That's Alan Sokal, not George Sokal.

Yup - thanks Lee. I seem to have had unusual trouble with names these last few days.

Mostly because failing to recognize objective reality is a recipe for unpleasant disasters down the road.

However, I don't see this failure as being confined to the "Left" by any means. Most of the hard scientists I know lean left, and many if not most of my fellow engineers - and there's no shortage of people on the "Right" willing to place their (for example) subjective religious views of the world above any evidence they're offered.

The real problem is that Western culture in general values science and engineering much less than it used to - while depending on it much more.

Well, the Left's core is structured around a "scientific" view of human nature and society. IF you take that away by declaring science and the scientific method irrelevant (and a "penchant for subjectivism" will do just that), you remove the Left's entire underpinings.

You also open the door to its greatest enemy, Fascism - and perhaps it's no surprise that Nazi collaborators can be found among the giants of the deconstructionist movement. If all is subjective and only power and whim determine the discourse, then all that matters is power and will. We know where that mentality leads... and so does Sokol.

Thanks, Jon - you've made the point I was thinking of too. I've read right-wing critics who think post-modernism is inherently left-wing, and leftists who seem to assume the same thing.

In my own mind, the most important division is between those who believe in an objective reality -- and whose work, as with scientists and engineers, carries real-world consequences if it fails -- and those who adopt either vague or pointed subjectivism.

If we agree on empiricism, we can have useful discussions based on data and their interpretations, even if we disagree heavily on our political preferences. But without that agreement, there is no possibility of real dialogue -- which leads very quickly IMO to imposed political correctness (left- or right-wing varieties).

Robin - back in the early 90s, a period when computer graphics was getting increasing uptake in the entertainment industry, we started to get a lot of artists coming to SIGGRAPH (the annual graphics tech. conference / trade show). This led to some "two cultures" experiences of weird types (I encountered the first and thankfully, so far only Caltech groupie I've ever heard of via similar channels, but I digress).

In 1993 SIGGRAPH held a "nanosex" panel with a bunch of these artsy types in which a co-organizer was of the forcefully expressed opinion (and I'm not exaggerating this at all) that Cartesian Coordinate Systems as used in Virtual Reality systems were a tool of the oppressive white male hierarchy. In order to make VR accessible to women and minorities, we had to get rid of cartesian coordinates, and do it now.

People didn't quite fall down on the floor laughing, but only because our jaws were dropping in stark disbelief...

I for one don't think that deconstructivist or post-modern thinking is inherently leftist; I do think that rather than being challenging to centralized authority, it is instead deeply in service to tyranny.

A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would always be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as “Science.” There is only “German Science,” “Jewish Science,” etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

A.L.

Failure to recognize "gun" may lead to death.

I wonder if death is a social construct?

I don't think post-modernism is inimical to the modern Left. The models of the latter simply don't map well to objective reality and therefore require post-modernism or its equivalent to retain adherents. It's no accident that the rise of post-modernism parallels the collapse of Communism and Marxism. If you want to retain your belief in Communism, post-modernism is the only remedy.

This also accounts for the popularity of post-modernism among the EUlite. It lets them pretend they still matter. The European Left would evaporate without the concealings mists of post-modernism.

This is why reconstituting a valid Left is so difficult. Large chunks of it have been shown to simply not work. The "New Man", on whom so many Leftist plans depended, is not going to emerge from the crucible of revolution. One can try to pick through the wreckage for things that work, or slap some post-modern glitz on it and pretend everything's fine. One of those things is a lot easier than the other.

Non-post-modernists may find some amusement in this comment thread at Daily Pundit.

It's more than objectivism that is being de facto rejected; words themselves lose any claim to stable meanings. The deconstructionist's first victim is therefore himself. Just a variant of the old oxymoronicism: "Everything I say is a lie, including this statement."

Consider what Bruce Robbins wrote in Tikkun (1996) about the Sokal hoax:

Since few believe that ponytails and body piercing infallibly signify which side someone is going to take on issues such as plant closures or universal health care, it seems likely that what is really expressed by the angry tirades against cultural politics [i.e., PoMo] that have accompanied the Sokal affair is a longing for the days when women were back in the kitchen and it was respectable to joke about faggots and other natural objects of humor. These are not the family values I want my children to learn.

