Chomskyian Fantasies

Noam Chomsky, the demi-god of the Marxist scholarship, a self-acclaimed public intellectual, might have built his scholarship in linguistics yet he seems to have his expert opinion on everything else. His scholarship in linguistics too might be disputed, yet he can be acclaimed as someone who has worked in that domain. Nonetheless, his writings seemingly encompass numerous other terrains and his beliefs and utterances serve as a gospel to his followers across the world. the world appeal which he did command might be fading yet in the eyes of the certain schools of anti-establishment thought rooted in ideologies of Marxian hues, he continues to be an icon of sorts. One chanced upon his utterances on sports. This refers to little different context. One is his views on his attitude to sports and sports teams in high school. The second is his belief that sports is evil imposed top down. At the first glance itself, the appear as fantasies, something that keeps cropping to people deeply embedded insecurities and paranoia, someone who sees a conspiratorial hand in every move, behind every corner.  Therefore it would curious to look at these views and perhaps a counterpoint to the same.

He apparently once wondered why he should care if his high school team won. He felt since neither he knew anyone nor did they have anything do with him, therefore he had no reason to cheer for them. He further felt, it was a exercise of jingoism, a pursuit of submission of authority. Perhaps, one detects a loner in Chomsky who cared for and only for himself. Cheering at high school sports or for that matter sports at any level is only something to feel a sense of belonging to. They represent the school or the college or the mohalla or the town or the state or the country and thus you have the sense of belonging and thus the shared celebrations. One does not celebrate an Indian victory in cricket or for that matter Indian achievements in science or technology or art or any other domain, because it is an attitude of submission to authority but a happiness someone from one’s family- if one were to extend it to the country- has done something to be proud of and thus partaking in the celebrations is worth the same. There is a sense of pride in belonging and this is what makes people cheer for their mates. Chomsky with this attitude comes across as someone who was extremely self-centred and perhaps his universe revolved only around him. If he cannot digest happiness in a victory for his school team, it perhaps smacked of jealousy disguised as principles of resistance. If sports or for that matter science or art was the epitome of capitalism as he points out, the messiah of communism, the erstwhile Soviet Union and its satellites would not have staked everything into proving they were numero uno across domains and that included sports.

The more fantasy would be detected is his belief of sports being thrust as top down evil designed to keep people pre-occupied with other pursuits than worry about challenging the establishment. To Chomsky, sports is something that people pay attention but something that has no importance. It is a distraction from the worries about things that matter to them in real life, apart from having some idea about what to do with those things. His critique apparently stems from the old Roman dictum, panem et cicsneses. Translated into English, it conveyed, bread and circuses. Apparently, Romans had a policy of offering food and entertainment to keep people distracted from revolution, a step to overthrow the government. To Chomsky, the modern sports are essentially a government sponsored attempt to keep distracted from overthrowing their rule. This must count as some fantasy for in a democracy people have a right to vote out after certain number of years if they feel dissatisfied with the government. An occupation with sports achievements might have been a way of the Soviet rule to trumpet their ideological supremacy. There is no doubt sports and performing arts attract advertising and are a catalyst for consumption driven society. Yet more often than not they are organic, bottom-up actions rather than top down government or authority imposed deliberate distractions to keep people away from revolutions.

Somewhere or the other, consciously or sub-consciously, Chomsky seems frustrated with the inability of his ideas in capturing power. He needs someone to blame and sports is perhaps low hanging fruit. People watch sports or movies or books or comics or other forms of entertainment, to admire, to relive their own aspirations and their identities. There is hardly anything to suggest that they are something evil, something design to keep people away from revolutionary pursuits. In fact, advertising is a function of audience participation, passive or active rather than the other way round. Advertising follows where people are than the other way. Consumption is something about meeting the people’s wants and needs, one of which is entertainment. Linking the consumption of sports and maybe other forms of entertainment to a conspiracy is something outlandish prima facie. Only in Huxleyian nightmare if one might call it, the  world where there is perfect order, there might be an occasion to condition everyone to suit the needs of the authority. Yet in a world bubbling with entropy, this might be a far cry. There would no doubt be an attempt to imitate Roman dictum. Yet, the evidence for the same has come either from the Arab world or Chomsky’s apparent role model, Venezuela. In fact, Hugo Chavez sought to use the oil money to buy social peace and thus seek to eliminate challenge to his authority.

Incidentally, many sports have their roots in rebellious pursuits. From skateboarding to parkour to quidditch (Harry Potter fame), it is the need to emerge something away from the institutional order that has led to the development of these sports. Yet there do exist people who enjoy these. In fact skateboarding was selected for Olympics to attract the young. Therefore it is evident that contrary to Chomsky’s beliefs, sports and for that matter many performing arts evolve bottom up rather than top down. In the course of time, as they seek to expand, they get institutionalised. Chomsky thus is inaccurate in his assessment and as indicated before is more of an excuse for his failed ideas than evidence based conclusion.