Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:11:49 +0200 From: blast <blast-AT-worldnet.net> Subject: absurd? Longtime lurker on the digest--speaking up. What bothers me about the Sokal affair and subsequent reactions to it, besides the fact that nobody posted the article so I have to go on the excerpts from NYT/CNN (?) cause I'm over in France, is that what he says in the parody excerpts is *not* so absurd. There are enough differing accounts for/explanations of the most basic and simple questions one could ask, that I can understand why Social Text might have been happy to see a recognition of the diversity of "reality constructs" from someone working in the "empirical sciences." Anthropologists have been trying to wrap their brains around the multiplicity of realities for years; and trying to get the rest of us to do it as well. Yeah, he uses nasty tricks, like naming a new age phenomena as a movement in quantum physics. But it isn't that dupe which ought to get us paranoid, or the endless worrying that acknowledging a multiplicity of beliefs is "soft" or silly. What should worry us is that people believe that there *is* a hard reality and don't look at, what I find to be, the more important question: what is the meaning and significance of this or that reality construct? Of course it seems silly when Sokal and his pandering CNN reporter say, more or less, "some of these people think that earth doesn't exist." Of course it seems silly because it's a ridiculous dilution of the question. Some cultures might not ask that question, or they might ask it in a different way; and explanations differ--arguably, according to the needs of the culture. There's nothing "wishy-washy" in acknowledging this. I also don't think that Sokal's prank should be viewed as a cause for greater attention to methodology in cross-disciplinary study--that would be bestowing too great a weight on a dangerous argument which should be simply refuted (let other critiques tell us when to tighten our belts thank you very much). Tell him to go spend a week with the Australian aborigines--asking them, does the world exist? How would he carry out his parody of Aboriginal thought when one of them answered "which world?" I only bring this up because, while some critiques of the Sokal prank have been thoughtful, and others reflecting a belief in a "hard" reality (watch out all you philosophers, specially you lefties, cause that's dangerous), no one has pointed out the danger of this kind of thinking. Dogmatic positions regarding the underlying or indisputable "truth" of certain assumptions has been the basis for colonialism, imperialism, cultural imperialism and plenty of other evils I'm sure all of you know about. Sure, our western brand of hard-truth helps G.E. get its satellites in self-correcting orbit, but it also wipes out populations and can spur genocide. Social theorists who try to acknowledge and even comprehend the diversity of "reality constructs" have a particularly difficult time, cause the work is not always observation and notation, or developing a new theory, or augmenting an existing body of knowledge--the work is taking several steps back, shedding deeply ingrained understandings of the world, and trying to take in a different tack. No wonder it seems flaky to those unwilling to try it. Also, the language to describe their efforts hasn't really been invented yet--is there a word for "the-pernicious-effect-of-seductive-western-belief-systems-due-to-the-power- they-demonstrate-via-technology"? No, but there is a word for "rocket science." Which is more ineffable? -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT- blast-AT-worldnet.net = Nicholas Chaikin (33 1) 42.51.78.08 11 Rue Custine * 75018, Paris, France ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005