Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:13:08 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Scott's Sokal article


>          I  like satire very much, and  have  a
>          strong interest in the phenomenon of the literary hoax as well --
>          but  the ethical question of whether  or  not  Sokal violated the
>          tacit norm of scholarly communication by his action is a real and
>          serious  question,  for  example.   The  ordinary  assumption  of
>          serious people  in  such matters  is  that, however  one  regards
>          someone's intervention, they are writing in  good faith.

Criteria such as 'serious' and 'good faith' are matters of judgement,
depending very much on your basic values. If the values don't coincide,
neither will your ideas of 'seriousness' or 'good faith'. Sokal revealed a
big value gap by his hoax. If we agree more with his basic values than
those of Social Text, we'll applaud his hoax. There is no 'absolute' realm
of 'scholarly communication' where one set of rules hold. This is a
fetishized myth of powerful social institutions. Sokal's polemic highlights
what Aristotle called the dialectical aspect of logical enquiry, and there
are no hard and fast rules there. Once you've established your axioms,
there are rules of scientific evidence and proof -- that's another matter.

I don't see an ethical problem. I see a problem of institutional power.
Sokal made a mockery of an institution one of whose attributes is
apparently to take itself in great earnest. This is something not to be
undertaken lightly. In the Iliad, Thersites gets a lot of stick for his
irreverence. (Mind you, it's not the 'humour' thing, so much as the 'saying
what you shouldn't' -- Cassandra gets coldshouldered by the Trojans, and
she's not being satirical.)

Satire and irony are also often weapons of the weak against the strong.
Especially irony presupposes an 'underground' consensus of a 'we' that
knows what's what,even if it's not supposed to exist. It flourished under
Stalinism (wonderful example: Brecht's poem on the workers' uprising of
1953 in East Berlin 'Would it not be better for the government to elect a
new people?') and it's been very strong in Britain (Monty Python). The
trouble is that a lot of this kind of 'humour' relies on exaggeration, and
these days it's getting very difficult to exaggerate the venality,
brutality, ignorance and arrogance of those in power. Just as it's getting
difficult to parody the excesses of pretentious obscurantism -- they do it
too well themselves.

So, Sokal needs defending by the community whose values he appeals to
against the institution he's mocking (and if the report of dozens of people
in the know at the university and remaining silent is true, this is not a
disloyal community). And the conflict of values at issue sidelines the
'seriousness' and 'good faith' problem -- these are after all
individualizing and psychologizing criteria that polarize the affair into a
popularity (or power) contest more than it would be anyway. It should be
emphasized that prestige, injured collegiality and so on are secondary
issues in relation to the main issue. Which was about talking sense on
important matters, right, as opposed to tolerating self-promoting
obscurantism?

Sokal drew blood. If we support him, we should try and keep him from
getting gored in return.

Cheers,

Hugh









I  know
>          Sokal's argument is  made more powerfully through his  hoax  than
>          it would be  if  he had, say, reviewed Ross's last book.  But the
>          ethical problem remains.
>
>          Secondly,   there   is   the   question   of   whether   or   not
>          interdisciplinary work should, or even can,  be subjected to  the
>          same  means  of evaluation appropriate to  more traditional work.
>          Sokal  notes  that  a  persona competent in  physics  would  have
>          laughed  at  his manuscript.  Was  SOCIAL  TEXT required to  have
>          Sokal's manuscript evaluated  by  another physicist?  Would  that
>          have made sense, given that  the whole point of "science studies"
>          (or whatever they call it) is to create a zone of inquiry outside
>          established traditions of  both sociology of  science and history
>          of science?  (By  no means do  I endorse their project; I'm  just
>          posing this hypothetically).
>
>          These are real issues.  What Stanley Aronowitz smells like -- one
>          of Ralph Dumain's *idees fixes*, one that is  of many --  is not.
>          As  for  the contention that  LINGUA  FRANCA  is  just  a  trendy
>          magazine, I of course weep bitter tears at this cruel remark; but
>          I take  a little satisfaction in knowing that we were, after all,
>          who published Sokal's hilarious expose.
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---