Chomsky on "theory" and "post-modern cults"
Mario Taboada
by S-M Weineck omitted for brevity]
I am afraid that Chomsky's remarks stand under your criticism. You
do not address his remarks; instead, you simply argue that "he doesn't
understand", that he is "close-minded", etc.
If I interpret Noam correctly, he is simply saying that these so-called
"theories" are vague and obscure enough to be theories of everything.
The standard reaction to such purported theories is to assume that they
are theories of nothing (or just words, if you prefer) - this is Chomsky's
reaction to them, and to call him an "anti-intellectual" for stating
his opinion clearly is gratuitous. Besides which, it is rather laughable
to call America's foremost intellectual an anti-intellectual. Who are the
intellectuals, then?
Regards, and down with "cults" (all of them)
--
Mario Taboada \\"The trouble with truth is its many varieties"\\
* Department of Mathematics * University of Southern California * Los Angeles
e-mail: tab...@mtha.usc.edu
John McCarthy
insists that intellectual innovation doesn't count unless you buy his
politics and his form of political activism.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Joseph M Green
>[comments on Chomsky's opinion of "theory" and "postmodernism"
>by S-M Weineck omitted for brevity]
>I am afraid that Chomsky's remarks stand under your criticism. You
>do not address his remarks; instead, you simply argue that "he doesn't
>understand", that he is "close-minded", etc.
>If I interpret Noam correctly, he is simply saying that these so-called
>"theories" are vague and obscure enough to be theories of everything.
>The standard reaction to such purported theories is to assume that they
>are theories of nothing (or just words, if you prefer) - this is Chomsky's
>reaction to them, and to call him an "anti-intellectual" for stating
>his opinion clearly is gratuitous. Besides which, it is rather laughable
>to call America's foremost intellectual an anti-intellectual. Who are the
>intellectuals, then?
>Regards, and down with "cults" (all of them)
America's intellectuals have often been anti-intellectual. William
James is typical. Not laughable at all. Noam is certainly in
the tradition and, if he is America's "foremost intellectual," it
is only because he didn't run fast enough. Justifications?
Has something to do with Leslie Fieldler's remark that, except for
the fiction of William's brother -- all American fiction could be
construed (or is not far away from) juvenile fiction.
Noel Smith
>tab...@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) writes:
>>[comments on Chomsky's opinion of "theory" and "postmodernism"
>>by S-M Weineck omitted for brevity]
>>I am afraid that Chomsky's remarks stand under your criti-
>>cism. You do not address his remarks; instead, you simply
>>argue that "he doesn't understand", that he is "close-
>>minded", etc.
>>If I interpret Noam correctly, he is simply saying that these
>>so-called "theories" are vague and obscure enough to be
>>theories of everything. The standard reaction to such pur-
>>ported theories is to assume that they are theories of
>>nothing (or just words, if you prefer) - this is Chomsky's
>>reaction to them, and to call him an "anti-intellectual"
>>for stating his opinion clearly is gratuitous. Besides
>>which, it is rather laughable to call America's
>>foremost intellectual
No he ain't. He sho' can critique pomo, though.
>>an anti-intellectual. Who are the
>>intellectuals, then?
>>Regards, and down with "cults" (all of them)
>America's intellectuals have often been anti-intellectual. William
>James is typical. Not laughable at all. Noam is certainly in
>the tradition and, if he is America's "foremost intellectual," it
>is only because he didn't run fast enough. Justifications?
>Has something to do with Leslie Fieldler's remark that, except for
>the fiction of William's brother -- all American fiction could be
>construed (or is not far away from) juvenile fiction.
This is the old "who reads an American book?" line, which became more
or less untenable after the publication of _Moby Dick_. Fiedler likes
to play games with this kind of critical sensationalism--remember
"Come back to the raft, _Huck_ _honey_" (his emphasis)?
- Noel
Noel Smith
>[ Article crossposted from alt.postmodern ]
>[ Author was Ganesh Unfolding ]
>[ Posted on Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:25:33 +0100 ]
>On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Noel Smith wrote:
[deletion]
>>
>> Chomsky makes the following criticisms:
>>
>> 1. Arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims for 'theory.'
>>
[deletion]
>>
>> 2. Hostility toward reasonable requests for explanation.
>>
>> When Chomsky asks deconstructionists to show their results "without
>> three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that
>> (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. . . . the response
>> is cries of anger [and charges of] 'anti-intellectualism.'"
NOTE: These are Ganesh Unfolding's comments, not SMW's
>Yes, but doesn't someone who would be audacious enough to demand
>someone to "show their results 'without three-syllable words,...'"
>deserve such hostility? Does Chomsky go around demanding minimalist
>artists to "give him the lowdown" on what they're trying to say
>"without using all these silly lines and shapes that are mostly
>meaningless anyway, blah, blah, blah."
This is a bogus analogy. There is no connection between paraphrase or
summary of critical statements and rendering drawing or painting into
another medium.
>For someone who, apart from whether they're anti-intellectual or
>not, is 1) so ethnocentric and too closed-minded to even make an
>attempt to understand that French intellectuals don't do theory
>the same way that Anglo-Saxon's do
It is not ethnocentric to point out that one's opponent is talking
obfuscatory nonsense, even if the opponent happens to be a Paris
intellectual. (btw, where is this curious notion, that "theory" is a
content and not a process, coming from?)
Paglia argues that they, not we, are being ethnocentric: "French
rhetorical models are too narrow for the English tradition. Most
pernicious of French imports is the notion that there is no person
behind a text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and
relentlessly concrete than a Parisan intellectual behind his/her
turgid text? The Parisian is a provincial when he pretends to speak
for the universe."
