TPOI and Triggers
What breaks the game?
There are certain things you can say in a conversation that bring matters to a dead halt, force a re-evaluation of everything that's already been said, and generally make people want to walk out on the discussion. It's easy to think of things that shake up discourse like that - but why them?
I said one of those things ( Read more... )
There are certain things you can say in a conversation that bring matters to a dead halt, force a re-evaluation of everything that's already been said, and generally make people want to walk out on the discussion. It's easy to think of things that shake up discourse like that - but why them?
I said one of those things ( Read more... )
You've got the major subset of people who claim he denies Khmer Rouge atrocities, based upon a book he co-authored which compared coverage of the Cambodian atrocities with known information about them, in the context of a larger exploration of the media. These people haven't actually read the book; Chomsky has nothing to say about whether the atrocities took place or not, or even whether the known information was accurate... just that the information provided in news reports didn't correspond to data from anyone who was in a position to have an accurate picture of the situation on the ground, such as intelligence services, or even the experts some news reports cited. And Chomsky and Edward Herman drew conclusions about the media and its coverage, based upon this discrepancy, but the conclusions did not pass judgment regarding what was or wasn't actually happening in Cambodia.
You've got a smaller subset of people who have skimmed his books, and dismiss Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist who describes a cabal of elites carving up the world. However, he states explicitly and persistently that most of the actors perform their roles without really thinking about or understanding the systemic results; and that the major administrative decisions are usually made in the open rather than in some smoke-filled room... except these decisions are often spun in order to appear something they aren't, or are simply not covered by the media, which has good systemic reasons not to cross people in power, far outside the scope of any conscious and deliberate conspiracy.
Thinking people, people whose self-identity is tied up with their intelligence, just don't dig the concept that the system grinds along on its own without conscious control, or that they're successful because they fit an ideological niche in a bureaucracy. They might even find this a more frightening prospect than a genuine conspiracy.
Having said all that, while Chomsky is regarded in Europe as a great thinker, I strongly suspect most people there haven't read him, either; it's just that they're ignorantly biased toward him rather than against him, probably because he's so critical of the United States.
Reply
I have to confess to much more skimming and listening to recordings of Chomsky than actual reading. What you point out, though, is what I find compelling about Chomsky's theories: that they explain, without requiring conspiracy theories, shadowy cabals, or leprechauns, observable events in the world. I tried to mention those points a couple of times in the thread - that the Democrats are also full of flaws and that no conspiracy theories are required to explain the behavior that's going on, just selfish decisions piling up. That's what I think the evidence indicates about the WTC/Pentagon attacks and Pearl Harbor, for instance - not that it was an inside job or perpetrated with the direct aid of the government, but that people making self-interested decisions blinded themselves to the evidence about what was likely to happen, with disastrous results.
Reply
I've listened to a lot of Chomsky's major spoken word releases... they're kind of fun, almost; listening to him dissect cherished institutions in this sort of dry, caustic tone. But they're really Chomsky Lite, and they lack annotation and such, so you really should check out his books. Unfortunately his major works like Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions, etc, are really dry and hard to get into. I'd suggest Understanding Power, which is a survey of Chomsky's major themes and touches upon just about everything, but it's made up of lecture transcripts so it's a little more conversational and accessible. The annotations are as long as the book itself, so they're available online at http://www.understandingpower.com.
Reply
I remember reading a cartoon version of Manufacturing Consent (I think it was that one) that was very amusing.
Reply
You have to remember that the reason the average American would like to believe in Bush and all the conservative bullshit is that they have to believe in something hopeful; the alternative is to face how messed up things really are, and that isn't easy or comfortable. It's only when the consequences of blindness become intolerable that people are willing to face facts, but even then it's with a great deal of reluctance. The Republican sales pitch is essentially an optimistic one: America is great and everything will be okay if we can only get rid of so-and-so or keep the liberals in their place or so forth. There's always a quick fix which will work if only everybody gets in line, and if it fails it's because people aren't trying hard enough or aren't sufficiently loyal.
Reply
Yes, I remember reading excerpts from MC and wincing at the density. Still, I get the impression that a lot of it is "just" well-documented examples presented Very Patiently. I can deal with that.
Your analysis regarding optimism is interesting, I want to chew that one over - something is bothering me about it, but I can't figure out what yet.
Reply
Leave a comment