Customer Reviews

The Chomsky Reader

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Chomsky never asks you to take his word for it. He challenges existing beliefs and paradigms and refutes them, providing evidence of his assertions. You, as the reader, are invited to read what he writes, agree or disagree. Chomsky invites readers to question what information they are given and exercise simple reason and skepticism in evaluating that information.

The introduction to this collection of essays (and informative interview) is excellent. It provides a basic overview of Chomsky's philosophy (if you could call it that.) I felt that this book was basic reading, particularly for those who are new to Chomsky's works. In the introduction Peck writes that freedom and the process of indoctrination go hand in hand... and in America freedoms exist "within an ideological consensus that limits debate and protects powerful interests in ways all too similar to those in which obviously repressive societies operate." The entire book (and Chomsky's many other works) provide evidence of these statements. Chomsky is meticulous in combing for details and wants readers to release themselves from the mindlessness of taking information (or veracity of readily available information) for granted. Conventional media are seemingly free from having a burden of proof and need not provide any evidence to support their claims. This is not only the fault of media outlets. The media do what they can get away with. Discriminating, thoughtful readers seeking information should not accept that.

One of the most apt analogies Chomsky makes in the interview is that professional sports, as an example, are one means for deflecting attention from real and important issues. The layperson can argue and analyse football to death and feel comfortable making his/her own analysis of athletics. However, these same people see world affairs and politics as out of the realm of their experience and expertise and do not even attempt to learn about it. Naturally something is to be said for the fact that many Americans so not have interest in these affairs and are more interested in sports... but it is a cyclical and indoctrinated response. From a young age, Americans are indoctrinated to focus on what their favourite team is doing as opposed to what is happening in another part of the world.

An interesting thought to ponder (at least for me), though, is that in reading the older essays, Chomsky discussed the lack of access to unbiased information. I wonder if this has changed or even been revolutionised by access to electronic publications and communication and technology in general? Or is this just wishful thinking?

An indispensible anthology from America's foremost foreign policy critic. James Peck, the book's editor, presents an excellent introduction, outlining core themes that unite the wide-ranging material. There is much that is familiar to long-time Chomsky readers, but much that is also less familiar, such as personal background that may help explain the MIT professor's remarkably creative and heretical career. Included among the miscellainea, is a section on his work in linguistics, a critique of B.F. Skinner's behavioral approach, and a defense of freedom and equality-- a compatibility often derided in more conservative circles. Of course, there are the more familiar researches on Latin America, Southeast Asia, and other frontier hotspots that define the American imperium. Unfortunately missing because of publishing date are researches on Washington's more recent adventures in Panama, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. Though the tune may change, the music remains the same.

At bottom - and what renders the MIT professor a non-person to state and media alike - is his view of Washington not as vaunted leader of the free world, but as a self-serving imperial power, neither better nor worse than its predecessors, but with greatly expanded reach and killing power. To put the point briefly: behind sterling academic and intellectual credentials, he mounts a leftish, but non-Marxist, expose' of Washington's most cherished foreign policy pieties. Just as effectively, he is careful not to put forth a central thesis, theory or organizing idea, that might distract from the damning indictment his case studies provide of global interventionism. Shrewdly, he lets the unexpurgated record speak for itself without the distraction of abstract issues, which allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to ultimate causes of this imperial behavior.

Challenging the official record is, of course, no easy task. If America behaves like a typical great power, it also filters its self-perception as a great power must. Which is to say, that like other empire builders of the modern era, Washington must disguise its imperial actions in moralistic terms to make them palatable to publics and elites alike. Thus, self-deception in America operates, and must operate, on a grand scale, as witnessed in recent interventions in Kosovo, Kuwait, Nicaragua, and a host of other Pentagon undertakings. All are retailed to an ideologically conditioned public as humanitarian rescues. Nonetheless, should this prism fail, as in Vietnam, Chomsky harbors no optimistic expectations as to how the public might react. Disillusioned voters might continue pragmatic support of the imperial regime or they might not. What is interesting is that the regime acts as though it can't take the risk-- thus the rigid ideological controls that continue to manage popular perceptions regardless of the facts. The latter of course makes up Chomsky's target of debunking attack.

The book can only be considered anti-American by those who believe that it is the actions of Washington and Wall Street that define our collective soul.

"The Chomsky Reader" kicks off with an excellently composed essay by the books editor, Peck. Excellent as this initial taste is, it gives but a slight indication of what is to come. For this collection of essays by Chomsky gives a unique insight into the viewpoints and observations of one of this century's greatest political thinkers. Is this book 'enjoyable' fellow students have asked me? Perhaps this, in fact, is not the right question. After all, how enjoyable can it be reading essays (backed up by exhaustive evidence) dealing with topics such as tens of thousands of innocents slaughtered in not so far off lands while our 'free press' turns the other way, unwilling to impart meaningful information to their audience? But this book is more than a Chomskyian socio-political critique; avid readers (even with no prior germane knowledge) should enjoy the essays examing language and human nature, (don't forget Chomsky is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy). One word of warning, this book can not be leafed through or merely perused; it must be read. Intellectuals, states Chomsky, have a responsibility to tell the truth. Think about that.

