Scholarly Narratives?

Jameson notes that “…one of the other striking features of MacIntyre’s book is one of the newest and most profound tendencies of contemporary thought in general, namely the increasing foregrounding of narrative itself as a fundamental instance of human understanding” (152). While I find myself inclined to agree with the argument for the value of narrative, I wish, for a moment, to lay this conception of narrative alongside the following:
Yet it is precisely from the standpoint of anti-Utopianism that MacIntyre renounces the active part of his Marxian heritage – as well as repudiating the Nietzche-an Utopia of the Ubermensch and indeed all overtly political movements and causes generally (152).
I confess this passage is largely unintelligible to me. I have a vague sense of what Utopia is, and therefore an equally (if not more) vague sense of ‘Anti-Utopia’. However, I have no understanding of the particularly ‘Nietzche-an Utopia’ Jameson references, nor do I have any idea of what sort of Marxism MacIntyre is in particular indebted to for his heritage. Perhaps none of this matters; after all, despite offering so many particulars, Jameson suggests that MacIntyre ‘renounces…all overtly political movements and causes generally.’ But I think it’s worth questioning why Jameson writes in such a fashion. Who is his intended audience? (I am certainly not it – if so I’m sure he would never have used such specific rhetoric.) What is the intended goal of this short paper? (I assume it is to point out MacIntyre’s debt to Marx – but what I don’t understand is why that in and of itself is important.) I have no doubt that to his intended audience these detailed references carry weight, and that the meaning of his article is far clearer for the inclusion of them (perhaps those among you to whom these all make sense think my relegation of terms like Ubermensch to ‘details’ is absurd). I don’t suggest Jameson should be broader in his description or approach. But I do wonder whether his argument – even his key point – would be clearer were it delivered with a greater degree of narration.
Partly I offer this suggestion because I am frustrated by the format of the scholarly article in general. The specific passage I’ve outlined offers a microcosm of some reasons why: the chosen tone and the specifics offered divide the audience into those who really struggle to understand the argument and those to whom it is crystal clear. Yet I have a feeling that those to whom this passage is murky far outweigh those to whom it is crystal clear. While I recognize the value of communicating with a specific audience, I wonder whether it is possible for the same message to be communicated to a broader audience? Or if it is indeed necessary to the advancement of Jameson and MacIntyre’s joint audience that this article be written exactly as it was. Perhaps more importantly, if it was not necessary for the article to be written exactly as it was, why was it written in this way?
Partly I offer the question about narrative because I think my own response to these articles would be of more value if I felt it were acceptable for me to write a narrative of my own response. But previous efforts to offer narrative in my academic work have generally (admittedly not always) been met with disdain, the typical criticism being that they are neither critical nor analytical. Given that I think most clearly in narrative form and understand other people’s ideas best when they are delivered with some story-telling aspects, I wish to challenge the assumption that good scholarship avoids narrative.
I think Jameson does this as well, to some degree, in the second full paragraph on page 152. Yet his choice to write his article in a more scholarly form suggests that, much as the idea of narrative as a form of ethical or philosophical argument piques his interest, he is not actively in support of it (or at least, he isn’t here). To bring this back to ethics: what are the implications of choosing to write in a certain style? Do Academics have a responsibility to make their writing intelligible to a broader audience? Should the consideration of private vs. public funding impact this decision? Where do we situate this particular article?