>and that 2) most if not all of what
>Chomsky calls "Post-Modernism" proceeds on the very assumption that
>a particular author's (and Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault are
>nothing if not 'authors') work may not be able to be reduced to
>"results,"
Is this a claim that the thoughts of the French poobahs of
postmodernism are so ineffable that they can't be paraphrased?
>for such a
>person, hostility is really nothing but tit for tat. Chomsky sim-
>ply needs to admit that he insults post-modernism with his "de-
>mands for practical results" as much as they might insult him
>with calling him anti-intellectual.
Another bogus analogy. There's no parallelism here at all; asking
about applicability is nothing like calling someone anti-intellectual.
The former is a normal part of civil scholarly dialog; the latter is
(in Chomsky's case) slandrous name-calling.
>> 3. Refusal to summarize for other scholars and interested laymen.
>>
>> When Chomsky does not understand such issues as the mass of the
>> neutrino, or the apparent proof of Fermat's last theorem, scholars
>> involved with these matters are glad to explain these things to
>> him "at a level that I can understand," but when "Derrida, Lacan,
>> Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. -- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked,
>> and who was somewhat different from the rest -- write things
>> that I also don't understand . . . no one who says they do under-
>> stand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how
>> to proceed to overcome my failures."
[sarcastic invective deleted]
>hey, why not go read some stuff that other people have written
>about these fellas? I hear Jonathan Culler's not too hard to
>understand. Douglas Kellner is pretty straightforward. The list
>goes on and on and on and on, texts about all of these authors
>written on a level that even a straw-chewin' PRO-fesser like
>yerself could understand. Nuff' said.
Part of professionalism in scholarship and teaching is to recognize a
question as an opportunity. Chomsky is saying that the behavior of
postmodernists is unlike that of other intellectuals: They are
curiously defensive and uncooperative when asked about their
specialties.
>> 4. Pretentiousness and incompetence.
>>
>> Generally, the writings of the 'Paris school' and 'postmodern
>> cults' are "extremely pretentious . . . a lot of it is simply
>> illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I
>> know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is
>> appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots
>> of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in compli-
>> cated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."
>> Derrida's "scholarship [in 'Grammatology' was] appalling, based
>> on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was,
>> failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been
>> familiar with since virtually childhood. . . . Lacan (who I
>> met several times [I] considered an amusing and perfectly
>> self-conscious charlatan)."
>Let's not even go into the fact that the whole spirit behind
>Deconstruction and Genealogy is the explosive liberation of
>textuality and history from linear narratives which focus on
>accuracy and scholarship,
Maybe this explains the writer's methodology. Defending an
intellectual discipline by eschewing the standards of accuracy and
scholarship seems rather dodgy.
Caroline Moore, in the "Sunday Times" of London, May 20, 1993,
described this concept of "textuality": "Imagine, then, heady theories
based upon an insanely deterministic view of language. Language is in
total control, the tail wagging the dog. It not merely influences the
way we apprehend reality; it is its own reality. It cannot, in fact,
refer to or describe anything `out there,' but is a self-contained,
non-referential system."
>an idea which it is probably too late for Chomsky ever to grasp
>if he could even have grasped it in the first place.
>No, let's look at what pretentiousness really is: pretentious is
>for me to call texts which are important enough that people all
>over the world have devoted their entire careers to the study
>of them, to say that their authors are wrong because they don't
>understand certain texts the same way I do, THAT's pretentious.
(Trying to untangle the sentence structure . . .) This appears to be
an appeal to authority. But who can tell?
What is pretentious? saying that language cannot refer to or describe
anything, that if we were bright enough to understand "theory," we
would realize that "All people are created equal" is just a collection
of words to be liberated from our ignorant notion of its meaning.
>> 5. Love of obfuscation.
>>
>> Foucault's "'theory' is merely an extremely complex and inflated
>> restatement of what many others have put very simply, and with
>> out any pretense that anything deep is involved. . . . What's
>> interesting about these trivialities is . . . the demonstration
>> of how it works itself out in specific detail . . . That I don't
>> find in Foucault, though I find plenty of it by people who seem
>> to be able to write sentences I can understand and who aren't
>> placed in the intellectual firmament as 'theoreticians.'"
>Again, if you don't understand the spirit you're never going to
>get the letter. There are plenty of books that explain Foucault's
>genealogical method, it's relation to Nietzsche. In fact, if
>Chomsky would just read Genealogy of Morals or On the Use and
>Misuse of History he would already have the essence of Foucauldian
>genealogy. It's not necessarily always what a text or argument
>can be boiled down to that is important.
Postmodernism claims to be a politics as well as a critical theory;
that lays it wide open to pointed questions about results, not to
mention comprehensibility. If a political theory can't be "boiled down
to" (i.e., paraphrased as) something understandable to those affected
by the proposed political order, it is proposing rule without consent.
>If Chomsky opened his mind a little, everyone would benefit.
We shall see.
>> 6. Dishonesty and bad faith.
>>
>> Postmodernism, with its refusal to explain itself or answer
>> reasonable questions about its claims, is fraudulent. Its use
>> of what Camille Paglia called "pedantic jargon, clumsy convolu-
>> tions, prissy abstractions," according to Chomsky, enables
>> "intellectuals [to] inflate their reputations, gain privilege
>> and prestige, and disengage themselves from actual participa-
>> tion in popular struggle."
>What the hell does "disengage" mean here anyway: as
>if we're all born into engagement and have to make a conscious
>effort to disengage ourselves???? What kind of narcissistic,
>solipsistic lenses does Chomsky see the world through anyway? I
>hope I never give in to the temptation to put them on.
