Chomsky, the famous linguist, anarchist—and relentless critic of American foreign policy—remains one of the few voices calling for peace above the prevailing atmosphere of hysteria which has escalated the on-going conflict in Ukraine. Despite being hailed as among one of the eighth most influential thinkers by The New York Times, his articles are not published by a single newspaper in the United States of America!
Noam Chomsky must be one of the most heard of but unread critics of American foreign policy. You will look in vain for any of his articles in the western newspapers. If newspapers pay attention to Chomsky it is often as a ploy to try and catch him out or misquote him via interviews. They can misconstrue him as being an apologist for this or that and more or less put words in his mouth.
It would be better to either listen to some recent Youtube interviews titled 'An Insane Experiment' or even better, read some of his works such as 'Who Rules the World?' {New York: Penguin Books, 2016} and 'Manufacturing Consent.’
By reading those works you will get an in-depth idea of his views on American foreign policy. You will quickly grasp why the media which is controlled by the 1% of the population who possess 99% of the World's wealth are not keen to publish his articles or the views of any other dissident. But if you are more interested in his theory of linguistics it is worth getting a copy of his ‘Language and Problems of Knowledge,’ {The Managua Lectures, London: M.I.T. press, 1988}.
The inexorable influence which Chomsky exerts can't be underestimated. In 2017 the wife of Prince Harry, Megan, enthusiastically declared his work 'Who rules the World' as a must read—prompting Chomsky to prophetically predict 'she would shake things up in the Royal Family.'
The Scottish writer James Kelman, who I interviewed 30 years ago seemed spellbound by him and in practically every psychology course which covers language acquisition he is mentioned.
When I was a student at university my lecturer told us how it seemed almost exceptional that a very left-wing thinker would argue against the popular idea that we are conditioned by the environment, by claiming much of our behavior is strongly influenced by an inherited and innate disposition to learn languages as well as count. But Chomsky is his own man.
I was even more astonished to discover how, like James Kelman, he was an anarchist. I wondered how he managed to hold on to an academic career with his anarchist views. For instance, when I applied to obtain signed support for a grant to do a doctorate the academics stalled. After two years of seeking them out one of them grudgingly told me "I will sign your papers but only if you agree to observe academic conventions. I heard that you were a member of an anarchist club." This was a misleading thing to say because it was my fellow student who was an anarchist not myself. He had mixed me up with him!
And Chomsky is not always accepted by some Russian academics. When one of my colleagues attempted to write an article examining his hypothesis she was brushed aside by the words "That is just old hat." So much for academic freedom! It clearly has discernible limits. Chomsky himself referred to freedom of speech as being comparable to being put in 'a box.’ You can say a lot about something within this box but once you go outside it you won't be heard. People can be fired, blacklisted or even get their careers put on hold. And that is if they are 'lucky.’ Other people are arrested, imprisoned and murdered for speaking candidly.
In addition to the above opinions about Chomsky, I think there are three reasons I can give for reading his work: he can warn you how not to teach English as a foreign language, he can inspire fresh, frank and critical thinking, and he has taken on a very strong and sane position on the conflict in Ukraine.
1. Perhaps one of biggest problems anyone confronts in education is the perennial and persistent problem of boredom. The poet Joseph Brodsky emphasized it was one of the worst problems students would face in their everyday lives. And boredom can't just be reduced to doing repetitive tasks but the frustration and futility you can feel at getting nowhere. In his 'Language and Problems of Knowledge' Chomsky mentions how he had been invited to schools in Puerto Rico to look at their English program. He writes, 'They were taught English five days a week for twelve years, and when they came out, they couldn't say "How are you?" In fact, I might say that the only people that a non-Spanish speaker could talk to in Puerto Rico at that time were older people who hadn't been to school. So what was happening?" {‘Language and Problems of Knowledge,’ pp. 180-181}. Chomsky goes on to explain that the teaching in those schools had been based on the latest scientific theories of psychology which taught that learning a language was like catching a ball which you pick up by repeating set phrases again and again. They called this ceaseless repetition 'pattern practice.’ But this was so boring students fell asleep after 3 minutes or started throwing things or looking out the window. Students simply did not pay any attention. He states, 'Well, that goes on for twelve years, five days a week, and the results are predictably close to zero.
The truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is making the students feel interested in the material. Then the other 1 percent has to do with your methods. And that's not just true of languages. It is true of every subject' {‘Language and Problems of Knowledge,’ p. 181}. Yet I found that my experience in some schools in Moscow people stress the opposite of Chomsky. New students and managers constantly ask teachers 'What is your 'methodology'? as if all problems are resolved by the right methodology. It is also as if methodology is a kind of panacea for learning English and students are over tested. The main aim is not learn how to speak but often to just pass the exam. I largely agree with Chomsky but would add that the teacher has to love his subject as well as to try and love his students. Without that you won't get much motivation. Chomsky claims that the motivation of the student is more decisive that methodology. He states, 'Learning has to come from the inside: you have to want to learn. If you want to learn, you'll learn no matter how bad the methods are'{‘Language and Problems of Knowledge,’ p. 182}.