Reading stuff like this, I wonder if it isn't Postmodernism that's the hoax, and Sokal - and all of us - are the ones falling for it.

I can picture them all sitting around giggling:

"Okay, the Italian fascists already used the word Futurism, so we'll call it Postmodernism. And we'll all pretend to be a bunch of totally stiff, humorless people who are hypersensitive to the slightest criticism - absolutist relativists, get it? And if anybody laughs at us, we'll say things like 'I suppose you think racism and sexism are really funny, too!'"

I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing...."
***************************************************
Just like Neville Chamberlain did?

I have to say I'm skeptical about a lot of the claims being bandied about on the topic.

While it's true that there are some real excesses in the case of postmodernism, what the Sokol affair shows is not how intellectually bankrupt PoMo ideas are, but what editors of a journal are likely to do if they get an article on a topic they know nothing about, but that sounds good to them in key ways that they do understand. In other words, the editors at Social Text didn't understand physics (really? at Social Text?). Yes, it was probably irresponsible to publish it, but Sokol actually created a parody so good it might be true. This is the inherent danger of irony.

One could just as easily lay the Sokol affair at the doorstep of science: physics has become such gobbledygook that intelligent laymen don't understand it anymore and cannot make reasonable judgements about the accuracy of something related to it. You can talk all you want about postmodern jargon, but has anyone tried to understand high-level quantum mechanics lately?

This relates to the assertion that irrationalism is on the rise. I'm not so sure about that. It's hard to quantify, to be sure, but our culture has always had a strong current of irrationalism to it. I live in the state that gave us the Scopes trial, after all. Was rationalism stronger back then? Or how about during the 1950's, the high point of American science education under the gun of Sputnik--when religion was also at a high-water mark, advertising ran the country, and McCarthyism bled over into hysteria? Or maybe we should go further back, to the age of the Enlightenment, when Europeans were busy carving each other up over religion and Americans were burning witches? We can take no comfort from the illusion of a golden age, it seems to me. Writing this, I hear the echo of Eliot:
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business. (East Coker)

Sorry to have gone on so long. Felt there were things that needed saying.

It's true that certain areas in physics are highly technical and non-intuitive. What distinguishes science from subjectivism, however, is its insistence on falsifiability.

Even with esoteric quantum theories, it's possible to define experiments that could prove the theory wrong. Subjectivists can never be proved wrong as their standard of proof is purely internal to themselves.

That is what is so pernicious about the idea of "women's science" (she said, speaking as a woman) or other attempts to define mutiple ways of knowing in science. Do people from different backgrounds, in different circumstances, have different insights? Sure.

But at the core of what we mean by science -- and very explicitly accounting for its impact and power -- is the idea that anyone can either replicate experiments or design experiments to disprove a theory.

Physics gobbledygook?

Just because you don't understand Pauli exclusion and Fermi levels does not mean that your computer does not work.

Just wait til superconductors become part of every day life and you have to deal with electron pairing and other exotic games.

The difference between pomo and quantum electrodynamics is that pomo is logically inconsistient and quantum theory is not.

The fact that your loggic and education is insufficient to discern that changes nothing.

Did I mention computers based on superposition?

Did I mention quantum encryption?

Things will only get worse until we get a better theory.

The deal is: I can design something based on physics. The workings of that something will tell me if I am even close in understanding what is going on.

As some one has pointed out. Falsifiablilty is the key to science and engineering.

I haven't read much Derrida to be honest, but let me try to mount a defense of postmodern thought in general.

