I am currently reading the "Chomsky Reader" by the famed dissident Noam Chomsky, and I came across a section in his chapter The Manufacture of Consent that reminded me of the Paris riots:
"Democratic systems are quite different. It is necessary to control not only what people do, but also what they think. Since the state lacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force, thought can lead to action and therefore the threat to order must be excised at the source. It is necessary to establish a framework for possible thought that is constrained with the principles of the state religion. These need not be asserted; it is better that hey be presupposed, as the unstated framework for thinkable thought. The critics reinforce this system by tacitly accepting these doctrines, and confining their critique to tactical questions that arise within them."
Isn't it possible, that France (democracy) and their secularization (state religion/ideal) has cut the Muslims from the discussion of their (French Muslim's) own country's social dialogue?
"The critics reinforce this system by tacitly accepting these doctrines, and confining their critique to tactical questions that arise within them."
ReplyDeleteI've been saying this about Chomksy for years.
So, you have taken your study of brevity to maddening levels, Thomas. Assuming your critique of Chomsky is the entire passage, please explain how his dissents are confined to "accepted doctrines".
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Thomas about Chomsky. I can't speak for Thomas but, I think this passage is classicly illustrative of Chomsky's doctrinal limitations.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all he talks about "The State", as if it were a single entity with a single set of interests, namely Self Preservation, and the extension of its own power. Sometimes it's useful to look at national governments in this way, but in the end it radically over simplifies things. Our government isn't a kabal of skull-ring wearing illumnus plotting out the road to fascism. Even governments that appear to be so have many other constituent interests. Our government is made up of Oil tycoons and Bankers, but also movie stars, closet socialists, desert irrigating mormons, isolationists, glory hogging mavricks, and a panopoly of less colorful, but very opinionated, other powerful people. What we see as the actions of States is actually the aggregate of a thousand different impulses, not the result of calculated rational interests as Chomsky suggests here:
Since the state lacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force, thought can lead to action and therefore the threat to order must be excised at the source. It is necessary to establish a framework for possible thought that is constrained with the principles of the state religion.
All that said, I think that yes, secularism in France has probably played a significant role in excluding Muslims from public discourse.
Thanks "lester". I agree with you that there is no evidence of a conspiracy of the few running our government, but I do think the majority of a state's democratic actions are the result of a majority interest.
ReplyDeleteSo, isn't this interesting that the original idea for "minority rights" sprung from the French Revolution, and it is again the French who are reminding us that democracies have a very real need for minority representation?
Irony is rich.