Post

Picked up a copy of "Hyperpolitics" on a whim after seeing it promoted all over the place and I can only conclude that Verso have an amazing marketing department because there's not much substance here and the evidence base is weak.

The book has had glowing write-ups in various papers and magazines and the author was just interviewed on Ezra Klein's New York Times podcast. Apparently, a lot of people on the left have taken note of it.

So what's it about? Good question. The author affects a prose style common to some left-wing writers which includes: 1) Adjectives in place of nouns [e.g. "metaphorics" instead of "metaphors"] 2) Long words over short ones 3) Lots of French expressions All of this obfuscates his argument.

As a result, it's hard to know what "hyperpolitics" really means. You have to chase it down. Of course, that makes it hard to argue against because the author can just say "you haven't understood it". E.g. here's the thesis statement, which does not define hyperpolitics at all.

In my view, this is bad. Authors share a common budget with their readers. You either work to make your writing clear or you shift the burden onto the reader to work out what the hell you meant. I think most would agree that you do your reader a disservice by expecting them to do most of the work.

As for the evidence, the author draws on all sorts of stuff in the book, mainly contemporary history and literature. But he introduces his thesis by referencing this figure, which purports to show politicisation and institutionalisation over time.

I was curious about this plot because 1) there was no label on the y-axis 2) the institutionalisation series is too smooth 3) the politicisation series spikes so much towards the end that it clearly lacks face validity. So I wanted to know where these data came from.

Turns out, the author just ... made them up 🤷‍♂️. I can't get over this. It really doesn't seem ok to me for someone to draw some squiggles, claim that they're illustrative of something in the real world, then act as though it's akin to evidence. The vibes you feel aren't data!

Maybe I'm too dumb for this stuff. I don't know. But it was a dispiriting read because I believe that we can do a hell of a lot better than made-up data and unclear prose.

My advice: pick up a copy of Politics and the English Language instead www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...

My assumption was the argument is basically Peter Mair's Ruling the Void?

It's a common 'in the pub' belief in science academia that this sort of obscurantist language is a self-perpetuating 'entry-ticket' thing in arts & humanities... also commonly seen as reflecting taste of many folk in those areas for polemic & sweeping statement, rather than dull stuff like evidence.

I swear, no one has bullshit detectors anymore!