I think the case against pomo and its proponents too often relies on 'extreme adherents' types of examples, flattening out the argument to the level of 'postmodernists don't believe in reality', which obviously does it a lot of disservice. in fact, let's note right up front that I believe the French system of Intellectual Celebrity has caused what I consider 'the French strain' or the 'post-Marxist strain' (see below) of postmodernism to be taken as the end all and be all of pomo thought. I don't know about you all, but I also regard American neo-pragmatist types like Richard Rorty as quintessentially postmodernist, a kind of sunny American postmodernism that I happily identify as the quintessential contemporary American worldview. um, or at least MY American worldview.

but anyway, let's stick with the French for now and take Lyotard's seminal definition of postmodernism (No More Grand Narratives) as a starting place, I do - it doesn't claim that superstition is always and everywhere equal to science so much as it puts them on the same playing field, it recognizes science and superstition as playing by the same rules, e.g. language. different Language Games, each with their own internal rules (science, economics, aesthetics, justice, &c), attempt to offer the best explanation of any given situation, and you kind of do your own refereeing and figure out which game (or, in practice, usually a combination of games) most usefully represents the reality of that situation as best you understand it. no Reasonable Person would deny that Science is hugely important and powerful system/Game, but it's NOT a complete description of the world - I think we'd all agree that there are cases where scientific perspectives on problems miss out on important, even crucial, aspects that are revealed by examining other perspectives.

and while an analysis of language alone won't get you very far in life, it's obviously very useful in all sorts of situations to deconstruct the information you're getting (wherever it's from) and understand where it comes from, what it's trying to do. we do this All The Time, of course - pomo didn't invent being a reasonable person, but it kind of invented being a reasonable philosopher. postmodernism to me (and to Lyotard, as far as I understand him) isn't so much a triumphal nihilism effacing Real Meaning from our language as a flexible and valuable bulwark against uncritical acceptance of any overarching explanation for Life/Universe/Everything.

which is in fact the reason why I DO feel that postmodernism is inimical to The Left in the Best Possible Way, if you understand The Left as basically Marxism, the quintessential MODERNIST political philosophy that offers the largest Grand Narrative ever conceived: a worldview in which the entire world is divided into two economic classes and you guide your actions by always siding with the Right side, uh, rather, the Left side, which is to say the Proletariat. Armed Lib's instinct on pomo ('in the service of tyranny') reveals him, to no surprise at all, to be a good old lefty at heart - back in the '80s, the old Marxist guard totally freaked out about postmodernism because it was a stake in the heart of traditional Communist/Marxist ideology - in fact, these early Marxist critiques of postmodernism frequently described postmodernism as NEOCONSERVATIVE.

the comment by 'Annoying Old Guy', above, totally nails this - I feel like the particular brand of Popular Postmodernism that draws so much ire from reasonable folks like Joe "Screw Him" Katzman is not 'Real Postmodernism' but basically Post-Marxism in disguise, a doctrinaire Left on its last legs that is using the rhetoric of postmodernism to dress up old-fashioned Marxism, substituting Oppressed Narratives for The Oppressed but basically still manifesting the same reflexive, ideological opposition to Power (formerly The Bougeoise). French intellectuals like Derrida and Foucault grew up Marxists and acted as such in their political life, but I think that the core of their ideas is quite subversive to their politics. what do you expect, they're philosophers, they don't know shit about politics!

which brings me, finally, to the invaluable role postmodernism has played in my own transition to 'the service of tyranny', by which I mean an acceptance of a lot of 'neoconservative' ideas and support for the war in Iraq and, increasingly, a likely vote for Bush (thanks Joe!) that would've been unthinkable to the post-Marxist Nader voter I was in 2000. a real, constructive engagement with postmodernism led me out of the woods of woolly old Leftism by encouraging me to seriously read some Serious Conservative Thinkers (Carl Schmitt, anti-hero of the pomo left, among others) - relativism begins at home, right? - as well as to thoroughly deconstruct all the old Marxist frameworks I had busily, thoughtlessly built up through my first couple years of college.

