Noam Chomsky lecture at the University of Cologne

Last night I watched a recording of a lecture that Noam Chomsky gave at the University of Cologne on 7th June of this year. This was the second lecture that Chomsky gave at the university, the first having taken place the previous day. Whilst that lecture was on language, the one I watched concerned the current global political order. It was, unsurprisingly, a fantastic lecture and Chomsky deservedly received much applause.

Chomsky spoke very broadly about the post-1945 geo-political world order and about some of the prospects that we may all face. As usual Chomsky displayed his vast knowledge of political history along with his courageous spirit of activism. As I sat listening to him speak I felt stunned at the fact that here is a man of 82 years who is still full of life and energy, who continues to travel all over the world to give talks (he once said in an interview that he is booked at least 2 years in advance!), and who bravely continues to speak truth to power.

In December 2002, Harold Pinter introduced Chomsky at St. Paul's Cathedral for the Kurdish Human Rights Project's 10th Anniversary lecture. In his introduction, Pinter said of Chomsky that:

"...he will not be bullied. He will not be intimidated. He is a fearless, formidable, totally independent voice. He does something which is really quite simple but highly unusual. He tells the truth"

Indeed, I can think of no better way of introducing Noam Chomsky. During the lecture I watched Chomsky recalled so many important historical events, policies and decisions made, which we rarely hear about in the mainstream media. In this way, Chomsky is doing the world an invaluable service - at least to people who care about democracy, freedom and civil society - by saving important information from oblivion. One of the things that must strike anyone on hearing him speak is his extraordinary memory. Because of it, he can remind us of things worth remembering and can facilitate important and much-needed historical and comparative debates. When one learns about the bloody involvement that the West has had in, say, the Middle East, for example, it puts things in a different perspective - such as whether the West should necessarily intervene in the struggles in the Middle East today.

To take an issue closer to home for many of us: the financial crisis. When the mainstream media interview people in the streets and ask them about austerity measures, people going on strike, and so forth, one hears many voices of capitulation and resignation: "well, the country is in trouble so we all have to cut back and make do with less", "I don't think teachers should go on strike because we have to accept what is going on right now" and so on. Perhaps if these people heard what Chomsky and others have been saying for many years now, they might stop and think, and say very different things when interviewed. Perhaps they wouldn't blame themselves, perhaps they would be more in favour of strike-action, and perhaps then we could sort out our collective problems by going to the roots of them.

As Chomsky says in the lecture:

"the major [financial] players [in the U.S.] benefit from a government insurance policy, which is called 'too big to fail', and as one commentator quipped 'too big to jail' [...] the result is that with the government insurance policy they can make, and do make, very risky transactions which mean rich rewards while adhering to a basic market principle that you ignore externalities - a market system where you make a transaction and you ignore the effect on others, what economists call externalities - in this case the externality is systemic risk, the risk that if one of your transactions goes bad the whole system may collapse. Well, the system inevitably crashes, it's happened over and over again since the Reagen years, each time more serious than the last, but that's not a problem because they can run to the 'nanny state' that they nurture and ask for a taxpayer bailout meanwhile they clutch their copies of Hayek, and Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand in their hands."

It's a sad fact that many people blame themselves for the problems we now face, or alternatively lay the blame on a group of people that are merely the scapegoat for our woes (the rise in xenophobia during economic crises is not surprising, for example). I've seen many interviews in the mainstream news media with the general public, and I'm always staggered at how many people accept the austerity measures, blame themselves or a minority group (immigrants, the unemployed, benefit claimers, and so on), and often criticise those who go on strike. The same is true in the U.S. As commentators like Chomsky have pointed out, after the foreclosures crisis in the U.S., many people from poor neighbourhoods, when interviewed by the news media, reportedly blamed themselves for losing their homes. Is not this at least partly due to the dominant myth or ideology of the U.S.: the American Dream, the dream of the self-made man, the hope that everyone who works hard can make it to the top?