This is a great way to get into the works of Chomsky. Chomsky reveals the bias in the media, showing all the pieces of information which were cut off from the mainstream press. He points out the real goal of the US and of the media, and makes you think before you listen. An excellent book, I give it 5 stars.

When I was a graduate student, I had read quite a bit in Chomsky's thinking about media, but not much further. I had certainly heard and read sound bites about his other opinions, but never got around to reading more of his work. When I came across The Chomsky Reader, it seemed like a good chance to remedy the lack and also to get a sense of what, if any, further reading I wanted to do in his body of work.

It also seemed like a good book for trains, planes and cars-- essays and pretty dense essays at that. I thought it had a good chance of lasting me for quite a while while traveling.

My reaction to the work was mixed. As always, I enjoyed the interview with which Peck prefaces the work. I also enjoyed the selections of essays on the Responsibilities of Intellectuals and Interpreting the World. In general, however, I got a lot less out of it than I expected and was honestly left with a lingering sense of disappointment.

Chomsky spends much of his political essays dissecting writers with whose points he is in disagreement. This is a normal trope, and not necessarily a bad one. When I read, say, Arendt discussing other writers on revolution I am interested in what she has to say even if I don't know the other texts as intimately as she does. But there's something about the way Chomsky goes about it that brings the Dutch idiom "ant neuker" (look it up) to mind. He seems much more interested in being right then he is in anything so banal as the interests of the reader. He often doesn't bother to draw his larger conclusions out again for examination, and contents himself with arguing with the absent author line-by-line. If I knew that author or the subject matter well, I suppose that it would be a valuable dialogue. But even though I have read a fair amount about, for example, the Spanish Civil War, I am not up for a blow-by-blow argument about what POUM did at precisely what point. This reaction may say more about me than it does about him, dunno. It feels kind of ironic since a lot of what he writes about is against the culture of academics and experts and for engagement of the normal thinker in political issues. The normal thinker may see Chomsky's welcome mat, but that barrier to entry is pretty darned high.

What bothered me more is that I was less impressed with his logical reasoning this time around. I had always admired his rigorous rationality. What I realize now is that I mistook the fact that he irritated everybody for evidence of truth and objective analysis. I noticed in these essays that the structure frequently went:

complex argument. subtle reference to past thinker that I have to look up. final summation: "So and so says such and such, but he's wrong. It isn't true."

Next paragraph.

He may be right that such and such isn't true, but he frequently doesn't build his assertion under with anything more than a smart tone and a flat conclusion. Also not terribly helpful for the reader.

This makes it sound as though I didn't get anything out of the essays. He's a smart guy, so-- of course-- I did. And none of my criticisms mean that he isn't right-- just means that he annoyed me, didn't convince me, and reminded me of a particularly obnoxious ex-boyfriend. YMMV.

(The fact that I would be reminded of an ex-boyfriend while reading Chomsky automatically disqualifies me from the club of people smart enough to read him, I believe.)

Yes, this is a politically biased book. Yes, he can sound a little paranoid. BUT this book is an excellent, eye-opening read nonetheless.

This series of essays is arranged topically, so that there is a certain evolution of events and thoughts that emerges through the book. It covers his thoughts on the situation in East Timor in the 70's (note what is going on there now!), US foreign policy towards South & Latin American countries, and Vietnam. This variety kept me interested the whole way through the text.

As Chomsky is a very *detail oriented* person, the text can get a little bit weighty. I think I might have glossed over a few pages here and there because they were just too dry for me.

But the payoff is worth it. Though it felt like running a marathon, I came out of reading this with a lot of questions and new ideas. Like the works of Howard Zinn, I would recommend it for people of all political persuasions because it does bring up so many issues for debate.

I have used selections from this book to teach internship classes on student activism, and have also found myself refering back to it for political ammunition here and there.

In summary -- good but dry; biased but thought provoking.

This book should be required reading for all political science degree majors. Actually it should be required for all students. It takes an interesting look at the things most Americans ignore, either by choice or out of ignorance. This is a great book for first time readers of Chomsky. He doesn't ask you to know any background information before reading it. He provides all of the information and evidence you need to understand his point of view. Yet, the essays in this book are powerful and thought provoking. It's completely engaging.

Dear Colleagues, Noam Chomsky understands the power of language, the nature of language, how language can be used and how language is frequently abused by those who would seek to lead us, influence us, beguile us, repress us or simply rip-us off for as long as possible.

Noam Chomsky makes people think, he poises some of the difficult questions, and will maybe have you struggling to justify some of your best and long held beliefs in people and society. In this way, this book is both a gentle introduction and a great mental workout, if nothing else, and it can be much more.

