by Alan Sokal
Nasio, Juan-David. 1987. Les Yeux de Laure: Le concept d’objet “a” dans la théorie de J. Lacan. Suivi d’une introduction à la topologie psychanalytique. Paris: Aubier.
Nasio, Juan-David. 1992. Le concept de sujet de l’inconscient. Texte d’une intervention realisée dans le cadre du séminaire de Jacques Lacan “La topologie et le temps”, le mardi 15 mai 1979. In Cinq leçons sur la théorie de Jacques Lacan. Paris: Éditions Rivages.
Nye, Andrea. 1990. Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic. New York: Routledge.
Oliver, Kelly. 1989. Keller’s gender/science system: Is the philosophy of science to science as science is to nature? Hypatia 3(3): 137–48.
Ortiz de Montellano, Bernard. 1991. Multicultural pseudoscience: Spreading scientific illiteracy among minorities: Part I. Skeptical Inquirer 16(2): 46–50.
Overstreet, David. 1980. Oxymoronic language and logic in quantum mechanics and James Joyce. SubStance 28: 37–59.
Pais, Abraham. 1991. Niels Bohr’s Times: In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Patai, Daphne and Noretta Koertge. 1994. Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies. New York: Basic Books.
Pickering, Andrew. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1994. Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Plumwood, Val. 1993a. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.
Plumwood, Val. 1993b. The politics of reason: Towards a feminist logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71: 436–62.
Porter, Jeffrey. 1990. “Three quarks for Muster Mark”: Quantum wordplay and nuclear discourse in Russell Hoban’s Riddley Walker. Contemporary Literature 21: 448–69.
Porush, David. 1989. Cybernetic fiction and postmodern science. New Literary History 20: 373–96.
Porush, David. 1993. Voyage to Eudoxia: The emergence of a post-rational epistemology in literature and science. SubStance 71/72: 38–49.
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam.
Primack, Joel R. and Nancy Ellen Abrams. 1995. “In a beginning ...”: Quantum cosmology and Kabbalah. Tikkun 10(1) (January/February): 66–73.
Psarev, V.I. 1990. Morphogenesis of distributions of microparticles by dimensions in the coarsening of dispersed systems. Soviet Physics Journal 33: 1028–33.
Ragland-Sullivan, Ellie. 1990. Counting from 0 to 6: Lacan, “suture”, and the imaginary order. In Criticism and Lacan: Essays and Dialogue on Language, Structure, and the Unconscious, pp. 31–63, edited by Patrick Colm Hogan and Lalita Pandit. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press.
Rensing, Ludger, ed. 1993. Oscillatory signals in morphogenetic fields. Part II of Oscillations and Morphogenesis, pp. 133–209. New York: Marcel Dekker. Rosenberg, Martin E. 1993. Dynamic and thermodynamic tropes of the subject in Freud and in Deleuze and Guattari. Postmodern Culture 4, no. 1. Available as rosenber.993 from [email protected] or http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc (Internet).
Ross, Andrew. 1991. Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. London: Verso.
Ross, Andrew. 1994. The Chicago Gangster Theory of Life: Nature’s Debt to Society. London: Verso.
Saludes i Closa, Jordi. 1984. Un programa per a calcular l’homologia simplicial. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana de Ciències (segona època) 3: 127–46.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 1989. Introdução a uma Ciência Pós-Moderna. Porto: Edições Afrontamento.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 1992. A discourse on the sciences. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 15(1): 9–47.
Sardar, Ziauddin, ed. 1988. The Revenge of Athena: Science, Exploitation and the Third World. London: Mansell.
Schiffmann, Yoram. 1989. The second messenger system as the morphogenetic field. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 165: 1267–71.
Schor, Naomi. 1989. This essentialism which is not one: Coming to grips with Irigaray. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 1(2): 38–58.
Schubert, G. 1989. Catastrophe theory, evolutionary extinction, and revolutionary politics. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12: 259–79.
Schwartz, Laurent. 1973. Radon Measures on Arbitrary Topological Spaces and Cylindrical Measures. London: Oxford University Press.
