I know from my own time with the humanities that some adopt that kind of style to make themselves seem more profound and out of a desire to impress others because I was one of them (although I'm happy to have comparatively flattened the ego since then).
There's obviously a diversity of intentions behind why people would adopt a complex style (although I have no doubt the motivation I had is common) and some would be justified but I don't think it's wrong of me to point out that Butler's style is needlessly complicated as an example. When reading her words in particular, I sometimes find myself rephrasing in my head to make her point more digestible to myself (and I can't help feeling that random archaic English texts like Francis Bacon's Of Simulation and Dissimulation would be more readable to most, despite the outdated and unfamiliar language).
That's a sign of needless complexity in my opinion.
That's how I read it. IME with social science academics, it's accurate.
> Why would they do that?
To create a mystique of knowledge or superiority; to obfuscate controversial points; to prevent mainstream scrutiny; to exclude outsiders from giving criticism.
There are times where a Big Word is more precise than a smaller, common one, and the Big Word is preferred to writing 20 small words.
Then there are times where a Big Word is not more precise than a smaller, common one, and may even be less precise -- but it's chosen because it limits who can comprehend the work.
It's perfectly fine to read Butler and not understand it, in the same way as it would be for another to read a textbook on quantum mechanics. There seems to be a hidden assumption in what you say that holds that the domain/area-of-discourse Judith Butler is working in is one you should be able to understand without difficulty, but you really have no good reason to feel that. It's really not her job to ELI5 to everyone, or at least, its not something her peers or publishers care about. And why should they?
Yes, like in STEM, there is false positives, paper's and researchers that rise to the top that maybe shouldn't, but that is different than saying entire disciplines are sustained by bad faith.
I can't speak for the Gellner paper, but if you spend some time with it, understand a little about where she is working, Butler is a very rewarding writer that is incredibly influential to many many people. There isn't some conspiracy or shared delusion here. And the fact that she can say things that resonate with so many people in her domain, shows huge evidence of her general abilities around information comprehension, articulation, and communication.