Peddling Stupidity
Or, the postmodern scholarship of “radical cyber-feminist” Carolyn Guertin.
Thanks to the blogging psychoanalyst, Shrinkwrapped, I came across a doctoral dissertation called, rather implausibly, Quantum Feminist Mnemotechnics: the Archival Text, Digital Narrative and the Limits of Memory. The work in question, by “radical cyber-feminist” Carolyn G. Guertin, is apparently the basis of a forthcoming book of the same name. Faced with such an imposing title, one can practically hear the boundaries of human knowledge squealing as they expand. Naturally, I had to find out more.
On visiting Guertin’s website, I discovered that the author is a Senior McLuhan Fellow in the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto. As a “scholar of women’s art and literature and new media arts,” Dr Guertin also shapes young minds at the Universities of Athabasca and Guelph, Canada, and is a frequent guest speaker at conferences and events across Europe. Her works, I learned, have been published “in print, online and in real space.”
Space crops up quite a bit in Guertin’s dissertation, as do various mathematical, quantum mechanical and geometric terms, the bulk of which are misused in a series of strained and incoherent metaphors. In keeping with many purveyors of postmodern theorising, Guertin has been careful to appropriate fragments of scientific terminology that sound fashionable and exciting, and uses them with no apparent regard for their meaning or relevance. (Entanglement and Hilbert Space are mentioned casually, with no explanation, and for no discernible reason.)
Consequently, it’s difficult to fathom the author’s supposed intention, or to determine exactly how far short of that objective her efforts have fallen. Instead, we’re presented with what amounts to a collage of grandiose jargon, habitual non sequitur and unrelated subject matter – including feminism, web browsing and space-time curvature – bolted together by little more than chutzpah:
And,
And furthermore,
I hope that’s clear to everyone.
Guertin takes care to drop the obligatory menu of names – Baudrillard, Burroughs, Deleuze, Derrida, Gibson and Guattari among them – though the actual relevance of many citations is, again, far from clear. The more sceptical among us may even suspect a number of them have been included arbitrarily or for reasons of cultish connotation, rather than for any logical or evidential relevance.
I should, I think, mention that Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze have been debunked at length in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s book, Intellectual Impostures, chiefly for producing “a handful of intelligible sentences – sometimes banal, sometimes erroneous,” and for what the authors describe as “the most brilliant mélange of scientific, pseudo-scientific and philosophical jargon that we have ever encountered.” Readers unfamiliar with Guattari’s prose may benefit from a mercifully brief, and by no means unusual, example:
At this point, readers may detect a strange similarity of Guertin’s chosen prose style with that of Guattari. It needn’t be Guattari, of course. It might as well have been Baudrillard or Derrida, or half of the names in Guertin’s annotations. One ream of postmodern gibberish is difficult to distinguish from any other, and this is not by accident. Buzzwords and citations are carefully chosen – along with gratuitous neologisms and misused terminology – generally to build sentences of such opacity and length that readers will be suitably intimidated.
The intention behind such wilfully unintelligible text is, it seems, not to invite thought or reward it, but to repel and discourage it. This is done by exhausting the reader’s efforts to comprehend and reducing him to a state of demoralised dishonesty, whereby absurd and vacuous statements are repeated and endorsed, regardless of incomprehension and for fear of appearing stupid. By publicly endorsing vacuity, and making great claims in its name, the unsuspecting student is thus painted into a corner and any subsequent rethinking entails an intolerable loss of face and credibility. Few of us like to admit to being duped, least of all those who have been duped rather badly. This may explain the heated defensiveness that often surrounds even the most absurd material of this kind.
Postmodern prose is perhaps best approached as an exercise in posturing and phonetics – of couching slim and trite observations in needlessly Byzantine language; or as what Sokal and Bricmont refer to as “a gradual crescendo of nonsense.” Efforts to fathom deep meaning, or, very often, meaning of any kind, are generally exhausting and rarely rewarded. More often, what you’ll find is essentially a pile of language, carefully disorganised so as to obscure a lack of content.
As Shrinkwrapped notes, Guertin’s ‘conclusion’ is suitably postmodern, mulling as it does on the difficulty of arriving at a conclusion. In a rare moment of relative lucidity, we learn: “The whole concept of reaching a conclusion or drawing conclusions is, of course, antithetical to the nature of this kind of literature as much as to my aims in this work as a whole.” It goes without saying that conclusions are much easier to write if one has actually done the work to draw a conclusion from, and it’s theoretically possible one might feel a flickering of sympathy for Ms Guertin at this point. Instead of making any attempt to focus her thoughts, such as they are, or to clarify her aims, whatever they may be, Guertin veers from vacuous pseudo-argument to vacuous pseudo-poetry, and resorts to listing a series of words – again, in no perceptible order:
This goes on for some time:
And so on.
