We are seeing the triumph of Foucault over Chomsky
We sometimes think – or used to think – of professors and/or philosophers and/or intellectuals as people living in ivory towers, and that most of their battles are over arcane matters that matter not all that much to the rest of us.
But oh, they matter. How some of them do matter! Think of Marx, writing and thinking and writing and thinking. And think of Michael Foucault, a man of whom most people have never heard. His philosophy is determining a great deal of the turmoil we’re now experiencing, because of its influence on universities and on the modern left [emphasis mine]:
[Foucalt’s] “politics” were consistently foolish, a combination of solemn chatter about “transgression,” power, and surveillance, leavened by an extraordinary obtuseness about the responsible exercise of power in everyday life. Foucault was dazzled by the thought that the word “subject” (as in “the subject who is reading this”) is cognate with “subjection.” “Both meanings,” he speculated, “suggest a form of power which subjugates or makes subject to.” Foucault posed as a passionate partisan of liberty. At the same time, he never met a revolutionary piety he didn’t like. He championed various extreme forms of Marxism, including Maoism; he supported the Ayatollah Khomeini, even when the Ayatollah’s fundamentalist cadres set about murdering thousands of Iranian citizens. In 1978, looking back to the postwar period, he asked: “What could politics mean when it was a question of choosing between Stalin’s USSR and Truman’s America?” It tells us a great deal that Foucault found this question difficult to answer.
One thing that is refreshing about Foucault’s political follies, however, is that they tend to make otherwise outlandish figures appear comparatively tame. In a debate that aired on Dutch television in the early Seventies, for example, the famous American radical and linguist Noam Chomsky appears as a voice of sanity and moderation in comparison to Foucault. As Miller reports it, while Chomsky insisted “we must act as sensitive and responsible human beings,” Foucault replied that such ideas as responsibility, sensitivity, justice, and law were merely “tokens of ideology” that completely lacked legitimacy. “The proletariat doesn’t wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just,” he argued. “The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because … it wants to take power.”
You can substitute any number of identity groups for the outdated phrase “proletariat” (it’s no longer seen as a class struggle at all) and you have what’s going on today. And this is not hidden; it’s overt. One of the main problems is that so many people have been indoctrinated in this claptrap for so long that many of them hold the reins of power and are in the position of being Trojan horses painted in high-sounding phrases such as “social justice” and “equality of outcome,” helping to unlock the gates to let the destroyers of Western Civilization in.
Roger Kimball, who wrote that essay in 1993, is still writing today. But if he were to compose it now, I think the tone would read very differently. At the time, it’s clear that he thought Foucault’s ideas had been marginalized to the university, that the 60s were as dead and buried as Foucault, and that they would not rise up again with the sort of force we’re seeing today. I’m not blaming Kimball; I would have thought the same. But we would have both been wrong.
ADDENDUM:
Nothing in this post was meant to indicate that Chomsky had a benign influence. Leftists and leftism are destructive. However, Chomsky represented the old left type that was prevalent for a while in the US and is for the most part no more. Foucault and his intellectual descendants have taken over.
Chomsky, for whom Trump is a “sociopathic maniac” and “the worst criminal in human history” is hardly to be preferred to Foucault, except insofar as one judges the two men by their private lives, with the less said about the Maoist Frenchman’s proclivities the better. Chomsky infamously denied the insanity of the Khmer Rouge, while Foucault infamously praised the theocracy of Khomeini. Chomsky may perhaps have been less inclined to the wildly irrational and libertine side of leftist ideology, but both were responsible for poisoning the minds of two generations of “progressives”, and both deserve nothing but contempt.
Sophists and sophisticates of the academy never fail to find followers (Pied Piper effect); reality is just too unpleasant. These emperors of ideas are never clothed but rarely seen as they are by the “elites.”
j e, couldn’t agree more. Chomsky began his career by destroying American linguistics for two generations befor moving on to try and destroy everything else good in America.
Nothing in this post was meant to indicate that Chomsky had a benign influence. Leftists and leftism are destructive. However, Chomsky represented the old left type that was prevalent for a while in the US and is for the most part no more. Foucault and his intellectual descendants have taken over.
Chomsky began his career by destroying American linguistics for two generations…
Margaret Ball: I never understood Chomsky’s domination of linguistics. Every academic dreams of being influential in his or her field, but Chomsky did so in spades. I can’t think of anyone comparable except maybe T.S. Eliot at his zenith.
I understand Chomsky is quite vicious in ruling that fiefdom too.
So we are doomed. By “intellectuals” without intellect.
A very bad place to be as a subject.
Class, Identity, same concept in this context:
“One group I belong to, who I can rationalize attacking and gaining power from this other group, who other people belong to…”
It’s the same logic barbarians used for sacking Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria.
The barbarians had an excuse, though — they didn’t know any better.
The PostModern Jacobins know exactly what it’s about, but are too stupid to realize
a — it’s going to get out of their control
b — as a result of ‘a’, it’s going to turn on them
c — it’s also going to create a vast experience of misery and suffering for people who have led remarkably sheltered lives. It will be an interesting sieve to put these people through. Some will collapse in a heap, and be dust. Some will rise and thrive to the end. I suspect the first group to be much larger than the latter, and the latter will be more likely the young and the old-enough-to-remember-and-have-sense.
}}} Leftists and leftism are destructive.
Neo, just to make a point: PostModern Liberalism is the failure.
I assert Classical Liberalism is fine… but they now represent probably less than 5% of self-identifying “liberals”
PostModern Liberalism formed from Classical Liberalism as a reaction to World War I… The Classical Liberals, so proud, so arrogant, about what Western Civ had accomplished, so certain that man had Become Better, saw what men had done with the creations of Western Civ, and turned on Western Civ with a vengeance and have made it their every intent to destroy it.
Look closely at PostModernism. Everything it does is a subtle or direct attack at critical aspects of the twin foundational elements of Western Civ — the Enlightenment rediscovery of the Greek Heritage of Philosophy and Ideal — and the Judeo-Christian Family-Work Ethos. Add in the insanity of Marxist philosophy (it certainly isn’t economics), and you have an attack on another wide component of Western Civ, capitalism and the melding and mobility of class, and the creation of wealth-for-all rather than spreading it around so it becomes near-useless ( “capital” is like water behind a dam, it is only the accumulation of it that makes work possible on a large scale)
One thing the 20th Century had that the 21st doesn’t was a bumper crop of celebrity-artist/intellectuals such as Chomsky and Foucault, but also including H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Frank Lloyd Wright, T.S. Eliot, William F. Buckley, Ayn Rand, Ernest Hemingway, Ken Kesey, Tom Wolfe, Steve Jobs and more.
I’m not saying they were as big as Madonna, but you didn’t have to scratch hard to find them in national magazines. They moved the culture. They were interesting people too. They all seemed to have fostered, inadvertently or not, cults of personality.
I can’t think of comparable people these days. In philosophy — Rorty or Zizek? Not really. (Yes, Rorty died in 2007.)
I’m not sure what the difference is, but I find it interesting.
neo: The Kimball essay is one of his best IMO.
huxley:
The 21st Century seems to be about rewarding mediocrity combined with political correctness. Towering intellects and artists no longer have a place in the academy or the art world.
Although there may be such people and we’re just not seeing them yet, or seeing them clearly.
huxley: I think Chomsky’s success in linguistics was based on Americans’ fear of foreign languages. He came up with a theory that allowed them to believe that they could do all the research they needed by looking exclusively at English – no boring, tacky hard work learning other languages required!
I was in graduate school in linguistics when the Chomsky revolution was just beginning (having naively thought that linguistics would be a good discipline for somebody who liked learning languages). I cannot begin to describe how happily my colleagues greeted the theory which got them off the hook for learning anything but English.
Always liked this from John Ringo’s Unto The Breach:
“I’ve read some Foucault,” Katrina said, shrugging. “Not interested. I think one rock dropped on his head would have adjusted the whole concept of relativism.”
Although, instead of a rock I’d prefer the element Pb and it moving a bit faster than terminal velocity
Well if it had only been terminal for that frenchman, now alas pining for the fijords. He has reached the ultimate state of deconstruction. But his contribution endures. See Chomsky for the true meaning of “contribution.”
Foucault was and Chomsky is a sociopath.
Obama, Cuomo, Biden, Harris, Hillary, Sanders, Pelosi, among a multitude of others are sociopaths as well.
But it’s not that there aren’t as many towering intellects today as in previous times. It’s that in rejecting God, many of the world’s intellects have fallen prey to Dostoevsky’s aphorism; “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” and in doing so, ‘the blind are leading the blind into the ditch’.
“… my century..is unique in the history of men for two reasons.
It is the first century since life began when a decisive part of the most articulate section of mankind has not merely ceased to believe in God, but has deliberately rejected God.
And it is the century in which this religious rejection has taken a specifically political form…. -Whittaker Chambers, “Witness” 1952
huxley at 5:24pm
Joe Rogan, Stephan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Kanye West, Camilla Paglia, Heather MacDonald, Dennis Prager, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, Depak Chopra, Tony Robbins, Christina Hoff Sommers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Althouse, Amy Wax, Amy Alkon…
A list I typed up with about 30 seconds thought. Some of these people reach tens of millions. Some have sold countless books. Some have been predominant in public discourse for decades. Their personal philosophy is a part of all of their appeal, and with some, it is the major reason for their fame. I imagine all have participated in a public debate, or two. All have had long magazine exposes examining their opinions and their acolytes.
Seems like a “bumper crop of celebrity-artist/intellectuals” to me.
neo at 5:41,
Stephen Molyneux presents himself as a philosopher and public intellectual. He’s certainly well versed in the requisite books. He claims to have over 3/4 of a billion downloads. Based on his reputation that is likely accurate. He’s written scores of books on philosophy, economics, etc…
Tom Woods must have millions of downloads. I don’t know what his official credentials are, but he is certainly very well read in political science and economics. He’s also written scores of books and is almost certainly more widely read than most political science profs teaching at a University.
Jordan Peterson certainly has the academic credentials and C.V. and has to have reached more humans with his lectures and books than any psychologist alive.
The Weinstein brothers, Brett and Eric (along with Brett’s wife, Heather Heying) all have the requisite academic credentials and C.V.s and have found a much broader audience outside of the University system. They are reaching millions through their podcasts and websites.
I think Chomsky’s success in linguistics was based on Americans’ fear of foreign languages. He came up with a theory that allowed them to believe that they could do all the research they needed by looking exclusively at English – no boring, tacky hard work learning other languages required!
Margaret Ball: Well, I’m afraid of foreign languages too! At least the hard work they require for mastery…
Your point hadn’t occurred to me.
I read his “Syntactic Structures” (1957) in college. My impression of Chomsky’s theory came down to two words: hard-wired and recursion. They are good words with respect to language, but I can’t believe they are the final words. However, I still have trouble understanding how he parlayed his theory into being invested as pope of linguistics.
You offer laziness as an explanation and I can see that. I wonder if Chomsky was also adept as an academic gamesman and cult leader.
Rufus T. Firefly: Nice riposte!
We must enter into the domain of opinion. I respect many in your list, however, I just don’t see them as the “towering giant” types moving the world from their fulcrums. Or at least we must wait and see, as neo suggests. They seem more like Dale Carnegie — they have their niches and they tend their audiences.
There is one person I would hold forth as a 21st C. celebrity-intellectual of world-class caliber in terms of impact (not that I respect him much): Barack Obama.
A friend and I were once bemoaning the lack of great cults in the 21st C. Then we realized: Obama.
huxley:
Don’t look at the man behind the curtain, he ain’t passing out brains, hearts, or courage.
huxley,
Are you aware of Jordan Peterson? Are you aware of what he has done in the past 24 – 36 months?
Dennis Prager (from wikipedia): He attended the Yeshiva of Flatbush in Brooklyn, New York, where he befriended Joseph Telushkin. He went to Brooklyn College and graduated with a major in history and Middle Eastern Studies. Over the next few years he took courses at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs and at the University of Leeds; he then left academia without finishing a graduate degree. He’s studied and worked in Russia; speaks fluent Russian. And Hebrew. And, I think, Greek. He’s reached untold numbers through his radio program and his Prager University video series is one of the most watched things to ever be on the Internet. Even more than cat videos. He has changed untold lives with his academic, theological and philosophical arguments. I can’t even imagine the number of books Prager has read and digested.
