4 ms·

> I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. I don’t think that’s the real problem with the

> I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. I don’t think that’s the real problem with the word “problematic”. So many other words have the same problem—“bad” doesn’t say anything about what the badness is, “difficult” doesn’t say anything about the difficulty, etc. “Green” doesn’t say anything about greenness. I think the problem people have with problematic is that you’re taking a subjective claim and making it sound like a property of the object. If the taste of the public is “problematic” then it means that someone has a problem with it, but that someone is absent from the sentence. The word “problematic” is, eh, fine. Writers and speakers shouldn’t be injecting subjects into sentences just because the sentences express opinion. There’s not necessarily any kind of clear subject to introduce. The author/speaker is usually better used as an implicit subject for subjective statements. I have other problems in Adorno’s claims here but I have somewhat accepted the word “problematic”.

jrm4 2y ago
Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic: Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.
- klodolph 2y ago
  Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    I think of it like the writing advice that tells you not to use words like good, bad, and nice, since they are low information density. My general feeling is you could replace the word problematic with a much more specific word in every single context where it's used, and the message would be clearer.
    - klodolph 2y ago
      Ok, could you replace Umberto Eco’s use of the word “problematic”? It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.
      - rpdillon 2y ago
        Ah, I wasn't clear; I was referring to the modern usage which seem to mean "a thing that I see problems with". I'm unfamiliar with the original definition and have never heard it colloquially, so I'm not sure how it's used. This is an old discussion now, so I won't post too much more here, but in responding to this, I decided to do a bit of research on "problematic", and it seems (from Merriam Webster) that the first use was in 1609, and was indeed exactly the sense we use it today: "posing a problem: difficult to resolve or decide". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic So let's say Umberto Eco's use of problematic was indeed in this sense (as I haven't heard a very compelling alternative). My point is that _he_ could replace problematic with what he's really trying to say, but of course I can't because I'm not the speaker and I don't know what he means. But I can take a few (bad) guesses: 1) The public's music taste is a problem for him because they don't appreciate the aspects of music that he thinks are most valuable. In this case, the phrase would be "congenial to the unsophisticated taste of the public". 2) The public's taste could be a problem because they want easy, convenient access to music via radio and TV, and Eco believes the true value of music can only be expressed live, where the listener has more agency. The phrase here would be "congenial to the convenience the public demands". 3) Maybe the public just doesn't like classical music, and like rock instead. Maybe ""congenial to the modern music taste of the public" would work here. I could go on and on: the point is, if this were written instead of spoken, and I were the editor, and circle the work "problematic" in red and write in the margin "What are you really trying to convey here?" It would then be a discussion point with the author to dig into the real point so it could be conveyed clearly. But this is an (translated?) interview, so I don't think that bar is appropriate, but I still think there's ambiguity.
        2y ago
  - jrm4 2y ago
    No. To use a metaphor, we're talking about the weather and you're saying technically true but useless things about climate.
  - gweinberg 2y ago
    I think "problematic" is more or less used a synonym for "bad", except the speaker wants to indicate "this isn't just not to my personal tastes, you are a wicked person if you don't agree".
    - jrm4 2y ago
      That's exactly it. And I don't mind calling someone wicked, but you really should be clear exactly WHY you think they are wicked.

jrm4 2y ago

Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic: Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.

klodolph 2y ago
Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas? Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.
- rpdillon 2y ago
  I think of it like the writing advice that tells you not to use words like good, bad, and nice, since they are low information density. My general feeling is you could replace the word problematic with a much more specific word in every single context where it's used, and the message would be clearer.
  - klodolph 2y ago
    Ok, could you replace Umberto Eco’s use of the word “problematic”? It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.
    - rpdillon 2y ago
      Ah, I wasn't clear; I was referring to the modern usage which seem to mean "a thing that I see problems with". I'm unfamiliar with the original definition and have never heard it colloquially, so I'm not sure how it's used. This is an old discussion now, so I won't post too much more here, but in responding to this, I decided to do a bit of research on "problematic", and it seems (from Merriam Webster) that the first use was in 1609, and was indeed exactly the sense we use it today: "posing a problem: difficult to resolve or decide". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic So let's say Umberto Eco's use of problematic was indeed in this sense (as I haven't heard a very compelling alternative). My point is that _he_ could replace problematic with what he's really trying to say, but of course I can't because I'm not the speaker and I don't know what he means. But I can take a few (bad) guesses: 1) The public's music taste is a problem for him because they don't appreciate the aspects of music that he thinks are most valuable. In this case, the phrase would be "congenial to the unsophisticated taste of the public". 2) The public's taste could be a problem because they want easy, convenient access to music via radio and TV, and Eco believes the true value of music can only be expressed live, where the listener has more agency. The phrase here would be "congenial to the convenience the public demands". 3) Maybe the public just doesn't like classical music, and like rock instead. Maybe ""congenial to the modern music taste of the public" would work here. I could go on and on: the point is, if this were written instead of spoken, and I were the editor, and circle the work "problematic" in red and write in the margin "What are you really trying to convey here?" It would then be a discussion point with the author to dig into the real point so it could be conveyed clearly. But this is an (translated?) interview, so I don't think that bar is appropriate, but I still think there's ambiguity.
      - 2y ago
- jrm4 2y ago
  No. To use a metaphor, we're talking about the weather and you're saying technically true but useless things about climate.
- gweinberg 2y ago
  I think "problematic" is more or less used a synonym for "bad", except the speaker wants to indicate "this isn't just not to my personal tastes, you are a wicked person if you don't agree".
  - jrm4 2y ago
    That's exactly it. And I don't mind calling someone wicked, but you really should be clear exactly WHY you think they are wicked.