\u201cIt is evident that one of the many uses of theory in academic locations is in the production of an intellectual class hierarchy where the only work deemed truly theoretical is work that is highly abstract, jargonistic, difficult to read, and containing obscure references\u201d (hooks 64).
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This particular idea, as it is posed by hooks, comes dangerously close to describing some of my greatest frustrations with the writing of Judith Butler. (At least, based upon the limited amount of Butler\u2019s work that I have encountered, thus far.) To preface, I find nothing innately wrong with \u2018highly abstract\u2019 writing\u2014overall, I actually tend to prefer the experience of reading \u2018abstract\u2019 theoretical works.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My issue with Butler lies in, from what I am able to gauge, her seeming attempts at producing deliberately inaccessible work. With what I have encountered of Butler\u2019s so far, I have a continuous sense that she is making an active effort to disengage readers who may not come from an academic background. Many of her ideas have the potential to be presented in a concise, accessible way; Butler\u2019s aversion to accessibility, more often than not, comes across as an arbitrary attempt at closing her ideas off from those who may find her writing difficult to comprehend.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Again, although my current familiarity with Butler is limited, hooks\u2019 description of hierarchical, \u201cintellectual\u201d theorists so closely addresses my frustrations with Butler\u2019s work.
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"