[I]t is a relief to read the essay in The New York Review of Books (December 30, 1971), entitled 'The Case Against B.F. Skinner.' The essay is neither apologetic nor sentimental. It is bright and forceful. It is a demolition job.(1)
This is one of the few instances in which you will find Ayn Rand singing the praises of Noam Chomsky. If there is one unifying thread that connects the 'libertarian capitalism' of the former to the 'libertarian anarchism' of the latter, it is their mutual repudiation of behaviorism. Indeed (as I have sought to point out in post 3211), this thread is the asseveration of the individual's autonomy while simultaneously (and contradictorily) asseverating the societal determinism exerted by 'innate' 'human nature.' However, is not too much being made of mutual agreement here? Would not libertarian 'anarchists' (such as Chomsky) and libertarian capitalist ideologues (such as Rand) agree that, say, National-Socialism was bad? Yes, they would; and furthermore, they both asserted that behaviorism was Nazi ideology.*
Anyone who has ever visited Twin Oaks or Los Horcones may wonder where the 'gas ovens smoking in the distance'(2) are kept. Anyone who has participated in such an intentional socialist commune may wonder where Chomsky got the idea that 'Skinner is advocating concentration camps and totalitarian rule.'(3)
Chomsky offers a clue, however, early in his 'demolition job,' when he states that Skinner's 'speculations on human behavior' 'are to be clearly distinguished from his experimental investigation of operant conditioning'(4)---thus subtracting 30 years of scientific research conducted in Harvard University's laboratories (subjected to assiduous verification in both academic and scientific communities) from Skinner's 'speculations' (which were the conclusions of those years of research). But one cannot subtract the science from what Skinner said; Skinner was led to his conclusions because of his scientific findings. Had Chomsky actually read any of the science he considered superfluous to understanding Skinner's conclusions, then he would have been confronted, on many occasions, with the overriding philosophy of behaviorism, that punishment doesn't work and should be replaced with positive reinforcement.** This refutation of punishment is hardly compatible with 'the threat of the crematoria.'(5)
Such 'scholarship,' a combination of straw-man building, pulling quotes out of context,*** and outrageous accusations, is characteristic of Ayn Rand and other Cold War hysterics; is it also the scholarship of the academic Left?
__________
That was then, however, and (as they say) this is now.
Chomsky has the lead article in this month's New Left Review, itself an indication of his current stature. Entitled 'Power in the Global Arena,' it is a vitriolic tour-de-force impugning neoliberal policy, monopoly capital, and media suppression. In other words, it is an inspiring, impassioned speech in the grand manner of Eugene V. Debs. It has the characteristic Chomsky warlike tone and sense of omnipotence that has been his literary style since 1959. It is easy to read and (if you tend to agree with his views) emotionally compelling. But are the things in this article as inaccurate as the things he has said about behaviorism in the past?
I have my suspicions. Chomsky claims that: 'U.S. growers get 40 per cent of their profits from federal subsidies' (6); '1 per cent of households...own half the stocks' on the stock market (7); 'Idaho breaks national records in child abuse and imprisonment' (8); and 'the number of new billionaires [in Mexico] increased roughly in line with the poverty rate.' (9) These are outrageous facts---or: are they facts? None of these claims carry any citations whatsoever. On another occasion in the article where he cites a figure, he adds (in the footnote) that '[a]ll figures on these matters are very speculative'(10)---without acknowledging anyone (other than himself) as being qualified to speculate. (That's funny---wasn't Chomsky the one who lambasted Skinner, after removing all of his scientific data from consideration, for making 'speculations'?)
Another indication of Chomsky's dubious scholarship can be seen in his repeated media citations. He quotes---and cites---such authorities as the New York Times, the Nation, New Republic, etc. without page numbers (notes 16, 24, 25, 33, 35, etc.). If one wishes to contest his quotes---suspecting him to be the kind of guy that pulls quotes out of context, for example---then one is forced to confront a landscape of periodicals armed with only a very incomplete map. Is this simply a 'style' characteristic of New Left Review? No, a cursory glance at all the other articles in the same issue show all citations (by other writers) to be documented down to the last page number. If a literary no-name like me can get it together to add the page number when quoting someone or something, why doesn't Chomsky? What's a likely explanation?---to save Chomsky's time? There is no time lost because the page is (presumably) already in view of him. To save the reader's time?---In a prestigious academic periodical known for its copious citations? No, these are not credible reasons. Again: one is lead to suspect that page numbers are omitted because Chomsky wants them to be difficult to verify...
