Chomsky is voted world's top public intellectual
greets
Chomsky is voted world's top public intellectual· Missing from list: young, women, and the French
· Honour leaves linguistics professor underwhelmed
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
Article continues
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html
mal
fantastic, two very cool people right up there, Chomsky and Richard Dawkins!
greets
er
Umberto eco is pretty cool too!
mal
Whether this means people will actually listen to what he says and start to think for themselves will remain to be seen.
You mean that I should start to think for myself 'cause Chomsky says I should? Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Can't remember who my ten nominations were now, but Chomsky and Hitchens were definitely among them.
My write-in nomination was Robert Anton Wilson. That he didn't make the shortlist is a travesty!
He can see the fnords alright.
Wheres "The black hand" its a ruddy disgrace. CONFOUND THEM!!!.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
YIKES
1:
. yes, he's a correct critic of US policy. but he's also an excuse maker for totalitarians and a uselss linguist to boot.
5:
. 'nuff said.
IMHO only dawkins really belongs.
chomsky asa defender of totalitarianism?
funny i've never read anything like that in his stuff
don't like chomsky at all, he's another tedious academic...
to be fair you hate even more things than I do.
cock
what i hate most though are arseholes who think all theory is bullshit, it just reeks of middle class ponce trying to act hard.
I thought that was people who listen to hardcore punk?
I read a debate once between Foucault & Chomsky, & Foucault kicked Chomsky's arse.
chomsky asa defender of totalitarianism?funny i've never read anything like that in his stuff.
Have a look on our site a comrade wrote a piece on chomsky on cambodia where chomsky supposedly tries to defend the Khmer Rouge, not all of wma agreed with it, and is somewhat an argument in wma at the mo'.
Have a look on our site a comrade wrote a piece on chomsky on cambodia where chomsky supposedly tries to defend the Khmer Rouge, not all of wma agreed with it, and is somewhat an argument in wma at the mo'.
All the criticisms of Chomsky for his Cambodia writings I've read have been bollocks. There was a very good thread on this on U75 about 6 months back, I'll see if I can find the link.
i've read the accusations about Cambodia and they just retarded.
i've read the accusations about Cambodia and they just retarded.
Well your in a long list of people who have said that.
what i hate most though are arseholes who think all theory is bullshit, it just reeks of middle class ponce trying to act hard.
i don't think theory is bullshit - i just can't be arsed to read it, 99% of it is incredibly boringly written - and chomsky is one of the boring ones - when they bring out a ladybird edition of his stuff i'll read it.
plus you don't need to read it to be an effective libertarian communist
your in a long list of people who have said that
One of them (the most eloquent one, in fact) being Christopher Hitchens...
chomsky is one of the most accessible academics you'll ever read.
of chomsky and cambodia i know nothing; of chomsky and the viet cong, though, there is much clearer information. there was an anti-imperialist motivation to the viet cong, which is laudable; and a nationalist motivation, which each can judge for him/her-self. but there was still the totalitarian motivation: http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/Readings/vcrepression.htm., which chomsky explicitly refused to criticise.
One of them (the most eloquent one, in fact) being Christopher Hitchens.
no he's not, he's a pompous alcholic ass with the intellectual creativity of a lama.
oops - remove the "url"s from the end of that link up there.
when they bring out a ladybird edition of his stuff i'll read it
What Uncle Sam Really Wants is not a million miles away from that -- a collection of short articles by Chomsky that provide an overview of his thoughts on US foreign policy and media manipulation.
You can read it online here.
Or you could just listen to a bunch of his speeches...
plus you don't need to read it to be an effective libertarian communist
Who do you need to read be an effective libertarian communist?
Your own handwriting of course.
Your own handwriting of course.
that's me fucked then.
Who do you need to read be an effective libertarian communist?
the newspapers? listen to people, pay attention to your own experiences, etc - look i've nothing against reading, i love reading and writing, but i don't think people who don't want to read dry old tomes should feel they cant be effective in promoting working class self organisation
and chomsky is not acessible - comparing him to other academics is ridiculous, i can't read any of them





Whether this means people will actually listen to what he says and start to think for themselves will remain to be seen.