We should be grateful to intellectuals like Chomsky for having the courage to speak out and critically analyse the institutions which we are dominated by in our societies, and which are responsible for the problems we face today. It is clear that many of the problems we face are not private or personal problems, but systemic institutional problems. It is not a case of "a few bad apples" as too many people have said, but rather a case of rotten barrels.

One brilliant example that Chomsky gives during his lecture is that of the Great Depression. Chomsky reports that during the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said to the union leaders that they have to make him do things for them because otherwise he is powerless against big business. This is still true today and just as relevant. In the last 40 years or so, many countries have undergone processes which have increased the power of businesses: the financialisation of the market, privatisation, deregulation of corporations, and so on. Because of the dogma of the 'efficient market' hypothesis in the economic profession, because of the rise to power of neo-liberal economics, and because of the growing fluidity of capital flows, we have seen our civil and political freedoms either taken away or made to seem irrelevant by contrast with the more pressing issues of individualistic, consumer culture.

What someone like Chomsky does is help us to engage more with social and political issues. He shows us how institutions work, how they arose in the first place, and how it is possible to change them, since they are not eternal and unchangeable. With the help of intellectuals like him we can begin to make sense of our shared social space, learn how to think for ourselves, and see that changes are always possible (because we've changed things before). People like him do us all an enormous favour: after all, how many people have the time or desire to trawl through all the news in order to see what is said and what is left unsaid, to see how things are presented differently amongst different broadcasters, and to critically analyse what is being said? How many of us have studied U.S. foreign policy between 1945 and the present? We cannot rely on the mainstream media to inform us properly or to encourage us to think for ourselves and perhaps change society for the good of the many, not the few. We must recognise the valuable role that intellectuals play. By devoting their life to critically analysing the media, political and corporate institutions, and many other things besides, they help us to see how problems are often institutional in character, and thereby help us to start to change those institutions.

To take another example from Chomsky's lecture which casts new light on one of the global issues today: we often hear about the shift of global power from West to East. We hear many commentators talking about China and India rising to power. But again, Chomsky has much to say that can illuminate these discussions as the following transcription from the lecture demonstrates:

"There is in fact a very noticeable and significant global shift of power, but a different one. Not from the West to the Asian Giants, but from the global workforce all around the world to the very rich. That's happening everywhere. The tendency is implicit in what are called Free Trade Agreements which have little to do with free trade and certainly aren't agreements, at least if people are part of their countries they're mostly opposed. But what are called Free Trade Agreements, they're designed to set working people in competition with one another, globally, while protecting wealthy professionals and providing investors with extraordinary rights; among other benefits for investors these agreements allow free movement of capital but they firmly reject Adam Smith's principle that free circulation of labour is a foundation of free trade and in many other ways too they violate basic free trade principles. And these tendencies are exaserbated in very ugly ways by growing xenophobia in the rich societies, notably in Europe."

Once again, it is refreshing to hear a different point of view. We've all heard talk about the rise of China and India, but have we heard about the shift in power between the global workforce and the very rich? Chomsky further illustrates his point by telling his audience about a brochure for investors published by CitiGroup. In this brochure, CitiGroup outlines how the world is becoming more and more split between two groups: the plutonomy, i.e. the super-rich, and what they call the 'precariats', which is a word combining 'proletariat' and 'precarious'. What the report goes on to say, according to Chomsky, is that there are massive opportunities for the plutonomous (the rich) because of the rise of worker precarity. And, as Chomsky also recalls, Alan Greenspan's testimony to Congress made it clear why the economy under his leadership was booming: the working conditions for the 'precariats' were extremely insecure. This makes obvious sense: if the workers have poor worker security then they won't go on strike, ask for a wage increase, or ask for more worker rights. These kinds of things are not said enough, if they are said at all, in the mainstream media. It is thanks to intellectuals such as Chomsky that we can learn about things which are highly important and relevant, and which will undoubtedly help us to understand the problems we face today in order that we can change our societies for the better.

