Page 104 - 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. 104
What Do We Know about the World?
of hoax) and then almost triumphantly announced that the parody had
not been recognised as such by the editors of Social Text. Later, revealing
the hoax, he still sought to benefit from the virtues of the parodic genre
as if it had been used in its pure form in which cooperativeness with the
audience is presupposed.
To this kind of objection to Sokal’s manoeuvre, an advocate of
Sokal’s approach may reply that the audience of Sokal’s parody, like that
of any other parody, is in effect, naturally differentiated between those
who are sensitive to the parodic content and those who are not. Conse-
quently, it is argued, there is nothing objectionable in the fact that some
of the audience recognised Sokal’s parody as such while another part did
not (primarily the editors of Social Text). Blinded by their ideological
preconceptions and the fervour of the “science wars”, so the argument
goes, the editors of Social Text simply excluded themselves from the first
category of audience, missing the chance to identify the parody through
their own fault, not Sokal’s fault.
In response to this line of argumentation, it may be observed that
while in “normal” cases this differentiation of audience is a spontaneous
effect of parody, it seems in Sokal’s case that such differentiation was one
of the main goals of its construction. That is to say, the parody was delib-
erately calibrated in such a way that the members of the targeted group
would fall into the category of an audience “insensitive to the parody” –
with all the unpleasant consequences that entails.
Perhaps, however, as was suggested in the previous analysis, some
kind of similar meta-subversive manoeuvre is an inevitable element of
the “fighting fire with fire” strategy. In order to attain its goal, this strat-
egy often necessitates some kind of “transgressing the boundaries” of
normal and unquestionably legitimate way of using argumentative tech-
niques. But in assessing the implications of this transgression – probably
different in nature and degree in each case of application of this strate-
gy – it is useful to bear in mind that two (argumentative) wrongs do not
always make a right.
5. Conclusion
An attempt has been made in this paper to analyse some argumen-
tative aspects of the Sokal affair by focusing attention on the phenom-
enon of argumentative subversion and different strategies for tackling
such subversion. It was suggested that the way in which Sokal employed
parody for argumentative purposes may be treated as an instance of the
application of the strategy of “fighting fire with fire” – a device for coun-
of hoax) and then almost triumphantly announced that the parody had
not been recognised as such by the editors of Social Text. Later, revealing
the hoax, he still sought to benefit from the virtues of the parodic genre
as if it had been used in its pure form in which cooperativeness with the
audience is presupposed.
To this kind of objection to Sokal’s manoeuvre, an advocate of
Sokal’s approach may reply that the audience of Sokal’s parody, like that
of any other parody, is in effect, naturally differentiated between those
who are sensitive to the parodic content and those who are not. Conse-
quently, it is argued, there is nothing objectionable in the fact that some
of the audience recognised Sokal’s parody as such while another part did
not (primarily the editors of Social Text). Blinded by their ideological
preconceptions and the fervour of the “science wars”, so the argument
goes, the editors of Social Text simply excluded themselves from the first
category of audience, missing the chance to identify the parody through
their own fault, not Sokal’s fault.
In response to this line of argumentation, it may be observed that
while in “normal” cases this differentiation of audience is a spontaneous
effect of parody, it seems in Sokal’s case that such differentiation was one
of the main goals of its construction. That is to say, the parody was delib-
erately calibrated in such a way that the members of the targeted group
would fall into the category of an audience “insensitive to the parody” –
with all the unpleasant consequences that entails.
Perhaps, however, as was suggested in the previous analysis, some
kind of similar meta-subversive manoeuvre is an inevitable element of
the “fighting fire with fire” strategy. In order to attain its goal, this strat-
egy often necessitates some kind of “transgressing the boundaries” of
normal and unquestionably legitimate way of using argumentative tech-
niques. But in assessing the implications of this transgression – probably
different in nature and degree in each case of application of this strate-
gy – it is useful to bear in mind that two (argumentative) wrongs do not
always make a right.
5. Conclusion
An attempt has been made in this paper to analyse some argumen-
tative aspects of the Sokal affair by focusing attention on the phenom-
enon of argumentative subversion and different strategies for tackling
such subversion. It was suggested that the way in which Sokal employed
parody for argumentative purposes may be treated as an instance of the
application of the strategy of “fighting fire with fire” – a device for coun-
