It seems that people are polarized when it comes to Chomsky - they love him or they hate him. Those that love him tend to use him as a proof-text whereas those who hate him often dismiss him and those who love him. Admittedly, I was one of those people who would readily identify themselves in the "love him" camp, even though my exposure to Chomsky was limited. Like many others, I have opened a few of his books, read some here and there, and have paid close attention when other commentators have quoted him. I even own several volumes of his work. However, aside from a few of the smaller titles (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, 9-11) I have never sat down and read Chomsky from cover to cover - that is, until Imperial Ambitions.
In reading Chomsky, I better understand the polarization. After all, if I were a rich conservative pushing the hegemonic agenda to increase my personal wealth and influence, I can't imagine that I would have fond thoughts of Chomsky. On the other hand, I certainly understand why people are drawn to Chomsky. Most of the fragmentary exposure I have had to his thought I find myself in agreement with. He makes sense - especially to those like myself who are convinced that there are malevolent actors manipulating the populace at every available opportunity to advance their own interests. Imperial Ambitions is likely to perpetuate the convictions of both perspectives. If you aim to blame the ills of the world on the self-interests of government, corporations and the affluent, this book is sure to be titillating.
If I was simply looking for a book to assuage my bloodthirst for those with power, I think that I would have been deeply satisfied. After all, Chomsky, in his usual form, depicts the role that those with power--whether it be political or economic--have played in the events of world history. As usual, the focus of the book is primarily on the United States of America, but Britain does not escape unscathed. While interesting and informative, I was more struck by Chomsky's discussion of propaganda and the discussion of what I will describe as "the human condition."
The following quote, I think, sums it up best:
It makes perfect sense that the public relations industry developed in the more democratic societies. If you can control people by force, it's not so important to control what they think and feel. But if you lose the capacity to control people by force, it becomes necessary to control attitudes and opinions. (22)
One can observe the subtle (and not so subtle) attempts to control our attitudes and opinions in just about every facet of life. Education, entertainment, politics, religion, ... the list goes on. What is particularly disturbing is the interconnectedness between what would otherwise appear to be separate and distinct groups. This is because there is a common source - corporations. It would appear that Chomsky holds a similar view, arguing: "Now private tyrannies--corporate systems--play the role of controlling opinions and attitudes" (22). It makes sense. After all, it is corporations that have the most to gain. Governments are merely puppets, doing the bidding of their masters. My aim is not to scaremonger, and I recognize that my first book review may establish me as a "kook" in the minds of some readers (supposing that people other than family and friends will in fact read my blog!), nevertheless it would be insincere if I did not reveal my own suspicion towards corporations. Consider the following:
- in 2003 Wal-Mart profited more than the Canadian government's tax revenue; [1]
- in 2002 General Motors was larger than the national economies of all but seven countries; [2]
- in 1998, the top 5 corporations annual revenues doubled the GDP of the 100 poorest countries; [3]
- in 2003 only 6 nations had tax revenues larger than the sales of the 9 largest MNCs; [4]
- [t]he world's 358 richest people own an aggregate fortune that is greater than the combined incomes of 2.3 billion people, or nearly 40 percent of the world's populations.[5]
It really isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that corporations exert tremendous influence over us - more than the government - and that this influence intends to cause us to act in their best interests, not our own. I have come to appreciate the Latin phrase "panem et circenses" - literally, bread and circuses. It reflects the practice of Roman emperors pacifying the populace with food and entertainment. Today this activity is largely undertaken by corporations. Of course, we like to pretend that we are in ultimate control, manipulated by no one. But is that not the sign of a truly effective propaganda machine? Is it purely coincidence that our culture is less and less intellectually stimulating, encouraging only the most basic and primitive faculties and teaching future generations that beauty and poor acting skills are the the key to succes and not rationality and critical thought? If we weren't being duped by some corporate machinery into thinking we actually like them, would anyone actually watch the horrific acting of John Travolta, Nicolas Cage or Tom Cruise? By no means do I think that food and entertainment are the only culprits. In fact, I hold some of my greatest vituperations towards two of the most powerful and deceptive institutions of our time: science and religion.
