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.

Ceci n'est pas un seing.