Blog PostsCHOMSKY and HIS PRIVILEGED MEN
By Leen Karman at Sep 30, 2011 |
|
Chomsky has delivered two commentaries on the same argument: the responsibility of the intellectual. To me, the commentaries are characterized by lousy argumentation, uncommon to the writings of Chomsky.
The first USING PRIVILEGE TO CHALLENGE THE STATE is acceptable in a sense that I think I can "read" Chomsky. I first thought about a comment but in the end I decided not to deliver. The essence of the piece was okay: those who are enabled by their status have to challenge the establishment.
The problem remains of course: those who are enabled are almost by definition part of the establishment. Probably the reason why he finishes this commentary with the almost good-hearted Intellectuals are typically privileged—merely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities.
Then followed the second commentary THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS - part I, a transcript of an interview with Michael Albert. It is more of the same and it made things worse.
It suggests some definition of the social class he is talking about. And, by bringing up his moral stance as the ultimate standard while
- suggesting good and wrong visions are recognizable and distinguishable
- connecting the wrong vision to the attitude of a misbehaving child
he is entering the dark realms of morals and ethics.
The commentary fails utterly in defining the basics of what it is talking about.
1. It offers nothing close to a definition of the kind of people it is referring to.
2. It fails to explain why the intellectual is privileged.
3. It fails to explain why the intellectual is more responsible, or why the subject urges to dwell at great length on these responsibilities.
4. It doesn't provide for a proper criterion how the intellectual should cope with these responsibilities.
Personally I do not believe in a special responsibility of any class of society. Neither the nobility, nor the wealthy, nor the intellectual. It is kind of elitism, elitist thinking.
Something like some animals are more equal than others.
No doubt Chomsky's view on the intellectual class resembles that epitaph "the white man's burden". I suppose the line of thought is
- they are better in overseeing and analyzing a situation
- they have the gift of the word
The reverse seems often to be the case.
I'm referring to an essay by Frits Staal, certainly a member of the class, NOAM CHOMSKY BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND NATURAL SCIENCES. It is about communication, the role of language in the acquisition of knowledge, and the work of Chomsky as a linguist. I do not know if Chomsky is familiar with this essay but Staal thanks Chomsky in his endnotes for his comments on an earlier draft of this essay and Staal considers Chomsky as one of his gurus and holds him in esteem.
Referring to the Schrödinger equation Staal writes: The adoption of an artificial language for the expression of a fundamental truth, as in the Schrödinger equation, is not an abbreviation of what may be expressed through a natural language; ... [...] The formal languages of mathematics have replaced natural language in all the so-called exact sciences. [...] And Staal concludes: Though syntax paved the way, natural language is unable to express such results adequately. And in a Dutch, modified version he is even more explicit under the heading ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGES [This equation] cannot even "in principal" - whatever that may mean in this context - be rendered into a natural language. (my translation).
I think this is sheer nonsense (you are in desperate need for natural language to transfer the knowledge of an artificial language!).
Now, if I'm right in thinking so, this does underscore the reverse of the first assumption: intellectuals are not by definition better in analyzing.
Wright or rong, it underscores the reverse of the other assumption: the intellectual is not always able to express the results of his thinking in natural language.
And I am referring to a column by Paul Krugman. I think he meets all the criteria of Chomsky to be a privileged intellectual who is engaged in good intentions and in good sense - pursuing elementary moral truisms. I do not know if Chomsky will agree with me. I am sure that Krugman is not privileged - he had to work hard to become what he is and he has to do hard working to remain in this position. But all the same: a good man.
His column THE YEARS OF SHAME (NYT) does exactly what Chomsky asks: challenge the state, challenge the accepted policies. He delivers a strong argument for the misbehavior of all the dignitaries and the pundits in the world as a consequence of 9/11 and the poisoning of the commemoration.
Then Krugman finishes with an odd and confusing statement, to say the least. I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
I do not think this is elitism. I assume that Krugman has had his share of nasty comments and abusive language.
But the last thing an intellectual should do is, first, addressing the masses in the street and, next, close the windows of his ivory tower. At least, in intending to do so, he should explain his obvious reasons, which are beyond my understanding - that obvious!
I would say Chomsky is prove himself of what he writes at the beginning of the first essay: Since we often cannot see what is happening before our eyes, it is perhaps not too surprising that what is at a slight distance removed is utterly invisible. Being himself an intellectual who is OK in every aspect of these ideas, these feelings he is harboring, the academic Chomsky seems not able to analyze and to express what is happening right under his very watch with the human being Chomsky.
PS
In part II of THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS the word privileged is only used in a strong connection with the powers that be. The article focuses mainly on journalists although the notion of the good and bad intellectual is still present.
Incoherence and One-Upmanship never Helps
By Walsh, Vincent at Oct 02, 2011 03:47 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Incoherence and One-Upmanship never Helps
By Karman, Leen at Oct 02, 2011 06:04 AM
If you have a specific point you want to have made clear, it will be my pleasure to try to answer you.
For the rest, what can I say of your remarks. Such a comment must be the distinctive feature of how to recognize the believer. And yes, you are right, although you put it in some unusual language, I am not a believer.
Reply this comment
I did read it differently.
By Reiter, I.N. at Sep 30, 2011 23:37 PM
You wrote:
- connecting the wrong vision to the attitude of a misbehaving child
he is entering the dark realms of morals and ethics.
I don´t think that ethics are a dark realm, Chomsky usually analyzes the rules or arguments our governments use to justify their behaviour towards others, especially when going to war and tests them on their own actions. That means following the golden rule: "treat others as you want to be treated by them". If we can´t follow that simple commandment, how can we ever live together in a peaceful way.
The commentary fails utterly in defining the basics of what it is talking about.
1. It offers nothing close to a definition of the kind of people it is referring to.
He´s (probably) referring to people who have an audience, who many people are listening to and who have the means to publish their words to the broad public. People who already are teaching at universities, are part of think tanks and write in the mainstream media. Nearly every person who is a professional publisher, teacher or journalist.
2. It fails to explain why the intellectual is privileged.
He doesn´t mean privilige in the sense of class background or level of income, he (probably) means it in a sense of the number of people reached and the influence of the peole who are reached.
3. It fails to explain why the intellectual is more responsible, or why the subject urges to dwell at great length on these responsibilities.
The responsibility he talkes about is to open an alternative view and a real discussion for the public. According to the propaganda modell by him and Edward S. Herman there is a limited range of opinions and a bias in the mainstream media, despite the point that the professionals working there should have the knowledge and channels to do differently. He tried to explain why that is the case and why they are not doing differently and mostly probably can´t do differently.
Professional publishers are regarded as agenda setters, as the window to the world for the audience, as multiplicators and so on. What they write could lead to knowledge and understanding about our world and support egalitarian politics and a more just society, or it can uphold the status quo or even launch hate campaigns which can lead towards the destruction of the foundations of a democratic society.
A citizen in a democratic society can only make the correct decisions if he knows all the choices available and their likely consequences and the people which are responsible to explain them are often failing to do so.
4. It doesn't provide for a proper criterion how the intellectual should cope with these responsibilities.
He shows and names some examples of people doing so. So theres at least a tendency of what should be done more and of what he wants to see.
Personally I do not believe in a special responsibility of any class of society. Neither the nobility, nor the wealthy, nor the intellectual. It is kind of elitism, elitist thinking.
Something like some animals are more equal than others.
A journalist in a newspaper or a talkmaster in his late show, or a university teacher as a frequently asked "expert" on a certain area, has a larger audience and therefore more (possible) influence. Even if a political activist or an organized worker has more knowledge on the same point, he or she has less influence because the number of recepients is considerable lower as well as the perceived status.
No doubt Chomsky's view on the intellectual class resembles that epitaph "the white man's burden". I suppose the line of thought is
- they are better in overseeing and analyzing a situation
- they have the gift of the word
He says the opposite in my opinion. That they are mostly doing a bad job for social progress and a good job for the status quo and he mentions the reasons why that´s the case.
He doesn´t devalue other writers or activists. On the contrary, when those who have the outreach are failing, then alternative media and additional sources of information like blogs are even more important.
Thats the way I did see the commentary and the interview.
Reply this comment
Re: I did read it differently.
By Reiter, I.N. at Sep 30, 2011 23:41 PM
I used the "italic" button to get the quotes of your text marked. They were showed correctly in the preview, but somehow the editor didn´t take them.
Reply this comment
Re: I did read it differently.
By Karman, Leen at Oct 01, 2011 14:40 PM
Nothing wrong with you reading it differently. That's exactly my problem. And, as you say, "he's probably referring to ..." or "he probably means ...". So you are underpinning my comment. If you ask someone to do something very important then the least you can do is being very explicit what you want to be done and who you think is qualified to do it.
It is not the intellectual or academic Chomsky who challenges the state, it is the human being Chomsky who has certain ideas, feelings. And it is not because he is an academic that he does a good job in challenging the state, no, he has some faculties (method and discipline, I guess, to mention a few important ones) which makes him a good scientist and a damn good challenger.
It happens that I cherish a number of ideas and feelings he holds dear. That's not because of my profession, that's not because I have the same faculties as Chomsky, that's because of my attitude to life and to the living.
Kissinger is an intellectual who took his responsibilities. I assume, an intellectual who takes his responsibility start with thinking and then takes a decision. The outcome of his thinking was a bit different: he decided to serve his country and entered the powers that be. I would say a very positive engagement when you want to challenge things.
