Rating: data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10911/10911432439c1322df126b9387cb51b9bd272377" alt="5 stars" Summary: Postmodernism on a Skewer Review: This is a book that grew from frustration. Sokal had hoped to exorcise his demons by writing a parody piece (that did get published, undiscovered, in the "Social Text"). The success of his farcical piece only whet his appetite and with Bricmont, wrote this book that lays bare all the weak academic rigors of part of the social (human) science branch known as postmodernism.S & B focus on the texts of a few of the most acclaimed members of French academia that borrow heavily from the natural sciences to buttress their theories in Linguistics, Psychoanalysis, Political Theory and other "disciplines". The misuse of higher older mathematic and scientific terms used to awe their readers or garner accolades was a miscalculation. S & B show these efforts were in many cases attempts to dress up extremely bland or vacuous thoughts so that they might appear profound. They seem even less profound after the ruse is exposed. It might have been tempting, but the authors limit their critique and do not overreach by implying that these writers have dark motives. They merely point out that the root of the argument they make is based on a weak understanding of the natural sciences. Having abandoned observation and testing for the beautiful designs of their imagination, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, Irigaray, Latour, and others liken their constructs to things found in the natural sciences. Often they choose the newest (i.e. quantum mechanics) or the obscure (i.e. set theory) to compare their theories. They offer nothing by way of proof or research to support these analogies. However this does not stop them from waxing poetically and claiming that such "proof" will "shut all mouths" that presumably ask them how they could make such a leap. Perhaps upon reading the book you will be less shocked when you come across social research that seems dramatically out of step with your reality. In some cases it may be a writer that has some "glorious end" in mind that is making it up a reality to fit the desired outcome. These seem to be the type of theorists, icons in their fields all, which S & B are serving a steady diet of reproach. Perhaps in the end the great minds that lust for central planning may yet find some empirical support for their grand schemes (where they might imagine themselves as some kind of a celebrated bureaucrat), but until then, hopefully they will not mind if we deliver unto them less esteem.
|