>Chomsky argues, rightly I think, that understanding what we care about in
>society is not nearly as complex as understanding what we care about in the
>physical sciences. It's all about power structures, and those aren't really
>super-complicated. Chomsky argues that knowing social theory, for instance,
>is necessary but way over-rated. The task is to explain how elites organize
>themselves to threaten, cajole, entice, and trick commoners. If we can fix
>that problem, we will have solved the cardinal social issue.
I admire Chomsky a lot, but things are nowhere near that simple. Power structures can be very complex and their modes of operation very indirect. The ruling class is often divided within itself - and there are many layers to the ruling class, from provincial elites to a global elite. And ideology operates in very complicated ways. That's why you need theory, and why Chomsky is wrong to think that just getting the facts out is enough. But this is an old debate, I know.
Doug