View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's July 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Diplo's July 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Richard Falk writes: > There are other ways of understanding reality than his, but > Chomsky's interpretative perspectives invariably pose challenges > that should not be ignored by self-respecting academics and > citizens. As a layman and self-respecting citizen, I have to say that I'm extremely wary of writers who play fast and loose with the truth, whether it's Chomsky or Ann Coulter. In the case of Chomsky, people were commenting on "his tendency to draw from an author's statements inferences that correspond neither to the author's intentions nor to the statements' meaning" before I was even born. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11370] Here's a classic example of this tendency, from the pages of the New York Review of Books. Samuel Huntington: > Mr. Chomsky writes as follows: > > Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the > > Viet Cong is "a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from > > its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist." > > The conclusion is obvious, and he does not shrink from it. We > > can ensure that the constituency ceases to exist by "direct > > application of mechanical and conventional power ... on such > > a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from > > countryside to city...." > > It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest > instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a > meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For > the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" > which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong: > > > > ... the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be > > > dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency > > > continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence > > > be based on accommodation. > > By omitting my next sentence--"Peace in the immediate future must > hence be based on accommodation"--and linking my statement about > the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the > article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument. Chomsky's response includes the following amazing sophistry: > ... I did not say that he "favored" this answer but only that he > "outlined" it, "explained" it, and "does not shrink from it," all > of which is literally true. The full exchange can be found at [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11044] As a layman, when I'm reading about a topic I'm not familiar with, I'm at the mercy of the writer: since I can't tell when he or she is making assertions which are questionable or false, I may come to believe things which aren't true. And since we tend to filter new information through our existing beliefs, reading dishonest writers may make me *stupider*. I don't mean to imply that Chomsky (or any other dishonest writer) ought to be ignored. Freedom of speech is based on the assumption that falsehoods will be demonstrated to be false in the marketplace of ideas. So it's important to respond to Chomsky's arguments, and to demonstrate which ones are true, which ones are questionable, and which ones are false. Nor do I mean to imply that the United States can do no wrong. But I think that there are critics of US foreign policy who are considerably more honest and--from what I can tell--more accurate than Chomsky; Stanley Hoffmann, for example. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11370] Chomsky's writings remind me of George Kennan's description of how Soviet historians portrayed the West: The lack of a strong and firm Western historiography in this subject [of relations between the Soviet Union and the West] is particularly unfortunate for the reason that Soviet historians have recently been giving elaborate attention to certain of its phases. The tendency of their labors has been to establish an image of this historical process which they conceive to be useful to the present purposes of the Soviet Communist Party but which is deeply discreditable to Western statesmanship and to the spirit and ideals of the Western peoples generally--so discreditable, in fact, that if the Western peoples could be brought to believe it, they would have no choice but to abandon their faith in themselves and the traditions of their national life. [Russia and the West, 1961, p. v] Russil Wvong
|