Social concern, particularly Chomsky's leftist variety, may raise
questions concerning its underlying assumptions and presuppositions,
but it is in no way narcissistic. (I note in passing that the writer
is implying that postmodernism answers "Am I my brother's keeper?" in
the negative.)
>Most tragic of all here though is that Chomsky is trapped in his
>own little world of political resistance, his lenses prevent him
>from seeing that there are other modes of resistance. Ultimately,
>it is Chomsky's insistence on trying to find logical "results"
>from Postmodern theory instead of trying to grasp their radical
>spirit that prevents him from exploring alternative means of
>resistance. Sad.
What are these "alternative means of resistance," exactly, and how are
they superior to Chomsky's political resistance?
>> Note that (1) (2) and (3) involve postmodernism's refusal to engage
>> in rational civil discourse with other thinkers, or with interested
>> members of the public. As Paul Shepard said, "Derrida, Lyotard, and
>> other deconstructionists have about them the smell of the coffee-
>> house, a world of ironic, patronizing remoteness in which the
>> search for generality and truth would be an embarrassment." Post-
>> modernism's closedness in this regard represents a break with the
>> self-imposed obligations scholarship has honored since universi-
>> ties arose in the middle ages.
>No shit, and thank god. Have you or Chomsky ever heard of May '68,
>does that mean anything to you? Hopeless.
Regarding the mythology surrounding May '68, and French criticisms of
it, doesn't postmodernism hold the kind of metanarrative implied by
both the myth and the attacks on it in disfavor? As for the assertion
(probably inadvertant, but that's what sloppy sentences'll get you)
that Chomsky knows nothing of May '68, care to back that up?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Note that, in terms of their respective assumptions, Ganesh Unfolding
and Chomsky are both right. Chomsky criticizes postmodernism for
lacking scholarly rigor, referentiality, and applicability to
practical concerns; the other says that postmodernism obviates these
criteria. They don't inhabit the same universe of discourse; there's
no way they can resolve their disagreements. But doesn't this amount
to saying that, short of redefining scholarship so as to distort it
out of all recognition, postmodernism is not scholarship? Where do we
go with that?
- Noel
moggin
>This is the most considered response to arrive at my newsreader in the
>several days since Chomsky's article was posted (in alt.postmodernism
>and rab), and it addresses none of the substantive issues Chomsky
>raises concerning postmodernism.
True, sort of -- Chomsky was just spouting off, and that doesn't
call for a substantial reply. By his own admission, he completely
failed to offer any arguments in support of the opinions that he
voiced. He was happy enough to toss out insults and sarcasm, but he
never advanced beyond them. As he conceded himself, Chomsky didn't
provide any evidence for his views. Apparently that was a matter of
principle, since he adamantly refused to back up his comments. "I
wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion,"
he stated, "and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I
don't think it merits the time to do so." O.k., he can do what he
likes -- but the result is that his opinions don't merit a response.
>Chomsky makes the following criticisms:
>1. Arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims for 'theory.'
>Postmodernists cannot or will not describe 'theory,' or explain the
>way 'theory' applies to or solves any problem not already better (or
>more comprehensibly) addressed. Chomsky asks, "show that the
>principles of the 'theory' or 'philosophy' that we are told to study
>and apply lead by valid argument to conclusions that we and others had
>not already reached on other (and better) grounds. . . . Those are
>simple requests. I've made them before, and remain in my state of
>ignorance. I also draw certain conclusions from the fact."
You and Chomsky are making all the "arbitrary and unsubstantiated
claims" here. No one is willing to talk about theory? That's silly:
there are countless books on the subject (thus the common accusation
that theory never discusses anything except itself). Theory repeats
earlier and better arguments? O.k. then, produce them, and show that
theory is just a re-hash. You're also making a false assumption --
theory isn't an exercise in problem-solving.
>2. Hostility toward reasonable requests for explanation.
>When Chomsky asks deconstructionists to show their results "without
>three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to
>me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. . . . the response is cries
>of anger [and charges of] 'anti-intellectualism.'"
It's obvious where the hostility really lies in this exchange,
since Chomsky is the one accusing his opponents of being "incoherent"
and "inflated." You call that a "reasonable request for explanation"?
It's nothing but a crude attack -- and Chomsky doesn't even bother to
follow it up with evidence or reasoning. The two of you insist that
post-modernism is guilty of making "angry charges," when it's evident
that the anger here belongs to you. You and Chomsky make it sound as
if Derrida was hurling abuse in your direction, when it's Chomsky who
calls post-modernism a "cult," labels Derrida's work "gibberish," and
so on.
In contrast, to point out that Chomsky is being anti-intellectual
is a mild and perfectly reasonable response. After all, he rules out
words of more than two-syllables! By that measure he shouldn't have
used "incoherent," "rhetoric," "meaningless," or even "syllable."
>3. Refusal to summarize for other scholars and interested laymen.
>When Chomsky does not understand such issues as the mass of the
>neutrino, or the apparent proof of Fermat's last theorem, scholars
>involved with these matters are glad to explain these things to him
>"at a level that I can understand," but when "Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard,
>Kristeva, etc. -- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was
>somewhat different from the rest -- write things that I also don't
>understand . . . no one who says they do understand can explain it to
>me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures."
No one can explain it to him? Has he asked everybody? Has he
asked anyone? Or has he thrown insults at them, instead? Maybe
Chomsky just doesn't have the ability to understand, as he suggests;
but before reaching that conclusion, I'd like to be sure that he's
actually tried. Since he thinks that the subject isn't worth any of
his time and attention, I doubt he's put much effort into studying it.
