Is Chomsky an Anarchist?
Alexander Gross
John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. They deal with Chomsky's so-called
anarchism, but they also ineluctably deal with his linguistic
theories as well. As I have already noted, I believe Chomsky is
equally muddle-headed and equally pretentious in both spheres.
John Zerzan may need little introduction for at least some of you
here. He is regarded by some as the dean of American anarchists...
to the extent that anarchists can truly have a "dean."
I have both corresponded and exchanged publications with John, and
while I may not agree with him on all matters, I admire his brave
stance and the qualities of charisma and leadership he seems to have
shown in drawing others to his cause. As some of you may know, he
lives and works out of Eugene, Oregon, the center of northwestern
environmentalist protest, and played a major role in the recent
demonstrations in Seattle. There are two statements by John in what
follows, one brief & the other more extended. And these are
followed by a statement by Hakim Bey, whose name also figures
prominently in current anarchist literature.
As I have already said, my own position is scarcely a right-wing
one. I was extremely active in three different countries during the
'Sixties as both an underground journalist and a leader, as you can
see for yourself if you go to my website and look at the "Other
Topics" menu under either "The Sixties" or "Politics." And I am
also deeply committed to the cause of a new trial for Ted Kazcynski
for reasons which I explain in current messages on the newsgroup
alt.fan.unabomber and also under the Theatre menu on my website in
the piece describing my stage play about a Unabomber-like figure.
(Parenthetially, my website:)
http://language.home.sprynet.com
What does all of this have to do with Chomsky? I feel it has a
great deal to do with him. We live in a time of extremely muddied
politics, of an extremely muddied view of science and technology,
and of an extremely muddied linguistics. Chomsky ought to be making
matters better and clearer here--but he isn't. He is actually
making them muddier and worse.
Enough from me. The next voices you hear will be those of John
Zerzan and Hakim Bey.
---------------------------------------------------
"Noam Chomsky, chief language theorist, commits a grave and
reactionary error by portraying language as a "natural" aspect of
"essential human nature," innate and independent of culture
(1966b, 1992). His Cartesian perspective sees the mind as an
abstract machine which is simply destined to turn out strings of
symbols and manipulate them. Concepts like origins or
alienation have no place in this barren techno-schema.
Lieberman (1975) provides a concise and fundamental
correction: "Human language could have evolved only in relation
to the total human condition."
John Zerzan: Running on Emptness--The Failure of Symbolic Thought
---------------------------------------
John Zerzan
POB 11331
Eugene, OR 97440
USA
WHO IS CHOMSKY?
Noam Chomsky is probably the most well-known American anarchist,
somewhat curious given the fact that he is a liberal-leftist
politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty,
linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous,
sincere, tireless activist -- which does not, unfortunately, ensure
his thinking has liberatory value.
Reading through his many books and interviews, one looks in vain for
the anarchist, or for any thorough critique. When asked point-blank,
"Are governments inherently bad?" his reply (28 January 1988) is no.
He is critical of government policies, not government itself,
motivated by his "duty as a citizen." The constant refrain in his
work is a plea for democracy: "real democracy," "real partici-
pation," "active involvement," and the like.
His goal is for "a significant degree of democratization," not the
replacement of political rule by a condition of no rule called
anarchy. Hardly surprising, then, that his personal practice
consists of reformist, issues-oriented efforts like symbolic tax
resistance and ACLU membership. Instead of a critique of capital,
its forms, dynamics, etc., Chomsky calls (1992) for "social control
over investment. That's a social revolution."
What a ridiculous assertion.
His focus, almost exclusively, has been on U.S. foreign policy, a
narrowness that would exert a conservative influence even for a
radical thinker. If urging increased involvement in politics goes
against the potentially subversive tide toward less and less
involvement, Chomsky's emphasis on statecraft itself gravitates
toward acceptance of states. And completely ignoring key areas (such
as nature and women, to mention only two), makes him less relevant
still.
In terms of inter-government relations, the specifics are likewise
disappointing. A principle interest here is the Middle East, and we
see anything but an anarchist or anti-authoritarian analysis. He has
consistently argued (in books like The Fateful Triangle, 1983) for a
two-state solution to the Palestinian question. A characteristic
formulation: "Israel within its internationally recognized borders
would be accorded the rights of any state in the international
system, no more, no less." Such positions fit right into the
electoral racket and all it legitimizes. Along these lines, he
singled out (Voices of Dissent, 1992) the centrist Salvadoran
politician Ruben Zamora when asked who he most admired.
Chomsky has long complained that the present system and its lap- dog
media have done their best, despite his many books in print, to
marginalize and suppress his perspective. More than a little ironic,
then, that he has done his best to contribute to the much greater
marginalization of the anarchist perspective. He has figured in
countless ads and testimonials for the likes of The Nation, In These
Times, and Z Magazine, but has never mentioned Anarchy, Fifth
Estate, or other anti-authoritarian publications. Uncritically
championing the liberal-left media while totally ignoring our own
media can hardly be an accident or and oversight. In fact, I
exchanged a couple of letters with him in 1982 over this very point
(copies available from me). He gave a rather pro-left, non-sequitur
response and has gone right on keeping his public back turned
against any anarchist point of view.
Chomsky's newest book of interviews, Class Warfare, is promoted in
the liberal-left media as "accessible new thinking on the Republican
Revolution." It supposedly provides the answers to such questions as
"Why, as a supporter of anarchist ideals, he is in favor of
strengthening the federal government." The real answer, painfully
obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all.
Long a professor of linguistics and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, he achieved fame and fortune for his conceptions of the
nature of language. Professor Chomsky sees language as a fixed,
innate part of some "essential human nature" (Barsamian, 1992).
Language develops along an intrinsically determined path, very much
like a physical organ. In this sense, Chomsky says language "simply
arose" (1988) and that we should study it as "we study any problem
in biology" (1978).
In other words, language, that most fundamental part of culture, has
no real relationship with culture and is a matter of instinct-driven
formation through biological specialization.
Here, as everywhere else, Chomsky cannot even seem to imagine any
problematics about origins of alienation or fundamental probings
about what symbolic culture really is, at base. Language for Chomsky
is a strictly natural phenomenon, quite unrelated to the genesis of
human culture or social development. A severely backward,
non-radical perspective, not unrelated to his unwillingness to put
much else into question, outside of a very narrow political focus.
The summer 1991 issue of Anarchy magazine included "A brief
Interview with Noam Chomsky on Anarchy, Civilization, & Technology."
Not surprisingly, it was a rather strange affair, given the
professor's general antipathy to all three topics. The subject of
anarchy he ignored altogether, consonant with his avoidance of it
throughout the years. Responding to various questions about
civilization and technology, he was obviously as uncomfortable as he
was completely unprepared to give any informed responses. Dismissive
of new lines of thought that critically re-examine the nature of
civilization, Chomsky was obviously ignorant of this growing
literature and its influence in the anti-authoritarian milieu.
Concerning technology, he was, reluctantly, more expansive, but just
as in the dark as with the question of civilization. His responses
repeated all the discredited, unexamined pro-tech cliches, now less
and less credible among anarchists: technology is a mere tool, a
"quite neutral" phenomenon to be seen only in terms of specific,
similarly unexamined uses. Chomsky actually declares that cars are
fine; it's only corporate executives that are the problem. Likewise
with robotics, as if that drops from heaven and has no grounding in
domination of nature, division of labor, etc. In closing, he
proclaimed that "the only thing that can possibly resolve
environmental problems is advanced technology." Yes: more of the
soul-destroying, eco- destroying malignancy that has created the
current nightmare!
In the fall of 1995, Chomsky donated much of the proceeds from a
well-attended speech on U.S. foreign policy to Portland's 223
Freedom and Mutual Aid Center, better known as the local anarchist
infoshop. As if to honor its generous benefactor appropriately, the
infoshop spent the money first of all on a computer system, and
several months later financed a booklet promoting the infoshop and
the ideas behind it. Among the most prominent quotes adorning the
pamphlet is one that begins, "The task for a modern industrial
society is to achieve what is now technically realizable." The
attentive reader may not need me to name the author of these words
[Chomsky, see below*], nor to point out this less than qualitatively
radical influence. For those of us who see our task as aiding in the
utter abolition of our "Modern industrial society," it is repellant
in the extreme to find its realization abjectly celebrated.
[* The actual quotation in the 223 pamphlet read as follows: "The
task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now
technically realizable, namely, a society which is really based on
free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live
their lives freely within institutions they control, and with
limited hierarchal structures, possibly none at all. --Noam
Chomsky"]
------------------------------------
Hakim Bey: T. A. Z.
The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological
Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism
Appendix A. Chaos Linguistics
NOT YET A SCIENCE but a proposition: That certain problems in
linguistics might be solved by viewing language as a complex
dynamical system or "Chaos field."
Of all the responses to Saussure's linguistics, two have special
interest here: the first, "antilinguistics," can be traced--in the
modern period--from Rimbaud's departure for Abyssinia; to
Nietzsche's "I fear that while we still have grammar we have not yet
killed God"; to dada; to Korzybski's "the Map is not the Territory";
to Burroughs' cut-ups and "breakthrough in the Gray Room"; to
Zerzan's attack on language itself as representation and mediation.
The second, Chomskyan Linguistics, with its belief in "universal
grammar" and its tree diagrams, represents (I believe) an attempt to
"save" language by discovering "hidden invariables," much in the
same way certain scientists are trying to "save" physics from the
"irrationality" of quantum mechanics. Although as an anarchist
Chomsky might have been expected to side with the nihilists, in fact
his beautiful theory has more in common with platonism or sufism
than with anarchism.
Traditional metaphysics describes language as
pure light shining through the colored glass of the archetypes;
Chomsky speaks of "innate" grammars. Words are leaves, branches are
sentences, mother tongues are limbs, language families are trunks,
and the roots are in "heaven"...or the DNA.
I call this
"hermetalinguistics"--hermetic and metaphysical. Nihilism (or
"HeavyMetalinguistics" in honor of Burroughs) seems to me to have
brought language to a dead end and threatened to render it
"impossible" (a great feat, but a depressing one)- -while Chomsky
holds out the promise and hope of a last- minute revelation, which I
find equally difficult to accept. I too would like to "save"
language, but without recourse to any "Spooks," or supposed rules
about God, dice, and the Universe.
Mentifex
Ralph Nader, who has turned out to be an unprincipled self-
glorifying egomaniac -- endangering a successful outcome to
the A.D. 2000 U.S. presidential election with careless disregard
for the right of America to have a non-cocaine-smoker president.
As a wee undergrad I first set eyes on Ralph "Adore Me" Nader
at the Univ. of WA in 1967, and I hero-worshipped him for decades.
And when I was protesting against the World Trade Organization (WTO)
here in Seattle in December of 1999 (I was expelled from the
illegal, unconstitutional "No Protest Zone") I again saw Ralph
"Only I Matter" Nader up close and personal at a waterfront rally,
and he was still a champion whom I admired and respected. Now the
thought of Ralph "I Am Old So The USA Can Go To Hell" Nader
turns my stomach and makes me wonder, where have all the heroes gone?
In article <8s0cpj$pjn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Alexander Gross" <alex...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> What folows are statements by two prominent American anarchists,
> John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. They deal with Chomsky's so-called
> anarchism, but they also ineluctably deal with his linguistic
> theories as well. As I have already noted, I believe Chomsky is
> equally muddle-headed and equally pretentious in both spheres. [...]
