While dissecting (please note my careful word choice) Haraway's piece this past week on my own and in lecture, a simple thought occurred to me: is the author's writing style effective? Does it do Donna J. Haraway or her cause any good to utilize such verbosity in "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective"? Case in point:
"Of course, a special interest group is, by Reaganoid definition, any collective historical subject which dares to resist the stripped-down atomism of Star Wars, hyper-market, postermodern, media-stimulated citizenship."
This sentence, among many others, struck me as odd--it should already be apparent to anyone selecting a piece by Haraway that she is fighting an up-hill battle in many respects; if that is indeed the case, why wouldn't she want her argument to be as clear as possible? One could argue that phrases like "atomism of Star Wars" only serve to take the reader farther away from the main message the author is attempting to convey.
On the other hand, there is much to discern from just a single sentence in Haraway's piece--as mentioned, the phrase "Reaganoid definition" is a throwback to the era of our 40th president when the collective term "special interest group" had a rather negative connotation fixed to it.
Alas, I present my case and leave it up to fellow writers to decide the verdict: Is "Situated Knowledges" deliciously dense or hopelessly confusing, and how does Haraway's writing style impact the effectiveness of her argument?