From Marxism through "the New Critique" to Academic Nonsense 5 (Column 182)

With God's help

In the previous column I described the experiment conducted by three mischievous researchers, in which they scribbled some twenty nonsense articles and sent them to journals in the fields of "critique," gender, and so on. Seven of the twenty were accepted for publication (some have already been published), and several others were at various stages of the process when they stopped the experiment. I began to show the significance of this experiment and its place within the picture of the development of postmodernism and deconstruction described in the previous columns. Now I want to continue and sharpen the significance of the results of these experiments for the specific fields in question (gender and the like), and in the next columns to arrive at their broader significance for the social sciences and humanities in general.

Experiments in Bogus Studies

Let me begin by saying that one good thing certainly came out of these antics. It turns out that empirical research can, after all, be conducted in bogus studies, or more precisely, scientific research about bogus studies. These studies empirically examine the very claim that this is bogusness, and thereby answer the difficulties I described at the beginning of the previous column (how to conduct a discussion about quality without criteria).

So how does one actually conduct scientific research without criteria? How does one determine that something is bogus without establishing criteria of quality? First, we must formulate the research question, or the claim that it is testing. The problem I described is how to define bogusness, and therefore it is difficult here to formulate a sharp question that can withstand systematic empirical testing. But these fellows found an excellent way out of that methodological problem. They bypassed the need to formulate explicit criteria and moved to a comparative method. Later we will see that this is a technique applicable in other similar contexts as well.

The hypothesis their study seeks to test is that the criteria by which publications in these fields are examined are bogus, or more precisely: their filtering process is worthless. The advantage of such a qualitative and imprecise formulation is that there is no need here to define sharp criteria, and the question can still be put to empirical test even without them. Instead of asking about some text whether it meets this or that criterion, we take a text about which everyone agrees that it is bogus (some random nonsense), and compare the text under examination to it. If it turns out that there is no difference, then we have shown that it is bogus without explicitly defining that concept and without proposing explicit criteria for it. Of course, this requires us to have in hand a text about which everyone agrees that it is bogus, that is, an extreme case that lies beyond the need to define and formulate criteria. That is precisely what our wild weeds were for: the nonsense articles.

So how does one conduct such an experiment? Very simply. In the first stage, one writes some number of articles that are devoid of value and content (let a small child write an academic essay, or have a random text generator produce a text), on the assumption that everyone agrees this is bogus and devoid of value (see below that this is not such a simple assumption in this study). Now give them a "politically correct" form, but only in a formal sense (that is, without touching the content. See the guidelines in the columns above: create an atmosphere of resentment and deprivation, insert enough approved concepts from the mandatory conceptual toolkit, and the like), so that the product remains, in terms of its content, essentially nonsense. In the second stage, these are submitted for publication in academic journals in the fields being examined. If a sufficiently substantial portion of these articles (in fact, two or three are enough) pass the filtering of the journals under examination and are accepted for publication, then we have confirmed the hypothesis under examination. Note: even without formulating explicit criteria, we have proved that this is indeed bogusness. But this is also the limitation of this study: it must use texts that are at an extreme level of bogusness, about which there is no one who disagrees (there is no dispute). One cannot conduct such a study on "gray" cases, since there we have no agreed basis for comparison.

Assuming the hypothesis is confirmed, that is, that a sufficient number of the articles are accepted for publication, the necessary conclusion is that the other articles that pass through the editorial systems of these journals are likewise presumed to be worthless nonsense. That is, the significance of the experiment is of course not only with respect to the articles that were sent (otherwise there would have been no point to it). It shows something true of the field as a whole (at least in the particular journals that were examined). So we see that even without criteria one can make progress; in fact, this is the great dream of every ordinary bogus scientist: to conduct research without criteria. So here you have it: it really can be done, but even such research has a logic, which is usually not the case with them. There is an empirical component here, unlike the armchair-and-keyboard studies customary there.

Thus, for example, if a journal like Social Sciences accepts nonsense articles alongside articles written with serious intent, then we have obtained two clear empirical results from the experiment: 1. This journal (its standards and academic review) is bogus. 2. All the articles published in it, every last one of them (note well: not only those sent as part of the experiment, but all the others as well), are presumed to be bogus until proven otherwise. In other words, the publication of an article in this journal says nothing whatsoever about its content. The academic credit due to the author (note, to the author with serious intent, not to the prankster conducting the experiment) is like the credit due to my neighbor's child in second grade. The publication of the distinguished professor's articles has in no way demonstrated abilities or skills that go beyond those of the child or the random generator.

