Page 98 - 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. 98
What Do We Know about the World?
4.3. Conditions for the Successful Application of this Strategy
As mentioned above (section 2.4.), success in using parody as a form
of the “fighting fire with fire” strategy is dependent on the fulfilment of
certain conditions mainly related to the audience that is targeted by the
parody. First, it is necessary that the audience possesses sufficient knowl-
edge of the parodied genre; otherwise, it would not be able to identify
the elements of content and style that imitate the original work that is
the object of the parody. Second, the audience should correctly identify
the author’s critical intention; otherwise, it could interpret his/her work
in a standard, “serious” manner and completely ignore the parodic ele-
ment. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the audience should share
the negative value attitude towards the criticised/parodied phenomena.
If the audience is strongly attached to the parodied phenomena, the in-
tended parody could serve to affirm and praise its targets rather than un-
dermine them.
This is precisely the kind of situation which occurred with the re-
ception of Sokal’s article by the editors of Social Text. Because of their
firm adherence to the discourse which was the object of the parody and
their attaching of a positive intellectual and ethical value to it, the ed-
itors were not only unable to recognise the parody but did not change
their opinion even after Sokal had revealed his intent (Robbins, 1996).
Consequently, independently of the intention of the author of the paro-
dy, the arguments in the submitted article were interpreted as standing
on their own and as speaking in favour of rather than opposing the ob-
ject of his criticism.10
4.4. The Weak Points and Controversial Aspects of the
Argumentative Use of Parody
The above-described phenomenon leads to the fourth and final point
to be made in relation to Sokal’s parody as an instance of the “fighting
fire with fire” strategy. This concerns the potential dangers of applying
this strategy, i.e., the possibility of its being turned against those employ-
ing it and their original purpose, as well as the possibility of creating the
effect of a higher-level subversion – a kind of “meta-subversion”.
10 On this point, compare the question raised by Johnson and del Rio in their paper “Interpretation
and Evaluation of Satirical Arguments”: “If a speaker or author makes a purposefully bad argument
meant to illustrate the folly of someone or something, but that argument is interpreted by audiences
in a serious way, then is the argument satirical or serious?” (Johnson and del Rio, 2011: 891)
4.3. Conditions for the Successful Application of this Strategy
As mentioned above (section 2.4.), success in using parody as a form
of the “fighting fire with fire” strategy is dependent on the fulfilment of
certain conditions mainly related to the audience that is targeted by the
parody. First, it is necessary that the audience possesses sufficient knowl-
edge of the parodied genre; otherwise, it would not be able to identify
the elements of content and style that imitate the original work that is
the object of the parody. Second, the audience should correctly identify
the author’s critical intention; otherwise, it could interpret his/her work
in a standard, “serious” manner and completely ignore the parodic ele-
ment. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the audience should share
the negative value attitude towards the criticised/parodied phenomena.
If the audience is strongly attached to the parodied phenomena, the in-
tended parody could serve to affirm and praise its targets rather than un-
dermine them.
This is precisely the kind of situation which occurred with the re-
ception of Sokal’s article by the editors of Social Text. Because of their
firm adherence to the discourse which was the object of the parody and
their attaching of a positive intellectual and ethical value to it, the ed-
itors were not only unable to recognise the parody but did not change
their opinion even after Sokal had revealed his intent (Robbins, 1996).
Consequently, independently of the intention of the author of the paro-
dy, the arguments in the submitted article were interpreted as standing
on their own and as speaking in favour of rather than opposing the ob-
ject of his criticism.10
4.4. The Weak Points and Controversial Aspects of the
Argumentative Use of Parody
The above-described phenomenon leads to the fourth and final point
to be made in relation to Sokal’s parody as an instance of the “fighting
fire with fire” strategy. This concerns the potential dangers of applying
this strategy, i.e., the possibility of its being turned against those employ-
ing it and their original purpose, as well as the possibility of creating the
effect of a higher-level subversion – a kind of “meta-subversion”.
10 On this point, compare the question raised by Johnson and del Rio in their paper “Interpretation
and Evaluation of Satirical Arguments”: “If a speaker or author makes a purposefully bad argument
meant to illustrate the folly of someone or something, but that argument is interpreted by audiences
in a serious way, then is the argument satirical or serious?” (Johnson and del Rio, 2011: 891)
