WTF does that mean? Kicking the habit of exclusionary writing and high theory junkiedom

You know what dear reader? Academics are unashamed theory junkies. Wrestling with dense ideas gets our blood pumping. Currently, our research collectives and online chats are enthralled by posthumanism. Here, the world is in relation between the human and more-than-human. An everexpansive sexy vital assemblage of materiality, things, senses and affectivities. Yummy. But thereby
danger lies. These delectable theories are jam-packed with dense terminology and everything~has/tildes-slashes. It makes our heads hurt and has got to the point where we whisper; ‘are we in the service of theories that make our ideas inaccessible?’ I am talking to you, reviewer 2. So, we have a fresh desire heaving in our magnificent bosoms: we reimagine ourselves as veritable ruby tiara wearing writing angels who, instead of being servants of theory, put those same theories to work in the service of feminism. High theory is going to have the living daylights kicked out of it and taken down a peg or two. We refuse to get high on dense language and grammatical tics. We will make ideas inclusive and reject exclusionary postering and have theory do our bidding. We have kicked theory junkiedom! Oh look, a new word! Darn.

We are a rag taggle of online collectives [#bagladies; FPHMT Ephemeral Chat] consisting of PhD students, early career and more established researchers. Our online chat contains many WTF questions where we stumble in the dark together with our dalliances with feminist posthuman, materialist and post qualitative theories. In short, we get a lot of questions about why we are aligned with theories that can be dense and exclusionary. Our wild quick-fire chats commiserate and reassure each other. We know we are onto something, but wallow in the mire of theory junkiedom now and again because it is so darn delicious.