It is important to understand that in principle it is possible that some article published in this journal is a model article that offers exciting innovations (the same could be true of an article produced by a random generator, if by chance it expresses a marvelous and innovative idea). My claim is only the following: the fact that it was published in this particular journal adds nothing and subtracts nothing in that respect. Or in other words: to open a journal like Social Sciences (not for the sake of good entertainment, but in order to learn something) after the Sokal experiment and the one that followed it is roughly like going through texts produced by a random generator or essays by a child in second grade. A complete waste of time.

If so, what those three researchers did (without quotation marks) was a kind of empirical scientific experiment, whose purpose was to test the academic filtering of articles in the various fields of bogus studies. It is important to understand that they themselves presented matters this way. Therefore the protests of the journals, even those that acquitted themselves honorably in the experiment and rejected the nonsense articles, are unjustified. Academic journals are a legitimate subject for empirical testing like any other phenomenon in the world.

So who said there are no empirical scientific determinations in these fields? So far we have found that there is at least one such determination: that these fields are not only unscientific but in fact devoid of any real content: bogus studies are indeed bogus (as for the content of this concept, see below).

The Meaning of the Experiments: An Interim Summary

As stated, the results of these experiments showed that if the article meets the conditions listed above (the list of approved words, being "critical" in the nonsensical sense, an atmosphere of deprivation and resentment, etc.), it is accepted for publication at a rate similar to that of articles written seriously. In other words, a random sample, which is usually supposed to represent typical cases, was accepted for publication despite having no content. The scientific generalization in these cases leads us to the scientific conclusion that the filtering processes in the journals examined, and therefore also the articles themselves, in these fields have no value whatsoever. Assuming these are representative journals, one can even generalize the conclusion to an entire academic field. Take note: that is how empirical science works.

The claim that these are esoteric cases (articles that happened to be accepted by accident, or journals that happen to be poor) does not meet scientific standards, because when one chooses a representative random sample of articles and journals, and it turns out that such articles are accepted for publication in those journals, the assumption is that this probably represents what happens in the group as a whole (all the articles and journals in these fields). True, these "edge" cases teach mainly about esoteric subspaces of the social sciences and humanities, but they raise well-founded suspicions toward these fields in general. Of course, such a generalization must be made cautiously. This is not about all the social sciences and humanities, and perhaps not even about all the journals in gender studies and "critique," since they also contain worthwhile products (just not scientific ones). But there are subfields that are suspect on their face, chiefly the "critical" journals (critical only of others, of course) and those that deal in the various kinds of "theory."

How Does This Actually Happen?

The analysis of the experiment's results also offers an explanation for this fascinating phenomenon. If indeed the conclusion of the experiment is that the ordinary material in these fields and journals is usually worthless and tasteless nonsense (or at least presumed to be such), then when an article written from the outset as nonsense is submitted for publication, it is no wonder that it too is accepted. The system cannot discern that this is an exceptional article, because it is not really exceptional. This is the ordinary material there. What is the difference between it and an ordinary article written with serious intent? No essential difference.

Note my reply to Shlomi on the previous column, where I discussed the question of humor and parody in relation to a postmodern text. I argued there that such a thing is impossible, because the parody itself is nothing but an ordinary postmodern text. It is exactly like the fact that one cannot dress up as a Hasidic rebbe. Someone who wears a gilded caftan and a gartel and is accompanied by a driver and two thugs is not dressed up as a rebbe. He is a rebbe. Likewise, someone who writes a nonsense text that is meant to be a parody of a postmodern text cannot do that. It is itself a genuine postmodern text and not a parody.[1]

This is the very same issue I have been dealing with here. In the very fact that the nonsense articles were accepted by the journal, they were accepted justly. They really do fit and pass its usual criteria (or lack of criteria), exactly like the articles written there seriously. In a place where there is only form without content, there is no parody and no joke or disguise. If you have created the form, whatever the essence may be, that is the thing itself. Therefore the experimental articles of these three pranksters should not be seen as parody or criticism. In fact, this is simply cooperation. The three simply sent several ordinary articles to journals intended for such articles, and it is no surprise that they were accepted for publication. That is indeed what was supposed to happen. They simply contributed to the field's normal development.