To be sure, entertainment plays a fundamental role in pacifying the populace, but it is erroneous to believe that science and religion (or one and not the other) are not involved in the web of deception. It is equally as erroneous to think that both are free of the influences of corporations. In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that both are subservient to the desires and interests of the corporate elite. Of course, I am over generalizing, as there are fractions of both the scientific and religious community that are free of such influences. I do fear, however, that these numbers are dwindling. Increasingly, science and religion are being usurped for the advancement of corporate interests. I have spent numerous years investigating what I believe are the attempts of clever religious leaders to usurp theology to promote an ideology that largely favours the upper-class and wealthy. The evidence is not hard to find - one example would be Willow Creek, a church outside of Chicago undergoing a $70 million renovation. The current campaign against gay marriage - a topic not discussed in the Christian scriptures - is another great example. If those who were against gay marriage and homosexuality were truly attempting to "honour the Bible and God", why are they not speaking out against poverty? Taking care of the poor is a consistent theme throughout the Christian scriptures, outnumbering those on homosexuality by over 3000 to, at most, a handful (a rough estimate). My newest interest is investigating how science is usurped to promote corporate interests. Tobacco companies have been particularly successful with this, but they are by no means alone. In my current research I have been exposed to numerous documents drafted by AgriBusiness executives and pundits that clearly demonstrate how science has been hijacked by corporate interests.
But I digress from Chomsky. I find myself in agreement with his assertion that there are those who have vested interests in controlling the attitudes and opinions of the populace. Where I find myself disappointed with Chomsky is in his recommendation for combating this influence. When asked by Barsamian, "How does one recognize propaganda? What are some techniques to resist it?", Chomsky simply replies: "There are no techniques, just ordinary common sense" (32). The idea that "common sense" will prevail seems to be a consistent theme in the book, and in Chomsky's thought overall. Chomsky urges for people to "[j]ust be wiling to examine what's presented to you with ordinary common sense, skeptical intelligence" (34). But what is ordinary common sense or skeptical intelligence?
If I use religious propaganda as an example, as I am far more familiar with religion than politics, I have a difficult time identifying what Chomsky calls "ordinary common sense." In fact, what most people would identify as the very thing is what has caused me such consternation in my life thus far. I am a heretic, according to some, precisely because my views and perspective are inconsistent with what they believe to be ordinary common sense. Skeptical intelligence is perhaps a more useful conception, but nevertheless remains ambiguous. Is skeptical intelligence something inherent to humanity, or must it be acquired? Does one learn it at an insitution of higher learning? I can't imagine that it would be the latter. After all, Chomsky contends that he is largely a self-educated man (176) and has harsh things to say about higher education and what he denotes as the intellectual class.
I'm left with the impression that Chomsky believes skeptical intelligence and common sense are innate. If that were the case, however, how is it that corporations and governments, through propaganda, were ever able to acquire such power? Perhaps the problem is that people have been relying on the very thing Chomsky believes will bring salvation. Is common sense not what panem et circenses was aimed at in the first place? If my belly is full and I'm entertained, everything is a-ok! Moreover, isn't propaganda aimed at altering what constitutes common sense in the first place? If indeed the propaganda machines are hard at work, wouldn't "common sense" reflect the propaganda?
Perhaps Chomsky means to suggest that we should critically engage that which is presented to us as absolute truth, analyzing and assessing it logically and with a hermeneutic of suspicion. If so, this hardly can be classified as "common sense." Moreover, it necessitates the acquisition of techniques and skills, some of which take years to master. Although it is romantic to believe that we possess such skills upon our exit from the womb, such a view is utopian. Certainly, we each are born with the potential to acquire such skills (some, of course, more than others), but part of the bread and circuses campaign is to ensure that we are sufficiently distracted if not dissuaded. This position may be overly optimistic. At risk of making myself into a pompous and arrogant elitist, is it not possible that many people are not inherently able to critically engage with the world around them? Is this not what makes propaganda so successful in the first place? Are we all being cleverly duped, or are we just not quite intelligent enough to know better?
