------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: owner-sts who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
X-ListName: Science & Technical Studies Discussion Group
<STS who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-sts who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
Sender: owner-sts who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: andrew ross <rossa who-is-at is.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: STS who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: STS who-is-at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
Subject: the sokal affair
In response to Mr. Pang's posting, some of you may indeed have read
NYU physicist Alan Sokal's announcement in Lingua Franca of his
perpetration of a hoax, to wit, that he wrote a parody of a "cultural
studies of science" article in order to see if it would be accepted by a
journal like Social Text. According to Sokal, he took this action, as a
progressive and a scientist, in order to assist in "the intellectual
renovation of the left." In my capacity as a co-editor of Social Text, i
append the response below, which will appear in some form in Lingua Franca
in the summer.
p.s. it's always interesting to see someone in mr. pang's position calling
for a "culling of the ranks."
-----------------------
What were some of the initial responses of the journal's editors when we
first learned about Alan Sokal's prank upon Social Text? One suspected
that Sokal's "parody" was nothing of the sort, and that his admission
represented a change of heart, or a collapse of his intellectual resolve.
Another, while willing to accept the story, was less sure that Sokal knew
very much about what or whom he thought he was kidding. A third was
pleasantly astonished to learn that the journal is taken seriously enough
to be considered a threat to anyone, let alone to natural scientists. At
least two others were furious at the dubious means by which he chose to
make his point. All were concerned that his actions might simply spark
off a new round of caricature and thereby perpetuate the climate in which
science studies has been subject recently to so much derision from
conservatives in science. However varied the responses, we all believe
that Sokal took too much for granted in his account of his prank. Indeed,
his claim--that our publication of his article proves that something is
rotten in the state of cultural studies--may have turned out to be as
wacky as the article itself.
First, let me recount the history of the editorial process regarding
Sokal's article, in order to provide readers with a framework that Lingua
Franca did not seek when they decided to publish his piece. From the
first, we considered Sokal's unsolicited article to be a little hokey.
It is not every day that we receive a dense philosophical tract from a
professional physicist. Not knowing the author or his work, we engaged
in some speculation about his intentions, and concluded that this article
was the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some kind of
affirmation from postmodern philosophy for developments in his field. His
adventures in PostmodernLand were not really our cup of tea. Like other
journals of our vintage that try to keep abreast of cultural studies, it
has been many years since Social Text published contributions to the
debate about postmodern theory, and Sokal's article would have been
regarded as sophomoric and/or outdated (and therefore unnacceptable to the
editors) if it had come from a humanist or social scientist. As the work
of a natural scientist it was unusual, and, we thought, plausibly
symptomatic of how someone like Sokal might approach the field of
postmodern epistemology i.e. awkwardly, assertively, and somewhat
aimlessly, with a veritable armada of footnotes to ease his sense of
vulnerability. In other words, we read it more as an act of good faith of
the sort that might be worth encouraging than as an exercise of the
intellect whose scholarly worth had to be judged. On those grounds, the
editors considered that it might be of interest to readers as a "document"
of that time-honored tradition in which modern physicists have discovered
harmonic resonances with their own reasoning in the field of philosophy
and metaphysics. Consequently, the article met one of the several
criteria for publication which Social Text recognizes. As a non-refereed
journal of political opinion and cultural analysis (entirely
self-published by an editorial collective until its recent adoption by
Duke University Press), Social Text has always seen its lineage in the
"little review" tradition of the independent left as much as in the
academic domain, and so we often balance diverse editorial criteria when
discussing the worth of submissions, whether they be works of fiction,
interviews with sex workers, or interventions in postcolonial thought.
In other words, this is an editorial milieu with principles and aims quite
remote from that of a professional scientific journal.
Having established an interest in Sokal's article, we did ask him
informally to revise the piece. We made a general request to him a) to
excise a good deal of the philosophical speculation and b) to excise most
of his footnotes. Sokal seemed resistant to any general revisions of this
sort, and indeed insisted on retaining almost all of his footnotes and
bibliographic apparatus on the grounds that his peers, in science,
expected extensive documentation of this sort. Judging from his
response, it was clear that his article would appear as is, or not at all.
At this point, Sokal was admitted to the category of "difficult,
uncooperative author," well known to journal editors. His article entered
a state of limbo, well known at Social Text at least, as "too much trouble
to publish, not yet on the reject pile, and capable of being redeemed if
published in the company of related articles."