I believe that a postmodern perspective is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of World Government (e.g. giving the Security Council or foreign public opinion a veto on US foreign policy) as well as the Westphalian fiction (represented by the UN) that imagines that all the entities we call 'states' are equally legitimate and sovereign. in practice they are certainly not all equally sovereign (see: sanctions, no-fly zones, &c), and according to my oft-used Basic Fucking Morality language game, some 'states' are definitely Pretty Fucking Illegitimate to say the least. and, from my postmodern perspective that, as much as it 'values' anything, highly values freedom of thought and free information, a totalitarian police state like Saddam's is just about the closest you get to Objectively Evil. not that I believe we should topple all Evil Totalitarians, natch - that would be another Grand Narrative - but in this situation, considering our specific history and Saddam's specific history, considering the nature of his regime and the region, AND after consulting my Deterrence language game module, I thought it was correct to confront Saddam and then remove him from power when he challenged us.

who knows if I'll support the next Grand Distraction from the War on Terror, of course - the great thing about postmodernism is that you just kind of make it up as you go along, acquiring new Games along the way and plugging them in as needed. of course, if I keep my wits about me (definitely an open question at this point and with my lifestyle), as I play these Games again and again under different conditions I expect I'll develop something resembling a basic, relatively consistent understanding of The World, my own John Atkinson Grand Narrative. but I'm in no rush, especially at a time when so much is already changing and so much (politically, technologically, and otherwise) will change in the years to come.

this isn't rocket science, obviously, this is just a description of being a reasonable person in a crazy and to some degree unknowable world and going about it in a self-conscious way, AND it's a description of Postmodernism in Action. what's wrong with that?

Subjectivism is the act of sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

I think we take too much comfort in passing Post-Modernism off as an exotic intellectual movement reserved for extremists. It may feel great to laugh at the cluelessness of people who believe the Cartesian grid to be oppressive but do not be fooled that this is the extent of the Post-Modern penetration into our society.

It is not.

The essential core of Post-Modernism is manifested in our society's easy trafficking in relativism, solipsism and rebellion. Remember "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"? It was the quintessential 1970's-era New Age 'philosophical' tract. The core idea of the book is that most of what we see as reality is a social construct. In a follow-up book, Richard Bach (the author) took it a step further: all reality is merely a mental construct. Enlightenment consisted of seeing past the cloud of our own mental limitations and assumptions.

Explicitly post-modern, the book was an enormous success.

As this success attested, there is a huge market for a philosophical framework in which feelings are determinative and facts are merely window dressing. You needn't be versed in Feyerabend's epistemologics to find freedom in the idea that all knowledge is relative (Feyerabend gave the hard Philosopher's blessing to the worst excesses of Post-Modernism in "Against Method" in '75). You need only hunger for a world in which your mere opinion or desire trump the facts before your eyes (there is much more in the signature piece at http://wildmonk.net).

With respect to Post-Modernism and the Left, I think Old Grouch is pretty close to the mark: it works because it gives the Left a practical means for attaining power regardless of the usefulness of its prescriptions. The formula for leftist demagoguery is very familiar by now: historical and contextual ignorance coupled with passion and absolute moral certitude (the Right has its own demagogic techniques).

In theory, Post-Modernism could serve the Right's objectives as well (as A.L. points out) but it doesn't do so simply because, for historical reasons, the Right does not harness emotion and passion like the Left does. This is not an accident: passion is and will always be an essential component of any popular PoMo political framework since raw Nihilism has a very limited appeal. Indeed, it is only in the harnessing of "progressive" passion that Post-Modernism becomes politically relevant. The great lions of PostModernism do recognize that its Nihilist core explicitly undercuts passion or leads to violence (c.f. Rorty and "weak thinking"). In practical politics, however, this is denied with a ferocity that can easily spill out into political violence.

The last "passionate" Right - rooted in pastorial Romanticism - was Nazi Germany (thus the overlap of Nazi philosophers with earlier Post-Modernists such as Heidigger). I'd go so far as to say the obsession with Nazi crimes (to the exclusion of the recognition of Soviet and Maoist crimes) comes about largely because the PoMo Left recognizes the power of pre-theoretical passion in the service of their ends. They simply do not want the same tools available to the right. A similar analysis explains the vehemence with which the "Christian Right" is denounced by the PoMo Left.