I hope that after reading this blog post, many of you will go and listen to Chomsky speak, or perhaps read one of his many excellent books. As you can tell, I have been hugely inspired by him and I would recommend him to anyone. Before I started reading him I was largely uninterested in political and social issues. But since that time I have become more interested in politics and have discovered many wonderful books, documentaries and alternative news websites, as well as other courageous and intelligent thinkers. There is, of course, still the issue of practical engagement, the question of what is to be done. I confess I find this immensely difficult. However, I think that education is an important component of being politically engaged and I hope that throughout my life I will experiment more and more with forms of practical engagement alongside reading and discussion. Noam Chomsky's work has at least helped me and inspired me. I will continue to blog about these issues in the future, so stay tuned for more blogs about other exciting videos, documentaries and books that I've come across.

Finally, I'd like to end this post with a wonderfully empowering comment by Chomsky, made at the end of an interview with Jeremy Paxman, back in March of this year. In response to Paxman's question "Why haven't you mellowed [since you are 82 years old]?" Chomsky replied:

"Because I look at the world, and there are things happening in the world which should lead anyone to become indignant, outraged, active and simply engaged..."

**************************

Links:

Chomsky's second lecture at the University of Cologne on 7th June 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBZ-NvbZWH8&feature=BFp&list=PL6AFA540918FBEDD0&index=64

Harold Pinter's introduction to Chomsky:

http://www.haroldpinter.org/politics/introtochomskyspeech.html

Paxman's March 2011 interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1A8er-bGU

Documentary Film - The Trap by Adam Curtis

I just finished watching Adam Curtis' three-part documentary series The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom, which was originally broadcast on BBC television in 2007. I cannot recommend this highly enough to everyone. As with his other documentaries, such as The Century of The Self, Curtis takes a bold look at important and complex ideas without patronising viewers.

This particular series examines the concept of freedom in the 20th and early 21st century. Specifically, he examines the most dominant conceptions of freedom that rise to power in the 20th century, such as those that come from Game Theory, Free-Market Economic Theory, U.S. Neo-Conservatism, Isaiah Berlin's twin concepts of Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty, and various revolutionary ideas of freedom inspired by intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartre and Franz Fanon. But the notion of freedom which Curtis spends most time examining is the one that conceives of human beings as rational, self-interested, almost robotic, individuals whose ultimate motivation in life is to pursue their own, individualistic desires. And what Curtis convincingly shows is that such a notion leads only to new forms of tyranny and control, and to a meaningless, anxious world filled with self-interested individuals who trust each other (as two of his inter-titles put it: "Human beings will always betray you" and "You can only trust the numbers.")

I've watched a few of Adam Curtis' documentary series now, and what seems to be the guiding thread throughout these three at least is the concern with ideology, specifically the ideology of various elite groups and interests. In The Century of The Self Curtis looks at how ideas developed from psychoanalysis were appropriated by various elite groups for their own selfish ends: the Public Relations industry (which was almost entirely created by Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, who utilised his uncle's ideas), the corporations (who needed to persuade people to buy commodities which they didn't actually need), and finally politicians. In The Trap, Curtis looks at how these same elite groups appropriate ideas of freedom developed from various disciplines and fields, and then apply them both at home and abroad.

Whereas in the academic world the concept of ideology still has much value and is often used by political thinkers, the world of mainstream television and other media might lead one to believe that ideology is an old-fashioned, antiquated concept which became redundant with the fall of Communism. Adam Curtis' many documentaries are therefore an important exception to this general rule. Whilst he is not entirely alone in this respect - other names that spring to mind include John Pilger and Ken Loach - when put in the context of most documentaries, Curtis stands out. (When contrasted with most mainstream television in general Curtis' documentaries shine like a ray of light piercing dark clouds.)