Now, people are always asked "what did you do when ..." and then follows some catastrophic event. Well, I remember still the first 9/11, my reaction and my feelings when they brought us the "good tidings" from Santiago - and how, from that moment on I felt disgust when thinking of Kissinger.
Does that make me a better man than Kissinger? I do not know. I do know that I prefer Chomsky over Kissinger - in terms of good and bad: Chomsky is the good guy, even better than that, and Kissinger is the bad one, even worse than that.
But no one is asking me an authoritative statement on that point, so it is of no value. And there’s a bunch of people outside who see it the other way around.
Now we are entering the dark realm of morals and ethics. I suppose Chomsky could never have made the choice Kissinger has made. But it is of no avail to say to intellectuals: use your brains and make the choices I have made. Chomsky shouldn’t give examples, he should point to a reference guide.
If one is available. But it isn't. It's about feelings, it's about ideas. If you think this is not a dark realm you should try and write that guide.
And it is a bit oversimplifying to suggest that you just should go through the experiences of a little boy who is trying to hide some misbehavior. If wright and rong were that simple ...
(Oh, and "treat others as you want to be treated by them" is also to facile. It bears some weird implications.)
Actually Chomsky does give a reference. He speaks of Nuremberg and Von Ribbentrop and then he urges us to think about Colin Powell.
Of course that can bring a lot of thinking. My thinking would go along these lines.
Let's for a moment forget Colin Powell and let us focus on the Nuremberg trial in its own right and in relation to the Tokyo trial. Do we want to go through that again or should we avoid repetition?
Is the fact that an American judge convicted three American Palestinians for fundraising for kids in Gaza and put them in jail with a life sentence, reason enough to shut up any Muslim who is giving some money to a child in that open prison?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: I did read it differently.
By Reiter, I.N. at Oct 01, 2011 19:21 PM
Of cause it´s the human being Chomsky who challenges the state, we all should stand actively for what we think is important to make society better. There are certain positions from which you can very much buy writing a certain type of article and others where even a complete refusal to follow would have little or no effect, except getting you in trouble.
There are many prominent people who could speak out as well, bute are not doing it. So in general I´d understand this responsibility as the responsibility to act according to ones possiblities and to be critical even about one´s self and situation.
Ethics: Our judgements have to be made in respecting our knowledge and our situation at a specific time. But there are basic values as the respect for other people´s life, to avoid violence, protect the environment and so on. And I would say if a decision maker doesn´t take these basic principles into account he will very likely make amoral decisions which threaten the peaceful functioning of our society. Sometimes these basic principles may contradict each otrher and in these cases we should have a public discussion.
And exactly that isn´t happening in a large part of the media. And then they doesn´t meet their responsibilitie. It´s not about good and bad it´s more about open discussion, public involvement and living democracy.
"Is the fact that an American judge convicted three American Palestinians for fundraising for kids in Gaza and put them in jail with a life sentence, reason enough to shut up any Muslim who is giving some money to a child in that open prison?"
Probably the life sentence already was already wrong. But I don´t see the relation to the commentary and the interview, sorry.
I hope I could make my point understandable, I can´t go deeper into that.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: I did read it differently.
By Reiter, I.N. at Oct 01, 2011 19:29 PM
Of cause it´s the human being Chomsky who challenges the state, or better the policies of it´s representatives, we all should stand actively for what we think is important to make society better. There are certain positions from which you can do very much by writing a certain type of article and others where even a complete refusal to follow would have little or no effect, except getting you into deep trouble.
There are many prominent people who could speak out as well, but are not doing it. So in general I´d understand this responsibility as the responsibility to act according to ones possiblities and to be critical even about one´s self and situation.
Ethics: Our judgements have to be made respecting our knowledge and our situation at a specific time. But there are basic values as the respect for other people´s life, the avoidence of violence, the protection of the environment and so on. And I would say if a decision maker doesn´t take these basic principles into account he will very likely make amoral decisions which threaten and violate the peaceful functioning of our society. Sometimes these basic principles may contradict each other and in these cases we should have a public discussion.
And exactly that isn´t happening in a large part of the media. And then they don´t meet their responsibilities. It´s not about good and bad it´s more about open discussion, public involvement and living democracy.
"Is the fact that an American judge convicted three American Palestinians for fundraising for kids in Gaza and put them in jail with a life sentence, reason enough to shut up any Muslim who is giving some money to a child in that open prison?"
Probably the life sentence was already wrong. But I don´t see the relation to the commentary and the interview. There are many events to be angry about, but there are also many events happening which can inspire us and give us hope.
I hope I could make my point understandable, I can´t go deeper into that. This one was already written in a haste.
Reply this comment