Inconsistency

As I said, every article from such a journal, including the aforementioned nonsense articles, just like an essay by a child, a random text, or contemplation of a standard phonebook page, can arouse very profound insights in the reader (really!). My claim is only this: there is no indication that this has any connection whatsoever to the text itself. The article and its author have no direct added value with respect to those insights, because any phenomenon in the world can generate such insights.

Consistent postmodernists are expected to argue that, contrary to what I say, there is indeed reason to read all these articles, including the nonsense articles, for according to their view (see the end of Column 180, "the leap into nonsense"), that is all serious articles mean as well. We have seen that according to their view meaning in the world is created in the reader, and only in the reader. A text as such, of whatever kind, has no meaning. Therefore, according to their view, there is really no value in the text itself, and it need not meet any criteria at all. The profound insights were aroused thanks to the reader and not thanks to the writer. If so, the consistent postmodernist ought to stand guard stoutly and proudly claim that the nonsense articles are indeed respectable articles and there is nothing wrong with the fact that they passed review. He will of course be unable to explain what the review of the journal's editorial board is supposed to examine and what is supposed to be rejected, but consistency and meaning have never troubled this gang. It is astonishing to me that those editorial boards really did become resentful and demand an apology. That is simply inconsistency.

According to this conception, the credit due to a professor of queer geography should be given according to the number of articles he has read and not according to the number of articles he has written (unless we are talking about awarding the President's Medal to a volunteer, that is, someone who performs altruistic acts for the public good). According to the consistent postmodernists, a random generator, a stray cat, or a phonebook page is justly entitled to the title of professor of the geography of imagined hegemonic and narrative spaces, and to an appropriate salary. After all, all of them may arouse profound reflections in the reader, with no connection whatsoever to the writer's intention (which is not accessible to him at all. That is the cornerstone of deconstructionist thought).

Incidentally, anyone who thinks I am exaggerating should go to the discussions that arose after my columns on Hasidism. There I argued that most of those texts say nothing whatsoever. It was argued against me that meanings and profound insights are aroused in the reader, and the fact that such things are not aroused in me is my problem. What I argued in response was that the meaning is supposed to be in the text and not only in the reader, for otherwise there is no way to judge the text itself as having value. Looking at a phonebook page can also arouse profound insights. Is that a good way to learn Torah? Is a phonebook page a Hasidic text? According to these defenders, absolutely yes. They simply belong to the world of nonsense that I have described here. Here the reader can sharpen for himself my arguments from there, and what actually lies behind this very fashionable approach that is willing to see meaning in every text, however vague and inconsistent it may be. Below we will see that here too there is a comparative way to test these claims.

A Further Question

But before I move on, allow me to raise a question. Does the aforementioned article by Sokal appear today on his list of publications? I assume not, but as far as I am concerned I see no reason why it should not appear there. After all, similar publications make up the entire publication list of the "critical" gang, which gives them academic status and a handsome salary. So why should a physicist who labors over real things at that very same university, with the same salary and the same status, not also receive credit for such a "critical" creation. It passed their criteria, and justly so. One should remember that academic freedom grants a scholar the right to receive credit even for an article of his that was published outside his area of expertise. All the more so since Sokal's article at least taught us something genuinely scientific, unlike their heap of chaff and rubbish. As I explained here, he really did conduct scientific research in bogus studies.

Sokal's article is indeed not a report on a scientific study; it itself constitutes a scientific experiment. The question is whether conducting the experiment can itself count as an academic article. Ostensibly, articles are supposed to contain a report on the experiment and an analysis of its results. No one would think of sending the questionnaire he distributes to the subjects as an article to an academic journal. But really, why not? In my estimation, in Social Sciences such a text has a chance of being accepted. And in general, in the postmodern world there is something exclusionary and condescending about demanding that an article say something or possess any characteristics whatsoever. Heaven forbid that we should do so. Why should a marginalized random text not receive hegemonic status of its own in our postcolonial narrative? In our generation, after the final leap into the vacuum, there is a crying injustice here.

What Will Happen Next?