>4. Pretentiousness and incompetence.
>Generally, the writings of the 'Paris school' and 'postmodern cults'
>are "extremely pretentious . . . a lot of it is simply illiterate,
>based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well
>(sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its
>casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
>trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a
>good deal of plain gibberish." Derrida's "scholarship [in
>'Grammatology' was] appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the
>argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of
>standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. . . .
>Lacan (who I met several times [I] considered an amusing and perfectly
>self-conscious charlatan)."
Yup, that's what Chomsky said, alright. However, he doesn't give
any reason to believe that what he says is true, so it's not worth
responding to -- he's only calling names. Since you took the trouble
to quote him, I'll give you my opinion, which is that Chomsky doesn't
have any idea what he's talking about. There -- now it's a draw.
>5. Love of obfuscation.
>Foucault's "'theory' is merely an extremely complex and inflated
>restatement of what many others have put very simply, and without any
>pretense that anything deep is involved. . . . What's interesting
>about these trivialities is . . . the demonstration of how it works
>itself out in specific detail . . . That I don't find in Foucault,
>though I find plenty of it by people who seem to be able to write
>sentences I can understand and who aren't placed in the intellectual
>firmament as 'theoreticians.'"
So that's Chomsky's opinion. What of it? He doesn't offer any
support for his point of view. Who are the "many others" he refers
to? What have they said? How does it reduce Foucault's work to "an
extremely complex and inflated restatement"? Chomsky doesn't bother
to say. And just by the way, a great deal of Foucault's writing is
heavily loaded with details -- how Chomsky missed them is a mystery.
>6. Dishonesty and bad faith.
>Postmodernism, with its refusal to explain itself or answer reasonable
>questions about its claims, is fraudulent. Its use of what Camille
>Paglia called "pedantic jargon, clumsy convolutions, prissy
>abstractions," according to Chomsky, enables "intellectuals [to]
>inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and disengage
>themselves from actual participation in popular struggle."
As Chomsky confesses, "That's a broad brush." Where are all the
details that Chomsky demands from Foucault? Their absence is glaring.
Without them, all you've got here is a sweeping generalization which
applies, if you accept it, to intellectuals of any kind, not to speak
of politicians, bureaucrats, newscasters, union officials, and plenty
of other groups of people.
>Note that (1) (2) and (3) involve postmodernism's refusal to engage in
>rational civil discourse with other thinkers, or with interested
>members of the public.
What should I note about that? Since Chomsky doesn't back up his
points, I don't see why anyone should pay attention to them -- he's
the one who expressly refuses to participate in a discussion about
post-modernism. "Frankly," he writes, "I don't see why people in this
forum should be much interested, just as I am not. There are more
important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire into the traits
of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist and other pursuits
in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty unininteresting circles."
Alright; but let's be clear about what this means -- Chomsky is flatly
rejecting a conversation with "other thinkers." So the accusation
that you're levelling at post-modernism should actually be directed at
Chomsky, its opponent -- maybe something for you to take note of, eh?
-- moggin
Joseph M Green
>>tab...@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) writes:
>- Noel
Why? Moby Dick rather an adolescent work and an anti-intellectual one.
Wonderful book, of course -- but this is true -- and the reason why
America's oldest adolescent -- Norman Mailer -- along with that
dreadful fellow Mc Guckin -- believes Ahab was a pirate --
as shown in the recent photo spread in NYT Magazine (also revealing
that Joyce Carol Oates confuses Emily Dickinson with Tennessee William's
Mama). This American adolescent sensibility and all a big reason
why we were in Vietnam -- and Noam -- for all his nice anti-Vietnam
war stuff -- just -- or even more -- adolescent than the rest.
I saw the American Novel in Vietnam -- not the prettiest sight.
Noel Smith
>nsm...@eskimo.com (Noel Smith) writes:
>>gree...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Joseph M Green) wrote:
>>>tab...@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) writes:
[deletion of material referring to Chomsky]
>>>>Besides
>>>>which, it is rather laughable to call America's
>>>>foremost intellectual
>>No he ain't. He sho' can critique pomo, though.
[deletions]
>>>America's intellectuals have often been anti-intellectual. William
>>>James is typical. Not laughable at all. Noam is certainly in
>>>the tradition and, if he is America's "foremost intellectual," it
>>>is only because he didn't run fast enough. Justifications?
>>>Has something to do with Leslie Fieldler's remark that, except for
>>>the fiction of William's brother -- all American fiction could be
>>>construed (or is not far away from) juvenile fiction.
>>This is the old "who reads an American book?" line, which became more
>>or less untenable after the publication of _Moby Dick_. Fiedler likes
>>to play games with this kind of critical sensationalism--remember
>>"Come back to the raft, _Huck_ _honey_" (his emphasis)?
>>- Noel
>Why? Moby Dick rather an adolescent work and an anti-intellectual one.
>Wonderful book, of course -- but this is true -- and the reason why
>America's oldest adolescent -- Norman Mailer -- along with that
>dreadful fellow Mc Guckin -- believes Ahab was a pirate --
>as shown in the recent photo spread in NYT Magazine (also revealing
>that Joyce Carol Oates confuses Emily Dickinson with Tennessee William's
>Mama). This American adolescent sensibility and all a big reason
>why we were in Vietnam -- and Noam -- for all his nice anti-Vietnam
>war stuff -- just -- or even more -- adolescent than the rest.
>I saw the American Novel in Vietnam -- not the prettiest sight.
It never fails. Suggest a position is more or less untenable, and
someone will pop up to say: Nonsense! _I_ hold that position--said
person being in stream-of-consciousness mode at the time & thus
incontrovertibly under the influence of the Muse.