This goes for interviews too. Witness the way in which BBC's Hardtalk programme, as well as their other interview programmes, present and then argue with thinkers like Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Zizek and David Harvey. The first thing one notices is the stance of bafflement: the BBC interviewer seems shocked that someone is presenting a different view than the consensus views we usually hear from the mainstream media. Andrew Marr's interview with Noam Chomsky, for example, tries to present Chomsky as a fool by suggesting the patronising view that the public would be baffled by his (Chomsky's) idea that propaganda is used in democratic societies. Surely ideology doesn't exist in democracies? Isn't that what we all believe in the West? Thankfully, Curtis, like Chomsky, is not afraid to stand up and invite us to critically examine the world we live in. And, thankfully the BBC broadcast Curtis' documentaries. Whilst the BBC's interviews seem to strive towards presenting some of their more intelligent guests as fools, simultaneously patronising its viewing audience, at least Curtis is allowed to present his views in a positive context and therefore engage the audience in a mode of respect, and invite them to think critically.

A predominant view in the U.K. (and no doubt in much of the Western world) is that everything is subjective, there is no absolute truth, and that partisan politics is both redundant and leads to violence and new forms of tyranny. It is highly likely that such a view is at least in part responsible for the large number of criticisms made of documentary makers like Curtis. Thankfully, there seem to be just as many around the world who support work like Curtis'. Hopefully this support will continue, and will deter measures which aim to cut funding for documentaries, as was being discussed only a few years ago in the British press. Curtis is not afraid to present his own views, and boldly examines the rise of dominant ideas in societies - like the notion that truth is always subjective.

Through his famous montage style, his inter-titles, and numerous interviews with important political thinkers, economists, and politicians, Curtis shows how ideology is still a useful concept today. Whilst we might not be ruled by a ruthless dictator and subjected to explicit propaganda and violence here in the West, are we not shaped, coerced and managed by other elite groups? Is advertising not a form of ideology in a sense? Are we not constrained in some sense by the institutions which dominate our society? Is it not clear to anyone who has thought about it and perhaps done some simple research, that there are some very powerful groups and institutions in the world which hoard wealth through exploitation? Ask yourself: why corporations spend enormous sums of money on advertising, where political candidates and parties get their money from, who owns the media, how and where can the public exercise their democratic rights? Or just watch Adam Curtis' documentaries and see for yourself how elite groups think and, more importantly, act.

Through comparative and historical analysis, Curtis demystifies, demythologises and deconstructs ideas that have become invisible, natural and taken for granted. Curtis can thus be situated in a line of radical thinkers that includes Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, John Pilger, John Berger, David Harvey, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Arundhati Roy, and many, many more. I encourage everyone who reads this blog to check out Adam Curtis' work. Most of it is available through the "usual" channels of the internet. If you think it is natural, and a universal truth, that we are rational, self-interested individuals; if you think that propaganda is not used in democratic societies; and if you think that the world is ultimately getting better and going in the right direction, then I encourage you to watch Adam Curtis' documentaries. Hopefully, he'll open your mind.

Lastly, I'd like to make two further recommendations. Firstly, Adam Curtis has a great blog which can be found by clicking this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/

Secondly, my sister Emily works for a film company in Bristol called Testimony Films. They make excellent documentaries for various broadcasters. You can find out about their programmes at the following website: http://www.testimonyfilms.com/ I'd just like to add that I'm really proud of Emily. She works about as hard as anyone I know, and I was very impressed with the documentary she made for her undergraduate degree. I will post news here of her upcoming documentaries when they are due to be broadcast.

Thanks for reading!

A Deliberately Lived Life

"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them"

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quiet necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life"

These often-quoted lines from Henry David Thoreau inspire me and leave me sober in equal measure. Because they are familiar, I can pass over them quickly without feeling their force, their ability to open my eyes in order that I remember that to see is still, and always will be, an open question. These words can focus my scattered attention, bringing my thoughts to a point like lines of flight all travelling towards the horizon. Although this is only a momentary experience, and the horizon remains beyond my reach, I am not dismayed. I will continue to stretch myself out like light travelling outwards from a star that will die before the light has finished its journey.