I disagree (although mildly) with Jonathan's assertion that the Left is built around a "scientific" view of human nature and society. This was unquestionably asserted as true and even widely accepted in the 30's and 40's. It manifests itself today in the sneering derision of the intellectual poseurs in our mainstream media toward all things of the Right. But, honestly, it has been decades since the Left was consciously structured in this way. At this point, science is simply used as a hammer when appropriate. For example, most lefty environmentalists would claim the mantle of science in defending specific policies and, often, they would be correct. The PoMo Left, however, has long since abandoned actual scientific justifications in favor of the post-scientific, post-modern foundations that leave them far greater latitude in demanding power.

(Well, that was more than I intended to write today...)

We can follow this up in the comments thread for this new entry.

As a (sort-of) lefty (Mondays and Tuesdays, anyway) I can understand Sokal's feelings about this.
It is precisely the inclination to postmodernism that irritates me about large areas of the left.

If you are not dealing with objective reality and values, the rational 'Enlightenment project' of social improvement is untenable. You are back to Romanticism - Rosseau, Nietszche, etc; this may be viable in aesthetics, but it's a recipe for disaster in politics. And wholly wrongheaded in science.

Of course, classical Leftism taken to conclusions has also turned out to be political and economic disaster area, too.
Possibly because the realities of (market) economics have proved impossible to reconcile with the tradtional Left concept of rational control from above (may work for corporations, not for countries).

Perhaps market economies are postmodern (in the pragmatic sense John Atkinson uses): every agent has their own goals, and their rational 'validity' is irrelevant.
Hmm, there's a thought.

Problem is though, postmodernist tendency to denial of 'privileging' any party seems to leave no ground for judging between competing interests except a trial of political strength and will. And no ground I can see for ethical judgement.
Beyond, perhaps, a reflexive championing of the 'Other' that seems to me not so much a consequence of the theory as an unspoken precondition.
And that precondition chosen precisely for its use in carrying forward (some, distorted) traditional elements of Left socio-cultural causes in a vehicle that cannot be stopped by any rational critique.

John Farren -

absolutely, I at least definitely think of markets as postmodern. Lyotard's postmodernism-as-competing-Language-Games framework is basically philosophy as a big - and free - Idea Market. which is something we all like in theory, at least. postmodernism is in this sense a philosophy of democracy, really.

re: "Problem is though, postmodernist tendency to denial of 'privileging' any party seems to leave no ground for judging between competing interests except a trial of political strength and will. And no ground I can see for ethical judgement."

it's true that postmodernism provides you with no firm ground for adjucating between competing interests, which in practice (in my experience) can often lead to indecision, vacillation and worse. but that's not to say that in a given situation a postmodern thinker has no grounds for judgment: he has 'nothing' but his own free will and his own understanding, necessarily partial and imperfect, but developed through experience and reflection. you are still allowed to - in fact, you MUST - choose your Values to make decisions. postmodernism doesn't forbid individuals from having Values - it just doesn't prescribe them for you.

to me, this is nothing other than the real work of trying to live and think for yourself, and given that the alternative is a philosophy that purports to adjucate the difficult problems of life and politics for you - and what philosophical framework could possibly be applicable in a clear way to all the incredibly complex and specific decisions we're faced with? - I will take pomo uncertainty any day of the week. to my admittedly partial (of course!) view of pomo, it's basically a philosophy that acknowledges life in all its complexity and uncertainty and, instead of offering a 'God's eye' view and all-encompassing tools to 'solve' philosophical problems, gives a much humbler, human scale ground on which to develop a more imperfect, but probably more realistic understanding of Your World at least (instead of The World).

Derrida didn't get much of a mention in Sokol, because (Sokol says) Derrida didn't have that much to say about science.

The book, "Fashionable Nonsense", is a great read, particularly the part where he quotes Luce Irigaray as saying that "E = Mc^2 is a sexed equation... [because] it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". (Sokol, "FN", p.109)

John Atkinson -

Interesting.
(For some reason it reminds me of a discussion years ago about 'magick', the Will, the Word, and the World.)
Still looks to me most akin to Romanticism. For a person (such as you appear to be) confident in their ability to navigate the contrary winds of the world, and self-directed and reflective enough to justify that confidence, this may work and work well.

