Criticism of Noam Chomsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection.

Criticism of Noam Chomsky - the linguist and social critic - typically centers on his political writings on American political and military power. Noam Chomsky’s political writing has created debate across the political spectrum, forming the basis for many books and articles criticizing his views. This has led to a number of notable controversies.

Contents

Claims of distorted presentation of information

Chomsky's political writings have been criticised as distorting the facts by using quotes out of context.

Oliver Kamm wrote:

  • Chomsky goes out of his way to omit the context that allows reasoned conclusions to be drawn. All that those readers have to go on is Chomsky's ex cathedra judgements and the appearance of scholarship generated by innumerable foot-notes. [1]

Chomsky responded to Kamm's accusations in Prospect Magazine, alleging that Kamm engaged in misquotation and sheer fabrication. [2]


Chomsky's commentary on the Vietnam War

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

An example can be found in a 1970 exchange of letters, between Chomsky and Samuel P. Huntington, who accused Chomsky of misrepresenting his views on Vietnam, writing, "It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated".[3][4][5]

Chomsky's commentary on Kosovo & East Timor

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Similarly Chomsky was accused by Oliver Kamm of misrepresenting former UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan by "omission and fabrication" in his book A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West. Kamm contends that Chomsky "doesn’t appear to have read the book he claims to be quoting from" [6].

Analysis of the motives of policy-makers

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Some writers have condemned Chomsky's political works as subjective reductionism. Professor Paul Robinson wrote in the New York Review of Books that Chomsky presents a "maddeningly simple-minded" view of the world [7]. In a 1969 exchange of letters, Stanley Hoffmann, a fellow opponent of the Vietnam War, wrote that Chomsky was guilty of "uncomplicated attribution of evil objectives to his foes" and characterized Chomsky as assuming that "American objectives in Vietnam [...] were wicked." Hoffman was skeptical of Chomsky's process of analysis in attempting to determine the motives of policy makers [8].

In 1989, historian Carolyn Eisenberg argued that Chomsky's critical picture of US Cold War policy did not agree with the documentary evidence. Eisenberg questioned Chomsky's assertion that the policies were motivated by the interests of the elite class rather than an actual fear of the Soviet Union in an exchange of open letters [9].

Charges of Khmer Rouge apologism

Chomsky has been criticized for opinions voiced in a number of articles and books in which he discusses the political situation in Cambodia between 1973 and 1979 and the contemporary media response in the US during that period. In 1979 Chomsky, with Edward Herman, used varying contradictory reports of mass atrocities committed by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge to exemplify the workings of their Propaganda model.

They argued that "sharply conflicting assessments" of events in Cambodia from different reputable sources were being selected from by the media in a way that created "a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered." [10] This argument, first presented in the article Distortions at Fourth Hand, was expanded in the pair’s 1979 book After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology.

Subsequently, Chomsky was accused of "minimising the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia". [11] According to Fred Barnes of the American Spectator, Chomsky "seemed to believe that tales of holocaust in Cambodia were [...] propaganda". Barnes speculated whether Chomsky felt the notion of genocide in Cambodia was "part of an effort to rewrite the history of the Indochinese war in a way more favorable to the U.S." [12]. In the New Criterion Keith Windschuttle described Chomsky as the Pol Pot regime’s "most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist"[13]. Windshuttle's essay though is not footnoted and has been criticised at misrepresenting Chomsky; in particular his assertion that Chomsky supported NLF terror. [14].

Writer Paul Bogdanor compared Chomsky’s methods to that of neo-Nazi attempts to discredit the diary of Anne Frank, further relating that After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology is "not unlike the works of Holocaust denial that serve as its echo and mirror image" [15].

Allegations of anti-Semitism

Although Chomsky is himself Jewish, he has been accused of anti-Semitism by a number of critics and on a variety of different issues. Examples of these include Chomsky's position on the following matters:

  • Chomsky's criticisms of the policies of Israel and his writings on the Middle East.
  • Statements regarding Jewish influence and the status of anti-Semitism in the United States.
  • Support of writers considered by some to be anti-Semitic.
  • Toleration for violence against Israelis.[16]

Chomsky and other leftists repetitively come under attack for being anti-semitic but most of them use the argument that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Chomsky's harsh criticisms of the policies of Israel has been cited as evidence of anti-Semitism. Chomsky has compared Israel to Nazi Germany on several occasions while criticizing Israeli domestic and foreign policy in their treatment of Palestinians. Critic Werner Cohn states that Chomsky's book The Fateful Triangle "...contains twelve references to Hitler. In each case some Jewish action is said to be like Hitler's or some attribute of the state of Israel or the Zionist movement reminds Chomsky of Hitler."

