Al Shindagah

CHOMSKY IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Professor Noam Chomsky - well known among intellectual circles for revolutionizing linguistics and for his left-wing political stances - was recently thrust into the mainstream when the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez urged the American people to read his 2003 book "Hegemony or Survival". The book promptly shot to number one on Amazon. Linda S. Heard analyzes both the man and his message.

Nobody was more surprised that Chomsky when Hugo Chavez began his speech to the United Nations Assembly last September by waving around a copy of "Hegemony or Survival".

"Noam Chomsky is one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals and this is one of his most recent books "Hegemony or Survival: the imperialist strategy of the United States, said Chavez.

"It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, what is happening now and the greatest threat looming over our planet. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because the threat is in their own house." This, of course, was the prelude to Chavez' sniffing the air and pretending to smell sulfur, which he related to the earlier presence of George W. Bush.

It wasn't long before Chomsky returned the compliment. While visiting Chile, Chomsky advocated Venezuela's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council while blasting those voting for its rival Guatemala. Venezuelans "live in a climate of absolute democracy", said Chomsky.

Superficially this mutual admiration society appears odd. Word has it that the two even plan to meet up. What could a gregarious, populist Latin leader have in common with a shy and scholarly Jewish linguist one might wonder apart from their distaste for current US foreign policy.and, of course, that now best-selling book?

Speaking on National Public Radio about his book in 2003, Chomsky had this to say.

"I think the title expresses the dilemma that Americans have to face and it's a very serious one. The Bush administration's policy isn't entirely novel but it is extreme. It is a brazen acknowledged declaration that the US plans to dominate the world by force, if necessary, and prevent any long term challenge to it."

"In a sense, maybe if hegemony is pursued along the lines that the Bush administration is developing then survival is at risk, but we don't have to accept those choices. It is up to American citizens.The nature of the policies are increasing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and also increasing the threat of terror."

This is coincidentally the same message Hugo Chavez has been trying to get across to anyone who will listen for some time.

And like Chavez, Chomsky believes Bush's foreign policy contains an element of racism but says it is so deeply rooted in the whole (American) culture that it is hard to attribute it to Bush.

"For example, anti-Arab racism is rampant in the United States," says Chomsky. "And it's not just that, I mean, if you look back at racism with regard to blacks you don't even have to talk about it as it's so obvious but the same is true with regard to much of the rest of the world."

"If you look over the declassified records, the attitude towards Latin Americans is outrageously racist. They are naughty children that have to be disciplined and they can't be left to run their own affairs. We should pat them on their heads once in a while to make them feel good, according to Secretary of State Dulles (John Foster Dulles 1953 - 1959). It is part and parcel of the whole American experience but it grows out of European imperialism, which was no different and is no different."

All that must be music to Chavez's ears. The former Prime Minister of Iraq Ibrahim Al-Jaafari is also a fan according to Lawrence Kaplan writing in the New Republic. "As a television in the corner of the room conveys images of the carnage outside, Al-Jaafari admits to being partial to the works of Noam Chomsky. 'Why won't Chomsky come to Iraq?' he asks."

But Nick Cohen, who reviewed the book in the Observer, wasn't as impressed. He describes Noam Chomsky as "the master of looking-glass politics", whose writing "exemplifies the ability of the Western left to criticize everything from the West - except itself."

While admitting that Chomsky is "immensely popular", Cohen says his popularity is "mystifying on the first reading". He describes Chomsky's narrative as dense, filled with non sequiturs and his prose convoluted.

Cohen says Chomsky appeals to a mainly comfortable Western audience due to a simple message: Capitalism, particularly American capitalism, is responsible for the world's problems. Resistance, however perverted, is inevitable, and if the resistance is barbaric the barbarism is the fault of capitalism.

Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School and an author, has also been scathing about "Hegemony or Survival". "I don't know anyone who's ever read a Chomsky book," he said. "You buy them, you put them in your pockets, or you put them out on your coffee table."

"I promise you they are not going to get to the end of the book. He does not write page turners, he writes page stoppers. There are a lot of bent pages in Noam Chomsky's books, and they are usually at about Page 16."

Dershowitz and Chomsky have been at loggerheads for many years over the future of Palestine. In fact, ever since they met at a Hebrew-speaking Zionist camp in 1948, so it's understandable that Dershowitz might be envious of Chomsky's undeniable stature. At the same time it is true to say that Chomsky's books aren't exactly light bedtime reading.

Chomsky's appeal is hard to categorize. People either love him or hate him. Generally considered a revered icon of the left, some leftwing activists refer to him as a left gatekeeper - a derogatory term attached to an individual that appears to be liberal but whose purpose is to deride and discredit anyone who questions or opposes the official line.

They blame him for refusing to entertain 9-11 conspiracy theories, for believing that President John F. Kennedy was, indeed, killed by a lone assassin, and for political myopia when it comes to discussing the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which has been highly critical of his pro-Palestinian stance.

One such critic is Peter Symonds, who writes: "In the United States Chomsky has proved a useful political tool for the ruling class, helping to confine the mass opposition to the war to expressions of moral outrage and prevent it from taking a revolutionary direction."

Much of this criticism, perhaps, stems from people's inherent need to compartmentalize and slap their gurus with convenient labels. The right, they contend, should hold certain all-encompassing beliefs and the same with the left.

Chomsky confuses some people because his thoughts aren't as black or white as they would like. There is also the tendency to credit - or discredit - everyone with influence as following a certain agenda whereas, in the case of Chomsky, it's more than likely he's simply his own man.

Alternatively, Chomsky may be unwilling to embroil himself with controversy after being called an apologist for the Khmer Rouge and tainted by charges of anti-Semitism for his championing of the rights of Robert Faurisson - a holocaust denier - to free speech.

In light of Chomsky's refusal to sue even those who have libelled him and his own staunchly Jewish background, this appears to be a ridiculous charge.

According to his biographer, he grew up in an intensely Jewish-Hebraic household, was involved in the Kibbutz movement and was always interested in the actions of the Jewish state. Both his father and mother taught at a religious Jewish school and the family were always very much involved with cultural Jewish activities. He even met his wife at Hebrew school. Charges of anti-Semitism, therefore, ring hollow.

It seems to me that Chomsky is one of those rare individuals motivated by principle, able to put their own inherited allegiances aside for the sake of objectivity. This he has done in his latest book "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy".

In its pages he puts forward the thesis that failed states display "an inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence".

He urges his readers to look honestly in the mirror, adding "if we allow ourselves to do so we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of failed states right at home".

Whether or not you agree with Chomsky's take on the state of world affairs, according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar between the years 1980 and 1992.

Moreover, he has been the recipient of a slew of honorary degrees from almost 30 of the world's most prestigious universities, is twice-winner of The Orwell Award and was voted as the world's leading living public intellectual in a 2005 Prospect magazine poll.

Alan Dershowitz may scoff that nobody reads Noam Chomsky's books but with such a heavyweight and loyal academic fan base he must be doing something right. Let's hope he carries on for many more years to come. Like Edward Said, Chomsky is a one-off. The world will be a darker and infinitely duller place when he's gone.