Page 87 - 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. 87
the sokal affair and beyond: on the strategic
use of parody in the »science wars« 87
the United States but also in Europe and Latin America, provoking lively
debates in both academic and non-academic circles. Amongst many dif-
ferent issues raised in these debates, the following were particularly con-
troversial: the (ir)relevance of postmodern critiques of science; the rela-
tion of the humanities and social sciences to the "hard" sciences; academ-
ic ethics and the consequences of undermining the professional trust of
the community of one’s scientific peers; and the acceptable standards of
intellectual rigour in scientific and academic contexts. Apparently these
questions have still not lost their relevance even today.2
The complexity of the Sokal affair allows examination from many
different perspectives and to study it with different theoretical goals in
mind. In this paper an attempt is made to analyze several argumentative
aspects of the debate pertaining to the Sokal affair. This will be done in
the framework of a more comprehensive theoretical outlook related to
the phenomenon of subversion in argumentative discourse and differ-
ent strategies for dealing with such subversion. After an elaboration of
the general theoretical platform, the emphasis will be placed on the use
of parody as a strategic device for countering a specific form of argumen-
tative subversion, analysed through Sokal’s example.
2. The Argumentative Aspects of the Debate:
Subversion in Argumentative Discourse
and Anti-Subversive Strategies3
The term “subversion in argumentative discourse” is proposed here
as an umbrella term encompassing various forms of deviation from
and violations of norms, standards and canons of rational communica-
tion and argumentation. The term thus comprises a wide and diversi-
fied range of phenomena, from employing intentional sophistic and eris-
tic manoeuvres to merely neglecting to offer evidence and rational argu-
ments in appropriate contexts.
In many cases the subversive quality of an argumentative act can
be obfuscated by more or less developed argumentative manoeuvres in-
tended to create an impression of logical and argumentative correctness.
Although the terms “abuse” or “manipulation” could also be used to de-
2 For follow-ups of the hoax, see Sokal and Bricmont, 1998; Sokal, 2010; and see: http://www.physics.
nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html.
3 Sections 1 and 2 of the present paper are based on the author’s presentation at the conference “Strat-
egies in Argumentation” (Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen, 14–15 February
2008), which was subsequently published as an article in Macedonian (see Dimiškovska, 2009). In
that article, the Sokal affair was also mentioned as an example, but was not analysed at length.
use of parody in the »science wars« 87
the United States but also in Europe and Latin America, provoking lively
debates in both academic and non-academic circles. Amongst many dif-
ferent issues raised in these debates, the following were particularly con-
troversial: the (ir)relevance of postmodern critiques of science; the rela-
tion of the humanities and social sciences to the "hard" sciences; academ-
ic ethics and the consequences of undermining the professional trust of
the community of one’s scientific peers; and the acceptable standards of
intellectual rigour in scientific and academic contexts. Apparently these
questions have still not lost their relevance even today.2
The complexity of the Sokal affair allows examination from many
different perspectives and to study it with different theoretical goals in
mind. In this paper an attempt is made to analyze several argumentative
aspects of the debate pertaining to the Sokal affair. This will be done in
the framework of a more comprehensive theoretical outlook related to
the phenomenon of subversion in argumentative discourse and differ-
ent strategies for dealing with such subversion. After an elaboration of
the general theoretical platform, the emphasis will be placed on the use
of parody as a strategic device for countering a specific form of argumen-
tative subversion, analysed through Sokal’s example.
2. The Argumentative Aspects of the Debate:
Subversion in Argumentative Discourse
and Anti-Subversive Strategies3
The term “subversion in argumentative discourse” is proposed here
as an umbrella term encompassing various forms of deviation from
and violations of norms, standards and canons of rational communica-
tion and argumentation. The term thus comprises a wide and diversi-
fied range of phenomena, from employing intentional sophistic and eris-
tic manoeuvres to merely neglecting to offer evidence and rational argu-
ments in appropriate contexts.
In many cases the subversive quality of an argumentative act can
be obfuscated by more or less developed argumentative manoeuvres in-
tended to create an impression of logical and argumentative correctness.
Although the terms “abuse” or “manipulation” could also be used to de-
2 For follow-ups of the hoax, see Sokal and Bricmont, 1998; Sokal, 2010; and see: http://www.physics.
nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html.
3 Sections 1 and 2 of the present paper are based on the author’s presentation at the conference “Strat-
egies in Argumentation” (Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen, 14–15 February
2008), which was subsequently published as an article in Macedonian (see Dimiškovska, 2009). In
that article, the Sokal affair was also mentioned as an example, but was not analysed at length.