>
Arthur T. Murray ment...@scn.org
--
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/taotmeme.html#discordia
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/activism.html Citizenship/Activism
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/robolaw.html Robots & the Law
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/standard.html Standards in AI
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
loosel...@my-deja.com
"Alexander Gross" <alex...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> What folows are statements by two prominent American anarchists,
> John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. They deal with Chomsky's so-called
> anarchism, but they also ineluctably deal with his linguistic
> theories as well. As I have already noted, I believe Chomsky is
> equally muddle-headed and equally pretentious in both spheres.
Hi Alexander,
I'm not going to bother defending Chomsky - his work on Linguistics will
stand or fall on its own merits and entirely without my help. The
degree of effort you are putting into this suggest that you have some
personal issues here. Since academics apparently spend most of their
time plunging the knife into each others backs and the rest with a
whetstone, that's hardly surprising.
[snip]
> "Noam Chomsky, chief language theorist, commits a grave and
> reactionary error by portraying language as a "natural" aspect of
> "essential human nature," innate and independent of culture
> (1966b, 1992). His Cartesian perspective sees the mind as an
> abstract machine which is simply destined to turn out strings of
> symbols and manipulate them. Concepts like origins or
> alienation have no place in this barren techno-schema.
> Lieberman (1975) provides a concise and fundamental
> correction: "Human language could have evolved only in relation
> to the total human condition."
>
> John Zerzan: Running on Emptness--The Failure of Symbolic Thought
The big question here I suppose is: what's the problem? This passage
doesn't really indicate anything other than that Zerzan disapproves of
Chomsky's ideas in relation to language. It's what Ayer would call
Emotivism. The idea that language is a part of nature seems reasonable.
The characterisation of that idea as cartesian, less so. In fact Zerzan
seems to be much closer to what he thinks he's opposing than he
realises: by splitting the world (essentially unitary) into 'natural'
and 'cultural' he's recapitulating Descartes' Mind/Body foolishness.
The split is false. Culture does not exist outside nature, it is
consequent on it and contained by it.
> WHO IS CHOMSKY?
>
> Noam Chomsky is probably the most well-known American anarchist,
> somewhat curious given the fact that he is a liberal-leftist
> politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty,
> linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous,
> sincere, tireless activist -- which does not, unfortunately, ensure
> his thinking has liberatory value.
Or rather Zerzan's notion of 'liberatory value'.
> Reading through his many books and interviews, one looks in vain for
> the anarchist, or for any thorough critique. When asked point-blank,
> "Are governments inherently bad?" his reply (28 January 1988) is no.
> He is critical of government policies, not government itself,
> motivated by his "duty as a citizen." The constant refrain in his
> work is a plea for democracy: "real democracy," "real partici-
> pation," "active involvement," and the like.
"Are governments inherently bad". What does 'bad' mean. Even if all
governments to this point in time have been 'bad' does that neccessarily
imply that government itself is 'bad'? The question is not analytic.
Does A = A? We know what these symbols mean.
> His goal is for "a significant degree of democratization," not the
> replacement of political rule by a condition of no rule called
> anarchy. Hardly surprising, then, that his personal practice
> consists of reformist, issues-oriented efforts like symbolic tax
> resistance and ACLU membership. Instead of a critique of capital,
> its forms, dynamics, etc., Chomsky calls (1992) for "social control
> over investment. That's a social revolution."
Apparently Chomsky is guilty of pursuing goals other than Zerzan's?
> What a ridiculous assertion.
As judged by Zerzan.
