Page 99 - 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. 99
the sokal affair and beyond: on the strategic
use of parody in the »science wars« 99
Below, in sections 3.4.1–3.4.5, I examine five potential weak points and
controversial aspects of the argumentative use of parody.
4.4.1. Popularisation of Parodied Phenomena
As the example of Sokal’s use of parody shows, besides the already
mentioned risk of parody being taken seriously and thus undermining
its critical effect, there is also a risk of popularising the parodied phe-
nomena to such an extent that they attract new adherents. Thus, the in-
tensive public debate related to the Sokal affair leaves the impression
that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of mem-
bers of both confronted intellectual camps. If so, this would mean that
Sokal’s parody has indirectly contributed to an enlargement of public
support not only for his own cause but also for the criticised one. In this
sense, it could be said that the “fighting fire with fire” strategy here has
produced the opposite effect of the strategy of “ignoring the sophist”.
For in the latter case, not entering into any kind of argumentative inter-
action with the adversary also prevents the spread of interest and pos-
sible public support for his/her stance.
4.4.2. Deepening the Gap between the Adherents and the Critics
of the Object of Parody
By deeply dividing public opinion as to the legitimacy of the con-
tent as well as the method of Sokal’s critique through parody, the Sokal
affair also contributed to the mobilization of over-defensive attitudes on
the part of the parodied authors and their allies, thereby “heating up”
the debate to an undesirable extent. This, in turn, has deepened the gap
between the “natural sciences” and the “social sciences and humanities”
camps, which was presumably not the original intent of the author of
the parody. In this way the parody has served to further undermine the
prospect of genuine interdisciplinary cooperation (cf. Robbins and Ross,
1996).11
The fierce confrontations which broke out within intellectual circles
as a result of the Sokal affair created a situation, moreover, which could
serve the interests of those political forces in society that feel threat-
11 The concern inspired by this situation is clearly formulated in the letter of Terry Reynolds to Lingua
Franca (see http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/mstsokal.html) in the framework of the discussion
concerning the Sokal affair. Revolted by the form of the debate which “has taken the form of mutu-
al accusation” of “scientists” and “cultural theorists”, Reynolds writes: “I resent Sokal’s piece because
he used his command of a powerful and fascinating discourse to fortify the boundaries between dis-
ciplines, and I resent the editors of Social Text because they let him”. (Reynolds, 1996)
use of parody in the »science wars« 99
Below, in sections 3.4.1–3.4.5, I examine five potential weak points and
controversial aspects of the argumentative use of parody.
4.4.1. Popularisation of Parodied Phenomena
As the example of Sokal’s use of parody shows, besides the already
mentioned risk of parody being taken seriously and thus undermining
its critical effect, there is also a risk of popularising the parodied phe-
nomena to such an extent that they attract new adherents. Thus, the in-
tensive public debate related to the Sokal affair leaves the impression
that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of mem-
bers of both confronted intellectual camps. If so, this would mean that
Sokal’s parody has indirectly contributed to an enlargement of public
support not only for his own cause but also for the criticised one. In this
sense, it could be said that the “fighting fire with fire” strategy here has
produced the opposite effect of the strategy of “ignoring the sophist”.
For in the latter case, not entering into any kind of argumentative inter-
action with the adversary also prevents the spread of interest and pos-
sible public support for his/her stance.
4.4.2. Deepening the Gap between the Adherents and the Critics
of the Object of Parody
By deeply dividing public opinion as to the legitimacy of the con-
tent as well as the method of Sokal’s critique through parody, the Sokal
affair also contributed to the mobilization of over-defensive attitudes on
the part of the parodied authors and their allies, thereby “heating up”
the debate to an undesirable extent. This, in turn, has deepened the gap
between the “natural sciences” and the “social sciences and humanities”
camps, which was presumably not the original intent of the author of
the parody. In this way the parody has served to further undermine the
prospect of genuine interdisciplinary cooperation (cf. Robbins and Ross,
1996).11
The fierce confrontations which broke out within intellectual circles
as a result of the Sokal affair created a situation, moreover, which could
serve the interests of those political forces in society that feel threat-
11 The concern inspired by this situation is clearly formulated in the letter of Terry Reynolds to Lingua
Franca (see http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/mstsokal.html) in the framework of the discussion
concerning the Sokal affair. Revolted by the form of the debate which “has taken the form of mutu-
al accusation” of “scientists” and “cultural theorists”, Reynolds writes: “I resent Sokal’s piece because
he used his command of a powerful and fascinating discourse to fortify the boundaries between dis-
ciplines, and I resent the editors of Social Text because they let him”. (Reynolds, 1996)