Tanter and Morris's earlier rab discussion of all this is worth
repeating here:
Marcy Tanter writes:
I would never deny anyone the pleasure
they derive from a book but I have to
say that I found Moby Dick to be one of
the most tedious, boring diatribes I
have ever come across. Besides the fact
that it's a "boy's book" [...]
[Mike Morris:]
This is not meant to be a quarrel with what you say,
but I am wondering about this response to this book
and why it is that it seems to be dead common. To me
_Moby Dick_ is intellectually thrilling on nearly every
page, the "whiteness of the whale" chapter and all
the stuff that has nothing to do with plot in the
ordinary sense particularly so. To me it's the
thunderbolts hurled by the book back up in God's
face---or at least hurled back at a monotheistic
conception of God---that matter. Or the pre-Joycean
exploration of shifting styles and above all the
magnificent fire of the opening style, where it
sounds like some great Bach organ fugue. Or Melville's
constant humour and human affirmations. To me
the "boy's book" stuff is mere plot (if plot can
ever be mere), the stuff from whence a Hollywood
movie can be made perhaps, but the wonderful thing
about _Moby Dick_ is precisely how it transcends
mere plot and is a book that simply has to be a book
and is untranslatable into any other form or medium.
Is the problem that people launch into it expecting
just the movie---just the adventure story and then
get disappointed when this turns out to be just a
fraction of the whole? Is it that the language is
too difficult for its bulk to be seen as anything
but excess and impediment and are there perhaps
too many allusions, too much familiarity assumed
with literature for the average modern reader to be
able to cope? Or is it an age thing and all
a younger reader (youth in the sense of reading
experience maybe) can read for is plot and it takes
multiple readings to get beyond? Or would it
be fair of me to relate this to people not liking,
say, Fenimore Cooper relative to an action-film
version of the same thing---something about we moderns
not being able to muster the patience or sustain the
slow pace old books require?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@tekel.butler.edu)
Regards
- Noel
moggin
>4. _Manufacturing Consent_ (I know that some have taken umbrage with
>some of Chomsky's recently posted statements about postmodernism--all the
>same, I read this book in high school, and it was a real eye-opener; even
>if I [humbly] disagree with Chomsky on postmodernism, this book was
>"seminal" in my understanding of American politics and the American
>media)
Seconded -- Chomsky is an excellent media critic, and alot of
his criticism reminds me of Foucault. (Someone else might find that
Foucault reminds them of Chomsky -- I'm just noting a similarity.)
Ganeth Unfolding wrote:
>>For someone who, apart from whether they're anti-intellectual or
>>not, is 1) so ethnocentric and too closed-minded to even make an
>>attempt to understand that French intellectuals don't do theory
>>the same way that Anglo-Saxon's do
Noel Smith replied:
>It is not ethnocentric to point out that one's opponent is talking
>obfuscatory nonsense, even if the opponent happens to be a Paris
>intellectual. (btw, where is this curious notion, that "theory" is a
>content and not a process, coming from?)
But what constitutes "nonsense" differs depending on your
point of view. In this case we have a discussion (well, of sorts)
between people with different sensibilities: in philosophy they're
usually referred to as "Continental" and "Anglo-American." I could
try and be objective and say that the members of the two camps don't
understand each other, but it seems to me that the latter fail to
comprehend the former, as Chomsky's remarks demonstrate, more often
than the reverse. There are certainly valid criticisms to make of
post-modernism, but when you dismiss it as "obfuscatory nonsense,"
I'm inclined to think that you have a weak grasp of the subject.
>Paglia argues that they, not we, are being ethnocentric: "French
>rhetorical models are too narrow for the English tradition. Most
>pernicious of French imports is the notion that there is no person
>behind a text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and
>relentlessly concrete than a Parisan intellectual behind his/her
>turgid text? The Parisian is a provincial when he pretends to speak
>for the universe."
Paglia is wrong on the facts. Not only has she forgotten
about the New Criticism (Eliot was talking about "the extinction of
personality" a half-century before post-modernism came on the scene),
but post-modernism doesn't "pretend to speak for the universe." On
the contrary, it criticizes exactly that kind of arrogance.
Ganesh:
>>and that 2) most if not all of what
>>Chomsky calls "Post-Modernism" proceeds on the very assumption that
>>a particular author's (and Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault are
>>nothing if not 'authors') work may not be able to be reduced to
>>"results,"
Noel:
>Is this a claim that the thoughts of the French poobahs of
>postmodernism are so ineffable that they can't be paraphrased?
No; but both the New Criticism and post-modernism warn about
the dangers of paraphrasing, partly for the reason we can see right
here. Ganesh objects to reducing writing to a set of abstractions,
and you've paraphrased him by talking about "ineffablility," which you
brought out of left field. That's exactly wrong -- Derrida isn't too
"ineffable" to be paraphrased; he's too concrete to be summed up in a
few broad statements, as Chomsky demands. He's a writer, as Ganesh is
pointing out, and if you want to know what he says, you read him. But
you and Chomsky are insisting on a Cliff Notes version of his work.
Ganesh:
>>for such a
>>person, hostility is really nothing but tit for tat. Chomsky sim-
>>ply needs to admit that he insults post-modernism with his "de-
>>mands for practical results" as much as they might insult him
>>with calling him anti-intellectual.
Noel:
>Another bogus analogy. There's no parallelism here at all; asking
>about applicability is nothing like calling someone anti-intellectual.
>The former is a normal part of civil scholarly dialog; the latter is
>(in Chomsky's case) slandrous name-calling.
