NEOLOGISE THIS! - ACADEMIA'S WAY WITH WORDS AND THE PROBLEM WITH EXCLUSION
I remember my first year of university as being an introduction to the big bad world of academic writing. Taking home my first reading brick - back when they still existed – I was faced with long complicated texts using unfamiliar terminology. Sentences, paragraphs, even whole chapters of books and articles were unintelligible without an insight into the meaning of certain esoteric words.
I had entered the world of academic neologisms, in which the normally trustworthy dictionary was of no use. A neologism, simply defined, is a newly coined word or expression. I have mixed feelings towards neologisms; they appear to be both an academic necessity and an exclusionary device.
Neologisms are a mainstay of academia, in particular the humanities and social sciences. A common form of neologism is to take a standard adjective or noun and transform it into a verb, usually to describe a process or complex idea. Some might think it would be ironic to use an esoteric word in an article critiquing the use of esoteric words, but let’s just roll with it for now. Some examples I have encountered include (crudely defined): “Problematization” (in which a government portrays public policy issues as problems in need of a solution); “Flexiblization” (the deregulation of the labour market for the purposes of making labourers more adaptable to the needs of capital and global markets); and finally – and also my favourite – “Macdonaldization” (which refers to the introduction of capitalism into formerly communist non-western nations and its effects).
To argue for neologisms as an academic necessity we could claim that intellectual rigour requires engaging with conceptual and theoretical complexity in a nuanced way. That is, there is a need for a conceptual vocabulary to communicate complex ideas, and a good way of developing this is to create new terms or phrases that are succinct in capturing their meaning. Engaging with an idea at a higher level requires that we use words that will allow us to be critical of ideas; able to capture the meaning of certain ideas, theories and arguments; and refer to these easily. Here, the argument for neologisms would be to avoid simplification. We cannot easily participate in intellectual debates or create original arguments and ideas without dealing with a certain level of complexity.
Having considered how neologisms might be necessary, it’s time to think about some of their more negative aspects. Neologisms can function to exclude certain people from the production and consumption of knowledge. One example of how language can cause exclusion is drawn from my own experience as a researcher. I was part of a research team investigating Indigenous perceptions of race and race relations in Darwin. One of the common responses by my interview respondents was that they did not often communicate with non-Indigenous people. A major reason for this was their use of ‘high English’ or ‘hard English,’ which was difficult to understand and contributed to disadvantage when attempting to access institutions and ‘get ahead’.
Neologisms can exclude, in the same way, by obstructing participation in the production of knowledge and access to certain institutions. Academia is one of the main institutions that regulates knowledge, meaning universities contain experts who hold a degree of authority on defining what can be counted as truth. I am taking a critical rather than a cynical perspective of academia, in that I don’t think it is necessarily just made up of self-serving individuals who want to advance their own careers. Taking a critical perspective means understanding that academia has some level of power and influence over society in general. A certain amount of prior knowledge is required in order to understand neologisms and the contexts in which they are used. People who may lack the levels of education necessary to engage with these terms are therefore excluded and at a disadvantage when engaging with academic writing and ideas.
There are some questions I wish to pose relating to the discussion of the use and abuses of neologisms. Firstly; is it possible to reconfigure the role of neologisms in academic writing and still maintain a high intellectual standard? Should we lay responsibility on the education system to provide people with the necessary skills to engage with academic debates and the research process? Is it possible to use simple English without simplification? Though I don’t intend on answering these questions here, I will end with a couple of imperatives and ideas on why I think the exclusive nature of neologisms is a problem.
Neologisms present a problem by excluding others who might benefit from the work that academia produces. It is important for any democratic society to facilitate a level of communication that is both inclusive and egalitarian. Creating these conditions or a ‘public sphere’ is conducive to a healthy democracy and allows those without power or resources to have their say, be heard, and benefit from discussion. As an influential institution, academia has a role to play in creating a public sphere. Open and equal styles of communication and language are good places to start to make this happen. If we follow Marx’s famous adage that the point of studying the world is to change it – which is also a purpose of academic research – then in order to enact change; the creation of knowledge, its dispersal, and use should be accessible to all.
Finding a balance between upholding academia’s commitment to intellectual rigour, and facilitating more easily accessible research and knowledge is an important challenge for every university to consider.
Alex Di Giorgio is a PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania and a research assistant for Larrakia Nation.
