On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Andrew Kliman wrote:
> I haven't read the book, and I have little sympathy for Sokal's
> ontology -- the term "abstract materialism" is apt. But I have
> read a good deal of the prior debate on the "Sokal affair," and
> Sokal has certainly demonstrated his crucial points: the pomos
> in question (1) are guilty of confusing and conflating ontology
> and epistemology -- using the social construction of knowledge as
> "evidence" that reality is socially constructed, for instance,
> and (2) do not make sense when they discuss natural science.
>
Point (1) above brings up an interesting and crucial point. (I consider point (2) predictable: ask any academic about work in a specialty outside their own, they'll usually get it wrong.) Since it's impossible to generalize about "pomo" theorists, consider Foucault. Foucault is often accused of antirealism, relativism, etc. But if you actually read F, you'll find he makes no philosophical or ontological claims at all! In the traditional sense, pomos like Foucault are not philosophers at all; they have no interest in ontological essences. Rather, the interest lies in understanding how human practice gives rise to socially and historically specific ideas about what is essential. --And here is the common confusion: this kind of genealogical analysis is not interested in ontology. To say that certain beliefs and values and scientific theories are socially created and play specific roles in a society has no bearing at all no whether the ideas are "true" or not.
In short: people who consider social constructionism and ontological relativism synonymous need to do some more reading. I think Sokal would be surprised at the strength of the conceptual thread linking Marx with pomos like Foucault.
Miles Jackson cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu