Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity PDF

Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Author(s): Alan D. Sokal

Source: Social Text, No. 46/47, Science Wars (Spring - Summer, 1996), pp. 217-252
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466856 .
Accessed: 31/07/2013 12:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transgressingthe Boundaries
TOWARD A TRANSFORMATIVE HERMENEUTICS
OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
Transgressing disciplinaryboundaries... [is] a subversiveundertaking

since Alan D. Sokal
it is likelyto violatethe sanctuariesof accepted ways of perceiving.Among
the most fortified boundarieshave been those betweenthe naturalsciences
and thehumanities.
-Valerie Greenberg,Transgressive Readings
The struggleforthetransformation of ideologyintocriticalscience ... pro-

ceeds on the foundationthatthe critiqueof all presuppositionsof science
and ideologymustbe the onlyabsoluteprincipleof science.
-Stanley Aronowitz,Scienceas Power
There are many natural scientists,and especially physicists,who continue

to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural
criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally,
to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very
foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of
such criticism.Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-
Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which
can be summarized brieflyas follows: that there exists an external world,
whose properties are independent of any individual human being and
indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in
"eternal" physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit
imperfectand tentative,knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objec-
tive" procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-
called) scientificmethod.
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-centuryscience have
undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958;
Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science
have cast furtherdoubt on its credibility(Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975;
Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently,feminist
and poststructuralistcritiques have demystifiedthe substantive content of
mainstream Western scientificpractice, revealing the ideology of domina-
tion concealed behind the facade of "objectivity" (Merchant 1980; Keller
1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus
become increasingly apparent that physical "reality," no less than social
"reality," is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific
"knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes the domi-
Social Text46/47,Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Summer
1996. Copyright? 1996 by Duke
University Press.

nantideologiesand powerrelationsof the culturethatproducedit; that
thetruthclaimsof scienceare inherently theory-laden and self-referential;
and consequently, thatthediscourseofthescientific community, forall its
undeniablevalue, cannot asserta privilegedepistemologicalstatuswith
respect to counterhegemonicnarrativesemanatingfromdissidentor
marginalizedcommunities.These themescan be traced,despite some
differences of emphasis,in Aronowitz'sanalysisoftheculturalfabricthat
produced quantummechanics(1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's
discussion of oppositionaldiscourses in post-quantumscience (1991,
intro,and chap. 1); in Irigaray'sand Hayles'sexegesesofgenderencoding
in fluidmechanics(Irigaray1985; Hayles 1992); and in Harding'scom-
prehensivecritiqueofthegenderideologyunderlying thenaturalsciences
in generaland physicsin particular(1986, esp. chaps. 2 and 10; 1991,
esp. chap. 4).
Here myaim is to carrythesedeep analysesone stepfurther, bytaking
accountof recentdevelopmentsin quantumgravity:theemergingbranch
of physicsin whichHeisenberg'squantummechanicsand Einstein'sgen-
eralrelativity are at once synthesizedand superseded.In quantumgravity,
as we shall see, the space-timemanifoldceases to exist as an objective
physicalreality;geometrybecomes relationaland contextual;and the
foundationalconceptualcategoriesof priorscience-among them,exis-
tence itself-become problematizedand relativized.This conceptual
revolution,I will argue,has profoundimplicationsforthe contentof a
futurepostmodernand liberatory science.
My approachwillbe as follows.First,I willreviewverybrieflysome
of thephilosophicaland ideologicalissues raisedby quantummechanics
and by classical generalrelativity. Next, I will sketchthe outlinesof the
emergingtheory quantumgravityand discuss some of theconceptual
of
issues it raises.Finally,I willcommenton theculturaland politicalimpli-
cations of these scientificdevelopments.It should be emphasizedthat
this essay is of necessitytentativeand preliminary; I do not pretendto
answerall the questionsthatI raise.My aim is, rather,to drawtheatten-
tion of readersto theseimportantdevelopmentsin physicalscience and
to sketchas best I can theirphilosophicaland politicalimplications.I
have endeavoredhere to keep mathematicsto a bare minimum;but I
have takencare to providereferenceswhereinterestedreaderscan find
all requisitedetails.
Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty,Complementarity,

Discontinuity,and Interconnectedness
It is not my intention to enter here into the extensive debate on the con-
ceptual foundations of quantum mechanics.1 Suffice it to say that anyone
who has seriously studied the equations of quantum mechanics will assent
2J8 Alan D. Sokal

to Heisenberg's measured (pardon the pun) summary of his celebrated
uncertaintyprinciple:
We can no longerspeak of thebehaviourof theparticleindependently ofthe

process of As
observation. a finalconsequence, the naturallaws formulated
mathematically in quantumtheoryno longerdeal withthe elementarypar-
ticlesthemselvesbutwithourknowledgeofthem.Nor is itanylongerpossible
to ask whetheror not theseparticlesexistin space and timeobjectively...
When we speak of the pictureof naturein the exact science of our age, we
do not mean a pictureof natureso much as a pictureofourrelationships with
nature. Science no longerconfrontsnatureas an objectiveobserver,but
...
sees itselfas an actorin thisinterplaybetweenman [sic]and nature.The sci-
entificmethodof analysing,explainingand classifying has become conscious
of its limitations,whicharise out of the factthatby its intervention
science
altersand refashionsthe objectof investigation.In otherwords,methodand
object can no longerbe separated. (Heisenberg 1958, 28-29; emphasis in
original)2
Along the same lines, Niels Bohr (1928; cited in Pais 1991, 314) wrote:
"An independent realityin the ordinary physical sense can ... neitherbe
ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation." Stanley
Aronowitz (1988b, 251-56) has convincinglytraced this worldview to the
crisis of liberal hegemony in Central Europe in the years prior and subse-
quent to World War I.3
A second important aspect of quantum mechanics is its principle of
complementarity, or dialecticism.Is lighta particle or a wave? Complemen-
tarity "is the realization that particle and wave behavior are mutually
exclusive, yet that both are necessary for a complete description of all
phenomena" (Pais 1991, 23).4More generally,notes Heisenberg,
the different intuitivepictureswhich we use to describe atomic systems,

althoughfullyadequate for given experiments,are neverthelessmutually
exclusive.Thus, forinstance,the Bohr atom can be describedas a small-
scale planetarysystem,having a centralatomic nucleus about which the
externalelectronsrevolve.For otherexperiments, however,it mightbe more
convenientto imaginethatthe atomicnucleus is surroundedby a systemof
stationary waveswhose frequencyis characteristic
of theradiationemanating
fromthe atom. Finally,we can considerthe atom chemically. . . Each pic-
ture is legitimatewhen used in the rightplace, but the different
pictures
are contradictoryand thereforewe call them mutuallycomplementary.
(1958, 40-41)
And once again Bohr (1934; cited in Jammer 1974, 102): "A complete
elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points of
view which defy a unique description. Indeed, strictlyspeaking, the con-
scious analysis of any concept stands in a relation of exclusion to its
the Boundaries
Transgressing 219

immediateapplication."5This foreshadowingof postmodernistepiste-
mologyis by no means coincidental.The profoundconnectionsbetween
complementarity and deconstructionhave recentlybeen elucidatedby
Froula (1985) and Honner (1994), and, in great depth, by Plotnitsky
(1994).6,7
A thirdaspectof quantumphysicsis discontinuity, or rupture:as Bohr
(1928; citedin Jammer1974, 90) explained,[the]essence [ofthe quan-
tumtheory]maybe expressedin the so-calledquantumpostulate,which
attributesto any atomicprocessan essentialdiscontinuity, or ratherindi-
viduality,completelyforeignto the classical theoriesand symbolizedby
Planck'squantumof action."A halfcenturylater,the expression"quan-
tumleap" has so enteredour everydayvocabularythatwe are likelyto use
it withoutanyconsciousnessof its originsin physicaltheory.
Finally,Bell'stheoremsand itsrecentgeneralizations9showthatan act
of observationhere and now can affectnot only the object being
observed-as Heisenbergtold us-but also an object arbitrarily faraway
(say, on Andromeda galaxy). This phenomenon-which Einsteintermed
"spooky"-imposes a radical reevaluationof the traditionalmechanistic
concepts of space, object, and causality,10and suggestsan alternative
worldviewin whichthe universeis characterizedby interconnectedness
and (w)holism:whatphysicistDavid Bohm (1980) has called "implicate
New Age interpretations
order.""11 of theseinsightsfromquantumphysics
have oftengone overboardin unwarrantedspeculation,but the general
soundness of the argumentis undeniable.12 In Bohr's words,"Planck's
discovery of the elementaryquantum of action . . revealed a feature of
inherentin atomicphysics,goingfarbeyondtheancientidea of
wholeness
thelimiteddivisibility
of matter"(Bohr 1963, 2; emphasisin original).
Hermeneuticsof Classical General Relativity
In theNewtonianmechanisticworldview, space and timeare distinctand

absolute.13In Einstein'sspecialtheoryof relativity
(1905), thedistinction
betweenspace and timedissolves:thereis onlya new unity,four-dimen-
sional space-time,and the observer'sperceptionof "space" and "time"
dependson herstateof motion.14In HermannMinkowski'sfamouswords
(1908): "Henceforthspace by itself,and time by itself,are doomed to
fade away into mere shadows,and only a kindof union of the two will
preservean independentreality"(translatedin Lorentzet al. 1952, 75).
Nevertheless,the underlyinggeometryof Minkowskian space-time
remainsabsolute.15
It is in Einstein's general theory of relativity(1915) that the radical
conceptual break occurs: the space-time geometry becomes contingent
220 Alan D. Sokal

and dynamical, encoding in itselfthe gravitationalfield. Mathematically,
Einstein breaks with the traditiondating back to Euclid (which is inflicted
on high-school students even today!), and employs instead the non-
Euclidean geometry developed by Riemann. Einstein's equations are
highly nonlinear, which is why traditionallytrained mathematicians find
them so difficultto solve.16Newton's gravitationaltheory corresponds to
the crude (and conceptually misleading) truncationof Einstein's equations
in which the nonlinearity is simply ignored. Einstein's general relativity
thereforesubsumes all the putative successes of Newton's theory, while
going beyond Newton to predict radically new phenomena that arise
directly from the nonlinearity: the bending of starlightby the sun, the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitationalcollapse of
stars into black holes.
General relativityis so weird that some of its consequences-deduced
by impeccable mathematics, and increasingly confirmed by astrophysical
observation-read like science fiction.Black holes are by now well-known,
and wormholes are beginning to make the charts. Perhaps less familiaris
G6del's construction of an Einstein space-time admitting closed timelike
curves: that is, a universe in which it is possible to travel into one's own
past!17
Thus, general relativityforces upon us radically new and counterin-
tuitivenotions of space, time, and causality;18so it is not surprisingthat it
has had a profound impact not only on the natural sciences but also on
philosophy, literarycriticism,and the human sciences. For example, in a
celebrated symposium three decades ago on Les Langages critiqueset les sci-
encesde l'homme,Jean Hyppolite raised an incisive question about Jacques
Derrida's theory of structureand sign in scientificdiscourse:
When I take,forexample,the structureof certainalgebraicconstructions

[ensembles],where is the center?Is the centerthe knowledgeof general
rules which,aftera fashion,allow us to understandthe interplayof the ele-
ments?Or is the centercertainelementswhichenjoy a particularprivilege
withinthe ensemble?. . . With Einstein,forexample,we see the end of a
kindof privilegeof empiricevidence.And in thatconnectionwe see a con-
stantappear, a constantwhichis a combinationof space-time,which does
not belongto any of the experimenters who live the experience,but which,
in a way,dominatesthewhole construct;and thisnotionof the constant-is
thisthe center?19
Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:
The Einsteinianconstantis not a constant,is not a center.It is theverycon-

the conceptof thegame. In otherwords,it is
cept of variability-itis, finally,
not the concept of something-ofa centerstartingfromwhichan observer
could masterthe field-but theveryconceptof thegame.20
Transgressingthe Boundaries 221

