Urban v's the Commentariat

[andysays]

If Chomsky works as a gateway, he's not been very effective. Plenty of people here seem to think his writing is accessible and persuasive- apparently it's only me that finds him dry and academic. He's been prominent for decades, and the post I initially responded to said "Chomsky is definitely a great gateway writer". I don't know how many of the current UKIP sympathisers read him at some point during those decades, but some of them must have done, if he's such a great writer, or such a great gateway.

Looks like my and everyone else's initial reaction was right then - your post conflated various different things and didn't make any sense

 

[ViolentPanda]

only for those with intellectualist leanings and an appetite for long/obscure/academic words.

We must be reading different Noam Chomskys, as I've always found his socio-political work a marvel of clarity. I've read 8 of his books (I have another 2 on my "to read" pile - "The New Military Humanism" and "Imperial Ambitions"), and have always found his stuff relentlessly well-presented, easy to understand (unless you skim-read, in which case you deserve everything you get) and well-supported with references to sources.
Your sentence above applies more to Will Self (I've read 4 books of his, so have a reasonable base for comparison ) than Noam Chomsky.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you read any Chomsky newbie? He's pretty careful not to use obscure academic language - the exact opposite of what you say.

Unless he's reading some of Chomsky's collected papers on linguistics - some of those are a bit dense, but understandably so when his linguistics work is aimed at a quite narrow academic "audience".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think anyone was claiming that Chomsky's work has politicised the majority of people. They were just countering your misconception that Chomsky's political stuff is "nuanced political theory" and accessible only to intellectuals. It's a caricature that doesn't stand up to actually reading it.

Yup.
What does sometimes happen with Chomsky's work is that it inspires people to dig deeper, to have a peek behind the curtain, and what gets revealed can inspire others to think politically. As you rightly say, his work hasn't politicised "the majority of people". What it has arguably done, though, is to sort of activate a political virus in some people that has then spread - not to pandemic proportions, but enough to self-propagate.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Yup.
What does sometimes happen with Chomsky's work is that it inspires people to dig deeper, to have a peek behind the curtain, and what gets revealed can inspire others to think politically. As you rightly say, his work hasn't politicised "the majority of people". What it has arguably done, though, is to sort of activate a political virus in some people that has then spread - not to pandemic proportions, but enough to self-propagate.

Also thought that OJ's original idea, that inner city 6th formers (ie. code for working class teenagers) don't (can't?) read political work of that sort is a load of patronising arse.

 

[newbie]

We must be reading different Noam Chomskys, as I've always found his socio-political work a marvel of clarity. I've read 8 of his books (I have another 2 on my "to read" pile - "The New Military Humanism" and "Imperial Ambitions"), and have always found his stuff relentlessly well-presented, easy to understand (unless you skim-read, in which case you deserve everything you get) and well-supported with references to sources.
Your sentence above applies more to Will Self (I've read 4 books of his, so have a reasonable base for comparison ) than Noam Chomsky.

I have no bone to pick with you, or with anyone else here. But you are in the minority of those who have the ability to read, understand and be able to put into perspective academic or polemical books on isms and ologies. So are most of the other contributors to this thread, some of whom are actual academics, some are not. Your own experience, and your natural abilities, are not the same as the experiences and abilities of the bulk of the population, any more than being goodlooking, always in the first team at sport, having the ability to sing or paint or having a head for maths are universal. Maybe all of those and more come naturally to everyone you know, but tbh I doubt it.

A text based forum like this obviously favours those with abilities based on reading, understanding and writing text, as does the world of the commentariat. So I shouldn't be surprised that few here will accept the view that the language of Chomskys journalism is unlikely to act as a gateway for more than a tiny minority of teenagers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Also thought that OJ's original idea, that inner city 6th formers (ie. code for working class teenagers) don't (can't?) read political work of that sort is a load of patronising arse.

Agreed. I can't speak for any other school but my own, but back in the '70s, I knew people besides me who'd read "The Communist Manifesto", "The Condition of the Working Class in England" and "The Making of the English Working Class" and other broadly-political works by the 5th year, and understood the messages they contained.
While I'm aware that the National Curriculum has narrowed down what you read in school, any teen interested in politics nowadays can download most of the great political texts free, or borrow them from a library. It comes across like Owen is trying to sell his latest piece of work as a solution, but frankly I don't think that someone whose message reduces to a core of "vote Labour without illusions" is credible. Chomsky shows you how to think for yourself, as does Thompson, Marx and Engels, for that matter. Jones, on the other hand, leads you down a primrose path at the end of which lies Labour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have no bone to pick with you, or with anyone else here. But you are in the minority of those who have the ability to read, understand and be able to put into perspective academic or polemical books on isms and ologies. So are most of the other contributors to this thread, some of whom are actual academics, some are not. Your own experience, and your natural abilities, are not the same as the experiences and abilities of the bulk of the population, any more than being goodlooking, always in the first team at sport, having the ability to sing or paint or having a head for maths are universal. Maybe all of those and more come naturally to everyone you know, but tbh I doubt it.