Chomsky calls post-modernism a "cult," labels Derrida's work
"gibberish," and refers to Lacan as a "charlatan." I take it that's
your idea of "normal civil scholarly dialog," rather than "slandrous
name-calling"? By contrast, "anti-intellectual" is a reasonable way
to characterize someone who bans words of more than two syllables and
induldges in populist rhetoric.
Noel:
>Part of professionalism in scholarship and teaching is to recognize a
>question as an opportunity. Chomsky is saying that the behavior of
>postmodernists is unlike that of other intellectuals: They are
>curiously defensive and uncooperative when asked about their
>specialties.
Are they? That's not my impression. Do you care to offer any
examples? Chomsky certainly didn't. He said that post-modernism is a
load of bull -- not a very good way to elicit dialogue. Like many of
the people who attack post-modernism, he was curiously antagonistic.
Noel:
>Defending an intellectual discipline by eschewing the standards of
>accuracy and scholarship seems rather dodgy.
Standards aren't God-given -- they're as subject to criticism
and rejection as anything else in the world. Surely you know that?
>Postmodernism claims to be a politics as well as a critical theory;
>that lays it wide open to pointed questions about results, not to
>mention comprehensibility. If a political theory can't be "boiled down
>to" (i.e., paraphrased as) something understandable to those affected
>by the proposed political order, it is proposing rule without consent.
Post-modernism is not proposing to rule; however, it does
offer a critique of what Chomsky (quoting Leibling) refers to as "the
manufacture of consent" -- that is, the central method of the present
political order (at least in the industrial democracies).
Noel:
>>> [Post-modernism], according to Chomsky, enables "intellectuals
>>>[to] inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and
>>>disengage themselves from actual participation in popular struggle."
Ganesh:
>>What the hell does "disengage" mean here anyway, if we're all born
>>into engagement and have to make a conscious effort to disengage
>>ourselves???? What kind of narcissistic, solipsistic lenses does
>>Chomsky see the world through anyway? I hope I never give in to the
>>temptation to put them on.
Noel:
>Social concern, particularly Chomsky's leftist variety, may raise
>questions concerning its underlying assumptions and presuppositions,
>but it is in no way narcissistic. (I note in passing that the writer
>is implying that postmodernism answers "Am I my brother's keeper?" in
>the negative.)
Of course Ganesh isn't implying that. More importantly, his
criticism of Chomsky is on the mark. Chomsky is saying that he gets
to define what counts as "engagement" and "actual participation."
Needless to say, he thinks that what _he_ does is engagement and that
what Derrida does isn't. Since we know he doesn't rely on theory, I
can only assume he reaches this conclusion off the top of his head.
And if you follow Chomsky, social activism _can't_ "raise questions
concerning its underlying assumptions and presuppositions," because it
doesn't have any. It's theory-less, remember?
Noel:
>Regarding the mythology surrounding May '68, and French criticisms of
>it, doesn't postmodernism hold the kind of metanarrative implied by
>both the myth and the attacks on it in disfavor?
What "metanarrative"? There are lots of stories about May
'68; that is, narratives. Are you claiming the events of May were
entirely mythical? No? Then which parts are you labelling "myth,"
and why? When you explain, _you'll_ be offering the meta-narrative
you've already started to lay out: the story about what stories to
believe.
>Note that, in terms of their respective assumptions, Ganesh Unfolding
>and Chomsky are both right. Chomsky criticizes postmodernism for
>lacking scholarly rigor, referentiality, and applicability to
>practical concerns; the other says that postmodernism obviates these
>criteria. They don't inhabit the same universe of discourse; there's
>no way they can resolve their disagreements. But doesn't this amount
>to saying that, short of redefining scholarship so as to distort it
>out of all recognition, postmodernism is not scholarship? Where do we
>go with that?
First let's see where we are. Chomsky has failed to support
any of his criticism, and you haven't done anything to help him. So
even in _his_ universe of discourse, the critique of post-modernism is
a failure. Does it matter if post-modernism qualifies as scholarship?
That's like asking if a given painting is really art. Obviously the
answer depends entirely on your definition -- and the question always
seems to come from someone with a definition that's been violated. I
say that post-modernism puts your idea of "scholarship" into question;
not vice-versa.
-- moggin
Noel Smith
available at:
http://www.mosaic.co.za/gavan/Upstream/Issues/decon/
mog...@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
Summarizing moggin's arguments, and his m.o.:
1. Begin by claiming that Chomsky doesn't matter and his comments are
trivial:
moggin: "Chomsky was just spouting off, and that doesn't call for a
substantial reply."
[See comment at end]
2. Answer a question with a demand:
[When Chomsky asks postmodernism's adherents to substantiate their
claims, demand that he justify his skeptcism.]
Chomsky: "Show that the principles of the 'theory' or 'philosophy'
that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to
conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and
better) grounds."
moggin: "Show that theory is just a re-hash."
3. Tell Chomsky the "theory" he's accused of dismissing should not be
expected to produce results:
Chomsky: How does "'theory' [apply] to or solve . . . any problem?"
moggin: "Theory isn't an exercise in problem-solving."
4. Answer a question with a demand, Part II:
[Require that Chomsky be an expert on postmodernism before criticizing
it. (This is like requiring that one be a chef before being permitted
to notice that the roast is burnt.)]
moggin: "No one is willing to talk about theory? That's silly: there
are countless books on the subject [ . . . ] Theory repeats earlier
and better arguments? O.k. then, produce them . . ."
5. Require that Chomsky talk to all postmodernists:
[When Chomsky says his experience has been that postmodernists are not
forthcoming about explaining the issues they raise, say that he should
have talked to everybody, put more effort into it, etc.]