In mathematicalterms,Derrida's observationrelatesto the invarianceof
theEinsteinfieldequationG, = 8&GT , undernonlinearspace-timedif-
feomorphisms(self-mappingsof the space-timemanifoldthatare infi-
nitelydifferentiable butnotnecessarilyanalytic).The keypointis thatthis
invariancegroup"acts transitively": thismeansthatanyspace-timepoint,
intoanyother.In thiswaytheinfinite-
ifit existsat all,can be transformed
dimensionalinvariancegrouperodesthedistinction betweenobserverand
observed;the7rof Euclid and the G of Newton,formerly thoughtto be
constantand universal,are now perceivedin theirineluctablehistoricity;
and theputativeobserverbecomesfatallyde-centered, disconnectedfrom
any epistemiclinkto a space-timepointthatcan no longerbe definedby
geometryalone.
Quantum Gravity:String,Weave, or MorphogeneticField?
However,thisinterpretation, whileadequate withinclassicalgeneralrela-

tivity,becomes incompletewithinthe emergingpostmodernview of
quantum gravity.When even the gravitationalfield-geometryincar-
nate-becomes a noncommuting(and hence nonlinear)operator,how
of Gv as a geometricentitybe sustained?
can the classicalinterpretation
Now not onlythe observer,but the veryconceptof geometry, becomes
relationaland contextual.
The synthesisof quantum theoryand generalrelativity is thus the
centralunsolvedproblemof theoreticalphysics;21 no one todaycan pre-
dict withconfidencewhatwill be the language and ontology,much less
the content,of this synthesis,when and if it comes. It is, nevertheless,
usefulto examinehistoricallythe metaphorsand imagerythattheoreti-
cal physicistshave employedin theirattemptsto understandquantum
gravity.
The earliestattempts,datingback to the early 1960s, to visualize
geometryon the Planck scale (about 10-33 centimeters)portrayedit as
"space-timefoam": bubbles of space-timecurvature,sharinga complex
and ever-changingtopologyof interconnections(Wheeler 1964). But
physicistswereunable to carrythisapproachfurther, perhapsbecause of
theinadequatedevelopmentat thattimeof topologyand manifoldtheory
(see below).
In the 1970s physiciststriedan even more conventionalapproach:
simplifythe Einsteinequationsby pretendingthattheyare almostlinear,
and then apply the standardmethods of quantum fieldtheoryto the
thusoversimplified equations.But thismethod,too, failed:it turnedout
that Einstein's general relativityis, in technical language, "perturbatively
nonrenormalizable" (Isham 1991, sec. 3.1.4). This means that the strong
222 Alan D. Sokal

nonlinearitiesof Einstein'sgeneralrelativity are intrinsicto the theory;
to
any attempt pretend that the nonlinearities are weak is simplyself-
contradictory.(This is not surprising: the almost-linearapproach
destroysthe most characteristicfeaturesof general relativity, such as
black holes.)
In the 1980s a very differentapproach, known as stringtheory,
became popular: here the fundamentalconstituentsof matterare not
pointlikeparticlesbut rathertiny(Planck-scale)closed and open strings
(Green et al. 1987). In thistheory,thespace-timemanifolddoes not exist
as an objectivephysicalreality;rather,space-timeis a derivedconcept,an
approximationvalid only on large lengthscales (where "large" means
"much largerthan 10-33 centimeters"!).For a whilemanyenthusiastsof
stringtheorythoughttheywere closingin on a Theory of Everything-
modestyis not one oftheirvirtues-and some stillthinkso. But themath-
ematical difficulties in stringtheoryare formidable,and it is far from
clearthattheywillbe resolvedanytimesoon.
More recently,a small group of physicistshas returnedto the full
nonlinearitiesof Einstein'sgeneralrelativity, and-using a new mathe-
maticalsymbolisminventedby AbhayAshtekar-theyhave attemptedto
visualizethe structureof the correspondingquantumtheory(Ashtekaret
al. 1992; Smolin 1992). The picturetheyobtainis intriguing: as in string
the
theory, space-time manifold is an
only approximation valid at large
distances,not an objectivereality;at small (Planck-scale)distances,the
geometryof space-timeis a weave-a complexinterconnection ofthreads.
Finally,an excitingproposalhas been takingshape overthe past few
yearsin thehandsof an interdisciplinary collaborationofmathematicians,
and
astrophysicists, biologists:this is the theoryof the morphogenetic
field.22Since the mid-1980s evidence has been accumulatingthat this
field,firstconceptualizedby developmentalbiologists(Waddington1965;
Corner 1966; Giereret al. 1978), is in factcloselylinkedto the quantum
gravitational field:23(a) it pervadesall space; (b) it interactswithall mat-
terand energy,irrespective of whetheror not thatmatter/energy is mag-
neticallycharged;and, most significantly, (c) it is whatis knownmathe-
maticallyas a "symmetricsecond-ranktensor."All threepropertiesare
characteristic of gravity;and it was provedsome yearsago thatthe only
self-consistent nonlinear theoryof a symmetric second-ranktensorfieldis,
at least at low energies,preciselyEinstein'sgeneralrelativity(Boulware
and Deser 1975). Thus, ifthe evidencefor(a), (b), and (c) holds up, we
can inferthat the morphogeneticfieldis the quantum counterpartof
Einstein'sgravitational field.Untilrecently thistheoryhas been ignoredor
even scorned by the high-energy-physicsestablishment,which has tradi-
tionally resented the encroachment of biologists (not to mention human-
ists) on its "turf."24However, some theoretical physicists have recently

begun to give this theory a second look, and there are good prospects for
progress in the near future.25
It is stilltoo soon to say whether stringtheory,the space-time weave,
or morphogenetic fields will be confirmed in the laboratory: the experi-
ments are not easy to perform. But it is intriguingthat all three theories
have similar conceptual characteristics: strong nonlinearity, subjective
space-time, inexorable flux, and a stress on the topology of interconnect-
edness.
Differential
Topology and Homology
Unbeknownst to most outsiders, theoretical physics underwent a signifi-
cant transformation-albeit not yet a true Kuhnian paradigm shift-in
the 1970s and 1980s: the traditional tools of mathematical physics (real
and complex analysis), which deal with the space-time manifold only
locally, were supplemented by topological approaches (more precisely,
methods fromdifferentialtopology26) that account forthe global (holistic)
structureof the universe. This trend was seen in the analysis of anomalies
in gauge theories (Alvarez-Gaum& 1985);27 in the theory of vortex-medi-
ated phase transitions(Kosterlitz and Thouless 1973);28 and in stringand
superstring theories (Green et al. 1987). Numerous books and review
articles on "topology for physicists" were published during these years
(e.g., Nash and Sen 1983).
At about the same time, in the social and psychological sciences
Jacques Lacan pointed out the key role played by differentialtopology:
This diagram [the M6bius strip]can be consideredthe basis of a sort of

essentialinscriptionat the origin,in the knotwhichconstitutesthe subject.
This goes muchfurther thanyou maythinkat first,because you can search
forthe sortof surfaceable to receivesuch inscriptions. You can perhapssee
thatthe sphere,thatold symbolfortotality, is unsuitable.A torus,a Klein
bottle,a cross-cutsurface,are able to receivesuch a cut.And thisdiversityis
veryimportant as it explainsmanythings about the structureof mentaldis-
ease. If one can symbolizethe subjectby thisfundamentalcut,in the same
way one can showthata cut on a toruscorrespondsto the neuroticsubject,
and on a cross-cutsurfaceto anothersort of mentaldisease. (Lacan 1970,
192-93; lecturegivenin 1966)29
As Althusser (1993, 50) rightlycommented, "Lacan finallygives Freud's

thinkingthe scientificconcepts that it requires."30More recently,Lacan's
topologiedu sujet has been applied fruitfullyto cinema criticism (Miller
1977/78, esp. 24-25)31 and to the psychoanalysis of AIDS (Dean 1993,
esp. 107-8). In mathematical terms, Lacan is here pointing out that the
firsthomology group32of the sphere is trivial,while those of the other sur-
224 Alan D. Sokal

facesare profound;and thishomologyis linkedwiththeconnectednessor
disconnectednessof the surfaceafterone or morecuts.33Furthermore, as
Lacan suspected,thereis an intimateconnectionbetweentheexternalstruc-
tureof the physicalworldand its innerpsychologicalrepresentation qua
knottheory:thishypothesis has recentlybeen confirmed byWitten's deriva-
tion of knotinvariants(in particularthe Jonespolynomial[Jones1985])
fromthree-dimensional Chern-Simons quantumfieldtheory(Witten1989).
Analogous topological structuresarise in quantum gravity,but
inasmuchas themanifoldsinvolvedare multidimensional ratherthantwo-
dimensional,higherhomologygroups play a role as well. These multi-
dimensionalmanifoldsare no longeramenable to visualizationin con-
ventionalthree-dimensional Cartesianspace: forexample,the projective
space RP3, which arises from the ordinary3-sphere by identification
of antipodes,would requirea Euclidean embeddingspace of dimension
at least 5 (James 1991, 271-72).34 Nevertheless,the higherhomology
groups can be perceived,at least approximately, via a suitablemultidi-
mensional(nonlinear)logic (Kosko 1993).35
ManifoldTheory: (W)holes and Boundaries
Luce Irigaray(1987, 76-77), in her famous article "Is the Subject of

Science Sexed?" pointedout that
themathematical sciences,in thetheoryof wholes[theoriedesensembles],

concernthemselves withclosedand openspaces... Theyconcernthem-
selvesverylittlewiththequestionofthepartially
open,withwholesthatare
notclearlydelineated flous],withanyanalysisoftheproblemof
[ensembles
borders[bords].. .36
In 1982, when Irigaray'sessay firstappeared, thiswas an incisivecriti-

cism: differential
topologyhas traditionallyprivilegedthe studyof what
are knowntechnicallyas "manifoldswithoutboundary."However,in the
past decade, undertheimpetusof thefeminist critique,some mathemati-
cians have given renewed attentionto the theoryof "manifoldswith
boundary"[Fr. varitis a' bord](see, forexample,Hamza 1990; McAvity
and Osborn 1991; Alexanderet al. 1993). Perhapsnotcoincidentally,it is
preciselythesemanifoldsthatarise in the new physicsof conformalfield
theory,superstring theory,and quantumgravity.
In stringtheory,the quantum-mechanical amplitudeforthe interac-
tion of n closed or open strings is represented by a functional integral
(basically, a sum) over fields living on a two-dimensional manifold with
boundary (Green et al. 1987). In quantum gravity,we may expect that a
similar representation will hold, except that the two-dimensional man-

ifoldwithboundarywillbe replacedby a multidimensional one. Unfortu-
nately,multidimensionality goes againstthe grainof conventionallinear
mathematicalthought,and despite a recent broadening of attitudes
(notablyassociated withthe studyof multidimensional nonlinearphe-
nomenain chaos theory),the theoryof multidimensional manifoldswith
boundaryremainssomewhatunderdeveloped.Nevertheless,physicists'
workon the functional-integral approach to quantumgravitycontinues
apace (Hamber 1992; Nabutoskyand Ben-Av 1993; Kontsevich1994),
and thisworkis likelyto stimulatetheattention ofmathematicians.37
As Irigarayanticipated,an importantquestionin all of thesetheories
is: can the boundarybe transgressed(crossed), and if so, whathappens
then?Technically,thisis knownas the problemof boundaryconditions
(b.c.). At a purelymathematical level,themostsalientaspectofboundary
conditionsis the greatdiversityof possibilities:forexample,"freeb.c."
(no obstacleto crossing),"reflecting b.c." (specularreflectionas in a mir-
ror), "periodic b.c." (re-entrance in another part of the manifold), and
"antiperiodic b.c." (re-entrance with 180-degreetwist). The question
posed byphysicists is: of all theseconceivableboundaryconditions,which
ones actuallyoccur in the representation of quantum gravity?Or per-
haps, do all of them occur simultaneously and on an equal footing,as sug-
gestedby the complementarity principle?38
At thispointmysummaryof developmentsin physicsmuststop,for
thesimplereasonthattheanswersto thesequestions-ifindeedtheyhave
univocal answers-are not yet known.In the remainderof this essay,I
proposeto takeas mystartingpointthosefeaturesof thetheoryof quan-
tumgravitywhichare relatively wellestablished(at leastby thestandards
of conventionalscience), and attemptto drawout theirphilosophicaland
politicalimplications.
Transgressingthe Boundaries: Toward a LiberatoryScience
Over the past two decades therehas been extensivediscussionamong

criticaltheoristswithregardto the characteristicsof modernistversus
postmodernist culture;and in recentyearsthesedialogueshave begunto
devote detailed attentionto the specificproblemsposed by the natural
sciences (see especially Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986;
Aronowitz1988b; Haraway1991; and Ross 1991). In particular,Madsen
and Madsen have recentlygivena veryclear summaryofthecharacteris-
ticsofmodernistversuspostmodernist science.They posittwocriteriafor
a postmodern science: "A simple criterion for science to qualify as post-
modern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objec-
tive truth. By this criterion, for example, the complementarity interpre-
226 Alan D. Sokal

tationof quantumphysicsdue to Niels Bohr and theCopenhagenschool
is seen as postmodernist"(1990, 471).39 Clearly,quantumgravityis in
this respect an archetypalpostmodernistscience. Second, "The other
conceptwhichcan be takenas beingfundamentalto postmodernscience
is thatof essentiality.
Postmodernscientifictheoriesare constructedfrom
those theoreticalelementswhich are essentialfor the consistencyand
utilityof the theory"(1990, 471-72). Thus quantitiesor objectswhich
are in principleunobservable-such as space-timepoints,exact particle
positions,or quarksand gluons-ought notto be introducedintothethe-
ory.40Whilemuch of modernphysicsis excludedby thiscriterion, quan-
tumgravityagain qualifies:in thepassage fromclassicalgeneralrelativity
to the quantized theory,space-timepoints (and indeed the space-time
manifolditself)have disappearedfromthetheory.
However,these criteria,admirableas theyare, are insufficient
fora
liberatorypostmodern science: they liberate human beings from the
tyrannyof "absolute truth"and "objectivereality,"but not necessarily
fromthe tyrannyof otherhuman beings. In AndrewRoss's words,we
need a science "thatwill be publiclyanswerableand of some serviceto
progressiveinterests"(1991, 29).41 From a feministstandpoint,Kelly
Oliver(1989, 146) makesa similarargument:
In orderto be revolutionary,
feminist
theorycannotclaimto describewhat
exists,or,"natural
facts."
Rather, feministtheories
shouldbe political
tools,
for
strategies overcoming in
oppression specific concretesituations.The
goal,then, of feminist
theory,should be to theories-not
developstrategic
truetheories,notfalsetheories,
butstrategictheories.
How, then,is thisto be done?