This may sound an obvious point to good teachers but not to those in administration and those who insist on forcing teachers to use the latest methodology. Chomsky warns teachers that 'Psychology and Linguistics have caused a good deal of harm by pretending to have answers to those questions and telling teachers and people who deal with children how they should behave. Often the ideas presented by the scientists are totally crazy and they may cause trouble' {‘Language and Problems of Knowledge,’ p. 180}. A concrete example is when in the 1990's managers of schools insisted desks for students and table should be removed from the classrooms. The result was teachers and students kept tripping over their bags and books lying around the floor.
2. Chomsky's ideas encourage an education which does not repress the initial creativity, curiosity and critical thinking of the child. In one of last interviews he states that any critical thinking that a child shows is quickly repressed by the schools, churches and other social institutions. That need not be. I think some research in psychology vindicates Chomsky's view. Susan Engel, a child psychologist, mentions how many children become poorer storytellers when they get older. The reason for this is the education system stresses the importance of avoiding poor punctuation, grammar and 'realism' as opposed to the most important things like rhythm, make believe and use of expression. As a result, students learn to become better court witnesses capable of reciting descriptive and dull facts rather than telling stories. They learn to 'play safe' in telling stories! So the education system can inadvertently impede creativity and critical thinking.
3. Chomsky's views on the conflict in Ukraine remain statements from one of the few sane voices you hear. In his latest interview, he rightly maintains the most important task is to find a diplomatic solution to end the war and save lives. He describes this conflict as 'an insane and grotesque experiment.' He is one of the few dissidents that questions the same old narrative you hear in the everyday press. The main discourse you will hear in the mainstream media is the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, that Putin is a madman bent on not only seizing Ukraine but Moldova and later the Baltic countries unless the west sends arms to Ukraine and succeeds in driving out the Russians. The main priority is not to reach a peaceful solution but to win a war which weakens Russia. Chomsky questions this narrative. He asks the question as to why many people believe the invasion of Iraq was provoked but the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked. The European powers and the United States are not even attempting to encourage peaceful negotiations but are only intent on how to successfully wage a war against Russia. Some British politicians are even openly advocating bombing Russia. Chomsky asks, "Do we really want a third world war?" This does not mean he is an apologist for Putin—or that he is condoning the invasion. Far from it! He has stated that he understands why the Ukrainians are fighting back. He finds the very idea of war repugnant. He only wishes to state that this conflict might have been prevented if America and the European powers had made different decisions. For instance, in his book 'Who Rules the World?' Chomsky reminds people that the west had made an agreement that N.A.T.O would not expand up to Russia's borders with Gorbachev. They casually broke this agreement saying 'well it was only a gentleman's agreement and words.' So it was not legally binding. With this inherent dishonesty in casually making and breaking agreements how can Russians or anyone take western diplomats seriously? Chomsky stated that the Russian fear of being threatened by N.A.T.O. should have been seriously addressed. It never was. Instead, as far back as 2007 N.A.T.O was promising to admit Georgia and Ukraine into its membership. Chomsky argues that the conflict could have been avoided if N.A.T.O had not hinted or pushed for Ukrainian membership of N.A.T.O., if Ukraine agreed to become neutral and if there was some kind of federation of Ukraine which allowed those in Donetsk some form of autonomy within Ukraine. However, there were no serious efforts at using diplomacy to avert such an impending crisis. Chomsky looks at the situation against a historical background. He argues that the first world war could have been ended much earlier had the powers that be had desired it. But all the attempts at diplomatic intervention were thwarted leading to further futile deaths. The subsequent peace treaty of Versailles in 1919 was not based on a diplomatic solution but an attempt to humiliate Germany with the result Hitler came to power and another world war resulted. The second world war would have been preventable if a diplomatic peace which respected all participants had been agreed upon. Chomsky points out that after Napoleon had lost, a diplomatically secured peace at Vienna at least allowed Europe to avoid a huge war for almost 80 years.
Chomsky warns that the world is becoming more and more dangerously polarized with Russia and China as well as India being drawn into a bloc with third world countries refusing to isolate Russia because they feel more antagonized by the legacy of American intervention.
Would the United States allow Russia to set up nuclear weapon installations in Mexico? How would the Americans react to this? It is likely they would threaten to invade and bombard Mexico unless they withdraw such installations.
American politicians rarely ask such uncomfortable questions. They prefer to have their beauty sleep. Chomsky's works often make uncomfortable reading. Nobody likes to be accused of double standards. And it is hardly surprising the mainstream newspapers don't publish his articles!