It’s important to understand that nonsense of this kind is rarely arrived at by accident. It’s highly unlikely that mere clumsiness and mental dullness would produce such determined vacuity. It’s less probable still that so many academics and students would, by chance and dullness alone, produce vacuity with such eerie uniformity. To produce ‘work’ of the generic emptiness shown above – or seen here, or here, or here or here – requires practice and dedication, and no small dishonesty. One might forgive genuine stupidity and a lack of mental wherewithal, but when people who aren’t entirely stupid are determined to peddle stupidity as the height of intellectual sophistication, well, that’s harder to excuse. In a saner world, Guertin and her peers would be laughed out of every room they entered. And a gentle pelting with soft fruit wouldn’t go amiss.
In my recent discussion with Ophelia Benson, I suggested that PoMo ‘theorising’ has most obviously served far-left ideologues, specifically those, like Guertin, whose ideas wouldn’t withstand scrutiny of the most elementary kind. One notes, for instance, the number of PoMo traffickers who label themselves as “activists” or “radicals” of various far-left causes. And one notes that almost all of the architects and key figures of politicised postmodernism have embraced leftist politics, often of an extreme kind. If, to quote Foucault, “reason is the ultimate language of madness”, and if, as Jean-Francois Lyotard argued, notions of truth and clarity are synonymous with “prisons and prohibitions,” then adherents of this view are free to believe whatever they wish to believe, regardless of contrary evidence or logical errors, and regardless of the practical fallout of such beliefs.
If texts can be read to mean almost anything, and if anachronistic subtexts can be projected to suit the reader’s own political prejudice, then a world of illusion and false opportunity has been opened. If hierarchies of knowledge and value are conveniently flattened into a spectrum of equally valid “narratives,” then one can claim that the second-hand ‘revelations’ of Muhammad are equal in rigour and sophistication to the epistemology of David Hume, or that aboriginal rock painting is on an aesthetic par with Bach; or that gender is entirely a social construction with no biological basis. Or, against all evidence to the contrary, that Socialism is compatible with individual freedom and general prosperity.
Some, like Simon Blackburn, have argued that postmodern theorising isn’t that bad, some of it at least; and besides, we’re assured, its influence is fading. Well, let’s hope so. But politicised PoMo has for decades cast its shadow over the Humanities and over hundreds of thousands of minds. Many of which have been encouraged to disassemble the tools of rational thought in order to repeat political preferences of a remarkably similar kind, and in a remarkably similar way. Others have learned to obfuscate, to be dishonest and to see meaning where none exists, if only to further their careers or to avoid looking foolish in the company of fools. And this doesn’t foster scepticism and the testing of ideas; it leads to dullness and credulity.
In Why Truth Matters, Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom quote David Lehman’s Signs of the Times, a lamentation on the state of English departments, in which he recounts being told, “If you want to make it in the criticism racket, you have to be a deconstructionist or a Marxist, otherwise you’re not taken seriously. It doesn’t matter what you know. What counts is your theoretical approach. And this means knowing jargon.” As I’ve noted elsewhere, the pervasiveness of postmodern theory is uniquely pernicious in that it has explicitly marginalised expectations of accuracy, coherence and truth in favour of ostentatious political conformity. The basic tools of discernment have thus been dismissed as “Eurocentric”, “patriarchal” or unfairly distributed. Some might call this intellectual vandalism. This is the legacy of postmodern thought, as trafficked by many academics of the left – the ‘freedom’ to blunt the senses and be triumphantly, shamelessly wrong. Provided, of course, everyone is wrong in exactly the same, triumphant, way.
Carolyn Guertin’s “Statement of Teaching Philosophy” can be read here. And, please, no laughing.
Brilliant article.
My wife often tells me off when I scoff at catwalk fashion shows. As I snort with derision at the absurd and impractical creations prancing merrily down the catwalk, she reminds me that these absurdities will, before too long, make their way — albeit diluted — into every high street shop in the country.
So it is with the horrors of postmodernism.
It’s quite odd really to see ‘trickle-down’ theory so well proved, albeit in another field.
StuckRecord,
Quite. And the impracticality is rather important. If one is inclined to habitual bullshit, it helps to generate bullshit that’s (a) incomprehensible, and (b) of no practical application whatsoever. That way it’s much harder to tell exactly how bad the bullshit is.
Alan Sokal touched on this in the wake of the Social Text hoax:
“Theorising about ‘the social construction of reality’ won’t help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity…”
The ‘incomprehensibility’ tag is, to me, the most important.
I’m sure it’s been recognised by someone far smarter than me (i.e. anyone), but I’ve long thought that the modern cultural Marxist elite bear less resemblance to intellectuals, then they do to high priests — in many cases, priests of some obscure cargo cult.
Throughout history the most important tool of closed priesthood systems is the ability to be able to defend their position with obtuse and indecipherable logic. Any attempts to clarify, or allow the ordinary masses to understand is resisted — often violently. Case in point a documentary by Rod Liddle last night on Channel 4 about the attempts to translate the Bible into English during the late mediaeval: Wycliffe, Tyndale etc. The violent resistance to this from the power elite in the church was all about keeping the authority of interpretation (and therefore by inference supreme authority of God) in their hands.
Progress, as we would understand it, only occurred when the obscurantists lost.
The modern cultural Marxist elite, having utterly failed to put their ideas successfully into practice in the 20th century, have decided instead to take over the language. They seem — judging from the evidence around us — to have succeeded. By destroying the meaning of words they can now never be successfully proved wrong.
I despair sometimes, which is why I’m overjoyed at finding your blog. A beacon of light, and clarity of thought.
What I can’t understand about postmodernism, moral relativism and cultural Marxism is, how can its thought police — so sure in their belief that no idea of concept can be proved to be wrong — believe certain things are indisputably wrong: the US, racism, sexism, colonialism etc?
Maybe you could help.
StuckRecord,
The self-refuting nature of much PoMo theory has been widely noted. Most obviously the supposed equivalence of all cultures, past and present – except our own, which is, apparently, the cause of all known ills. I think this contradiction is generally ignored, along with so many others. Or, at best, you hear squirming about ‘playfulness’ and the futility of being ‘right’.
From personal experience, the preferred tactic is to ignore the contradiction and persist in some kind tu quoque exchange, by listing the shortcomings of the West, real and imagined, louder than before. See here for one example:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/the_perils_of_m.html
I guess one has to remember this isn’t really a serious attempt at a coherent explanatory philosophy. It’s more akin to a façade for an emotional position, usually involving resentment and self-loathing, and a need to belittle one’s own culture and any successful product of it.
Carnal Reason has some interesting comments over here:
http://carnalreason.org/2007/04/10/what-is-postmodern-scholarship-for/
The bit about telling lies in public is, I think, important. Likewise the quote by Theodore Dalrymple about probity, control and emasculated liars.
Thanks very much.
I love Dalrymple. His column in the Spectator was one of my favourites.
It’s hard to believe that she’s a Martial McGluon Fellow at the U of T.
“Any attempts to clarify, or allow the ordinary masses to understand is resisted — often violently.”
Tell me about it. I’ve had some fairly nasty blogospheric attacks thrown my way for having the temerity to untangle this stuff.
Having said that, though, I think we go a bit far to argue something like this:
“I guess one has to remember this isn’t really a serious attempt at a coherent explanatory philosophy. It’s more akin to a façade for an emotional position, usually involving resentment and self-loathing, and a need to belittle one’s own culture and any successful product of it.”
This seems to me a rather too harsh assessment of postmodern philosophy itself — though it is quite a fair assessment of the stuff that is trickled down and eventually taught as postmodernism or poststructuralism.
I wrote a post on this a while back, for those who may be interested:
http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/pomo_a_go_go/
Is it me, or does this stuff look like it’s been generated by computer?
Tools like this – http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ do a similar job or creating plausible-looking gibberish automatically.
I could probably write a PoMo book in no more than 100 lines of code and an online dictionary.
Jeff,
Thanks for the link. Will mull.
As for being harsh – well, perhaps. I’ve some sympathy with Stephen Hicks’ evaluation of PoMo as a broad historical phenomenon – i.e. as a bunker for embittered Marxists in which reality can be held at bay and failure can be rationalised, after a fashion.
http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/1592476422
But my comments were aimed chiefly at the broader political and emotional positions that are widely adopted, often with reference to PoMo ideas, accurately or otherwise. Taken loosely, or colloquially, PoMo is very often used to articulate and justify a contorted, self-loathing stance.
I just got stupider reading those quotes.
Thanks a lot.
Shouldn’t it be “meatspace,” not “real space?”
I guess if I was looking for a way to prove that words actually do mean nothing, writing and somehow having published an enormous pile of words that, well, actually do mean nothing is as good an approach as any.
This is sort of relevant. PoMo in modern, politicised art:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/art_bollocks_re.html
And, of course, the Postmodernism Generator will induce hilarity and madness in roughly equal measure.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Found this – you probably knew about it – http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
I quite like this, from Ms Guertin’s Statement of Teaching Philosophy:
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/phil.html
“Cyberfeminism is a process of dynamic interaction and fluid boundary-free practices that pose new strategies for navigating real and virtual worlds, and navigations in the cyberspaces of networked literature point to potentialities for how it might be possible to escape the white western male power structures that tend to rule technological discourse and our classroom work as well.”
I think we should send someone back in there to count exactly how many times she uses the words “discourse” and “potentialities.”
And this… well, insert your own tasteless gag of choice:
“As technology becomes more pervasive in every aspect of our lives, everything is becoming digital and our feminisms grow still larger.”
I think we need some time apart. I need my Hilbert Space.
Dan,
Don’t make me unleash the enlarged feminisms.
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/photos/pictures1/fifty_foot_hoes_3.jpg
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/photos/pictures1/fifty_foot_hoes.jpg
So you found that at Shrinkwrapped? Do I take you to mean you don’t check Butterflies and Wheels’s news links every day? I’m shocked, shocked.
I’ve been trying to remember where I saw the piece…I think it was at the Richard Dawkins site.
Ophelia,
I found a couple of threads at Dawkins’ site after I’d filed this for 3:AM. They’re worth a squint:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,823,Is-this-another-Sokal-Hoax,Carolyn-G-Guertin,page2#comments
http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature
And surely every good-hearted person checks the B&W news links on a daily – nay, hourly – basis…?
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/news.php
It was the Dawkins site, and furthermore, Guertin replied there on April 7 – see comment 50, bottom of page.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,823,Is-this-another-Sokal-Hoax,Carolyn-G-Guertin
But of course no one understands, it’s professional technical stuff, outsiders can’t judge, etc etc
“Yes, I expect a few pages cut and pasted from the middle of any 600-page work, even a work by the illustrious Mr Dawkins himself, would become cryptic when cited out of context to people working in another field. No literary scholar would undertake such a decontextualized analysis; clearly the standards are considerably lower in the sciences. Why bother to read the 300 odd pages that precede this section set out to establish the framework for these same complex concepts as they apply to three particular examples of digital narrative when you can leap to outrageous conclusions? Do I really need to point out that this was a dissertation written for specialists working in my field and not a work for general publication?”
Specialists! In what?! Quantum feminism? Which is – what exactly?
Excuse cross-post, David – I thought I had already posted the above, but forgot to check whether it had gone through; I keep misreading the test-thingy.
No one should miss Guertin’s teaching philosophy
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/phil.html
“Cyberfeminisms writ large are what I call ‘quantum feminisms,’ lived as much in the scientific world as in the literary, personal as much as political.”
Right because that’s what ‘quantum’ means in the world of specialists in – um – naming things whatever they feel like naming them.
What a preening pretentious buffoon.
Ophelia,
Heh. Of course, we need to “look deeper.” And disregard the obvious, presumably. It seems she doesn’t like scientists very much. Envy, perhaps? It’s odd, though, given how readily she appropriates fragments of technical jargon in order to decorate her own nest.
Well that’s why she doesn’t like them. She’s afraid they’ll come along and take her shiny jargon away.
“…clearly the standards are considerably lower in the sciences.”
Okay. Now I’m angry.
Franklin,
For some strange reason I’m picturing Ms Guertin as a metaphorical Bower Bird, pilfering feathers and colourful debris in order to seduce a mate with someone else’s plumage.
That worked. I feel better now.
“Why bother to read the 300 odd pages that precede this section set out to establish the framework for these same complex concepts as they apply to three particular examples of digital narrative when you can leap to outrageous conclusions?”
Might we read this complaint to predict that if we start at page 1, we will find a rational, clearly-written setup for the “complex concepts” that follow? Let’s test.
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/1i.html
Ouch.
The fun would begin by asking her for working definitions of the scientific terms she tosses about. Each should be examined and corrected as needed. After she’s flubbed about five, then say, “If you don’t even know anything about the scientific concepts you cite, why should we believe the rest of your prose is meaningful at all?”
