Page 100 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 100
What Do We Know about the World?
ened by the prospect of a strong, unified and critically oriented acade-
my. Worried by this possibility, Ellen Schrecker, although basically sid-
ing with Sokal in his plea for strengthening the traditional academy by
maintaining the highest standards of intellectual rigour, concludes her
letter to Lingua Franca by expressing the following concern: “I am afraid
that Sokal may not realize how potentially damaging his discursive boo-
by trap may be. [...] I worry that Sokal’s merry prank may well backfire
and provide further ammunition for the forces that have damaged the
academic community far more than a few trendy theorists” (Schreck-
er, 1996). Although the author of a parody cannot anticipate all the ef-
fects the parody will have in the wider intellectual context, it is useful to
bear in mind the possibility that this kind of argumentative use of par-
ody may have a strong confrontational impact on the adherents and the
critics of the forms of discourse being parodied.
4.4.3. Deliberate Deception and Undermining the Trust
of the Audience
Besides the potential “backfiring” effects of the argumentative use
of parody, it seems that the most controversial aspects of Sokal’s use of
parody are related to its ethical dimension, in the sense that his “unor-
thodox experiment” entailed his being deliberately deceptive and under-
mining the trust of the professional community of academics and intel-
lectuals. One of the most serious objections raised in relation to Sokal’s
submission of the parodic article is that by doing so he violated the prin-
ciples of sincerity and veracity – the fundamental principles of rational
communication and inquiry. Consequently, he produced a kind of “me-
ta-subversion” not so different from that which was the target of his cri-
tique.
Having anticipated this objection, Sokal gave his response in “A
Physicist’s Experiment with Cultural Studies”. While acknowledging
that he was not oblivious to the ethical controversies involved in his “ex-
periment”, Sokal insisted on the fact that his article was based on public-
ly available sources, using authentic, rigorously accurate citations, thus
allowing readers to judge the validity and interest of these ideas inde-
pendently of their provenance or of the intimate relation of the author
towards them (Sokal, 1996a).12 Thus it transpires that one of the many
12 The same basic point was made by Paul Boghossian and Thomas Nagel who, in their letter to Lingua
Franca, remark that “[i]n the context of a purely philosophical/theoretical paper, it is not the business
of an editorial board to judge the sincerity of its authors, but only the cogency of their arguments. In
the case of Sokal’s paper, that cogency was fully open to view.” (Boghossian and Nagel, 1996)
ened by the prospect of a strong, unified and critically oriented acade-
my. Worried by this possibility, Ellen Schrecker, although basically sid-
ing with Sokal in his plea for strengthening the traditional academy by
maintaining the highest standards of intellectual rigour, concludes her
letter to Lingua Franca by expressing the following concern: “I am afraid
that Sokal may not realize how potentially damaging his discursive boo-
by trap may be. [...] I worry that Sokal’s merry prank may well backfire
and provide further ammunition for the forces that have damaged the
academic community far more than a few trendy theorists” (Schreck-
er, 1996). Although the author of a parody cannot anticipate all the ef-
fects the parody will have in the wider intellectual context, it is useful to
bear in mind the possibility that this kind of argumentative use of par-
ody may have a strong confrontational impact on the adherents and the
critics of the forms of discourse being parodied.
4.4.3. Deliberate Deception and Undermining the Trust
of the Audience
Besides the potential “backfiring” effects of the argumentative use
of parody, it seems that the most controversial aspects of Sokal’s use of
parody are related to its ethical dimension, in the sense that his “unor-
thodox experiment” entailed his being deliberately deceptive and under-
mining the trust of the professional community of academics and intel-
lectuals. One of the most serious objections raised in relation to Sokal’s
submission of the parodic article is that by doing so he violated the prin-
ciples of sincerity and veracity – the fundamental principles of rational
communication and inquiry. Consequently, he produced a kind of “me-
ta-subversion” not so different from that which was the target of his cri-
tique.
Having anticipated this objection, Sokal gave his response in “A
Physicist’s Experiment with Cultural Studies”. While acknowledging
that he was not oblivious to the ethical controversies involved in his “ex-
periment”, Sokal insisted on the fact that his article was based on public-
ly available sources, using authentic, rigorously accurate citations, thus
allowing readers to judge the validity and interest of these ideas inde-
pendently of their provenance or of the intimate relation of the author
towards them (Sokal, 1996a).12 Thus it transpires that one of the many
12 The same basic point was made by Paul Boghossian and Thomas Nagel who, in their letter to Lingua
Franca, remark that “[i]n the context of a purely philosophical/theoretical paper, it is not the business
of an editorial board to judge the sincerity of its authors, but only the cogency of their arguments. In
the case of Sokal’s paper, that cogency was fully open to view.” (Boghossian and Nagel, 1996)
