Page 85 - 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. 85
Sokal Affair and Beyond: 85
On the Strategic Use of Parody
in the “Science Wars”1
Ana Dimiškovska, Ss. Cyril and Methodius
University of Skopje
Summary
This paper analyses the argumentative aspects of the Sokal affair, a publishing hoax
performed by Alan Sokal in 1996 when he successfully submitted a parodic, nonsen-
sical paper masquerading as a highly scientific article to the academic journal Social
Text. The analysis presented here of Sokal’s hoax is carried out within the framework
of a more comprehensive research project related to subversion in argumentative dis-
course and different strategies for tackling such subversion. The main point of this
paper is to propose that the argumentative use of parody of Sokal’s type can be seen
as an instance of a strategy of “fighting fire with fire”, the goal of which is to ridicule
the intellectually abusive participants in rational communication and make them
feel for themselves the negative and destructive effects of the subversion of intellec-
tual standards. However, this paper will also show that the conditions for the suc-
cessful application of this strategy are highly specific and that, under particular cir-
cumstances, such a strategy can easily turn against its own users.
Key words: Sokal affair, "science wars", parody, subversion in argumentative discourse,
argumentative strategies
I 1. Introduction: The Origin of the Sokal Affair
n 1996, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University,
published an article in the special spring/summer issue of the jour-
nal Social Text (no. 46/47). This highly reputed academic journal
1 The author would like to thank Žarko Trajanoski for first turning her attention to the Sokal affair, as
well as the participants of the “Days of Ivo Škarić” conference held in Postira in Croatia (19–22 April,
2012) for their intellectually stimulating discussions and questions, and the editors of this volume
and the reviewers of the first version of this article for their valuable comments and suggestions.
On the Strategic Use of Parody
in the “Science Wars”1
Ana Dimiškovska, Ss. Cyril and Methodius
University of Skopje
Summary
This paper analyses the argumentative aspects of the Sokal affair, a publishing hoax
performed by Alan Sokal in 1996 when he successfully submitted a parodic, nonsen-
sical paper masquerading as a highly scientific article to the academic journal Social
Text. The analysis presented here of Sokal’s hoax is carried out within the framework
of a more comprehensive research project related to subversion in argumentative dis-
course and different strategies for tackling such subversion. The main point of this
paper is to propose that the argumentative use of parody of Sokal’s type can be seen
as an instance of a strategy of “fighting fire with fire”, the goal of which is to ridicule
the intellectually abusive participants in rational communication and make them
feel for themselves the negative and destructive effects of the subversion of intellec-
tual standards. However, this paper will also show that the conditions for the suc-
cessful application of this strategy are highly specific and that, under particular cir-
cumstances, such a strategy can easily turn against its own users.
Key words: Sokal affair, "science wars", parody, subversion in argumentative discourse,
argumentative strategies
I 1. Introduction: The Origin of the Sokal Affair
n 1996, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University,
published an article in the special spring/summer issue of the jour-
nal Social Text (no. 46/47). This highly reputed academic journal
1 The author would like to thank Žarko Trajanoski for first turning her attention to the Sokal affair, as
well as the participants of the “Days of Ivo Škarić” conference held in Postira in Croatia (19–22 April,
2012) for their intellectually stimulating discussions and questions, and the editors of this volume
and the reviewers of the first version of this article for their valuable comments and suggestions.
