next »

[tamiam]

So I just took a peek at the thread below on jargon that I started a few days ago. There was an interesting semi-tangent between a history person and an art history person on the definition of jargon.

Hmm...never thought about that one. In my "educated layperson's" mind, jargon means anything that I don't understand that other smart people talk about. Hence, my description of the categorical imperative as a jargon term for "if I did it for you, I'd have to do it for everyone".

Obviously, I'm ignorant on this subject (the definition of jargon, not philosophy...well, I'm ignorant about philosophy too...and art apparently...)

So, how do you all define "jargon"?

[Art Historian]

Sorry, I didn't mean to  hijack your jargon thread, I apologize.

I guess I consider Kant's categorical imperative to be something along the lines of the General or Special Theories of Relativity.  They themselves aren't jargon, they're theories, but the (technical) language used to discuss them is necessarily full of jargon.

Here's what I got from dictionary.com:

1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk.
2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin.
3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group.
4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.

I generally mean #3 when I use the word "jargon," although my colleagues mean #4 when they are complaining about Norman Bryson.

[history grrrl]

tamiam (I love your handle for reasons I can't disclose),

When I read your definition of "jargon," I thought, "That's exactly my definition of jargon." But then again, item #4 in Art Historian's post (coupled with #1 and #3) also fits my definition.

On reflection, I guess I think of jargon as terminology tied to a discipline (or "profession") that is deliberately used to obfuscate meaning so that ordinary people can't understand it and therefore can't be part of the "in-group." Maybe some people don't use it deliberately in order to be exclusionary, but it certainly seems to serve that function.

Since I tend to identify as an ordinary person (like you, an educated layperson), I experience the exclusion and frankly, it pisses me off -- not because I yearn for membership in the in-group but because I want things to be clear and comprehensible. I often find myself thinking, "If I can't understand this -- or have to read this six times to understand it -- there's something wrong (with it, not with me)."

[%sig%]

[Zarkov]

I think there is a level of jargon which we could call disciplinary vocabulary, terms which the average person isn't familiar with until he or she takes an ungrad course in that field, and also which he or she seldom runs into afterwards.  Elasticity and categorical imperitive are both examples, to me, of disciplinary vocab.

The problem in economics, in my experience, is that many terms in that field have specialized meanings which differ from common usage:  normal and inferior goods, real exchange rate, institutional change.   Thus the jargon aspect has more to do with ordinary terms having very specialized meanings, not that the words are unfamiliar.