Seguin, Eve. 1994. A modest reason. Theory, Culture & Society 11(3): 55–75. Serres, Michel. 1992. Éclaircissements: Cinq entretiens avec Bruno Latour. Paris: François Bourin.
Sheldrake, Rupert. 1981. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Sheldrake, Rupert. 1991. The Rebirth of Nature. New York: Bantam. Shiva, Vandana. 1990. Reductionist science as epistemological violence. In Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity, pp. 232–56, edited by Ashis Nandy. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Smolin, Lee. 1992. Recent developments in nonperturbative quantum gravity. In Quantum Gravity and Cosmology (Proceedings 1991, Sant Feliu de Guixols, Estat Lliure de Catalunya), pp. 3–84, edited by J. Pérez-Mercader, J. Sola and E. Verdaguer. Singapore: World Scientific.
Sokal, Alan D. 1982. An alternate constructive approach to the quantum field theory, and a possible destructive approach to . Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré A 37: 317–98.
Sokal, Alan. 1987. Informe sobre el plan de estudios de las carreras de Matemática, Estadística y Computación. Report to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua, Managua, unpublished.
Solomon, J. Fisher. 1988. Discourse and Reference in the Nuclear Age. Oklahoma Project for Discourse and Theory, vol. 2. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sommers, Christina Hoff. 1994. Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Stauffer, Dietrich. 1985. Introduction to Percolation Theory. London: Taylor & Francis.
Strathausen, Carsten. 1994. Althusser’s mirror. Studies in 20th Century Literature 18: 61–73.
Struik, Dirk Jan. 1987. A Concise History of Mathematics. 4th rev. ed. New York: Dover.
Thom, René. 1975. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Translated by D.H. Fowler. Reading, Mass.: Benjamin.
Thom, René. 1990. Semio Physics: A Sketch. Translated by Vendla Meyer. Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley.
’t Hooft, G. 1993. Cosmology in 2+1 dimensions. Nuclear Physics B (Proceedings Supplement) 30: 200–3.
Touraine, Alain, Zsuzsa Hegedus, François Dubet and Michel Wievorka. 1980. La Prophétie anti-nucléaire. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Trebilcot, Joyce. 1988. Dyke methods, or Principles for the discovery/creation of the withstanding. Hypatia 3(2): 1–13.
Van Enter, Aernout C.D., Roberto Fernández and Alan D. Sokal. 1993. Regularity properties and pathologies of position-space renormalization group transformations: Scope and limitations of Gibbsian theory. Journal of Statistical Physics 72: 879–1167.
Van Sertima, Ivan, ed. 1983. Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Vappereau, Jean Michel. 1985. Essaim: Le Groupe fondamental du noeud. Psychanalyse et Topologie du Sujet. Paris: Point Hors Ligne.
Virilio, Paul. 1991. The Lost Dimension. Translation of L’Espace critique. Translated by Daniel Moshenberg. New York: Semiotext(e).
Waddington, C.H. 1965. Autogenous cellular periodicities as (a) temporal templates and (b) basis of ‘morphogenetic fields’. Journal of Theoretical Biology 8: 367–9.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1993. The TimeSpace of world-systems analysis: A philosophical essay. Historical Geography 23(1/2): 5–22.
Weil, Simone. 1968. On Science, Necessity, and the Love of God. Translated and edited by Richard Rees. London: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon.
Wheeler, John A. 1964. Geometrodynamics and the issue of the final state. In Relativity, Groups and Topology, edited by Cécile M. DeWitt and Bryce S. DeWitt. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Witten, Edward. 1989. Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial. Communications in Mathematical Physics 121: 351–99.
Wojciehowski, Dolora Ann. 1991. Galileo’s two chief word systems. Stanford Italian Review 10: 61–80.
Woolgar, Steve. 1988. Science: The Very Idea. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Wright, Will. 1992. Wild Knowledge: Science, Language, and Social Life in a Fragile Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wylie, Alison, Kathleen Okruhlik, Sandra Morton and Leslie Thielen-Wilson. 1990. Philosophical feminism: A bibliographic guide to critiques of science. Resources for Feminist Research/Documentation sur la Recherche Féministe 19(2) (June): 2–36.