As to her complaint that a few pages cut from the middle of a long book are always going to sound like that: hogwash.
I’ve been thinking about just these ideas lately. Why is it that postmodernists spend so much time just asserting the same idea–that langauge has been loosened from meaning, etc etc? If that’s so, than the postmodern critic is indeed entitled to talk gibberish–but they are not entitled to assert their gibberish as supreme. They should respect all nonsense–even the retrograde critics that still believe in truth & lucidity! Check out my site litandart.com if you want to see more of my thoughts on this point. Great post–glad to see somewhat lay into the dual demons of feminism and cybershit.
It’s interesting to note that in her reply to comments on Richard Dawkins’ forum, Guertin chooses not to clarify her position in any meaningful way. Instead, she claims, rather peevishly, that her work can only be understood by specialists, who, we’re told, will “look deeper.”
But appeals to special, deeper, insight aren’t exactly convincing, least of all in this instance. Affecting some secret knowledge and elevated status isn’t going to work if that status is so clearly unearned. I’d have thought it would be of greater use, and a sign of good faith, to explain – if she can – what her work is, and why it’s worth reading, or indeed writing. But that would probably entail explaining why, for instance, basic physics terms have been so obviously misused.
I, for one, would love to hear what’s meant by the “blatantly viral agenda” of feminist acts to “insert women, bodily fluids and political consciousness into electronic spaces.”
I like how you point out how she dodges defending herself by invoking the high-specialism of her work. One of the worst things about Postmodern criticism is that critics don’t need to have any wit or fighting spirit to defend it. They are automatically protected by their jargon and the hegemony of their position. 50 years ago, an argument between two eminent literary critics, for instance, would be something even the layperson could enjoy–the passion, cleverness and erudition made for a fun fight. Now, conflict is dulled, and the actual personality of critics has gotten duller as well. Spirited thinkers have migrated elsewhere.
McFawn,
“Spirited thinkers have migrated elsewhere.”
It would seem so. In the article, I mentioned David Lehman’s Signs of the Times, in which he recounts being told, “If you want to make it in the criticism racket, you have to be a deconstructionist or a Marxist.” Presumably, many of those who found neither option appealing, and were unable to pretend otherwise, were obliged to look elsewhere for employment.
The fact that Guertin’s blatherings were apparently unchallenged by her supervisors suggests either an inexcusable inattention on their part or, perhaps more likely, that they’re of a very similar disposition and schooled in much the same nonsense. Perhaps entire departments are now populated by fraudulent ideologues who grade according to political conformity and a willingness to deceive, rather than on any real ability to think.
If so, a purge would seem in order.
“a metaphorical Bower Bird, pilfering feathers and colourful debris in order to seduce a mate with someone else’s plumage.”
He’s got it! It’s bricolage! By a bricoleur.
These materials may be mass-produced or “junk”. — Wikipedia
Whilst you spend a lot of time demolishing Guertin’s turgid emissions, the core of your piece seems to be this: “One ream of postmodern gibberish is difficult to distinguish from any other, and this is not by accident.” This block denunciation is Sokal and Bricmont’s starting point too of course, on the basis that any piece of writing by a number of disparate authors (possibly with substantially different commitments) is equally bad if it uses a scientific concept in an allusive or metaphorical way. This always seemed to me an extreme misunderstanding of the role of scientific concepts in philosophy. In reflecting on our everyday ways of thinking, we often become aware that we rely on spatial and other physical imagery – the use of precise scientific concepts outside the context in which they evolved can enable us to unsettle the metaphysical assumptions on which these everyday modes of thought are based. Such procedures were good enough for Kant, Wittgenstein and Whitehead, and unless you are prepared to dismiss their efforts too as deserving of nothing more than being cast out for all eternity into an undifferentiated pile of pomo trash, perhaps you might consider being a little more discriminating in your judgements? Perhaps the philosophy should be judged as philosophy, for example (a possibility that Sokal and Bricmont steer clear of, although they are happy to rely on the philosophy of science for refutations of relativism)?
Rochenko,
“This block denunciation is Sokal and Bricmont’s starting point too of course…”
I wouldn’t say my argument is based chiefly on the generic vacuity of much PoMo theorising and its interchangeable nature. Nor would I say that was Sokal and Bricmont’s starting point. Though casual misuse of terminology, strained or empty analogies and wilful, even gleeful, obfuscation are defining features of so much material of this kind. And I do think it’s noteworthy that these “radical” individuals should produce material of staggering uniformity, insofar as it involves the same dishonest manoeuvres, the same mangled language, and much the same broad political posture.