A text based forum like this obviously favours those with abilities based on reading, understanding and writing text, as does the world of the commentariat. So I shouldn't be surprised that few here will accept the view that the language of Chomskys journalism is unlikely to act as a gateway for more than a tiny minority of teenagers.

You are speaking (whether they like it or not) for the bulk of the population.
Do you have anything except personal prejudice to substantiate your position on the distribution of ability in terms of reading and understanding political texts as a late teenager (I'm thinking not)?
If so, set it out, allow it to be critiqued. If not...

 

[Pickman's model]

Agreed. I can't speak for any other school but my own, but back in the '70s, I knew people besides me who'd read "The Communist Manifesto", "The Condition of the Working Class in England" and "The Making of the English Working Class" and other broadly-political works by the 5th year, and understood the messages they contained.
While I'm aware that the National Curriculum has narrowed down what you read in school, any teen interested in politics nowadays can download most of the great political texts free, or borrow them from a library. It comes across like Owen is trying to sell his latest piece of work as a solution, but frankly I don't think that someone whose message reduces to a core of "vote Labour without illusions" is credible. Chomsky shows you how to think for yourself, as does Thompson, Marx and Engels, for that matter. Jones, on the other hand, leads you down a primrose path at the end of which lies Labour.

primroses more often associated with tories: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_League

 

[newbie]

You are speaking (whether they like it or not) for the bulk of the population.
Do you have anything except personal prejudice to substantiate your position on the distribution of ability in terms of reading and understanding political texts as a late teenager (I'm thinking not)?
If so, set it out, allow it to be critiqued. If not...

Half, at least, of the population don't/didn't get into 6th form, they don't pass the exams, many of which rely on text based abilities.

You're the one that describes Chomsky as "easy to understand (unless you skim-read, in which case you deserve everything you get)", as though entirely unable to identify your own privilege. Fine, but just because you find something easy doesn't mean everyone does- you must have some area of your life that you know others take to like a fish to water but you can't deal with, surely? Or are you somehow so perfect that doesn't apply?

I'm sorry, one of my personal failings is timing and I've got this one wrong. I have to go out although I'd prefer to stay and discuss. Later.

 

[Rural]

I have no bone to pick with you, or with anyone else here. But you are in the minority of those who have the ability to read, understand and be able to put into perspective academic or polemical books on isms and ologies. So are most of the other contributors to this thread, some of whom are actual academics, some are not. Your own experience, and your natural abilities, are not the same as the experiences and abilities of the bulk of the population, any more than being goodlooking, always in the first team at sport, having the ability to sing or paint or having a head for maths are universal. Maybe all of those and more come naturally to everyone you know, but tbh I doubt it.

A text based forum like this obviously favours those with abilities based on reading, understanding and writing text, as does the world of the commentariat. So I shouldn't be surprised that few here will accept the view that the language of Chomskys journalism is unlikely to act as a gateway for more than a tiny minority of teenagers.

I read the sentence as ending after "having a head". Blimey who doesn't have a head I was thinking. Which obvs goes to show how clear my reading comprehension is :/

 

[ViolentPanda]

Half, at least, of the population don't/didn't get into 6th form, they don't pass the exams, many of which rely on text based abilities.

And of that "half the population", how many "didn't pass the exams"? I suspect that as many again had no reason to want to stay until 6th-form anyway.

You're the one that describes Chomsky as "easy to understand (unless you skim-read, in which case you deserve everything you get)", as though entirely unable to identify your own privilege. Fine, but just because you find something easy doesn't mean everyone does- you must have some area of your life that you know others take to like a fish to water but you can't deal with, surely? Or are you somehow so perfect that doesn't apply?

I'm not claiming that "everyone" might find Chomsky easy to understand. I said that I've always found his stuff easy to understand. You must have missed that in your rush to try and point-score.
As for the rest of that paragraph, it reveals more about you than me.

I'm sorry, one of my personal failings is timing and I've got this one wrong. I have to go out although I'd prefer to stay and discuss. Later.

Later, indeed.

 

[Bakunin]

Helen Lewis gives the Kathy Sierra case the mention with some awkward bits filleted out.

Eg this kind of thing.



If the SWP had plonked themselves in that loon's corner, the intersectionalistas would've gone ballistic, tipping over stalls and the like.

Am I the only one who thinks Helen Lewis is disingenuous, mendacious and deliberately so?

 

[tufty79]

Nope

 

[tufty79]

Dp

 

[killer b]

I think it's fair to say that a small minority of people read the likes of chomsky, and I reckon probably much less than did do say 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when left wing ideas has more of a base in the working class.

However, to blame this on the accessibility of the text is nonsense - in fact, one of the barriers to more people reading political texts is others propogating this idea that it's all dry, academic and complicated, and not for the likes of us.

 

[DotCommunist]

I've only watched the manufacturing consent video on youtube, but it didn't come across as overly dry or technical

 

[Rural]

Am I the only one who thinks Helen Lewis is disingenuous, mendacious and deliberately so?