In what follows,I would like to discuss the outlinesof a liberatory
postmodernscience on two levels: first,withregardto generalthemes
and attitudes;and second, withregardto politicalgoals and strategies.
One characteristicof theemergingpostmodernscienceis itsstresson
nonlinearityand discontinuity: thisis evident,forexample,in chaos the-
oryand thetheoryof phase transitions as wellas in quantumgravity.42At
the same time,feministthinkershave pointedout the need foran ade-
quate analysisof fluidity,in particularturbulentfluidity(Irigaray1985;
Hayles 1992).43These two themesare not as contradictory as it mightat
firstappear: turbulenceconnectswithstrongnonlinearity, and smooth-
is sometimesassociatedwithdiscontinuity
ness/fluidity (e.g., in catastro-
phe theory[Thom 1975, 1990; Arnol'd 1992]); so a synthesisis by no
means out of the question.
Second, the postmodern sciences deconstruct and transcend the
Cartesian metaphysical distinctions between humankind and Nature,

One characteristic observer and observed, Subject and Object. Already quantum mechanics,
earlier in this century, shattered the ingenuous Newtonian faith in an
oftheemerging objective, prelinguistic world of material objects "out there"; no longer
could we ask, as Heisenberg put it, whether "particles exist in space and
postmodern time objectively." But Heisenberg's formulation still presupposes the
objective existence of space and time as the neutral, unproblematic arena
scienceis itsstress
in which quantized particle-waves interact (albeit indeterministically);and
it is preciselythis would-be arena that quantum gravityproblematizes.Just
on nonlinearity
as quantum mechanics informsus that the position and momentum of a
and discontinuity: particle are brought into being only by the act of observation, so quantum
gravity informs us that space and time themselves are contextual, their
thisis evident,for meaning defined only relative to the mode of observation.44
Third, the postmodern sciences overthrowthe static ontological cat-
example,inchaos egories and hierarchies characteristic of modernist science. In place of
atomism and reductionism, the new sciences stress the dynamic web of
theoryand the relationships between the whole and the part; in place of fixed individual
essences (e.g., Newtonian particles), they conceptualize interactions and
theoryofphase flows (e.g., quantum fields). Intriguingly,these homologous featuresarise
in numerous seemingly disparate areas of science, from quantum gravity
transitions
as well
to chaos theory to the biophysics of self-organizingsystems. In this way,
as inquantum the postmodern sciences appear to be converging on a new epistemologi-
cal paradigm, one that may be termed an ecologicalperspective, broadly
understood as "recogniz[ing] the fundamentalinterdependence of all phe-
gravity.
nomena and the embeddedness of individuals and societies in the cyclical
patterns of nature" (Capra 1988, 145).45
A fourthaspect of postmodern science is its self-conscious stress on
symbolism and representation. As Robert Markley (1992, 264) points
out, the postmodern sciences are increasingly transgressingdisciplinary
boundaries, taking on characteristics that had heretofore been the
province of the humanities:
Quantum physics,hadron bootstraptheory,complex numbertheory,and

chaos theorysharethe basic assumptionthatrealitycannotbe describedin
linearterms,thatnonlinear-and unsolvable-equations are the onlymeans
possibleto describea complex,chaotic,and non-deterministic reality.These
postmodern theories are-significantly-all metacritical in the sense that
theyforeground themselves as metaphorsrather than as "accurate" descrip-
tions of reality.In termsthatare more familiarto literarytheoriststhanto
theoreticalphysicists,we mightsay that these attemptsby scientiststo
develop new strategiesof descriptionrepresentnotes towardsa theoryof
theories,of how representation-mathematical, experimental, and verbal-is
inherently complexand problematizing, not a solutionbut partof the semi-
otics of investigatingthe universe.46
228 Alan D. Sokal

From a differentstartingpoint, Aronowitz (1988b, 344) likewise suggests
that a liberatoryscience may arise from interdisciplinarysharing of epis-
temologies:
Natural objects are also sociallyconstructed.It is not a questionof whether

thesenaturalobjects,or, to be moreprecise,the objectsof naturalscientific
knowledge,exist independentlyof the act of knowing.This question is
answeredbytheassumptionof "real" timeas opposed to thepresupposition,
commonamong neo-Kantians,thattimealwayshas a referent, thattempo-
ralityis therefore
a relative,notan unconditioned,category.Surely,theearth
evolvedlong beforelifeon earth.The questionis whetherobjectsof natural
scientificknowledgeare constitutedoutsidethesocial field.Ifthisis possible,
we can assume thatscience or art may develop proceduresthateffectively
neutralize the effectsemanatingfromthe means by which we produce
knowledge/art. Performanceartmaybe such an attempt.
Finally,postmodernscience provides a powerfulrefutationof the author-

itarianismand elitisminherentin traditionalscience, as well as an empirical
basis for a democratic approach to scientificwork. For, as Bohr noted, "a
complete elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points
of view which defya unique description";thisis quite simplya factabout the
world, much as the self-proclaimedempiricistsof modernistscience might
preferto deny it. In such a situation,how can a self-perpetuatingsecular
priesthood of credentialed "scientists" purport to maintain a monopoly on
the production of scientificknowledge? (Let me emphasize that I am in no
way opposed to specialized scientifictraining;I object only when an elite
caste seeks to impose its canon of "high science," withthe aim of excluding
a priorialternativeformsof scientificproduction by nonmembers.)47
The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide
powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project, under-
stood in its broadest sense: the transgressingof boundaries, the breaking
down of barriers,the radical democratization of all aspects of social, eco-
nomic, political, and culturallife (see, for example, Aronowitz 1994). Con-
versely,one part of this project must involve the constructionof a new and
trulyprogressive science that can serve the needs of such a democratized
society-to-be. As Markley observes, there seem to be two more-or-less
mutually exclusive choices available to the progressive community:
On theone hand,politicallyprogressivescientistscan tryto recuperateexist-

ing practicesformoralvaluestheyuphold,arguingthattheirright-wing ene-
mies are defacingnatureand thatthey,the counter-movement, have access
to the truth.[But] the stateof the biosphere-air pollution,waterpollution,
disappearingrain forests,thousandsof species on the verge of extinction,
large areas of land burdened far beyond theircarryingcapacity,nuclear

power plants,nuclear weapons, clearcutswhere thereused to be forests,
starvation, disappearingwetlands,nonexistent
malnutrition, grasslands,and
a rashof environmentallycaused diseases-suggests thattherealistdreamof
scientificprogress, of recapturingrather than revolutionizingexisting
methodologiesand technologies,is, at worst,irrelevant
to a politicalstruggle
thatseeks somethingmore than a reenactmentof statesocialism.(Markley
1992, 271)
The alternativeis a profound reconception of science as well as politics:
The dialogical move towardsredefiningsystems,of seeing the world not

onlyas an ecologicalwholebut as a set of competingsystems-a worldheld
togetherby thetensionsamongvariousnaturaland humaninterests-offers
whatscienceis and whatit does, of restructuring
thepossibilityof redefining
deterministicschemesof scientificeducationin favorof ongoingdialogues
about how we intervenein our environment. (Markley1992, 271)48
It goes without saying that postmodernist science unequivocally favors

the latter,deeper approach.
In addition to redefiningthe content of science, it is imperative to
restructure and redefine the institutional loci in which scientific labor
takes place-universities, government labs, and corporations-and
reframethe reward system that pushes scientiststo become, often against
theirown betterinstincts,the hired guns of capitalists and the military.As
Aronowitz (1988b, 351) has noted, "One-third of the 11,000 physics
graduate students in the United States are in the single subfield of solid
state physics, and all of them will be able to get jobs in that subfield."
(Although this observation appeared in 1988, it is all the more true today.)
By contrast,there are few jobs available in eitherquantum gravityor envi-
ronmental physics.
But all this is only a firststep: the fundamental goal of any emancipa-
tory movement must be to demystifyand democratize the production of
scientific knowledge, to break down the artificialbarriers that separate
"scientists" from "the public." Realistically, this task must start with the
younger generation,througha profound reformof the educational system
(Freire 1970; Aronowitz and Giroux 1991, 1993). The teaching of science
and mathematics must be purged of its authoritarianand elitistcharacter-
istics,49 and the content of these subjects enriched by incorporating the
insights of the feminist,queer, multiculturalist,and ecological critiques.50
Finally, the content of any science is profoundly constrained by the
language within which its discourses are formulated; and mainstream
Westernphysical science has, since Galileo, been formulatedin the language
of mathematics.51But whose mathematics? The question is fundamental,
for, as Aronowitz has observed, "neither logic nor mathematics escapes
230 Alan D. Sokal

the 'contamination' of the social" (Aronowitz 1988b, 346).52 And as fem- The contentand
inist thinkershave repeatedly pointed out, in the present culture this con-
tamination is overwhelmingly capitalist, patriarchal, and militaristic: of
methodology
"Mathematics is portrayed as a woman whose nature desires to be the
conquered Other" (Campbell and Campbell-Wright 1995, 135).53 Thus,
postmodern
a liberatoryscience cannot be complete without a profound revision of the
sciencethus
canon of mathematics.54As yet no such emancipatory mathematics exists,
and we can only speculate upon its eventual content. We can see hints of
providepowerful
it in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory
(Kosko 1993); but this approach is still heavily marked by its origins in intellectual
the crisis of late-capitalist production relations.55 Catastrophe theory
(Thom 1975, 1990; Arnol'd 1992), with its dialectical emphases on supportforthe
smoothness/discontinuityand metamorphosis/unfolding,will indubitably
play a major role in the future mathematics; but much theoretical work progressive
remains to be done before this approach can become a concrete tool of
progressive political praxis (see Schubert 1989 for an interestingstart). politicalproject,
Finally, chaos theory-which provides our deepest insightsinto the ubiq-
understoodinits
uitous yet mysterious phenomenon of nonlinearity-will be central to all
futuremathematics. And yet,these images of the futuremathematicsmust
broadestsense:
remain but the haziest glimmer: for,alongside these three young branches
in the tree of science, there will arise new trunks and branches-entire thetransgressing
new theoretical frameworks-of which we, with our present ideological
blinders, cannot yet even conceive. of boundaries,
thebreaking
Notes
down ofbarriers,
I thankGiacomo Caracciolo,Lucia Fernindez-Santoro,Lia Gutierrez,and Eliza-
beth Meiklejohnforenjoyablediscussionswhichhave contributedgreatlyto this
theradical
essay.Needlessto say,thesepeople shouldnotbe assumedto be in totalagreement
democratization
withthe scientificand politicalviewsexpressedhere,nor are theyresponsiblefor
anyerrorsor obscuritieswhichmayinadvertently remain.
ofallaspectsof
1. For a samplingof views,see Jammer1974; Bell 1987; Albert1992; Diirr
et al. 1992; Weinberg1992 (chap. 4); Coleman 1993; Maudlin 1994; Bricmont
social,economic,
1994.
2. See also Overstreet1980; Craige 1982; Hayles 1984; Booker 1990; and
political,
Greenberg 1990; and Porter 1990 for examples of cross-fertilization of ideas
betweenrelativistic quantumtheoryand literarycriticism. life.
cultural
Unfortunately, Heisenberg'suncertaintyprinciplehas frequentlybeen mis-
interpretedby amateur philosophers. As Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari
(1994, 129-30) lucidlypointout,
in quantumphysics,Heisenberg'sdemon does not expressthe impossibility
of measuringboththe speed and thepositionof a particleon thegroundsof
the Boundaries
Transgressing 231

a subjectiveinterference of the measurewiththe measured,but it measures
exactlyan objectivestateof affairsthatleaves the respectivepositionof two
of its particlesoutside of the fieldof its actualization,the numberof inde-
pendentvariablesbeingreducedand thevaluesofthecoordinateshavingthe
same probability Perspectivisim, or scientificrelativism,is neverrelative
....
to a subject: it constitutesnot a relativity of truthbut, on the contrary,a
truthof the relative,thatis to say,of variableswhose cases it ordersaccord-
ing to thevalues it extractsfromthemin its systemof coordinates.
3. See also Porush (1989) fora fascinatingaccount of how a second group
of scientistsand engineers-cyberneticists-contrived,withconsiderablesuccess,
to subvertthe most revolutionary implications quantum physics.The main
of
limitationof Porush's critiqueis thatit remainssolelyon a culturaland philo-
sophicalplane; his conclusionswould be immeasurably strengthened by an analy-
sis of economicand politicalfactors.(For example,Porush failsto mentionthat
engineer-cyberneticistClaude Shannonworkedforthethentelephonemonopoly
AT&T.) A carefulanalysiswould show,I think,thatthe victoryof cybernetics
overquantumphysicsin the 1940s and 1950s can be explainedin largepart by
the centralityof cyberneticsto the ongoing capitalistdrive for automationof
industrialproduction,comparedwiththe marginalindustrialrelevanceof quan-
tummechanics.
4. Aronowitz(1981, 28) has noted that wave-particledualityrendersthe
"willto totalityin modernscience" severelyproblematic:
The differences withinphysicsbetweenwave and particletheoriesof matter,

the indeterminacy principlediscoveredby Heisenberg,Einstein'srelativity
theory,all are accommodationsto the impossibility
of arrivingat a unified
fieldtheory,one in whichthe "anomaly" of differencefora theorywhich
posits identitymay be resolvedwithoutchallengingthe presuppositionsof
science itself.
For furtherdevelopmentof theseideas, see Aronowitz1988a, 524-25, 533.

