Upload
hajar-almahdaly
View
34
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONFESSIONS OF A DISAGREEABLE MAN.
A review of The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy Edited by
the Editors ofLingua Franca, Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press.
If you give me your attention I will tell you what I am: I'm a genuine
philanthropist all other kinds are sham. Each little fault of temper and each
social defect In my erring fellow-creatures I endeavor to correct. To all their
little weaknesses I open people's eyes; And little plans to snub the self-
sufficient I devise; I love my fellow creatures I do all the good I can--Yet
everybody says I'm such a disagreeable man! And I can't think why!
W.S. Gilbert, King Gama's song from Princess Ida
I SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN INTO the role of professional
Diagreeable Man during the past few years; perhaps I have a natural
affinity for it. At any rate, many of the commentators to the volume under
consideration vigorously argue that I, along with various "science wars"
allies, am a nasty piece of work, intent on defaming worthy scholarship and
discrediting noble political aims. For my own part, hearing from one such
critic that "the book [Higher Superstition] by Gross and Levitt, did an
unbelieveable amount of damage," brightens up my day and puts aspring in
my step. Alas, however, The Sokal Hoaxis only incidentally about me, as the
title clearly indicates. The chief target of all the praise and blame is Alan
Sokal, whose well known prank at the expense of the journal Social Text in
1996 brought the science wars out of the dim corridors of academia and
thrust them onto the front page of the New York Times.
I
A few days after the now-celebrated (or reviled) hoax article appeared in the
"Science Wars" issue (double no. 46/47) of Social Text; Sokal blew the
whistle on himself in the magazine Lingua Franca, which might best be
described as a high-class gossip sheet for academics, especially young and
trendy types in the humanities and social sciences. From there, the story
took off and made a considerable media splash, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Comments proliferated in newspapers, and the Internet came alive with
discussion and polemic. A good deal of the response came from academic
bigwigs, for whom the Sokal affair brought to a head many of the
contentious issues that had been seething just below the placid
surface of university life.
The Sokal Hoax, edited (rather anonymously) by "the editors of Lingua
Franca," is a modest but useful compendium concerning the hoax. The
editors' terse introduction provides some chronology, but not much
substantive commentary. The book gets going in earnest
with areprint of Sokal's mischievious article "Transgressing the
Boundaries," followed by his Lingua Franca "confession," and the extensive
correspondence published afterward. Various newspaper accounts come
next, among them the New York Times story by Janny
Scott. A miscellany ofessays then provides a spectrum of academic views,
pro-Sokal and con. These include a numberof attempts by Social Text
editors to get themselves off the hook, together with a few of Sokal's
responses. The most substantial and valuable pieces, in my opinion, are
lengthy analyses by Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg and New York
University philosopher Paul Boghossian (originally published in the New
York Review of Books and the London Times Literary Supplement respectiv
ely.)
It's nice to have all these sources together in one binding, but most of them
were already three years old when the book went to press, and have already
been carefully scrutinized by Hoax aficionados. Much of this material was
posted to various Internet sites long ago. I gather that the volume was more
or less put together a couple of years back, and that publishing
arrangements took some time to complete. The worst effect of this delay is
that the most important development in the story since 1996, the
publication of Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense (Impostures
Intellectuelles, in the original French edition), is completely ignored. This
book, a dead serious and systematic critique of the way in which prominent
postmodern intellectuals flaunt their supposed knowledge of science while
remaining substantially ignorant of the scientific matters involved,
generated a furor all its own, at least as venomous as and possibly more
revealing than the initial flap over the hoax itself. It would have been ver y
useful if The Sokal Hoax had included excerpts from Sokal/Bricmont, as well
as someof the reaction, for instance, J. Sturrock's sneering review "Le
pauvre Sokal" in the London Review of Books, together with the
unprecedented avalanche of disdain that LRB's readers subsequently
dumped on poor Sturrock's head.
Another defect is that, given the narrow focus on the minutiae of the hoax,
there is little broad discussion of the tensions afflicting the thought and
politics of university based intellectuals, ofwhich the "science wars" uproar
is one local manifestation. The larger story of how a journal originally
intended to foster theorizing useful to left-wing organizers and activists
eventually became the sort of thing that angered and exasperated honest-to-
goodness leftists like Sokal and most of his allies is pretty much ignored.
The real heart of the matter is the long-developing fissure in the
community of left-leaning intellectuals over the usefulness or
harmfulness of the trendy philosophical conceits that have recently besotted
so many academics. This, rather than the immediate squabbles, is what
gives Sokal's joke whatever lasting significance it turns out to have.
II
Ross's wit is an alien language. It is no more intelligible to Gross and Levitt
than the technical language of Levitt's topological research is to me.
George Levine, "What is Science Studies For, and Who Cares?" Social Text
46/47
The Sokal Hoax is also disappointing in that it tones down the comedic
aspects of the hoax, which, after all, was a deliberately dumb practical joke
that only worked because it was aimed at people who--let's face it--weren't
the sharpest knives in the drawer. The inside story had more than its
share of drolleries and ironies, which readers might well have appreciated.
First of all, there is the genesis of the Social Text "Science Wars' issue
itself. The compendium (I modestly point out) was originally conceived
as a collective counterblast against one particular book, Higher
Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, of which I
happen to be co-author. The chief instigators of the riposte were prominent
professors in cultural studies and sociology who had seen their books about
science, culture, and politics savaged in the pages ofHigher Superstition,
and, quite understandably, wanted to retaliate. On the other hand, Sokal
started working on his prank article in the summer of 1994
after a reading of Higher Superstition nudged him into checking into the
literature of postmodern, social-constructivist, and radical feminist science-
critique. The intellectual shortcomings of this stuff, as he was surprised to
discover, were even worse than had been alleged in my book. This prompted
him to concoct the hoax. Note that social Text was chosen as a target, and,
indeed, the hoax article was submitted to the journal, before its plans
for a special science-wars issue were even known to Sokal. The key factor
prompting that choice was that the Social Text editors, very familiar
characters on the New York left-intellectual scene, were--I search for a not-
too-disagreeablelocution--rather transparent souls. Loath as I am to
contradict my learned colleague George Levine, a reading of their purported
wit (or wisdom) makes it pretty clear how to push their buttons.
By a stroke of luck, Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries:
Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" arrived at
Social Text just as the science-wars issue was getting underway. It was
accepted very quickly as a welcome recruit in the struggle.
The long months between the acceptance of the article and its appearance
in print were a bit harrowing. The main worry was that someone with a little
knowledge of physics and math--or merely a little common sense--might
take a look at the essay in the interim. On top of that, at least one of the
other "Science Wars" contributors knew Sokal personally and was quite
awareof his skeptical attitude toward radical science studies. Though the
issue was advertised long in advance, she apparently never looked at these
promos, where Sokal's name appeared in close proximity to hers. Loose talk
from the ever-widening circle of those in the know was another threat, and
indeed, nearly upset the applecart when a free-lance writer
overheard a rumor that the upcoming issue of Social Text was going to
blowup in its editors' faces. Fortunately, he secretly tipped off Lingua
Franca, which then cleverly procured advance proofs of the journal. It was
not very difficult for the Lingua Franca staff to spot the ringer. This turned
into an additional bit of serendipity, since it put Sokal in touch with LF and
allowed him to place his confession--"A Physicist Experiments with Cultural
Studies"--in this widely-read magazine, timed to come out within a few
days of the publication of the hoax itself. Until then, it wasn't clear how the
gag would be revealed, nor whether it would even get much publicity.
As for my own modest role, I confess that several times I was embroiled with
the Social Text people in formal and informal debates where it was very
hard for me to keep a straight face. Knowing that you hold a trump card but
are forbidden to play it is an exquisitely painful circumstance! On the other
hand, by keeping Social Text's anger focused on me--an easy enough task for
such a disagreeable man--I flatter myself that I made it much less likely
that Sokal's intentions would come under scrutiny. For me, the crowning
episode of the whole affair occurred on the day Social Text 46/47 finally
came out after weeks of agonizing delay. Suspecting that it would make its
first appearance at a major New York conference of left-wing intellectuals
and activists, I popped by and was overjoyed to find copies on sale with
Sokal's article completely intact! On my way out, I chanced to run into a big
Social Text kahuna with whom I had repeatedly tangled. With a supremely
self-satisfied glint in his eye, he flourished his brand-new copy of the
Science Wars number. "Have you seen the new Social Text?" he asked,
gloating. Displaying my own copy in turn, I merely replied, in a tone as
bland and guileless as I could manage, "Oh ...yes I have." At moments like
that, one can almost believe that abenevolent Deity is in charge of the
universe!
But there were mild disappointments too. Worst of all, Lingua Franca,
though publishing aflood of letters (reprinted in The Sokal Hoax) on the
"Sokal Text affair" in its next issue, refused to print mine! This seemed a bit
unfair to me, since my own book was the occasion and the major
target of the booby-trapped issue of Social Text. But I suppose that my
letter crossed some kind of invisible line by suggesting that university
faculties occasionally harbor dummies with high sounding academic titles
and fat paychecks. This kind of lese-majeste suggests possibilities Lingua
Franca and most of its readers would rather not think about.
III
They had very little idea of what many of the sentences mean, and so were
not in a position to evaluate them for plausibility in the first place. The
plausibility, or even the intelligibility, ofSokal's arguments just didn't enter
into their deliberations.
Paul Boghossian, "What the Sokal Hoax Ought to Teach Us," in The Sokal
Hoax
It is only fair to ask whether any general proposition about the
state of academic life can be inferred from the Sokal Hoax. Were the
victimized Social Text editors singularly dim? Or are there
hosts of professors who would have been gulled just as easily? The
experiment can never be tried, of course, yet I believe that any
number of contemporary scholars would have been foxed by the prank
Many of Sokal's critics, including his most prominent victims, have claimed
that the affair, especially as reported by the mass media, distorts their
philosphical views. One Social Text editor protests that the journal "has
never been in the deconstructionist camp, nor do its editors...doubt the
existence of a material world." Another, citing a notorious slogan from
"Transgressing the Boundaries ("'physical reality'...is at bottom a social and
linguistic construct"), retorts that "no one on the Social Text collective
believes this."
Quite frankly, I don't question these assertions. The academics who are
hostile to Sokal generally speak in much the same terms, denying that they
disbelieve in reality or embrace extreme forms of relativism. Yet they are
the same folks whose books and papers rarely employ words like "reality,"
"truth," and "objectivity" without the sneering inverted commas. For the
most part, these are not people who do radical science studies, or even
postmodern philosophy, themselves. Rather, they constitute the much wider
claque that has canonized this stuff without ever scrutinizing it critically
because it seems emotionally gratifying as well as politically useful. The
ruthlessly anti-objectivist quotes that take up so much space in the
text of the hoax article come from works that are universally respected or
even revered within this community. The same is true of the writings
soberly examined in Fashionable Nonsense. One contributor to The Sokal
Hoax, comparing Sokal's piece to another (presumably serious) Social Tex t
essay, notes, "Had I been shown both...articles, and asked which might
be a hoax, I would have said that both are either hoaxes or nonsense."
The fact is that the academic left wants to have it both ways where
relativism is concerned. Its ethical and political claims presuppose that
there are objective facts about the world and reliable principles for judging
the moral worth of political ideas, Yet the oppositional subculture now
entrenched at universities finds it psychologically comforting, rhetorically
convenient, and tactically indispensable to cite relativistic slogans loudly
and frequently. Consider the following passage from a recent article in the
professorial house-organ Academe, a piece that stridently demands that
"ethnic studies" programs be given a dominant role in higher education:
Ethnic studies scholars perceive as their primary responsibility interrogating
any and all received wisdom-particularly those truths presented as universal
without regard to the context or perspectives of the people generating
them. Equally important is demonstrating alternative ways to construct
knowledge, so as to redefine the nature of knowledge and how it is used to
understand the physical world and the human condition.
It is fair to say that most of the people who decry Sokal would agree with
this description ofethnic studies and, like its author, back such programs to
the hilt. Clearly, if one is committed to traditional scholarly
standards of evidence and logic and accepts the obligation to strive, at least,
for objectivity, the task of interrogating received knowledge and
demonstrating alternative ways to construct knowledge (especially of the
physical world!!) is an Augaean undertaking, and might well prove futile or,
indeed, lead to politically unpalatable conclusions. Relativism provides an
easy and convenient escape from this dilemma. When facing a troublesome
fact or daunting opposing argument, just declare it to be socially
constructed in the service of hegemonic injustice or the tainted
product of an oppressive discursive regime. Keep a packet of sneer quotes
handy to pour deconstructive scorn on what you can't actually refute.
