» » Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship

Free eBook Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship download

by Noam Chomsky

Free eBook Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship download ISBN: 1565848586
Author: Noam Chomsky
Publisher: The New Press; First Edition edition (September 1, 2003)
Language: English
Pages: 144
Category: Historical
Subcategory: Military
Size MP3: 1269 mb
Size FLAC: 1727 mb
Rating: 4.7
Format: mbr azw lrf txt


Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" is an essay by the American academic Noam Chomsky. It was first published as part of Chomsky's American Power and the New Mandarins.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" is an essay by the American academic Noam Chomsky. Parts of the essay were delivered as a lecture at New York University in March 1968, as part of Albert Schweitzer Lecture Series.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship book. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is Chomsky’s powerful indictment of a liberal intelligentsia that provided self-serving arguments for war in Vietnam, legitimizing . commitment to autocratic rule, to intervention in Asia and, ultimately, the pacification of millions.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is Chomsky’s powerful indictment of a liberal intelligentsia that provided self-serving . Noam Chomsky is the Institute Professor and a professor of linguistics, emeritus, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is Chomsky’s powerful indictment of a liberal intelligentsia that provided self-serving arguments for war in Vietnam.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is Chomsky's powerful indictment of a liberal intelligentsia that provided self-serving arguments for war in Vietnam, legitimizing . commitment to autocratic rule, to intervention in Asia and, ultimately, the "pacification" of millions.

8 There is no question that of the dozens of books on this period, Jackson's is among the best, and I do not doubt that the award was well deserved

In Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship Noam Chomsky argues that, during the Vietnam War, the liberal intelligentsia provided self-serving arguments in their discussion and analysis of the war, instead of objectively discussing the topic; that they used ideology to legitimize .

In Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship Noam Chomsky argues that, during the Vietnam War, the liberal intelligentsia provided self-serving arguments in their discussion and analysis of the war, instead of objectively discussing the topic; that they used ideology to legitimize . commitments to autocratic rule and intervention in Asia. Chomsky argues that there was no end of ideology, as many scholars opined, but rather that it was an elite ideology that all elites and scholars could agree upon.

Haymarket Books is proud to present the Noam Chomsky Collection. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship, New York: The New Press, York: Signature Books Services, 2003.

Most recent titles: The Responsibility of Intellectuals. Haymarket Books is proud to present the Noam Chomsky Collection. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003.

In "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" Noam Chomsky argues that, during the Vietnam War, the liberal intelligentsia provided self-serving arguments in their discussion and analysis of the war, instead of objectively discussing th. .

In "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" Noam Chomsky argues that, during the Vietnam War, the liberal intelligentsia provided self-serving arguments in their discussion and analysis of the war, instead of objectively discussing the topic; that they used ideology to legitimize . The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, and in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America or simply the American War, was an undeclared war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall o. he Geneva Conference, 1954.

Chomsky's classic analysis of the liberal scholarship that justified American foreign policy and aggression during the 1960s. Why should a liberal intellectual be so persuaded of the virtues of a political system of four-year dictatorship? The answer seems all too plain. from Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship.

Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is Chomsky’s powerful indictment of a liberal intelligentsia that provided self-serving arguments for war in Vietnam, legitimizing U.S. commitment to autocratic rule, to intervention in Asia and, ultimately, the “pacification” of millions. Over thirty years after their first printing, these are prophetic words, as today America effects “regime change” in Iraq and an increasingly boisterous militarism around the globe. Included here is Chomsky’s classic counter-analysis of the Spanish Civil War as a revolutionary war from below, as he lays bare the hostility of even liberal scholarly elites to engage in mass movements and social change, revealing not objectivity, but its opposite—the use of ideology to mask self-interest and obeisance to power. Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is a crucial signpost of Chomsky’s searing contribution to our age, and an indispensable lens through which to consider mainstream punditry today.

This is the fourth in a series of Chomsky’s classic political books reissued by The New Press. The others are American Power and the New Mandarins, For Reasons of State, and Problems of Knowledge and Freedom.