Personally, I believe it is likely somewhere in between. As Nietzsche wrote, humanity is a rope between beast and overman. There is potential to go either way. Chomsky appears to place humanity closer to the overman, insisting that our natural faculties and common sense will be sufficient in allowing us to become creators of our own reality, overcoming our susceptibity to the world created for us by those in power. I think we are far more like the beast. And, without wanting to enrage Nietzschean scholars with my use of the Übermensch, becoming the overman is no easy task. Hence the success of bread and circuses campaigns - it is far easier to enjoy life when entertained on a full belly.
Upon completion of reading Imperial Ambitions I realize that I do not belong in the "love him" camp. Don't get me wrong, I am quite fond of some of Chomsky's arguments and find him a very informative source. However, Chomsky's perspective on the human condition suggests to me that he lacks a sufficient philosophical basis. By no means am I suggesting that I possess such a foundation, but I have exposed myself to enough philosophy to at minimum be able to identify when someone else lacks the very foundation for which I strive. This does not detract from Chomsky's arguments, but it does leave me unsatisfied with some of his interpretations and recommendations. There are other reasons for what may be described as a minor disillusionment with Chomsky. At one point of the book I found myself in disagreement with his assessment of religion. Chomsky argues: "Actually, I hate to use the world religious. Part of the reason I don't like the word is that you could make the argument that organized religion is sacreligious. It's based on very strange conceptions about the deity" (184). I'd like to go toe-to-toe with Chomsky on this one, but given that Noam isn't likely to read this blog, I'll spare you the boredom.
To conclude, I would recommend that people read Imperial Ambitions, if for no other reason than to stimulate conversation. After all, this is what I perceive to be Chomsky's intention - to encourage open and honest discussions. While Chomsky and I disagree about the inherent capabilities of humanity, I think we'd agree that, at minimum, discussing ideas is almost always a worthwhile undertaking.
In the end I have determined that I do not "love" Chomsky nor do I "hate" him. Instead, I've determined that I like Noam. Frankly, I think he'd be ok with that.
Notes:
[1] Mahmood Monshipouri, Claude E. Welch Jr. & Evan T. Kennedy, "Multinational Corporations and the Ethics of Global Responsibility: Problems and Possibilities" (2003) 25:4 Hum. Rts. Q. 965 at 971.
[2] Beth Stephens, "The Amorality of Profit: Transnational Corporations and Human Rights" (2002) 20:45 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 45 at 57.
[3] UN Committee on Trade and Development: Multinational Corporation (MNCs) in Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
[4] Monshipouri, Welch & Kennedy, note [1] at 971.
[5] Judith Blau & Alberto Moncada, Human Rights: Beyond the Liberal Vision (Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005) at 92.
3 comments:
1. I'm happy that you've decided to start a blog, and I doubt you'll have trouble keeping it going... but the use of endnote references is a tad over the top, nerd-boy.
2. Good review in general. I like Chomsky too, and when referencing his literature, tend to receive not critical argument but ad hominem attacks (eg. "well Chomsky is an extremist"). I have yet to run across someone who blindly follows Chomsky, however.
3. Your corporations discussion leaves me wondering: is there something in particular about the corporate mode of business ownership that you find troubling? How about equally large businesses that are privately held? If you say "the corporations" but really mean "big business" (and don't intend to explain why or how the shareholder structure contributes to some intrinsic evil) then I think those statements come across as less credible than they need be.
You've got a few alternatives here:
a) take the JK Galbraith route (see "The New Industrial State") and suggest that the critical problem is with enterprizes and production processes too large for any one person to hold, such that it becomes more efficient to manipulate society around products than the reverse
b) take the modern Marxist route and speak of corporations as a way for the bourgeois to underwrite their own overproduction with fake money (perhaps a more conventional shares-as-loan perspective)
c) some combination of (a) and (b).
