The question is, what is the quality and purpose of the criticism?
His scientific work cannot be critiqued in this thread; none of us have the background or skill set. I would no more debate Chomsky on linguistics than I would Feynman on quantum electrodynamics or Newton on the calculus. This doesn't mean his work can't be criticized, just that minds better trained and more creative than my own (at least in linguistics) are best suited for the task.
So that's off the table for us.
His political writings are a different matter. Anyone can dive into those and find fault with the style (or yes, lack thereof) and conclusions.
There are two things it's taken me a very, very long time to understand about Chomsky's dry and factually dense books on US foreign policy. The first thing is his belief in the absolute need for volumes of evidence to support assertions which, from the mainstream point of view, are outrageous.
If you say, as Chomsky does, that the US “invaded” Vietnam you must explain your meaning at great length.
You must build an understanding in the reader's mind of why this word, which butts heads with the standard view – of a US democratizing mission gone terribly wrong, of an “innocent” nation falling from its high principles in the jungle – is not only legitimate but the most accurate way of describing the American incursion.
The second thing I've learned is the relation between Chomsky's scientific work and his political writings. I don't mean to imply that generative grammar provides a philosophical background for "Failed States" – Chomsky staunchly denies this sorrt of reasoning. I mean that his faith in facts, in the arrival of new conclusions based upon an accumulation of evidence and testable ideas is, I think, at the very heart of his approach.
In other words, even though the specifics of his own research may have no influence on his foreign policy related books, essay and speeches, the scientific method almost surely does.
...
So let's think aloud about the Chomsky critics.
I don't have time to write much more (and no doubt, your kind interest is fading) so I'll have to leave out examples and detail that would (I think) build a more compelling argument.
We've already – briefly - touched on his debating opponents in the scientific community. They're in a separate category, beyond the scope of this post.
Critics of his political work, divide I've observed, into three main categories:
* People who agree on the irrefutable facts but disagree on points of interpretation (e.g. American crimes in Iraq are not disputed but ideas of American “goodwill” and liberal notions of interventionism are still clung to – this preserves the 'good intentions gone wrong' mythology which dominates discourse on the polite left)
* People who ignore the facts and refute the interpretation but still consider Chomsky to be a valuable contributor to the general debate.
* People who twist themselves into knots trying to demonstrate Chomsky to be a person of bad character, bad intent and the architect of bad outcomes.
Now, getting back to Prof. Berube, it was his use of the word “lies” when describing Chomsky's writing on the Yugoslavian intervention that seemed to push him from the first camp into the third – if only for a season. Dennis Perrin's strong response (and Ravi's too) was motivated by this slide.
And finally...
K, you mentioned at some point that by the time you read Chomsky's books, your response was a big ho hum because you already knew pretty much all of what he had to say and you didn't like his dull way with words.. I get that but I assure you (and I'm speaking directly from personal experience here) for an American who feels something's out of joint – a person, for example, who senses that Washington's support of Tel Aviv's most recent assault on Lebanon is not quite right but who doesn't know why and gets no help from the usual media outlets – there is nothing quite like the a ha moment when Chomsky pulls it all together.
Even the dullness fades into the background when you feel, for the first time, that someone is actually providing you with truly deep insight into events that seem completely chaotic.
I have listened to audiences of ordinary people (not lefty hierodules) audibly gasp at some of the things Chomsky says – not only because they're so shocking to uninitiated ears but because at last pieces start to fit.
I don't need to read the Professor's work anymore (though I still do) but I'll be grateful till breath departs for the introduction he gave me to a method for analyzing news, for assessing foreign policy and for looking at the world.
...
A year ago, when Ulhas was confidently declaring the Taliban's utter demise I was looking at the available evidence – peeking out from the cracks and crevices of mainstream media reports and sober analyses from people in the field – to reach, even at my remove, a completely different (and, as it turned out, correct) conclusion. That the material conditions for that movement's return were well in place.
It was Chomsky who taught me to how to parse the data.
Indeed, when I sent him a fanboy email many years ago, he replied, gently scolding me for my hero worship and encouraging me to develop my own skills of discernment.
You see, that's been the goal all along, to encourage each and every one of us to be critical.
I think that's a priceless legacy.
.d.
--------- She loves penicillin...and compromise. She's going to go for it
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/