Social Text as both a collective and a publication has always troubled disciplinarity, with its commitment to various praxes and theories of the multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary. If the very word disciplinarity now seems somehow outmoded, that may point to the success of the ongoing critique of rigid disciplinarity. Indeed, even the university itself has adopted, if not co-opted, the multi-inter-trans, as the sign of a cultural capital well positioned to increase financial capital in the form of grants and philanthropic giving. The cultural and other capital is not evenly distributed among the disciplines, however; while multi-inter-trans initiatives in the natural sciences, medicine, law, and economics might be lauded as signs of innovation, too much multi-inter-trans in the humanities may be perceived as a dilution of the epistemological strength of the university. In fact, the success of the multi-inter-trans has not eclipsed or weakened the traditional disciplinary structure; rather, its force has reinvigorated and thus strengthened the disciplines from within, intradisciplinarily. Thus, for example, an English seminar may include psychology and neuroscience research in the syllabus or a psychology study may take cues from literature and philosophy, but the multi-inter-trans ironically becomes a sign of the contemporary relevance and epistemological robustness of the home discipline. If only superficially, a certain multi-inter-trans is now normative, and the ambivalence that it inspires reveals to what degree disciplinarity is the site of a vast array of competing and complementary forces and fantasies. Social Text was an early adopter of the critical force of postdisciplinarity. It may have been precisely this discipline problem that attracted the attention of fraudster and physicist Alan Sokal. The disciplinary free range of cultural analysis propelled a crisis in reference for him so profound that, in defense of his discipline, Sokal disregarded the protocols of collegial interaction, as if the university, broadly construed, and the critical space of Social Text, specifically, weren't precisely the kind of places to mount a public discussion of these very matters.