5. Bohr's analysisof the complementarityprinciplealso led him to a social
outlookthatwas, forits time and place, notablyprogressive.Consider the fol-
lowingexcerptfroma 1938 lecture(Bohr 1958, 30):
I mayperhapshereremindyou of theextentto whichin certainsocietiesthe
roles of men and women are reversed,not only regardingdomestic and
social dutiesbut also regardingbehaviourand mentality. Even ifmanyof us,
in such a situation,mightperhapsat firstshrinkfromadmitting thepossibil-
itythatit is entirelya caprice of fatethatthe people concernedhave their
specificcultureand not ours,and we nottheirsinsteadof our own,it is clear
that even the slightestsuspicion in this respect implies a betrayalof the
nationalcomplacencyinherentin any humanculturerestingin itself.
6. This impressiveworkalso explainsthe intimateconnectionswithG6idel's
proofof theincompletenessof formalsystemsand withSkolem'sconstructionof
nonstandard models of arithmetic, as well as with Bataille's general economy.
For furtherdiscussion of Bataille's physics see Hochroth 1995.
Numerous other examples could be adduced. For instance, Barbara Johnson
(1989, 12) makes no specific reference to quantum physics; but her description
of deconstruction is an eerily exact summary of the complementarity principle:
232 Alan D. Sokal

"Instead of a simple either/or structure,deconstructionattemptsto elaboratea
discoursethatsays neither nor'both/and'nor even 'neither/nor'
'either/or, whileat
the same time not totallyabandoningthese logics either."See also McCarthy
1992 fora thought-provoking analysisthatraises disturbingquestionsabout the
"complicity"between(nonrelativistic) quantumphysicsand deconstruction.
7. Permitme in thisregarda personalrecollection:Fifteenyearsago, whenI
was a graduatestudent,myresearchin relativistic quantumfieldtheoryled me to
an approachthatI called "de[con]structivequantumfieldtheory"(Sokal 1982).
Of course, at thattimeI was completelyignorantof JacquesDerrida's workon
deconstruction in philosophyand literarytheory.In retrospect,however,thereis
a strikingaffinity:my workcan be read as an explorationof how the orthodox
discourse (e.g., Itzyksonand Zuber 1980) on scalar quantum fieldtheoryin
four-dimensional space-time(in technicalterms,"renormalizedperturbation the-
ory" forthe(p44 theory)can be seen to assertits own unreliability
and therebyto
undermineits own affirmations. Since then,myworkhas shiftedto otherques-
tions,mostlyconnectedwithphase transitions;but subtlehomologiesbetween
the two fieldscan be discerned,notablythe themeof discontinuity (see n. 42).
For furtherexamples of deconstructionin quantumfieldtheory,see Merz and
KnorrCetina 1994.
8. Bell 1987, especiallychaps. 10 and 16. See also Maudlin 1994 (chap. 1)
fora clear account presupposingno specialized knowledgebeyond high-school
algebra.
9. Greenbergeret al. 1989, 1990; Mermin 1990, 1993.
10. Aronowitz(1988b, 331) has made a provocativeobservationconcerning
nonlinearcausalityin quantummechanicsand itsrelationto the social construc-
tionof time:
Linear causality assumes that the relation of cause and effectcan be

expressedas a functionof temporalsuccession. Owing to recentdevelop-
mentsin quantummechanics,we can postulatethatit is possibleto knowthe
effectsof absentcauses; thatis, speakingmetaphorically, effectsmay antici-
pate causes so thatour perceptionof themmay precedethe physicaloccur-
renceof a "cause." The hypothesisthatchallengesour conventionalconcep-
tion of linear time and causalityand that asserts the possibilityof time's
reversalalso raisesthequestionofthedegreeto whichtheconceptof "time's
arrow"is inherentin all scientifictheory.If theseexperimentsare successful,
the conclusions about the way time as "clock-time"has been constituted
historicallywill be open to question. We will have "proved" by means of
experimentwhathas longbeen suspectedby philosophers,literaryand social
critics:thattime is, in part, a conventionalconstruction,its segmentation
into hours and minutesa productof the need forindustrialdiscipline,for
rationalorganizationof social labor in the earlybourgeoisepoch.
The theoreticalanalysesof Greenbergeret al. (1989, 1990) and Mermin (1990,
1993) providea strikingexample of thisphenomenon;see Maudlin 1994 fora
detailedanalysisof the implicationsforconceptsof causalityand temporality.
An
experimentaltest,extendingtheworkof Aspect et al. (1982), willlikelybe forth-
coming within the next few years.
11. The intimate relations between quantum mechanics and the mind-body
problem are discussed in Goldstein 1983, chaps. 7 and 8.
12. Among the voluminous literature,Capra 1975 can be recommended for

its scientificaccuracy and its accessibilityto nonspecialists.In addition,Shel-
drake 1981, while occasionallyspeculative,is in generalsound. For a sympa-
theticbut criticalanalysisof New Age theories,see Ross 1991, chap. 1. For a cri-
tique of Capra's workfroma Third Worldperspective,see Alvares1992, chap. 6.
13. Newtonianatomismtreatsparticlesas hyperseparated in space and time,
backgroundingtheirinterconnectedness (Plumwood 1993a, 125); indeed, "the
only'force'allowedwithinthemechanisticframework is thatof kineticenergy-
theenergyof motionby contact-all otherpurportedforces,includingactionat a
distance,beingregardedas occult" (Mathews 1991, 17). For criticalanalysesof
the Newtonian mechanisticworldview,see Weil 1968, esp. chap. 1; Merchant
1980; Berman 1981; Keller 1985, chaps. 2 and 3; Mathews 1991, chap. 1; and
Plumwood 1993a, chap. 5.
14. Accordingto the traditionaltextbookaccount,special relativity is con-
cerned withthe coordinatetransformations relatingtwoframesof referencein
uniformrelativemotion. But this is a misleadingoversimplification, as Bruno
Latour has pointedout:
How can one decide whetheran observationmade in a train about the

behaviourof a fallingstone can be made to coincide withthe observation
made of the same fallingstonefromtheembankment? If thereare onlyone,
or even two,framesof reference,no solutioncan be foundsince the man in
thetrainclaimshe observesa straightline and the man on the embankment
a parabola. . . . Einstein'ssolutionis to consider threeactors: one in the
train,one on the embankmentand a thirdone, the author[enunciator]or
one of its representants,who triesto superimposethe coded observations
sentback bythetwoothers. . . Withouttheenunciator'sposition(hiddenin
Einstein'saccount), and withoutthe notionof centresof calculation,Ein-
stein's own technical argumentis ununderstandable.(1988, 10-11, 35;
emphasisin original)
In the end, as Latour wittily
but accuratelyobserves,special relativity boils down
to the propositionthat "more framesof referencewith less privilegecan be
accessed, reduced,accumulatedand combined,observerscan be delegatedto a
fewmoreplaces in theinfinitely large (the cosmos) and theinfinitely small (elec-
trons),and the readingstheysend willbe understandable.His [Einstein's]book
could well be titled:'New InstructionsforBringingBack Long-Distance Scien-
tificTravellers'"(22-23). Latour's criticalanalysisof Einstein'slogic providesan
eminentlyaccessibleintroduction to special relativity
fornon-scientists.
15. It goes withoutsayingthatspecial relativity proposes new conceptsnot
only of space and time but also of mechanics. In special relativity, as Virilio
(1991, 136) has noted, "the dromosphericspace, space-speed, is physically
describedby whatis called the 'logisticequation,'theresultof theproductofthe
mass displacedby the speed of itsdisplacement,MxV." This radicalalterationof
the Newtonianformulahas profoundconsequences,particularly in thequantum
theory;see Lorentzet al. 1952 and Weinberg1992 forfurther discussion.
16. StevenBest (1991, 225) has put his fingeron the crux of the difficulty,
whichis that"unlikethe linearequationsused in Newtonianand even quantum
mechanics, nonlinear equations do [not] have the simple additive property
wherebychains of solutions can be constructedout of simple, independent
parts." For this reason, the strategies of atomization, reductionism, and context-
stripping that underlie the Newtonian scientificmethodology simply do not work
in general relativity.
234 Alan D. Sokal

17. G6del 1949. For a summaryof recentworkin this area, see 't Hooft
1993.
18. These new notionsof space, time,and causalityare inpartforeshadowed
Thus, AlexanderArgyros(1991, 137) has notedthat
alreadyin special relativity.
"in a universedominatedby photons,gravitons,and neutrinos,that is, in the
veryearlyuniverse,the theoryof special relativity suggeststhatany distinction
betweenbeforeand afteris impossible.For a particletravelingat the speed of
light,or one traversinga distance thatis in the orderof the Planck length,all
events are simultaneous."However, I cannot agree withArgyros'sconclusion
that Derridean deconstructionis thereforeinapplicableto the hermeneuticsof
early-universe cosmology:Argyros'sargumentto thiseffectis based on an imper-
missiblytotalizinguse of special relativity
(in technicalterms,"light-conecoor-
dinates") in a contextwheregeneralrelativity is inescapable. (For a similarbut
less innocenterror,see n. 20.)
Jean-FranoisLyotard(1989, 5-6) has also pointedout thatnot onlygeneral
relativity,but also modernelementary-particle physics,imposes new notionsof
time:
In contemporaryphysicsand astrophysics. . . a particlehas a sort of ele-

mentarymemoryand consequentlya temporalfilter. This is whycontempo-
raryphysiciststendto thinkthattimeemanatesfrommatteritself,and thatit
is not an entityoutsideor insidethe universewhose functionit would be to
gatherall differenttimesinto universalhistory.It is onlyin certainregions
thatsuch-only partial-synthesescould be detected.There would on this
view be areas of determinism wherecomplexityis increasing.
Furthermore, Michel Serres (1992, 89-91) has noted thatchaos theory(Gleick

1987) and percolationtheory(Stauffer1985) have contestedthe traditionallin-
ear conceptof time:
Time does not alwaysflowalong a line. . . or a plane, but along an extraor-

dinarilycomplex manifold,as if it showed stoppingpoints,ruptures,sinks
[puits], funnels of overwhelmingacceleration [chemindesd'accelration
rips,lacunae, all sown randomly.... Time flowsin a turbulent
foudroyante],
and chaoticmanner;it percolates.(Translationmine.Note thatin thetheory
of dynamicalsystems,"puits" is a technicaltermmeaning"sink," i.e. the
oppositeof "source.")
These multipleinsightsintothenatureof time,providedby different branchesof
physics,are a further illustrationof the complementarity principle.
General relativitycan arguablybe read as corroboratingthe Nietzschean
deconstructionof causality(see, e.g., Culler 1982, 86-88), althoughsome rela-
tivistsfindthis interpretationproblematic.In quantummechanics,by contrast,
this phenomenonis ratherfirmlyestablished(see n. 10). General relativityis
also, of course, the startingpoint for contemporaryastrophysicsand physical
cosmology.See Mathews 1991 (59-90, 109-16, 142-63) fora detailedanalysis
of the connections between general relativity(and its generalizationscalled
"geometrodynamics")and an ecologicalworldview.For an astrophysicist's spec-
ulationsalong similarlines,see Primackand Abrams 1995.
19. Discussion of Derrida (1970, 265-66).
20. Right-wingcriticsGross and Levitt(1994, 79) have ridiculedthisstate-
ment,willfully misinterpreting it as an assertionabout specialrelativity,
in which

the Einsteinianconstantc (the speed of lightin vacuum) is of course constant.
No readereven minimallyconversantwithmodernphysics-except an ideologi-
cally biased one-could fail to understandDerrida's unequivocal referenceto
generalrelativity.
21. Luce Irigaray(1987, 77-78) has pointed out thatthe contradictions
betweenquantumtheoryand fieldtheoryare in factthe culminationof a histor-
ical processthatbegan withNewtonianmechanics:
The Newtonianbreakhas usheredscientificenterpriseinto a worldwhere

sense perceptionis worthlittle,a worldwhichcan lead to theannihilationof
theverystakesof physics'object:thematter(whateverthepredicates)of the
universeand of the bodies thatconstituteit. In thisveryscience,moreover
[d'ailleurs],cleavages exist: quantum theory/field theory,mechanics of
solids/dynamics of fluids,forexample.But theimperceptibility
of thematter
under studyoftenbringswithit the paradoxicalprivilegeof solidityin dis-
coveriesand a delay,even an abandoningof the analysisof theinfinity[l'in-
fini] of the fieldsof force.
I have here correctedthe translationof d'ailleurs,whichmeans "moreover"or
"besides" (not "however").
22. Sheldrake1981, 1991; Briggsand Peat 1984, chap. 4; Granero-Porati
and Porati 1984; Kazarinoff1985; Schiffmann1989; Psarev 1990; Brooks and
Castor 1990; Heinonen et al. 1992; Rensing 1993. For an in-depthtreatment of
the mathematicalbackgroundto this theory,see Thom 1975, 1990; and fora
briefbut insightful analysisof thephilosophicalunderpinnings of thisand related
approaches,see Ross 1991 (40-42, 253 n. 20).
23. Some early workersthoughtthat the morphogeneticfield mightbe
relatedto the electromagnetic field,but it is now understoodthatthisis merelya
suggestiveanalogy:see Sheldrake1981 (77, 90) fora clear exposition.Note also
point (b) below.
24. For anotherexampleof the "turf"effect,see Chomsky1979 (6-7).
25. To be fairto the high-energy-physics establishment, I should mention
thatthereis also an honestintellectualreason fortheiroppositionto thistheory:
inasmuchas it posits a subquantuminteractionlinkingpatternsthroughoutthe
universe,it is, in physicists'terminology, a "nonlocalfieldtheory."Now, thehis-
toryof classicaltheoreticalphysicssincetheearly1800s, fromMaxwell'selectro-
dynamicsto Einstein'sgeneralrelativity, can be read in a verydeep sense as a
trendaway fromaction-at-a-distance theoriesand towardlocalfieldtheories: in
technicalterms,theoriesexpressiblebypartialdifferential equations(Einsteinand
Infeld 1961; Hayles 1984). So a nonlocal fieldtheorydefinitely goes againstthe
grain.On theotherhand,as Bell (1987) and othershave convincingly argued,the
keypropertyof quantummechanicsis preciselyits non-locality, as expressedin
Bell's theoremand itsgeneralizations (see nn. 8 and 9). Therefore,a nonlocalfield
theory,althoughjarringto physicists'classicalintuition, is not onlynaturalbut in
factpreferred (and possiblyevenmandatory?) in thequantumcontext.This is why
classical generalrelativityis a local fieldtheory,whilequantumgravity(whether
string,weave,or morphogenetic field)is inherently nonlocal.
26. Differential topology is the branch of mathematics concerned with those
properties of surfaces (and higher-dimensional manifolds) that are unaffected
by smooth deformations. The properties it studies are thereforeprimarily quali-
tative rather than quantitative, and its methods are holistic rather than Cartesian.
236 Alan D. Sokal

