For those who don't remember, NYU physicist Alan Sokal published a deconstruction of physics for a leading postmodern cultural studies journal (Social Text), titled, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." It was made up bullsh!t, and the journal was profoundly embarrassed by the whole affair. But postmodern critical studies plowed ahead, unbowed.

These folks have gone Sokal one better.

"Grievance Studies"

The Atlantic picked up on the story ...

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals about Academia

One paper is in part a rewrite of portions of Mein Kampf (even using "struggle" in the title ... ). One wag in the YouTube comments said, "So, the word "feminazi" is no longer hyperbole?"

I would have used a less broad title for the article, since the Hoaxsters only skewer certain "disciplines" and methods.

I've been following this with an embarrassing amount of glee.


Here's the author's take:

https://areomagazine.com/2018/...tion-of-scholarship/



Probably the best (but still not very good) 'defense' of the hoaxed disciplines I've yet read:

http://crookedtimber.org/2018/...ove-over-sokal-hoax/

I think even the NYT picked it up, by the way. Today's edition.

Revenge of the Positivists!

I'm surprised I missed this when it first came out. Here is their longer explanation:

Areo Magazine

Yeah, I posted that above.

Yeah, I just saw that ... sorry.

To me, this only speaks of intellectual laziness on the part of the editors/reviewers of the publications that accepted the papers.

To be fair, many of the publications serve very narrow areas of study, many of which are probably desperate for new ideas to add to their canon. However, in trying to validate the field of study, they may have let down their guard of academic rigor.

quote:

To me, this only speaks of intellectual laziness on the part of the editors/reviewers of the publications that accepted the papers.

I think that much is clear. The question is whether that intellectual weakness is inherent to the disciplines involved. The authors of the hoax think so, and I tend to agree with them.

As do I.

I think it's more desperation to validate the discipline involved. Kind of like holding one's nose to vote for a candidate one can't quite stomach completely, the editorial board may have only published the papers because they dealt with the subject matter, not necessarily agreed with the specifics (which, admittedly, were fraudulent).

It is notable, as The Atlantic notes, that journals for more mainstream disciplines rejected the papers. Why? Because they can be more selective, due to there being much more content in the pipeline.

They didn't send it to mainstream journals. The reference to the APSR and it's sociology equivalent weren't the kind of journals they targeted. They always targeted very specific "grievance disciplines" as they term it. The rejections led them to change their approach to understanding (and writing for) these hyper-politicized audiences. Once they figured out how to bullsh!t correctly, these journals were only too happy to air the "scholarship."

These people mastered the techniques of publishing Social Justice stuff in short order and wrote 20 freakin' papers in a year, seven of which were published or accepted and more were on track to publication.

A pithy response to critics by one of the authors

https://mobile.twitter.com/Con.../1056702117958877190

quote:

Wrote another rewrite of Mein Kampf in which the putative author, a white lesbian, excoriates her own whiteness (standing in for Hitler's Jews). Significant among the reasons the paper didn't get in is that a reviewer said this positions her as a "good white" for being woke.

Reminds me of the philosophy prof whose self-denunciation in the NYT drew your attention. I suspect many in grievance studies would have the same reaction to his over-the-top self-flagellation.

[..halfway through that piece, I was still trying to determine if indeed it WAS a parody].

You know, he (Yancy) has actually made that same point in the times before, but more instrumentally. His real point was that there really are no ‘good whites’.