[Peace-discuss] As bad as ours

[C. G. Estabrook]

See now "The Observer’s Chomsky fetish" by Matt Kennard

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/the-observers-chomsky-fetish-3252/

"...Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the 
Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the 
English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a 
visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper 
made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge 
liberalism, I guess they don’t."


[David Green davegreen84 at yahoo.com wrote as follows Tue Jul 6.]

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