Page 105 - 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. 105
the sokal affair and beyond: on the strategic
use of parody in the »science wars« 105
tering argumentative subversion when blocking such subversion directly
and immediately is either impossible or ineffective. By means of parody,
the intellectually abusive party is supposed to be ridiculed and forced to
experience the negative and destructive effects of their own subversion
of intellectual standards.
Sokal’s use of parody as a means of combating argumentative sub-
version is an example of a rare strategic inventiveness that enabled him
to make his general point in a persuasive way. However, his approach
involved several controversial aspects which were revealed in numerous
discussions related to the Sokal affair. These aspects concerned, on the
one hand, the legitimacy of employing non-rational means to attain ra-
tional argumentative goals and, on the other hand, the backfiring ef-
fects of his strategy, i.e., the unintended effect of increasing the popu-
larity of the parodied phenomena and deepening the already existing
gap between the two intellectual “camps” in “the science wars”, thereby
dividing the academic community even further. A particularly serious
objection addressed at Sokal concerned the deceptive, trust-undermin-
ing aspect of his submission of a nonsensical paper to a scholarly jour-
nal, thereby violating the principle of sincerity and veracity in academ-
ic work. In his replies, Sokal met at least some of these objections with
plausible arguments. In future research, these arguments may serve as
the starting point for elaborating more general forms of conditions and
directions for the successful application of the “fighting fire with fire”
strategy in combating argumentative subversion.
In this article I have suggested that, from a theoretical and concep-
tual point of view, the most controversial, albeit very subtle, manoeuvre
performed by Sokal in applying his strategy was his (ab)use of the parod-
ic genre in order to hoax his targeted audience. The very need to “reveal”
the parody suggests that it was deliberately “concealed”, implying that it
was not employed in the natural, standard way that presupposes giving
contextual clues to the audience for rightly recognising the critical in-
tention of the author of the parody. The question as to whether there are
good reasons to qualify this manoeuvre as a kind of “meta-subversive”
act, as well as the implications which would arise from such a qualifica-
tion, remain open for further exploration.
Analysis of the relevant aspects of the Sokal affair from an argumen-
tative point of view has shown the complexity and the multi-dimension-
ality of the use of parody as a strategic device in argumentation. In order
to succeed, this strategy demands highly specific conditions and careful
application to ensure it achieves its goal and does not backfire on its us-
use of parody in the »science wars« 105
tering argumentative subversion when blocking such subversion directly
and immediately is either impossible or ineffective. By means of parody,
the intellectually abusive party is supposed to be ridiculed and forced to
experience the negative and destructive effects of their own subversion
of intellectual standards.
Sokal’s use of parody as a means of combating argumentative sub-
version is an example of a rare strategic inventiveness that enabled him
to make his general point in a persuasive way. However, his approach
involved several controversial aspects which were revealed in numerous
discussions related to the Sokal affair. These aspects concerned, on the
one hand, the legitimacy of employing non-rational means to attain ra-
tional argumentative goals and, on the other hand, the backfiring ef-
fects of his strategy, i.e., the unintended effect of increasing the popu-
larity of the parodied phenomena and deepening the already existing
gap between the two intellectual “camps” in “the science wars”, thereby
dividing the academic community even further. A particularly serious
objection addressed at Sokal concerned the deceptive, trust-undermin-
ing aspect of his submission of a nonsensical paper to a scholarly jour-
nal, thereby violating the principle of sincerity and veracity in academ-
ic work. In his replies, Sokal met at least some of these objections with
plausible arguments. In future research, these arguments may serve as
the starting point for elaborating more general forms of conditions and
directions for the successful application of the “fighting fire with fire”
strategy in combating argumentative subversion.
In this article I have suggested that, from a theoretical and concep-
tual point of view, the most controversial, albeit very subtle, manoeuvre
performed by Sokal in applying his strategy was his (ab)use of the parod-
ic genre in order to hoax his targeted audience. The very need to “reveal”
the parody suggests that it was deliberately “concealed”, implying that it
was not employed in the natural, standard way that presupposes giving
contextual clues to the audience for rightly recognising the critical in-
tention of the author of the parody. The question as to whether there are
good reasons to qualify this manoeuvre as a kind of “meta-subversive”
act, as well as the implications which would arise from such a qualifica-
tion, remain open for further exploration.
Analysis of the relevant aspects of the Sokal affair from an argumen-
tative point of view has shown the complexity and the multi-dimension-
ality of the use of parody as a strategic device in argumentation. In order
to succeed, this strategy demands highly specific conditions and careful
application to ensure it achieves its goal and does not backfire on its us-
