File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_May.96, message 65


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


     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005