27. The alertreaderwill noticethatanomaliesin "normalscience" are the
usual harbingerof a futureparadigmshift(Kuhn 1970).
28. The floweringof the theoryof phase transitionsin the 1970s probably
reflectsan increasedemphasison discontinuity and rupturein the widerculture
(see n. 42).
29. For an in-depthanalysis of Lacan's use of ideas frommathematical
topology,see Juranville1984 (chap. 7); Granon-Lafont1985, 1990; Vappereau
1985; and Nasio 1987, 1992; a briefsummaryis given by Leupin 1991. See
Hayles 1990 (80) foran intriguingconnectionbetweenLacanian topologyand
chaos theory;unfortunately she does not pursue it. See also Zizek 1991 (38-39,
45-47) forsome further homologiesbetweenLacanian theoryand contemporary
physics.Lacan also made extensiveuse of concepts fromset-theoretic number
theory:see, forexample,Miller 1977/78and Ragland-Sullivan1990.
In bourgeois social psychology,topological ideas had been employed by
Kurt Lewin as earlyas the 1930s, but thisworkfounderedfortwo reasons:first,
because of its individualistideological preconceptions;and second, because it
reliedon old-fashionedpoint-settopologyratherthanmoderndifferential topol-
ogy and catastrophetheory.Regardingthe second point,see Back 1992.
a cettefin,reconnaltreque Lacan conf&reenfina la pensee de
30. "Il suffit,
Freud,les conceptsscientifiques qu'elle exige."This famousessayon "Freud and
Lacan" was firstpublishedin 1964, beforeLacan's workhad reachedits highest
level of mathematicalrigor.It was reprintedin Englishtranslationin Althusser
1969.
31. This articlehas become quite influential in filmtheory:see, forexample,
Jameson1982 (27-28) and thereferencescitedthere.As Strathausen(1994, 69)
indicates,Miller's articleis tough going for the reader not well versed in the
mathematicsof set theory.But it is well worththe effort.For a gentleintroduc-
tionto set theory,see Bourbaki1970.
32. Homologytheoryis one of the two main branchesof the mathematical
fieldcalled algebraictopology.For an excellentintroductionto homologytheory,
see Munkres 1984; or fora more popular account,see Eilenbergand Steenrod
1952. A fullyrelativistichomologytheoryis discussed,forexample,in Eilenberg
and Moore 1965. For a dialecticalapproach to homologytheoryand its dual,
cohomologytheory,see Massey 1978. For a cyberneticapproach to homology,
see Saludes i Closa 1984.
33. For the relationof homologyto cuts,see Hirsch 1976 (205-8); and for
an applicationto collectivemovementsin quantumfieldtheory,see Caracciolo et
al. 1993 (especiallyAppendixA. 1).
34. It is, however,worthnotingthatthe space RP3 is homeomorphicto the
group SO(3) of rotationalsymmetries of conventionalthree-dimensional Euclid-
ean space. Thus, some aspects of three-dimensional Euclidicityare preserved
(albeit in modifiedform) in the postmodernphysics,just as some aspects of
Newtonianmechanicswerepreservedin modifiedformin Einsteinianphysics.
35. See also Johnson1977 (481-82) foran analysisof Derrida's and Lacan's
effortstowardtranscendingthe Euclidean spatiallogic.
Alongrelatedlines,Eve Seguin (1994, 61) has notedthat"logic saysnothing
about the world and attributes to the world properties that are but constructs of
theoretical thought. This explains why physics since Einstein has relied on alter-
native logics, such as trivalent logic which rejects the principle of the excluded
middle." A pioneering (and unjustly forgotten) work in this direction, likewise
the Boundaries
Transgressing 237

inspiredby quantum mechanics,is Lupasco 1951. See also Plumwood 1993b
(453-59) fora specifically feministperspectiveon nonclassicallogics.For a crit-
ical analysisof one nonclassicallogic ("boundarylogic") and its relationto the
ideologyof cyberspace,see Markley1994.
36. This essay originallyappeared in French in Irigaray1982. Irigaray's
phrase theoriedes ensembles can also be renderedas "theoryof sets,"and bordsis
usually translatedin the mathematicalcontext as "boundaries." Her phrase
ensembles flousmay referto the new mathematicalfieldof "fuzzy sets" (Kauf-
mann 1973; Kosko 1993).
37. In the historyof mathematicstherehas been a long-standingdialectic
betweenthedevelopmentof its "pure" and "applied" branches(Struik1987). Of
course,the "applications"traditionally privilegedin thiscontexthave been those
profitableto capitalistsor usefulto theirmilitaryforces:for example,number
theoryhas been developed largelyforits applicationsin cryptography (Loxton
1990). See also Hardy 1967 (120-21, 131-'32).
38. The equal representation of all boundaryconditionsis also suggestedby
Chew's bootstraptheoryof "subatomicdemocracy":see Chew 1977 foran intro-
duction,and see Morris 1988 and Markley1992 forphilosophicalanalysis.
39. The main limitationof the Madsen-Madsen analysisis thatit is essen-
tiallyapolitical;and it hardlyneeds to be pointedout thatdisputesoverwhatis
truecan have a profoundeffecton, and are in turnprofoundlyaffectedby,dis-
putes overpoliticalprojects.Thus Markley(1992, 270) makes a pointsimilarto
thatof Madsen-Madsen,but rightly situatesit in its politicalcontext:
Radical critiquesof science thatseek to escape the constraintsof determin-

isticdialecticsmustalso giveovernarrowlyconceiveddebatesabout realism
and truthto investigatewhat kind of realities-politicalrealities-mightbe
engenderedby a dialogical bootstrapping.Within a dialogicallyagitated
environment, debates about realitybecome, in practicalterms,irrelevant.
"Reality,"finally,is a historicalconstruct.
See Markley1992 (266-72) and Hobsbawm 1993 (63-64) forfurther discussion
of thepoliticalimplications.
40. Aronowitz (1988b, 292-93) makes a slightlydifferent,but equally
cogent,criticismof quantumchromodynamics(the currently hegemonictheory
representingnucleonsas permanently bound statesof quarksand gluons): draw-
ing on theworkof Pickering(1984), he notesthat
in his [Pickering's]account,quarksare the name assignedto (absent) phe-
nomena thatcohere withparticleratherthan fieldtheories,which,in each
case, offerdifferent, althoughequally plausible,explanationsforthe same
(inferred)observation.That the majorityof the scientificcommunitychose
one overanotheris a functionof scientists'preference
forthetraditionrather
thanthevalidityof explanation.
However,Pickeringdoes not reach back farenoughintothe historyof
physicsto findthe basis of the researchtraditionfromwhich the quark
explanationemanates.It maynotbe foundinsidethetraditionbutin theide-
ology of science, in the differencesbehind field versus particle theories, sim-
ple versus complex explanations, the bias toward certaintyrather than inde-
terminateness.
238 Alan D. Sokal

Alongverysimilarlines,Markley(1992, 269) observesthatphysicists'preference
for quantum chromodynamicsover Chew's bootstrap theoryof "subatomic
democracy"(Chew 1977) is a resultof ideologyratherthandata:
It is not surprising,in thisregard,thatbootstraptheoryhas fallenintorela-
tive disfavoramong physicistsseekinga GUT (Grand UnifiedTheory) or
TOE (Theory of Everything)to explainthe structureof theuniverse.Com-
prehensivetheoriesthatexplain"everything" are productsof theprivileging
of coherenceand orderin westernscience. The choice betweenbootstrap
theoryand theoriesof everything thatconfrontsphysicistsdoes nothave to
do primarilywiththetruth-value offeredby theseaccountsof availabledata
but with the narrativestructures-indeterminateor deterministic-into
whichthesedata are placed and by whichtheyare interpreted.
Unfortunately, the vast majorityof physicistsare not yetaware of these incisive

critiquesof one of theirmostfervently held dogmas.
For another critique of the hidden ideology of contemporaryparticle
physics,see Kroker et al. 1989 (158-62, 204-7). The styleof this critiqueis
rathertoo Baudrillardianformy staid taste,but the contentis (except fora few
minorinaccuracies)righton target.
41. For an amusingexample of how thismodestdemand has drivenright-
wing scientistsinto fitsof apoplexy ("frighteningly Stalinist"is the chosen epi-
thet),see Gross and Levitt 1994 (91).
42. Whilechaos theoryhas been deeplystudiedby culturalanalysts-see, for
example,Hayles 1990, 1991; Argyros1991; Best 1991; Young 1991, 1992; Assad
1993 among many others-the theoryof phase transitionshas passed largely
unremarked.(One exceptionis the discussionof the renormalization group in
Hayles 1990 [154-58].) This is a pity,because discontinuity and the emergence
of multiplescales are centralfeaturesin thistheory;and itwould be interesting to
knowhow the developmentof thesethemesin the 1970s and afterwards is con-
nectedto trendsin the widerculture.I therefore suggestthistheoryas a fruitful
fieldfor futureresearchby culturalanalysts.Some theoremson discontinuity
whichmaybe relevantto thisanalysiscan be foundin Van Enteret al. 1993.
43. See, however,Schor 1989 for a critiqueof Irigaray'sundue deference
towardconventional(male) science,particularly physics.
44. ConcerningtheCartesian/Baconian metaphysics, RobertMarkley(1991,
6) has observedthat
Narrativesof scientific
progressdependupon imposingbinaryoppositions-
true/false,right/wrong-ontheoreticaland experimentalknowledge,privi-
legingmeaningovernoise,metonymy overmetaphor,monologicalauthority
overdialogicalcontention. . . These attemptsto fixnatureare ideologically
coercive as well as descriptively
limited.They focus attentiononly on the
smallrangeof phenomena-say, lineardynamics-whichseem to offereasy,
oftenidealized ways of modelingand interpreting humankind'srelationship
to theuniverse.
While this observation is informed primarily by chaos theory-and secondarily
by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics-it in fact summarizes beautifully the rad-
ical challenge to modernist metaphysics posed by quantum gravity.
45. One caveat: I have strong reservations about Capra's use here of the
the Boundaries
Transgressing 239

wordcyclical,whichifinterpreted too literallycould promotea politicallyregres-
sive quietism.For furtheranalyses of these issues, see Bohm 1980; Merchant
1980, 1992; Berman 1981; Prigogineand Stengers1984; Bowen 1985; Griffin
1988; Kitchener1988; Callicott1989 (chaps. 6 and 9); Shiva 1990; Best 1991;
Haraway 1991, 1994; Mathews 1991; Morin 1992; Santos 1992; and Wright
1992.
46. A minor quibble: it is not clear to me that complex numbertheory,
whichis a new and stillquite speculativebranchof mathematicalphysics,ought
to be accordedthe same epistemologicalstatusas thethreefirmly establishedsci-
ences citedby Markley.
See Wallerstein1993 (17-20) foran incisiveand closelyanalogous account
of how the postmodernphysicsis beginningto borrowideas fromthe historical
social sciences; and see Santos 1989 and 1992 fora moredetaileddevelopment.
47. At this point,the traditionalscientist'sresponseis thatworknot con-
formingto the evidentiarystandardsof conventionalscience is fundamentally
irrational,thatis, logicallyflawedand therefore not worthyof credence.But this
refutationis insufficient: for,as Porush (1993) has lucidlyobserved,modern
mathematicsand physicshave themselves admitteda powerful"intrusionof the
irrational"in quantummechanicsand G6del's theorem-although,understand-
ably,like the Pythagoreanstwenty-four centuriesago, modernistscientistshave
attemptedto exorcisethisunwantedirrationalelementas besttheycould. Porush
makes a powerfulplea fora "post-rationalepistemology"thatwould retainthe
bestof conventionalWesternsciencewhilevalidatingalternative waysofknowing.
Note also thatJacques Lacan, froma quite different startingpoint, came
long ago to a similarappreciationof theinevitablerole of irrationalityin modern
mathematics:
If you'll permitme to use one of those formulaswhich come to me as I

writemynotes,humanlifecould be definedas a calculus in whichzero was
irrational.This formulais just an image,a mathematicalmetaphor.When I
say "irrational,"I'm referring
not to some unfathomableemotionalstatebut
preciselyto whatis called an imaginarynumber.The square root of minus
one doesn'tcorrespondto anythingthatis subjectto our intuition,anything
real-in themathematicalsense of theterm-and yet,it mustbe conserved,
along withits fullfunction.(Lacan 1977, 28-29; seminaroriginallygivenin
1959)
For further reflections in modernmathematics,
on irrationality see Solomon 1988
(76) and Bloor 1991 (122-25).
48. Along parallel lines, Donna Haraway (1991, 191-92) has argued elo-
quentlyfora democraticscience comprising"partial,locatable,criticalknowl-
edges sustainingthepossibilityofwebs of connectionscalled solidarityin politics
and sharedconversations in epistemology"and foundedon "a doctrineand prac-
tice of objectivitythat privilegescontestation,deconstruction,passionate con-
struction,webbedconnections,and hope fortransformation of systemsof knowl-
edge and ways of seeing." These ideas are furtherdeveloped in Haraway 1994
and Doyle 1994.
49. For an example in the contextof the Sandinistarevolution,see Sokal
1987.
50. For feminist critiques, see Merchant 1980; Easlea 1981; Keller 1985,
1992; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Plumwood 1993a. See Wylie et
al. 1990 for an extensive bibliography. The feminist critique of science has, not
240 Alan D. Sokal

