> I feel there is a conspiratorial aspect to the anti-pomo movement
Keep in mind that at least the Sokal prank wasn't an attack on pomo per se. It was an inkling and subsequent confirmation that pomo editors could not tell the difference between highly technical jargon that drives home a larger theoretical point, on the one hand, and highly technical jargon engineered specifically to serve no purpose whatsoever.
Imagine submitting a large patch to the Linux kernel that references various files and line numbers but makes no additions or subtractions to any of those files. If you could feed such a patch all the way up the chain and get Linus to accept it, you'd have a pretty good argument that something is fundamentally wrong with then intellectual endeavor of Linux kernel development.
Soon after this Sokal and Bricmont wrote a book called 'Fashionable Nonsense' (titled Intellectual Impostures in the UK) in which they tackle Lacan, Deleuze and Guatarri, etc. Its well worth a read.
From the wiki page about the book:
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects they've devoted their careers to studying and teaching. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:
- Using scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without bothering much about what these words mean.
- Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use.
- Displaying superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader.
- Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless.
- Self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor.
Some people use this whole incident, which was an important one, as a support for arguments that attempt to diminish the importance of the humanities, or tout how 'the sciences' are superior. While I appreciate what Sokal did, I think it leads many people to draw hasty and value-laden conclusions which are otherwise unwarranted.
If anything the whole experiment points to the incommensurate nature (Kuhn) of discourses and the multiple levels at which degrees of incommensurability can occur.
The trendy and monistic nature of postmodern theories in the humanities is not an issue that has been ignored within the humanities either, and furthermore the problems of jargon, sycophantic behavior, and dogmatism that arise in the application of postmodern theory are problems for (ostensibly) all theories. A literary theorist from Yale, Quigley, has an excellent book on this subject and attempts to offer some means of resolution to the issues (see: Quigley Theoretical Inquiry).
The sciences are slightly more immune because while they diverge they have a shared ancestry and methodological base in mathematics (or, if you would, the 'scientific method' which is a highly problematic, over-general, and reductive term).
The sciences are also plagued with issues in academia. For instance, negative results, which are instrumentally important to the progression of science as conceived in our current model of what constitutes the scientific, are pretty much completely dissuaded and suppressed by the current academic apparatus--positive discoveries, not elimination of hypotheses, are sexy--that's what pulls in the money, that's what people want to read, but negative results that help us further narrow the field of inquiry are just as important, if not more so.
I think the whole Sokal thing was important--but I always think it's necessary to bear the banner for the humanities to an extent when this is brought up, as its easy to fall into notions that the humanities as an entire field of inquiry is sort of baloney or shaky or unstable. It definitely is unstable--but that doesn't make it worthless or unimportant...I think postmodernist theories and their application will probably go down in history as an important transitional period away from structuralism and other forms of analysis, but it's incredibly clear that they are not very sustainable means of inquiry going forward.
[+] [-] Pils|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jancsika|8 years ago|reply
Keep in mind that at least the Sokal prank wasn't an attack on pomo per se. It was an inkling and subsequent confirmation that pomo editors could not tell the difference between highly technical jargon that drives home a larger theoretical point, on the one hand, and highly technical jargon engineered specifically to serve no purpose whatsoever.
Imagine submitting a large patch to the Linux kernel that references various files and line numbers but makes no additions or subtractions to any of those files. If you could feed such a patch all the way up the chain and get Linus to accept it, you'd have a pretty good argument that something is fundamentally wrong with then intellectual endeavor of Linux kernel development.
[+] [-] QAPereo|8 years ago|reply
Seems very relevant, as another facet of this issue.
[+] [-] codeulike|8 years ago|reply
From the wiki page about the book:
Sokal and Bricmont claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects they've devoted their careers to studying and teaching. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as:
- Using scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without bothering much about what these words mean.
- Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use.
- Displaying superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader.
- Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless.
- Self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor.
[+] [-] hwayne|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voidhorse|8 years ago|reply
If anything the whole experiment points to the incommensurate nature (Kuhn) of discourses and the multiple levels at which degrees of incommensurability can occur.
The trendy and monistic nature of postmodern theories in the humanities is not an issue that has been ignored within the humanities either, and furthermore the problems of jargon, sycophantic behavior, and dogmatism that arise in the application of postmodern theory are problems for (ostensibly) all theories. A literary theorist from Yale, Quigley, has an excellent book on this subject and attempts to offer some means of resolution to the issues (see: Quigley Theoretical Inquiry).
The sciences are slightly more immune because while they diverge they have a shared ancestry and methodological base in mathematics (or, if you would, the 'scientific method' which is a highly problematic, over-general, and reductive term).
The sciences are also plagued with issues in academia. For instance, negative results, which are instrumentally important to the progression of science as conceived in our current model of what constitutes the scientific, are pretty much completely dissuaded and suppressed by the current academic apparatus--positive discoveries, not elimination of hypotheses, are sexy--that's what pulls in the money, that's what people want to read, but negative results that help us further narrow the field of inquiry are just as important, if not more so.
I think the whole Sokal thing was important--but I always think it's necessary to bear the banner for the humanities to an extent when this is brought up, as its easy to fall into notions that the humanities as an entire field of inquiry is sort of baloney or shaky or unstable. It definitely is unstable--but that doesn't make it worthless or unimportant...I think postmodernist theories and their application will probably go down in history as an important transitional period away from structuralism and other forms of analysis, but it's incredibly clear that they are not very sustainable means of inquiry going forward.
[+] [-] jasode|8 years ago|reply
The farther you get away from STEM subjects, the easier it is to pass off Poe's Law[2] on unsuspecting readers.
(That doesn't mean that social sciences, literature, and art have nothing important to say.)
[1] https://xkcd.com/451/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law