{"id":11673,"date":"2013-08-15T21:10:47","date_gmt":"2013-08-16T02:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=11673"},"modified":"2013-08-15T21:17:17","modified_gmt":"2013-08-16T02:17:17","slug":"chomsky-z-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2013\/08\/15\/chomsky-z-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"chomsky \u017d debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u017di\u017eek Chomsky debate<\/a><\/p>\n

If one defines and uses this term the way I do (and I am not alone here: my understanding echoes a long tradition of so-called Western Marxism), then one has to conclude that what Chomsky is doing in his political writings is very important, I have great admiration and respect for it, but it is emphatically not critique of ideology.<\/p>\n

Let me indicate what I mean by this. What I had in mind when I spoke about his stance towards Khmer Rouge was, among other passages, the following lines from Chomsky\u2019s and Herman\u2019s \u201cDistortions at Fourth Hand\u201d from the Nation (June 6, 1977) …<\/p>\n

I agree that one should approach reports on humanitarian crises or genocidal violence in Western media with a great measure of skepticism: they are as a rule heavily biased due to political and economic interests. However, although Chomsky claims he doesn\u2019t pretend to know what actually went on in Cambodia, the bias of his own description is obvious: his sympathies lies with those who try to minimize and relativize Khmer Rouge atrocities.<\/p>\n

This bias is ideology<\/span> \u2014 a set of explicit and implicit, even unspoken, ethico-political and other positions, decision, choices, etc., which predetermine our perception of facts, what we tend to emphasize or to ignore, how we organize facts into a consistent whole of a narrative or a theory.<\/p>\n

And it is this bias which displays Chomsky\u2019s ideology in selecting and ordering data, what he downplays and what he emphasizes, not only in the case of Cambodia but also in the case of post-Yugoslav war (his downplaying of the Srebrenica massacre), etc.<\/p>\n

To avoid a misunderstanding, I am not advocating here the \u201cpostmodern\u201d idea that our theories are just stories we are telling each other, stories which cannot be grounded in facts; I am also not advocating a purely neutral unbiased view.<\/p>\n

My point is that the plurality of stories and biases is itself grounded in our real struggles. With regard to Chomsky, I claim that his bias sometimes leads him to selections of facts and conclusions which obfuscate the complex reality he is trying to analyze.
\n…<\/p>\n

There is a thin line that separates justified doubt about media reports from comfortable skepticism which allows us to ignore or downplay atrocities. One can easily imagine a similar line of argumentation in the late 1930s about the Nazi atrocities or the Stalinist purges: we don\u2019t have enough reliable data, we should not pretend to know what really goes on in these countries, so it is advisable to doubt Western press reports… (and in both these cases, as well as in the case of Khmer Rouge, later knowledge confirmed the worst fears). One may add that a similar tactic is used by companies and organizations which want to downplay the environmental or health risks (we don\u2019t really know for certain about global warming, about the health risks of smoking\u2026). So how can to decide in such cases?
\n…<\/p>\n

My underlying thesis is here that no effective ideology simply lies: an ideology is never a simple mystification obfuscating the hidden reality of domination and exploitation; the atrocious reality obfuscated and mystified by an ideology has to register, to leave traces, in the explicit ideological text itself, in the guise of its inconsistencies, gaps, etc. The Stalinist show trials were, of course, a brutal travesty of justice concealing breath-taking brutality, but to see this, it is not necessary to know the reality behind them\u2014the public face of the trials, the puppet-like monstrosity of public confessions, etc., made this abundantly clear. In a homologous way, one doesn\u2019t have to know how Jews really were to guess that the Nazi accusations against them were a fake\u2014a close look at these accusations makes it clear that we are dealing with paranoiac fantasies.<\/p>\n

… This, of course, in no way implies that the disclosure and analysis of facts are not important: one should bring out to light all the details of their atrocious brutality, of ruthless economic exploitation, etc.\u2014a job done quite well by Chomsky himself.<\/p>\n

However, in order to explain how people often remain within their ideology even when they are forced to admit facts, one has to supplement investigation and disclosure of facts by the analysis of ideology which not only makes people blind to the full horror of facts but also enables them to participate in activities which generate these atrocious facts while maintaining the appearance of human dignity.<\/p>\n

… Consequently, what today, in the predominant Western public speech, the \u201cHuman Rights of the Third World suffering victims\u201d effectively mean is the right of the Western powers themselves to intervene\u2014politically, economically, culturally, militarily\u2014in the Third World countries of their choice on behalf of the defense of Human Rights. My disagreement with Chomsky\u2019s political analyses lies elsewhere: his neglect of how ideology works, as well as the problematic nature of his biased dealing with facts which often leads him to do what he accuses his opponents of doing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u017di\u017eek Chomsky debate If one defines and uses this term the way I do (and I am not alone here: my understanding echoes a long tradition of so-called Western Marxism), then one has to conclude that what Chomsky is doing in his political writings is very important, I have great admiration and respect for it, … Continue reading “chomsky \u017d debate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11673"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11680,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11673\/revisions\/11680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}