Sokal and Bricmontの"Impostures Intellectuelles"(1997)のターゲットになったフランスのフェミニスト・哲学者・言語学者・心理言語学者・精神分析者Luce Irigaray(1930- )は、量子力学や相対性理論や流体力学の用語を使って執筆をすることがあった。たとえば...
And the object a? How can it be defined with respect to the properties, also, of fluids? Since this "object" refers back most generally to a state that is theirs? Milk, luminous flow, acoustic waves, ... not to mention the gasses inhaled, emitted, variously perfumed, of urine, saliva, blood, even plasma, and so on.

オブジェクトは? どのように、流体の性質についても定義できるか? この「オブジェクト」は、最も一般的にはその状態であることを後に指しているので、ミルク、光束、音波、...言い換えれば、吸入され、放出され、様々な香りを帯びた、尿、唾液、血液、血漿なども含まれる。

But these are not the "object a"s enumerated in the theory. The experts will so state. Response: will feces-variously disguised -- have the privilege of serving as the paradigm for the object a? Must we then understand this modeling function more or less hidden from view-of the object of desire as resulting from the passage, a successful one, from the fluid to the solid state? The object of desire itself, and for psychoanalysts, would be the transformation offluid to solid? Which seals-this is well worth repeating-the triumph of rationality. Solid mechanics and rationality have maintained a relationship of very long standing, one against which fluids have never stopped arguing.

しかし、これらは理論で列挙された 「オブジェクト」ではない。専門家はこう言っている。レスポンス:多様な偽装をした糞便に、オブジェクトのパラダイムとして、役立つ特権はあるのか? 流体から固体状態への遷移、成功からの結果として、欲望のオブジェクトから大なり小なり隠れて見えない、このモデリング関数を理解する必要がある。欲望自体の目的と、精神分析者のための及びは、流体から固体への変容だろうか? これは繰り返しておく意味があるが、これは勝利の合理性を封印する。固体の力学と合理性は非常に長きにわたり関係を維持してきた。一方、流体とは議論を止めたことがない。
Since historically the properties of fluids have been abandoned to the feminine, how is the instinctual dualism articulated with the difference between the sexes? How has it been possible even to "imagine" that this economy had the same explanatory value for both sexes? Except by falling back on the requirement that "the two" be interlocked in "the same."


[Luce Irigaray: "The 'Mechanics' of Fluids" ("This Sex which is Not One"), pp.106-118, 1977 (Translated by Catherine Porter & Carolyn Burke, 1985)>https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=DOOjzN-u-zUC&p...]] ]

この「流体の力学」は、よくてメタファーでしかないが、Sokal & Bricmontがネタにする以前、まっとうにリファーされていた。

フランスのフェミニスト理論家であり、文芸評論であるNaomi Schor(1943-2001)は、1989年に...
To say that science enjoys a special status in Irigaray's writings is not to say that science, the master discourse of our age, has escaped Irigaray's feminist critique. It has not. Laughter and anger are Irigaray's reactions to the supposed neutrality of scientific language, a form of writing which, like all writing, is inflected by gender but which, more so than any other, disclaims subjectivity. Science's failure to acknowledge the gendering of language results in its failure adequately to theorize that which it aligns with the feminine, notably the elements, notably the liquid. Thus, in "The 'Mechanics' of Fluids," Irigaray takes "science" to task for its failure to elaborate a "theory of fluids."


[ Naomi Schor: "This Essentialism Which is Not One" (1989) in "Bad Objects: Essays Popular and Unpopular" (1995) ]

フェミニズムやメディアなどを対象分野としている哲学者・作家Kelly Oliverは、1995年に...
The phallocratic econpmy of desire is operated by a mechanics of solids. Desire, through a closed circuit of metaphorical substitutions, always takes us back to the solid phallus. Irigaray seems to desipute Lacan's thesis that his desire operates according to a logic of metonymy of desire into motion. She suggests that Lacan's theory gives priority to metaphor over metonymy (TS110). And the logic of metaphor requres a mechanics of solids -- one object is substituted for another. With fluids, on the other hand, a smooth substitution cannot take place. Irigaray suggests that fluids operate according to a logic of metonymy. They can be associated, touch each other, but can never be completely substituted for each other. Irigaray attempts to recover the repressed mechanics of fluids which lies behind the mechanics of solids in the traditional psychoanalytic account of desire.


[ Kelly Oliver: "Womanizing Nietzsche: Philosophy's Relation to the "Feminine"" (1995) ]

Sokal and Bricmont (1997)から10年後、英国の建築学及び哲学者Peg Rawesは、2007年に...
Irigaray does explore the potential for new qualitative models of scientific thinking. Her most positive assessment of scientific thinking is located in her essays, 'The "mechanics" of this fluids' and 'An ethics of exxual difference'. In the first essay, she examines the relationship between the sexed subject's material and psychological qualities of 'fluidity', and the potential in science to express fluid concepts of matter and differentiation:


It is already getting around ... that women diffuse themselves according to modalities scarcely compatible with the framework of the ruling symbolics. ... So we shall have to turn back to science in order to ask it some questions. Ask, for example, about its historical lag in elaborating a 'theory' of fluids, and about the ensuing aporia even in mathematical formalisation. (1985a, p.106).


Here, therefore, she points to the 'aporia' or gap between scientific theories of finite truths, versus the inherent material infinity (e,g, the diagonal) that lies at the heart of science's systems of representation. Furthermore, her discussions raise the ethical question of who is included or excluded from these scientific desires; for example, when she asks for the opportunity to interrogate 'the scientific horizon [and] to question discourse about the subject of science, and the psychic and sexuate involvement of that subject in scientific disccoveries and their formulation' (1993a, p.125).


[ Peg Rawes: "Irigaray for Architects", Routledge (2007) ]

I want to extend this notion of corporeal agency of the abject in relation to the domain of subjectivity. The abject is associated with the female body as seeping liquid, a body which resists clear boundaries and is uncontained. In this way it renounces the solidity of the rational subject. Woman is fluid that resists solidity and unified form. I want to turn here to the way in which Irigaray conceptualizes woman's speaking position through the "mechanics" of fluids (Irigaray 1985; 106-118). Irigaray explains how, in psychoanalysis, woman has been defined as a lack of , or negation of, the male subject that is understood as the coherent and soild subject (Irigaray 1985: 86-105). Irigaray speaks of the feminine and the masculine through metaphors of mechanics of solids and fluids. She argues that the systemm where soilds are given precedence over fluids is inherently dichotomous (ibid. 1985; 106-107). Irigaray argues that "the feminine occurs only within models and laws devised by male subjects" (ibid. 1985: 86).


[ Elina Penttinen: "Globalization, Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Corporeal Politics" (2008) ]