From Jeffrey Epstein to Lawrence Krauss to Woody Allen, Chomsky has shown a clear pattern of poor judgment and low moral standards. Hard to express how disappointed I am in him. (2,800 words.)
Bravo. Thank you for your work here and your broader TESCREAL scholarship which I have appreciated tremendously.
Have you seen the critiques which have emerged over the last 15 years into Chomsky’s linguistics theories too? It’s not my field so I am hesitant to take sides, but the more recent research in the field seems to put his theories further into doubt.
I get the sense that Chomsky has a real hard time changing his mind or admitting he could have been wrong about something important…
Not really followed the linguistics literature, but I know that his Universal Grammar theory is a minority view. Chomsky himself has trimmed down the threat a lot over the years: from Universal Grammar to the principles and parameters view to literally saying that the only thing unique about human language is recursion (in an article coauthored with Marc Hauser, who was later found guilty of pretty massive scientific fraud, lol. Whoops!). But yeah, Chomskian linguistics is struggling. My sense, though, is that one can be completely wrong about something while still making a huge contribution to a field -- i.e., his theory, which looks to be false, nonetheless revolutionized linguistics (and cognitive science) for the better! But that's just my take, as a lowly philosopher! :-)
Thanks for an insightful article. If you wouldn't mind, what happened with Sam Harris that caused you to add him to the list? I've read a few of Sam's books and wasn't aware of anything that would put him in the same category with Krauss and Chomsky, let alone Epstein. Thanks.
He became an anti-woke culture warrior! There was a slip within the New Atheism movement between those who cared about social justice issues (Atheism+), and those who were dismissive of them. Harris was part of the latter group. After my name appeared in the Buzzfeed article, he called me a "psychopath" on his podcast -- for being critical of New Atheism: https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/from-the-enlightenment-to-the-dark-ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/ (this happened to be one of the most-viewed articles on Salon of the year!! :-0 )
By random chance, I listened to a presentation that Chomsky gave in Toronto in the 1970’s. I had no idea who he was at the time, but what I heard sitting slightly outside the open door of the venue provided me with sufficient inspiration to continually question the narratives of power and privilege.
I find that as one gets older, the collapse that invariably happens with characters one had previously held in high regard becomes less shocking. Hersh, Obama… the list is endless. I had started to feel uneasy about Chomsky in the late 90’s, though my current level of disgust goes far beyond standard disappointment to a complete loss of moral credibility.
I understand that celebrities exist in a bubble of sycophancy, but there’s no rationalizing what has been revealed, and especially his miserable response to questions regarding the situation.
Thus, again, here we are.
I think I’m down to Albanese on my still-great credibility list. That’s a list of one.
Vonnegut and Orwell are still holding strong on the deceased inspirations.
Whether to cite his work again is a personal choice. I don't think shunning it is necessarily a moral obligation. All art and scholarly inquiry is done by fallible humans. If you had never learned any of these facts about his personal moral failings, you'd have gone on citing his work because you see value in it. Has that value disappeared? Do you no longer respect his ideas? Or is it just that they're now associated with the pain of being disappointed by the man?
I think we all have to navigate this problem at some point. There are authors whose work I greatly admire, but I now read their books a bit differently after revelations about their personal lives. I'll never take quite the same uncomplicated pleasure in the work. But I don't swear off it. The books are as great as they ever were. I'm the one who changed.
"[Epstein] quickly became a . . . regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation."
What in the world. . . . The many verbatim snippets from Epstein's correspondences make it very clear that the man was functionally illiterate, an immoral conman, and an intellectual void. To understand this fawning praise, one only needs to follow the money. The paragons of higher education have dug themselves a deep hole.
YES!! "Functionally illiterate" was the term I was looking for, but didn't find, when writing this! I totally agree. How on Earth does he actually write like that? How did people like Krauss and Chomsky respect him? Wild stuff, lol.
I had no idea their relationship went beyond being an acquaintance. I guess there's been a little willful denial involved too. Thank you for writing this.
I share your immense disappointment! Chomsky really helped me (like so many other readers of his) figure out how to think. So many ironies here with Chomsky's old arguments about the venality and cowardice of professional intellectuals and so on and so on. Oofa
Bravo. Thank you for your work here and your broader TESCREAL scholarship which I have appreciated tremendously.
