1/OK so, I might as well give my take on this new Sokal Hoax on culture studies: motherjones.com/kevin-drum/201…
2/Sokal hoaxes are funny pranks - at least I find them funny.
And they probably do point to an important problem in academia - the "publish or perish" ethos that forces many academics to publish low-quality papers, often (though not always) in low-ranked journals.
And they probably do point to an important problem in academia - the "publish or perish" ethos that forces many academics to publish low-quality papers, often (though not always) in low-ranked journals.
3/Our country has decided that research is the mark of a good professor, but the demand for professors as teachers far outstrips the supply of good research to be done.
So tons of profs spend their time doing useless signaling.
That's what Sokal hoaxes are picking up on.
So tons of profs spend their time doing useless signaling.
That's what Sokal hoaxes are picking up on.
4/But what does this tell us laypeople about culture studies as a field?
Does it tell us that it's all just a bunch of bullshit? No better than gibberish and copypasta from Mein Kampf?
No, it does not.
Does it tell us that it's all just a bunch of bullshit? No better than gibberish and copypasta from Mein Kampf?
No, it does not.
5/The reason I know this is because of econ.
If you wanted to "prove" that econ was bullshit, you wouldn't even have to Sokal hoax any journal. You could just pull real examples from the literature.
There are some BAAAD papers out there.
But are most econ papers bad? No.
If you wanted to "prove" that econ was bullshit, you wouldn't even have to Sokal hoax any journal. You could just pull real examples from the literature.
There are some BAAAD papers out there.
But are most econ papers bad? No.
6/Most econ papers have methodological issues of one kind or another, sure. But the majority are serious, honest efforts by smart researchers to get at important questions.
*Despite* the weakness of peer review.
*Despite* the weakness of peer review.
7/There are a lot of people who criticize the econ profession from outside, without seeming to know what economists even actually do.
Sokal hoaxes play to the preconceptions of these folks.
Sokal hoaxes play to the preconceptions of these folks.
8/Sokal hoaxes appear to confirm a "pop critique" of an academic field that may only be true for a minor subset of that field.
"Econ is shilling for rich people."
"Postmodernism is unintelligible gibberish."
"Culture studies is lefty propaganda."
And so on.
"Econ is shilling for rich people."
"Postmodernism is unintelligible gibberish."
"Culture studies is lefty propaganda."
And so on.
9/So while Sokal hoaxes are fun and funny, don't take them as proof that an academic field is bankrupt.
An academic field MIGHT be bankrupt...but Sokal hoaxes won't tell you if they are or not.
An academic field MIGHT be bankrupt...but Sokal hoaxes won't tell you if they are or not.
10/But I will say this: People who use a pop version of an academic field for purposes of political rhetoric are NOT HELPING.
For example, it did NOT help econ's reputation when every other conservative pundit decided he was an economist.
amazon.com/Economism-Bad-…
For example, it did NOT help econ's reputation when every other conservative pundit decided he was an economist.
amazon.com/Economism-Bad-…
11/Similarly, my guess is that progressive activists (and Twitter shouters) probably tend to lean too hard on a simplified, pop version of cultural studies.
I don't *know* that's the case since I'm not an expert in cultural studies.
But that's what happened with econ.
I don't *know* that's the case since I'm not an expert in cultural studies.
But that's what happened with econ.
12/When pundits, activists, and shouters lean too hard on an oversimplfied, cartoonish pop version of an academic field, it makes that field more vulnerable - through no fault of its own! - to stuff like Sokal hoaxes.
13/To sum up, my take is:
1. Sokal hoaxes point to problems in the "publish or perish" culture of U.S. academia
2. Sokal hoaxes don't discredit whole academic fields
3. Politicization of pop social science makes academia more vulnerable to Sokal-hoaxing
(end)
1. Sokal hoaxes point to problems in the "publish or perish" culture of U.S. academia
2. Sokal hoaxes don't discredit whole academic fields
3. Politicization of pop social science makes academia more vulnerable to Sokal-hoaxing
(end)
