Dear Humanities-fags, is he correct?

>>1721749

Ethnology & Cultural Studies fag here

I cannot speak for any country but Germany, but here your Professor will typically get mad over being purposefully obscure and incomprehensible to the point where they will take personal offense.

I totally understand that, too. Those poor souls have to actually read and understand the bullshit we write.

>>1721756
Swiss Geography student here, some of the (german) literature our human geography professors gave us is completely unreadable in my opinion.
An exerpt from Belina 2008, " 'We may be in the slum, but the slum is not in us!', Zur Kritik kulturalistischer Argumentationen am Beispiel der Underclass-Debatte":
>Nach dem Bisherigen sollte klar geworden sein, dass „Kultur“ nicht etwas ist, das jemand hat, sondern etwas, das ihm oder ihr zugeschrieben wird. Wenn die Kultur des Kulturalismus auf der kritisierten tautologischen Konstruktion basiert, dann liegt sie genauso wenig „an sich“ vor wie die Natur der Rassisten, sondern wird durch die kulturalistische Argumentation erst geschaffen. So, wie für die Kritik des biologistischen Rassismus gilt, dass nicht vermeintliche biotische „Rassen“ das Problem sind, „sondern der Glaube an deren Existenz und die damit verbundenen Wertungen und Wirkungen“ (kattmann 1999, 80), so gilt für die Kritik des Kulturalismus, dass nicht das als „Kultur“ Bezeichnete – also das, was Personen/gruppen tatsächlich auf unterschiedliche Weise tun – das Problem sind, sondern die Vorstellung, dass sie dies täten, weil sie eine Kulturen haben. Um diese Vorstellung zu kritisieren, sind also die tatsächlichen sozialen Praxen der Menschen, denen eine „Kultur“ zugeschrieben wird, unwichtig. Dieser blinde Fleck ist nicht der Kritik anzulasten, sondern dem Kulturalismus selbst, der aus den – jederzeit untersuchenswerten – sozialen Praxen „da draußen“ erst „Kulturen“ zimmert. Die Kritik des Kulturalismus befasst sich deshalb mit der „Idee von Kultur“, mit den durch sie vorgenommenen sozialen Grenzziehungen und schließlich mit den ideologischen Leistungen dieses Vorgehens (mitchell 1995, 2000a; eaGleton 2000).

>>1721775
I agree, all that kraut speak is totally unreadable.

>>1721749

The basic rule is that if you write something, write like it would be understood by someone who is very smart but doesn't know anything.

If you find jargon in an academic work, it is probably not worth reading it, and it shows how talentless the writer is.

The thing is, sometimes talentless people are teachers or at the head at universities circle jerking each others, particularly in some fields of sociology, like woman studies or shit like this.

>>1721775
>not in English
Yeah, I don't get it either.

>>1721787
I often feel like the thoughts themselves aren't very clear. Like, https://youtu.be/tIwmx9crelg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVe_ComujRg , while a bit hyperbolical, seem basically accurate to me.

>>1721749
It happens but it still is marginal.

Specialised litterature, academic writing can't be accessible to all, there's nothing wrong with that.
If you can't understand a paper about pure mathematics, you won't accuse its author of trying to trick you.
I can't see how it's really different with statistics or geography. There's a vocabulary, people use it to be more precise and efficient.
Research and popularisation are two distinct things.

>>1721790
There's a world outside the anglosphere.

>>1721775
That's not even that terrible desu. If you read german academic literature from before the 70s, pretty much all of it is like this.

Now as for the content, that's completely fucking garbage and wrong and maybe that's why you have problems understanding it, because what is written doesn't follow.
But good to know STEM fields suffer from postmodern cancer as well.

>>1721756
>>1721749
In the germanic countries 90% of what is published in anthropology or ethnology is rubbish and not scientific. The OP pic holds very true in my experience for the majority of it. There's strong tradition of publishing books rather than articles for this same reason.

make that economy and you're good to go

>>1721787
>If you find jargon in an academic work, it is probably not worth reading it
This is the stupidest thing I've read today. Congratulations.

>>1721815
(Geography person from before here)
> Specialised litterature, academic writing can't be accessible to all, there's nothing wrong with that.
> If you can't understand a paper about pure mathematics, you won't accuse its author of trying to trick you.
> I can't see how it's really different with statistics or geography. There's a vocabulary, people use it to be more precise and efficient.
> Research and popularisation are two distinct things.
I agree with all of these things. Nothing wrong with having to know the I don't know, 15 most important soil types or the 20 most important minerals by their technical term if you're a soil scientist. That's simply required to allow for efficient communication between professionals. I'd say it's also required for higher-level, abstract thinking.
Yet when our german human geography professor tells us we need to use the term "komplexreduziert" instead of "vereinfacht" ("complexity reduced" instead of "simplified") and similar things in our texts/essays for whatever reason, clearly that's bullshit. Just replacing common non-technical terms with words you never heard about to sound more advanced.

>>1721818
The humanistic half of geography really doesn't have a lot in common with STEM. The physical side doesn't have this problem.
But I'm very glad to not be the only person thinking these things.

>>1721818
>>1721857 is me (again)
>Now as for the content, that's completely fucking garbage and wrong and maybe that's why you have problems understanding it, because what is written doesn't follow.
What's also annoying is that I often feel the exact same thing, yet you can't discuss this in what I would call a rational manner with whoever is holding the lecture. If you go "sorry, but clearly that's nonsense and doesn't follow" or something to that effect, they start to become apologetic.

>>1721749
nothing to do with humanities, really. make any person defend any belief without resorting to appeals to emotion and this is what you get.

>>1721867
>you can't discuss this in what I would call a rational manner with whoever is holding the lecture. If you go "sorry, but clearly that's nonsense and doesn't follow" or something to that effect, they start to become apologetic.
It makes sense once you realize that the purpose of the "Humanities" isn't scientific insight, but to produce and reproduce the norms and values that are required in a society for it to function. They're primarily politically motivated. Objectivity doesn't matter. Narrative does. That's why it's also completely pointless to debate them. It's like trying to debate a priest about how god isn't real.
Humanities shine when it's about how refugees are good or how sexual oppression is bad. Yet there are almost no actual theories being produced on a macro level. It's all about the feelings of the individual.