Young, T.R. 1991. Chaos theory and symbolic interaction theory: Poetics for the postmodern sociologist. Symbolic Interaction 14: 321–34.
Young, T.R. 1992. Chaos theory and human agency: Humanist sociology in a postmodern era. Humanity & Society 16: 441–60.
Žižek, Slavoj. 1991. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
APPENDIX B
SOME COMMENTS ON THE PARODY
Let us note first that all the references cited in the parody are real, and all the quotes are rigourously accurate; nothing has been invented (unfortunately). The text constantly illustrates what David Lodge calls ‘a law of academic life: it is impossible to be excessive in flattery of one’s peers.’110
The purpose of the following remarks is to explain some of the tricks used in constructing the parody, to indicate what exactly is being spoofed in certain passages, and to clarify our position with respect to those ideas. This last point is particularly important, as it is in the nature of a parody to conceal the author’s true views. (Indeed, in many cases Sokal parodied extreme or ambiguously stated versions of ideas that he in fact holds in more nuanced and precisely stated forms.) However, we do not have the space to explain everything, and we shall leave to the reader the pleasure of discovering many other jokes hidden in the text.
Introduction
The article’s first two paragraphs set forth an extraordinarily radical version of social constructivism, culminating in the claim that physical reality (and not merely our ideas about it) is ‘at bottom a social and linguistic construct’. The goal in these paragraphs was not to summarize the views of the Social Text editors – much less those of the authors cited in notes 1–3 – but to test whether the bald assertion (without evidence or argument) of such an extreme thesis would raise any eyebrows among the editors. If it did, they never bothered to communicate their misgivings to Sokal, despite his repeated requests for comments, criticisms and suggestions. See Chapter 4 for our real views on these matters.
The works praised in this section are dubious at best. Quantum mechanics is not primarily the product of a ‘cultural fabric’, but the reference to a work by one of Social Text’s editors (Aronowitz) couldn’t hurt. Ditto for the reference to Ross: here ‘oppositional discourses in post-quantum science’ is a euphemism for channeling, crystal therapy, morphogenetic fields and sundry other New Age enthusiasms. Irigaray’s and Hayles’ exegeses of ‘gender encoding in fluid mechanics’ are analysed in Chapter 5.
To say that space-time ceases to be an objective reality in quantum gravity is premature for two reasons. Firstly, a complete theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist, so we do not know what it will imply. Secondly, though quantum gravity will very likely entail radical changes in our concepts of space and time – they may, for example, cease to be fundamental elements in the theory, and become instead an approximate description valid on scales greater than 10–33 centimetres111 – this does not mean that space-time stops being objective, except in the banal sense that tables and chairs are not ‘objective’ because they are composed of atoms. Finally, it is exceedingly unlikely that a theory about space-time on subatomic scales could have valid political implications!
Note, in passing, the use of postmodernist jargon: ‘problematized’, ‘relativized’ and so forth (in particular, about existence itself).
Quantum Mechanics
This section exemplifies two aspects of postmodernist musings on quantum mechanics: first, a tendency to confuse the technical meanings of words such as ‘uncertainty’ or ‘discontinuity’ with their everyday meanings; and second, a fondness for the most subjectivist writings of Heisenberg and Bohr, interpreted in a radical way that goes far beyond their own views (which are in turn vigorously disputed by many physicists and philosophers of science). But postmodern philosophy loves the multiplicity of viewpoints, the importance of the observer, holism and indeterminism. For a serious discussion of the philosophical problems posed by quantum mechanics, see the references listed in note 8 (in particular, Albert’s book is an excellent introduction for non-experts).
Note 13 on Porush is a joke on vulgar economism. In fact, all contemporary technology is based on semiconductor physics, which in turn depends in crucial ways on quantum mechanics.
McCarthy’s ‘thought-provoking analysis’ (note 20) begins as follows:
This study traces the nature and consequences of the circulation of desire in a postmodern order of things (an order implicitly modelled on a repressed archetype of the new physics’ fluid particle flows), and it reveals a complicity between scientism, which underpins the postmodern condition, and the sadism of incessant deconstruction, which heightens the intensity of the pleasure-seeking moment in postmodernism.
