I wrote this for my Medicine & Ethics class. We have been reading a series of books on genetic engineering and posthumanism, most recently Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls by Toffoletti. I knew that if I continued to just flat out disagree with every book we've read in class so far (which, considering how many of them are religious in nature, is safe to say is the truth), he'd nail me again on my grade. So I knew I had to agree with the book to get an A. But I also really needed to say my peace about this filth. So I wrote a post-script to attach to my paper explaining why the whole thing was nonsense, then never turned it in. Then I sat down and actually wrote an essay about the book, which did get me an A.
The funny thing was that most of this is based off of a book called Fashionable Nonsense, which I brought into class one day and laid on my desk. When my professor walked by, he commented, "that's a good book."
"Yeah, I got it out for Toffoletti."
"That's good to know," he said.
Then later I saw him in office hours and discussed it with him further. I got him to apologize for calling Dawkins and Dennet "throwaway names." He also suggested that I write my final paper on mandatory euthanasia for the elderly. I promise you, when that paper is finished it'll be up here. I expect it to be glorious.
Anyway, here's the post-script. Sorry for lacking the citation on Karl Popper. I can't find the damn book. At any rate, he's famous for saying that. I can't imagine anyone would disagree that that was one of his major ideas.
----
Postscript, a note on style
While it is of course strictly irrelevant to the content of her work, something needs to be said about Toffoletti’s writing style in Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls (2007). From her reverent treatment of Jean Baudrillard, we know that Toffoletti is a product of the late 20th century French intellectual schools which seem to believe, or even outright profess that, as Peter Medawar put it, “…thoughts which are confused and tortuous by reason of their profundity are most appropriately expressed in prose that is deliberately unclear.” (Dawkins 2003) This certainly applies to Baudrillard and Toffoletti does the reader no favor by extensively quoting his ideas without providing particularly lucid explanations thereof.
But this style of writing, which appears to think that function follows form, stands in contrast with nearly every other form of academic writing in the following way: In other areas of academia, when a concept is particularly difficult, the prudent writer does her best to simplify it as much as possible. Bits of jargon from the field in question are given clear definitions at the outset; allusions, similes, and metaphors are made to areas which are already familiar to the reader and are done in such a way as to elucidate rather than obscure the topic under consideration; and examples are given as much context as is necessary to understand their significance. Toffoletti fails in all of these respects.
One might claim that Toffoletti is on firm ground, being that she’s writing in a style similar to that of the works on which she is basing her ideas. However, these writers are by no means blameless. Alan Sokal’s and Jean Bricmont’s (1997) Intellectual Impostures is an examination of the use of scientific terminology and jargon within postmodern writing. Jean Baudrillard, from whom Toffoletti draws the theoretical groundwork of her book, is given an entire chapter in which his writing is exposed as having at best a reckless disregard for the meaning of scientific concepts and at worst as having the intent to deliberately mislead the reader or prevent the reader from being able to disprove or even comment on the veracity of his statements. As a logical fallacy, this is known either as “Argument by Prestigious Jargon,” or “Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement).” I personally, as a writer, find these to be particularly heinous logical fallacies, though opinions on that vary, I’m sure.
As Richard Dawkins wrote in his review of the book,
But it’s tough on the reader. No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference? (Dawkins 2003)
Exactly. Toffoletti is writing a decade after large portions of her intellectual hero’s work were exposed as intellectually fraudulent. Given the enormous cultural and academic impact of Sokal and Bricmont’s exposition of Baudrillard et al, we must assume that Toffoletti is familiar with their work and the notion that her obscurantist writing style is now closely associated with academic charlatanism. Additionally, we know from her lucid and intelligent introduction and conclusion that she is perfectly capable of writing clear sentences which get her meaning across. After examining closely Baudrillard’s use of scientific and mathematical terminology, Sokal and Bricmont characterize a passage as “trite observations about sociology or history.” (Dawkins 2003) If Toffoletti is making similarly trite claims, claims which could be expressed rather simply (as she does in the introduction), then one is left to conclude that she is deliberately obscuring meaning.
At this point one must speculate why a writer hoping to reach an audience might do this. Dawkins (2003) thinks that perhaps writers like this “have ambitions to succeed in academic life.” This makes sense. It is ‘publish or perish,’ after all.
Two other hypotheses come to mind. The first is that these writers use obscurantist language in order to display their own erudition. I hope that isn’t the case, as it means a significant portion of academics are behaving like children. In any case, most people opening a book by a prominent academic for the first time begin by giving her the benefit of that doubt that, if she managed to get a Ph. D, she must be at least reasonably intelligent.
The second hypothesis is my own, which is that these writers deliberately fashion their works so that they are impossible to refute. Take for example Toffoletti, who writes that simulations have become more real to us than the realities that they are meant to represent. In a simple and clear scientific paper, it would be ridiculously easy to test this hypothesis using empirical methods. However, Toffoletti writes a book filled with obscurantist jargon based on the work of Baudrillard, notorious for his contradictions and tautological statements. Why? Because the ideas in her book can be applied to all instances and in all cases. As Karl Popper wrote (citation!!!!), any hypothesis must be available to falsification. Hypotheses that cannot be falsified (he lists psychoanalysis, among others, and Jacques Lacan, I’m looking at you) can also not be accepted (or ‘proved’ insofar as that’s possible within the philosophy of science). Toffoletti has written a book nearly immune to refutation, or at least based on theories which fit that description. A hypothesis which is immune to refutation is no hypothesis at all, but we wouldn’t even know that because it is still too difficult to parse her obscurantist prose.
But independent of the possible veracity of Toffoletti’s claims is the problem of Toffoletti’s writing style. It is patently unclear, obscurantist, and full of obscure or at least unfamiliar (to most readers) references. The result is that her book has the appearance of being erudite, polished, and airtight. But instead the book leaves a lingering question, an echo of the one voiced originally by Sokal and Bricmont, then later by Dawkins: Is the emperor wearing invisible clothes, or is he just naked?
Works cited
Dawkins, R. (2003) Postmodernism Disrobed. In A Devil’s Chaplain (pp 47.–53).
Popper, K (date)
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. Retrieved from http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/book_american_v2d_typeset_preface+chap1.pdf
Toffoletti, K. (2007) Cyborgs and Barbie dolls: feminism, popular culture, and the posthuman body.