Chomsky: "No one who says they do understand can explain it to me."
moggin: "Has he asked everybody? Has he asked anyone? [ . . . ] I
doubt he's put much effort into studying it."
6. Accuse Chomsky of not trying when he reasonably concludes, Why
bother?:
[When Chomsky responds to (2), (3), (4) and (5) by pointing out that
this is unresponsive and evasive, accuse him of rejecting the
forthcoming, informative discussion he asked for and failed to get.]
moggin: "[Chomsky's] the one who expressly refuses to participate in a
discussion about post-modernism. 'Frankly,' he writes, 'I don't see
why people in this forum should be much interested, just as I am not.
There are more important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire
into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist
and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty
unininteresting circles.' Alright; but let's be clear about what this
means -- Chomsky is flatly rejecting a conversation . . ."
7. Dismiss Chomsky as a name-caller who doesn't have any idea what
he's talking about:
[Claim that Chomsky is not qualified to speak on linguistics or
standards of scholarship.]
Chomsky: "[Much postmodernist writing] is simply illiterate, based on
extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I
have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of
elementary self-criticism [ . . . ] the argument, such as it was,
failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with
since virtually childhood. . . ."
moggin: "Yup, that's what Chomsky said, alright. However, he doesn't
give any reason to believe that what he says is true, so it's not
worth responding to -- he's only calling names. Since you took the
trouble to quote him, I'll give you my opinion, which is that Chomsky
doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. There -- now it's a
draw."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
It's surprising how much of this critique of Chomsky illustrates the
very points Chomsky was making--postmodernism's embarrassed
evasiveness, its clueless hubris, and its contempt for other
scholarship.
[Comment to (1): Posts in other threads, by Turpin, Fitch, moggin, and
others, have begin to discuss issues Chomsky raised, such as the
criticism that postmodernism does not provide anything that hasn't
already been more clearly expressed in analytic philosophy.
(Will moggin now demand that I list these posts, prove they say what I
claim they say, show that what they say means what I claim it means,
etc.?)]
- Noel
moggin
>Summarizing moggin's arguments, and his m.o.:
>1. Begin by claiming that Chomsky doesn't matter and his comments are
>trivial:
>moggin: "Chomsky was just spouting off, and that doesn't call for a
>substantial reply."
You'll notice (or rather, you failed to notice) that I didn't say
Chomsky doesn't matter -- that's your imagining. I _did_ say that his
comments were trivial; more importantly, I showed exactly how that was
the case. Since you haven't made any reply, except to quote me, I'll
take it that you accept my point.
>2. Answer a question with a demand: [When Chomsky asks postmodernism's
>adherents to substantiate their claims, demand that he justify his
>skeptcism.]
Chomsky didn't mention a single claim of post-modernism that
he was skeptical of. He has plenty to say about them -- they're "put
forth with...fervor and indignation," ought to be tossed in the fire,
and so on -- but what claims he's talking about and why he rejects
them, he never reveals. According to you, Chomsky was delivering a
critique of post-modernism. If so, he was doing a terribly poor job.
Under my interpretation, he was shooting off his mouth -- and he did
_that_ just fine.
>Chomsky: "Show that the principles of the 'theory' or 'philosophy'
>that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to
>conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and
>better) grounds."
>moggin: "Show that theory is just a re-hash."
Chomsky refused to say what arguments he felt post-modernism
duplicated, or what made them better. And he didn't bother to point
out where in post-modernism he saw them repeated. Consequently, his
accusation was so vague as to be meaningless.
3. Tell Chomsky the "theory" he's accused of dismissing should not be
expected to produce results.
Excuse me: "the 'theory' he's _accused_ of dismissing"? Are you
suggesting he _doesn't_ dismiss post-modernism? Or that he's one of
its advocates? And if not, then what are you saying here? Possibly
you mean that I accused him of dismissing it out-of-hand. But that's
true, by Chomsky's own testimony. He said he can't understand post-
modernism, and that he won't back up any of his opinions; nonetheless,
he believes that post-modernism should be consigned to the flames.
Since he admits he doesn't understand the subject, it would make
sense for him to tone down his comments, or even refrain from making a
judgement -- but apparently Chomsky is one of those people who say, "I
may not know anything about art, but I know what I like!"
>Chomsky: How does "'theory' [apply] to or solve . . . any problem?"
>moggin: "Theory isn't an exercise in problem-solving."
That's right -- it isn't.
>4. Answer a question with a demand, Part II:
>[Require that Chomsky be an expert on postmodernism before criticizing
>it. (This is like requiring that one be a chef before being permitted
>to notice that the roast is burnt.)]
>moggin: "No one is willing to talk about theory? That's silly: there
>are countless books on the subject [ . . . ] Theory repeats earlier
>and better arguments? O.k. then, produce them . . ."
Where do you find me requiring Chomsky to be an expert? You
asserted that "postmodernists cannot or will not describe 'theory.'"
I replied that you were being very foolish, seeing how many books and
articles there are which talk about it. And since Chomsky claims that
theory repeats something or other, it's incumbent on him to state what
he thinks it repeats, and to show the repetition.
>5. Require that Chomsky talk to all postmodernists:
Don't be ridiculous -- I asked if he had talked to _any_.
>[When Chomsky says his experience has been that postmodernists are not
>forthcoming about explaining the issues they raise, say that he should
>have talked to everybody, put more effort into it, etc.]
