Note how the author can't help but take sides on every political signifier he references. He supposedly wanted to write about the Sokal affair from his side, but the essay ends up being a polemic deeply in the now, to the degree that the documentary effort is substantively diminished. That's what papers in his field read like in the 1990s, and still do to this day.
yes, to me this is not about the Sokal affair, it's absolutely only about Gaza/Palestine, and how even Sokal itself is a hero of the cause, and how he used a way to advocate for higher standards in social science even if some thinks of this way as not ethically spotless, but everything is all right after all because they were doing politics back then (and the whole construct conundrum was already put to rest by Professor Fuss decades ago, basically right after the affair, he-he), and so on and so on, politics on the occasion of the anniversary of the affair.
that said now I'm trying to get a copy (or at least some response to) Fuss' 19 page book (!) about essentialism/anti-essentialism. sounds interesting. (really shows how academia needs to shut up when they cannot even their their own theory promulgated in their own circles, and come to some working conclusion, instead of just playing the forever armchair quarterback and vanguard at the same time.)