> Chomsky has long complained that the present system and its lap- dog
> media have done their best, despite his many books in print, to
> marginalize and suppress his perspective. More than a little ironic,
> then, that he has done his best to contribute to the much greater
> marginalization of the anarchist perspective. He has figured in
> countless ads and testimonials for the likes of The Nation, In These
> Times, and Z Magazine, but has never mentioned Anarchy, Fifth
> Estate, or other anti-authoritarian publications. Uncritically
> championing the liberal-left media while totally ignoring our own
> media can hardly be an accident or and oversight. In fact, I
> exchanged a couple of letters with him in 1982 over this very point
> (copies available from me). He gave a rather pro-left, non-sequitur
> response and has gone right on keeping his public back turned
> against any anarchist point of view.
Perhaps Chomsky thinks Zerzan is a reactionary nut and wants nothing to
do with him and his causes? If so, he's entirely within his rights.
What is the crime here? That Chomsky refuses to play cheerleader for
Zerzan?
> Long a professor of linguistics and Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology, he achieved fame and fortune for his conceptions of the
> nature of language. Professor Chomsky sees language as a fixed,
> innate part of some "essential human nature" (Barsamian, 1992).
> Language develops along an intrinsically determined path, very much
> like a physical organ. In this sense, Chomsky says language "simply
> arose" (1988) and that we should study it as "we study any problem
> in biology" (1978).
Which seems reasonable unless one wants to summon up some linguistic
spooks (soul, entelechy etc...) c.f. Bey
> In other words, language, that most fundamental part of culture, has
> no real relationship with culture and is a matter of instinct-driven
> formation through biological specialization.
And the problem is? If language is the most fundamental part of
culture, then the relationship between language and culture is similar
to that between parent and child: language is the antecedent of culture.
This seems faintly ridiculous.
To reiterate: language and culture do not exist in splendid isolation,
they are part of nature, as is man. They are not mysterious phenomena
that need to be approached with a pseudo-mystical reverence (there is a
strong odour of this in Zerzan). They are part of us and we should
study them as we do our hands, our hearts, or our brains.
> Here, as everywhere else, Chomsky cannot even seem to imagine any
> problematics about origins of alienation or fundamental probings
> about what symbolic culture really is, at base. Language for Chomsky
> is a strictly natural phenomenon, quite unrelated to the genesis of
> human culture or social development. A severely backward,
> non-radical perspective, not unrelated to his unwillingness to put
> much else into question, outside of a very narrow political focus.
This is, like, the postmodernist trip man. The answer to the problem of
words is... more words! 'alienation', 'symbolic culture', indeed. The
/genesis/ of human culture? Hello implicit bias!
> Concerning technology, he was, reluctantly, more expansive, but just
> as in the dark as with the question of civilization. His responses
> repeated all the discredited, unexamined pro-tech cliches, now less
> and less credible among anarchists: technology is a mere tool, a
> "quite neutral" phenomenon to be seen only in terms of specific,
> similarly unexamined uses. Chomsky actually declares that cars are
> fine; it's only corporate executives that are the problem. Likewise
> with robotics, as if that drops from heaven and has no grounding in
> domination of nature, division of labor, etc. In closing, he
> proclaimed that "the only thing that can possibly resolve
> environmental problems is advanced technology." Yes: more of the
> soul-destroying, eco- destroying malignancy that has created the
> current nightmare!
As opposed to a return to the blissful state of rural life as typified
by the Irish peasant of 1847 one supposes. Personally I'm even more
opposed to idiots who think that they can put the genie back in the
bottle that those who aren't careful about what they wish for. There is
a streak of fascism a mile wide in the modern green movement. Zerzan
gives a glimpse of it above.
> In the fall of 1995, Chomsky donated much of the proceeds from a
> well-attended speech on U.S. foreign policy to Portland's 223
> Freedom and Mutual Aid Center, better known as the local anarchist
> infoshop. As if to honor its generous benefactor appropriately, the
> infoshop spent the money first of all on a computer system, and
> several months later financed a booklet promoting the infoshop and
> the ideas behind it. Among the most prominent quotes adorning the
> pamphlet is one that begins, "The task for a modern industrial
> society is to achieve what is now technically realizable." The
> attentive reader may not need me to name the author of these words
> [Chomsky, see below*], nor to point out this less than qualitatively
> radical influence. For those of us who see our task as aiding in the
> utter abolition of our "Modern industrial society," it is repellant
> in the extreme to find its realization abjectly celebrated.