User reviews
Fordredor
This is the first chapter from Chomsky's first political book, 'American Power and the New Mandarins.' Why did the New Press decide to break out this chapter and print it as a stand-alone book? I have no idea.
'Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship' is divided into two sections: US foreign policy in Asia in the 1960s, and Spanish anarchism in the 1930s. Chomsky draws these two topics together by quoting scholars and journalists, showing their bias against popular revolutionary movements. He uses their own words to show their bias.
Chomsky's critique is fair. In the section on Spanish anarchism, he focuses on a book by Gabriel Jackson, but first he praises the book. He's showing that even in a book by a competent scholar --- someone who knows his subject very well --- the anti-revolutionary bias creeps in.
Although the facts in this book are valuable, I can't recommend it. It is, after all, a chapter from another Chomsky book. It certainly stands up on its own, but it feels too slight. I'd recommend 'American Power and the New Mandarins' instead. From there, you can read extended critiques of liberal scholars on Vietnam in Chomsky's 'For Reasons of State' and 'Towards a New Cold War.'
Celak
Iraq is a debacle largely because of Neo-Conservative assumptions about the reach of military might and the rightness of America's mission to reshape the Middle-East. The broader public is just now waking up to the calamities of these assumptions and their broader meaning at home and abroad. Older Americans may recall a similar hubris of 40 years ago that drove policy into the infamous morass of Vietnam. Only then, it was not a right-wing consensus that led the way; it was a liberal consensus (led by JFK and LBJ), whose assumptions revolved around the ability of educated experts to solve complex social-political problems, such as the growing insurrection in southeast Asia.

Borrowing techniques from the behavioral sciences, American advisors sought to reshape Vietnamese society into a more anti-communist, Westernized polity. Those experts (think Robert Mc Namara) drew their appeal from the prestige of these sciences as a source of hard-headed objectivity. Their methods dealt strictly in cold-blooded statistics and verifiable re, offered up by some of the nation's leading academic institutions. Emotional rhetoric or other such subjective factors were scorned as soft-headed and unscientific. As I recall, it was said their work with linear graphs and trend lines was extremely impressive, gaining converts in government by the bucket loads. The ironic result was a last minute bug-out from the embassy's roof-top as triumphant NVA forces swept through Saigon.

The first half of Chomsky's reprinted 1967 work deals critically with the intellectual climate of that period, and comes from a time when it was not yet respectable to challenge the wisdom of liberal interventionism. Perceptive readers may draw parallels between the assumed right to intervene in Vietnam and the assumed right to invade Iraq. The fact that both Republicans and Democrats share such assumptions decade after decade forms (in my view) the cornerstone of America's far-flung empire that both parties endorse but neither wants to admit exists. However that may be, Chomsky analyzes many of the behaviorist assumptions applied to Vietnam, laying bare the phony claim of "objectivity" underlying them. This is well worth the read, both as a lesson from the past and a warning for the future.

The book's second half is much less perspicuous, dealing as it does with the convoluted complexities of the Spanish Civil War. His point here, however, remains an interesting one. Namely, that liberal analysis of that bloody conflict shows a systematic bias against mass social movements (read the Spanish anarchists) and their capacity for self-organization apart from a political elite to lead them. This of course runs counter to hallowed Jeffersonian and liberal assumptions about the capabilities of the common man, and amounts to a rather odd outcome for professedly liberal scholarship. Still and all, the many players in that long ago drama (anarchists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, bougeious liberals, fascists), along with their shadowy international alliances, create a difficult mix from which to draw hard and fast conclusions of any sort. Nonetheless, his thesis remains a provocative, if tenuous, one. All in all, the book stands as an edifying little reprint, especially for those younger readers who believe that Washington hubris and imperial overreach originated in the dark stew-pot of chefs Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Company.
Adoraris
Somewhat convoluted, at times difficult for me to follow. Chomsky's indictment of the rise of the technocratic class of specialists and intellectuals highlights the counterrevolutionary biases and self serving agendas in scholarship of then contemporary and recent revolutionary events. An excerpt of a much larger book, I sometimes found myself lost while reading. My most common reaction to passages was "Wait, what?" and a quick cross reference of the copious end notes, Wikipedia, and previous paragraphs was underway. Chomsky lays out his arguments and sources in in full, and much of my confusion was due to a poor knowledge of the various events and people and organizations involved in the two conflicts, The Vietnam War and the Spanish Civil War. Thus the first part turned in an alphabet soup of acronyms for the various factions at play in Vietnam in the early 1960s. Perhaps this book was not the best choice for my introduction to the written Chomsky? Further, I hesitate to recommend it over American Power and the New Mandarins, since that book contains these three essays in full. Plus-- you know-- the rest of the book. That's not to belittle the arguments presented here, but I just question the need to buy THIS book unless you are a Chomsky completionist.