Noam Chomsky The Linguist & Political Analyst

 Introduction

Avaram Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on 07 December 1928 in a Jewish family and was raised among Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe,. Chomsky grew up during the depression & international rise of fascist threat. Chomsky was imbued with a sense of class solidarity & struggle from an early age. Chomsky with  Harris his initial mentor, gravitated towards linguistics that involved philosophical debates. Though Chomsky denies his connection to early seventeenth century thinkers such as Rene Descartes & Humboldt or the Sanskrit scholar

Panini, it is the study of their insights that led him in his research of linguistics.  While Chomsky

joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute Technology in 1955, he received tremendous early 

recognition for his linguistic work , he began to make a wider political mark when he started writing 

long , detailed essays denouncing the war & role of mainstream intellectuals who supported it. 

These essays brilliantly documented & condemned the actions of US Govt. Chomsky became  

one of the most respected & important critics of the US war effort, and was repeatedly 

questioned on his writings on Israel, Vietnam, Central American solidarity, Tax resistance efforts in 

1965, Antiwar Boston protests in 1965, US intervention in Iraq, and much more.

Chomsky believes that it is official propaganda and state coercion that distort human psychology and relationships and thus stifle intellectual development and social life in general. An opponent of the all mighty State, he identifies himself as part of the anarchist tradition and speaks of himself as a ‘left libertarian’. His critique of the State is mainly directed towards   USA. He expresses his views on Washington’s cruel maltreatment of third world, its foreign policies and disregard for international law and characterizes the U.S. as a de facto one-party state, viewing both the Republican Party and Democratic Party as manifestations of a single "Business Party" controlled by corporate and financial interests.

 Chomsky has been writing, speaking out, giving interviews, and reaching out individually, where he feels he might be able to make a difference. Chomsky has been actively pursuing his engagements to probe the intellectual elites till recently where, in the late 2015 he supported Democrat, Bernie Sanders as US Presidential candidate & in early 2016, was publicly rebuked by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. People around the world take inspiration from Chomsky’s example. This paper provides a critical review of ‘Chomsky the Linguist & political analyst’.

Chomsky as a Linguist

As a scholar of linguistics, Professor Chomsky is one of the founders of a school called generative transformational grammar. This school of linguistic research and analysis develops the theory that the power to acquire and utilize language is inborn and found only in humans. This theory rejects the idea that the capacity to learn and produce language develops only mechanically through external conditioning. A child’s speech does not simply imitate what has been heard. Rather, external conditioning is actively received and worked upon as the mind grows and develops the ability to generate new ideas and new sentences. The mind is the principal agent, the creative factor. By the age of five or six the result of this process is the basic mastery of a language, the ability to transform “finite words and rules” into, “an infinite number of sentences.” The process unfolds throughout life.

Professor Chomsky’s position on language may remind some of Mencius’ affirmation (opposing Gaozi and Mozi) of the existence of human nature. For Mencius, man is not merely a blank entity to be shaped by external conditions but has an endowed active potential to be developed through cultivation and learning, ideally under a benevolent sovereign. Man’s disposition toward the social virtues is natural says Mencius, just as Chomsky views the capacity for language use as natural (Moss, 2007).

Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that syntactic knowledge is at least partially inborn, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages (Lyons, 1978). Chomsky based his argument on observations about human language acquisition, noting that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain. Chomsky attempted to establish syntax  as a self-contained area of linguistic inquiry independent of semantics (Chomsky, 1965). To show this, he offered the now-famous "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as an example of a pseudo-sentence that has no meaning but nevertheless seems intuitively correct on a grammatical level to a native English speaker"

The basis to Chomsky's linguistic theory is rooted in bio linguistics, holding that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted (John, 1978). He therefore argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences (John, 1978). In adopting this position, Chomsky rejects the radical behaviorist psychology of B. F. Skinner which views the mind as a tabula rasa ("blank slate") and thus treats language as learned behavior (John, 1978). Accordingly, he argues that language is a unique evolutionary development of the human species and is unlike modes of communication used by any other animal species.

