Sokal’s Response to Simpson and Srinivasan on Limiting Academic Freedom: A Critical Realist Commentary
1 Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 12 Aug 2026 / Accepted: 9 Oct 2026 / Published: 10 Nov 2026
Abstract
Using critical realism as a resource, this response to Sokal (2026) seeks to reinforce, not undermine, his overall critique in this journal of Simpson and Srinivasan (2018), referencing their justifications for some limited restrictions on academic freedom. With that supportive intention in mind, his use of some terms, such as ‘sociological’ and ‘epistemic’, is brought into question and the omission of a central consideration of ontology is highlighted. Sokal retains an epistemological focus and links this to axiology. If that linkage is also considered in relation to ontology, his arguments would have had greater force. An augmentation of his position with critical realism would vindicate his conclusions but require that positivism, not just postmodernism, is critiqued for the limitations it too places upon truth-inducting activity in higher education. In my view, the defence of academic freedom Sokal adopts would be strengthened by these additional considerations.
Keywords: cancel culture; critical realism; academic freedom
OPEN ACCESS
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
CITE
Pilgrim, D. Sokal’s Response to Simpson and Srinivasan on Limiting Academic Freedom: A Critical Realist Commentary. Controversial Ideas 2026, 6, 18.
Pilgrim D. Sokal’s Response to Simpson and Srinivasan on Limiting Academic Freedom: A Critical Realist Commentary. Controversial Ideas. 2026; 6(2):18.
Pilgrim, David. 2026. "Sokal’s Response to Simpson and Srinivasan on Limiting Academic Freedom: A Critical Realist Commentary." Controversial Ideas 6, no. 2: 18.
Not implemented
SHARE
