Quotes from this article:
Immediate note is that I hate the use of 'dumbing down' in place of 'simplifying'.
I think the obvious answer is that we can’t. We need to recognize that language in our society is used as a tool of control, and the trend towards smaller vocabularies, simpler syntax, and shorter attention spans is one of the most effective forms of disempowerment ever devised.
Language needs to be a locus for revolution; it is a necessary weapon for all social struggles. Our duty as middle-class activists is to use our education to make complex language accessible, rather than passing off everything not immediately accessed with ease by the majority as inherently inaccessible.
A prohibition on what is understood as elitist language also assumes that people from poorer backgrounds with fewer opportunities for quality education either cannot or do not want to learn. In reality, attaining a good education is seen as a form of empowerment in many poorer communities, yet few activists attempt to diffuse that education when communicating with less privileged people. By avoiding academic language and analysis outside of their own circles, privileged activists maintain a relationship of dependency, in which they act as gatekeepers to knowledge, forever necessary to translate law, scientific studies, political analysis, et cetera, into “plain language.”
I have mixed feelings on this, though I agree with the overall sentiment. There is a lot of condescension about who is capable of using certain kinds of language and structures. There is a lot of condescension about who knows what.
But there are also areas that do require this, such as science communication. This is perhaps an area that I think more people could turn to for an adequate understanding of how to incorporate jargon and so-called "plain language." This is largely because there is an intent of many scientists to speak over those they're conversing with and to assume they are universally correct (pretending that culture does not impact them and their "objective" reality), and it really is a problem.
This is also an issue with a lot of philosophy and political communicators, though I suspect it's largely to con their audience and perpetuate their grift. It's not so much about simplifying the language to be accessible because they prefer to "sound intelligent" and to confuse (much in the way that con artists use language), based on our stereotypes. I do think these differences need to be more apparent in these kinds of conversations.
The other assumption inherent in the criticism is the idea that certain types of language are inherently elitist. Larger vocabularies and more complex syntax are in fact very helpful tools, though people require more education to be able to use them. It is not the language, but this country’s capitalist, racist education system that is elitist. The job of educated activists is to make that education accessible, and hand that language over as a popular tool. We don’t want made-for-the-masses Orwellian newspeak, we want languages that are liberated and demystified.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to subvert education, and educate subversion? To expose and overcome the patriarchal norm that makes an intellectual crime of asking: “What does that mean?” We should use the forms of language we’re comfortable with, academic or otherwise, as long as we do it lucidly, in a way that invites learning and sharing of that knowledge. Those around us would be better off for it. Similarly, we can benefit from learning the different types of language that other people use. Recognize the variety of languages, but upset the economic, racial, and gendered hierarchy in which these languages have been placed.