surprisingly,been the objectof a bitterright-wing counterattack.For a sampling,
see Levin 1988; Haack 1992, 1993; Sommers 1994; Gross and Levitt 1994
(chap. 5); and Patai and Koertge 1994.
For queer critiques,see Trebilcot1988 and Hamill 1994.
For multiculturalist critiques,see Ezeabasili 1977; Van Sertima 1983; Frye
1987; Sardar 1988; Adams 1990; Nandy 1990; Alvares 1992; Harding 1994. As
withthe feministcritique,the multiculturalist perspectivehas been ridiculedby
right-wing critics,witha condescensionthatin some cases borderson racism.
See, for example, Ortiz de Montellano 1991; Martel 1991/92; Hughes 1993
(chap. 2); and Gross and Levitt1994 (203-14).
For ecological critiques,see Merchant1980, 1992; Berman 1981; Callicott
1989 (chaps. 6 and 9); Mathews 1991; Wright1992; Plumwood 1993a; Ross
1994.
51. See Wojciehowski1991 for a deconstructionof Galileo's rhetoric,in
particularhis claim that the mathematico-scientific method can lead to direct
and reliableknowledgeof "reality."
A veryrecentbut importantcontribution to the philosophyof mathematics
can be found in the workof Deleuze and Guattari(1994, chap. 5). Here they
introducethephilosophically fruitfulnotionof a "functive"[Fr.fonctif],whichis
neithera function[Fr. fonction]nor a functional[Fr. fonctionnelle] but rathera
more basic conceptualentity:"The object of science is not conceptsbut rather
functionsthatare presentedas propositionsin discursivesystems.The elements
of functionsare calledfunctives"(117). This apparentlysimpleidea has surpris-
inglysubtleand far-reaching consequences;its elucidationrequiresa detourinto
chaos theory(see also Rosenberg1993 and Canning 1994):
The firstdifference betweenscience and philosophyis theirrespectiveatti-

tudes towardchaos. Chaos is definednot so much by its disorderas by the
infinitespeed withwhicheveryformtakingshape in it vanishes.It is a void
thatis not a nothingnessbut a virtual,containingall possible particlesand
drawingout all possible forms,whichspringup onlyto disappear immedi-
ately,withoutconsistencyor reference,withoutconsequence. Chaos is an
infinitespeed of birthand disappearance.(117-18)
But science,unlikephilosophy,cannotcope withinfinitespeeds:
It is by slowingdown thatmatter,as well as the scientificthoughtable to

penetrateit [sic] with propositions,is actualized. A functionis a Slow-
motion. Of course, science constantlyadvances accelerations,not only in
catalysisbut in particleacceleratorsand expansionsthatmovegalaxiesapart.
However,the primordialslowingdown is not forthese phenomenaa zero-
instantwithwhichtheybreakbut rathera conditioncoextensivewiththeir
whole development.To slow down is to set a limitin chaos to which all
speeds are subject,so thattheyforma variabledeterminedas abscissa,at the
same time as the limit forms a universal constant that cannot be gone
beyond (forexample,a maximumdegreeof contraction).Thefirstfunctives
are thereforethelimitand thevariable,and referenceis a relationshipbetween
values of the variable or, more profoundly,the relationship of the variable, as
abscissa of speeds, with the limit. (118-19; emphasis mine)
A rather intricate furtheranalysis (too lengthy to quote here) leads to a conclu-

sion of profound methodological importance for those sciences based on mathe-

maticalmodeling:"The respectiveindependenceof variablesappears in mathe-
maticswhen one of themis at a higherpowerthan the first.That is whyHegel
shows that variabilityin the functionis not confinedto values that can be
changed (2/3 and 4/6) or are leftundetermined(a = 2b) but requiresone of the
variablesto be at a higherpower(y2/x= P)" (122). (Note thattheEnglishtrans-
lationinadvertently writesy2/x P,F an amusingerrorthatthoroughly manglesthe
logic of the argument.)
Surprisinglyfora technicalphilosophicalwork,thisbook (Qu'est-ceque la
philosophie?) was a best-sellerin France in 1991. It has recentlyappearedin Eng-
lish translation,but is, alas, unlikelyto compete successfullywith Rush Lim-
baugh and Howard Sternforthebest-sellerlistsin thiscountry.
52. For a viciousright-wing attackon thisproposition,see Gross and Levitt
1994 (52-54). See Ginzberg 1989; Cope-Kasten 1989; Nye 1990; and Plum-
wood 1993b forlucid feministcritiquesof conventional(masculinist)mathemat-
ical logic,in particularthe modusponensand thesyllogism.Concerningthe modus
ponens,see also Woolgar 1988 (45-46) and Bloor 1991 (182); and concerning
the syllogism,see also Woolgar 1988 (47-48) and Bloor 1991 (131-35). For an
analysisof the social imagesunderlying mathematicalconceptionsof infinity, see
Harding 1986 (50). For a demonstration ofthe social contextualityof mathemat-
ical statements, see Woolgar1988 (43) and Bloor 1991 (107-30).
53. See Merchant1980 fora detailedanalysisof the themesof controland
dominationin Westernmathematicsand science.
Let me mentionin passingtwo otherexamplesof sexismand militarismin
mathematicsthatto my knowledgehave not been noticedpreviously.The first
concernsthe theoryof branchingprocesses,which arose in VictorianEngland
fromthe "problemof the extinctionof families"and whichnow playsa keyrole
interalia in the analysisof nuclearchain reactions(Harris 1963). In the seminal
(and thissexistword is apt) paper on the subject,Francis Galton and the Rev-
erendH. W. Watson(1874) wrote:
The decay of the familiesof men who occupied conspicuous positionsin

past timeshas been a subjectof frequentresearch,and has givenriseto var-
ious conjectures . . . The instances are very numerous in which surnames
that were once common have since become scarce or have whollydisap-
peared. The tendencyis universal,and, in explanationof it,the conclusion
has hastilybeen drawnthata risein physicalcomfortand intellectualcapac-
ityis necessarilyaccompaniedby a diminutionin 'fertility'..
Let p0 p1,P2, . . . be the respective probabilities that a man has 0, 1, 2,
. let each son have the same probabilityof sons of his own, and so
.sons,
on. What is the probabilitythatthe male line is extinctafterr generations,
and moregenerallywhatis the probabilityforany givennumberof descen-
dantsin the male line in any givengeneration?
One cannotfailto be charmedbythequaintimplicationthathumanmalesrepro-
the classism,social-Darwinism,and sexismin this
duce asexually;nevertheless,
passage are obvious.
The second example is Laurent Schwartz's 1973 book Radon Measures.
While technically quite interesting,this work is imbued, as its title makes plain,
with the pro-nuclear-energy worldview that has been characteristic of French
science since the early 1960s. Sadly, the French left-especially but by no means
solely the PCF-has traditionally been as enthusiastic for nuclear energy as the
right (see Touraine et al. 1980).
54. Just as liberal feministsare frequentlycontent with a minimal agenda of
242 Alan D. Sokal

legal and social equalityforwomen and "pro-choice,"so liberal(and even some
socialist) mathematiciansare oftencontentto workwithinthe hegemonicZer-
melo-Fraenkelframework(which, reflectingits nineteenth-century liberal ori-
gins,alreadyincorporatestheaxiom of equality)supplementedonlybytheaxiom
of choice. But thisframework is grosslyinsufficient
fora liberatory
mathematics,
as was provenlong ago by Cohen 1966.
55. Fuzzy systemstheoryhas been heavilydeveloped by transnationalcor-
porations-firstin Japanand laterelsewhere-to solve practicalproblemsof effi-
ciencyin labor-displacingautomation.
References
Adams, HunterHavelin III. 1990. Africanand African-American contributions

to science and technology.In African-American baselineessays.Portland,
Ore.: MultnomahSchool District1J,PortlandPublic Schools.
Albert,David Z. 1992. Quantummechanicsand experience. Cambridge,Mass.:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Alexander,StephanieB., I. David Berg,and RichardL. Bishop. 1993. Geometric
curvaturebounds in Riemannianmanifoldswithboundary.Transactions of
theAmericanMathematicalSociety339: 703-16.
Althusser,Louis. 1969. Freud and Lacan. New LeftReview55: 48-65.
1993. Acritssurla psychanalyse:FreudetLacan. Paris: Stock/IMEC.
Alvares,Claude. 1992. Science,development, and violence:Therevoltagainstmoder-
nity.Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.
Alvarez-Gaume, Luis. 1985. Topology and anomalies. In Mathematicsand
physics:Lectureson recentresults,
vol. 2, editedbyL. Streit.Singapore:World
Scientific.
Argyros,AlexanderJ. 1991. A blessedragefororder:Deconstruction, evolution, and
chaos.Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress.
Arnol'd,VladimirI. 1992. Catastrophe theory, 3d ed. Translatedby G. S. Wasser-
mannand R. K. Thomas. Berlin:Springer.
Aronowitz,Stanley.1981. The crisisin historicalmaterialism: Class,politics,and
culturein Marxisttheory. New York:Praeger.
.1988a. The productionof scientificknowledge:Science, ideology,and
Marxism.In Marxismand theinterpretation ofculture,editedby Cary Nelson
and Lawrence Grossberg.Urbana: Universityof IllinoisPress.
. 1988b. Scienceas power:Discourseand ideologyin modernsociety.Min-
neapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress.
.1994. The situationof the leftin the United States. SocialistReview23,
no. 3: 5-79.
Aronowitz,Stanley,and Henry A. Giroux. 1991. Postmodern education:Politics,
culture, and socialcriticism.
Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.
.1993. Educationstillundersiege.Westport,Conn.: Berginand Garvey.
Ashtekar,Abhay,Carlo Rovelli,and Lee Smolin. 1992. Weavinga classical met-
ric withquantumthreads.PhysicalReviewLetters69: 237-40.
Aspect, Alain, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger. 1982. Experimentaltest of
Bell's inequalitiesusing time-varying analyzers.PhysicalReviewLetters49:
1804-1807.
Assad, Maria L. 1993. Portraitof a nonlineardynamicalsystem:The discourse
of Michel Serres.SubStance71/72: 141-52.
the Boundaries
Transgressing 243

Back, Kurt W. 1992. This businessof topology.JournalofSocial Issues48, no. 2:
51-66.
Bell, JohnS. 1987. Speakableand unspeakablein quantummechanics:Collected
paperson quantumphilosophy. New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Berman,Morris. 1981. Thereenchantment oftheworld.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUni-
versityPress.
Best, Steven. 1991. Chaos and entropy:Metaphorsin postmodernscience and
social theory.Scienceas Culture2(2), no. 11: 188-226.
Bloor,David. 1991. Knowledgeand socialimagery, 2d ed. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago Press.
Bohm, David. 1980. Wholeness and theimplicateorder.London: Routledgeand
Kegan Paul.
Bohr,Niels. 1958. Naturalphilosophyand humancultures.In Thephilosophical
writings ofNielsBohr,vol. 2, Essays 1932-1957 on atomicphysicsand human
knowledge. New York:Wiley.
.1963. Quantumphysicsand philosophy-causalityand complementarity.
In Thephilosophical writingsofNielsBohr,vol. 3, Essays1958-1962 on atomic
physicsand humanknowledge. New York:Wiley.
Booker,M. Keith. 1990. Joyce,Planck,Einstein,and Heisenberg:A relativistic
quantum mechanical discussion of Ulysses.James Joyce Quarterly27:
577-86.
Boulware,David G. and S. Deser. 1975. Classical generalrelativity derivedfrom
quantumgravity. AnnalsofPhysics89: 193-240.
Bourbaki,Nicolas. 1970. Thdoriedesensembles. Paris: Hermann.
Bowen, Margarita. 1985. The ecology of knowledge:Linkingthe naturaland
social sciences. Geoforum16: 213-25.
Bricmont,Jean. 1994. Contrela philosophiede la mecanique quantique. Texte
d'une communicationfaiteau colloque "Faut-il promouvoirles &changes
entreles sciences et la philosophie?"Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), 24-25
March 1994.
Briggs,John,and F. David Peat. 1984. Lookingglassuniverse:Theemerging science
ofwholeness. New York:CornerstoneLibrary.
Brooks,Roger, and David Castor. 1990. Morphismsbetweensupersymmetric
and topologicalquantumfieldtheories.PhysicsLettersB 246: 99-104.
Callicott,J.Baird. 1989. In defenseoftheland ethic:Essaysin environmentalphilos-
ophy.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Campbell,Mary Anne,and Randall K. Campbell-Wright.1995. Towarda femi-
nist algebra. In Teachingthemajority:Science,mathematics, and engineering
thatattractswomen,edited by Sue V. Rosser. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Canning,Peter.1994. The crackoftimeand theideal game. In GillesDeleuzeand
the theaterofphilosophy,edited by ConstantinV. Boundas and Dorothea
Olkowski.New York:Routledge.
Capra, Fritjof.1975. Thetao ofphysics: An exploration oftheparallelsbetweenmod-
ernphysicsand Easternmysticism. Berkeley,Calif.: Shambhala.
. 1988. The role of physicsin the currentchange of paradigms.In The
worldviewofcontemporary physics:Does it needa newmetaphysics?, editedby
RichardF. Kitchener.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Caracciolo, Sergio, Robert G. Edwards, Andrea Pelissetto, and Alan D. Sokal.
1993. Wolff-type embedding algorithms for general nonlinear ir-models.
Nuclear Physics B 403: 475-541.
Chew, Geoffrey. 1977. Impasse for the elementary-particle concept. In The sci-
244 Alan D. Sokal