Eric Weinstein and his work with Peter Thiel. Dr. Weinstein reaches millions through his “Portal” podcast and I challenge anyone to pick any three at random and claim they understand more than 1/2 of the content. Serious, serious intellectual stuff.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Those people are influential, but I think their reach is small compared to that of Foucault or Chomsky, for example. Part of the reason is that the people you mentioned are being marginalized by the academy and the MSM, and so they must reach out more directly to the people, and they can’t reach as many as they otherwise would have.
I think of Sowell, who IMHO is one of the great minds of the 20th and 21st centuries. How many people are aware of his existence or of his books? And he even used to have syndicated column, but I recall it as appearing mostly in more conservative outlets.
From his website:
I just counted 20 books that he has authored available on his website. He likely has written more.
I can’t find download and listener numbers for his podcast, but he is certainly one of the most popular podcasts extant. Give me a PhD history, economics or political science professor from any century who was more prolific, or reached more people.
huxley,
“I still have trouble understanding how he parlayed his theory into being invested as pope of linguistics.”
He got out in front of the Post Modernist movement by advancing radical, facile arguments in an obscure field and deflected rigorous examination by refusing to engage in reasoned debate. ‘Intellectuals’ of like mind elevated him to the forefront because his “History of the United States” was a ‘learned and formal’ support of what they themselves wanted to believe.
“You don’t understand the class structure of American society,” said Smetana, “or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists.” Whittaker Chambers, “Witness”
Obviously, Smetana was speaking in broad though valid generalities. Partially true of the upper class then, very much more so today. And their primary emotional motivation is the need to virtue signal.
neo at 6:49pm,
Jordan Peterson’s last book has sold over 5 million copies and it’s only two years old. Has the Bible sold 5 million copies in the last two years?
He has a degree from McGill has been a research and lecturing Professor at Harvard and has been teaching in a University setting for over 25 years as well as working as a clinical Psychologist. What more does he have to have on his C.V.?!
I know he hasn’t debated the ghost of William F. Buckley on a sparsely watched (outside of the elite salons of Manhattan) Sunday show, but the man has incredible reach. Noam Chomsky would give his eye teeth to have those types of book sales and sell out thousand seat arenas on a worldwide lecture tour.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Of course I know Jordan Peterson. I’ve listened to about twenty hours of his lectures and interviews. I’m certainly aware of Dennis Prager and Eric Weinstein too.
But half the country, three-quarters, has never heard of them. I’ve talked to bright people who read, both liberal and conservative, who haven’t heard of Peterson. Maybe some day he will be more widely know, but not yet.
For the record, I’ve never heard of Thomas Woods myself.
He got out in front of the Post Modernist movement by advancing radical, facile arguments in an obscure field and deflected rigorous examination by refusing to engage in reasoned debate. ‘Intellectuals’ of like mind elevated him to the forefront because his “History of the United States” was a ‘learned and formal’ support of what they themselves wanted to believe.
Geoffrey Britain: I believe you are speaking of Howard Zinn, not Chomsky.
huxley,
What percentage of the country has heard of Noam Chomsky and could tell you anything coherent about any of his theories? Foucault? I have some very bright friends with PhDs in Engineering. My guess is they’ve never heard of Foucault. They’ve heard of Chomsky but don’t know his field is Linguistics, let alone what he has done. One of my brightest friends, an MD… I’d bet he’s never heard of either.
Look, I agree Foucault, Marx, Chomsky… their theories have polluted academics, but how much influence does the typical University Political Science or Economics or Linguistics Professor really have? He or she may be an acolyte of Marx or Chomsky, but I guarantee you Rush Limbaugh has a bigger impact on this nation’s politics than that University Professor.
huxley:
To the woke Jordon Peterson is kryptonite, the “anti-christ.” Nope not the “anti-christ,” that term doesn’t mean anything to a worshiper of wokeness, or isn’t something negative.
Are half the people in the country ignorant of social trends and required pronouns? Maybe so.
@Huxley:
By no means an expert but I think Chomsky probably on the right track re there being some neurological substructure(s) which determine the range of possible human language grammars. Out in the real world there *is* much less variety than one might expect were there not some kind of as yet undetermined limiting factor(s). Unlikely to be proven during C’s remaining years let alone our lifetimes though.
For the rest of his oeuvre, a sentence of life in the galleys would be fair. Foucault, ideally, would have been burned alive in the public square pour encourager… Preliminary tortures waived in case of F because any half-witted Inquisitor could have figured out that the sicko would have enjoyed them far too much.
