What Are Not Theories? A Look at Postmodern Academic Cantinflerism

Following the article shared on this blog last time, I share with you on this occasion what researcher José Padrón-Guillén (2006) proposes as “academic cantinflerism,” a kind of idiom that emerges in postmodernity, especially in the academic field, a trick consisting of combining impactful and bombastic words without any meaning, which translate into a tautology or a triviality, always with the aim of gaining the admiration of naive students and academics. This article will critically examine what are not theories in current postmodernism.

Evidently, the term “cantinflerism” comes from the famous comic actor Cantinflas, who, according to some versions, built his stage name from the expression “how much you inflate, how much you achieve.”

Cantinflerism as a trick is aimed at making something appear to be what it is not and is commonly used to:

• Overcome awkward situations
• Show that the user knows a lot

In this vein, Padrón indicates that the term refers to inflating language and states that this cantinflerism is characterized by a total absence of meanings and ideas, where a discourse full of empty words prevails.

Although, according to Padrón, we can find cantinflerisms in everyday life, in advertising, in politics, its use has been strongly emerging in the academic context, which is alarming since students and readers naively get caught in what Padrón (2006) calls a cognitive scam intentionally directed at the interlocutor to impact, impress, and saturate them with words that make no sense.

Unfortunately, Padrón estimates that the aggravating factor of this situation is that the reader or listener is left with the mistaken idea that these authors are erudite and cannot be contradicted, and it is practically forbidden to say: “I don’t understand.” Regrettably, this type of academic manages to increase their own prestige as a result.

It is important to note that these authors write trivialities which, when written in complicated language, are camouflaged as profound thought. In this case, there is a clear example of an author whom Padrón (2006) believes has gained prestige due to the convoluted way he writes, referring to the work of Morín, who presents a compendium of embellished trivialities, expressed with grand words disguised as complexity.

Evidently, underlying cantinflerism deals with trivialities. Some authors who use it tend to invert the terms of phrases to achieve greater impact on the reader. Some examples are:

• “Man is that mad animal whose madness has invented reason.” (E. Morín)
• “We did not agree because we found the truth; we found the truth when we agreed.” (G, Vattimo)
• “Man is what he does with what has been made of him.” (Sartre)
• “Man is that being whose being is non-being.” (S. de Beauvoir)

As seen in the previous examples, the authors express trivialities which, when stated in an embellished form, seasoned with grand words, appear to be endowed with great academic depth.

Likewise, for Padrón (2006), Heidegger is one of the fathers of cantinflerism of all time, and he highlights his famous phrase: “The ontic condition of the human being is ontological.”

In addition to the above, Padrón considers the harm that these cantinfleric individuals do to students and academia to be worrying, since research based on cantinflerisms will not produce independent and sovereign knowledge, but rather a sea of words with a minimal level of depth.

In addition to the above, Padrón states that other authors have been unmasking academic cantinflerics, as Popper (1984) did, who analyzed Habermas’s discourse (a cantinfleric of that time) and, through the following table, demonstrates the trivial background of his postulates:

Habermas’s Quotes

1. The totality does not come to any life by itself, above the elements that it unites and of which it itself is composed.
2. It produces and reproduces itself through its individual elements.
3. It is no longer possible to separate this totality of life from the cooperation and antagonism of its elements.
4. None of its elements can be conceived simply in terms of their functions without a consideration of the whole, whose essence is inherent in the movement of each of the individual entities themselves.
5. The system and the entity are reciprocal and can only be conceived in their reciprocity.

Translation by Popper

1. Society consists of social connections.
2. These different connections somehow produce society.
3. Among these connections are cooperation and antagonism. And since (as stated before), society consists of these connections, it cannot be separated from them.
4. On the contrary, it is also true; none of the connections can be conceived without the others.
5. (repetition of the above)

In view of the above, Padrón highlights, based on Popper’s analysis of Habermas, that the latter’s use of bombastic words is increasingly disproportionate.

Another author highlighted by Padrón is Alan Sokal, who, in his intention to unmask academic cantinflerics, wrote an article based on inflating language, using many tricks and wordplay, and it was approved and published by a social research journal. This motivated Sokal and Bricmont to write a book whose central theme is “Intellectual Impostures.”

For Sokal, cantinflerics are impostors, people who, being ignorant, pretend to be great sages to gain followers, prestige, and especially fame.

This author provides some typical traits of an intellectual impostor or cantinfleric:

1. Speak profusely about scientific theories of which they have only a vague idea. Their tactic is to use scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without worrying about its meaning.
2. Incorporate notions from natural sciences into human or social sciences, without any empirical justification.
3. Exhibit exaggerated erudition with an avalanche of technical terms in a context where they are absolutely incongruous. The objective, according to Sokal, is to impress and intimidate the non-scientific reader.
4. Manipulate meaningless phrases; it is a kind of verbal intoxication, combined with a blatant indifference to the true meaning of words.

In addition to the above, Padrón (2006) states that Popper raises a great question regarding the role of neo-dialecticians such as Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Horkheimer, authors of the famous Frankfurt School, who, in his opinion, have not learned to solve problems and approach the truth, but rather have contributed to drowning other human beings in a sea of words.

On the other hand, for Padrón, there is no more complicated matter than confronting a cantinfleric, because when faced with an argued and logical stance, they tend to label those who academically challenge them as someone with linear thinking, and in contrast to their complex thinking, they will always induce or suggest adopting their “complex” type of thinking so that they can be understood.

It is important to note that Padrón considers that the so-called “complex” thinking is nothing more than a type of disordered thinking that does not provide definitions, does not make classifications, does not reason, and does not argue, and this is part of the hook that academic cantinflerics use to position themselves as great thinkers.

Closing Remarks

If in the previous installment it was clearly highlighted that every cognizant subject is capable of theorizing and that as human beings we are endowed with the “germ” to construct knowledge, as Padrón rightly points out, it is clear that we must be careful with how we use this gift.

Evidently, given the great creative potential of human beings, anything is possible; however, beyond the thinking styles each person possesses, it is important not to be carried away by aspirations that could distort the proper course of knowledge construction, especially when socializing it, because very lightly, as academics, we could generate replicas of fatuous, empty, and irrelevant ideas, supported only by the possibility of displaying great wisdom, whether for public recognition or even to position ourselves as cultural icons, or simply for a lucrative interest.

In the academic field, it is essential to question every source, every author, to scrutinize their content very well, and to meticulously examine their postulates before the possibility of assuming them as a fundamental part of our research.

Finally, according to Padrón, no theory is definitive and should always be subject to review and evaluation. Cantinflerism constitutes a transgression and an obstacle to visualizing the real opportunities to build valid knowledge for a society in need of answers and solutions to the problems and conflicts that deeply affect it.

 

References

Padrón, J (2006) Notes on Academic Cantinflerism at https://josepadroninfo.ipage.com/cantinflerismoacademico

CHAPTER 1: Cantinflerisms

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvzyRsMVrFs

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDC7HBmhUxg

About the author: Dr. Dorys Alleyne

Lecturer at ISEP University. Researcher, with initial training in Education and Psychology. Magister Scientiarum in Psychology, specializing in Human Development Psychology, specialist in Family Counseling and Consultation, Latin American Doctor in Education. Diploma in ontological coaching, being an active life coach, educational coach with an emphasis on neuroscience, positive psychology, and NLP.