Starting with this book by Chomsky if you haven't read any of his stuff before is like deciding on a diet and workout plan that is neither drastic or radical, but eases the reader into the Chomsky ways of seeing things, of gathering facts, of interpreting language and of developing ideas and analysis. Chomsky is nearly always delivering arguments that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which leads for well focussed and sometimes overly-knowledge rich text, but it's well worth the effort - in my book Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of the last 100 years - even if you, like me, will disagree with at least 50 percent of Chomsky's conclusions.

Regards,

Martyn_jones@iniciativas.com

The Chomsky reader is a must for anyone, liberal or conservative, who seeks insight away from the mainstream media. I think he is overboard at times but the viewpoint is unvaluable and stimulating.

"One may choose to have selective faith in the domestic political leadership, adopting the stance that Hans Morgenthau, one of the founders of modern international relations theory, condemned as 'our conformist subservience to those in power'--THE REGULAR STANCE OF MOST INTELLECTUALS THROUGHOUT HISTORY. But it is important to recognize that PROFESSION OF NOBLE INTENT[by political and military leaders] IS PREDICTABLE AND THEREFORE CARRIES NO INFORMATION, even in the technical sense of the term. Those who are seriously interested in understanding the world will adopt the same standards whether they are evaluating their own political and intellectual elites or those of official enemies. One might fairly ask how much [American rhetoric] would survive this elementary exercise of rationality and honesty."

Noam Chomsky
HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL:
AMERICA'S QUEST FOR
GLOBAL DOMINANCE
From Chapter Two:
"Grand Imperial Strategy"
(emphasis mine)

THE CHOMSKY READER, redundant as it may sound, is great for the skeptical intellectual. The kind who (for whatever reason) needs more than simply his investigative journalist/college professor credentials and source materials voluminously footnoted in every one of his books to accept the truth of what he has to say. In fact, for those who would question his patriotism, given his penchant for speaking truth to power, this may be one of the most disturbing--and exhilarating--of his more than seventy books in print. His laser-like, X-ray vision analysis of the covert brutality of American foreign policy--Orwellian Newspeak that accompanies it--is revealed to not just have a basis in grade school integrity, cutting edge linguistics and modern anarchism, but even moreso in the philosophical principles of the Enlightment: those funny ideas that gained popularity around when our Constitution was written.

In one of the many essays that make up this collection, Chomsky quotes an English economist during the Cold War years that says America is not an enemy of Communism, but an enemy of DEVELOPMENT. This can be considered, above and beyond all other themes that Chomsky routinely returns to in all of his books, to be the central one of this outing and perhaps the foundational message of his entire career. Throughout every essay in this volume, from about 1970 to 1988, Chomsky shows that American foreign policy has been centered around the prevention of any and all development around the world--economically and politically--that does not further facilitate American post-World War II imperialism. Whether it be the repeated secret invasions and tacit military/economic support of death squads and dictators in Latin America and the Middle East, preventing democracy from flowering in these countries since (at least) the fifties...the myth of Chinese and Russian communism running the show in Vietnam, justifying the slaughter of millions of civilians and the destruction of their country's entire infrastructure (beginning to develop under their own brand of communism much better, and with less murders, than under the brutal French colonial system of the fifties)...the use of the CIA and military to disrupt even the thought of pan-Asian, Indian or pan-African coalitions producing an economic unity/development agenda that leaves out the "interests" of Europeans and American corporations...all of American foreign policy since World War II, and much of it beforehand, is an expession of this golden rule: *prevent uncontrollable world development at any cost.* And the phenomenal uses of the military abroad and propaganda at home, via the corruption of the media and our intellectuals, facilitate the total control this state dynamic has on our national character and public mind.

The core of this book's brilliance is revealed via Chomsky's revealing of the philosphical foundations of his world view. It is like reading a political version of the movie ADAPTATION. He shows under no uncertain terms how this *prevent development* rule in American politics, driven by military force, affects all of us. But more importantly, he shows his political philosophy's roots in modern anarchism to be, in themselves, the next phase in the natural developmental path of the democratic principles of the Enlightenment of the 18th century; something that sounds inmpossible only because such intellectual, moral and social development WITHIN our culture has been all but stamped out by the modern American Police State to the same degree basic human rights, democracy and economic development is being stamped out of so many countries outside of it for most of this century.

Is it possible to use Marxian analysis without being a Marxist--in fact, ripping apart Marxist hypocrisy in practice while using it--in a blistering critique of American hypocrisy? Is it possible to make such historical events as the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s revelvant to the families of fallen soldiers in an illegal and immoral war with today's Iraq? Is it possible to do all this in a way that makes one's love of the real American spirit joyfully obvious? And can it be done in a way that won't put the average person to sleep? Read this book and see; I challenge you to be able to put it down.