And, I think this reinforces my point about public influence vs. academic influence; Marx was not a Professor, never had a University appointment. Yet, of Foucault and Chomsky I don’t think it is arguable that Marx had far greater influence and inspired far more acolytes than the others.
Name a political science professor who has taught more people political theory than Rush Limbaugh? Who has more influenced political thought than Rush? Who has converted more people to his political philosophy than Rush? Is he taught at the Ivy’s? No. But nothings succeeds like success.
Huxley @ 6:28 “There is one person I would hold forth as a 21st C. celebrity-intellectual of world-class caliber in terms of impact (not that I respect him much): Barack Obama.
A friend and I were once bemoaning the lack of great cults in the 21st C. Then we realized: Obama.”
Very true, a shallow man propped up by a preening elite. However there is another person trying to create his own cult of personality and that is Xi Jingpeng. Let’s see how that plays out. Also you can argue Trump could be a movement leader that is almost cult like too.
Let time pass and we will see. In post Franco Prussian War France there was a general called George Boulanger who rode high for several years until he killed himself over his mistress’s grave. The ultimate empty suit which I think Barak is also. Let us see how he reacts if and when the crowd adulation dies down and he becomes old news.
I believe in the 21st century, influencers are going to replace the leftist institutions of the university and media that centralized and disseminated “news”. The internet and social media changed all that. So their impact will diminish particularly now that they have dropped their partisan masks. As the boomers die out or lose influence you will see their influence diminish greatly. Witness Fox News as an example. I will only watch Tucker, Bartiromo and Gutfeld. I use to be a heavy duty periodical reader with subscriptions to 13 of them plus two daily papers. Now I get none. That is a trend that is accelerating.
Margaret Ball,
Learning languages requires work. Heads down, repetitive, often tedious work. I’m not surprised to learn you met academics who were not interested in that aspect.
Tying in with neo’s post on Obama and Biden’s intellects; I am surprised at how few politicians seem to have mastered a second language. Anyone majoring in LAS, as most of them do, is required to study a foreign language. To my mind; the foreign language requirement is like Calculus for the hard sciences. It’s work and there is no getting around it. The fact that we never hear Bill or Hillary or Michelle or Barack mention a foreign language facility, or speak in a foreign language has always been suspect to me. G.W. Bush is actually decent at Spanish. Donald Trump Jr. is fluent in Czech, I believe. Melania famously speaks five languages, but one never hears Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon mention that fact.
I am Spartacus,
I do not think Barack Obama is leaving the stage anytime soon. I think he had a lot to do with the behind the scenes machinations that put Biden over Bernie in the primary, along with Kamala getting the V.P. spot. I noticed he made a few, seemingly well orchestrated appearances in the month or so leading up to the election, and made a very concise, distinct statement almost immediately after, to tamp down talk of fraud.
I think Barack Obama very much wants to be a power broker for years to come.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I like Peterson, and I’m well aware of his influence. But 5 million is nothing compared to the forces arrayed against him. The MSM and the left have successfully demonized him already with a lot of people. He’s a fascist and a white supremacist, don’t you know? He would have to sell 5 billion books for me to feel that he will actually influence a significant enough number of people for it to matter.
Nothing I say here is meant to be a criticism of Peterson. I think he’s done phenomenally well against great odds. But 5 million is still unfortunately, very small potatoes.
Rufus T. Firefly:
As for professors and the like – they don’t influence people by having the public read their books. Not ordinarily, anyway. What happens is that they influence teaching at the upper levels and then it filters down to the lower levels and even grade schools, and as more people schooled in this type of thought graduate and go out into the world and take up positions of power – in the MSM, in business, in the arts, etc. – the influence of the academics has exponentially increased. The academy is key.
neo,
I know you are a Peterson fan. You were on the Peterson train early. And I understand what you write about the forces arrayed against him, but he is reaching millions, and that’s not nothing.
What’s that stupid Harvard Professor’s name who was encouraging everyone to do drugs in the ’60s? Timothy Leary? It seemed like he would be hugely influential academically then. Is he now? Do any current Undergrads know his name?
What’s the quote? Academic battles often get so intense because the stakes are so small (or something like that). Again, Marx never taught a class. Neither has Limbaugh.
