Worldviews in Collision: An Interview with Noam Chomsky

Second Quarter, 1998

by Michelle N. Voll

The eighth most cited source in the humanities is Noam Chomsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and world-renowned scholar in linguistics, history, philosophy and international affairs. Third Way, a Christian magazine in England that often features interviews with popular commentators, asked Center for Public justice staff to interview him.

Chomsky, 70, who has received countless awards and honorary degrees, is respected for his tireless quest for justice, advocacy of human rights, and his social critique of the ruling elites and the woes of capitalism.

Presented here are excerpts from our interview with Chomsky, published in the January '98 issue of Third Way, with added comments by James Skillen. Both thinkers struggle for a better, more just world. But the suppositions that fuel their arguments are fundamentally different. And their positions and solutions to society's problems diverge sharply.

Question: You have said in regard to rising fundamentalism that people have to find ways to identify themselves through association with others. What do you see as the most legitimate, authentic kind of community or organization?

Noam Chomsky—I can give you a truism—the best way for people to associate is in a manner which is beneficial to them and beneficial to others. That's basically what it comes down to.

I question whether authority is good for people, but that's what organized religion requires. Its fundamental core consists of irrational belief and subordination. In any form of organized religion, the divinities speak to you through some kind of organized hierarchy and have privileged access.

If people find it necessary for their lives, too bad for my beliefs. I don't like it, but people are what they are.

James Skillen—Professor Chomsky begins with the assumption that humans defile themselves by subordinating themselves to authority, particularly religious authority. Yet he has no basis other than his own "beliefs" to reject what he considers the "irrational belief" of religion. His authority is his own opinion. Why should I take more seriously Chomsky's opinion of "I don't like it," than the centuries-long history of Christians trusting the authority of God in very thoughtful and considered ways? There are reasonable and unreasonable fundamentalists; there are reasonable and unreasonable university professors. Chomsky's beliefs do not appear self-evidently rational to me.

Q: What do you see as the core of human identity?

Chomsky—When you talk about what human nature is, it's a disguised way of saying, "Here's what I hope it is."

To say what human nature ought to be, you basically can take the Enlightenment view that humans have an instinct for freedom, the need to create, to inquire, to think, to act, to organize your own life in association with others and to make decisions about your life without having to bend to anyone else.

Most people can be torturers and most can be saints. It's all part of human nature and just depends on which aspects the culture or conditions bring out.

Skillen—From a Christian point of view it is true that humans do not have a fixed nature the way animals do. Animals repeat habits and instincts over generations without cultural or social development. Human beings freely shape history and the world. Yet they cannot make themselves into angels or insects. Despite their creative freedom to shape themselves and history, they are not able to transcend the distinct identity God gave them as humans. Humans remain human.

There are ways to understand human freedom and creativity other than from an Enlightenment point of view. Chomsky simply ignores them. He also fails to reflect critically on his own incompatible assumptions. If humans have an instinct for freedom, then why are they determined by cultural conditions (apparently beyond their control) to become either torturers or saints. Christians don't attribute sin to a deterministic fate, but recognize it as the corruption of genuine human freedom through ungodly and irresponsible action. The biblical view of humans as the image of God is much richer than Chomsky's dialectic of freedom and determinism.

Q: Where does your passion for justice come from?

Chomsky—I think it's the same passion everybody else has. Our moral nature is as much a part of us as our legs or arms. It leads to conceptions of justice which you can chart and refine. It enters into every aspect of life from children playing together up to international affairs.

The reason people differ is because they assess circumstances differently For example, we can look at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan as unjust. Or we can look at the Russians defending the Afghans from terrorists supported by the CIA. Americans took a similar view when they invaded South Vietnam.

Skillen—But why do people assess circumstances differently? If it is the simple fate of circumstances that I will have one opinion and a Russian another opinion about the invasion of Afghanistan, then where does the principle of justice enter? Why should I accept Chomsky's view of justice rather than that of someone else? If everyone has the same passion, but it just gets expressed in contrary ways, then everything is reduced to human subjectivity and to a war of opinions. There is no argument for justice left.

Q: Where does change originate in society?

Chomsky—It originates from individuals who decide they don't like the way things are done. Let's take women's rights. That came out of the anti-war movement in the Sixties which consisted mainly of young people and college students. Well, the women were supposed to take notes and collect money and the men made all the decisions. People started to ask, "Why do we have this hierarchy?" When people recognize that there is no legitimate reason for this kind of subordination and oppression, then they'll change things.

