User talk:Russil Wvong/Chomsky

Main article: Talk: Noam Chomsky

This last section needs more work. I have the impression that Chomsky's prominence has increased as a result of 9/11, but I need to find some sources. Russil Wvong 22:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Russil, thanks for your work. Would you be willing to move this to a sandbox, like User:Russil Wvong/Chomsky, so that we can edit it collaboratively before putting it up? Here are my general reactions: 1) As written, this section underemphasises Chomsky's worldwide readership. Many of his books have been translated into countless languages and marginalized as he may be in mainstream American press, I believe he's quoted with some frequency outside the United States. He gave the keynote speech at the WSF, etc. 2) The quotes are great. If we could find ways to shorten them, that would be even better. :) 3) In the three reactions at the end, I think the idea that there were three classes of reactions is pretty much original research. "Even liberals" is not good; liberals are often the loudest critics of Chomsky. Who are you thinking here? DanKeshet 05:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, DanKeshet. I'll set up the sandbox.

I agree with (1). In particular, the comments about his being marginalized in the mainstream media (TV as well as print) should be clarified: it's the mainstream media in the US.

I tried to indicate Chomsky's worldwide readership with the first sentence of "influence outside the mainstream media", but you're right, it could use some expansion. He's regarded as a hero and an inspiration by the current generation of activists and radicals. Perhaps those two points should be separated: his large worldwide audience (evidenced by attendance at his speeches and the popularity of his books), and his being an inspiration to activists in particular.

After rereading Robert Buzzanco's Bernath lecture [1], I'm thinking there needs to be some discussion of the influence of Chomsky and other New Left historians in the field of diplomatic history (the study of the history of foreign policy). Maybe towards the end of the Vietnam section. To quote Buzzanco:

The New Left emerged, or maybe more appropriately erupted, onto a field dominated by an increasingly stale debate over idealism vs. realism and stifled by a consensus on the virtue of America's role in the world. It benefited from some of the sharpest minds in the historical profession and then from a large-scale hunger on the part of Americans to learn more about the nation and the system that was waging a destructive and immoral war against the people of Vietnam. Building on the work of Charles Austin Beard and beginning with the publication of William Appleman Williams' Tragedy of American Diplomacy in 1959, New Left authors proliferated and arguably dominated the field for the next decade or so. Many of the titles they produced became widely read and may be considered classics in the field: The New Empire and many versions of America, Russia, and the Cold War by Walter LaFeber; Economic Aspects of New Deal Diplomacy and Architects of Illusion by Lloyd Gardner; Arno Mayer's amazing books on World War I and its aftermath and equally amazing works on World War II and its aftermath by Gabriel and Joyce Kolko; Thomas McCormick's China Market; Gar Alperovitz on Atomic Diplomacy; Joan Hoff Wilson on business and foreign policy; books and essays by Carl Parrini, Marilyn Young, Martin Sklar, Carl Oglesby, Barton Bernstein, and Thomas Paterson; an awesome body of work from Noam Chomsky.(9) Though a diverse group of scholars, New Left authors shared a commitment to analyze the economic, materialist (domestic) forces conditioning American foreign policies, most importantly the Open Door; to question corporate and presidential power; to counter claims, in the Cold War era, of monolithic communism and Soviet aggression; and to critically examine claims of American beneficence and goodwill in the world. Many New Left works embodied all those traits, but others, such as Alperovitz, did not stress economics but may be included because their work diverged so markedly from the official stories being produced by historians willing to apologize for American power.

At the same time, Buzzanco notes that the New Left has been marginalized within the field of diplomatic history, too:

If any particular group or approach is conspicuously absent from the mainstream in our field, it is the economic or structural Left, the descendants of the New Left of the 1960s one could maintain. The New Left, so widespread and popular just over a generation ago, has virtually disappeared from the landscape of diplomatic history, swept away by an ideological counterrevolution from the right and an abandonment from today's so-called left. ... to the current generation of young scholars and graduate students, the New Left is something of a relic, or to use Ross Perot's favorite analogy, similar to the crazy aunt who everyone whispers about but who isn't taken seriously. ...

I'll shorten the Matusow and Asprey quotes (and I won't try to jam in the Buzzanco quotes). I thought the Matusow paper was well worth reading in its entirety, to get the full context of the domestic struggle over Vietnam, so I don't want to shorten that one too much.

I agree with (3) -- on reflection, the section should be omitted entirely. (I was thinking of the Chomsky/Hitchens/Casey exchange in particular; also the Gitlin "Blame America First" and Walzer "Decent Left" articles. When you say that "liberals are often the loudest critics of Chomsky", who are you thinking of? Only Schlesinger comes to mind. Brad DeLong had a web page up on Chomsky prior to September 11, but I didn't think his criticism was particularly strident.)

Russil Wvong 16:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think all these quotes are great; I'll work on cutting just the meatiest parts from them. Re: 3, I'm fine with skipping the classification. Re: liberals as loudest critics, I guess I was thinking more from personal experience than a prolonged study. Things like this Dan Kennedy article on the liberal-radical cleavage at the start of the Afghanistan War (from the liberal perspective). Or a visit to NPR in which the host casually called him "a human flamethrower", not realizing that Chomsky might disagree with that characterization of himself (sorry, no link). Chomsky himself picks out people like Anthony Lewis and Thomas Friedman as examples to quote and ridicule pretty often. DanKeshet 21:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Not sure I'd say that Kennedy's criticism of Chomsky compares to Horowitz's calling him an "ayatollah of anti-American hate." Russil Wvong 22:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I guess not. :) Regarding the "international" question, I think the point we're both edging toward is that there's two components to Chomsky's international noteworthiness: 1) Chomsky has what Horowitz calls a "secular cult"--an international following of activists and fellow travelers who read and translate his books, attend his speaking events, listen to his interviews on activist radio, etc. 2) Outside of the US, Chomsky is quoted by more mainstream media. For example, google returns 45 pages on a search of aljazeera.net for "Chomsky". Do you agree that these are the two separate points? DanKeshet 23:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.

