[Peace-discuss] As bad as ours

[David Green]

In the midst of the Guardian article is a serviceable summary of Chomsky's 
views, with really nothing more to discredit them than that they are 
"cripplingly bleak." The only argument mustered is that American global hegemony 
is superior than both (1) Chinese global hegemony or (2) Chomsky moving to Iran. 
By the way, Chomsky doesn't hesitate to admit that he "owes his considerable 
success to the system he despises." He just doesn't value his own success over 
his conscience as an American citizen vis a vis innocent lives sacrificed for 
global hegemony.

As far as the Telegraph, this paragraph sticks out:

"Although I should perhaps add that the debate about language has moved on since 
Chomsky’s theories in the Sixties. And Chomsky has moved on, too. In fact he is 
better known these days as a political activist."

Of course, since the 60s, he always was.

The (linguistics) "debate" (actual scientific research) has moved on, and 
Chomsky with it. His work still shapes the debate, by and large, and he 
continues to respond to those who both challenge his theory and those who try to 
build on it--which in some cases is probably more discouraging for the latter 
than the former. In no (or at least no major) sense has the field passed him by, 
although in certain views he has been a minority, even a minority of one--but 
always in the context of a general acceptance of his basic approach. Those who 
continue to promote a substantively different approach are actually studying 
something very different (generally, sociolinguistics as opposed to 
psycholinguistics), and some of those do so for implicitly political reasons 
(and perhaps moral) reasons.

In contrast to his "bleak" view of politics, his linguistic theories provide the 
basis for positive view of human nature, albeit one that would not make 
capitalists happy, because it values freedom over material productivity and 
behavioral management.

But again:

"Surely, I say, it is a credit to the very American way of life he so often 
criticises that he is still seen as being part of the liberal establishment 
(sic). He is still, after all, a professor at one of the leading science 
universities in the world."

Seemingly, the only way to criticize Chomsky is to accuse him of being a 
privileged man who cares about others. How dare he? To use a typical Chomsky 
analogy, would Soviet or Polish dissidents have been criticized (by people like 
this author) for not choosing to bask in their privileges? Or are they morally 
superior to Chomsky for being willing to accept dire personal consequences for 
their actions? Chomsky would probably agree, but what is his option? To have 
silenced himself by going to prison (which he was prepared to do regarding his 
non-payment of taxes)? Perhaps Chomsky's critics expressing a thinly concealed 
desire that he once and for all be sent to the Gulag? So what is the point of 
freedom is one cannot exercise it to promote moral behavior?

Again, the interviewer has no response to Chomsky's substance other than ad 
hominem and non sequitur attacks, and condescension; to compare Chomsky to the 
Rolling Stones, because articles have been collected in a book. Irony can't 
begin to characterize this.

DG





 



________________________________
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: peace discuss <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 12:11:49 PM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] As bad as ours

Two immensely stupid - not just hostile but uninformed - articles about Chomsky 
in the British press:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/04/hopes-and-prospects-chomsky-review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7865508/Noam-Chomsky-interview.html
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100706/6b2c9464/attachment.html>