John Zavacki writes, with some apparent frustration:
>All of this can be written and spoken without the use of special language.
>It is all a part of daily life. Dr. Deming taught me to teach in the
>language of the audience. In this arena, however, I fear I have no
>competence. There has become a new language. It is to me, a language of
>obfuscation, reminiscent of the academic world ...
John, I empathize with this frustration, especially pertaining to some of
the dialogue on this list. But, before I run off with you to "spend
intellectual capital" elsewhere, I feel an urge to try to make what to me
is a very crucial distinction.
I try to distinguish between:
1. Those who use language to "muddy the water that it may look deep;"
2. And those who try to use language with precision in order to convey
profound meaning that is not available using ordinary language.
It is not always easy, nor immediately possible, to make this distinction.
Some of what appears to be obfuscation turns out to be, instead, clarity
-- once you take the time and trouble to "learn the language" being used.
You mention "art." Please try this experiment in teaching someone about
painting: Help me understand chiaroscuro. Teach me about the painter's
use of light and shadow. Spend an hour or two (or more) helping me see the
various ways painters do this. Show me examples. Use ordinary language,
if you wish (and I would wish you would!)
Okay, I get it now. Tomorrow, however, when you and I talk about
painting, we will want to use the term "chiaroscuro" to call up all of the
meaning that I made from our hours of work yesterday. I don't want to
repeat those hours of meaning making every time I refer to the experience.
I want to use a shortcut -- I want to use a term that has a very precise
meaning to us both -- I want to refer to chiaroscuro, not to 17 (or 12, or
148) ordinary English words that attempt, but fail, completely to describe
what I learned.
Is this obfuscation? Well, to someone who has not gone through the
learning it may well appear murky. But to us, who went through the
learning together, it is just the opposite. That "murky" word is very
clear to us, and very useful -- in fact, probably even necessary if we are
to go further together in learning about the painter's art. If we had to
continue to use long, ordinary English descriptions for everything we
discussed, rather than adopting a clear "technical vocabulary," we would
not be able to progress very far for sheer lack of time.
Do you agree?
Now, the problem: How are we poor mortals to determine which uses of
language are validly useful technical vocabularies and which are mere
obfuscation employed for the self-aggrandizement of the user? Ah, that's
a bit difficult. I have some personal rules of thumb that we can share if
anyone wants to pursue this. I make no claims for them other than
usefulness for myself. Please let me know if anyone is interested in
starting this dialogue.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>