[Peace-discuss] FW: Update & Talking Back to Chomsky Commentary from ZNet

[Jan & Durl Kruse]

Some interesting 
thoughts/insights in regards to recent online 
discussions!

JAN K


From: Michael 
Albert  


To: znetupdates at zmail.zmag.org 

Sent: 4/26/04 2:39:43 PM 

Subject: Update   Talking Back to 
Chomsky Commentary from ZNet


 


--------



Talking Back to Chomsky

By Cynthia Peters



Our social change movements have benefited enormously from the work 
of

Noam Chomsky. The incredible energy he brings to his speaking and

writing means that millions have been exposed to his analysis of U.S.

foreign and domestic policy. But he has one favorite rhetorical 
device

that always makes me nervous. He'll suggest that something is 
obvious.

Maybe he doesn't realize how much this puts people on the defensive. 
One

can't help but wonder, "But what if it's not obvious to me?" 

 

If Chomsky considers something to be obvious, and yet I puzzle over 
it,

does that mean I'm stupid? Take, for example, the question he gets 
asked

at the end of every talk. He says he gets letters about it every day.

When I worked at South End Press in the 1980s, we used to ask him to

include something about it at the end of his lengthy denunciations of

U.S. imperial policy in Central America and the Middle East. If you 
go

to these books, you'll find, after 600 pages of analysis, a short

paragraph about what I am talking about. 

 

It's the question of what individuals can do. 

 

And Chomsky thinks it's obvious. In an interview with David Barsamian 
in

the May 2004 issue of the Progressive, he says, "The fact is, we can 
do

just about anything. There is no difficulty, wherever you are, in

finding groups that are working hard on things that concern you." 

 

On the one hand, he is right of course. There is no alternative to

joining groups, which I take to mean organizing. And on my more 
hopeful

days, I think that indeed the problem is that too many people just 
don't

understand this obvious fact. They think that teaching kids to share 
and

depriving their sons of toy guns is political work. They think that

volunteering at the shelter and practicing "random acts of kindness" 
is

going to bring about social change. They think that wearing hemp and

riding their bikes to the food co-op can help build a better world. 

 

If lots and lots of people think this, and we can reach them and

convince them that social change is not going to come about via 
random

and individual gestures -- if that's the piece that's holding them 
back

from real organizing -- then we're in luck. Our mission is

straightforward. We just have to be like Chomsky and go around 
telling

people to get busy, the path is clear, the array of organizations to

join or create is obvious. 

 

But it strikes me that that is not what is holding people back. It

strikes me that it is not at all obvious what we should do, and that 
by

implying that it is, we risk making people feel stupid, when in fact

they are quite right to ask the question, "What should I do?" 

 

I have been politically aware and active for 25 years and yet I still

wonder about exactly what I should do. Here are some of the problems

that make doing social change work less than obvious. 

 

 

The Proportion Problem 

 

This is the problem that comes from having to operate in a world 
where

the injustices feel like they are not measurable on any conceivable

scale. This is the problem that leads you to think, "The horror of 
U.S.

imperial policies is so overwhelming, there's nothing I could 
possibly

do to make a difference in them." If you understand how the U.S.

military corporate machine works, you start to think of it as an

enormous beast, capable of mass annihilation just by breathing in and

out. Its sharp claws wreak havoc in the course of its basic

self-maintenance. A mindless action, such as a swish of the tail,

unleashes horrendous human loss and environmental destruction. 

 

The beast is terrible and mighty, and as a citizen of this beast you

wonder what you should do. You look around to find out what other

citizens are doing about it. You've heard Chomsky speak, after all, 
so

you know you should go join an organization. 

 

But you are so small compared to the enormity of the beast. There 
isn't

even a scale that could measure both you and the beast. "Joining an

organization" seems like magical thinking, and you gave that up when 
you

were six. 

 

You think to yourself, not irrationally, "There is no action that I 
can

take -- not even a series of actions, not even a lifetime of actions 
--

that could be any match for the task at hand." That is the proportion

problem. 

 

 

The Strategy Problem 

 

But maybe you decide to be an activist anyway. The beast is man-made,

after all. If we created this thing, we ought to be able to take it

apart. Maybe you are wrong, not about how small you are in relation 
to

the beast (because there's no changing that), but in your assessment 
of

how much power you have or might have, especially if you join with

others. 

 

So you start looking around. Citizens have been studying how the 
beast

works, and they notice when it stretches out its claws, it hurts 
people,

kills them, displaces them, leaves them unable even to subsist. You 
see

that various groups are working desperately to mobilize a small 
handful

of people to get the resources together to trim one toenail of our

multi-clawed beast. This would ease the pain and suffering of the 
people

who come into contact with the claw. 

 

It barely seems reasonable to engage in this activity given the

potential ferocity of the limb to which the nails are attached, but 
you

are human and you see people will benefit at least a little by less

sharp claws, so you are moved to join the effort. 

 

But, wait, people are fighting about which toenail it would be best 
to

trim and since they can't agree, they have split up and are now

competing for toenail trimming resources. You hadn't been sure in the

first place about whether toenail trimming would be all that 
effective,

especially as the tail swishes, and the exhalations continue 
unabated,

but now you see that you probably won't even accomplish the toenail

trimming since there is so much disagreement about which toe to tackle. 