Inspiration is a slippery notion. The same words can inspire one minute, and fail the next. Reading these lines repeatedly can deaden them, transform them into empty sounds. Printing them on a billboard can transform them into a means of selling something, selling a lifestyle perhaps. Treating them as universal wisdom, for all ages and all people, is like petrifying them and entombing them so that they fade into the background, where they will remain, invisible.

Despite all this, when I re-read these lines I can still hear them singing. Despite the temptation to be cynical, to think that today it is impossible to live deliberately, that sucking out the marrow of life has become an obligation ("Enjoy life! Actualise your potential!"), and that quiet desperation is all that awaits us, I still believe in the power of these words, I still believe in deliberate life, I still have hope.

I've read many things recently which have tested my hope. I've read about the rise of mass slums, increased social inequalities, new apartheids and forms of segregation, consolidation of wealth for the super-rich, rising unemployment, the continual erosion of real democracy and the public sphere, and so on. Perhaps the most dispiriting of all is seeing corporations and wealthy individuals appropriating inspiring ideas and words for their own, impoverished ends. When non-conformity, individuality and creativity are all embraced by multinational corporations in order to generate higher profits, it is tempting to resign oneself to what seems like our necessary and bleak fate.

And yet, something in me still flickers like the light of long-dead stars shining in the night sky. I read Thoreau's words and remember that he too faced great challenges, as every poet, writer and thinker has done. As everyone has done. I remember that it is possible to wake up, to stand up tall, and see things anew. Words such as those above can inspire us to think again, to pick up a pen and write, to talk with someone, to listen more carefully, and to be determined and creative. Even after words like these have been repeated, appropriated or buried, there remains a residue, stubbornly resisting all projects which engage them in some way. However determinedly one tries to marshal words, they always, inevitably, slip through every grasp. They are a kind of boundless life that sits at the horizon, always visible, but always slightly out of reach. Even if we close our eyes, or forget to see with our eyes, we can always learn to see again, to see anew, and to see what we've seen.

To return to my first remark: reading these lines of Thoreau leaves me both inspired and sober. The issue of how to live, of how I should live, or how I choose to live, seems to only grow as time goes by. It weighs on me more and more, as if my body were becoming denser and heavier each day. The question of how to live is like a faded image coming into relief, getting gradually clearer to the point at which I cannot ignore it. And yet, despite the heaviness of life, in a quiet moment of reflection, in reading inspiring words, or in seeing things from a new perspective, I can feel myself floating imperceptibly above the ground, like the horizon between the earth and the sky.

Reading Thoreau reminds me that even if I were to lose all my possessions, even if I were to lose my family and friends, my job, my home, my place in society, and so on, I'd still have my life to live. And even though I won't always have my life to live, until the moment when my life will end, I will still have to live it. Despite the challenges, the obstacles and the various forces of coercion and influence, it is still possible to resist, to transcend, and to surpass life as it has been, life as it is, and life as it should be.

For me, one of the few questions that I believe is worth asking continually throughout life is: can one look unflinchingly at life as it is and still affirm it? Reading Thoreau fills me with courage and hope that I can live deliberately with my eyes open.

Welcome to my Blog

Welcome to my Blog!

After much thought and some discussion with others, I've decided to start a Blog. My aims are modest: to share some of my thoughts and what I'm interested in. I find myself continually fascinated by philosophy, literature, film, politics, and many other things besides, and I'd like to share my passion and interests with others. A Blog seems like a good way to do this. Currently, there is no overriding theme to this Blog. However, the title of my Blog is intended to signal my primary interests in philosophy and literature, and their relation to life. So you can expect many posts to be either of a philosophical or literary nature, or to relate to issues in either of these fields, taken in the broadest sense. But you can also expect posts relating to other topics such as film and politics, and I'll even upload some of my photos from time to time.

So, I invite everyone and anyone to check this Blog from time to time, take a look at what I'm currently interested in, read my thoughts, and feel free to comment. I hope that this Blog facilitates a greater sharing of ideas and generates discussions (both online and offline).

I want to welcome you all once again. I hope you find what will appear here stimulating, provocative, and enriching.