I can only say that I use the language I need for my work. For instance, Hegel's book is difficult, but it's not that Hegel said: "How can I make my reader's life a misery?" He had certain references, allusions, and readings. In my case, such allusions also cause difficulties. I am not interested in being a descriptive and expository writer. Eventually, I make all theoretical framework my own even if I may be drawing upon Foucault, Lacan, and Mahatma Gandhi. The attempt at making new connections, articulating new meanings, always takes the risk of being not immediately comprehensible to readers.In an interview with Sachidananda Mohanty, Homi K. Bhabha expresses his annoyance about people talking about "easy access to a work and a notion of transparency without thinking of what is really involved." and also talks about nature of his work at the Radcliffe Institute on cultural citizenship:
I am interested in the global context of the issue of global citizenship. Citizenship has largely been seen in its social, political and legal aspects. How does aesthetic and ethical experience form part of cultural citizenship?