Well, if Zerzan wants to die of plague or live under the bootheel of a
feudal landlord, the abolition of modern industrial society is certainly
the way to go. Baby, bathwater, out.
> [* The actual quotation in the 223 pamphlet read as follows: "The
> task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now
> technically realizable, namely, a society which is really based on
> free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live
> their lives freely within institutions they control, and with
> limited hierarchal structures, possibly none at all. --Noam
> Chomsky"]
Which reads like a brief wink at anarch-syndicalism.
> Hakim Bey: T. A. Z.
>
> The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological
> Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism
>
> Appendix A. Chaos Linguistics
>
> NOT YET A SCIENCE but a proposition: That certain problems in
> linguistics might be solved by viewing language as a complex
> dynamical system or "Chaos field."
As with Kristeva, Bey writes a superficially convincing sentence
'borrowing' authority from a discipline about which, I hazard a guess,
he knows less than nothing.
> Of all the responses to Saussure's linguistics, two have special
> interest here: the first, "antilinguistics," can be traced--in the
> modern period--from Rimbaud's departure for Abyssinia; to
> Nietzsche's "I fear that while we still have grammar we have not yet
> killed God"; to dada; to Korzybski's "the Map is not the Territory";
> to Burroughs' cut-ups and "breakthrough in the Gray Room"; to
> Zerzan's attack on language itself as representation and mediation.
Nietzsche to Wittgenstein to the Vienna Circle is a straight line dude.
> The second, Chomskyan Linguistics, with its belief in "universal
> grammar" and its tree diagrams, represents (I believe) an attempt to
> "save" language by discovering "hidden invariables," much in the
> same way certain scientists are trying to "save" physics from the
> "irrationality" of quantum mechanics. Although as an anarchist
> Chomsky might have been expected to side with the nihilists, in fact
> his beautiful theory has more in common with platonism or sufism
> than with anarchism.
Bey should come up to date. No one has attempted to 'save' classical
physics (what he's really talking about) from QM for over 50 years. QM
/is/ classical physics at this point. Quantum mechanics itself is
supremely rational (it's a mathematical description after all). Again,
I suspect Bey doesn't have any understanding of the issues he's raising
(beyond an idea that they sound /cool/ and /hip/.) He should read the
Tractatus again.
---
'I /feel/ that I am free, but I /know/ that I am not' E.M.Cioran
benlizross
>
> Alex, Chomsky remains a hero to me, but I am really fed up with
> Ralph Nader, who has turned out to be an unprincipled self-
> glorifying egomaniac -- endangering a successful outcome to
> the A.D. 2000 U.S. presidential election with careless disregard
> for the right of America to have a non-cocaine-smoker president.
>
Heck, I've lost track: Which of the three is it who's the
non-cocaine-smoker?
Ross Clark
Gary Holden
(snip)
>
> "Noam Chomsky, chief language theorist, commits a grave and
> reactionary error by portraying language as a "natural" aspect of
> "essential human nature," innate and independent of culture
> (1966b, 1992). His Cartesian perspective sees the mind as an
> abstract machine which is simply destined to turn out strings of
> symbols and manipulate them. Concepts like origins or
> alienation have no place in this barren techno-schema.
> Lieberman (1975) provides a concise and fundamental
> correction: "Human language could have evolved only in relation
> to the total human condition."
>
> John Zerzan: Running on Emptness--The Failure of Symbolic Thought
> ---------------------------------------
(snip)
Hi Alex - it's very clear from these quotes that Zerzan understands
even less of Chomsky's linguistics than you do (!) and that Bey
understands nothing so just talks bollocks.