Nonetheless, I have come to prefer the possibly illusory security of standing on the shoulders of giants. I cannot accept that postmodernisms effective rejection of the Western Great Tradition is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (Similar to my opinions on the aesthetic dead ends I believe a good deal of modern art has thought itself into.)

Above all, I am dubious of certain trends of postmodernist thought are in its problems as a SOCIAL philosophy, in devaluing the application, or even reality, of rationality and objective standards in judgements.

Applied lazily or even maliciously by less generous spirits, and lazier intellects, for whom philosophical choice is merely a shorthand for affirming interest or predilection, what results can all too often be - as Armed Liberal has said - Bad Philosophy.

Hardly a unique failing; all sorts of lines of thought have ended up in the ditch one way or another.
But postmodernism appears to me to lack ANY readily applicable corrective mechanism apart from the good nature of its practitioners.
I doubt this is enough to check the tendency of humans (especially when indulging in 'groupthink') towards error.

After all, almost everybody always FEELS they are the 'Good Guys'. The problem, very often, is making them think.

Jonh Atkinson... looks like we've finally prodded you to the point that your defense of postmodernism now has a skeleton and a start.

Be sure to save this stuff so you can work to flesh it out later. I look forward to seeing the refined version.

Robin, ( I am so glad you're back :) )

Why do you think Sokol would believe that a "penchant for subjectivism" is inimical to the values and future of the Left?

Oh, I dunno-- empirical data maybe? Rathergate is a sad example-- fake but accurate. In the end, the scientific method will bury subjectivism, every time.

re: Spirkonius

Actually yes I have tried to understand Quantum Mechanics lately and based both on the grade and subsequent courses I don't think I did too badly.

QM will makes sense if you take the time to learn the language. Gobbdlygook will make no sense no matter how much of the language you attempt to understand. QM highly dense semantic content, gobbdlygook semantic content at most zero.

I just had an interesting thought. Is it possible that the semantic content of gobbdlygook could be negative. Suppose that by trying to comprehend some literary work one actually decreases ones ability to reason well?

One of the differences between the hard and soft sciences is that an author in the soft sciences can make an appeal to the hard sciences WITHIN their own field. A physics paper appealing to the social sciences would simply never be published.

John F -

I am totally feeling what you're saying, it's certainly a matter of record that a postmodern perspective can lead to 'bad philosophy' and it happens in a pretty obvious way, as evidenced by the widespread agreement here and elsewhere on Derrida's questionable legacy. still, I'd say that such wholesale rejection of Western Tradition generally doesn't last long except in the most unthinking and/or ideologically determined 'practitioners', and that as we get farther and farther from modernism's decidedly mixed legacy I think that we'll see more and more nuanced articulations of the postmodern idea.

that said, you are even more correct that pomo's failings are hardly unique - in fact, as far as I know they're more or less universal. which philosophies have 'applicable corrective mechanisms', exactly, and what school of thought could ever check the tendency of humans towards error? philosophies are only ever as good as their practitioners.

Joe K -

thanks, that was kind of a relief to get that sketch out, or down, or whatever. I just need to find time for that trip to the library... maybe 'winter'time...

John A, do it - and then bring it back here and share it with us, please.

Folks, these issues may sound esoteric, but they have very real implications and a real impact on how people act. If I can speak for my teammates here at Winds of Change, one goal of ours is to enable a respectful and serious dialogue on important issues of our time. How we vote, what policies we support, what actions we take from day to day ... all of these ultimately are affected by our assumptions about reality, language and society.

So keep bringing your thoughts on these matters here, good Readers. Great set of comment threads on these topics the last few days!

"Derrida didn't have that much to say about science."

Or anything really. But I'm sure he would have claimed I just don't understand him.

People would have been far better off reading C.S. Lewis' "On Criticism" if they wanted to see how point of view can effect readings of texts. He did an excellent job of explaining it without trying to undercut the entire idea of logic or truth.