Troubling the quest for clarity

Clarity in writing is a taken-for-granted virtue, particularly in disability studies amidst the politics of accessibility and plain language. This article troubles such imperatives through three arguments. First, the quest for clarity is futile because clarity is subjective, there is little agreement on how it can be achieved, and sometimes ‘clear’ writing obscures or distorts the original meaning. Second, the demand for clarity in writing is often driven by non-innocent ideological imperatives that celebrate or renounce some ideas over others. Calls for clarity converge with complaints pitted against particular theories, such as post-structuralist disability studies, which are criticised for their ‘obfuscation’. Third, the call for clarity undermines the multivalent and multivocal nature of disabled embodiment and communication. Consequently, while recognising that all types of writing are appropriate in particular contexts, the article explores the value of ‘unclear writing’ and advocates for the proliferation of multivalent and multivocal expression.