http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199105--.htm
On 12/7/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> gotta run & do a radio show, but here's the cite on the Chomsky
> article and its opening grafs:
>
>
> New Left Review I/187, May-June 1991
> JOSHUA COHEN AND JOEL ROGERS
> KNOWLEDGE, MORALITY AND HOPE: THE SOCIAL THOUGHT OF NOAM CHOMSKY
>
> In his first published essay on politics, Noam Chomsky announced his
> conviction that '[i]t is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak
> the truth and to expose lies.' [1] Acting on that conviction, Chomsky
> has long supplemented his work in linguistics with writing on
> contemporary political affairs, focusing principally on the politics
> of the Middle East, the immorality of us foreign policy, and the role
> of American mass media and intellectuals in disguising and
> rationalizing that policy. [2] By contrast with his work in
> linguistics, which is principally theoretical, Chomsky's political
> writings in the main address more straightforwardly factual
> questions. As he emphasizes, these can be settled without special
> methods or training, and their significance can be appreciated
> through the application of common-sense norms and beliefs (for
> example, that aggression is wrong, concentrated power is dangerous,
> and citizens have greater responsibility for the policies of their
> own country than for those of other states), as aided by 'a bit of
> open-mindedness, normal intelligence, and healthy scepticism.' [3]
>
> The characteristic focus, intensity and hopefulness of Chomsky's
> political writings, however, reflect a set of more fundamental views
> about human nature, justice and social order that are not simple
> matters of fact. This article explores these more fundamental ideas,
> the central elements in Chomsky's social thought. We begin (section
> i) by sketching the relevant features of Chomsky's conception of
> human nature. We then examine his libertarian social ideals (section
> ii), and views on social stability and social evolution (section
> iii), both of which are animated by this conception of our nature.
>
> To anticipate what follows, we take Chomsky's social views to be
> marked by four key claims: (1) human beings have a 'moral nature' and
> a fundamental interest in autonomy; (2) these basic features of our
> nature support a libertarian socialist social ideal; (3) the interest
> in autonomy and the moral nature of human beings help to explain
> certain important features of actual social systems, including for
> example the use of deception and force to sustain unjust conditions,
> as well as their historical evolution; and (4) these same features of
> human nature provide reasons for hope that the terms of social order
> will improve from a moral point of view. Thus stated, these four
> claims are clearly neither concrete nor precise. But neither are they
> vacuous. They provide what we take to be a distinctive, optimistic
> perspective on human beings and human possibilities. The exposition
> that follows aims principally at a sympathetic clarification of this
> perspective. While our discussion is often critical, the criticisms
> themselves are intended to clarify Chomsky's views and to underscore
> deeper points of agreement with them.
>
> Before turning to that discussion, however, a cautionary remark about
> the character and self-conception of Chomsky's work in this area is
> in order. Most important, Chomsky does not have a theory of society
> or justice, in the sense of a clearly elaborated and defended set of
> fundamental principles. In fact, he believes that significant
> progress in ethical and social inquiry requires a systematic theory
> of human nature, something that does not now (and may never) exist,
> [4] and that in the absence of such a theory social and ethical
> thought must rely on relatively speculative and imprecise ideas
> ('guesses, hopes, expectations' [5]). Moreover, Chomsky denies any
> originality for his social and ethical views, identifying himself as
> a merely 'derivative fellow traveller' [6] in the anarchist and
> libertarian socialist traditions.
>
> Finally, and no doubt in part owing to his conviction that his social
> and ethical views are neither systematically developed nor original,
> Chomsky presents those views in an occasional and sketchy fashion.
> Almost always announced as speculative, and often advanced only in
> response to promptings from interviewers, their presentation commonly
> takes the form of quotation from and endorsement of certain views of
> other thinkers (for example, Rousseau, Kant, Humboldt and Marx). [7]
> Apart from creating natural difficulties for any attempt at
> systematic summary, the character of Chomsky's presentation
> underscores the need for caution in reading more into, or expecting
> more of, his work in this area than he invites. We hope that we have
> heeded our own warning in what follows.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/