If you haven’t listened Weinstein and Heying’s podcast, Dark Horse, I recommend it. I think you’d enjoy it. They both fully expected to live out their careers in the Academy and were forced out due to a woke mob run amok. Both are still rather Left-ish in their politics, but very honest about their beliefs and what they have learned from their ordeal. And they often talk about how many more people they are reaching now that they have left the Ivory Tower. When they read their listener mail it is quite surprising. Their audience is very erudite. I imagine many active Professors would love to have questions as well thought out from their own students.
neo,
My comment about Peterson’s book sales wasn’t about his reach, his reach is far greater. It’s just that 5 million is a really big number regarding book sales.
We all know many, many people bought Obama’s book(s) just to display them on their bookshelves, and his two books (19 years and running for one, 25 for the other) have yet to beat Peterson’s sales in just two years! 5 million may not be a big number in a world of 7.8 billion, but it’s a lot of books in the world of publishing.
(I just checked. Looks like about 100 million copies of the Bible sell each year, so Peterson has a ways to go! 🙂 )
neo,
I agree regarding your point on influence. “New Math” for example. “Common Core.” “The 1619 Project.”
I get it. But we are still free people, and no matter what is taught at school non Academics like Marx, Limbaugh, Jay Z, Kanye West… tend to have tremendous influence on popular opinion.
Was Dr. Spock ever revered in the Acadamy? He sold a lot of books and influenced the way a lot of kids were raised.
Heck, what about that, “Chariots of the Gods” guy? Danniken? Influenced millions.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Leary had a whole different sort of influence and it certainly was not academic, although he had been a professor at one point. He became a household word – I don’t think there was a young person in the 60s who hadn’t heard of him. He was a major factor in the 60s explosion of drugs. I’m not sure why he caught on so much; I guess the times were ripe. He actually spoke at my college and I attended and was very unimpressed by his ramblings. But that’s just me.
By the way, Leary was fired from academia in 1963, and became famous after that. He was a tireless self-promoter and was really part of a much larger movement in the 60s towards increasing drug usage. He helped create the zeitgeist but he also merged with it.
Were you ever able to grasp, other than in theoretical terms, what generative grammar was supposed to be? Did you ever see it resulting in fruitful or demonstrable insights or discoveries that have held up?
If one takes Internet explanations like this one seriously:
… then one has some idea of what he envisions his theory as doing.
But, what did it in fact do? What mental processes, or anthropological insights were revealed – and proved – by the application of this apparent model or formula?
DNW:
Chomsky sounds profoundly sciency with a superabundance of concensive truthiness. All he needs to add are some algorithms and it would be a predictive linguini model. (new words, new concepts, undoubtedly – just don’t call me doctor)
Chomsky churns out well-footnoted books on all kinds of subjects, making him appear to be the very model of the modern intellectual- the expert on everything. However, if you know something about the subject Chomsky is pontificating about, it is not difficult to refute his well-footnoted half truths.
For example, Chomsky once told us that Hugo Chavez had done a good thing by virtue of his reducing poverty in Venezuela. Compared to what? Chavez was elected in November 1998, and took office in February 1999.From 1998-99 to 2013, the year of his death, Venezuela’s poverty reduction was about what world-wide poverty reduction had been for that time period, and ranked slightly above average (9th best out of 20) in Latin America. In addition, most countries had reduced poverty with economic growth rates vastly superior to Chavista Venezuela’s economic growth rate. That suggested that their poverty reduction was more sustainable than Chavista Venezuela’s, which came about mainly from having $1 trillion in oil revenue to throw around.
Another example of an easily refuted half-truth from Chomsky. Chomsky compared Allende’s economics to Pinochet’s economics by using 1970-72 for Allende, which conveniently cut off the disastrous economic year of 1973. Allende governed until September 11, 1973. The hyperinflation and economic collapse of 1973 were entirely Allende’s responsibility- which helps explain why Chomsky didn’t want to consider that year as part of Allende’s record.
That is, one can readily find footnotes to refute Chomsky’s footnotes.
I get the impression that battling Foucault involves more ideology and word play than battling Chomsky.
DNW:
“What mental processes, or anthropological insights were revealed – and proved – by the application of this apparent model or formula?”
