CHOMSKY & BHASKAR [RE: Adorno on TV]

[Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxx>]

At 11:19 AM 6/5/99 -0700, Matthew Levy wrote:
>I wouldn't agree that Chomsky has no concept of social science or
>Marx ... instead i would say that he lives his own philosophy;
>because he is a rational individual living in this
>society, his method of social critique is simply to think through
>the immediate contradictions with which he is faced (especially
>regarding institutionalized violence, both foreign and domestic)
> ...

Nice rebound.  It's a fair justification of Chomsky's priorities, but I've
heard enough of Chomsky's remarks on Marx to know how clueless he is.
Chomsky is so 18th century, in all the good ways and some of the bad.  This
as true of his philosophy of science as it is of his "theory" of society.

> but it is certainly possible for us to use
>his theory as a weapon in epistemological battles against
>post-structuralists,

yes ...... at least as far as refuting their nonsense about language is
concerned.

>and then to move on to more Marxian or social
>scientific projects.

But how would Chomsky be of use in these?

>Apparently this is what Roy Bhaskar does with
>Chomsky, but that's really outside of my expertise ...

This is the first I've heard of Bhaskar's engagement with Chomsky.  for
some reason I shudder to think of the results.  The Bhaskarites are a
curious breed.  I wish the Bourdieu people would get together with the
Bhaskar people and do lunch so the Bourdieu team could study them.  They
are a curious amalgam of contradictions.  Philosophically, they are on the
right track, but they and their leader too are exemplars of the
bureaucratization of knowledge down to their innermost selves.