JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  2002

POETRYETC 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: A Responsibility to Awe

From:

Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:50:11 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

I don't want to get sidetracked from science poetry to Sokal--Jeremy's "why
Lucretius? Why now?" questions are more interesting and fruitful to me (I'll
get back to you on that, Jeremy!)--but I do want to point out that Peter's
quoting from the later book by Sokal and his coauthor (whose name I've
forgotten), while my own reference was to what Sokal did and said at the
time of the original hoax, an act of bad faith if ever there was. Since
then, Sokal has proved that bad faith can be a good career move, but he
hasn't put a dent in science studies because the scholars and theorists from
both the sciences and the humanities who work in that important area are
simply smarter and better-informed scientifically as well as
crit-theoretically. And they are doing serious, sophisticated work
together--in good faith.

The editors of _Social Text_ (which is published by Duke, so I was there
when all this was going down) weren't "lazy ignorant and smug" (IMHO), but
they weren't savvy either. While Sokal acted knowingly in bad faith, they
took a good-faith risk on him as a hopelessly confused physicist who--they
thought--was genuinely trying to engage with the theory he so obviously
didn't understand. I think they acted in the spirit Peter and I have been
sensing when they bent over backwards to try to help this clown bring his
article into something more than laughable shape. But when he refused to
make the revisions they'd requested (in a good-faith effort to make him look
less idiotic), they should have rejected the article even if they still had
no suspicions of Sokal's bad-faith-motivated actions. It was extremely poor
editorial judgment to publish his goofball article, as they themselves
realized when the balloon went up, but poor editorial judgment isn't a moral
issue, while bad faith certainly is. If we assume that integrity or the lack
thereof goes all the way down, then a scientist who would do what Sokal did
is a disgrace to and a menace in his own field, not a threat to anyone
else's.

If he's publishing quotes out of context like the Baudrillard one in order
to ridicule what he still doesn't understand (the now large literature on
event theory, for instance), then he's acting in the same scholarly bad
faith way that he did when he perpetrated the _Social Text_ hoax. And, with
all due respect, Peter, I think you implicitly endorse that bad faith when
you do the same to Baudrillard here by repeating a quote out of its context
of serious, fairly smart work (I'm not gung-ho Baudrillard myself) in order
to say that it's funny. It's only funny out of context and to those who,
knowing nothing of the event-theory work to which Baudrillard is gesturing
by analogy with such terms as "multiple refractivity" and the
"non-Euclidean" space of war, read those terms only in their literal senses.
The same sort of shoddy number could be done on one of your poems, Peter, if
some critic quoted a line in isolation and in a bad-faith effort to smear
your work.

But--jumping off my soapbox now--I also want to say that I loved the
strategy of your post, footnotes included (footnotes especially), and
thought it both sincere and savvy!

Candice  



on 1/11/02 5:51 PM, domfox at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Re Sokal, I am a great lover and sometime practitioner of theory-bollocks of
> all varieties, and I personally love what he did to Social Text who bloody
> deserved it for being lazy ignorant and smug, although I don't love him
> because he is also lazy ignorant and smug. The Baudrillard quote *is* funny,
> and Baudrillard himself is funny, and it isn't just a joke but it is also a
> joke. I don't think Kristeva was joking, but who knows? I like it that they
> couldn't find anything to pin on Derrida. And the background politics is
> sucky, because it makes your good faith as one who wills the social good
> dependant on your metaphysics, whereas in fact you can believe in bloody
> fairies and still be a solid pacifist and union organizer (or whatever your
> version of willing the social good entails) - the irritating thing about
> political questions is that they are quite askew from questions of technical
> or intellectual competance, and even stupid and deluded individuals can be
> politically decent, just as some of the cleverest bastards that there ain't
> half been have also been right-wing arseholes of the first order. I dislike
> it that this is the case, but what can you do?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A Responsibility to Awe
> 
> 
>> I'm very glad my comments were useful, Gerald.
>> 
>> Candice, I'll be more than happy to take a look at your poem whenever
>> it's ready to be looked at. But don't expect too much - it's a long time
>> since I studied physics properly, so my knowledge is somewhat rusty. I
>> bet you know more about neutrinos than I do at the moment.
>> 
>> As for good stuff, the book I was most recently impressed by was Neil
>> Rollinson's "Spanish Fly", which contains several poems that use
>> scientific imagery effectively and accurately. Mario Petrucci and Danny
>> Abse both know what they're talking about when they use science. The
>> grand-daddy of science poets is Miroslav Holub, of course, but you
>> probably knew that.
>> 
>> But I was meaning more that there seem to be fewer scientific blunders
>> in poems that aren't principally scientific in intent, but stumble
>> across some science along the way. I playfully have a "S.T. Coleridge
>> Horned Moon Award" [1] that I mentally present to poems that drop a
>> scientific clanger, and I seem to be dishing it out less frequently of
>> late. Poets seem to be more careful and/or better informed these days.
>> 
>> As for Sokal, I don't agree that:
>> 
>>> his
>>> _Social Text_ hoax began with his own inability to penetrate the language
> of
>>> critical theory and his assumption on the basis of his own limitations
> there
>>> that it wasn't comprehensible or substantive at all.
>> 
>> He specifically says: "We are not attacking philosophy, the humanities
>> or the social sciences *in general*; on the contrary, we feel that these
>> fields are of the utmost importance..." His main target isn't the
>> language of critical theory per se, but those occasions when it imports
>> the language of physics or mathematics and doesn't use it properly. You
>> might argue that critical theory has a perfect right to appropriate
>> physics or maths language and use it for its own purposes; after all,
>> those two disciplines are particularly noted for pinching their
>> vocabulary from other sources (energy, force, set, charm, flavour etc.
>> Physics nicked "quark" from Joyce.) But when the grammar as well as the
>> vocabulary has the same look and feel, there's a stronger expectation
>> of a similarity in meaning. Wittgenstein [2] aside, is it very likely
>> that a sentence that looks to have some relevance to one field of
>> discourse, but is written in the context of another, isn't making some
>> sort of reference to the first? At the very least, when Jean Baudrillard
>> (quoted by Sokal in Intellectual Impostures) says: "It is a sign that
>> the space of the event has become a hyperspace with multiple
>> refractivity, and that the space of war has become definitively non-
>> Euclidean." then even if this has a precise meaning within the discourse
>> of critical theory, can you seriously expect anyone with any knowledge
>> of science or mathematics (and who is unaware of the meaning in the
>> discourse of critical theory) not to snigger?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> [1] "The horned Moon, with one bright star/Within the nether tip." -
>> Within the moon's crescent is the rest of the moon, in shadow. It would
>> therefore block out the light from any star behind it. This is the most
>> notorious scientific blunder in poetry.
>> 
>> [2] I included this because a reference to Wittgenstein always gives a
>> post a bit of intellectual Úlan, don't you think? I was thinking of the
>> references to Wittgenstein in Tom Stoppard's [3] "Dogg's Hamlet,
>> Cahoot's MacBeth."
>> 
>> [3] And if you're going to mention a playwright in a post, you can't do
>> better than Tom Stoppard, especially if the reference is to one of his
>> more recondite works.[4]
>> 
>> [4] That's enough footnotes, ed.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager