Decades ago I read a small book by Theodor Adorno called The Jargon of Authenticity. It was a rather narrow and specific critique of Heidegger and some of his fellow existential philosophers. I think of it often when jargons are being discussed. The word jargon is a pejorative term for the specialized vocabulary of groups. (A more neutral term is sociolect, a bit of socio-linguistic jargon.) Most often jargon is the vocabulary of a group one does not belong to. The concept, and it is quite common, is that jargon is not used to facilitate communication between members of the group, but is used to, at best, obfuscate the topic under discussion and make it less meaningful to outsiders. And even worse interpretation of jargon is that it has no meaning and is used to hide the fact that there is no topic under discussion and its use is merely to confound outsiders. More often than not, these assumptions are incorrect, but I have always wondered if the assumptions were made with good faith or just an obstinacy to try to understand what is being discussed.

I would think that, in most cases, jargon would cover topics that aren't easily handled by commonly understood language and would be difficult for insiders to communicate to outsiders. "I could explain what we mean by defundibulation, but you would need at least an undergraduate degree in Reverse Quantum Psychology to understand it." It then becomes easy for the outsider to conclude that the reverse quantum psychologists really don't have anything useful to say and are just using the jargon to cover that fact up.

Most often jargon is the vocabulary of a group one does not belong to. That reminds me of when I read that most people say that anyone driving slower than they are is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than they are is a maniac!

In my office we were aware that we were using jargon, and said so. I somewhat disagree about the word being a pejorative term. Certainly it would seem so to people who feel insulted by being excluded, but I think there are surely a lot of people who understand the need for jargon--at least at work--and may indeed be thankful they've not had to learn all that!

I will say that at a non-work social gathering it would be very rude for 2+ people who work together to speak their jargon at length in this setting.

I don't know if this is a defense of the use of jargon in such a setting, but sometimes people in some field will see things outside of their field in terms of their field and would tend to use what is to them applicable jargon to discuss it. If they're talking shop, that's probably a no-no, but whatchagunna do?

Very interesting topic. I think the diverse uses of jargon cover a very broad spectrum. There are fields, like education or economy, where most people think they are experts. They will be impressed rather than repelled by the corresponding jargon. If you talk natural sciences, on the other hand, the jargon is much less popular, and newspaper editors tend to put "so-called" in front of every technical term.

I think without jargon it would extremely tedious for experts to communicate amongst themselves. The fact that people who think they're experts use jargon to project authority or at least familiarity with a particular subject doesn't detract from the need of genuine experts.

I agree. jargon seems to arise from coining a term that fills a specific need in a group that shares a specific interest. Skiers discussing snow conditions or engineers planning a project, etc. Describing snow as cornmeal lets me say in one word what would take a sentence of more to explain to someone who doesn't know the jargon.
There is a grey area as well where jargon and technical terms overlap.

I fully agree with you about the usefulness of jargon when it's used in specific professional fields. In the fields that concern philosophy, psychologoly and art however there's a lot of sham involved. Supposed to be directed at outsiders, communicative and interacting with a public and clients have developed an irritating tendency to veil, obscure and erode all clear meaning.
Since both art and philosophy have been declared dead more that once, the lame is assisting the blind.

In the fields that concern philosophy, psychologoly and art however there's a lot of sham involved.

I see two possibilities: (1) these fields are by their very nature shams and no amount of jargon or other cosmetic can cover that fact, or (2) what is being discussed is authentic and the jargon just helps in the communication (as I suggested), but what is being discussed is distasteful or unworthy of discussion in the view of the outsider.

These fields are authentic and I said there is a lot of sham, certainly not all of it is. I reject (1) and for (2); jargon helps in the communication as long as the people involved check very carefully what they are doing, saying or writing.
Well, I guess everybody tries.
The pressure from within the arts-philosophy 'field' to come up with new ideas, surprising, 'engaged' manifestations is so commanding that people overreach themselves or just sham it. I think.

jargon helps in the communication as long as the people involved check very carefully what they are doing, saying or writing. Well, I guess everybody tries.

Yes, I never suggested that the communication is good or that it actually takes place, but that most people are trying to communicate something. Even purveyors of the most obfuscatory prose are trying to say something. I may not like or be buying it or even be swayed and persuaded by it, but I willing to give them my attention, at least until I determine what it is they are trying to say. More often than not, I simply find that people discount what somebody may be discussing because of some jargon creeping into the dialog. I do think it is important not to take jargon for granted when discussing something with somebody who is not in-group, but whether to explain terms as one uses them or to try to paraphrase the terms is a strategy for another thread.

One situation that often arises with using jargon is as follows:

Experts use jargon when discussing a topic.

Non-experts or lesser-experts begin using the jargon without fully understanding it (occasionally perhaps without understanding it at all).

This alternative usage becomes widespread.

At first it's just wrong, but how many people have to adopt it before we consider it a legitimate alternative? (I have no idea.)

In conversation, non-experts use a term to communicate something with the expert, each thinking the communication has been clear (and maybe it has and maybe it has not).

>Even purveyors of the most obfuscatory prose are trying to say something.

Forgive me, I know we don't call this 'jargon' but I had to look up those two words to understand that here is talk of providers of confusing prose. Footnote? it made me grin

It made me grin.

Excellent. Even footnoted humor is sometimes funny ...

No, you're absolutely right.