Chapter 1: Understanding the Sokal Affair

The Sokal Affair, a pivotal event in the humanities, occurred in 1996 and stirred substantial controversy. Physicist Alan Sokal orchestrated a clever ruse by submitting a paper titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the cultural studies journal, Social Text. After the paper was accepted, Sokal revealed it was a deliberate hoax aimed at parodying postmodern cultural studies.

Sokal intended to provoke reflection among certain humanities departments, particularly Cultural Studies, English, and Comparative Literature, about the troubling trajectory of their fields. His actions prompted a crucial inquiry:

If a paper with such an absurd premise can be published by a respected press like Duke University Press, relying solely on pretentious jargon to gain recognition, what does that say about the credibility of postmodern and cultural studies?

Despite the uproar, the Sokal Affair has had minimal lasting impact on the state of the humanities. While some efforts, including Sokal's 1998 book "Fashionable Nonsense" and the 2005 anthology "Theory’s Empire: An Anthology of Dissent" edited by Patai and Corral, have aimed to document this phenomenon, the underlying tensions within the humanities remain largely unexamined.

Section 1.1: The Rivalry Between Philosophical Traditions

There exists a deep-seated rivalry between analytic philosophers and proponents of post-structuralist theory, the latter often dismissed as meaningless drivel shrouded in elitist language. Conversely, analytic philosophy is critiqued for its logocentric and patriarchal leanings.

This contentious dynamic predates the Sokal Affair, tracing back to a fierce debate roughly forty years ago between Jacques Derrida and John Searle regarding the intentionality of language.

Subsection 1.1.1: Insights from the Derrida/Searle Debate

Throughout this series, I will argue that while Searle adeptly dismantles Derrida's arguments, his insights often go unheeded because Derrida is not inclined to adhere to conventional standards. Each philosopher tends to engage primarily with their respective audiences—Searle with analytic philosophers and Derrida with critical theorists.

Though Derrida may be more culpable in this regard, as he speaks to a supportive audience that readily accepts his deconstructionist principles, criticisms could similarly apply to Searle. As a scholar in Comparative Literature, I find myself in a challenging position: I cannot refute Searle’s arguments.

Derrida clearly makes the errors that Searle identifies, failing to recognize fundamental distinctions acknowledged by language philosophers for decades. By analyzing the key points of the Derrida/Searle debate, I aim to demonstrate my conclusion that Derrida fundamentally misinterprets Searle's stance.

Chapter 2: The Implications of the Sokal Affair

In the video titled "Sokal Hoax" author Alan Sokal interviewed on The Marketplace of Ideas (11/18/2008), Sokal elaborates on the motivations and implications of his hoax, shedding light on the broader issues within the humanities.

The second video, "#1 The Grievance Studies Affair," discusses the subsequent responses and critiques stemming from the Sokal Affair, providing further context to this ongoing debate.