Let us take a look at one of Chomsky's incomplete citations, a quote attributed to Alan Greenspan, saying that the current economic boom (low inflation) was due to (and I quote Chomsky quoting Greenspan) 'greater worker insecurity.'(11) This is harsh stuff. Did Greenspan really say in public that high profits were directly attributable to worker insecurity (fear of layoffs, etc.)? Well...not exactly. If one takes the trouble to find the quote, one finds that Greenspan said that 'softness in compensation growth' [wages] is directly attributable to 'greater worker insecurity.'(12) What, then, did Greenspan actually say was the primary cause of low inflation? 'Nominal wages and salaries have increased faster than prices, meaning workers have gained ground in real terms, reflecting the benefits of rising productivity.'(13) Succinctly put, the current economic boom (according to Greenspan) is due to 'price stability' and 'faster productivity,' just the sort of cautious language one expects of the Federal Reserve Chair. Furthermore:
[B]usinesses believe that, were they to raise prices to boost profits further, competitors with already ample profit margins would not follow suit; instead, they would use the occasion to capture a greater market share. This...is doubtless a significant factor in the evident loss of pricing power in American business.(14)
So what we have is the typical economic establishment talk (as usual) from Greenspan. Chomsky cooked his quote (pulling only three words) to make a more impassioned point.
What I want to emphasize is that one doesn't need to make impassioned points with dubious scholarship. The facts are there, and the facts alone will impassion people. When one is arguing against neoliberal policy, monopoly capital, and media suppression, one does not need subterfuge and distortion---the outrages are there. But to resort to such low standards as cooking quotes and omitting citations will only discredit the Left. Chomsky would do well to recall Leo Huberman's classic advice: 'Agitation, based on information, brings lasting converts to socialism; agitation, based on exhortation, does not.'(15)
Finally, I wish to focus on Chomsky's positive arguments, on what he has to offer in place of what he criticizes. After all, it is easy to criticize capitalism, but to propose solutions (such as starting communitarian societies) is the devilish part. Let us look at Chomsky's concluding words as he ends his article with some hopeful words concerning what people can do to escape or change capitalism:
The scale of all this [corporate control of government] is nowhere near as great or, for that matter, as novel as claimed; in many ways it’s a return to the early twentieth century. And there's no reason to doubt that it can be controlled, even within existing formal institutions of parliamentary democracy. These are not the operations of any mysterious economic laws; they are human decisions that are subject to challenge, revision and reversal. They are also decisions made within institutions, state and private. These have to face the test of legitimacy, as always; and if they do not meet that test they can be replaced by others that are far more free and more just, exactly as happened throughout history.(16)
In other words, nothing specific.
_____
There have been times when it has sounded like I claim behaviorism is the answer. What I mean to say is that I think it is one answer. There are, no doubt, many others. However, to impugn the current order of things without actually proposing anything is, in my opinion, simply playing pop star. Chomsky, I believe, fits this characterization. Most of what most people know about behaviorism today is due directly to Chomsky's erroneous and antagonistic descriptions of it.**** I feel that is a shame, for the premise of a 'scientific' socialism has been a truly noble dream of reformers and humanists for almost two hundred years. What if we had access to such a 'science' and overlooked it---simply because yet another populist assured us that humanity can change its institutions without having to change its behavior?
* See Chomsky, 'Psychology and Ideology,' The Chomsky Reader (Pantheon, 1987), pp., 176-79, and Rand, 'The Stimulus and the Response,' Philosophy: Who Needs It (Signet, 1982), p. 147.
** For the tip of the iceberg, see Skinner: Walden Two (Macmillan, 1948), pp. 260-61; 'Freedom and the Control of Men' [1955-56] Cumulative Record (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972), p. 8; Science and Human Behavior (Macmillan, 1953), pp. 182-93; and The Analysis of Behavior (with James G. Holland) (McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 254-75.
*** See Chomsky, p. 176, where he 'quotes' Skinner advocating 'delegated specialists' such as police, priests, owners, etc. when in fact Skinner was pointing out that large-scale societies are more likely to resort to delegated authority than small communitarian societies, which he clearly advocated (Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Knopf 1974, pp. 154-55). Indeed, this one misquote forms the entire structure of Chomsky's 'behaviorism-as-fascism' argument.
**** See MacCorquodale, 'On Chomsky's Review of Verbal Behavior,' The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13: 1, January 1970, p. 83 and Richelle, 'Formal Analysis and Functional Analysis of Verbal Behavior: Notes on the Debate between Chomsky and Skinner,' Behaviorism 4: 2, Fall 1974, p. 209.
Notes:
1. Rand, 'The Stimulus and the Response' [1972],Philosophy: Who Needs It (Signet, 1982), pp. 155-56.
2. Chomsky, 'Psychology and Ideology' [reprint of 'The Case Against B. F. Skinner'], The Chomsky Reader (Pantheon, 1987), p. 178.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 158.
5. Ibid., p. 178.
6. Chomsky, 'Power in the Global Arena,' New Left Review, July/August 1998, p. 8.
7. Ibid., p. 11.
8. Ibid., p. 15.
9. Ibid., p. 21.
10. Ibid., p. 19.
11. Ibid., p. 12.
12. Greenspan, 'Inflation and Money Supply,' Vital Speeches of the Day, 15 March 1997, p. 348.
13. Ibid., p. 347.
14. Ibid., p. 348.
15. Leo Huberman, 'Notes on Left Propaganda,' Monthly Review, September 1950, p. 155.
16. Chomsky, 'Power in the Global Arena,' op. cit., p. 27.