 

Meanwhile, others are trying to devise tail-swishing containment

devices. Still others are attempting to develop antidotes to the 
lethal

exhalations. Some others have discovered that the circulation of the

beast's blood automatically causes people to be robbed and demeaned.

They are urging people to tame the beast in such a way that its 
systems

can ultimately be dismantled and replaced, but they don't say how or

with what. 

 

So even if you overcome the proportion problem, and convince yourself

that it is possible to defeat the beast, you enter into a world of

social change activists all working in a disorganized fashion on

different body parts of the beast. People don't even speak to each

other, except when they happen to bump into each other standing in 
line

at the funder's office waiting to get their modicum of 
toenail-clipping

resources. You know there is an axe somewhere that would make quick 
work

of the toenail -- maybe even the whole toe! -- but that would require

planning and training in the use of axes. Oh well. That is the 
strategy

problem. 

 

 

The Vision Problem 

 

But you see that it is possible to overcome the strategy problem. You

have studied social movements and have seen that people have 
developed

long-term plans and won gains over years of hard work. You are aware 
of

others who want to think and act more strategically. It dawns on you,

however, that in order to be strategic, you have to know what you are

trying to accomplish in the end. As you begin to discuss this 
question

with people, you discover that one of the reasons people aren't

strategizing about how to wield the axe is that they're afraid that 
if

they use it, the beast might fall down. 

 

"Lo and behold, isn't that the point?" you ask. Apparently not. At 
least

not for all those people who, whether they realize it or not, live by

special arrangement in the protection of this beast. They favor 
duller

claws -- perhaps even a fully de-clawed beast -- because direct 
gouging

is distasteful and all the screaming that it induces is disruptive.

These folks depend on the beast for certain privileges. 

 

They want its breathing and circulation and the power of its limbs to

remain intact, but they want the more bloody consequences of its 
actions

to be moderated. You realize with horror that some of your most

important allies in the de-clawing work, the ones who fund your 
project

and occasionally give you 0.3 seconds on primetime are not allies at 
all

when it comes to your vision of a better world. 

 

Besides you don't have a vision of a better world anyway. You are 
well

aware that "another world is possible." You've heard the slogans just

like every other anti-beast activist. But there are almost no venues 
for

exploring what this other world might look like, and it's hard to

imagine spending the time on it anyway. The claws are still slashing,

the tail is swishing, and the heart of the beast keeps pulsing

relentlessly on. 

 

You might as well get back to the toenail trimming, which at least 
has

visible results, minimizes real pain, and makes you feel like you're

doing something worthwhile. You'll have to ignore the true 
functioning

of the beast and perhaps you'll begin to buy into the 
rationalizations

that the beast is the only game in town. You don't want to make this

tradeoff, but isn't it easier than confronting the fact that your

supposed allies are actually beast beneficiaries? If you confront 
these

allies, might you not simply alienate them, jeopardize your access to

resources, marginalize yourself even more, and put at risk whatever

toenail trimming might proceed if you just kept your mouth shut? 

 

Let's say you are very stubborn. You make a strategic decision to 
relate

to the beast-rationalizers as need requires, but you will also pursue 
a

vision of a better world with other more like-minded anti-beast

activists. You have to. Years of experience have taught you that 
without

a vision, you can't have a strategy, and without a strategy, you 
won't

really get anywhere. 

 

Little did you realize, however, that this is the most risky journey 
of

all -- one that could launch angry disagreements and estrangement 
among

activists who have the most in common. You've seen how upset people 
get

when they can't agree which toe to put in the crosshairs, and here 
you

are asking people to come up with a shared vision for replacing the

beast's circulatory and respiratory systems. 

 

You are sorely tempted to step back from it all. Isn't it enough that

you overcame the proportion problem and did the obvious thing -- found 
a

group that was "working hard on things that concern you"? 

 

No, you discover. It's not enough. If you're really serious about 
taking

on the beast, you have to do much more. So you are faced with some

crucial decisions (none of them with obvious answers) about how and

where to use your energy, about which battles matter the most, about

building alliances across enormous divides, about how to engage in

strategy and vision even as you take baby steps to counter the worst

effects of the claws. 

 

In a Boston Globe book review (April 25, 2004), George Scialabba 
called

Chomsky "America's most useful citizen." I don't disagree. He has 
laid

bare the workings of the beast and explained its functioning -- 
critical

components of any social change activist's toolbox. But I wish he 
would

stop implying that how an individual responds to this beast is so

obvious. If we think it's so obvious, we won't prepare ourselves for 
the

problems, especially the three biggest ones explained above. We will 
not

be effective. And we won't begin to build the kind of movements that

will be a match for the beast unless we take these problems seriously

and address them. 

 

For more information on vision and strategy, explore the znet

(www.zmag.org ) web site for starters, 
especially www.parecon.org.  


 

 


 

---Jan    Durl Kruse

--- durljan at earthlink.net 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20040426/791e1f31/attachment-0001.html