Skillen—Chomsky is historically abstract. The fact is that people did believe at different points in history that they had "legitimate reasons" for their divisions of labor. Change comes about not because people discover that there is no legitimate reason for the way things are, but rather because they become convinced that the status quo is wrong or worse than something better. The challenge at these points is to make judgments between alternate ways of ordering society. Chomsky simply takes for granted the Enlightenment's criteria of judgment as self-evidently true. I do not, and I am prepared to put the principles of a Christian philosophy of social change side by side with Chomsky's.

Q: What is your view of leadership in the institutions of society?

Chomsky—I often have been asked what would be the first thing I would do as president of the United States. Well, I would set up a war-crimes tribunal, in advance, for the crimes I was going to commit. I don't mean that I am a bad person. But the way our institutions are structured, a person in such a position will be under pressures leading to criminal behavior. I cannot think of anyone who has avoided it. So, I assume that I wouldn't either.

Skillen—I respect Chomsky for his realism, humility, and modesty. Yet I much prefer the approach of Israel's prophets who recognized that they were part of sinful Israel. They did not pretend that they were free of sin or would be able to turn Israel around if they held power. Nevertheless, they never expressed a fatalism about institutions. God could change things if people would turn toward righteousness and justice. In fact, the judgment of faulty institutions is in God's hands, and human change can come about if leaders and followers will seek God's will.

Q: You have been very critical of corporations in your writings. Can corporations play a positive role?

Chomsky—It's a bit like asking if a dictator or king can do anything good. Well, they could be less cruel and more benevolent. But the best thing they could do is to go out of existence, because they are inherently illegitimate.

Now, illegitimate structures can be worse or better. Not every dictator is a Hitler or Stalin. But corporations are wrong in principle.

Q: What would you substitute for corporations?

Chomsky—Democratic control of the economy, just like anything else. I mean there is no reason why the main decisions about our lives—what's produced and what's distributed, how it's done and what the working conditions are—can't be under popular control.

Skillen—Chomsky does not escape the need to recognize economic corporations. What he suggests is a reorganization of economic institutions, not their elimination. Even if everyone could vote and elect the management of corporations, there would still have to be managers to make economic (not political) decisions about what to produce, how to market the products, and what to pay employees. Some structure would have to exist for each enterprise or for each aspect of economic production. Chomsky wants something like worker-owned corporations, or popularly governed corporations, but he will have to go on to say what good economic institutions should look like and how they should function and not limit himself to criticizing the status quo. Look at the corruption and inefficiencies of democratic governments and then tell me how democratic control of the economy can be upheld as an ideal.

Q: There are movements underway in the United States and in England for some form of proportional representation. Would it allow for greater popular participation?

Chomsky—The United States is essentially a one party system with two factions of the business party. They may be a bit different but there really is not a second party. It would be good to have a more diverse political system in which other voices can enter.

We could have a workers party that would function like an umbrella organization bringing together many interest groups, including working people, ethnic minorities, women, environmentalists—that is people who are concerned with making the world better.

But as long as the conditions don't exist, we will not have active political participation. That's why people in the United States don't vote. We need to open the arena for real public discussion and debate.

Skillen—I, too, wish we had a more diverse electoral system, and the Center for Public Justice has identified some of the conditions that would have to exist to make such change possible. Our criticism is aimed at more than business, however, and we do not assume that the only ones who could make the world better are laborers, ethnic minorities, women, and environmentalists

Q: Do you think the churches in Eastern Europe played an important role in overthrowing the Communist regime?

Chomsky—I do think so. But it's interesting how you pose that question.

The Catholic church in Eastern Europe was playing a small but significant role in the Eighties. However, the Catholic church in Central America played a far more courageous role in helping people overcome a much worse system of oppression and violence. I mean Eastern Europe was bad enough, but you have to look at how peasants lived in El Salvador and Guatemala.

The U.S. with the help of Britain launched a murderous campaign against the church in Central America. It's symbolic that the decade begins with the murder of an archbishop and ends with the murder of six Jesuit intellectuals. And all this happened at the same time we were applauding the fact that the church was overthrowing the government of our enemy in Eastern Europe. What does that tell you about us?

Skillen—The point here is a good one. The difference between an international enemy or friend and a good or evil group within a particular society is important to notice. Most Americans did not recognize the offenses of dictatorial and arbitrary governments in Latin America the way they did the evils of communist governments in Eastern Europe. We should recognize the courage of churches in Central America that withstood political oppression.

But the point of the question was whether Chomsky recognizes the power of religious bodies to fight unjust regimes, since he seems to view religious structures as oppressive and unjust. He does not answer the question. Here we come back to the beginning, and I would contend that submission to the true God liberates human beings in a way that submission to one's own opinions and beliefs cannot do, especially if the grounds one has for one's opinions and beliefs is nothing more than an appeal to one's own opinions and beliefs.