Chomsky has also been criticized for his alleged support for militant organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of whom use anti-Semitic rhetoric. "Philosphically, of course, anarcho-socialist Chomsky has almost nothing in common with Hezbollah, which seeks to establish an Iranian style theocracy dominated by coercive enforcement of sharia religious law," wrote Tzvi Fleischer in The Australian in 2006, "But as Chomsky ... [has] demonstrated many times ... anti-Americanism trumps everything else."[17]

Chomsky has drawn criticism following statements regarding Jewish power and influence in the United States. In 2002 Chomsky suggested that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control" and that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population." Critics have suggested that such statements are merely reiterations of standard anti-semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power. Chomsky's comments have been said to echo the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the hoax alleging a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. [18] Chomsky himself said in an interview that he was not implying that Jews controlled around 98% of control in America, but was using it as a hypothetical example for how some always want more power[19].

Steven Plaut criticises Chomsky's support for Israel Shahak, an Israeli academic and Holocaust survivor who has claimed that orthodox Judaism is genocidal and racist, [20] Plaut[21] as well as Alan Dershowitz, [22] also criticise his endorsement of Norman Finkelstein, whose writings they consider to be anti-Semitic. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, [23] accuses the "Jewish establishment" of exploiting the Holocaust for political and economic reasons.

Chomsky has responded to the charges of anti-Semitism made against him many times. In 2004, Chomsky responded thus "If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this."[24]

Faurisson affair

Robert Faurisson
Robert Faurisson
Main article: Faurisson affair

In 1979, Robert Faurisson, a French literary critic and professor of literature, published two letters in Le Monde which included claims that the gas chambers used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews did not exist [25]. The outrage caused by Faurisson's writings resulted in his conviction for defamation and subjection to a fine and prison sentence. Serge Thion, a French libertarian socialist scholar and Holocaust denier, asked Chomsky to lend his signature to a petition which supported Faurisson's right of academic freedom. Many French intellectuals considered this petition to be a legitimization of Faurisson's denial of the Holocaust, and a misrepresentation of Faurisson's credentials and intentions. Having signed the petition Chomsky wrote an essay [26] which was heavily critical of the French intellectual response. In this essay Chomsky determined that Faurisson was "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" but felt that this was irrelevant when defending absolute freedom of speech. Faurisson's editors subsequently used this essay as a preface to Mémoire en défense, Faurisson's book intended to defend his controversial views.

The French historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet attacked Chomsky in his essay [27]. His criticism focused on (1) the nature of the petition defending Faurisson, which Vidal-Naquet claimed was an attempt to legitimize Faurisson's Holocaust denial, and (2) Chomsky's essay defending Faurisson's right to free speech, which prefaced Mémoire en défense. Dismissing Chomsky's assertion that the essay was so used as a preface without his knowledge or consent, he questioned Chomsky's right to comment on Faurisson's work when he openly claimed to know very little about it. He also argued that Chomsky could have signed other petitions that defended the right to free speech without presenting Faurisson as a legitimate historian. Vidal-Naquet's essay concluded:

"The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a 'relatively apolitical sort of liberal.' You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colors of truth."

Chomsky's written statement that "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust" has resulted in criticisms from Werner Cohn that he is "morally and intellectually blind" and potentially "sympathetic to holocaust denial" [28]. In his book Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (ISBN 0-9645897-0-2), Cohn alleges that Chomsky co-wrote an article with Pierre Guillaume supporting Faurisson's stance and that he insisted on publishing the Political Economy of Human Rights with Vielle Taupe (Faurisson's publisher), rather than a commercial publisher, to show solidarity with Faurisson's cause. Chomsky disputed the details of Werner Cohn's allegations in a thousand-word [29] and concluded that "Cohn is a pathological liar."

Claims that Chomsky harbors an anti-American bias

See also: The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Right wing conservative author David Horowitz, formerly a member of the New Left during the 1960s, is one of Chomsky's most consistent critics. He has described Chomsky as the "Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate" and "the most treacherous intellect in America" claiming Chomsky has "one message alone: America is the Great Satan", in a series of articles along with historian Ronald Radosh. [30] Horowitz asserts that "It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted and even inverted… how every piece of evidence Chomsky assembles and every analysis he makes is subordinated to the overweening purpose of his life-work, which is to justify an idee fixe—his pathological hatred of his own country." Horowitz argues that Chomsky fulfills a role as the intellectual godfather of left wing anti-Americanism, giving "an authentic voice to the hatred of America that has been an enduring fact of our national scene since the mid-1960s." In 2004 Horowitz and Peter Collier (political author) compiled a set of critical essays in a book The Anti-Chomsky Reader which aimed to analyze some of Chomsky's more popular writing and commentary.

