Urban v's the Commentariat

[newbie]

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?

no you haven't. You've made no attempt to deal with my points about intellectual snobbery and so on, merely keep asserting that because you admire his writing anyone- me - that finds it less than clear is obviously stupid.

 

[killer b]

But your points about intellectual snobbery rely on a misreading - either wilful or otherwise - of the posts people have made on this thread.

 

[newbie]

No they don't, they rely on an analysis that's laid out in what I've said. It's not a misreading at all, that's simply the same sort of characterisation as any insider uses when someone identifies the privilege they use unconsciously.

 

[newbie]

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

and what? get into a dull argument about individual words and/or Palestine or Russia. No thanks. It wouldn't demonstrate anything worthwhile whether I find words, phrases, paragraphs or the whole thing unclear or not. It's not whether or not I'm stupid that's at issue here.

 

[killer b]

No they don't, they rely on an analysis that's laid out in what I've said. It's not a misreading at all, that's simply the same sort of characterisation as any insider uses when someone identifies the privilege they use unconsciously.

You've certainly misread all of my posts, to a comical degree in some cases. I don't feel particularly well disposed to thrash it out with you tbh, as I suspect you're doing it on purpose.

 

[newbie]

doing what on purpose- identifying something you're finding uncomfortable?

tbh I'm finding the defensiveness a bit bizarre. Has the blatantly obvious stuff I've been saying really never occurred to any of you clever folk that read and understand Professors?


ps I'll admit that #9771 was intended to be vaguely comical (and I'm pleased it worked )

 

[killer b]

I'm not finding it uncomfortable. I just disagree that the barrier to more people reading Chomsky is his dry academic language. Because his language isn't dry or academic, as you'd know if you'd read any of it.

 

[Red Cat]

I find Chomsky fairly tough going, not because he uses complex language, I don't think (it's been a while), but there's an awful lot of information in his text. I read the Fateful Triangle in my twenties and it was a slog, I wouldn't have had the capacity to read such a book when I was 14, I don't think, despite my 'intelligence'.

 

[Blagsta]

I have a couple of Chomsky books. Chomsky on Anarchism which I've not read and Manufacturing Consent which I started but put down because it's quite dry and boringly written. The film of Manufacturing Consent is far more accessible.

 

[Red Cat]

But in a way this misses the point. What are the social conditions in which people can get together to tackle a book/text? Do people do this? Are there many political reading groups anymore?

I went to a theory seminar yesterday for my work/training and it was great. All three seminars that I've had this term, with just 4 of us and a seminar leader, have been transformative in terms of my understanding of the (difficult) texts.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Many people don't read Chomsky because they've never heard of him. I reckon.

 

[killer b]

But in a way this misses the point. What are the social conditions in which people can get together to tackle a book/text? Do people do this? Are there many political reading groups anymore?

This is what I'm trying to get at - the barriers to people reading political theory are little to do with the accessibility of the text IMO.

 

[newbie]

I'm not finding it uncomfortable. I just disagree that the barrier to more people reading Chomsky is his dry academic language. Because his language isn't dry or academic, as you'd know if you'd read any of it.

I have (tried to) read him, as I said up there somewhere. But you're refusing to recognise that what you find simple or at least accessible other people find hard. And that refusal creates a barrier, with you uncomfortably on the same side as the elite who frame debate, the ones for whom text and text based understanding are central to their being. Wordsmiths like journalists, commentariat, lawyers, politicians, academics, novelists, historians and so on. All rely on a similar skillset, the ability to read, understand and manipulate words. They're the ones who, by and large, define our horizons.

People who lack that skillset, through nature or nurture, are disadvantaged, whatever other attributes they have. See the mockery of the likes of Beckham for being inarticulate or, perhaps more importantly, the way the scientists fret that they can't communicate their ideas properly, the way technologists need writers to get across their innovations because the boffins themselves can't adequately find the words.

Words are a specific skill- I can't for the life of me see why anyone seeks to deny that.

 

[killer b]

Right - but as I was attempting to demonstrate with my post about the Scottish referendum, given sufficient motivation and opportunity people who normally probably wouldn't have bothered to read or understand fairly 'complex' political & economic arguments clearly can do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Depends which of his books you read, Spanky. The ones that are taken from interviews with David Barsamian are "accessible", for example. They're not footnoted, they don't contain abstruse academic language, and they're a great feed-in to Chomsky's more "single issue" books. Even then he deliberately tries to limit his arguments to the immediate side of politics, rather than the academic.

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.