What do you think? Is there something about the corporation that makes it any worse than the owner of the classic corner store, or is it merely a question of scale?
4. I'd take issue with your implication that money=influence, therefore corporations have more influence than most governments. The distinction between corporation and Western government is highly artificial; each is a different face (in many respects) of the same capitalists. Comparing monetary worth also seems a bit cheap (excuse the pun) when governments have a fair amount of control (direct and indirect) over the value of money itself, the means by which corporations make money, etc. Really, you needn't play into the capitalist myth that dollars are real things that have always existed.
I know I'm being a pain in the ass here, but we both know that influence is something far too complex to be measured in dollars (or any other single unit). Given that business and government interact with each other and are largely controlled by the same people, I think you're chasing a red herring.
5. Your claim that "our culture is less and less intellectually stimulating" sounds a little too much like the evangelicals who casually say "our world is sliding further and further away from God." Tell me of this golden age when culture was more stimulating - and for whom, exactly? You needn't make a historical claim here... wouldn't it just be sufficient (for your purposes) to say that you personally don't find our culture to be stimulating enough?
Anyway, I'm sure you'll have good responses to all of these points. I'm just trying to supply some interesting fodder (you know, other than "you're a kook," etc.)
:)
...yeah, I know you're busy Jake, but I figure I'll add a little something I've thought over for a bit.
You take issue with Chomsky's implication that "skeptical intelligence and common sense are innate." Now, of course I haven't read this particular Chomsky book, but certainly whatever sense is "common" WOULD be innate (or universally acquired), by definition. That just makes sense (no pun intended). Neither would you contend, I hope, that all (or most) humans are "intelligent" to some degree!
By process of elimination, then, we're left with the "skeptical" part. Certainly humans are commonly capable of this as well; we could tell a story about the most base caveman who is suspicious of other cavemen, etc.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that those who you see as incapable of "skeptical intelligence" would be those who completely buy into propoganda (religious or otherwise) - small town Christian conservatives, for example? But all of these folks are generally skeptical towards a variety of other things - evolutionary science, the "liberal media," foreigners, other religions, etc.
In short, I think this is more a case of people believing what they want to believe (if casually) - they are neither "cleverly duped" nor are they "not quite intelligent enough to know better." The so-called victims of one propoganda system will find very ingenious defenses against contrary evidence.
Thus people are not so much the victims of propoganda as they are participants; their interests are co-opted by the message to produce common benefit. They pick and choose where to apply "skeptical intelligence" and where to apply trust. This is my view. I want to gently agree that your caracature of a dumb, unintelligent population does make you sound like a "pompous and arrogant elitist."
My belief in the aforementioned truism - that common sense is indeed COMMON - leaves me no easy avenue of excusing the masses and blaming "the corporations" for the ills of our society. Rather, the guilt (eg. for capitalist exploitation and nationalist agression) is so diffuse that it can hardly be termed 'guilt' at all (i.e. who screws whom under capitalism is such a dysfunctional, twisted web that it frustrates true isolation of moral wrongs thereof). The nice part of this perspective, however, is the hope that a great many of us can collectively decide that we don't want to run society this way anymore. It is merely a matter of aligning our interests such that we no longer want to "trust" the propoganda was previously so comfortable.
Maybe this is what Chomsky means too? Otherwise, why would the man waste so much time writing books in America, of all places? If he thought that propoganda were merely a matter of smart corporations and dumb peasants, he might instead run off to a little ivory tower in Europe or something ;)
Interesting that an ad appears on a blog regarding such a topic. : )
Nice musings Jacob. I will have to watch for more material. I love the term, "private tyrannies." What we think is an immoral leadership structure in government is cool in business, yet those businesses are telling governments what to do. Beautiful.
Hey, did you know you can save up to 35% CASH BACK on all your online purchases?
Tim
Post a Comment