Noam Chomsky's View Of The Coup

[ColPyat]

Regarding Thailand and the coup, the professor of linguistics (while honestly and non-hypocritically and non-anti-Semitically admitting to knowing very few details about it) says, "My expectation was that the outcome of the military coup would be a system that was worse than the one it overthrew, except for small sectors of the population that were privileged and wealthy and may benefit from it." That sounds about right.

I disagree.

The wealth distribution under the pseudo democracy of Taksin had far more concentrated wealth distribution to a select few than now. Much as i like the writings, he falls into the same category as the Economist; spouting generalities without understanding the issues underneath; I'd expect that from someone admitting not to really know; more of a surprise from the Economist who have really stuffed up their coverage on this one.

Well, and i disagree with you.

Thaksin may have been all you accuse him off.

The present government may not be in his league regarding corruption (or is, how would we know anyhow), but i would very much like to know where you see things getting better now.

We have worse press censorship, a completely idiotic national economic policy that cannot be criticised openly, an even worsening situation down south, a rapidly worsening drug situation ( i don't particularly like that the local kids sell them more or less in front of my house now since a few months, they are nice, but i would prefer if they sell them pills somewhere else), factional infights in the military with some extreme hardliners in the process of getting far too much power than is healthy for the country, and farmers who get a lot less income than before.

[sabaijai]

Chomsky's politics follow his theories of linguistics in large part, eg, that societies have 'deep structure' linked to the political systems they produce.

His structural approach to linguistics has largely been replaced by functional approaches and even within linguistic structuralism his theories are controversial to say the least. Many (perhaps most?) modern linguists today dismiss Chomskyean linguistics and teach/treat it only as a matter of historical reference. When I was a grad student in applied linguistics in the 80s, for example, I had one syntax professor from Quebec who stubbornly held to Chomsky, but the other eight or 10 academics I studied under considered his linguistic theories moribund.

George Lakoff and cognitive linguistics pretty much left Chomsky behind in the field of linguistics. Empirical research in psycholinguistics, combining biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and information theory to produce models of language acquisition rather than analytical syntax alone, have made Chomskyean lingustics look rather one-dimensional and untestable. It's pretty easy to come up with grammatical examples that punch holes in Noam's theory of generative grammar. One also notices how Chomsky amends his linguistics theories every time counter-examples are presented. No language- or classroom-centred research , just seemingly glib amendments to patch the holes.

Although the idea that there is 'hardwired grammar' in all of us has tremendous intuitive appeal, Chomsky's so-called 'black box' (an autonomous centre of language acquisition in the brain, independent of input and social context) has never been properly defined, much less quantified. Dr Hayley Davis, in Redefining Linguistics, for example, concludes 'In short, Chomskyan linguistics is open to criticism that it is more about what linguists think language is than about language as it is actually used.'

So one is left wondering how valid Chomsky's political science is. Such ideas as 'manufactured consensus' have an easy intuitive feel about them but can such notions ever be empirically proven/measured? Perhaps Chomskyean political science is more about what he thinks political science is than how PS actually works.

[Johpa]

Many (perhaps most?) modern linguists today dismiss Chomskyean linguistics and teach/treat it only as a matter of historical reference. When I was a grad student in applied linguistics in the 80s, for example, I had one syntax professor from Quebec who stubbornly held to Chomsky, but the other eight or 10 academics I studied under considered his linguistic theories moribund.

......... Dr Hayley Davis, in Redefining Linguistics, for example, concludes 'In short, Chomskyan linguistics is open to criticism that it is more about what linguists think language is than about language as it is actually used.'

So one is left wondering how valid Chomsky's political science is. Such ideas as 'manufactured consensus' have an easy intuitive feel about them but can such notions ever be empirically proven/measured? Perhaps Chomskyean political science is more about what he thinks political science is than how PS actually works.

One must ask whether there exists any linguistic framework that is not open to criticism? Debates beteeen the various camps in linguistics quickly degenerate into juvenile name calling. And often the division lines are more about national preferences than about the ideologies. I too was a graduate student in applied linguistics in the 1980s and rest assured the majority of university departments in the US were, at that time, fanatical followers of Chomsky who would have characterized all alternative frameworks as trivial. The same was not true in academia in Commonwealth countries.

Fortunately I long ago ceased being involved in these petty juvenile academic debates that clearly have not subsided over the intervening decades. I take both Chomsky's linguistic theories with a grain of salt (and too those of his linguistic detractors) as well as his political musings. But I do not for a moment doubt his intellect.

[Ulysses G.]

But I do not for a moment doubt his intellect.

Actually, either do I, but it is very common to meet people who are very clever intellectually with no common sense at all - the scientist who can't tie his own shoes. Chompsky is great at convincing people of his political theories, but the theories themselves don't take the world as it really is into account.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Ulysses G.

[canuckamuck]

Karl Marx had brilliant theories and was likely a genius too. Look at the benefit to the economies that took his advice. A quick trip back to the stone age.

[pjallittle]

Does Intellectual Critique have geographical border??

In certain circumstances, yes. There are many local customs in various countries which do not lend themselves to an intellectual debate or critique when the persaon doing the critique hasn't any knowledge of the facts.

Intellectualism does not supplant facts, for example, if one is unaware of Thailand's stance on the King, an intellectual could come down very heavily with criticisms that would be totally out of order.

Were Noam to denigrate Ataturk for some of what he had done before becoming the person that established modern Turkey, his intellectualism would be no defense.

In this circumstance, his 'guestimation' worked out fairly well for some, not so well for others. Absent facts, which none of us really has, then we only have opinions.

[Johpa]

Karl Marx had brilliant theories and was likely a genius too. Look at the benefit to the economies that took his advice. A quick trip back to the stone age.

As Chomsky might say, Marx was rather spot on when writing on the descriptive level but got himself onto thin ice when writing on the explanatory level. Chomsky himself skates on that same thin ice. Some things just ain't amenable to explanation.