An Intellectual Responsibility

Chomsky holds that humans do not need much in the way of external control in order to form wholesome and productive social relationships. He “wants to see a society moving toward voluntary organizations and eliminating as much as possible the structures of hierarchy and domination, and the basis for them in ownership and control” (Chomsky, 2003). In his view such powerful forces as official propaganda and state coercion distort human psychology and relationships and thus stifle intellectual development and social life in general. This led him to his quest of political activism supporting the anarchist theory as a confluence of socialism & liberalism (Chomsky, 1973). An opponent of the all mighty State, Professor Chomsky identifies himself as part of the anarchist tradition (defined as voluntary or anti-authoritarian socialism with institutions controlled by and serving workers). Chomsky believes that the responsibilities of intellectuals are much deeper than that of the common citizens. Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyse actions according to their causes and motives & often hidden intentions. In the west at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information & from freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology, and class interest through which the events of current history are presented to us (chomsky, 2008).

The second major area to which Chomsky has contributed - and surely the best known in terms of the number of people in his audience and the ease of understanding what he writes and says - is his work on sociopolitical analysis, political, social, and economic history, and critical assessment of current political circumstance. More often than not his focus is on epistemology, how the mind processes political language and reaches conclusions. In Chomsky's view, while those in power might - and do - try to obscure their intentions and defend their actions in ways that make them acceptable to citizens, it is easy for anyone who is willing to be critical and consider the facts to discern what they are up to. His views are further amplified while he states that a truly democratic society is one in which the general public has the opportunity for meaningful and constructive participation in formation of social policy.  A society that  excludes large areas of crucial decision making from public control, or a system of governance that merely grants the general public the opportunity to ratify decisions taken by the elite groups that dominate the private society and the state , hardly merits the term “ Democracy” (Chomsky, 1988).

Political Activism

Chomsky’s tryst with  political activism started in  1960  when he started expressing himself in a manner that the elite took note.  He questioned the American dream of domination of Southeast Asia in the name of  anti-communism drive, in light of the fact that citizens refused  to sacrifice their jobs and livelihood in the cause of American domination of Southeast Asia. There was resistance in the military and continuing resistance to military conscription—as he quoted the press saying “The Oakland induction center, which processes draftees for all of Northern California and a portion of Nevada, says more than half of the young men ordered to report fail to show up—and 11 percent of those who do show up refuse to serve” (Chomsky, 1970). Chomsky rightly quoted the editorial in Japanese newspaper Asai Shimbun “ The war in Vietnam has been in every way a war of national emancipation. The age in which any great power can suppress indefinitely the rise of nationalism has come to an end”. Chomsky’s views on international affairs kept getting stronger as the days progressed.

His articles on’ Bay of Pigs invasion’ (Chomsky, 2003) which was an unsuccessful military invasion of Cuba undertaken by the CIA-sponsored paramilitary group Brigade in  April 1961, later the killing of 400 Cuban workers in a industrial facility & the role of US during Cuban missile crisis, was disposed as a result of bad press by the Kennedy Government. He has been critical of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, arguing that it has consistently blocked a peaceful settlement.

Chomsky openly expressed his views as an intellectual responsibility to the state during the ‘Watergate Scandal’ and lauded the press for the expose.   His comments on the Cambodian movement and the role of Nixon & Kissinger eroded Nixon’s domestic position. The comments on press which exposed the fact that Thai mercenaries fighting for for the US cause in Cambodia were reaching Bangkok hospitals added fuel to the fire as Nixon nearly faced impeachment & finally resigned. It is not strange that it was later discovered that Chomsky was on the infamous ‘list of enemies’ of Nixon.

In the 1990s, Chomsky embraced political activism to a greater degree than before. Retaining his commitment to the cause of East Timorese independence, in 1995 he visited Australia to talk on the issue at the behest of the East Timorese Relief Association and the National Council for East Timorese Resistance.  As a result of the international publicity generated by Chomsky, his biographer Wolfgang Sperlich opined that he did more to aid the cause of East Timorese independence. After East Timor's independence from Indonesia was achieved in 1999, the Australian-led International Force for East Timor arrived as a peacekeeping force; Chomsky was critical of this, believing that it was designed to secure Australian access to East Timor's oil and gas reserves under the Timor Gap Treaty (Chomsky, 1999).

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Chomsky was widely interviewed.  Chomsky argued that the ensuing War on Terror was not a new development, but rather a continuation of the same U.S. foreign policy and its concomitant rhetoric that had been pursued since at least the Reagan era of the 1980s.  In 2003 he published ‘Hegemony or Survival’, in which he articulated what he called the United States' "imperial grand strategy" and critiqued the Iraq War and other aspects of the 'War on Terror.'  His famous video  documentary  ‘REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM’ (Hutchison, 2015) is the definitive discourse with  Chomsky, on the defining characteristic of present time - the deliberate concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few. Through interviews filmed over four years, Chomsky unpacks the principles that have brought US to the crossroads of historically unprecedented inequality - tracing a half century of policies designed to favor the most wealthy at the expense of the majority - while also looking back on his own life of activism and political participation. Chomsky provides penetrating insight into what may well be the lasting legacy of our time - the death of the middle class, and swan song of functioning democracy. A potent reminder, that power ultimately rests in the hands of the governed.

Chomsky was drawn to the energy and activism of the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement is an international socio-political movement against social inequality and lack of "real democracy" around the world, its primary goal being to advance social and economic justice and new forms of democracy. The movement has many different scopes; local groups often have different focuses, but among the movement's prime concerns are how large corporations (and the global financial system) control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy, and is unstable. His analysis included a critique that attributed Occupy's growth as a response to a perceived abandonment of the interests of the white working class by the Democratic Party. In late 2015, Chomsky announced his support for Vermont U.S. senator Bernie Sanders in the upcoming 2016 United States presidential election. On 3 April 2016, hundreds of supporters of Bernie Sanders protested outside of CNN's Headquarters in Los Angeles.  Known as Occupy CNN, protestors were claiming that major media networks had intentionally blacked out Sanders' presidential campaign in favor of giving much more airtime to candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

In Chomsky's view, the truth about political realities is systematically distorted or suppressed through elite corporate interests, who use corporate media, advertising, and think tanks to promote their own propaganda. His work seeks to reveal such manipulations and the truth that they obscure. He believes that "common sense" is all that is required to break through the web of falsehood and see the truth, if it is employed using both critical thinking skills and an awareness of the role that self-interest and self-deception plays on both oneself and on others. He believes that it is the moral responsibility of intellectuals to tell the truth about the world, but claims that few do so because they fear losing prestige and funding.  He argues that, as such an intellectual, it is his duty to use his privilege, resources, and training to aid popular democracy movements their struggles

Chomsky's published work has focused heavily on criticizing the actions of the United States. Chomsky believes that the basic principle of the foreign policy of the United States is the establishment of "open societies" which are economically and politically controlled by the U.S. and where U.S.-based businesses can prosper. He argues that the U.S. seeks to suppress any movements within these countries that are not compliant to U.S. interests and ensure that U.S.-friendly governments are placed in power. The US sees India as the weakest link in the emerging Asian Chain  and is trying actively to divert New Delhi away from the task of creating new regional architecture by dangling the nuclear carrot and promise of world power status in alliance with itself (Chomsky, 2006).

He characterizes the U.S. as a de facto one-party state, viewing both the Republican Party and Democratic Party as manifestations of a single "Business Party" controlled by corporate and financial interests. Chomsky highlights that within Western capitalist liberal democracies, at least 80% of the population has no control over economic decisions, which are instead in the hands of a management class and ultimately controlled by a small, wealthy elite.

Views on Press

Chomsky's political writings have largely been focused with the two concepts of ideology and power, or the media and state policy.  One of Chomsky's best-known works, Manufacturing Consent, dissects the media's role in reinforcing and halfheartedly agreeing to state policies, across the political spectrum, while marginalizing contrary perspectives. Chomsky claims that this 'free-market' version of censorship is more subtle and difficult to undermine than the equivalent propaganda system which was present in the Soviet Union.  As he argues, the mainstream press is corporate owned and thus reflects corporate priorities and interests. While acknowledging that many American journalists are dedicated and well-meaning, he argues that the choice of topics and issues featured in the mass media, the unquestioned premises on which that coverage rests, and the range of opinions that are expressed are all constrained to reinforce the state's ideology.  He states that while the mass media will criticise individual politicians and political parties, it will not undermine the wider state-corporate nexus of which it is a part.  As evidence, he highlights that the US mass media does not employ any socialist journalists or political commentators.  He also points to examples of important news stories which have been ignored by U.S. mainstream media because reporting on them would reflect badly upon the U.S. state.  Thus the core of Professor Chomsky’s approach is as much about thought and language as about politics. He seeks to uncover how indoctrination systems work to prevent people from gaining a real and practical understanding of the major questions of our world, and how they enable intellectuals to exempt their government from criticism of the very same evils for which they easily  condemn other governments. Thus he says that polls show about 70 percent of Americans agreeing that the war in Vietnam was immoral, while most intellectuals and officials prefer to call the war a well-meaning mistake, something they would never say about Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia.  Chomsky also observes that this hypocrisy of misrepresentation shows that Washington is well aware that Americans would not accept the real purposes of its policies and have to be fooled into accepting immoral acts of violence.

Here is one example of such deception: Professor Chomsky writes as follows about the US destruction on November 9, 2004 of Falluja General Hospital in Iraq: “The word ‘conflict’ is a common euphemism for US aggression, as when we read [in the New York Times] that ‘now the Americans are rushing in engineers who will begin rebuilding what the conflict has just destroyed’ — just ‘the conflict,’ with no agent, like a hurricane.” Professor Chomsky expresses his outrage at the way a leading newspaper contrives to obscure moral responsibility for destroying a hospital filled with patients and medical personnel while reassuring readers that some kind of meaningful rescue is underway (chomsky, 2006).

Conclusion

Perhaps the main myth Professor Chomsky seeks to expose is that Washington has a benevolent and god-given leadership role to play among the nations of the world, and that whatever nation happens to be the principal enemy of the moment deserves to be demonized: yesterday Russia, Vietnam and China; today Iraq, Iran, and Korea; tomorrow — who knows? Focusing on a mythical evil, be it communism, terrorism, or some other ‘ism,’ is for him a device to promote war  and to deceive Americans into supporting bad means for unreal ends. For  Chomsky the reality is that Washington has supported oppressive dictatorships all round the world: in Indonesia, the Congo, Central America, Latin America, the Philippines, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea, Pakistan and elsewhere. These dictatorships earn Washington’s support by opening their economies to corporate exploitation of their natural resources and their labor. Foreign corporate goals rarely serve the local people of smaller nations and are usually injurious to them. Therefore, at times, extreme violence against one small nation is useful in getting others to obey Washington’s orders without too much protest. He notes that a majority of Americans are kept uninformed about these large world realities.

Critics of Professor Chomsky have said that he pays too much attention to Washington’s wrongdoing and not enough to those of other governments. To this charge, his answer is simple. As one committed to universal principles, he is aware and critical of the wrongs others commit, but he reserves his main energy for studying the state that he is a citizen of, and therefore bears primary responsibility for, his own. Students of early Chinese thought will notice an important Confucian principle in this approach, namely that one must make one’s self (one’s society, one’s nation) a good example before trying to rectify others: Zheng ji, zheng ren.

References

Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of BF Skinner's Verbal Behavior.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of Theory of Syntax, Page 160. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1970, June 18). Combodia. Newyork review of books, p. 94.

Chomsky, N. (1973). Chomsky on Anarchism,Page 119.

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language & Politics, Page 119. AK press.

Chomsky, N. (1999, Oct). East Timor Retrospective. Le Monde Diplomatique, p. 32.

Chomsky, N. (2003). Chomsky on Democracy & Education, Page 102.

Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or Survival, Page 8-9. Metropolitan Book.

chomsky, N. (2006). Failed States, Page 48. Metropolitan Books.

Chomsky, N. (2006). The essential Chomsky page 406. Metropolitan Books.

chomsky, N. (2008). Essential Chomsky, Responsibility of intellectuals, Page 53. Penguin.

Hutchison, P. D. (Director). (2015). REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM [Motion Picture].

John, L. (1978). Noam Chomsky, Page 77. Penguin.

Lyons, J. (1978). Noam Chomsky (revised ed.). Page 6. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Moss, R. (2007, Sep 14). ZNet. Retrieved Nov 20, 2016, from https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-brief-review-of-the-work-of-professor-noam-chomsky-by-moss-roberts/

Roberts, M. (2007, September 14). ZNet. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-brief-review-of-the-work-of-professor-noam-chomsky-by-moss-roberts/

Roberts, M. (n.d.). Zcomm.org. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-brief-review-of-the-work-of-professor-noam-chomsky-by-moss-roberts/