As the title suggests, I’d have said that the “core” of my argument is the obvious fraudulence of Guertin’s ‘work’ and her willingness to inflict such nonsense on others in the name of education. Like many of those she namedrops, Guertin is quite clearly either a fraud or, at best, inexplicably incompetent. That, or so confused as to be unwell.
As I suggested in the article, Guertin seems to be a product of a climate in which such material is regurgitated and granted license largely because it is incomprehensible, and deliberately so. It is, in effect, repeated and endorsed precisely because it isn’t understood, and for fear of appearing stupid. I’m sure you’ll appreciate the irony.
Or do you think that Guertin’s contorted flummery really does “enable us to unsettle the metaphysical assumptions on which these everyday modes of thought are based”? I’m guessing not.
It seems to me implausible that Guertin has arrived at this hogwash by carelessness and inadequacy alone. Her handiwork has clearly been shaped to conform to a certain fashion and will have been read, re-read, proof read, supervised, etc. Constructing such opaque gibberish is hard work, of a kind. It requires determination to befuddle so comprehensively for 600 pages or so. To produce so many sentences, paragraphs – entire pages – that are devoid of discernible meaning and littered with non sequitur requires motivation.
Thus, one has to suspect bad faith on the author’s part. Specifically, an effort to deceive by pretending something is what it’s obviously not, in the hope that readers will squint, see nothing much, and assume the fault is theirs. I realise the idea that such a thing can happen, and happen frequently, is taboo. But I’m pretty sure it happens nonetheless. And I suspect it continues to happen precisely because the very idea is, apparently, unthinkable.
I have a question (here, here in the back!).
“Perhaps the philosophy should be judged as philosophy, for example (a possibility that Sokal and Bricmont steer clear of, although they are happy to rely on the philosophy of science for refutations of relativism)?”
Which philosophy? Guertin’s? But she’s not doing philosophy, is she? Does she even claim she is? Not that I’ve seen. She claims to be doing scholarship, but philosophy? Surely not. But perhaps someone else’s philosphy was meant? But if so, whose?
I have no idea what Guertin is doing, and have no particular desire to find out.
Ophelia: what I was referring to was the philosophy that is being done by the authors who Sokal and Bricmont are generally taken to have ‘debunked’. Deleuze would, in my opinion, be a particularly good example of a writer whose philosophy is anything but full of “casual misuse of terminology, strained or empty analogies and wilful, even gleeful, obfuscation”.
There is undoubtedly an industry, particularly in some cultural studies departments, that thrives on ceaselessly mongering analogies between thinkers, concepts and cultural phenomena. But Sokal and Bricmont are not attacking this culture directly, even if David is. What their ‘debunking’ amounts to is essentially an attack on a particular way of doing philosophy which is entirely legitimate and which, as I suggested, has a perfectly respectable lineage. All they have really managed to do is to show that they have not really understood its purpose. As a result, they misconstrue the use of scientific concepts as a wilful misuse purely for intellectual flash and the appearance of authority, and as a result, construct their book around the aforementioned ‘block denunciation’ – adding that what all these individuals really want is to defend some form of strong cultural relativism (which is also arguably untrue).
Rochenko,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess we’ll have to disagree about Deleuze. But it doesn’t seem to shed much light to say Guertin isn’t doing ‘philosophy’ properly. It isn’t clear that’s what she’s trying to do, however badly. And when PoMo ‘philosophers’ flirt with scientific vocabulary – and QM terminology in particular – they very often misuse it, thus the legitimacy and purpose of such efforts is somewhat questionable. It’s often like someone who’s watched Star Trek pretending to be a physicist. If key scientific terms with very particular meanings can be used so loosely, like shiny paper, even by those more skilled than Guertin, including Baudrillard, Lacan, Deleuze, Rorty and others, then one has to raise an eyebrow. Invoking poetic license doesn’t really cut much ice.
Guertin may be an extreme example, but she’s far from alone in her cavalier approach. She seems to be a symptom of a more pervasive culture. And she has, it seems, tried very hard to copy the liberties taken by others, to much the same effect.
I’d be interested to know why you appear to agree with S & B about Deleuze. He seems to be to be a particularly good example of why they’re barking up the wrong tree. I wouldn’t disagree that the sort of thing that Guertin appears to be doing is part of a wider culture that generally, if nothing else, makes for some very boring conferences (her approach might even be old hat in this community itself – I thought it stopped being fashionable to misinterpret the uncertainty principle sometime in the mid 90s 😉 ). But just as this culture exists mainly to circumvent actual thought by employing the same tiresome trigger-words over and over, a culture also exists where using terms like ‘pomo’ performs exactly the same purpose, producing on cue a chorus of agreement never troubled by the slightest skepticism.
Rochenko,
I don’t have the offending passages to hand, but I’d suggest the fact Deleuze collaborated with Guattari at some length – apparently in all seriousness – indicates a certain cavalier approach to meaning and rigour, at least when it suited, perhaps politically. I vaguely remember a collaboration with Guattari in which they tried to couch capitalism entirely in pathological and oppressive terms. I remember acres of needlessly opaque prose and some rather arch tosh about “economic libidos” or something; and the customary, rather fanciful, bald assertions. In fact, I remember being amazed at exactly how many things were simply asserted as if self-evident, despite being hugely tendentious, or entirely unsubstantiated, or faintly ludicrous. I can’t claim to be familiar with Deleuze’s entire oeuvre, but what I’ve read I couldn’t take seriously. Perhaps you’ve read less objectionable material.
I’d like to think the article above, and others here on similar issues, don’t simply dismiss the PoMo figures and material they address. I’d like to think they do a little more than that. I’d even like to think they encourage critical thinking, rather than credulity. But maybe that’s for others to say.
Rochenko said — …the use of precise scientific concepts outside the context in which they evolved can enable us to unsettle the metaphysical assumptions on which these everyday modes of thought are based. Such procedures were good enough for Kant, Wittgenstein and Whitehead….
I agree with that. To those names one should add that of C.S. Peirce, a philosopher who was also a mathematician, chemist, surveyor, etc. One doesn’t have to agree with his conclusions in order to see that he knew what he was doing.
As to Deleuze in particular, I don’t really know — I find him hard to read, not only because I distrust pomo use of scientific terms, but because decades ago I read pomo work on literature (novels, etc.) and was disgusted by it — I found disrespect for (literary) writers and a total obtuseness about literary problematics from a writer’s viewpoint and the literary tradition formed thereby. I was sure that, among other things, the pomo folks were revving up for an attack on science, and lo and behold — but those were pre-Internet days and I had nobody to whom to say that.
I have since had some discussion with one post-modernist who I’m convinced loves literature in the “right” way — not merely as grist for a political/ideological. As for Rorty, I hear he’s backed down a bit, at least in conversation, from his deprecation of the concept of truth — it’s important in legal trials, for instance! We’re rightly unwilling to give it up there! — and in most other places too.
In general, most of the pomo stuff doesn’t seem worth the effort, and it does seem to trickle down, or flood down, in pernicious forms. It’s probably symptom as well as source of broader social junk, but it further causes such junk because it tends to foreclose likelihoods of counteraction — it’s taking up the space and energy where good thinking is supposed to be at work.
Tetrast,
I don’t think anyone here has argued that non-scientists shouldn’t use scientific terms; merely that those terms should be used accurately and in a meaningful way – rather than used arbitrarily, or as baubles to impress unsuspecting students. The PoMo thinkers we’ve discussed don’t have a great track record in that regard.
“I was sure that, among other things, the pomo folks were revving up for an attack on science, and lo and behold…”
Andrew Ross is one of many culprits in this area. His ‘Science Wars’ book is particularly demagogic and scientifically illiterate. Ditto Sandra Harding, another despicable huckster.
“It’s taking up the space and energy where good thinking is supposed to be at work.”
Exactly. Richard Dawkins makes much the same point in response to Guertin’s flummery. She’s not only littering academia and bullshitting students, but is also claiming a salary that could be paid to a serious scholar. And one suspects her supervisors and many of her peers are similarly dishonest and unmoored from reason. One wonders if students are being judged for having the ‘correct’ political views rather than the ability to think.
And we owe it all to Mary Daly (if you’ve never read GynEcology–read spirally like a womb, of course and not linearly like a penis–you’re in for a real treat). Well, Mary Daly and Robin Lakoff.
“It’s important to understand that nonsense of this kind is rarely arrived at by accident.”
At the risk of overanalyzing the Guertin’s work, this is the equivalent of a coyote pissing on a rock to mark its territory. It serves no other purpose and if possible conveys less information.
Rightwingprof,
“If you’ve never read GynEcology – read spirally like a womb, of course, and not linearly like a penis – you’re in for a real treat…”
I think that would send me over the edge. Having struggled heroically through Guertin’s prose and then revisited Foucault (for research, I hasten to add), I’m already fighting the urge to bite my own neck.
I just visited Mary Daly’s Website http://www.marydaly.net/ and she uses a big photo that makes her look like somebody’s deranged uncle — check out that axe she’s holding. Then look at the simultaneously axe-form and (vaginally?) spiraled (or, at any rate, concentric) text on the Mary Daly announcement poster at http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUGallery/Daly.html
Derangement, all right. Polished till it gleams.
Richard,
“This is the equivalent of a coyote pissing on a rock to mark its territory. It serves no other purpose and if possible conveys less information.”
Well, you wouldn’t want to get it on your clothes, that’s for sure. But I think it does convey information of a kind. I suppose one could think of it as propaganda. Or as a kind of verbal pornography aimed at young lefties who get excited by denunciations of capitalism, ‘imperialism’, bourgeois values, etc. (That seems to be the objective of almost all PoMo authors, and how they get there doesn’t appear to matter too much.)
Based on what I’ve read of their work, I can’t see why anyone would take Deleuze or Guattari seriously as philosophers or bearers of great insight. Ditto Baudrillard, Lacan, Foucault, et al. But I can see how they might be used to reinforce a certain political worldview, or to ideologically titillate those who share it. Those of us who find the underlying politics noxious and absurd are more likely to register the errors, non sequiturs and endless bald assertions. As we aren’t quite so in thrall to the “radical” posturing, we’re more likely to check the methodology, such as it is.
And it’s worth bearing in mind that young people are rarely so credulous as when they think they’re being radical.
This of course would be a problem if anyone with an IQ bigger than their hatsize was ever likely to read this flimsy twaddle, let alone take any of it seriously.
These ageing hippies could be done away with one one easy move- make tertiry institutions pay their own way, and sudents likewise- see how many eager, pasty-complexioned bucketheads would be queueing up to sign on for a 50K evercise in perpetual unemployment?
BTW- she may have missed an oldie but a goodie- I didn’t notice any “Challenge the Dominant Paradigm”s- or has that fallen out of favour in luvviedom?
“the use of precise scientific concepts outside the context in which they evolved can enable us to unsettle the metaphysical assumptions on which these everyday modes of thought are based. Such procedures were good enough for Kant, Wittgenstein and Whitehead”
I think there is something disengenous here.
Scientific terms are certainly used outside the context wherein they evolved. That is a statement of fact. The question is whether the use of such terms by Kant, Wittgenstein and Whitehead was
(a) accurate – ie bore some relation to it’s scientific lineage
(b) used to clarify a concept – instead of obscuring it
(c) does this differ from the usage of scientific terms by Post Modernist writers
Clearly Guertin is using scientific terminology to provide a veneer of technicality. It certainly doesn’t simplify any concept or aid understanding. By contrast I can draw on my degree in Maths and Philosophy to assert that I am unaware of any scientific term used by Kant or Wittgenstein that sharply contrasted with either the accepted usage or failed to elucidate an argument. It is for the claimant to provide proof.
Which bings me to the phrase
“unsettle the metaphysical assumptions on which these everyday modes of thought are based”.
It seems to me that this phrase is begging the question. “Unsettle” the “assumptions” is precisely what Post Modernists argue is being done. Once we accept these terms of reference for understanding past usage of scientific terminology we have allowed the post modernists to frame the debate.
At the very least, this is unhelpful in determining whether this particular example of Post Modernist writing has any merit.
All,
I’m heartened by the interest this piece has attracted, and by the fact comments continue to appear. When I wrote the article, I wondered whether the subject matter – mine, not Guertin’s – might seem too academic or irrelevant. But, as StuckRecord pointed out, the prevalence of PoMo posturing has “trickle-down” effects. Indeed, variations of PoMo ideology inform any number of mainstream idiocies, including cultural equivalence, ecomentalism and hostility to America as the cause of all evil in the world.
Taken as a broad phenomenon, PoMo thinking is fundamentally tendentious and is used to advance and justify a very particular worldview. Those who read the comment pages of the Guardian and Independent with any regularity can find the footprints of PoMo and its associated ills. Some everyday examples have been discussed in the following articles:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/the_perils_of_m.html
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/blunting_the_se.html
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/phantom_guilt_s.html
But, please, carry on.