Accessibility is a pretty subjective criteria too, frankly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

It's a bit rich, you complaining about people not dealing with what you actually said, when you completely misrepresented me, as I illustrated in post #9762.

 

[newbie]

you said

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.

to which the relevant part of my response was

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?

you then you had what I though was the last word

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.

so how am I misrepresenting you? I've said that because you, personally, find him easy doesn't mean others do. I don't see any misrepresentation there. If there is one it was unintentional, unlike the snippy tone you've adopted.

If you think my identification of privilege is wrong then say so.

 

[newbie]

.

changed me mind, hang on a sec

 

[newbie]

Right - but as I was attempting to demonstrate with my post about the Scottish referendum, given sufficient motivation and opportunity people who normally probably wouldn't have bothered to read or understand fairly 'complex' political & economic arguments clearly can do.

I have no argument whatsoever with that, when motivated people can clearly understand all sorts of things they don't normally bother with.

Is there any evidence that those people read tracts by Professors before or during the debate? Maybe they did, I don't know I wasn't in Scotland, but without evidence as to what gateway was in use there may be limited relevance to this conversation.

 

[DotCommunist]

'tract' is short for extract btw, what you are talking about is non fiction books.

 

[newbie]

is it? didn't know that.

 

[J Ed]

Funnily enough Chomsky actually makes a good point on this sort of discussion

QUESTION: You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken -- in some places you call it a "Cartesian common sense" -- of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you've written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

I think Chomsky can be a bit patronising in regards to his opinions on spectator sports and the de-politicisation of people through interest in sport but otherwise I think he makes some good points here.

 

[DotCommunist]

is it? didn't know that.

yeah its from church 'tracts'- a small leaflet/2page booklet typically an extract or two from the bible accompanied by an interpretation or what have you. an a pretty picture of the cross, or jesus holding a lamb etc

 

[DaveCinzano]

'tract' is short for extract btw

My dictionary begs to differ.

tract, n, treatise or pamphlet, esp. a religious or moralistic one. [C15: from Latin tractatus from tractare to handle]

extract, n, something extracted, such as a part or passage from a book. [C15: from Latin extractus drawn forth, from extrahere, from trahere to drag]

 

[DotCommunist]

My dictionary begs to differ.

tract, n, treatise or pamphlet, esp. a religious or moralistic one. [C15: from Latin tractatus from tractare to handle]

extract, n, something extracted, such as a part or passage from a book. [C15: from Latin extractus drawn forth, from extrahere, from trahere to drag]

see above- I was half right.

thing is to use it in its correct definition actually confuses newbies point. If as he/she says most people have niether the time nor ability to plough through dense works (leaving aside the 'is chomsky dense' argument), then a tract is EXACTLY what they would read in passing. iyswim

 

[two sheds]

I find Chomsky fairly tough going, not because he uses complex language, I don't think (it's been a while), but there's an awful lot of information in his text. I read the Fateful Triangle in my twenties and it was a slog, I wouldn't have had the capacity to read such a book when I was 14, I don't think, despite my 'intelligence'.

He does somewhere remark that if you're agreeing with the general consensus - say that israel is a plucky little country that is threatened by extinction from the powerful and evil palestinian terrorists - then a couple of sentences will do because everyone knows what you're talking about.

If you however want to point out that israel is a hugely militarized society backed by the US and palestine has tiny military might in comparison - you have to give every piece of your reasoning and not miss out any key facts or people who buy into the propaganda model will just dismiss what you're saying out of hand.

(To the best of my recollection, and my example of this rather than his - grateful for exact quote if anyone knows it.)

 

[DaveCinzano]

see above- I was half right.

thing is to use it in its correct definition actually confuses newbies point. If as he/she says most people have niether the time nor ability to plough through dense works (leaving aside the 'is chomsky dense' argument), then a tract is EXACTLY what they would read in passing. iyswim

A tract is not an extract, and they have entirely different etymological roots.

 

[DotCommunist]

A tract is not an extract, and they have entirely different etymological roots.

yes, you made that clear but the point is a tract is not the usage newbie was using- referring to a full text.

 

[Bakunin]

My dictionary begs to differ.

tract, n, treatise or pamphlet, esp. a religious or moralistic one. [C15: from Latin tractatus from tractare to handle]

extract, n, something extracted, such as a part or passage from a book. [C15: from Latin extractus drawn forth, from extrahere, from trahere to drag]

 

[Lo Siento.]

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.

So, just to get this straight: it's intellectual snobbery to say that most people, if they were inclined to read it, could comprehend Chomsky's work, but it's not intellectual snobbery to say that Chomsky's work is far too dense and complex for most people to understand?