The rest of the article is in the same vein.
Aronowitz’s text (note 25) is a web of confusions and it would take too much space to disentangle them all. Suffice it to say that the problems raised by quantum mechanics (and in particular by Bell’s theorem) have little to do with ‘time’s reversal’ and nothing at all to do with time’s ‘segmentation into hours and minutes’ or ‘industrial discipline in the early bourgeois epoch’.
Goldstein’s book on the mind-body problem (note 26) is an enjoyable novel.
Capra’s speculations on the link between quantum mechanics and Oriental philosophy are, in our view, dubious to say the least. Sheldrake’s theory of ‘morphogenetic fields’, though popular in New Age circles, hardly qualifies as ‘in general sound’.
Hermeneutics of Classical General Relativity
The references to physics in this section and the next are, by and large, roughly correct though incredibly shallow; they are written in a deliberately overblown style that parodies some recent popularizations of science. Nevertheless, the text is riddled with absurdities. For example, Einstein’s nonlinear equations are indeed difficult to solve, especially for those who do not have a ‘traditional’ mathematical training. This reference to ‘nonlinearity’ is the start of a recurrent joke, which imitates the misunderstandings rife in postmodernist writings (see pp. 133–5 above). Wormholes and Gödel’s space-time are rather speculative theoretical ideas; one of the defects of much contemporary scientific popularization is, in fact, to put the best-established and the most speculative aspects of physics on the same footing.
The notes contain several delights. The quotes from Latour (note 30) and Virilio (note 32) are analysed in Chapters 6 and 10, respectively. Lyotard’s text (note 36) mixes together the terminology of at least three distinct branches of physics – elementary-particle physics, cosmology, chaos and complexity theory – in a completely arbitrary way. Serres’ rhapsody on chaos theory (note 36) confuses the state of the system, which can move in a complex and unpredictable way (see Chapter 7), with the nature of time itself, which flows in the conventional way (‘along a line’). Furthermore, percolation theory deals with the flow of fluids in porous media112 and says nothing about the nature of space and time.
But the primary purpose of this section is to provide a gentle lead-in to the a
rticle’s first major gibberish quote, namely Derrida’s comment on relativity (‘the Einsteinian constant is not a constant ...’). We haven’t the slightest idea what this means – and neither, apparently, does Derrida – but as it is a one-shot abuse, committed orally at a conference, we shall not belabour the point.113 The paragraph following the Derrida quote, which exhibits a gradual crescendo of absurdity, is one of our favourites. It goes without saying that a mathematical constant such as π does not change over time, even if our ideas about it may.
Quantum Gravity
The first major bloomer in this section concerns the expression ‘non-commuting (and hence nonlinear)’. In actual fact, quantum mechanics uses noncommuting operators that are perfectly linear. This joke is inspired by a text of Markley quoted later in the article (p. 222).
The next five paragraphs provide a superficial, but essentially correct, overview of physicists’ attempts to construct a theory of quantum gravity. Note, however, the exaggerated emphasis on ‘metaphors and imagery’, ‘nonlinearity’, ‘flux’ and ‘interconnectedness’.
The enthusiastic reference to the morphogenetic field is, by contrast, completely arbitrary. Nothing in contemporary science can be invoked to support this New Age fantasy which, in any case, has nothing to do with quantum gravity. Sokal was led to this ‘theory’ by the favorable allusion of Ross (note 46), one of the editors of Social Text.
The reference to Chomsky on the ‘turf’ effect (note 50) was dangerous, as the editors could very well have known this text or looked it up.
It is the one we quote in the Introduction (note 11 on pp. 10–11), and it says essentially the opposite of what is suggested in the parody.
The discussion of non-locality in quantum mechanics is deliberately confused, but since this problem is rather technical, we can only refer the reader, for example, to Maudlin’s book.
Note, finally, the illogic embodied in the expression ‘subjective space-time’. The fact that space-time may cease to be a fundamental entity in a future theory of quantum gravity does not make it in any way ‘subjective’.