A recent review of Jean Bricmont and Julie Franck (eds.), Chomsky Notebook, Columbia UP, 2010, calls attention to the strained relationship between Chomsky and the French intelligentsia and "French intellectual culture" more generally: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=21428
I would think that contributors to this blog can shed light on the causes and sources of the strained relationship. One paragraph in the review caught my particular attention:
Chomsky holds that "many European intellectuals are even willing to grant the state the authority to be the official custodian of History, to determine 'Historical Truth' and punish deviation from it." Thus, Chomsky does not "agree with the belief of many European intellectuals that there is a 'huge variety of political and philosophical views' in Europe." He does not believe that these "self-serving and comforting views can withstand analysis" (p. 93).
Reluctantly (because I do not share much of Chomsky's politics), I have come to the same conclusion. In Europe the state is the main instrument, directly or indirectly, to institutional advancement and also the source of nearly all research funding. As they say in Dutch, "wie betaalt, die bepaald" (i.e., the paymaster decides). This means there is very little, genuinely independent expertise on any subject nor few attempts at systemic criticism (and intellectual self-criticism) in Europe.
My favorite, recently example of this is how the Dutch public intellectual, Paul Scheffer, 'daringly' broke widespread political correctness about the failure of Dutch multicultural policy, but has remained entirely silent about the culture that makes it possible to search for scapegoats. (As I reported last week, for this 'courage' he was rewarded for his courage, of course, by being made a professor.)
Recent Comments