Noam Chomsky - Postmodernism and Post-structuralism

A collection of all the previous clips.

[EndrChe]

Freaked me out when his picture didn’t start talking.

[neilhill]

Brilliant man. Clarity, and the search for truth in the world! I wish we had more people like that.

[PLOttawa]

The man is a secular prophet. That's all there is to it. True treasure to humanity.

[peterk.]

I really like the way he thinks and talks. It always has several layers to it, yet he manages to have a clear message he is trying to communicate.
A clear mind who is ahead of his time and contemporaries. And who is not afraid to say what he really thinks.
Here he is not saying that social constructivism is a complete nonsens. No, he says there is something quite obvious about it. A truism. And we should not be constructing endless theories about truisms but instead concentrate on practical things. Thinking should fuel social movements for real social change. It should not be a subversive instrument leading people to pasivity.

[herculeslianos]

I get the impression that when Chomsky says "I" can't understand it, he is really saying it's too convoluted to be taken seriously.

[genpomp]

Book is called "Fashionable Nonsense", by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.

[koalakoala]

Also, against common belief (aka Jordan Peterson's followers), postmodernists are generally not leftists. Most are anti-capitalist, yes, but mainly because they reject the metanarratives required for capitalism (providing a belief system for entrepreneurship, a certain sense of self-determination, the belief that progress is achievable and desirable, a belief that profit is worth the effort and so on), but NOT out of an economic understanding and they usually don't maintain their own economic philosophy.

Nick Land or Peter Sloterdijk are examples for right wing thinkers influenced by postmodernists.

Postmodernism is an umbrella term for all kinds of thoughts that criticize Modernism, it's not a unitary school of thought. Deleuze for example is often described as postmodern, but he has his own metaphysics and heavily criticized what he called "critique without creation", which is, I think, exactly what Chomsky meant in this video with all this "oh, they're just talking without even wanting to make any sense".

[rypoelk]

When one of the founders of modern linguistics can't understand the language you're using, then maybe you're the problem.

[kskslslslsoooao]

15:15 He's talking about Kristeva

[deadsparrow]

The best expose of academic post-modernism yet 05.00 it serves as an instrument of power"

[valerianmandrake]

Who knew that what Chomsky said about postmodernist ideas dominating academia would still be relevant today. I totally agree with him.

[AntonDoesMusic]

The book he references at 5:48 and 10:00 is "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

[flashkraft]

I went to design collage in the early 1990s and this was still being taught as part of it design theory program.
We learn for example to write an essay deconstructing a billboard from a postmodern feminist perspective.
It was interesting and it made some good points but it taught you how to be a cynical armchair critic
and never taught you how to create anything commercially viable.
In fact creating anything to a commercial standard using commercial tools (like Adobe Software) was actively discouraged.

[LethalBubbles]

postmodernism hits way differently after you realize it's also what Henry Kissinger is doing. Someone who believes in post-truth, who believes in will-to-power as truth, who names his doctrine "Realism", is quite an expert.

[brucenenke-vknk]

I once had freind who studied philosopy and won a scholarship to Berkey to do his M.A.(ridicously ambitous) We started with Nietchze, he was our high school peer group's secret knowledge, a great cure for teenaged acne but he could alway explain philosopers to me. I liked reading Foucalt books, Jacque Derrida was song on the radio by Scitti Politti and my freind at UNI got into WITTINGSTIEN and it was the first time my freind (I had known him since primary school) said to me "I can't explain it to you Bruce". It was like when my father stopped playing with me to concentrate on his carreer. Apparently you need a lot of philosopy in your head to understand WITTINGSTIEN. Later on when I got into metaphysics, I realised Wittingstein was just a buddhist, if you want hard read Nagajuna.