Best wishes
Gary
pfw...@my-deja.com
Gary Holden <gho...@SPAMdircon.co.ukNO> wrote:
> In article <8s0cpj$pjn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Alexander Gross
> <alex...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >
> > reactionary error by portraying language as a "natural" aspect of
> > "essential human nature," innate and independent of culture
> > (1966b, 1992). His Cartesian perspective sees the mind as an
> > abstract machine which is simply destined to turn out strings of
> > symbols and manipulate them. Concepts like origins or
> > alienation have no place in this barren techno-schema.
> > Lieberman (1975) provides a concise and fundamental
> > correction: "Human language could have evolved only in relation
> > to the total human condition."
> >
> > John Zerzan: Running on Emptness--The Failure of Symbolic Thought
> > ---------------------------------------
> even less of Chomsky's linguistics than you do (!) and that Bey
> understands nothing so just talks bollocks.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Gary
Hi Gary,
Never mind the bollocks.
Did you see the message I initated at 44 Reasons Revisited?
Would welcome your comments to the second half. It's only a page anyway.
Cheers
Paul
Gary Holden
> Hi Gary,
>
> Never mind the bollocks.
>
> Did you see the message I initated at 44 Reasons Revisited?
>
> Would welcome your comments to the second half. It's only a page anyway.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
> >
Hi Paul - no I missed this but since you ask for my opinion I've
retrieved it from dejanews.
I take it you're referring to the following:
(first part snipped)
> But at this point I want to concentrate on A the G's Reason 34 ‹ i.e. is there
> perhaps a link between Chomsky's leftism and his linguistics?
>
> Rolling Stone journalist Greil Marcus once said of The Eagles that the vacuity
> of their music was something of genuine substance. I know exactly what he
> means.
>
> I feel that Chomsky's linguistics and its lackey discipline of
> psycholinguistics are substantially vacuous or, if you dislike that term,
> cul-de-sac, rarefied, hermetic, autistic. As the study of languages,
> linguistics should ultimately be of use to people working in the field of
> languages, the people and professions mentioned above. Well, as far as I can
> ascertain, not one Chomskian principle has ever made one iota of difference to
> the working world of languages.
>
> Has Chomsky never been audited? It is my business world dream one day to audit
> Chomsky and Pinker type projects. ³Tell me Professor Pinker: why is
> combinationism a good thing and why are connectionism and pattern
> associationism a bad thing? Couldn't we just merge the two departments?
> Synergy effect and all that. Would save an awful lot of money².
>
> Just as Chomsky's linguistics are cul-de-sac, his politics are autistic,
> one-man party that he is. He jumps on hot potato bandwagons and strums the
> banjo to songs that leftists the world over love to hum to. To that extent, he
> does exert an influence, albeit a negative one. He is a court official at the
> Republic of Entertainment, he is a political star turn. We listen, we applaud,
> our consciences are clean. Relieved, we hop into our Ford Explorer and drive a
> mile to work.
>
> The case of Naomi Klein is most instructive here. A young journalist writes a
> savage book No Logo about the unethical practices of global companies such as
> Nike USA and Reebok GB etc. and before long the protest she is part of has
> begun to get these corporations rethinking or at least worried.
>
> Did Chomsky's fearless in-a-vacuum criticism of US militarism ever have the
> weapons manufacturers worried?
>
> PS: Note my radical use of the plural in ³languages².
Firstly, it strikes me that the journalist's comment on the Eagles is
unintentionally ironic in that it is genuinely vacuous while purporting
to be clever.
Secondly, you don't show that Chomsky's linguistics is vacuous but
simply that it doesn't correspond to what you think linguistics should
be about. It may be that, according to your definition, Chomsky doesn't
actually do linguistics but this doesn't make what he does do vacuous.