I thought the way she treated Sam ambreen by asking an *innocent* question, not privately, but so her many followers would see & jump in, was very disingenuous & undermining. I think this has all been discussed elsewhere on urban or this thread tho. But that was one thing that made me doubt hl's motives.

 

[killer b]

One of the interesting things we heard about the Scottish independence referendum was that - magically - 'the man on the street' was somehow able to grasp the finer points of the nuanced political and economic arguments they were presented with - people in pubs were having informed debates about fiscal policy, international relations and so on.

IMO that shows that when he has some kind of ownership of the terms of the discussion and a stake in the outcome, perhaps he isn't so thick after all.

 

[redsquirrel]

Have you read any Chomsky newbie? He's pretty careful not to use obscure academic language - the exact opposite of what you say.

Yeah it's been some time since I read any Chomsky but I don't remember any of the books I've read being full of obscure words or academic jargon.

 

[newbie]

I think it's fair to say that a small minority of people read the likes of chomsky, and I reckon probably much less than did do say 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when left wing ideas has more of a base in the working class.

However, to blame this on the accessibility of the text is nonsense - in fact, one of the barriers to more people reading political texts is others propogating this idea that it's all dry, academic and complicated, and not for the likes of us.

Right, so noticing that Chomksy is read by a minority is actually correct but shouldn't be said just in case someone finds it offputting...

One of the interesting things we heard about the Scottish independence referendum was that - magically - 'the man on the street' was somehow able to grasp the finer points of the nuanced political and economic arguments they were presented with - people in pubs were having informed debates about fiscal policy, international relations and so on.

IMO that shows that when he has some kind of ownership of the terms of the discussion and a stake in the outcome, perhaps he isn't so thick after all.

and anyway amounts to calling the entire male Scottish population thick.

Come off it.

 

[newbie]

All this Chomsky is easy, accessible, common sense looks a lot like shorthand for the sort of intellectual** snobbery that goes only a fool finds difficult what I find simple.

I'm hardly surprised that contributors to a fairly serious corner of a text based discussion board are good at understanding text based arguments. But is there really a widespread view that the spectrum of ability so obviously evident in sport, music, art or maths somehow doesn't apply to reading dense politics or philosophy? A denial that there is a privilege involved here? One that, like other privileges, works to the advantage of haves and creates a barrier for have-nots?

That unacknowledged privilege, the unconscious exclusion by insiders who backslap about how easy it is, is a far greater barrier to other people approaching politics than pointing out that what a professor writes isn't particularly obvious.


** 12 letters, but I'd suggest almost all native English speakers know what it means, even if they don't know one or want to know one.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Sorry but Chomsky is not easy or accessible at all, I can't read more than about a page of it. The problem with all academic writing or the vast majority of it is that you have to be deeply interested enough in the subject to collect the tools you need to be able to comprehend it, and even then it requires lots of time and concentration, I'm pretty sure I'm not thick but any lefties going on about how readable this or that academic writer is makes me feel stupid and disempowered tbh.

ETA: there are some good, and entertaining academic writers that can make me think about things differently, but thats because I like their style which is pretty subjective criteria. I don't think that makes them easy or accessible.

 

[killer b]

Right, so noticing that Chomksy is read by a minority is actually correct but shouldn't be said just in case someone finds it offputting...

not at all - denying he's read by a minority would be a nonsense. But the reasons he's read by a minority are not because his writing is dry, academic and complicated. It isn't. One of the reasons he's as widely read and admired as he is, is because of the clarity of his writing.

and anyway amounts to calling the entire male Scottish population thick.

Come off it.

I think I'm beginning to see your problem.

All this Chomsky is easy, accessible, common sense looks a lot like shorthand for the sort of intellectual** snobbery that goes only a fool finds difficult what I find simple.

whereas, your argument seems to be I struggle to comprehend the simplest of things, therefore all those other people - who can't be as clever as me - must do too.

 

[redsquirrel]

and anyway amounts to calling the entire male Scottish population thick

What! How the fuck do you get that from KB's post?

Anyway Lo Siento's posted a Chomsky article, so can you give some examples of the obscure academic language that you claim he uses?

 

[newbie]

right, so it's that explicit is it? You'd rather call me personally too stupid to understand "the simplest of things" than deal with what I've actually said.

 

[newbie]

Anyway Lo Siento's posted a Chomsky article, so can you give some examples of the obscure academic language that you claim he uses?

you want some sort of textual evaluation of his work? Of course, that's sure to prove beyond any doubt that there's no such thing as disempowerment going on here.

 

[redsquirrel]

No I want a couple of examples of obscure academic language form the piece Lo Siento linked to. Also slightly silly for a bloke who's moaning about complexity to make that into a request for a "textual evaluation".

 

[killer b]

right, so it's that explicit is it? You'd rather call me personally too stupid to understand "the simplest of things" than deal with what I've actually said.

I have dealt with what you've said. You seem to have struggled to comprehend what I've posted though - is my language too dry and academic too?

 

[newbie]

so that you can say yeah kb was right you, personally, really are too stupid to understand simple things? How does that help?

why don't you address the point I made about art, maths and so on?