By ann summers
![iu_1_[1]](https://flowersforsocrates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/iu_1_1.jpg?w=517&h=269)
“But why did I do it? I confess that I’m an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I’m a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them.” (Alan Sokal)
The problem occurred when opportunistic RW politicians normalized it as a cause célèbre to attack “soft” disciplines deemed superfluous and even as public policy, reduce curricula and programs (see U. of Wisconsin Stevens Point). Darn those cultures.
Hoaxing academics and academia is good sport and spoofing the peer-review system is important because it often reproduces its own insular research, often with little use other than to advance tenure reviews at ever more mediocre academic institutions. Nothing’s worse than academics with a grudge, except deans with grudges, reheating tempests in tea-pots. But hoaxing Thunderdome is an indulgence for the tenured.
The real unintended cost of popularizing academic work is that when it gets ridiculed outside the academy such controversy is often used to virally reproduce ignorance like climate deniers or anti-vaxxers.
An updated version of the hegemonic cynicism of Sokalism has been promoted by Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian (PLB) Unlike the Sokal attack on one journal and a specific critical approach, however famous, they chose to hoax a number of journals simply to test quality assurance.
Our paper-writing methodology always followed a specific pattern: it started with an idea that spoke to our epistemological or ethical concerns with the field and then sought to bend the existing scholarship to support it. The goal was always to use what the existing literature offered to get some little bit of lunacy or depravity to be acceptable at the highest levels of intellectual respectability within the field. Therefore, each paper began with something absurd or deeply unethical (or both) that we wanted to forward or conclude. We then made the existing peer-reviewed literature do our bidding in the attempt to get published in the academic canon.
Rather than taking on the larger discourse of canonical power in non-humanities fields, PLB performs an insurgent act on some academic sub-fields that while critically important, will not address the increasing asymmetry of power among disciplinary units in the modern university. For example PLB could have tackled the research in fields that have more considerable importance to college professors, namely why is it that business school professors have higher average salaries, when it does seem more logical for the medical school professors.













After attending the Ecole Supérieure de Lettres de Beyrouth, she studied philosophy at the Sorbonne, the University of California at Berkeley, and Harvard University in the 1950s. Adnan taught philosophy at Dominican College, now named Dominican University of California (1958-1972).