[nikolademitri]

Thanks so much for this. I'll definitely be using this video I'm debates/arguments I have with friends/acquaintances, and particularly strangers online when I'm faced with the increasingly common meme that post-modernism is Marxist, and the thought breakdowns happening amongst certain people on the left, particularly on modern universities, is an example of Marx wreaking havoc, etc. Wrong. Some of the most outspoken opponents to post-modernism for decades now have been Marxists, or those on the left with views similar to traditional Marxism (like our man, Chomsky). I detest the fact that these views have been coined as "now-Marxist" and/or "cultural Marxism" in some circles. It just gives people who've never bothered to read Marx, or who are ignorant to the history of these movements, the false impression that the problem with today's left is Marxism. Marxists, the few actual Marxists that are left, and others on the left and right may have different perspectives, but we don't like the post-modern left anymore than fucking conservatives, in fact, I'd venture to say we take much greater issue with them, as they give the left a bad name. Cheers 🍻✌🏼

(For the record, I'm a libertarian-leftist, with views that borrow bits from a wide range of philosophies, primarily Liberal (enlightenment era through Rawlsian, not neoliberal), Marxist, and some pre-Christian modes of classical philosophy).

[tektologist]

6:10 you dont necessarily need the post-strucuralist baggage to make this critique, as the French historical epistemologists (Bachelard, Canguilhem) who preceded Foucault and Althusser were already making this point about how science is formed in a particular cultural and historical context that comes with its own limitations and incentives. Even if you don't fully agree with Chomsky here, he is absolutely right that there are other approaches which don't have to concede that science is always a perfectly rational, objective representation of reality

[dazpatreg]

This is the best dissection of what has led to the current post satire political and cultural life. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Petersen have far more commonalities than they do differences: both forward ideas that are supposedly 'dangerous and radical' but which function to simply rehash old ideas that don't really challenge the status quo and are in fact allied to it. In Peterson's case its this paranoia that Liberal capitalist democracy is at threat from 'neomarxist postmodernism' and in zizeks case its some vague and circuitous point reflecting back on lacanian psychoanalysis. This is bad enough in the realm of intellectuals onanistically debating each other but its incidious when in Petersons case its used to spark right wing paranoia and in Zizeks case when no objective truth is allowed and this lends credence to anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

[tonyballoney]

the main argument against French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism as presented by Chomsky, Sokal, and others is that it's all a load of intellectual mumbo jumbo. They argue that these theories are often impenetrable, with convoluted language and opaque concepts that are more concerned with showing off intellectual prowess than actually contributing to our understanding of the world.
Moreover, they argue that these theories have little to no empirical grounding and are often based on flawed assumptions or outright falsehoods. For instance, Chomsky famously criticized the poststructuralist idea that language is fundamentally unstable and arbitrary, arguing instead that there is an innate grammar that underlies all human language. Similarly, Sokal famously perpetrated the "Sokal hoax, " submitting a nonsensical article to a postmodernist journal that was accepted and published, in order to expose the lack of rigor and critical thinking in the field.
In short, the critics argue that French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism are more concerned with abstract, theoretical musings than with empirical reality, and that they are often guilty of substituting style for substance.
According to Chomsky, the political consequences of postmodernism and French theory are potentially disastrous. He argues that these theories often lead to a nihilistic rejection of objective truth and a belief that power relations are all that exist. In turn, this can lead to a form of politics that is focused solely on identity and representation, rather than material conditions and structural inequalities.
Chomsky sees this as particularly dangerous because it can obscure the real sources of power and inequality in society. Instead of challenging economic and political systems that perpetuate injustice, postmodernism and French theory can lead to a focus on individual identity and cultural expression. While these are important issues, Chomsky argues that they cannot be the sole focus of a progressive politics.
Moreover, Chomsky argues that postmodernism and French theory can lead to a kind of moral relativism in which all beliefs and values are seen as equally valid. This, in turn, can make it difficult to challenge oppressive and unjust social norms and practices.

In short, Chomsky sees postmodernism and French theory as potentially limiting the ability of progressive movements to challenge power and effect real change in society.

[ian]

Sheesh, some pretty harsh criticisms from Chomsky lol