Harry Ritchie Follows Wolfe in Dissing Chomsky (But Disses Wolfe, Too)

Harry Ritchie
Google Images

The Scottish writer and journalist Harry Ritchie - tongue lodged firmly in cheek - writes, "Aged 85, Tom Wolfe discovers the key to human progress" (The Spectator, August 27, 2016). Ritchie thinks little of Wolfe's 'discovery' . . . but he does like the way Wolfe deals with Chomsky, as we shall see after some preliminary words on Darwin:

How on earth could language have evolved? Darwin's risible best guess was that we'd started off chirruping in imitation of birdsong. His failure to explain language bequeathed an aeon of medieval ignorance - that is Darwin's real legacy, according to Wolfe - a period longer than the Dark Ages in which the origin of human language was a non-topic, erased from intellectual history.

That is, until the 1950s and the dramatic arrival of Noam Chomsky, linguistics' celebrity intellectual, who grabbed the subject by its lapels, slammed it up against a wall and told it that there was a new boss in town. Chomsky's revolutionary theory, which completely dominated linguistics for the next four decades, explained that human language had evolved, with a genetic mutation creating some sort of neural machinery that could process and acquire speech. Chomsky's "language acquisition device," gifted by evolutionary chance, was innate, encoded by our genes, embedded in our brains before birth. Individual languages differed in lots of superficial ways but they all had in common the deeper rules of a "universal grammar."

Wolfe is at his best when describing Chomsky's almost religiously cultish, charismatic hold over linguistics, his ability to swipe any critics or doubters aside. Actually, he didn’t have to do much swiping for a long time, since linguistics had eagerly handed over its wallet, watch and car keys and agreed to anything Chomsky said.

Was Chomsky really so dominant? I ask out of ignorance. I knew his daughter at Berkeley - we were even friends, if for only a semester. My life was in flux. Anyway, she seemed genuinely happy to meet someone who had heard of her father only as a linguist. I knew nothing of his political views. I therefore went to hear him lecture in Berkeley on US foreign policy in the Middle East, about which I also knew nothing, and I came away impressed by his ability to speak so very articulately and in such detail without notes. His daughter and I then spoke about his views. I mostly listened. She was a sincere, personally very kind soul. I liked her - Platonically, I mean - but we lost contact after that semester.

Be all that as it may, I can see how Chomsky might acquire a cultish following. He has impressive intellectual faculties, and he demonstrated, in the lecture I attended, an ability to field a broad range of questions, without hesitation, and offer answers in great detail. He had what I call the "charisma of reason" (not my coinage, of course) and could draw others to defer to him. When I read him nowadays, though, I find his arguments tendentious, his conclusions exaggerated, and his manner dismissive.

But back to Ritchie . . . for those interested in Ritchie's dissing of Wolfe, go to the article.

Paul Berman Speaks...

Cool Email

(Kool-Aid Man Image from Wikipedia)

This entry will be rather self-indulgent of me, but my excuse is that I've worked hard at blogging over the past couple of weeks and must now back off a bit in order to grade student essays.

After I had finished my eleven blog entries on Paul Berman's inquiry into Tariq Ramadan's views, I wondered if Berman himself might be interested, so I sent him a note at his New York University address:

Dear Professor Berman,

Greetings from Jeffery Hodges. I have recently read your article on Tariq Ramadan in the New Republic.

For the most part, I like your article very much (as I did your book Terror and Liberalism), differing from you only in nuances but broadly agreeing.

Also, I blogged on it here:

Paul Berman on Tariq Ramadan

From my site meter, I can see that several people went on to read your article, which I linked to. I hope that they have read you closely and been spurred to read your book Terror and Liberalism as well.

By the way, I don't expect you to read my blog. I just wanted to express appreciation for learning a lot from you and to let you know that I'm with you on the need for a war of ideas against Islamism.

This should be a point upon which the left, right, and center all agree. Sadly -- as you noted -- they don't.

Best Regards,

Jeffery Hodges

Well, Berman replied a couple of days later:

Dear Mr Hodges,

I've seen your very interesting and perceptive blog. I appreciate the detailed attention to the piece. You raise some points (Rousseau, Romanticism, the history of Christianity), that I will want to think about, and other points where I would argue with you (the possibilities for a modern Islam, in some non-Ramadanian version).

If you ever find yourself in New York, do let me know, and we could think and argue together over a drink.

Sincerely,

Paul Berman

In reply, I thanked him, and also elaborated a little bit on my remark about the stark alternative that Muslims face concerning shariah:

Dear Professor Berman,

Thank you for your reply and your kind words about my blog. I would certainly enjoy a discussion over a drink, but I might not be in New York for a long time. In fact -- despite my many travels -- I've never been to the 'World's Greatest City.' But perhaps you'll make a trip to Seoul sometime. I know an excellent wine bar in the Gangnam area of Seoul...

On the possibility of a modern Islam? Well, perhaps I was too rigorous about that. There are undoubtedly more possibilities than the stark alternatives that I set out. The question on shariah, however, remains the crucial one. Without enforced law, what's to prevent Islam from devolving into whatever any individual Muslim thinks that Islam is? That might not be a bad thing, but what is left of Islam in that case?

But save that for the discussion over drinks.

Thanks once again for your response. It was thoughtful of you.

Best Regards,

Jeffery Hodges

That's where it stands -- and where it probably will remain. I probably will never find myself in New York, certainly not anytime soon, and Berman will be even less likely to visit Seoul, so discussion over a drink will have to be put off a long, long time -- perhaps so far in the future that shariah will have become the law of the land, leaving talk of discussion over a drink merely a distant memory.

Unless by 'drink', we're speaking Kool-Aid ... though probably not the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test variety popularized by Tom Wolfe and the Merry Pranksters.