To the best of my knowledge: absolutely none.
The original argument went something like this: “Transformational grammar allows us to develop a set of rules that will produce all those strings of words, and only those strings of words, that constitute acceptable sentences in English. The same tool (transformational grammar) will allow us to develop rules defining any other language, when we get around to it. Thus, the structure of transformational grammar itself will give us insight into how the human brain processes language.”
Step 2: Oops, we need to add a few more capabilities to what we’re calling ‘transformational grammar’ to take care of these sentences somebody just brought up.
Step 3: Transformational grammar is getting too big and unwieldy to consider as a whole, so let’s spend our time arguing over whether rule 42 has to precede rule 43 without ever looking at what rules 1 through 41 do.
(I enter graduate school at this point, shake my head and scurry off to hide in a subspecialty of linguistics that has not yet been transformed.)
Step 4: Oops. We’ve added so many bells and whistles to our definition of transformational grammar that it is functionally equivalent to a Turing machine. It has already been established that it’s possible to write a Turing machine to create any set of strings you like… so the fact that a Turing machine can, theoretically, create all and only the sentences acceptable in English tells us nothing whatever about how the human brain processes languages.
Step 5: Look, squirrel!
One can’t seriously compare the people who appear on television or the internet today to Einstein, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Freud, Eliot, etc. For all the “public intellectuals” we have today, we don’t have great intellectuals like we did in the past. Part of the enthusiasm for Foucault and Derrida forty years ago was the belief that the second half of the century would have masters as great as the first half, but that didn’t happen.
That doesn’t mean today’s intellectuals are worthless or inconsequential. Some of them do great work, but the cultural context has changed. We are more skeptical and less reverential. That’s not wholly a bad thing. There was much nonsense in those modern masters. But they did appear to transcend the popular culture and the newspaper polemics of the day in a way that the writers and thinkers of the past generation or two don’t.
But Tom Woods? Please. He’s not even worth mentioning in this context.
huxley,
You are correct as to Zinn being the author rather than Chomsky. Apparently I suffered what my daughter’s generation labels a “brain fart”. However, I stand by my characterization of Chomsky and Foucault as being sociopaths. I’d also add Zinn, Marx and Engels to that category.
Jordan Peterson’s impact has lasting value for to the best of his ability and as he understands it, he seeks to speak and convey factual truth. Reality and truth are the same. When reality is apparently in conflict with truth, it is a personal/social “construct”.
Obama’s impact will fade in time for he’s a liar, could care less about factual truth and is an advocate of the end justifying the means. His influence today is the result of two conditions; his leftism and white virtue signaling. Never have so many been so wrong about a man’s character.
Re: Transformational grammar…
Margaret Ball:
Sounds like another walk in the woods of software development! (I’m a programmer.)
I’m still wondering how Chomsky became pope. Other things being equal, my guess is that in an academic debate (maybe not in public with Foucault) Chomsky is one of those guys who thinks faster than others and can crush his opposition.
I’ve been around my share of Bright Guys who can do that. It’s impressive, but I noticed in the long run it’s a special gunslinging skill which doesn’t necessarily arrive at the best thinking, though it often dispatches the competition.
BTW, there’s a long-standing rumor Foucault was stoned during the debate. This sounds right to me as an expression of Foucault’s contempt for old-school Enlightenment thinking, which Chomsky has always claimed as his model.
One can’t seriously compare the people who appear on television or the internet today to Einstein, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Freud, Eliot, etc. For all the “public intellectuals” we have today, we don’t have great intellectuals like we did in the past. Part of the enthusiasm for Foucault and Derrida forty years ago was the belief that the second half of the century would have masters as great as the first half, but that didn’t happen.
Ringo says what I was trying for quite crisply.
Re: Chomsky, Foucault … sociopaths.
Geoffrey Britain:
I’m not as fast off the draw to label people with whom I disagree as sociopaths or psychopaths.
Foucault, maybe. He is a downright bizarre, unwholesome character. I would have to know more about his life to hazard an opinion.
But I’ve read about six feet of Chomsky and listened/watched recordings of him many times. I even knew his son at one of the software companies where I worked, and I don’t see him as sociopath.
Chomsky lives in a bubble he’s built carefully over the decades. He is smart enough that he can dismiss most criticism. I’d say his problem is that he is an academic/public intellectual rock star with an ego to match.
