I've always tried to walk a fine line between academic and popular writing. There's a certain body of literature called "critical theory," most of it authored by French philosophers and imported into humanities departments (especially in literature). It's more or less the opposite of empirical research, where you actually go out and do studies or field work. With this, you just learn to talk with a sophisticated jargon and accuse anyone who doesn't as indoctrinated or "un-critical." Instead of believing that something is true or false, they see it as true or false only in a political context--the "man" says what is true and you should be suspicious at all times. The stuff we read doesn't say what's true either, but only that we should "problematicize" everything, discovering bogeyman everywhere. Granted, there is often a need to be skeptical and to consider alternatives, but, on the other hand, it's also important to act and not get mired in endless, fruitless discussion.

I heard it described one time in a funny way. The idea was that academics (at least of this stripe) were susceptible to this sort of stuff because they are so highly educated, yet so poorly paid and respected by the rest of society. Naturally, it's easy to slip into the mindset that any society in which the "elites" were so unloved and weak must be thoroughly and completely broken. I guess in our society it makes sense to take these highly educated people and dump them in an environment where all that negativity and cynicism doesn't affect anyone outside the academy. You probably wouldn't want these people instigating riots and plotting the overthrow of the government. Just give them a teaching gig somewhere and let them intellectually masturbate all day.