encestoday,editedby RobertM. Hutchinsand MortimerAdler.New York:
Arno.
Chomsky,Noam. 1979. Languageand responsibility. Translatedby JohnViertel.
New York:Pantheon.
Cohen, Paul J. 1966. Set theoryand thecontinuum hypothesis. New York: Ben-
jamin.
Coleman, Sidney.1993. Quantummechanicsin yourface. Lecture at New York
University,12 November1993.
Cope-Kasten, Vance. 1989. A portraitof dominatingrationality. Newsletterson
ComputerUse, Feminism,Law, Medicine,Teaching(AmericanPhilosophical
Association)88, no. 2 (March): 29-34.
Corner,M. A. 1966. Morphogeneticfieldpropertiesof the forebrainarea of the
neuralplate in an anuran.Experientia22: 188-89.
An essayon twentieth-century
Craige, BettyJean. 1982. Literaryrelativity: narra-
tive.Lewisburg:BucknellUniversityPress.
Culler,Jonathan.1982. On deconstruction: Theoryand criticism afterstructuralism.
Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress.
Dean, Tim. 1993. The psychoanalysisof AIDS. October63: 83-116.
Deleuze, Gilles, and F6lix Guattari. 1994. What is philosophy?Translated by
Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell.New York: Columbia University
Press.
Derrida,Jacques. 1970. Structure,sign,and play in the discourseof the human
sciences.In Thelanguagesofcriticism and thesciencesofman: Thestructuralist
controversy, edited by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato. Baltimore,
Md.: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Doyle, Richard. 1994. Dislocatingknowledge,thinking out of joint:Rhizomatics,
Caenorhabditiselegansand the importanceof beingmultiple.Configurations:
A JournalofLiterature, Science,and Technology2: 47-58.
Diirr,Detlef,Sheldon Goldstein,and Nino Zanghi. 1992. Quantumequilibrium
and the origin of absolute uncertainty.Journalof StatisticalPhysics67:
843-907.
Easlea, Brian. 1981. Scienceand sexualoppression:
Patriarchy's confrontationwith
womenand nature.London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson.
Eilenberg,Samuel, and JohnC. Moore. 1965. Foundationsofrelativehomological
algebra.Providence,R.I.: AmericanMathematicalSociety.
Eilenberg,Samuel,and NormanE. Steenrod.1952. Foundations ofalgebraictopol-
ogy.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Einstein,Albert,and Leopold Infeld. 1961. The evolutionofphysics.New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Ezeabasili, Nwankwo. 1977. Africanscience:Mythor reality?New York:Vantage.
Feyerabend,Paul K. 1975. Againstmethod:Outlineof an anarchistictheoryof
knowledge. London: New LeftBooks.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogyof the oppressed.Translated by Myra Bergman
Ramos. New York:Continuum.
Froula, Christine.1985. Quantumphysics/postmodern metaphysics:The nature
ofJacquesDerrida. Western HumanitiesReview39: 287-313.
Frye, Charles A. 1987. Einsteinand Africanreligionand philosophy:The her-
metic parallel. In Einstein and thehumanities,edited by Dennis P. Ryan. New
York: Greenwood.
Galton, Francis, and H. W. Watson. 1874. On the probability of the extinction of
families. Journal of theAnthropologicalInstituteof Great Britain and Ireland 4:
138-44.
the Boundaries
Transgressing 245

Gierer,A., R. C. Leif, T. Maden, and J. D. Watson. 1978. Physicalaspects of
generationof morphogeneticfieldsand tissue forms.In Differentiation and
development, editedby E Ahmad,J. Schultz,T. R. Russell,and R. Werner.
New York:Academic.
Ginzberg,Ruth. 1989. Feminism,rationality, and logic. Newsletterson Computer
Use, Feminism,Law, Medicine,Teaching(AmericanPhilosophicalAssocia-
tion) 88, no. 2 (March): 34-39.
Gleick,James.1987. Chaos: Makinga newscience.New York:Viking.
G6del, Kurt. 1949. An exampleof a new typeof cosmologicalsolutionsof Ein-
stein'sfieldequationsof gravitation. ReviewsofModernPhysics21: 447-50.
Goldstein,Rebecca. 1983. Themind-body problem. New York:Random House.
Granero-Porati, M.I. and A. Porati. 1984. Temporalorganizationin a morpho-
geneticfield.JournalofMathematicalBiology20: 153-57.
Granon-Lafont, Jeanne.1985. La topologie deJacquesLacan. Paris:Point
ordinaire
Hors Ligne.
. 1990. Topologie lacanienneet cliniqueanalytique.Paris: PointHors Ligne.
Green, Michael B., JohnH. Schwarz, and Edward Witten. 1987. Superstring
theory.2 vols. New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Greenberg,ValerieD. 1990. Transgressive readings:The textsofFranz Kafka and
Max Planck.Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress.
Greenberger,D. M., M. A. Horne, and Z. Zeilinger.1989. Going beyondBell's
theorem.In Bell's theorem, quantumtheory, and conceptions of theuniverse,
editedby M. Kafatos.Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Greenberger,D. M., M. A. Horne, A. Shimony,and Z. Zeilinger.1990. Bell's
theoremwithoutinequalities.AmericanJournalofPhysics58: 1131-43.
Griffin, David Ray, ed. 1988. The reenchantment ofscience:Postmodern proposals.
Albany.: State Universityof New York Press.
Gross, Paul R,. and Norman Levitt. 1994. Highersuperstition: The academicleft
and itsquarrelswithscience.Baltimore,Md.: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.
Haack, Susan. 1992. Science 'froma feministperspective.'Philosophy 67: 5-18.
. 1993. Epistemologicalreflectionsof an old feminist.Reason Papers 18
(fall): 31-43.
Hamber,HerbertW. 1992. Phases of four-dimensional simplicialquantumgravity.
PhysicalReviewD 45: 507-12.
Hamill, Graham. 1994. The epistemologyof expurgation:Bacon and TheMas-
culineBirthof Time.In Queeringtherenaissance, edited by JonathanGold-
berg.Durham,N.C.: Duke UniversityPress.
Hamza, Hichem. 1990. Sur les transformations conformesdes vari6tesriemanni-
ennesa bord.JournalofFunctionalAnalysis92: 403-47.
Haraway,Donna J. 1989. Primatevisions:Gender,race,and naturein theworldof
modernscience.New York:Routledge.
. 1991. Simians,cyborgs,and women:The reinvention ofnature.New York:
Routledge.
. 1994. A game of cat's cradle: Science studies,feministtheory,cultural
studies. Configurations: A Journalof Literature, Science,and Technology 2:
59-71.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The sciencequestionin feminism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
women'slives.
. 1991. Whosescience?Whoseknowledge?Thinkingfrom
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
1994. Is science multicultural? Challenges, resources, opportunities,
.
246 Alan D. Sokal

uncertainties.Configurations: A JournalofLiterature, Science,and Technology
2: 301-30.
Hardy,G. H. 1967. A mathematician's apology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Harris,Theodore E. 1963. The theory ofbranching Berlin:Springer.
processes.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 1984. The cosmicweb:Scientific field modelsand literary
strategies in thetwentiethcentury.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress.
. 1990. Chaos bound:Orderlydisorder in contemporary literature
and science.
Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress.
. 1992. Genderencodingin fluidmechanics:Masculine channelsand fem-
inineflows.Differences: A JournalofFeministCulturalStudies4, no. 2:16-44.
, ed. 1991. Chaos and order:Complexdynamicsin literature and science.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Heinonen,J.,T. Kilpelkinen,and O. Martio. 1992. Harmonicmorphismsin non-
linearpotentialtheory.NagoyaMathematical Journal125: 115-40.
Heisenberg, Werner. 1958. The physicist'sconceptionof nature,translatedby
ArnoldJ.Pomerans.New York:HarcourtBrace.
Hirsch,MorrisW. 1976. Differential topology.New York:Springer.
Hobsbawm,Eric. 1993. The new threatto history.New YorkReviewofBooks,16
December, 62-64.
Hochroth,Lysa. 1995. The scientificimperative:Improductiveexpenditureand
energeticism.Configurations: A JournalofLiterature, Science,and Technology
3: 47-77.
Honner,John. 1994. Descriptionand deconstruction:Niels Bohr and modern
philosophy.In NielsBohrand contemporary philosophy.Boston Studiesin the
Philosophy of Science 153, edited by Jan Faye and Henry J. Folse. Dor-
drecht:Kluwer.
Hughes, Robert. 1993. Cultureofcomplaint:ThefrayingofAmerica.New York:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Irigaray,Luce. 1982. Le sujet de la science est-ilsexu6? Les TempsModernes9,
no. 436 (November): 960-74.
. 1985. The "mechanics" of fluids.In Thissex whichis notone,translated
by CatherinePorterwith CarolynBurke. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press.
.1987. Le sujetde la scienceest-ilsexue?/Is thesubjectof sciencesexed?
Translatedby Carol MastrangeloBove. Hypatia2, no. 3: 65-87.
Isham, C. J. 1991. Conceptual and geometricalproblemsin quantumgravity.In
Recentaspectsofquantumfields.Lecture Notes in Physics396, editedby H.
Mitterand H. Gausterer.Berlin:Springer.
Itzykson,Claude, and Jean-BernardZuber. 1980. Quantumfield theory.New
York:McGraw-HillInternational.
James,I. M. 1971. Euclidean models of projectivespaces. BulletinoftheLondon
MathematicalSociety3: 257-76.
Jameson,Fredric.1982. Reading Hitchcock.October23: 15-42.
Jammer,Max. 1974. Thephilosophy ofquantummechanics. New York:Wiley.
Johnson,Barbara. 1977. The frameof reference:Poe, Lacan, Derrida. Yale
French Studies 55/56: 457-505.
1989. A world of difference.Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Jones, V. E R. 1985. A polynomial invariant for links via Von Neumann algebras.
Bulletin of theAmerican Mathematical Society 12: 103-12.
the Boundaries
Transgressing 247

Juranville,Alain. 1984. Lacan et la philosophie.Paris: Presses Universitairesde
France.
Kaufmann,Arnold.1973. Introduction d la theoriedessous-ensemblesflous d l'usage
des inginieurs. Paris: Masson.
Kazarinoff,N. D. 1985. Patternformationand morphogenetic fields.In Mathe-
matical essays on growthand the emergence of form,edited by Peter L.
Antonelli.Edmonton:Universityof AlbertaPress.
Keller, EvelynFox. 1985. Reflections on genderand science.New Haven, Conn.:
Yale UniversityPress.
. 1992. Secretsoflife,secrets
ofdeath:Essayson language,gender, and science.
New York:Routledge.
Kitchener,RichardF., ed. 1988. The worldviewofcontemporary physics:Does it
needa newmetaphysics? Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Kontsevich,M. 1994. Resultatsrigoureuxpour modulessigmatopologiques.Con-
f~renceau Xleme Congres Internationalde PhysiqueMathematique,Paris,
18-23 juillet1994. Editepar Daniel IagolnitzeretJacquesToubon. A paraitre.
Kosko, Bart. 1993. Fuzzy thinking:The new scienceoffuzzy logic.New York:
Hyperion.
Kosterlitz,J. M., and D. J. Thouless. 1973. Ordering,metastability and phase
transitionsin two-dimensionalsystems.JournalofPhysicsC 6: 1181-1203.
Kroker,Arthur,Marilouise Kroker,and David Cook. 1989. Panic encyclopedia:
Thedefinitive guideto thepostmodern scene.New York:St. Martin's.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure revolutions,
of scientific 2d ed. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Lacan, Jacques.1970. Of structureas an inmixingof an othernessprerequisiteto
any subject whatever.In The languagesof criticism and thesciencesof man,
edited by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato. Baltimore,Md.: Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress.
.1977. Desire and the interpretation of desire in Hamlet.Translatedby
James Hulbert. Yale French Studies55/56: 11-52.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to followscientistsand engineers
through society.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.
.1988. A relativisticaccount of Einstein'srelativity. Social StudiesofSci-
ence18: 3-44.
Leupin, Alexandre.1991. Introduction:Voids and knotsin knowledgeand truth.
In Lacan and thehumansciences, editedby AlexandreLeupin. Lincoln: Uni-
versityof NebraskaPress.
Levin, Margarita. 1988. Caring new world: Feminismand science. American
Scholar57: 100-6.
Lorentz,H. A., A. Einstein,H. Minkowski,and H. Weyl. 1952. Theprincipleof
relativity,translatedby W. Perrettand G. B. Jeffery. New York:Dover.
Loxton,J.H., ed. 1990. Numbertheory and cryptography. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Lupasco, Stephane. 1951. Le principed'antagonisme etla logiquede l'inergie.Actu-
alitesScientifiqueset Industriellesno. 1133. Paris: Hermann.
Lyotard,Jean-Franiois.1989. Time today.Translatedby GeoffreyBennington
and Rachel Bowlby. OxfordLiteraryReview 11: 3-20.
Madsen, Mark, and Deborah Madsen. 1990. Structuring postmodern science.
Science and Culture 56: 467-72.
Markley, Robert. 1991. What now? An introduction to interphysics.New Orleans
Review 18, no. 1: 5-8.
248 Alan D. Sokal

. 1992. The irrelevanceof reality:Science, ideology,and the postmodern
universe.Genre25: 249-76.
. 1994. Boundaries: Mathematics,alienation,and the metaphysicsof
cyberspace.Configurations: A JournalofLiterature, Science,and Technology2:
485-507.
Martel,Erich. 1991/92.How valid are the Portlandbaselineessays?Educational
Leadership49, no. 4: 20-23.
Massey, William S. 1978. Homologyand cohomology theory.New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Mathews,Freya. 1991. Theecologicalself.London: Routledge.
Maudlin,Tim. 1994. Quantumnon-locality and relativity:
Metaphysicalintimations
ofmodern physics.AristotelianSocietySeries,vol. 13. Oxford:Blackwell.
McAvity,D. M., and H. Osborn. 1991. A DeWitt expansionof the heat kernel
formanifoldswitha boundary.Classical and QuantumGravity8: 603-38.
McCarthy, Paul. 1992. Postmodernpleasure and perversity:Scientism and
sadism. Postmodern Culture2, no. 3. Available as mccarthy.592fromlist-
serv@listserv.ncsu.edu or http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc
(Internet).
Also reprintedin Essays in postmodern culture,edited by Eyal Amiranand
JohnUnsworth.New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1993.
Merchant,Carolyn. 1980. The deathofnature:Women,ecology, and thescientific
revolution. New York:Harper and Row.
. 1992. Radical ecology:Thesearchfora livableworld.New York:Routledge.
Mermin, N. David. 1990. Quantum mysteriesrevisited.AmericanJournalof
Physics58: 731-34.
.1993. Hidden variablesand the two theoremsof JohnBell. Reviewsof
ModernPhysics65: 803-15.
Merz, Martina,and Karin Knorr Cetina. 1994. Deconstructionin a 'thinking'
science: Theoreticalphysicistsat work.Geneva: European Laboratoryfor
ParticlePhysics(CERN), preprintCERN-TH.7152/94.
Miller,Jacques-Alain.1977/78. Suture (elementsof the logic of the signifier).
Screen18, no. 4: 24-34.
Morin,Edgar. 1992. Method:Towardsa StudyofHumankind,vol. 1, Thenatureof
nature,translatedbyJ.L. Roland Belanger.New York:PeterLang.
Morris,David B. 1988. Bootstraptheory:Pope, physics,and interpretation. The
Eighteenth Century:Theoryand Interpretation 29: 101-21.
Munkres,JamesR. 1984. Elementsofalgebraictopology. Menlo Park,Calif.:Addi-
son-Wesley.
Nabutosky,A, and R. Ben-Av.1993. Noncomputability arisingin dynamicaltri-
angulationmodel of four-dimensional quantumgravity.Communications in
MathematicalPhysics157: 93-98.
Nandy,Ashis,ed. 1990. Science,hegemony, and violence:A requiemformodernity.
Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.
Nash, Charles, and SiddharthaSen. 1983. Topology and geometry forphysicists.
London: Academic.
Nasio, Juan-David. 1987. Les yeux de Laure: Le conceptd'objeta dans la theorie
de J. Lacan. Suivi d'une introduction a la topologiepsychanalytique.Paris:
Aubier.
1992. Le concept de sujet de l'inconscient. Texte d'une interventionreal-
-.
is~e dans le cadre du s~minaire de Jacques Lacan "La topologie et le temps,"
le mardi 15 mai 1979. In Cinq lecons sur la thdoriede Jacques Lacan. Paris:
Editions Rivages.
the Boundaries
Transgressing 249

