Table Of Content00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page i
INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES
AlanSokalisProfessorofPhysicsatNewYorkUniversity.
In 1996 his infamous article ‘Transgressing the bound-
aries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum
gravity’, parodying postmodernists’ use of scientific lan-
guage, was published in all seriousness by the American
cultural-studiesjournalSocialText.
Jean Bricmont is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the
UniversityofLouvain(Belgium).
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page ii
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page iii
INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES
Postmodern philosophers’ abuse of science
Alan Sokal
and
Jean Bricmont
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page iv
Firstpublishedin1997inFrenchby
ÉditionsOdileJacob
15rueSoufflot
75005Paris
FirstpublishedinGreatBritainin1998by
ProfileBooksLtd
58AHattonGarden
LondonEC1N8LX
www.profilebooks.co.uk
Thiseditionpublishedin1999,2003
ThisEnglishtranslation©AlanSokalandJeanBricmont1998,1999,2003
TypesetinSabonbyMacGuruLtd
[email protected]
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby
StEdmundsburyPress,BuryStEdmunds
Themoralrightoftheauthorshasbeenasserted.
Allrightsreserved.Withoutlimitingtherightsundercopyrightreservedabove,nopart
ofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedorintroducedintoaretrievalsystem,or
transmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans(electronic,mechanical,photocopying,
recordingorotherwise),withoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofboththecopyright
ownerandthepublisherofthisbook.
ACIPcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN1861976313
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page v
TO MARINA
TO CLAIRE, THOMAS AND ANTOINE
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page vi
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page vii
CONTENTS
Prefacetothefirstedition ix
Prefacetothesecondedition xv
1 Introduction 1
2 JacquesLacan 17
3 JuliaKristeva 37
4 Intermezzo:Epistemicrelativisminthephilosophyofscience 49
5 LuceIrigaray 97
6 BrunoLatour 115
7 Intermezzo:Chaostheoryand‘postmodernscience’ 125
8 JeanBaudrillard 137
9 GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari 145
10 PaulVirilio 159
11 Gödel’stheoremandsettheory:Someexamplesofabuse 167
12 Epilogue 173
APPENDICES
A Transgressingtheboundaries:Towardatransformative
hermeneuticsofquantumgravity 199
B Somecommentsontheparody 241
C Transgressingtheboundaries:Anafterword 248
Bibliography 259
Index 274
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page viii
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page ix
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
ThepublicationinFranceofourbookImposturesIntellectuelles1ap-
pears to have created a small storm in certain intellectual circles.
According to Jon Henley in The Guardian, we have shown that ‘mod-
ernFrenchphilosophyisaloadofoldtosh.’2AccordingtoRobertMag-
giori in Libération, we are humourless scientistic pedants who correct
grammaticalerrorsinloveletters.3Wewouldliketoexplainbrieflywhy
neitheristhecase,andtoanswerbothourcriticsandourover-enthusi-
asticsupporters.Inparticular,wewanttodispelanumberofmisunder-
standings.
Thebookgrewoutofthenow-famoushoaxinwhichoneofuspub-
lished,intheAmericancultural-studiesjournalSocialText,aparodyar-
ticle crammed with nonsensical, but unfortunately authentic,
quotations about physics and mathematics by prominent French and
American intellectuals.4 However, only a small fraction of the ‘dossier’
discoveredduringSokal’slibraryresearchcouldbeincludedinthepar-
ody. After showing this larger dossier to scientist and non-scientist
friends,webecame(slowly)convincedthatitmightbeworthmakingit
available to a wider audience. We wanted to explain, in non-technical
terms,whythequotesareabsurdor,inmanycases,simplymeaningless;
and we wanted also to discuss the cultural circumstances that enabled
these discourses to achieve such renown and to remain, thus far, unex-
posed.
But what exactly do we claim? Neither too much nor too little. We
show that famous intellectuals such as Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, Bau-
drillardandDeleuzehaverepeatedlyabusedscientificconceptsandter-
minology: either using scientific ideas totally out of context, without
givingtheslightestjustification–notethatwearenotagainstextrapo-
lating concepts from one field to another, but only against extrapola-
tionsmadewithoutargument–orthrowingaroundscientificjargonin
front of their non-scientist readers without any regard for its relevance
1 ÉditionsOdileJacob,Paris,October1997.
2 Henley(1997).
3 Maggiori(1997).
4 Sokal(1996a),reprintedhereinAppendixA.Thestoryofthehoaxisdescribedin
moredetailinChapter1below.
00 Intellectual prelim’s:00 Intellectual prelim’s 27/7/11 16:49 Page x
x INTELLECTUALIMPOSTURES
or even its meaning. We make no claim that this invalidates the rest of
theirwork,onwhichwesuspendjudgment.
Wearesometimesaccusedofbeingarrogantscientists,butourview
of the hard sciences’ role is in fact rather modest. Wouldn’t it be nice
(forusmathematiciansandphysicists,thatis)ifGödel’stheoremorrel-
ativitytheorydidhaveimmediateanddeepimplicationsforthestudyof
society?Oriftheaxiomofchoicecouldbeusedtostudypoetry?Orif
topologyhadsomethingtodowiththehumanpsyche?Butalas,itisnot
thecase.
Asecondtargetofourbookisepistemicrelativism,namelytheidea
–which,atleastwhenexpressedexplicitly,ismuchmorewidespreadin
the English-speaking world than in France – that modern science is
nothing more than a ‘myth’, a ‘narration’ or a ‘social construction’
amongmanyothers.5Besidessomegrossabuses(e.g.Irigaray),wedis-
sect a number of confusions that are rather frequent in postmodernist
and cultural-studies circles: for example, misappropriating ideas from
thephilosophyofscience,suchastheunderdeterminationoftheoryby
evidence or the theory-ladenness of observation, in order to support
radicalrelativism.
Thisbookisthereforemadeupoftwodistinct–butrelated–works
underonecover.First,thereisthecollectionofextremeabusesdiscov-
ered, rather haphazardly, by Sokal; these are the ‘impostures’ of our
title.Second,thereisourcritiqueofepistemicrelativismandofmiscon-
ceptions about ‘postmodern science’; these analyses are considerably
more subtle. The connection between these two critiques is primarily
sociological: the French authors of the ‘impostures’ are fashionable in
many of the same English-speaking academic circles where epistemic
relativismis thecoinofthe realm.6 There is also a weak logical link: if
one accepts epistemic relativism, there is less reason to be upset by the
misrepresentation of scientific ideas, which anyway are just another
‘discourse’.
Obviously,wedidnotwritethisbookjusttopointoutsomeisolated
abuses. We have larger targets in mind, but not necessarily those that
5 Letusemphasizethatourdiscussionislimitedtoepistemic/cognitiverelativism;we
donotaddressthemoredelicateissuesofmoraloraestheticrelativism.
6 Thisoverlapis,however,notperfect.TheFrenchauthorsanalysedinthisbookare
mostfashionable,intheEnglish-speakingworld,indepartmentsofliterature,cul-
tural studies and women’s studies. Epistemic relativism is distributed rather more
broadly,andiswidespreadalsoindomainsofanthropology,educationandsociol-
ogyofsciencethatexhibitlittleinterestinLacanorDeleuze.