Some months after this impasse was reached, the editors did indeed decide
to assemble a special issue on the topic of science studies. We wanted to
gauge how science studies practitioners were responding to the scurrilous
attacks of Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, and other conservatives in
science. Contributions were solicited from across the field of knowledge;
from humanists, social scientists and natural scientists (the final lineup
included many of the more significant names in science studies (Sandra
Harding, Steve Fuller, Emily Martin, Hilary Rose, Langdon Winner, Dorothy
Nelkin, Richard Levins, George Levine, Sharon Traweek, Sarah Franklin,
Ruth Hubbard, Joel Kovel, Stanley Aronowitz, and Les Levidow). Most
responded directly to the evolving controversy that some were calling the
"Science Wars," while others wrote their own accounts of work in their
respective fields. Here, we thought, was an appropriate and heterogenous
context in which Sokal's article might appear, providing a feasible
solution to our editorial dilemma. He expressed some concern when asked
if we could publish his piece in this special issue (we assumed he wished
to distance himself from the polemical company assembled for the issue),
but he reiterated his eagerness to see it in print. Our final decision to
include him presumed that readers would see his article in the particular
context of the Science Wars issue, as a contribution from someone unknown
to the field whose views, however peculiar, might still be thought
relevant to the debate. Since his article was not written for that
special issue, and bears little resemblance, in tone or substance, to the
other commissioned articles, it was not slated to be included in the
expanded book version of the issue (with additional articles by Katherine
Hayles, Michael Lynch, Roger Hart, and Richard Lewontin) which will be
published by Duke University Press in September.
In sum, Sokal's assumption that his "parody" struck a disreputable chord
with the woozy editors of Social Text is ill-conceived. Indeed, its
status as parody does not alter substantially our initial perception of,
and our interest in, the piece itself as a curio, or symptomatic document.
Of course, the whole affair may say something about our own conception of
how physicists read philosophy, but that seems less important to us than
that his prank does not simply lead to a heightening of the hysteria which
the Science Wars have induced.
Most of all, what his confession altered was our perception of his own
good faith as a self-proclaimed leftist. In the view of our editors,
Alan Sokal was now revealed to be either a) a leftist whose self-loathing
has been activated by conservative caricatures of the cultural left, or b)
a leftist whose genuine sense of commitment led him to a questionable
manner of expressing his political point. In either respect, his
actions smacked of a temper often attributed to "unreconstructed male
leftists." More to the point, the boy stunt pulled by Sokal seemed
typical of the professional culture of science education.
Having talked to the (real) Sokal subsequently, we believe that most of
the issues he intended to air are, at this point, rather well-known to
readers of Social Text and to Lingua Franca. Indeed, they have been
going the rounds in the academy since the first postmodern, social
constructionist, or anti- foundational critiques of positivism appeared
over thirty-five years ago. That many natural scientists have only
recently felt the need to respond to these critiques says something about
the restricted trade routes through which knowledge is still circulated in
the academy, policed, as it is, at every departmental checkpoint by
disciplinary passport controls. Nor are these critiques unfamiliar to
folks who have long been involved in debates about the direction of the
left, where positivism has had a long and healthy life. At this point in
time, we have a vestigial stake in these critiques and debates, but much
less of an interest than Sokal supposes. When Sokal discovers that the
cultural left he believes he has outsmarted really doesn't give much of a
hoot about what Lacan said about topology in his 1966 seminar, then we can
talk turkey.
Our main concern is that readers who may be new to the debates engendered
by science studies are not persuaded by the Sokal stunt that this is
simply an academic turf war between scientists and humanists/social
scientists, with one side trying to outsmart the other. More important to
us is the gulf of power between experts and lay voices, and the currently
shifting relationship between science and the corporate state. Nor are
these concerns extrinsic to the practice of science. Prior to deciding
whether science intrinsically tells the truth, we must ask, again and
again, whether it is possible, or prudent, to isolate facts from values.
Why does science matter so much? Because its power, as a civil religion,
as a social and political authority, affects our daily lives and the
parlous condition of the natural world more than does any other domain of
knowledge. Does it follow that non-scientists should have some say in the
decision-making processes that define and shape the work of the
professional scientific community? Some scientists (including Sokal
presumably) would say yes, and in some countries, non-expert citizens do
indeed participate in these processes. All hell breaks loose, however,
when the following question is asked. Should non-experts have anything to
say about scientific methodology and epistemology? After centuries of
scientific racism, scientific sexism, and scientific domination of nature
one might have thought this was a pertinent question to ask.
Andrew Ross, Co-Editor, Social Text
andrew ross 212-998-8538
american studies program, NYU
285 mercer st. 8th flr.
new york, ny 10003
---------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rolfe Windward (UCLA GSE&IS, Curriculum & Teaching)
rwindwar who-is-at ucla.edu (text/BinHex/MIME/Uuencode)
CompuServe: 70014,0646 (text/binary/GIF/JPEG)
"The real is the realization of one of many possibilities."
-Elya Prigogine