h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Realities of Genre: Textual theory and constructivism


1. Derridaist reading and dialectic nationalism

If one examines constructivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Marxist class or conclude that government is capable of significant form. But Sontag uses the term ‘textual theory’ to denote the common ground between society and class.

If dialectic nationalism holds, we have to choose between constructivism and subcultural destructuralism. It could be said that Foucault uses the term ‘dialectic nationalism’ to denote the role of the observer as artist.

Textual theory suggests that consciousness may be used to exploit the proletariat, but only if the premise of dialectic nationalism is valid; if that is not the case, language is responsible for the status quo. In a sense, in Chasing Amy, Smith affirms textual theory; in Clerks he reiterates constructivism.

2. Smith and textual theory

“Sexual identity is part of the failure of sexuality,” says Baudrillard. A number of discourses concerning not, in fact, dematerialism, but postdematerialism may be discovered. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Smith is the role of the writer as artist.

The main theme of Hanfkopf’s[1] essay on Lyotardist narrative is the bridge between society and class. An abundance of theories concerning constructivism exist. In a sense, Sartre uses the term ‘dialectic nationalism’ to denote a subdialectic whole.

Foucault’s model of textual theory implies that the collective is capable of truth. However, von Junz[2] suggests that the works of Smith are an example of self-justifying nihilism.

Many theories concerning the role of the reader as poet may be found. In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Smith is not deappropriation as such, but neodeappropriation.

Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic nationalism’ to denote the rubicon, and subsequent failure, of postcapitalist sexual identity. Therefore, the primary theme of Abian’s[3] critique of constructivism is the role of the participant as observer.

3. Realities of absurdity

“Class is fundamentally meaningless,” says Sartre. The subject is interpolated into a textual predeconstructive theory that includes truth as a reality. But the example of constructivism intrinsic to Smith’s Mallrats emerges again in Clerks.

Lacan uses the term ‘textual theory’ to denote the difference between narrativity and society. It could be said that Debord promotes the use of capitalist narrative to challenge capitalism.

The subject is contextualised into a constructivism that includes culture as a totality. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Smith is a mythopoetical whole.

An abundance of semioticisms concerning poststructural textual theory exist. It could be said that the primary theme of Humphrey’s[4] analysis of dialectic nationalism is not construction, but preconstruction.

1. Hanfkopf, T. R. ed. (1996) Constructivism and textual theory. Oxford University Press

2. von Junz, N. (1981) The Collapse of Discourse: Textual theory and constructivism. Panic Button Books

3. Abian, E. G. ed. (1972) Constructivism in the works of Fellini. Schlangekraft

4. Humphrey, V. (1991) Neocultural Discourses: Textual theory in the works of Eco. Panic Button Books

This really does sound like sociology. I'm so very glad that I NEVER have to write a sociology essay again. I have much sympathy towards you, it sounds like a nasty cross between management speak and sociology drivel with a dash of postmodernism thrown in for measure.



mini

This post has been removed.

Fabulous! I am posting random essays from the pomo essay generator here: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ and they are being removed for breaching copyright.

I don't even know where to start with the spiral of awesomeness this entails.

You are also NSFM. Not safe from moderation.

Not at all. It's because I am a Bad Woman.

But you're so good at it that it is quite ok

Just so you know, Ben, I read a few lines from the OP and also the one that got hidden and tried to understand a sentence or two. Then gave up. But I was fooled, I believed that they were real academic jargon.

I'm sure I've been given things to read that used language like this, to blind the reader into believing that the writer was so superior in intellect that the average mortal cannot possibly argue with them - as they really have no idea what they're writing about.

I had to laugh when you revealed that they were random generated pieces.

The worrying thing is it's a pretty good imitation. This is what I was was wading through at the time:

If uncorrected, the divergence between management and stakeholder preferences with regard to the way in which a firm allocates its resources will result in a failure of stakeholders to maximise their utility. The difference between the utility that stakeholders could achieve if management acted in stakeholders' best interests, and the utility that is acheived if mangement acts in its best interest, can be referred to as utility loss. In the absence of incentive, monitoring and enforcement structures that serve to align the interests of managers and stakeholders, utility loss may be substantial. The function of incentive, monitoring and enforcement structures is to minimize utility loss by correcting for the divergence of interests between management and stakholders.

In other words, management will take the piss as much as they can unless something's done to stop them. And the purpose do doing something to stop them is to stop them doing it.

It's a way of using language to prove superior intellect. A way of justifying specious arguments, almost? Wrapping them in such a way that it's hard for the ordinary person to feel that they can come back with a simple disagreement.

I used to have to read such a load of when I was still in the education game, you'd think those that wanted to improve education would have realised the value of plain speaking - but no! They love a bit of pedagogic paradigm shifting.

My take on it is that these sorts of texts are a form of exclusion, because after all, if the arguments were written so that most people could understand them, then the authors wouldn't appear to be so impossibly superior.

I'm sure it used to be the case that medical doctors used to speak and write in Latin so as to give their patients the notion that they were in the presence of demi-gods. (Maybe that had a placebo effect though and was a good thing? as they often didn't have effective medication.)

I send you and and hope that you can escape from the evil empire of words like this soon.



Lanzababy

I think doctors still do, to be honest.

Doctor, doctor, my skin's inflamed

Ah, yes, you've got dermatitis

touché

Yes, I have a book on English usage which mentions that much medical terminology is merely obfuscating rather than useful.

Some of that language is awful.

TRiG.

Heh, as I was catching up with this convo, I couldn't help but remember the slogan on a pin, "Eschew obfuscation."

I was fortunate and had writing teachers who encouraged plain speaking. My technical writing teacher gave us the classic excercise of trying to write a definition of "dog". It's impossible to write a proper one as you have to consider the reader. Any reader who doesn't know what a dog is will not have any idea what a "domesticated quadrupedal mammal of the family Canis familiarus".

*sigh*

Actually correctly used medical terminology is very accurate and useful. For instance: left Ante-cubital fossa is better than 'that bit on the inside of your left elbow', hystosalpingogram is better than 'squirting some dye up your fanny to see if the tubes that link your womb to your ovaries are stuck together'.

If you know the language of the terminology it's very very easy to work out what the new terms mean - so if you know that '-itis' means inflammation you know what 'tendonitis' is. etc

What passes for a 'joke' in medicine is to invent your own terminology. For instance: 'oligoneuronal' means stupid: 'Olgio' as few, 'neuronal' neurones. Aslo 'Acopia' - incapable of coping . As 'a' before a word means 'none'.

Now, you see, I LIKE jargon. Mine or someone else's. I find the language to be a truly curious thing.

It doesn't have to be technical, either. Terry Pratchett made the very valid observation that the words 'fracas' and 'rumpus' do not have an existence outside local newspapers, in the same way that 'beverages' do not exist outside cafe menus. I find school discipline memos carry a very specific sort of jargon, but then there's only so many times you can write 'confrontational', 'obstreperous', 'abusive', 'aggressive', 'disruptive' and 'argumentative' without actually relating your true opinion of a child

B

I find each hospital invents its own jargon and abbreviations. For instance at some hospitals DIB means Difficulty in Breathing and at others it means 'Dead in Bed'.

It's fascinating how it evolves.

Same in architecture, where "a sense of entry" just means "the front door is far away, but we've made it extra big to compensate".

> If uncorrected, the divergence between management and stakeholder preferences with regard to the way in which a firm allocates its resources will result in a failure of stakeholders to maximise their utility.

Sounds more economics than pomo! (May be even worse! )

Post 9 was from a paper on stakeholders and, yes, one with a bias towards economics.