16 Comments
User's avatar
Keith Lowe's avatar

Ah, this made me laugh out loud! It actually did.

Sam Leith's avatar

Flattered!

Heather Piper's avatar

You’ve inspired me to filter your newsletter to a FOSL folder. What a fun and interesting discussion with Ben Schott. Can’t wait to read his book.

tom flemming's avatar

Nice! When the shocking extent of Official Falsehood in the Trump 1 administration became clear, psychologists emerged to explain. One theory with some research support (sorry, cannot find refs now) dismissed the idea that the MAGA team really believed their nonsense; instead, publicly promoting obvious falsehoods is a demonstration of loyalty. By burning your own credibility in support of the Leader, you show the depth of your commitment. I wonder if the inanity of much bizbuzz has a similar effect. If you manage to coin the "mot juste" that captures the critical contours of the Problem We All Face with unprecedented concision, I lose no face by using it too, so it lacks signalling value. Better to come up with a clumsier buzzphrase so I can show the insiders I'm paying the price of admission ;)

Sam Leith's avatar

I think there’s definitely something in that. Speech-act theory can be a really penetrating way of thinking about communication

Callum Hackett's avatar

I'm a herd animal too but I speak in negative bollocks. Someone asked me a question to the effect: "if a bit of business bollocks happens to be a good way of putting something - a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that - must we really avoid it?" To which my answer is an emphatic 'yes' because my bollocks is an avoidance of *that* bollocks to maintain credibility with my fellow cynics!

Sam Leith's avatar

True, true. Goes a bit to my point about being a creature of journalism and literature. We’re natural enemies of business jargon. Also, per my footnote, obfuscatory cliche is one thing, whereas cliches of clarity/cognitive shortcuts are a whole other kettle of eels.

David's avatar

A lot of business bollocks is bollocks but some of it, despite looking like bollocks to civilians, is either a useful shorthand understood by both parties and thus none of anyone else’s, er, business; or else encodes a fine and important distinction not drawable any other way and again understood by both parties. Please don’t mistake efficient-although-ugly for phatic.

Sam Leith's avatar

Fair point. Every community has its terms of art and I respect that.

David's avatar

I take this personally, Sam

Matt Inwood's avatar

Really enjoyed the Hustvedt interview. I particularly liked the phrase ‘intellectual humility’. I’m enjoying the book too.

Sam Leith's avatar

Thank you!

Rob's avatar

“a flummoxing collection of modish buzzwords” oh my goodness that’s gorgeous.