You're being inaccurate again. Chomsky said that "no one who says
they do understand can explain it to me." Since he claims that no one
can help him understand, I raised the obvious question -- has he asked
_everyone_? Has he asked _anybody_? -- Or as I suggested before, has
he been content to call post-modernists "pathetic," "inflated," and so
on? He says that he just can't manage to understand post-modernism --
but since he says it's not worth his time or attention, it's easy to
see why that might be -- after all, he wouldn't understand _anything_
he refused to pay attention to.
>6. Accuse Chomsky of not trying when he reasonably concludes, Why bother?:
Saying "why bother?" _defines_ not trying, while Chomsky's
conclusion that post-modernism isn't worth bothering with is literally
unreasonable, since it's not supported by any reasoning. Chomsky does
his best to pass it off as a reasoned conclusion, but since he admits
that he doesn't understand post-modernism, his opinions must come from
some other source.
>[When Chomsky responds to (2), (3), (4) and (5) by pointing out that
>this is unresponsive and evasive, accuse him of rejecting the
>forthcoming, informative discussion he asked for and failed to get.]
Chomsky didn't ask for a discussion -- he handed out insults, or
don't you remember? "Pathetic," "inflated," "gibberish," "charlatan,"
etc., etc. Is it coming back to you now?
>moggin: "[Chomsky's] the one who expressly refuses to participate in a
>discussion about post-modernism. 'Frankly,' he writes, 'I don't see
>why people in this forum should be much interested, just as I am not.
>There are more important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire
>into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist
>and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty
>unininteresting circles.' Alright; but let's be clear about what this
>means -- Chomsky is flatly rejecting a conversation . . ."
There you have it. Chomsky says in so many words that he's not
interested in discussing post-modernism, just as I observed before.
>7. Dismiss Chomsky as a name-caller who doesn't have any idea what
>he's talking about:
Correct. Chomsky does call names -- that's undeniable, assuming
the transcript was reliable. And he admits that he can't understand
post-modernism -- so if you think he does, you'll have to argue with
him.
>[Claim that Chomsky is not qualified to speak on linguistics or
>standards of scholarship.]
I never said anything about Chomsky's work on linguistics -- now
you're just making shit up. I didn't talk about his qualifications
for discussing "standards of scholarship," either -- Chomsky doesn't
say much about them, himself, so there was no need for me to go into
it.
>Chomsky: "[Much postmodernist writing] is simply illiterate, based on
>extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I
>have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of
>elementary self-criticism [ . . . ] the argument, such as it was,
>failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with
>since virtually childhood. . . ."
>moggin: "Yup, that's what Chomsky said, alright. However, he doesn't
>give any reason to believe that what he says is true, so it's not
>worth responding to -- he's only calling names. Since you took the
>trouble to quote him, I'll give you my opinion, which is that Chomsky
>doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. There -- now it's a
>draw."
Right -- Chomsky gives his opinion, but offers no reason to agree
with it. He says that clearly: "If asked to back it up, I'm going to
respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so." And since he
_doesn't_ back it up, no one has any reason to accept it -- at least,
no one who wasn't predisposed to side with him.
What Chomsky _does_ say is so wide of the mark that these comments
alone disqualify him as a serious critic of post-modernism. "Simply
illiterate" simply doesn't apply to Derrida or Foucault or Barthes, as
a glance at their work shows, and to say that they lack "elementary
self-criticism" is ludicrous. Notice, by the way, that Chomsky fails
to state _what_ standards he thinks post-modernism doesn't measure up
to, although wants it known that he's been acquainted with them almost
all his life; to him, that's more important than giving any specifics.
As a result, it's impossible to know what Chomsky means when he
talks about an "extraordinary misreading" -- doubly impossible, since
he never says exactly what readings he considers to be extraordinarily
bad. But I've got a strong suspicion that the term is just Chomsky's
way of referring to an interpretation which he doesn't happen to share.
>It's surprising how much of this critique of Chomsky illustrates the
>very points Chomsky was making--postmodernism's embarrassed
>evasiveness, its clueless hubris, and its contempt for other
>scholarship.
Wild accusations that you don't even attempt to support -- you
must be modeling yourself after Chomsky!
>[Comment to (1): Posts in other threads, by Turpin, Fitch, moggin, and
>others, have begin to discuss issues Chomsky raised, such as the
>criticism that postmodernism does not provide anything that hasn't
>already been more clearly expressed in analytic philosophy. (Will
>moggin now demand that I list these posts, prove they say what I claim
>they say, show that what they say means what I claim it means, etc.?)]
I'll just point out that Chomsky's criticism is empty, and that no
one involved in this discussion has substantiated it. I think that's
enough.
-- moggin
Ganesh Unfolding
> 4. Answer a question with a demand, Part II:
>
> [Require that Chomsky be an expert on postmodernism before criticizing
> it. (This is like requiring that one be a chef before being permitted
> to notice that the roast is burnt.)]
God, what a brilliant and absolutely ingenious analogy: theory and roast
beef. If you had just brought this analogy up at the beginning I think
you would have spared us a lot of misuderstanding. Thanks a lot. Again,
ingenious!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
//////////////////////////////
///////ganesh/unfolding///////
||lan...@zedat.fu-berlin.de|||
are\you\a\wheel\unto\yourself?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
//////////////////////////////
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2i
mQBtAzCrLCsAAAEDAMlfTqNjVBg66meFNU85WRNhQkdwihVsNtOFmcS4p3HlBHrB
Fr7cdsh33hYau7xJLVlvZo3cDz4yV6JPTFC/iMnIEfbjA1Uy/0MHziUUIR1qAki+
X1UOA6v3Ya74sdgiqQAFEbQqTGFuZGlzIER1ZmZldHQgPGxhbmRpc0B6ZWRhdC5m
dS1iZXJsaW4uZGU+
=UV/I
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----