Thirdly, even if it were true that Chomsky worked in a political vacuum
as a "one-man party" etc, this would not necessarily make his political
writings vacuous. As it happens, it isn't true anyway. He's part of
exactly the same network of activist groups and individuals as Naomi
Klein. I'd be surprised if they didn't cite eachother's work.
Finally, I don't think you show that what links Chomsky's linguistics
and politics is that they are "vacuous". If anything, you show that
they are "focused" but I don't know that this is a particularly
interesting link given that his linguistics is presumably much more
highly focused than his politics.
Do you want my opinion on the first part of your piece?!
Gary
pfw...@my-deja.com
02 November 2000
Hi Gary,
I still like that remark by Greil Marcus. It is one way of saying that
the music of the Eagles has no depth. He prefers Dylan, of course,
whose songs are rooted in the blues and Cajun of the southern states.
Perhaps I should say, for greater accuracy, the 'vacuum' of Chomsky's
thought. Or 'autism' which has been picked up elsewhere in this thread.
Klein mentions Chomsky just once in the entire book (p284) — in a
rather odd incidental sort of way i.e.
'[…] media theorists such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Mark Crispin
Miller, Robert McChesney and Ben Bagdikan, all of whom have explored
ideas about corporate control over information flows […]'.
To tell you the truth, I've not heard of the others (can anyone help
here?) and this is the only place in No Logo where the author refers to
them. Which rather supports my contention that Chomsky the anarchist is
at most a very minor figure in terms of political influence. Was
Chomsky at Seattle?
There's a letter from him in The Guardian Weekly of 26 Oct. 2000
expressing his concern at 'reports of pogroms against Palestinian
citizens of Israel by Jewish mobs' and 'calling on the USA to act to
guarantee Israel's compliance with its obligations to protect the
Palestinian population'.
Despite the honourable intention that drives this kind of leftist
protest, I find it very run-of-the-mill and, yes, in a vacuum. 'I call
on the USA to act to guarantee that Israel complies'. Jeez, it's so
vague it is inapplicable, wholly non-actable-on. However, a semblance
of having done something remains and I suggest that this is part of
Chomsky's cleverness. Secondly: is this latest call by Chomsky
anarchist?
I suspect there is a real negative link between Chomsky's linguistics
and politics but, for the moment, I agree with you that I haven't
exactly shown where they lie. As it happens, I'm not
into 'proof', 'evidence' and 'facts' as much as some people in this
newsgroup are. The French author André Gide once said that he 'always
let other people be right; they are rarely anything else'. I know
exactly what he means.
What I am into is debate and new angles. So if you have time to comment
on the first half of my piece, I would be grateful.
Gary Holden
While I remember, Naomi Klein is speaking here in London on Thursday
night (9 November, 7pm, The Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way,
London WC1H 0AL) at a meeting organised by the World Development
Movement entitled: Whose rules rule? - challenging corporate influence
over our lives, our politicians and global trade. Entry is free but
places have to be reserved by calling the WDM on 0800 328 2153.
I had a quick look at the quote you mention when I was in a bookstore
at the weekend. As far as I could see Klein was saying that these
people, including Chomsky, had inspired the direct actionists known as
"Adbusters" which I gather are people who go around modifying
billboards and hoardings in a way that exposes the real meaning of
capitalism (or something along these lines!). In any event it suggests
that, in this respect at least, Chomsky is not operating in a vacuum!
If it's the same one, the letter from Chomsky and others can be seen at:
www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4078465,00.html
Is it anarchist? Well, what do I know? but I can't see that signing
such a letter is inconsistent with being an anarchist except under the
most doctrinaire definition of "anarchist". Is it in a vacuum? Well,
fourteen other people signed it and I would guess that many other
groups and individuals are trying to influence the US government to
similar ends. Some people might even be motivated to do something as a
result of seeing Chomsky's letter. Will it achieve anything? Probably
not but what's the harm in trying?
Gary
pfw...@my-deja.com
Hi Gary!
Come to think of it, Klein doesn't mention Marx either.