Nye, Andrea. 1990. Wordsofpower:A feminist readingofthehistory oflogic.New
York:Routledge.
Oliver,Kelly. 1989. Keller's gender/science system:Is the philosophyof science
to science as science is to nature?Hypatia3, no. 3: 137-48.
Ortizde Montellano,Bernard.1991. Multicultural pseudoscience:Spreadingsci-
entificilliteracyamongminorities:PartI. SkepticalInquirer16, no. 2: 46-50.
Overstreet, David. 1980. Oxymoroniclanguageand logic in quantummechanics
and JamesJoyce.Sub-Stance28: 37-59.
Pais, Abraham. 1991. Niels Bohr'stimes:In physics,philosophy, and polity.New
York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Patai, Daphne, and NorettaKoertge. 1994. Professing feminism: Cautionarytales
fromthestrangeworldofwomen'sstudies.New York:Basic Books.
Pickering,Andrew. 1984. Constructing quarks:A sociologicalhistoryofparticle
physics.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Plotnitsky, Arkady.1994. Complementarity: Anti-epistemologyafterBohrand Der-
rida. Durham,N.C.: Duke UniversityPress.
Plumwood,Val. 1993a. Feminismand themasteryofnature.London: Routledge.
. 1993b. The politics of reason: Towards a feministlogic. Australasian
JournalofPhilosophy 71: 436-62.
Porter,Jeffrey. 1990. "Three quarksforMusterMark": Quantumwordplayand
nucleardiscoursein RussellHoban's RiddleyWalker.Contemporary Literature
21: 448-69.
Porush,David. 1989. Cyberneticfictionand postmodernscience. New Literary
History20: 373-96.
. 1993. Voyageto Eudoxia: The emergenceofa post-rational epistemology
in literature and science. SubStance71/72:38-49.
Prigogine,Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers.1984. Orderout ofchaos:Man's newdia-
loguewithnature.New York:Bantam.
Primack,JoelR., and Nancy Ellen Abrams. 1995. "In a beginning...": Quan-
tumcosmologyand Kabbalah. Tikkun10, no. 1 (January/February): 66-73.
Psarev,V. I. 1990. Morphogenesisof distributions of microparticlesby dimen-
sions in the coarsening of dispersed systems.Soviet PhysicsJournal 33:
1028-33.
Ragland-Sullivan,Ellie. 1990. Countingfrom0 to 6: Lacan, "suture,"and the
imaginaryorder. In Criticismand Lacan: Essays and dialogueon language,
structure, and theunconscious, editedby PatrickColm Hogan and Lalita Pan-
dit.Athens:Universityof Georgia Press.
Rensing,Ludger,ed. 1993. Oscillatorysignalsin morphogenetic fields.Part2 of
Oscillationsand morphogenesis. New York:Marcel Dekker.
Rosenberg,MartinE. 1993. Dynamic and thermodynamic tropesof the subject
in Freud and in Deleuze and Guattari.Postmodern Culture4, no. 1. Available
as rosenber.993fromlistserv@listserv.ncsu.edu or http://jefferson.village.
virginia.edu/pmc (Internet).
Ross, Andrew.1991. Strangeweather:Culture,science,and technology in theage of
limits.London: Verso.
. 1994. The Chicagogangster theoryoflife:Nature'sdebttosociety.London:
Verso.
Saludes i Closa, Jordi. 1984. Un programa per a calcular l'homologia simplicial.
Butlieti de la Societat Catalana de Cidncies (segona 6poca) 3: 127-46.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 1989. Introduplo a uma ci~ncia p6s-moderna.Porto:
Edig6es Afrontamento.
250 Alan D. Sokal

. 1992. A discourseon the sciences. Review(FernandBraudelCenter)15,
no. 1: 9-47.
Sardar, Ziauddin, ed. 1988. The revengeofAthena:Science,exploitation, and the
thirdworld.London: Mansell.
Schiffmann, Yoram. 1989. The second messengersystemas the morphogenetic
field.Biochemicaland BiophysicalResearchCommunications 165: 1267-71.
Schor, Naomi. 1989. This essentialismwhichis not one: Coming to grips with
A JournalofFeministCulturalStudies1, no. 2: 38-58.
Irigaray.Differences:
Schubert,G. 1989. Catastrophetheory,evolutionaryextinction,and revolution-
arypolitics.JournalofSocial and BiologicalStructures 12: 259-79.
Schwartz,Laurent. 1973. Radon measureson arbitrary spacesand cylin-
topological
dricalmeasures.London: OxfordUniversityPress.
Seguin, Eve. 1994. A modest reason. Theory,Culture,and Society 11, no. 3:
55-75.
Serres,Michel. 1992. Eclaircissements: Cinq entretiensavec Bruno Latour.Paris:
Bourin.
Francois
Sheldrake,Rupert.1981. A newscienceoflife:Thehypothesis offormative causation.
Los Angeles:J.P. Tarcher.
. 1991. The rebirth
ofnature.New York:Bantam.
Shiva, Vandana. 1990. Reductionistscience as epistemologicalviolence.In Sci-
ence,hegemony, and violence:A requiemformodernity, editedby AshisNandy.
Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.
Smolin,Lee. 1992. Recentdevelopmentsin nonperturbative quantumgravity. In
Quantumgravityand cosmology (Proceedings 1991, Sant Feliu de Guixols,
EstatLliure de Catalunya),ed. J.Perez-Mercader,J.Sola, and E. Verdaguer.
Singapore:WorldScientific.
Sokal, Alan D. 1982. An alternateconstructiveapproach to the P43 quantum
fieldtheory,and a possible destructiveapproach to P44.Annalesde l'Institut
HenriPoincareA 37: 317-98.
.1987. Informesobre el plan de estudiosde las carrerasde Matematica,
Estadisticay Computaci6n.Reportto the UniversidadNacional Aut6noma
de Nicaragua,Managua, unpublishedmanuscript.
Solomon, J. Fisher. 1988. Discourseand reference in thenuclearage. Oklahoma
ProjectforDiscourse and Theory,vol. 2. Norman: Universityof Oklahoma
Press.
Sommers,ChristinaHoff. 1994. Whostolefeminism? How womenhave betrayed
women.New York:Simon and Schuster.
Stauffer,Dietrich. 1985. Introduction to percolationtheory.London: Taylorand
Francis.
Strathausen,Carsten. 1994. Althusser'smirror.Studiesin Twentieth CenturyLit-
erature18: 61-73.
Struik,Dirk Jan. 1987. A concisehistoryof mathematics, 4th rev. ed. New York:
Dover.
Thorn, Rene. 1975. Structuralstabilityand morphogenesis, translatedby D. H.
Fowler.Reading,Mass.: Benjamin.
.1990. Semio physics:A sketch.Translatedby Vendla Meyer. Redwood
City,Calif.:Addison-Wesley.
't Hooft, G. 1993. Cosmology in 2+1 dimensions. Nuclear Physics B (Proceedings
Supplement) 30: 200-3.
Touraine, Alain, Zsuzsa Hegedus, Francois Dubet, and Michel Wievorka. 1980.
La prophitie anti-nuclkaire.Paris: Seuil.

Trebilcot,Joyce.1988. Dyke methods,or Principlesforthediscovery/creation of
thewithstanding. Hypatia3, no. 2: 1-13.
Van Enter,AernoutC. D., RobertoFernandez,and Alan D. Sokal. 1993. Regu-
laritypropertiesand pathologiesof position-spacerenormalization-group
transformations: Scope and limitations of Gibbsiantheory.JournalofStatis-
ticalPhysics72: 879-1167.
Van Sertima, Ivan, ed. 1983. Blacks in science:Ancientand modern.New
Brunswick,N.J.:TransactionBooks.
Vappereau,JeanMichel. 1985. Essaim: Le groupefondamental du noeud.Psych-
analyseet Topologie du Sujet. Paris: PointHors Ligne.
Virilio,Paul. 1991. The lostdimension. Translationof L'espacecritique,translated
by Daniel Moshenberg. New York: Semiotext(e).
Waddington,C. H. 1965. Autogenouscellularperiodicitiesas (a) temporaltem-
plates and (b) basis of 'morphogeneticfields.'Journalof Theoretical Biology
8: 367-69.
Wallerstein,Immanuel. 1993. The TimeSpace of world-systemsanalysis: A
philosophicalessay.HistoricalGeography 23, no. 1/2:5-22.
Weil, Simone. 1968. On science,necessity, and thelove of God, translatedand
editedby RichardRees. London: OxfordUniversityPress.
Weinberg,Steven. 1992. Dreamsofa final theory. New York:Pantheon.
Wheeler,JohnA. 1964. Geometrodynamics and the issue of the finalstate.In
Relativity, groups,and topology,edited by Cecile M. DeWitt and Bryce S.
DeWitt. New York:Gordon and Breach.
Witten,Edward. 1989. Quantumfieldtheoryand theJonespolynomial.Commu-
nicationsin MathematicalPhysics121: 351-99.
Wojciehowski, Dolora Ann. 1991. Galileo's twochiefwordsystems.Stanford Ital-
ian Review10: 6 1-80.
Woolgar,Steve. 1988. Science:Theveryidea. Chichester,U.K.: Ellis Horwood.
Wright,Will. 1992. Wild knowledge: Science,language,and social lifein a fragile
environment. Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Wylie,Alison, Kathleen Okruhlik,Sandra Morton, and Leslie Thielen-Wilson.
1990. Philosophicalfeminism:A bibliographicguide to critiquesof science.
Resources forFeministResearch/Documentation sur la RechercheFMministe 19,
no. 2 (June): 2-36.
Young,T. R. 1991. Chaos theoryand symbolicinteraction theory:Poeticsforthe
postmodernsociologist.SymbolicInteraction 14: 321-34.
. 1992. Chaos theoryand human agency:Humanistsociologyin a post-
modernera. Humanityand Society16: 441-60.
Ziiek, Slavoj. 1991. Lookingawry:An introduction toJacquesLacan through popu-
lar culture.Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
252 Alan D. Sokal


Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

Author(s): Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Transgressing disciplinaryboundaries... [is] a subversiveundertaking

The struggleforthetransformation of ideologyintocriticalscience ... pro-

There are many natural scientists,and especially physicists,who continue

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty,Complementarity,

2J8 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

We can no longerspeak of thebehaviourof theparticleindependently ofthe

the different intuitivepictureswhich we use to describe atomic systems,

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Hermeneuticsof Classical General Relativity

In theNewtonianmechanisticworldview, space and timeare distinctand

220 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

When I take,forexample,the structureof certainalgebraicconstructions

Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:

The Einsteinianconstantis not a constant,is not a center.It is theverycon-

Transgressingthe Boundaries 221

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Quantum Gravity:String,Weave, or MorphogeneticField?

However,thisinterpretation, whileadequate withinclassicalgeneralrela-

222 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Transgressingthe Boundaries 223

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

This diagram [the M6bius strip]can be consideredthe basis of a sort of

As Althusser (1993, 50) rightlycommented, "Lacan finallygives Freud's

224 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

ManifoldTheory: (W)holes and Boundaries

Luce Irigaray(1987, 76-77), in her famous article "Is the Subject of

themathematical sciences,in thetheoryof wholes[theoriedesensembles],

In 1982, when Irigaray'sessay firstappeared, thiswas an incisivecriti-

Transgressingthe Boundaries 225

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Transgressingthe Boundaries: Toward a LiberatoryScience

Over the past two decades therehas been extensivediscussionamong

226 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

How, then,is thisto be done?

Transgressingthe Boundaries 227

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Quantum physics,hadron bootstraptheory,complex numbertheory,and

228 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

Natural objects are also sociallyconstructed.It is not a questionof whether

Finally,postmodernscience provides a powerfulrefutationof the author-

On theone hand,politicallyprogressivescientistscan tryto recuperateexist-

Transgressingthe Boundaries 229

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

The alternativeis a profound reconception of science as well as politics:

The dialogical move towardsredefiningsystems,of seeing the world not

It goes without saying that postmodernist science unequivocally favors

230 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM

The differences withinphysicsbetweenwave and particletheoriesof matter,

For furtherdevelopmentof theseideas, see Aronowitz1988a, 524-25, 533.

232 Alan D. Sokal

This content downloaded from 146.229.56.102 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:02 PM