In my reading on sociopaths, they are not just selfish, dishonest or manipulative, they are impulsive and take risks. They don’t manage long, constructive lives and careers as Chomsky has.
Which by the way is how I decided Trump wasn’t a sociopath, as was my impression of him in 2016.
The Trump despising but non-woke are about to be exposed to a group they think are just being young people, but who have founded a new tribe that thinks they are evil. Not just old-fashioned, but actually evil.
I just read “How race politics liberated the elites” by Matthew Crawford.
If society is taken to be inherently oppressive, the notion of a common good disappears. https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-race-politics-liberated-the-elites/
Most people who post here would find it interesting.
We are seeing the Western version of a Cultural Revolution trying to manifest. Without a Mao it won’t have the same level of effectiveness, but the intensity of the insanity is the same for those who act it out. Wokism, coupled with advancing age, will destroy the Boomer Democratic Party. Something will emerge in its place, probably Trumpism without Trump.
@ Dick Illyes,
Not a bad article overall. The description of the processes by which the notion of a common sociopolitical good and any allegiance to the country itself has been dissolved, is as good and insightful as any thumbnail sketch is likely to be.
I would however balk at what appears to be a somewhat communitarian thrust to his analysis: opposing, or poising, the sovereign and self-justifying conscience of the sensitive, oppression descrying, woke “elites” of the clerisy ( a word we have seen mentioned in another thread just recently) against a presumptively reified “community” having, apparently, its own self-justifying claims: which under a Freudian take, become accepted with maturity.
My own opinion is that a more effective and revealing analysis of the deeper issues at hand would employ an analysis of competing sovereign individuals as they attempt to sort out not their own sovereign moral tastes, but the root justifications (if any) which they employ while leveling demands based on those tastes upon other putatively equally morally sovereign individuals.
Or, in the conceptual framework of the critically woke: Is their anthropological analysis such that sovereign and self-justifying moral preferences only exist as valid in a “woke” population?
By conceptually breaking up the community, (viewed either as a community of oppression or order depending on which side of the fence you stand), into consciences equally sovereign to the woke consciences, one is able to compare and weigh individual apples against individual apples. This, without any of the moral assumption baggage that inhibits a radical analysis and thus covertly allows the so-called oppression fighters to stake claims and engage in self-justifications impinging on others who have been disadvantageously lumped into a community of pleading punching bags. That is the way the woke get to declaim from a position of smuggled-in conceptual advantage.
So, instead of trying to argue that the community should be preserved because “maturity”, against someone who is shouting that the old society must be destroyed and refashioned based on their own sovereign, subjective, and self-justifying moral sensibilities, the better response is to say, “Ok fine. F##k you. We are admitted enemies without a common good or a shared humanity. All former bets are indeed now off, all formerly shared assumptions cast aside, no fundamental social contract exists, and we are ready to start pulling the trigger in order to get what we want for no reason other than we want it. Do you have anything else to say before the shooting starts?”
That at least gets us all to the base line, and to an even “playing field”: “You put your demanding face in my face because you feel you want to have by any means necessary the social dream you dream; plain and simple. And I then, may with equal validity put your face out of my face by any means convenient because I don’t want it there; plain and simple: likewise with no justification needed or called for, right? ”
Will they respond to this, and begin thinking about their hidden predicates?
My guess is that they won’t. First, because they cannot justify a sovereign subjective urge according to a rational hierarchy; and second, for the reasons [reasoning] Hubert pointed to in the essays explaining the reluctance of the critical theorist type to “legitimize” the so-called oppressor by engaging in a rule bound [logical] exchange with him in the first place. Their predicates are not hidden to them anyway. They know that their anthropology/morality floats free on an act of unanchored, unanalyzed will; ultimately, a simple will to power and control based on a not only post modern, but post human, sensibility.
But at least this reductionistic exercise undeceives us. It tells us where the real battlefield is, and who, or better, what it is that we confront, and what the terms of the contest are.
Yes, it has the effect of dehumanizing the other. But that is a deconstructive act which they, or “evolution” have accomplished themselves.
I think purposely covering up the cambodian holocaust is a sign of bad faith, you would think that would rule him out for any position of authority but you would be wrong,
some details here
https://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm