[Marxism] Chomsky profile/interview

Clinton Fernandes cfer at deakin.edu.au
Tue Mar 22 06:23:57 MST 2005


Sunday, March 20, 2005
the Sunday Herald/UK
Noam Chomsky... Still Furious at 76
by Alan Taylor

ON my way to meet Noam Chomsky in Boston, I pick up a copy
of The American Prospect, whose cover features snarling
caricatures of US Vice-President Dick Cheney, and of
Chomsky: the man dubbed by Bono "the Elvis of academia".
Cheney is presented as the proverbial bull in an
international china shop, Chomsky is portrayed by this
"magazine of liberal intelligence" as the epitome of high-
minded dove-ish, misguided idealism. Chomsky, of course, is
well used to such attacks. For every cloying article by a
disciple, there is a rocket from the enemy camp revelling in
his perceived failings and undermining his reputation,
denigrating his scholarship as a linguist and joyfully
repeating statements which, when taken out of context, seem
tinged with fanaticism.

To his credit, Chomsky puts them all on his website, whether
it's The New Yorker describing him as "the devil's
accountant" and "one of the greatest minds of the 20th
century", or The Nation, which lampooned him as "a very
familiar kind of academic hack" whose career has been "the
product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of
detractors, and the fudging of his findings". He stands
accused of asserting that every US President since Franklin
D Roosevelt should have been impeached as war criminals; of
supporting the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia; and of
comparing Israel to the Third Reich.

Leaving behind red-brick Harvard, where the winter snow is
at last beginning to melt, one enters a vast industrial
estate. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where
Chomsky has been professor of modern languages and
linguistics since 1976, is home to more than 10,000
students, each of whom pays around $50,000 a year for the
privilege of studying at America's self-styled "ideas factory".

Chomsky, who at 76 is technically retired, inhabits a suite
of offices overflowing with foreign translations of his
books and dusty academic journals. A photograph of the
British philosopher Bertrand Russell hangs above a door, as
a picture of the Pope might decorate a priest's study. The
professor, his gatekeeper says, has gone for a walk, but he
should return soon, if he can find his way back. Apparently,
he is exploring a hitherto uncharted underground route on
the campus.

I am shown into his office, which looks as if it has been
burgled. Papers are piled high and strewn on every available
surface. On a desk are photographs of his grandchildren.
Chomsky, who has been married to the same woman for more
than half a century, has three children, two daughters --
one of whom works for Oxfam, the other is a teacher -- and a
son, who is a software engineer. When finally he does
appear, I am informed that my allotted hour has shrunk
magically to 45 minutes. Interviewers, it's intimated, are
lining up like planes on a runway waiting for take-off.
"Don't take it personally," I'm told.

I remind Chomsky of his 1990 visit to Scotland, when he
spoke on "self-determination and power" at the Pearce
Institute in Govan, Glasgow. "You've got to remind me what
this is about," says Chomsky. This does not seem a promising
start. I remind him that he is coming to Edinburgh to
deliver a Gifford Lecture. "I know that," he says, rather
testily. "But who are you?"

Chomsky is quietly impatient, his voice subdued and crackly.
He has retained his wavy hair, which flops over his ears,
and he dresses like a style-unconscious academic -- black
trainers, white socks, denims, charity-shop jumper. To some
interviewers he comes across as bitter and despairing but
others, including me, find a seam of laconic humour beneath
the serious, restrained manner. When he starts to talk he
often forgets to stop and in the course of our foreshortened
hour he proves as difficult to interrupt as the Queen's
Christmas message. Wind him up and away he goes.

But with Chomsky it's hard to know where to begin. Having
spent more than 50 years at the MIT, he is the author of
dozens of books and countless articles. A decade ago, Nature
mentioned him in the same breath as Darwin and Descartes.
Among his modern peers are Einstein, Picasso and Freud.
Apparently, only Shakespeare and the Bible have been cited
in scholarly publications more often than Chomsky has been.
His influence is equally formidable, including generations
of media students and the likes of John Pilger, Harold
Pinter, Naomi Klein and James Kelman.

"If Chomsky has a specialist subject," wrote Kelman, "then
some would argue it is not linguistics, nor the philosophy
of language, rather it is US global policy, with particular
reference to the dissemination of all related knowledge."

Not all of Chomsky's devotees would agree with Kelman. Some,
such as author and columnist Paul Johnson, wish he'd stuck
with linguistics and kept his nose out of politics. Through
his study of language and, in particular, syntax, Chomsky is
credited with transforming the way foreign languages are
taught through his theory of a "universal grammar", and of
"revolutionising our view of the mind". Several of his
books, including Syntactic Structures and Theory Of Syntax,
published in 1957 and 1965 respectively, are invariably
referred to as essential documents, though they're hardly
accessible to the layman.

Meanwhile Manufacturing Consent, which he co-wrote with
Edward Herman in 1988, is on every rookie journalist's
reading list. Chomsky is the sceptics' sceptic, believing
that the true nature of the US's role in the world is
distorted and hidden from the American people by the
corporate-owned media elite and federal government
representatives who protect business interests in order to
get re-elected or keep their jobs in the administration.
Though he reluctantly supported Democrat John Kerry's failed
pitch for the presidency last November, Chomsky is neither a
Republican nor a Democrat. From his perspective, there's not
a lot to choose between them; they're both "business parties".

We begin by talking about the piece in The American
Prospect. "It's the journal of what they modestly call 'the
decent left'," he says, oozing contempt. "It's kind of
moderate social democrat and they see themselves as
embattled. You know, caught between two powerful forces
which are crushing them. One is Dick Cheney, representing
the White House, the Pentagon, one of the most powerful
forces in history, and the other one -- an equal and
opposite force -- is me. Do you think any intellectual or
academic in history has ever received such praise? I mean,
it's way beyond the Nobel Prize. I already got someone to
put it on the website. It tells you something about their
attitudes. They're pathetic, frightened, cowardly little
people."

Interesting, I note, that though his face is on the
magazine's cover, his name is nowhere to be seen in the
piece. "Oh, no, no, no," Chomsky says, grinning at my
naivety, "you can't mention it. You can't mention anything.
You can't read anything. All you can do is report gossip. So
you heard some gossip saying that I was in favour of Pol Pot
or I support Osama bin Laden. That I'm in favour of
[Slobodan] Milosevic. And then you heard it at a dinner
party so it must be true. My previous interviewer is doing a
documentary mainly on Palestine. She just got a PhD at New
York University. She was telling me that if she ever so much
as mentioned my name her faculty members practically
collapsed in terror. The idea that you could look at
anything of mine was so frightening it couldn't happen.
Which is standard. You can't think because that's too
dangerous. Or you can't look at public opinion. You should
see public opinion. It's amazing."

In what way? Just before last November's presidential
election, he says, two of America's most prestigious public
attitude monitoring institutions -- the Program on
International Policy Attitudes and the Chicago Council on
Foreign Relations -- published studies which showed that
both political parties, the media and what he calls "the
decent left" are far to the right of the American public on
most major issues. "I'm right in the mainstream," says
Chomsky. "And, of course, it wasn't reported."

"The major facts were just suppressed," he says. "Actually,
these two reports were reported in two local papers in the
country and a couple of op eds. That's it. In the entire
country. The most important information possible right
before an election."

What the reports showed, he explains, was that the American
public are strongly opposed to the use of force, except in
terms of the UN charter, and in the face of imminent attack.
"The public wants the UN, not the US, to take the lead in an
international crisis," says Chomsky. "That includes
reconstruction, security and so on in Iraq. A majority of
the public is actually in favour of giving up the veto at
the UN so the US would go along with the majority. An
overwhelming majority supports the Kyoto protocol. In fact,
so enthusiastically that Bush voters assumed that he was in
favour of it, because it was so obviously the right thing to do.

"The same huge majority is in favour of joining the
International Criminal Court. A large majority of the
population takes it to be a moral issue for the government
to provide health care for everybody. It goes on and on like
this. The public is far to the left of anything in the
establishment."

Come the elections, he says, the public suffered from mass
delusion. They didn't understand what the candidates stood
for. What they were voting for was imagery. "Elections are
run by the public relations industry; the same guys who sell
toothpaste." Issues don't register on the radar. "You don't
talk about what the candidates stand for, what you have is
John Kerry goose-hunting and riding his motorcycle and
George Bush pretending to be a simple kind of guy, who chops
wood and takes care of his cattle . . ."

And plays golf?

"No, no. You don't push that too much, that's elitist. He is
supposed to be an ordinary guy. Take a look at him! His
sleeves are rolled up; he's just getting ready to go back to
the ranch. You don't present him as what he is: a spoiled
frat boy from Yale who only got somewhere because of his
parents."

Chomsky, one suspects, could continue in this vein ad
nauseam. Even now, at an age when most people would rather
be in a gated Florida compound than constantly locking horns
with the establishment, he persists in banging his head
against closed doors. In the US, he is either a pariah or a
prophet, "a kind of modern-day soothsayer", according to his
biographer Robert Barsky.

"Unlike many leftists of his generation," says Barsky,
"Chomsky never flirted with movements or organisations that
were later revealed to be totalitarian, oppressive,
exclusionary, anti-revolutionary, and elitist . . . He has
very little to regret. His work, in fact, contains some of
the most accurate analyses of this century."

Nobody can deny Chomsky's commitment to the cause of truth.
His father was a renowned Hebrew scholar who emigrated from
the Ukraine to the United States in 1913 to avoid being
drafted into the army. His mother was also a Hebrew scholar
and wrote children's books. Chomsky was born in Philadelphia
in 1928, and his precocity was nurtured at an experimental
elementary school. By 10, he was reading the proofs of his
father's edition of a 13th-century Hebrew grammar, and
writing about the rise of fascism in Spain for his school
newspaper. As a teenager he would often take a train from
Philadelphia to New York to visit his uncle, who had a
newspaper stand and a changeable political viewpoint. "First
he was a follower of Trotsky," Chomsky says, "then he was an
anti-Trotskyite. He also taught himself so much Freud he
wound up as a lay psychoanalyst with a penthouse apartment."

At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Chomsky
met his mentor, Zellig Harris, a politically active
professor of linguistics. It was Harris who dissuaded him
from abandoning his studies and going to Israel where the
new state was in formation. In 1956, at an MIT symposium on
information theory, Chomsky presented a paper which
overturned conventional linguistic wisdom. "Other linguists
had said language had all the formal precision of
mathematics," said George Miller, a psychologist who was in
the audience, "but Chomsky was the first linguist to make
good the claim."

Throughout his life, Chomsky has maintained his twin
interests in politics and linguistics but it is the former
which has consumed his energies in recent years and given
him such a public profile. When he speaks, he says, crowds
turn up in their thousands. In Sweden, the venue changed
from a small hall to a football stadium. He turns down many
more requests than he accepts. Rarely does he agree to
appear on American television, because -- as I can testify
-- he will not compromise by talking in sound bites. Proper
discourse requires time to allow arguments to develop.

"You can only be on television if you have concision," he
says. "That means you can say something between two
commercials. That's a terrific technique of propaganda. On
the rare occasions when I'm asked to be on television, I
usually refuse for this reason. If you're gonna be asked a
question, say, about terrorism and you're given three
sentences between commercials, you've got two choices. You
can repeat conventional ideology -- you say, yeah, Iran
supports terrorism. Or you can sound like you're from
Neptune. You can say, yeah, the US is one of the leading
terrorist states. The people have a right to ask what you
mean. And so if it was a sane news channel -- al-Jazeera,
say -- you could talk about it and explain what you mean.
You're not allowed to do that in the United States."

On occasion, one suspects, Chomsky doth protest too much.
Like fellow American "dissidents", such as Michael Moore and
Gore Vidal, he may complain about the manipulative power of
the media and government but he can hardly complain that he
has been rendered voiceless. Indeed, these days the internet
is a potent weapon in his armoury. He can't be both the most
cited living person and marginalised.

There is little doubt, however, that his relentless
monitoring of the American media and his fundamental
distrust of the denizens of Washington DC make him a
formidable and eloquent adversary and, consequently, persona
non grata in certain quarters. In general, he believes that
the US should stay out of other countries' affairs. Bush's
White House, he says, only believes in democracy when it
serves American interests. The same guys who backed Saddam
Hussein's brutal suppression of the Shi'ites are the ones
who ordered the invasion of Iraq.

He is in full flow, bashing Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of
the war in Iraq and US nominee for the presidency of the
World Bank, rubbishing Tony Blair -- "I suppose Hitler
believed what he was saying too" -- and recalling how, in
1985, Ronald Reagan declared a national emergency because he
thought Nicaragua was about to march into Texas, when his
assistant pokes her head round his door and says my
45-minute hour is up. On the way out, Chomsky draws my
attention to a ghoulish painting hidden behind a filing cabinet.

"It's a terrific Rorschach test," he says menacingly. "When
I ask people from North America what it is, nobody knows.
When I ask people from South America, everybody knows. If
you ask people from Europe, maybe 10% know. What it is, is
Archbishop Romero on the 25th anniversary of his
assassination [in El Salvador], six Latin American
intellectuals -- Jesuits -- who were also murdered, all by
elite forces armed and trained by the United States who also
killed another 70,000 people. Nobody knows a thing about it.

"Suppose it had been in Czechoslovakia. Suppose the Russians
had murdered an archbishop and killed [Vaclav] Havel and
half-a-dozen of his associates. Would we know about it?
Yeah. We probably would have nuked them. But when we do it,
it doesn't exist. It reminds me of the world."

Noam Chomsky will give the Gifford Lecture -- Illegal but
Legitimate: A Dubious Doctrine for the Times -- at the
McEwan Hall, Edinburgh, at 5.15pm on Tuesday




More information about the Marxism mailing list