The obvious step that will probably be taken by these editorial systems, which have no doubt been properly shaken, is to screen authors and check whether they exist and appear under their real names (we saw this explicitly in their responses presented in the previous column: what bothered them was only the forgery of the author's name and not the nonsense in the content, and as stated this is entirely justified from their point of view). There is no doubt that their conclusion will be that from now on they must try to prevent the recurrence of such phenomena. They can hire the services of private investigators who will trace the authors of the articles that reach the editorial system and empirically verify the only claim that appears in articles in these fields: the author's name (there is also the date. But that is fairly easy to check even within the system itself). After all, according to their view, the content cannot be examined (that would be paternalistic condescension), and what remains is only the name.

But here two important points should be noted:

1. As I already remarked in the previous column, this response appears foolish on its face. Do they not understand that there is a problem here? Is the forgery of the name and the pseudonym really the only problem? The answer is yes. If meaning is indeed not required of the articles that are accepted (remember the leap into the vacuum: the renunciation of semantic loading and meaning), then there really was no problem with the nonsense articles that were sent and accepted, apart from the forgery of the author's name.
2. Beyond that, I do not entirely understand why this itself is problematic in their eyes. Why did they feel the need to apologize? If indeed, after the final abstraction described in Column 180, a text is no longer required even to have meaning, then where exactly was the failure here? They ought proudly to stand behind their policy and see these articles as magnificent academic output (as noted above, after all they arouse various insights in the reader, no less than looking at phonebook pages or at Duchamp's toilet). Do they themselves nevertheless feel that there is a problem here (and only their intellectual inability does not allow them to define it)? Perhaps…

Of course, at this point the prankster of the next generation can come and make the final and decisive abstraction in the postmodern process, and deny that he is obliged to appear under his real name. Who are you, he will ask the editorial staff, to determine what my name is? If a person can determine his gender according to his feelings, there is no reason in the world why he should not adopt for himself whatever name he wishes. After all, a name really is an arbitrary matter (unlike gender). Therefore the very demand to appear under a "real" name (what is that?) is condescending and exclusionary, and should be eradicated from the face of the earth.

And From Here, a Tactic for What Comes Next

The nonsense articles took the postmodern approach and the characteristics we have listed for it all the way to the end (including the final abstraction: giving up meaning, that is, giving up any semantic loading at all). This is, after all, only the step required by intellectual honesty. Therefore the introduction I provided in the previous columns on postmodernism and its development sheds precious light on the phenomenon of nonsense articles. This is the edge of the process, although unfortunately probably not necessarily its end. So how, all the same, does one bring it to an end before it destroys us and our thinking entirely? One can advance the war against this phenomenon of distortion, for example, in the following ways:

First, one can open masses of postmodern private investigation offices that, when they check a person's name, will accept from him any name he happens to desire at that moment. If the editorial system of the journal hires the services of such a postmodern office (for it is supposed to maintain consistency, no?), it will never uncover forgery and pseudonyms, because there is no such thing as pseudonym and forgery. Every name and every author will be real by definition, according to their own criteria (?!) themselves.

Second, one can and should launch a cyberwar. Instead of a local and focused experiment, the system should be flooded with nonsense material produced by random generators and small children. I mean literally what is called a cyberattack. Of course it is advisable to do this under one's real name, so that even if they try to track down fabricated articles they will not succeed. They will not be able to locate them by any criterion of content (because there is no such criterion, and also because there really is no difference between works produced by random generators and ordinary articles there), and now not by tracing the author either. In the end, my hope is that in this way we will reach a state in which publication of an article by a "researcher" who writes with serious intent and sends it to such a journal will simply be impossible. He will drown in a sea of competing articles, and the journal's editorial system will have no systematic way of distinguishing him from them. In such a situation, the chance that an article written with serious intent will pass the random filtering that is no doubt carried out there (because of space constraints, since quality is not a factor there) and get into publication will drop to zero. Thus there will no longer be people who receive academic credit and a salary on the basis of such articles, and and a redeemer shall come to Zion (redemption will come to Zion). And regarding this our sages said: If you can't beat them join them (and than beat them).

[1] Such is the case with anything that is pure form without substantial content. Even if the entire public agrees that a screwdriver is used to uproot nails, that still will not make it true. But if there were a counterfeit coin that the entire public agreed was legal tender of value, it would simply be a coin. The value of a coin, unlike a screwdriver, lies not in its essence but in its form and in the public agreement about it. It has already been noted that money is a postmodern creature (all its value and meaning exist only because of social agreement). And in their twisted jargon: it is not nomos but narrative.