A friend of mine says that you understand how flawed academia is when you see your name in print. How do we claim to have something worth saying to the world? And why do we think that our particular contribution will add to the body of knowledge in a particular field?
In 1996, Alan Sokal sought to test the boundaries of academic work. Specifically, he submitted a paper to the peer-reviewed Social Text that was completely fabricated. It was a critique of modern science using the ideas and words of postmodern philosophers and psychologists. Postmodern thinkers are often hard enough to understand when they are talking about their own fields. But when Sokal applied their words and ideas to science, the levels of (purposeful) confusion only increased.
As he describes in his book Fashionable Nonsense, Sokal submitted an article (“Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”) that was “a parody of the type of work that has proliferated in recent years,” which is “chock-full of absurdities and blatant non-sequiturs.”
Sokal’s article is ridiculous. For example, it states that “the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the [pi] of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.” Such nonsense language often appears in business-speak, with committees strategizing about how to empower and incent [sic] teams to develop core competencies and put all the right people on the bus after you get broad-based buy-in on your SMART goals in light of your quarterly SWOT analysis. When we start to talk like this, we obscure the actual meaning of what we are trying to communicate. At best, it’s a poor way to explain yourself. At worst, it’s intentionally meant to distract or confuse your peers—and mask that there is no substance behind what you are saying.
For Sokal, the article was an experiment in itself. And “the article was accepted and published. Worse, it was published in a special issue of Social Text devoted to rebutting the criticisms levelled against postmodernism and social constructivism by several distinguished scientists.” (9-10) The author’s lofty language, full of the jargon of postmodern philosophy, was accepted as saying something profound simply because the peer reviewers did not know what Sokal was saying. In fact, he wasn’t saying anything at all, and that was the whole experiment.
There are a few lessons here. First, clarity in writing is the real attribute of an educated person or a skilled practitioner. I’d rather read someone who takes Strunk and White to heart rather than a 21st century writer imitating a Victorian intellectual. Eliminated unnecessary words, use short sentences, get to the point, use small and common words over long and obscure ones, etc. Clarity is the mark of a good writer.
Second, jargon. In the legal world, people use jargon as a crutch or to sound “lawyerly.” You see this a lot when people represent themselves in court. In those case, you see a lot of jargon and a lot of Latin (often misused). People think this is the way to write “like a lawyer,” so they imitate the stereotype even though skilled lawyers are trying to write better and avoid these very things. In these cases, the writer only confuses the reader (and probably the writer as well) because they feel like they are saying something when they actually are not.
Third, do not stray beyond your competence. Sokal’s experiment succeeded because he strung together quotes from postmodern philosophers and psychologists to explain and critique scientific concepts. The “critique” made no sense at all, and was not designed to actually take issue with the science. But the peer reviewers did not seem to catch the joke. Perhaps they were distracted by the deliberately obscure writing. Or perhaps they thought the critique was so “deep” or “intellectual” that they did not need to review whether Sokal was true to the underlying scientific concepts.
It’s a lesson for us all when we are presented with writers or speakers (e.g., politicians) who say lots of words without saying much at all. It is similar to how Sokal describes the postmodernist writers he quoted: “Some of these authors exhibit a veritable intoxication with words, combined with a superb indifference to their meaning.”
Let’s not be deceived like the editors of Social Text. Words matter. We should be discerning writers and readers as we seek to be clear communicators. Have something to say, say it, and be done.
Remember to turn every page. Enjoy your weekend. Please let me know whether you need anything.
Best,
Aaron