Have you seen the critiques which have emerged over the last 15 years into Chomsky’s linguistics theories too? It’s not my field so I am hesitant to take sides, but the more recent research in the field seems to put his theories further into doubt.
I get the sense that Chomsky has a real hard time changing his mind or admitting he could have been wrong about something important…
Not really followed the linguistics literature, but I know that his Universal Grammar theory is a minority view. Chomsky himself has trimmed down the threat a lot over the years: from Universal Grammar to the principles and parameters view to literally saying that the only thing unique about human language is recursion (in an article coauthored with Marc Hauser, who was later found guilty of pretty massive scientific fraud, lol. Whoops!). But yeah, Chomskian linguistics is struggling. My sense, though, is that one can be completely wrong about something while still making a huge contribution to a field -- i.e., his theory, which looks to be false, nonetheless revolutionized linguistics (and cognitive science) for the better! But that's just my take, as a lowly philosopher! :-)
Thanks for an insightful article. If you wouldn't mind, what happened with Sam Harris that caused you to add him to the list? I've read a few of Sam's books and wasn't aware of anything that would put him in the same category with Krauss and Chomsky, let alone Epstein. Thanks.
He became an anti-woke culture warrior! There was a slip within the New Atheism movement between those who cared about social justice issues (Atheism+), and those who were dismissive of them. Harris was part of the latter group. After my name appeared in the Buzzfeed article, he called me a "psychopath" on his podcast -- for being critical of New Atheism: https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/from-the-enlightenment-to-the-dark-ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/ (this happened to be one of the most-viewed articles on Salon of the year!! :-0 )
I actually just saw a clip of Harris in which he's actually a bit thoughtful about how he aligned with so many rightwing Trump supporters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C37zZ5x_p9U&list=LL&index=3
Anyways!! :-)
By random chance, I listened to a presentation that Chomsky gave in Toronto in the 1970’s. I had no idea who he was at the time, but what I heard sitting slightly outside the open door of the venue provided me with sufficient inspiration to continually question the narratives of power and privilege.
I find that as one gets older, the collapse that invariably happens with characters one had previously held in high regard becomes less shocking. Hersh, Obama… the list is endless. I had started to feel uneasy about Chomsky in the late 90’s, though my current level of disgust goes far beyond standard disappointment to a complete loss of moral credibility.
I understand that celebrities exist in a bubble of sycophancy, but there’s no rationalizing what has been revealed, and especially his miserable response to questions regarding the situation.
Thus, again, here we are.
I think I’m down to Albanese on my still-great credibility list. That’s a list of one.
Vonnegut and Orwell are still holding strong on the deceased inspirations.
Good article. Thanks for your efforts.
Whether to cite his work again is a personal choice. I don't think shunning it is necessarily a moral obligation. All art and scholarly inquiry is done by fallible humans. If you had never learned any of these facts about his personal moral failings, you'd have gone on citing his work because you see value in it. Has that value disappeared? Do you no longer respect his ideas? Or is it just that they're now associated with the pain of being disappointed by the man?
I think we all have to navigate this problem at some point. There are authors whose work I greatly admire, but I now read their books a bit differently after revelations about their personal lives. I'll never take quite the same uncomplicated pleasure in the work. But I don't swear off it. The books are as great as they ever were. I'm the one who changed.
"[Epstein] quickly became a . . . regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation."
What in the world. . . . The many verbatim snippets from Epstein's correspondences make it very clear that the man was functionally illiterate, an immoral conman, and an intellectual void. To understand this fawning praise, one only needs to follow the money. The paragons of higher education have dug themselves a deep hole.
YES!! "Functionally illiterate" was the term I was looking for, but didn't find, when writing this! I totally agree. How on Earth does he actually write like that? How did people like Krauss and Chomsky respect him? Wild stuff, lol.
I had no idea their relationship went beyond being an acquaintance. I guess there's been a little willful denial involved too. Thank you for writing this.
I share your immense disappointment! Chomsky really helped me (like so many other readers of his) figure out how to think. So many ironies here with Chomsky's old arguments about the venality and cowardice of professional intellectuals and so on and so on. Oofa
Noam Chomsky was a scumbag for a lot longer. The man indulges in genocide denial to this day.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-09/lapkinchomsky/2751644
https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/bib/hb990061245080203941
https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war