Date:         Sun, 23 Jun 96 21:01:37 EDT
From: Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>
Subject:      Fwd: Sokal Text (fwd)
To: psn-cafe@CSF.COLORADO.EDU, socgrad@CSF.COLORADO.EDU
cc: Mary <mmg94001@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>, Dan <skidmore@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>,
        Dennis <breslin@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>
Message-Id:   <960623.210226.EDT.DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:13:37 CST
From: system@CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: STS-LIST@CCTR.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Fwd: Sokal Text


The following are Norman Levitt's comments about my post concerning the
immense media publicity surrounding the Sokal prank.  As you can see he gives
permission to post them.

Val Dusek
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	njlevitt@haven.ios.com (Norman Levitt)
To:	Valdusek@aol.com (Val Dusek)
CC:	prg@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Paul R. Gross)
Date: 96-06-19 09:45:06 EDT

Here are some comments about your recent STS posting, re Alan Sokal's
little prank and the issues it raises for and within the left.  You may
post this to that list--or not--as you see fit.

(1)  The list of people "in the know" about Alan's gag was quite
extensive and wide ranging, politically and otherwise.  It included a
number of reporters and writers, who accepted the information on their
professional honor not to use it until Alan's "Lingua Franca" piece
appeared.  The problem with Kimball was really one of timing; his
intended piece in the "New Criterion" treating the article as the hoax it
was would have appeared only a few days after LF, and this would have
been cutting it too fine, leading to the erroneous impression (which even
now has taken hold of some paranoid minds) that Alan was somehow in
cahoots with TNC, NAS, the Olin Foundation, etc.

(2) The fact that the story took off the way it did, starting with an AP
item, which led to a feature on "All Things Considered", and thence to
the New York Times story, and so forth, amazes me no end.  I don't think
I presume too far when I say that it amazes the hell out of Alan as
well.  Frankly, I didn't expect to see much beyond a couple of
column-inches in Chron. of Higher Ed., if that.

(3) The really interesting reaction is that which arose from the Left
press--"In These Times", the "Nation"--which was just as gleeful as
Kimball!!  This is echoed in the reaction of many left-activists in the
NYC area (at least) who are thoroughly amused.  Partly, this arises from
personal factors--a number of prominent "Social Text" types are nowhere
as beloved on the Left as they seem to think they are, and their conceit
and self-promotion has bred enemies.  But there are less personal, and
more important reasons, as well.  Many honest leftists are just plain
sick and tired at what has passed for left-theory in the academic world,
specifically the stuff that can be tagged "postmodern", whether
Foucauldian, deconstructionist, or "feminist" (heavy scare quotes here).
(See Noam Chomsky's remarks on the Net and elsewhere in this regard.)
Alan's little prank seems to have catylyzed this discontent, and a lot of
long-hidden daggers came out.  By the way, amusement at Alan's satunt
extends even to some "Social Text" editors!!  Maybe someone has a theory
of how this is all the work of the Pioneer Foundation--but I doubt it.

(3)  It's my impression that most of the reporters and editorialists who
wrote stories on the affair are fairly left-of-center as well (though
some-like Kimball--obviously aren't).  They too are pretty sick of having
"progressive" thought assimilated to pomo folderol.  In any case, it's
amazing that such a wide range of political philosophies have responded
so uniformly to the hoax, and to it's symbolic status as an index of pomo
foolishness.

(4)  On foundations:  the "liberal" foundations can be just as dogmatic
as the conservative, perhaps moreso.  My direct knowledge is limited,
hence anecdotal, but, for what it's worth, here it is:

Paul and I ran a conference for NYAS on the recrudescence of
irrationalism in contemporary culture (in which category we implicitly
included a certain amount of recent "Academic left" twaddle, though that
was by no means the main focus0.

Part of the funding came from right-wing foundations:  Olin and Bradley.
The funding was based on an honest description of the conference:  that
it wouldn't be primarily political and, to the extent that politics was
an issue, a wide spectrum of views, including those of the radical left,
would be represented.  (As it turned out, the most "political"
presentation was a denunciation of the Christian Right, and even the
"conservataive" stuff was scarcely hard-right.)  We got the money
without further comments or suggestions from these foundations, nor
did we ever hear from them, positively or negatively, about the content
of the conference or the views of any speakers.

On the other hand, we had an interesting experience with a mainstream
foundation, whose special brief is to promote public engagement with,
and understanding of science.  Initially, the very sensible program
officer we contacted was quite enthusiastic and as good as promised us a
substantial grant.  Thereafter, a few weeks went by without further
word.  Subsequently, when I contacted the program officer again, he told
me, with evident discomfort and embarassment, that our project was not
within the mission of his foundation--an arrant white lie, since it fell
smack within the foundations own guidelines.  There was a faint hint that
unnamed others on the foundation staff had hit the roof at the suggestion
that any kind of challenge to academic-left pieties--or to sacred cows
like EF Keller and S Harding--should be subsidized. I don't know about you,
by I certainly heard the elfin footfalls of PC pixies pattering in the
underbrush.

Make of this what you will.

(5) I quite agree that most commentators failed to note the difference
between the "Social Text" crowd and hard-core STS--although the notorious
ST 46-47 was primarily written by that hard core.  I'm also on record as
agreeing that an outright STS journal--"Science, Technology, and Human
Values" or "Social Studies of Science"--probably wouldn't have accepted
Alan's piece.  They have a better ear for the way "real scientists" talk,
and probably would have found the thing too outlandish.  I'm not sure
that they would have recognized it as an outright joke however.  I was in
e-mail contact with one of the ST contributors (I'll let you guess which
one) just after ST 46-47 came out, but before the LF story broke.  This
individual is certainly a major player in left-STS.  While he certainly
thought the Sokal piece bizarre, he had no idea that it might be a joke
until he was heavily prodded--by, e.g., getting some of Alan's straight
physics papers sent to him.

In any event, it's my opinion that it would certainly be possible to
spoof an STS journal, though the strategy and the diction would have to
be quite different.  I'm not going to do it--I have too many other things
going right now--so you may dismiss this as idle speculation, if you
wish.  But don't be too sure.

By the way, this seems to be spoof season in academia.  There was the
wonderful "Manfred Mickleson" affair (which was surprisingly little
publicized).  Also, I suspect that recent issues of the lit-crit crowd's
"PMLA" have unwittingly hosted a bitterly sarcastic put-on.  I'll leave
you to investigate for yourselves.

(5)  Keller and conspiracies:  EF Keller certainly seems to think that
some reactionary conspiracy was involved in the begetting of "Higher
Superstition"; she's wrong.  Nobody encouraged that project other than
the authors, and damned few other people even knw about it--mostly, our
long-suffering families.

Regards,

Norm Levitt