Where has Noam Chomsky said he's "anti American intellectualism"? You asked him "to elaborate on his embrace of American anti- intellectualism."
Rather, he explained a "certain strain of American intellectualism." Having read a lot of his works and noting that he does tend to refer to establishment ideologues bitterly as "intellectuals" ("the Kennedy intellectuals," etc.) I'm reminded of his view on the Russian Revolution of 1917, a betrayal of the working class according to the anarchist line adopted by Chomsky, Goldman, nd others -- a cynical co-opttion by better-knowing folks ("intellectuals") who could skillfully shepherd the trampling herd of the "mere trade union conscious" workers their way.
He's also not too keen on the social sciences and "expertise" in that, if I'm not mistaken -- his antipathy to BF Skinner's Behaviorism, for one, and his mention of theories like Margaret Mead's ideas that tight swaddling clothes in Russian infants caused them to grow up, become grousy and accept totalitarianism.
But by the same token Noam does refer folks to others in fields (Yale's David Montgomery, for ex.) who have better expertise than him -- folks I'd assume he'd consider an intellectual of some sort.
What he calls Cartesian common sense -- the ability of average folks to meaningfully run their own work lives democratically -- leads him to have a severe distrust of experts, especially in social sciences and in areas that propose to organize human social relations with recourse to "scientific" data. I don't want to put words in his mouth, though. Just my perception.
Maybe I'm totally off and at cross purposes, but when Chomsky speaks of an "intellectual" in a distasteful way, I usually know he means someone like Kissinger, and not, say, bell hooks. Apologies if I missed something.
-B.
=========
Doug Henwood wrote:
I asked Noam Chomsky to elaborate on his embrace of American anti- intellectualism, and if he considered himself an intellectual. Here's his answer:
> > In standard usage, "intellectual" means someone
who has sufficient
> > privilege, resources, opportunities, etc., so as
to be able to
> > reach some kind of audience on matters of general
human interest.
> > Has nothing particular to do with insight,
knowledge,
> > intelligence,.... By "anti-intellectualism" I
meant the strain in
> > American culture that doesn't take intellectuals
too seriously,
> > about the opposite extreme from Paris, where if
one of the famed
> > "intellectuals" sneezes, there's a front-page
story in Le Monde and
> > everyone gasps with awe. In these terms, I'm an
intellectual, and
> > Americans shouldn't take me seriously for that
reason. I'm all in
> > favor of that.
Me, I don't think an "intellectual" is one with privileges, resources, connections, etc., or shouldn't be. An intellectual is someone with specialized knowledge, the capacity to synthesize facts and ideas into some sort of analysis, the skills to circulate their knowledge and analysis through words and images. Like Noam Chomsky, who deserves to be taken seriously.
Doug