I think I'd break it down even further:

Within the US, there's lots of people who go to Chomsky's lectures and read his books who aren't activists themselves -- they just want to learn more about US foreign policy. Oliver Kamm cites a couple examples near the bottom of this blog post: [2]. 9-11 spent seven weeks on the New York Times Extended Bestseller List [3]; there are 300,000 copies in print.

The current generation of anti-globalization and anti-war activists who regard Chomsky as an inspiration. Radical historian Buzzanco referred to Chomsky's "awesome body of work" in the 1999 Bernath Lecture [4]; Naomi Klein cited Chomsky's influence on young "adbusters" in No Logo; Chomsky spoke at the 2002 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil [5].

Chomsky is widely read outside the US. 9-11 was published in 26 countries and translated into 23 foreign languages [6]; it was a bestseller in at least five countries, including Canada and Japan [7]. He appears more frequently in the mainstream media outside the US: for example, in the UK, on the BBC and in the Guardian; in Canada, on the CBC and in the Toronto Star. The list of articles and op-eds at chomsky.info [8] lists op-eds in Al-Ahram (Egypt) and the Khaleej Times (UAE).

Russil Wvong 01:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. Though I think we shouldn't explicitly classify his audience; rather we should include all three aspects in the discussion. DanKeshet 19:49, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good.

I'm wondering what to call this section. Perhaps the section titles should go like this:

Opposition to the Vietnam War

Marginalization in mainstream American media

Worldwide audience

The "marginalization" section should note that after 9/11, Chomsky's been getting more coverage in the mainstream US media (New York Times, Washington Post).

Another note for the Vietnam section: In the spring of 1972, Chomsky testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committtee, chaired by Fulbright, on the origins of the Vietnam War. From Randall Bennett Woods, J. William Fulbright, Vietnam, and the Search for a Cold War Foreign Policy (1998), p. 256. Russil Wvong 23:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asprey quote

Who is Robert Asprey quoting when he says Chomsky's piece was one of the "key documents..."? I would like to summarize and cite the Matusow quote and track down the original for the Asprey quote. DanKeshet 22:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll look it up. (I borrowed the Asprey book from the library a few years ago.) Russil Wvong 22:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asprey is quoting David Schalk, War and the Ivory Tower: Algeria and Vietnam (1991). I found a review which makes it sound quite interesting. Russil Wvong 21:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide audience

File:Noam Chomsky Chennai India November2001.jpg

Noam Chomsky in Chennai, India, on November 2001.

The first paragraph looks good, although I'd like to add more supporting evidence (e.g. specific numbers for 9-11, specific foreign media that publish Chomsky's op-eds), and a mention of Chomsky's drawing standing-room-only crowds. The photo from Chennai would be good here.

The stuff about Chomsky's "cult following" is looking disorganized and too lengthy. Maybe I'll try to condense it. It'd probably be worth mentioning the influence of Manufacturing Consent, but that's about it.

I'm also thinking of cutting down the mentions of Chomsky's influence on cultural groups. Russil Wvong 00:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think your changes are great, DanKeshet. I'll take another pass as well.

One question: I'm wondering if it'd be POV to use the word "celebrity" to describe Chomsky. Does it have too much of a connotation of frivolity? Would "famous" be better?

I'm also thinking that this section should mention that he's often regarded as a "dissident". Russil Wvong 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: my edits

Just a rundown, as I think we're getting closer.

and on the internet

The internet is part of the world. :)

'question his marginalization' and 'react to criticisms'

I think that "question his marginalization" is implicit in the view of him as a dissident, especially as I have now linked the concept of chomsky as an "inspiration" (which I agree is better than "hero") and the concept of him as a dissident. Mostly, though, I think that 'question his marginalization' and 'react to criticisms' are inappropriate because these are things that virtually every movement does. U.S. conservatives say the media has a liberal bias, and constantly talk about "but you won't hear that from the media these days". I also think that freepers and instapundit folks, mainline Democrats, etc. are just as voracious in attacking perceived slights against their heroes as Chomsky believers are.

ordering

I've tried to set it up like this

Very popular, cult following, cultural perceptions, worldwide perceptions. This is a little random, but I think the musicians' promotion of Chomsky, the perception of him as a dissident, and the outsider perception of Chomsky followers as cultish are all linked.

DanKeshet 00:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good!

"I think that 'question his marginalization' is implicit in the view of him as a dissident.... Mostly, though, I think that 'question his marginalization' and 'react to criticisms' are inappropriate because these are things that virtually every movement does."

But I think that's pretty interesting in itself; most public intellectuals don't have a "movement." Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, and George Kennan, for example, don't have fans in the same way that Chomsky does. (It's not limited to Chomsky, but I think it's mostly political figures who receive this kind of veneration -- Reagan, for example. IMHO, it's a symptom of the way that politics has increasingly replaced religion.) So I think it's worthwhile to describe this explicitly. Russil Wvong 00:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a sticking point. How ready do you think this is? I think we should give notice in Talk:Noam Chomsky that we are going to insert it into the article, then give 24 hours or so for people to look at it, before sticking it in. I wouldn't normally, but it is a shakeup to a featured article and there's no rush. DanKeshet 01:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think the draft is in pretty good shape -- thanks for working on it!

I'll go ahead and post a copy of the proposed text on the Talk:Noam Chomsky page. I suspect that not too many people have looked at it so far, so there may be quite a bit of feedback to resolve. I agree that there's no rush. Russil Wvong 06:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)