Return to Answer

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

 

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, maybe Hegel.)

[Edit: actually never mind, I think he was probably referring to the German phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger, who also wrote badly. These philosophers directly influenced French existentialism e.g. Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, against which post-structuralism was partly a reaction. So I guess French post-structuralist philosophers would have been quite familiar with German phenomenology.]

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, maybe Hegel.)

[Edit: actually never mind, I think he was probably referring to the German phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger, who also wrote badly. These philosophers directly influenced French existentialism e.g. Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, against which post-structuralism was partly a reaction. So I guess French post-structuralist philosophers would have been quite familiar with German phenomenology.]

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, maybe Hegel.

[Edit: actually never mind, I think he was probably referring to the German phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger, who also wrote badly. These philosophers directly influenced French existentialism e.g. Merleau Ponty and Sartre, against which post-structuralism was partly a reaction. So I guess French post-structuralist philosophers would have been quite familiar with German phenomenology.]

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, maybe Hegel.)

[Edit: actually never mind, I think he was probably referring to the German phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger, who also wrote badly. These philosophers directly influenced French existentialism e.g. Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, against which post-structuralism was partly a reaction. So I guess French post-structuralist philosophers would have been quite familiar with German phenomenology.]

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, presumably Hegel).

John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him,

If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible.

[Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"]

And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered,

It's worse than 10%, more like 20%.

I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, maybe Hegel.

[Edit: actually never mind, I think he was probably referring to the German phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger, who also wrote badly. These philosophers directly influenced French existentialism e.g. Merleau Ponty and Sartre, against which post-structuralism was partly a reaction. So I guess French post-structuralist philosophers would have been quite familiar with German phenomenology.]