The social critic and author Camille Paglia has also accused Noam Chomsky of harbouring Anti-American bias. In an interview with salon.com from October 27, 2006, when asked about the Bush administration's policies towards Iran, she stated that "The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky's books -- which I've always considered half lunatic". Paglia went on to accuse Chomsky of having a pathological hatred of the United States which she believed stemmed "from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore". Paglia also argued that Chomsky's "toxic view of American imperialism and interventionism" was an accurate description "of the rigid foreign policy of the Bush administration". Paglia also expressed worries that the popularity of Chomsky's views on American Foreign Policy in the universities, were making America's most elite graduates leave their studies with a "callow anti-American, anti-military cast to their thinking". [31] Chomsky has often noted in his talks and interviews that the concept 'Anti-American' is borrowed from totalitarian regimes. Further, he has often said that U.S. interventionism has decreased in some ways over the years, so today there wouldn't be a CIA-backed coup overthrow of a democratically-elected leader like Allende or Mossadegh and others in the past.

Criticism of Chomsky's stance on proposed Israel-Palestinian conflict solutions

Although he regularly condemns the Israeli government's actions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Chomsky has recently come under fire [32] from some pro-Palestinian activists for his advocacy [33] of the Geneva Accord, which it is argued rules out a one-state solution for Israel-Palestine and negates the Palestinian right of return. Chomsky responds to this by arguing that the right of return, while inalienable, will never be realized, and stating that proposals without significant international backing—such as a one-state solution—are unrealistic (and therefore unethical) goals:

"I will keep here to advocacy in the serious sense: accompanied by some kind of feasible program of action, free from delusions about "acting on principle" without regard to "realism"—that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people" [34].

Criticism of Chomsky's political views

Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [35] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also claims that Chomsky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)". However, Chomsky has written and spoken about both nature and women. Alongside preventing nuclear conflict, he said that protecting the environment is one of, "the most awesome problems of human history,"[36] and he has said that of all recent movements, "the one that’s had the most profound influ­ence and impact is probably the feminist movement, and I think it’s very important."[37]

Chomsky's qualified support for John Kerry as president in 2004 was controversial amongst some anarchists, who tend to be critical of all political parties and electoral politics in general. Chomsky referred to Kerry as "Bush-lite"--a term coined early in the 2004 Democratic primary by Howard Dean[citation needed]. Chomsky argued that there was not much of a difference between the two candidates or the two parties they represent but that, "both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes" [38].

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.

Chomsky is also criticized among anarcho-capitalists (often identified with Austrian economists and some libertarians) for his alleged statist tendencies and for his belief that government action can solve social problems by using laws and force. [39][40]

Counter-Criticisms

Some supporters of Chomsky have alleged that at least some accusations made against him are based on dishonest scholarship. See for example [41], which defends Chomsky in relation to the Faurisson affair and Cambodia.

See also Dissenting Views of the Khmer Rouge for commentary on this position.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/lying_about_his.html
  2. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200601--.htm
  3. ^ Chomsky, Noam (January 1 1970). "After Pinkville". New York Review of Books 13 (12). 
  4. ^ Huntington, Samuel P. (February 26 1970). "A Frustrating Task". New York Review of Books 14 (4). 
  5. ^ A Frustrating Task Noam Chomsky debates with Samuel Huntington. chomsky.info. Retrieved on 2006-09-05.
  6. ^ http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/chomsky_and_sou.html
  7. ^ http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.2/ReaderResponse/1.htm
  8. ^ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11370
  9. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----02.htm
  10. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
  11. ^ Geoffrey Sampson, Biographical Companion to Modern Thought
  12. ^ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html
  13. ^ http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
  14. ^ http://www.leftwatch.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=7060
  15. ^ http://www.paulbogdanor.com/review-atc.html
  16. ^ Mamet, David (2006). [No title.] In What Israel Means to Me by Alan Dershowitz (ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons: 258-259.
  17. ^ Hughes, Zachary. "MIT Professor Noam Chomsky Champions Hezbollah." On Campus Fall 2006: 1-2, 27.
  18. ^ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381
  19. ^ http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1222253.ece
  20. ^ http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/shahak.html
  21. ^ http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17728
  22. ^ http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm
  23. ^ http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html
  24. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041021.htm
  25. ^ http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p40_Faurisson.html
  26. ^ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8010-free-expression.html Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression
  27. ^ http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/ On Faurisson and Chomsky
  28. ^ http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
  29. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm open letter
  30. ^ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020
  31. ^ http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/index2.html
  32. ^ http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6109
  33. ^ http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5240
  34. ^ http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6110
  35. ^ http://www.primitivism.com/chomsky.htm
  36. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1988----.htm
  37. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1991----.htm
  38. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html
  39. ^ http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1132
  40. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm
  41. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm this article

External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky_ab0e.html"