Like, a Philosopher and Stuff?

You have an aunt who now lives in Düsseldorf.

Düsseldorf is, amongst much else I'm sure, the home of Kraftwerk, a band that matters to your father in a way that is perhaps not strictly healthy. But more about Kraftwerk later.

Your aunt complains that this Guide is neglecting Ireland, which is our home country, and will be yours unless something entirely unexpected happens before your due date. Of course, your aunt is what's called an expat (it's short for expatriate) and probably feels these omissions more keenly than those of us who live here. Still, she has a point.

So, Ireland. Well, there's a lot to cover, so I think a series of topical vignettes is probably the best way to go. You know, short sketches of contemporary Irish life that offer insights into the nation and its mores (that's pronounced like the eels) and what-have-you. I know, it sounds like a naff Sunday supplement feature, but I do work for a living, you know. And besides, you're a foetus--how long can your attention span be, anyway?

Right, then. Vignettes. Well, this week Noam Chomsky, the famous academic and political commentator, visited Ireland to give some lectures.

Linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky

Chomsky originally came to prominence as a linguist. He founded the field of generative grammar, which is based on the idea that people produce sentences that are well formed by using a set of underlying rules that all humans are predisposed to possess. He suggested, too, that there might be what are called deep structures that are common to all languages. It's fascinating stuff.

However, Chomsky is now better known for his political views than for his work in linguistics. You see, he's an ardent critic of the foreign policies of the United States, and of its use of military force. He's a very gifted and persuasive writer on these subjects, and seems to me to be right most of the time.

A lot of people in the English-speaking world (and elsewhere) agree, and feel that he articulates very well their concerns about the misuse of military and political power and abuse of human rights, particularly by America.

A lot of other people disagree with him. Well, disagree might not be quite the right word. They object to him. Disagreement implies a difference over the merits of a particular argument. Many of Chomsky's critics prefer to avoid his arguments, or what he actually says, and to concentrate on his reputation, or what people say he says. This is a strategy that works well for them, because his reputation has for the most part been constructed by them in the first place.

This allows Chomsky's critics to appear on television or radio talk shows and argue against Chomsky's reputation for saying that, oh, America is the Source of All Evil. That's nonsense! they proclaim. Or against Chomsky's reputation for saying that President Bush is Just Like Stalin or that Everything About Communist China is Really Great. Outrageous! they thunder.

Well, quite. Of course, Chomsky doesn't say these things. It's not so much that they are simplifications of his arguments, although his critics are often charged with oversimplification. When you oversimplify, you restate an argument in such reduced terms that you begin to distort and misrepresent it. In fact, it's more sinister than that.

It's possible, too, to create a simple slogan that sounds like something someone like Chomsky might say (well, it sounds like all the other anti-Chomsky slogans), while bearing no relation at all, not even one of oversimplification, to what he really says.

Anyway, that's Chomsky. Well, no it's not; it's oversimplification. But it's better than slogans.

Where was I going with this? Oh, yes. He was here, as I was saying, to deliver some lectures. The main lecture was under the auspices of Amnesty International, but he also gave a talk at UCD, where I studied. Hmm? Never mind how long ago that was.

Suffice it to say that when I was at UCD, a visit by Chomsky would have been a Major Event. Okay, maybe the spirit of 1968 was already the merest faintness, but we were still proper students. We still spent three hours over one cup of coffee, talking earnestly, if not all that cogently, about Fanon or Foucault.

Of course, I had heard that things are different now. That students now, in these affluent times, are more careerist and less militant. But I was still unprepared, unprepared and more disappointed than I'm sure I have any right to be, when I heard the vox pop. conducted by RTE's 5-7 Live radio programme on the day of Chomsky's lecture.

The question: What do you know about Noam Chomsky?

The answer? Now, let me just preface this briefly. I am taking no licence here. I am not distorting things for effect. There were no better-informed responses than the one I present here, although there were some eccentrically entertaining efforts. And I really do think that I remember it verbatim, in all its affluent, incurious, globalised blandness.

The answer? (And it doesn't matter if it was a boy or a girl.)

The answer: Oh, I dunno. Isn't he, like, a philospher and stuff?