By George Will
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
The Chronicle of
Higher Education, which is a window on the sometimes weird world of
academia, recently revisited a hilarious intellectual hoax from 20 years ago.
Reading the recollections of the perpetrator and of some who swallowed his
gibberish is sobering.
In 1996, Alan Sokal, a New York University physicist and
self-described “academic leftist,” composed an essay that was a word salad of
solemn academic jargon. He said he strove to be “especially egregious,” by
maundering on about “the dialectical emphases” of “catastrophe theory” becoming
a “concrete tool of progressive political praxis.” His essay’s gaudy title was:
“Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity.”
He sent it to the left-leaning “cultural studies” journal
Social Text, which swooned, perhaps
in part because Sokal larded his nonsense with political tropes that are catnip
to lettered leftists — “emancipatory mathematics,” “demystify and democratize
the production of scientific knowledge,” “the crisis of late-capitalist
production relations.” Soon after Social
Text published his faux scholarship, Sokal revealed in another journal, Lingua Franca, that it was a parody.
This would have been obvious to anyone whose intelligence
had not been anesthetized by the patois of “deconstructionist” and
“poststructuralist” professors. They move on to Nietzsche’s assertion that
there are no facts, only interpretations, which he wrote shortly before going
mad at age 44. They begin with a few banalities: Science is influenced by
political and social forces; literature is conditioned by the writers’
contexts. And they arrive at the doctrine that everything from science to
sexuality is a “social construct” reflective of society’s power relations, and
therefore everything is arbitrary and political.
In Lingua Franca,
Sokal wrote: “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows
of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)” The issue of Social Text containing Sokal’s prank
included earnestly intended essays such as “Gender and Genitals: Constructs of
Sex and Gender,” which said the “Western assumption that there are only two
sexes” is being refuted by “a rainbow of gender” purged of “the binary male/female
model.” Sokal’s parody blended in.
Today, Bruce Robbins, a Columbia University humanities
professor who was a co-editor of Social
Text, tells the Chronicle of Higher
Education that Sokal’s essay appealed because he seemed to be a scientist
“kind of on ‘our side.’” Robbins and another Social Text editor promptly claimed victim status, saying that “the
deceptive means by which Sokal chose to make his point” will injure “the
openness of intellectual inquiry.”
Sokal’s point, however, was that intellectual inquiry in
the humanities often is not open. The humanities, he today tells the Chronicle, had become a “subculture”
that was “ingrained and self-referential and mostly disdained critiques from
outsiders, so that an ordinary type of intellectual critique was precluded.”
Today, Robbins says Sokal was not unethical, but he
should not have regarded those whom Social
Text spoke for as “enemies.” Says Robbins, “I mean, there were
epistemological differences, but so what?”
So what? Epistemology is the field of philosophy
concerning the theory of knowledge, of the methods of arriving at certainty. It
concerns the distinction between mere unfounded opinion and well-grounded
belief. Their “epistemological differences” were not simply wholesome
“diversity.” The epistemology Sokal attacked precludes serious discussion of
knowable realities. What Sokal exposed was — and remains — radical relativism
that asserts the impossibility of serious science and scholarship.
As Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize–winning physicist at the
University of Texas, sensibly tells the Chronicle:
“We in science are not so naive that we think that science is done in a vacuum
. . . without being affected by the surrounding culture. We just think the
final results that we’re aiming toward are culture-free.”
Today, Sokal, who seems eager to make amends for his good
deed, claims “a small amount of credit” for what he says is diminished ardor
for radical epistemological relativism. But he says “the main credit” belongs
to — wait for it — George W. Bush, who discredited “science bashing.” Sokal and
kindred spirits — he seems to be safely back in the bubble — tell the Chronicle that the real problem is
“anti-intellectualism” off campus: “Academic expertise” is under attack,
“epistemological skepticism” by “the Right” is abetting climate change, etc.
Twenty years on, one lesson of Sokal’s hoax is that many
educators are uneducable. Another is that although wonderful sendups have been
written about academia (e.g., Randall Jarrell’s “Pictures from an Institution”),
it now might be beyond satire.
No comments:
Post a Comment