pynchon-l-digest V1 #37

[Andrew Dinn]

Tom Maddox writes:

> Regarding the Sokal discussion:

Hmm. Strange title, then.

> As the editors of _Social Text_ and Stanley Fish would hope, many of these
> discussions are concerned with the vexed and vexing question of whether
> laws of nature exist independently of our social construction of them.
> However, I find this and similar questions almost entirely beside the
> point, which is:  Sokal sent in an article containing a remarkable amount
> of nonsense, and the editors published it.  To put it another way, they
> demonstrated that they have no way of distinguishing nonsense from sense.
> To put it still another way, the incident shows that one cannot effectively
> parody academic postmodern discourse, for any parody can be regarded as a
> serious instance of the thing itself.

A fair point. However, Sokal has tried to compound the interest on his
initial capital by pushing at the socially constructed science issue.
If he merely derided the editors for their gullibility and lack of
professional standards I'd support him to the hilt. Even scientific
publications are a somewhat debased currency despite the rigorous
review process (actually to a degree because of it). Lapses like this
do all academics no credit. But Sokal's attempt to use his party trick
to attack lit crit in general is not justified. Just as the rigorous
review processes in science do not stop more and more irrelevant
rubbish being published, ditto a lack of rigour does not imply that
lit crit and those who create it are all stupid, ignorant and
credulous.

By the way I read hag's essay and it bears directly on this issue and
is excellent. Ask him for it.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.