Deliberate Obscurity

I understand that in a theoretical discussion (just as in law and other generalizing disciplines), there is a certain vagueness that can creep into the language because you are trying to use words that would encompass the broadest range of categories as you write. You are not talking about a specific phenomenon, but rather a class of phenomena, and in order to accurately represent every element in that class, you must be very general, which can lead to a vagueness that borders on uselessness. That's where example becomes useful. BUT, it also is the responsibility of the writer to make those generalities as easily understood as possible while allowing for all the possibilities they might refer to. But this following passage of lit theory is just ridiculous:

"In epistemological terms, the realist internalization of precept within example only sophisticates the anti-naturalizing pedagogy of more traditional exemplarity. Here the gendering of realims as feminine expresses less the reality principle over against male fantasy and romance than the subtle indirection of realist pedagogy, which internalizes precept within example as the domestic pedagogue accommodates the outspoken rationality of the law to the interiority of the domestic virtues"

It took me about fifteen minutes to get it fully square in my head what the author was trying to say here. I would figure out part of it, but then the next part would be confusing and by the time I'd puzzled through it, I had to go back to the previous part and try to remember what it translated to.

AND, I had to read about ten pages further (where the subject comes up again) and then come back to this quote to really understand what it was saying.

Now that's just bad writing.