Presto! You've kept faith with your political dogmas and
produced a publishable (by current standards) paper to add to your vita, all
in one easy step.
That, I daresay, is the real secret behind Social Text's
acceptance of "Transgressing the Boundaries." It's not that they studied it
with scholarly care and found enough validity and coherence in its
arguments to make it a worthwhile contribution. Rather, they saw it as
another piece of rhetorical ordnance to add to the stockpile, not all that
different from many things already stacked there. It was a weapon that
might come in handy during anticipated slanging matches, particularly
because the author seemed to be a real live physicist. The subcultural
resonance of Sokal's piece was far more important than its arguments or the
specific assertions it contained. Thus, it was irresistible bait There are
hundreds, indeed thousands, of professors (and graduate students and
academic press editors) who would have been suckered just as easily.
IV
I mean, it would be presumptuous to condemn radical ideas simply because
they appear to me to be self-evidently stupid and criminal if they do happen
to be at the same time radical.-"George Moore" in Tom Stoppard's Jumpers
If I seem to be suggesting that academic life has fallen upon especially evil
days, that's because I am. That's what leaves me feeling so
godawful disagreeable. I'm not particularly susceptible to nostalgia; I
wouldn't suggest that we have fallen away from a golden age of scholarship
and learning in which the university shone forth like a city on a hill.
Academic life has always been full of nasty quirks, of systematic unfairness
and favoritism, of insular disdain for the interests or opinions of anyone
outside the ivy-covered sanctum, and of complicity with the worst sins ofthe
ambient society. There have always been thick-witted professors; the
absurdly obtuse pedant has been a figure of fun since medieval times. But in
this country, at least, the story of higher learning was one of overall, if not
incessant, progress toward an ideal of liberty of thought and inquiry,
together with the sovereignty of reasoned discourse.
There have been ups and downs in the struggle against pressures for
political conformity, but overall, independence of mind has been nurtured
and clear thinking accorded singular respect. But the melancholy truth is
that within the last decade or two, the hard-won supremacy ofintellectual
freedom and precise argument has been seriously eroded. Narrow factions
that have scant regard for these ideals have obtained extraordinary power
over both the curriculum and the canons of ostensible scholarship. More
and more courses in the humanities and social sciences, and
in a host of newly-invented quasi disciplines, have been made into sectarian
dog-and-pony shows. This, depressing though it is to have to say so, is
almost exclusively the work ofthe heirs of what once was the left. The leftist
tradition at its frequent best was long associated with militant struggle
against the thought police and the obscurantists. Yet now the academic left--
a term inevitably imprecise, but preferable to any current alternative--se
ems destined to claim a place in the sorry history of repression of ideas and
deification of muddle.
The "left" is not the only factor in the current debasement of academic life.
The mercenary cynicism and corruption of "big time" college athletics has
swelled beyond challenge or restraint at those schools bedazzled by the
lure of bowl games or March Madness. "Revenue" sports typically
make a mockery of educational standards and breed hypocrisy and flagrant
dishonesty. The new craze for making universities over into entrepeneurial
ventures, demanding research whose payoff can be measured in cash rather
than knowledge, is extremely worrisome. In the sciences especially, the
hunger for "transferable" technology and joint ventures with corporations
endangers the long tradition of open publication and unfettered
communication among colleagues. One could easily argue that these
problems are more serious long-term threats to the integrity of learning
than the mere antics of poststructuralists. Yet, perhaps because those
menaces are imposed from outside academic life, it is considerably more
depressing to contempl ate the Invasion of the Deconstructionist Mind-
Snatchers, which is really homegrown tomfoolery on the part of the
postmodernist pod people amongst us.
A fairly homely example, far removed from the stridencies of the science
wars, quietly epitomizes what has gone wrong. At my school, Rutgers,
students in the undergraduate history program have a fairly wide
choice of courses. There are four offerings on Latin America, two on African
civilization, two on the Islamic world, and one on China. By contrast, there is
but asingle course on the central event of our national history--the American
Civil War--and that one covers the entire period from 1848 to 1880, the
Mexican War to the end of Reconstruction. I don't claim that there's
anything wrong with any of the courses on Third World history; for all I
know, they may be excellent. Nor would I insist that every last history major
has to learn how Grant took Vicksburg. But surely, in a major American
state university, wouldn't one expect that an undergrad eager to learn how
Grant took Vicksburg should have no trouble finding acourse that will tell
him?
