culture war you find yourself enlisted within, the sooner you can, as simply a human being, separate out "I do not understand this" from "I do not understand this, there must be something wrong with it," the sooner you will gain deeper understandings of things, make better connections, and honestly just be a happier individual. Like, it's fine, I guess, if you want to spend your life fighting huge swaths of intellectual history and human advancement, but you can't just be like overtly anti-intellectual about it! It's just not good for you, you will be sustained in fear and anger forever.
I think there's still a difference here with respect to writing styles and audiences. In most humanities specialties you'll be writing for an academic audience (and depending on your focus, potentially one with a very narrow band of shared knowledge/terminology).
A lot of what you learn there can get in the way when you need to reach a general/lay audience.
Journalism is the same way though. They write highly technical papers for academic audiences. Journalism is just distinct in that there are marginally more jobs you can get where you practice direct skills/techniques around the domains. In the rest you can still get this kind of with teaching!