Women's Studies, by now an ineluctable aspect of life on every major
secular campus, is obviously one of those areas. It is an almost uncanny
fulfillment of the joking prophecy ofGilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida,
which, 120 years ago, created the world's first Women's Studies Department
at Castle Adamant, a scholarly institution founded on the principle that
"Man is Nature's sole mistake." There is a danger in taking potshots at
Women's Studies (now busily re-naming itself as Gender Studies in many
places, since the regnant dogma currently maintains that sexual identity is
merely "performative" and gender a purely social convention). One can
easily fall into the trap of dismissing all historical claims of feminism against
the blatant misogyny of university culture as it existed 40 years ago. I don't
mean to do this, nor even to deny that some valuable scholarly work has
been carried out under the rubric ofWomen's Studies. But, as a general rule,
political monocultures encourage intellectual insularity, tendentious
standards, superficial scholarship, special pleading, and savage
enforcement ofdoctrinal conformity. Most of my academic colleagues will
concur that this pretty well describes Women's Studies as long as they don't
have to say so in public. It is now beyond challenge that a"discipline" may be
little more than a propaganda operation for a fervent political movement,
yet still be accorded the trappings of a genuine scholarly enterprise.
Challenging this assumption gets one in even more trouble than agitating
for an end to big-time football. A maverick professor in the midwest was
rudely reminded of this recently when he attempted to organize a formal
course on "political correctness." His nervous colleagues quickly shot down
the idea, having been notified by a representative of the feminist scholarly
community that "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
Free speech has been a favorite target of postmodern gunslingers, among
whom Stanley Fish is arguably the most prominent. His most popular book,
please recall, is There's No Such Thing As Free Speech And a Good Thing,
Too, whose central precept he tried to put into effect by demanding that his
political opponents on the Duke University faculty be barred from voting on
tenure and promotions. Fish is often said to be the model for the fictional
Morris Zapp, who appears in several of David Lodge's comic novels about
academic life. But the comparison doesn't stand up; Zapp is much too
nice a guy! On the other hand, there is Tom Stoppard's surrealistic comedy
Jumpers, which, though 30 years old, uncannily presages the "political
correctness" phenomenon. Looking through it the other day, I was amazed
to find Stanley Fish staring out at me in the maleficent person of Archie, the
Vice-Chancellor, the play's embodiment of ruthless sophistry and academic
power-politics at its most insidious.
What has Fish's deviltry to do with The Sokal Hoax? Stanley Fish is
one of the prominent contributors to the volume. As head of Duke
University Press, proud publisher of Social Text, Fish was livid at the Hoax.
In an op-ed piece reprinted from the New York Times, Fish rails at Sokal's
alleged nastiness and dishonesty. "He carefully packaged his deception,"
growls Fish, "so as not to be detected except by someone who began
with a deep and corrosive attitude ofsuspicion."
Not so, Stanley! It was packaged so as not to be detected except by anyone
who has avoided pickling his brain in the deep and corrosive
brine of academic pseudopolitics. I can attest that Sokal's piece was tried
out on a number of quite ordinary citizens who usually caught on to the joke
after a few paragraphs. The article could only have proved deceptive to loyal
inhabitants ofthe empire that Stanley Fish, as much as anyone, has built
within the walls of academia, arealm where the false coin of crackpot
academic theory circulates freely, where aspiring scholars dingbat their way
to tenure, and where petulance and narcissism pass as political idealism.
That, alas, is the true lesson of Sokal's Hoax.
Dr. Norman Levitt is a professor of mathematics at Rutgers University in
New Brunswick, NJ. He specializes in geometric topology and the
topology of manifolds, and is the author of "Grass-mannians and Gauss
Maps in Piecewise-Linear Topology." Along with biologist Paul R. Gross, he
wrote Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.
Subsequently, Gross and Levitt; along with Martin W. Lewis, edited The
Flight from Science and Reason, avolume based on a conference held at the
New York Academy of Sciences.COPYRIGHT 2009 Skeptics Society & Skeptic Magazine. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights or concerns about this content should be directed to Customer Service. For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.