

Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995) - mapleoin
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

======
bokonist
_So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called "factory
girls," young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading
serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system
was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around,
and so on._

Source? My impression was that the point of the system was to make money, and
that the girls were adequately treated (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls> ). The main thing that sucked
was super long hours. Many of the Lowell girls came from family farms that had
too many mouths to feed. If a family produces more children than the farm can
support, there is no escaping the hard life, no matter the political or
economic system.

 _It was done mostly by courts and lawyers and the power they could exercise
over individual states. New Jersey was the first state to offer corporations
any right they wanted. Of course, all the capital in the country suddenly
started to flow to New Jersey, for obvious reasons._

The corporation is a construct of contract law. There is no reason for it to
be ratified by legislation. And contract law simply allows for scalable,
voluntary transactions. And scalable voluntary transactions allow people to
build large productive organizations that make stuff people want - cars,
lightbulbs, transistors, etc.

 _It was a conscious design which worked as Adam Smith said: the principal
architects of policy consolidate state power and use it for their interests._

No argument here. But note that this is basically an immutable law of history.
You'll have the same luck ranting against it as ranting against "death and
taxes". That's why anarcho-anything is a dead end. If you write abaout
political matters with a goal of influencing policy, you're best off coming up
with ideas that are mutually beneficial to both the state and the public.

 _It's basically court decisions and lawyers' decisions, which created a form
of private tyranny which is now more massive in many ways than even state
tyranny was._

That's simply false. And the massive corporations that seem most soulless and
Dilbert-like, often are basically arms of the state ( ie, government
contractors like IBM).

 _A lot of the educational system is designed for that, if you think about it,
it's designed for obedience and passivity._

Once upon a time the idea of the school system was designed for obedience and
passivity. But Supreme Court cases in the 1970's have made effective
discipline in schools impossible. As a result, the education system circa 2009
is Lord of the Flies.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_the girls were adequately treated_

Did you even read the Wikipedia link you cited? The one which says this:

 _Conditions in the Lowell mills were severe by modern American standards.
Employees worked from five am until seven pm, for an average 73 hours per
week. Each room usually had 80 women working at machines, with two male
overseers managing the operation. The noise of the machines was described by
one worker as "something frightful and infernal", and although the rooms were
hot, windows were often kept closed during the summer so that conditions for
thread work remained optimal. The air, meanwhile, was filled with particles of
thread and cloth._

 _About 25 women lived in each boardinghouse, with up to six sharing a
bedroom. One worker described her quarters as "a small, comfortless, half-
ventilated apartment containing some half a dozen occupants"..._

 _Women were also given opportunities to attend concerts and lectures, in
addition to experiencing city life. Still, at least one observer reported that
most women worked so that a male relative could obtain an education. "I have
known more than one to give every cent of her wages," she writes, "month after
month, to her brother, that he might get the education necessary to enter some
profession."_

Yeah, I guess this is more than adequate by the standards of a slave. Which is
exactly Chomsky's point -- and the point of the contemporary writers and labor
organizers which he is citing:

 _The Lowell girls' organizing efforts were notable not only for the
"unfeminine" participation of women, but also for the political framework used
to appeal to the public. Framing their struggle for shorter work days and
better pay as a matter of rights and personal dignity, they sought to place
themselves in the larger context of the American Revolution. During the 1834
"turn-out" or strike – they warned that "the oppressing hand of avarice would
enslave us,"..._

~~~
bokonist
_one worker as "something frightful and infernal", and although the rooms were
hot, windows were often kept closed during the summer so that conditions for
thread work remained optimal. The air, meanwhile, was filled with particles of
thread and cloth._

Keep in mind that the source for this comes from a labor union organizer, and
that this seems to be the worst they could find. From the original source, the
quality of the air did not seem bad enough for the factory girls to be
noticeably bothered by it.

You might want to balance your view with the writing of a woman who actually
worked in the mill
([http://books.google.com/books?id=RgwCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=RgwCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=lowell+mill+girls#PPA31,M1)):
"I do not recall any particular hardship connected with this life, except
getting up so early in the morning, and to this habit, I never was, and never
shall be, reconciled, for it has taken nearly a lifetime for me to make up the
sleep lost at that early age. But in every other respect it was a pleasant
life. We were not hurried any more than was for our good, and no more work was
required of us than we were able easily to do."

I suggest you read the book, it's a very different picture than you'll get
from Chomsky or the labor organizers.

I'm not arguing that factory life didn't suck by our standards. But it wasn't
some plot to keep the foot on the neck of woman or laborers. Life was hard
because they simply weren't as wealthy back then, and so they had to work hard
at whatever they did. The factory life was better than the alternatives, or
else the woman would not have worked their.

------
dpapathanasiou
_CHOMSKY: First of all, I'm usually fuming inside, so what you see on the
outside isn't necessarily what's inside. But as far as questions, the only
thing I ever get irritated about is elite intellectuals, the stuff they do I
do find irritating._

Oh, the irony

~~~
ellyagg
I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume
inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything,
which is not an appropriate disposition for a scholar.

~~~
jwvgoethe
I passionately disagree that the intellectual must remain dispassionate. But
what you are saying is in fact considered a rarely challenged truism in
humanities departments. It is considered very distasteful for an academic to
speak publicly about current events, politics, or really anything
controversial. But I think, and I know there is a very strong anti-academic
current here on HN, that the intellectual plays a similar role to the free
press in a democratic society. He is morally obliged to speak out when he sees
the society being duped, coerced by the powerful, or being robbed of its
freedoms. The academic intellectuals repeatedly fail us in this in the United
States, and I admire Chomsky because he is one of the very few with the
integrity to perform his moral duty.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Being passionate != thinking you're right about everything.

~~~
falsestprophet
Thinking you're right about one thing is more than enough.

------
thesethings
Just a heads up: Most of this interview is not about education, it's about the
history of the corporation, and the history of anti/pro capitalist philosophy.

As for the juicy quote in the title of the post, it's not that elaborated on.
(Not because Chomsky is hand-waving, it seems it got muttered as an aside in
an interview that was about other stuff.)

This was an interesting interview, but not very satiating for those of us
hungry for some meaty critique of education.

(Not that I pour over those posts on HN every day ;D )

~~~
lallysingh
Huh, the entire last Q-A pair are on Education...

There's a good amount down there.

~~~
thesethings
I didn't mean to dismiss the interview, just lower expectations that the page
was about explaining the point in the title, it's not.

You're totally right that last 3 paragraphs are about education, but even most
of one of them he detours into "You'll find the same thing with the press...,"
and talks about the media.

I don't want to tell anybody not to read it, but I'll just say I got really
excited about the title, but then a little bummed out the link didn't
necessarily defend that point very well. I don't mean that as a dis of
Chomsky, it was a casual interview, not a vigorous essay.

------
cunard-n
You can listen to podcasts of Chomsky. His live talks help put this quote into
context. He speaks often at Universities. Some of the questions he fields are
kind of sad, and Chomsky is quite civil to the kids that basically want him to
refute his own positions. If, on the other hand, you listen to his debate with
Richard Perl, for example, you hear his opponent, clearly a public
intellectual and a capable debater, take positions like: "we were right to
blockade, bomb and terrorize. It is and was in the national interest." Does
this help with perspective? I think an example like this can be to the point
without being or becoming a tautology, though it is close. The kids sometimes
don't seem to have benefitted from their embarrassment of riches in the field
of education....

~~~
discojesus
_If, on the other hand, you listen to his debate with Richard Perl..._

Or you could watch the Harvard debate he had with Alan Dershowitz on Israel
where he wasn't particularly convincing, or better yet the passage of _The
Blank Slate_ where Steven Pinker completely skewers Chomsky's nonsensical
position on human nature in its relation to economic systems.

~~~
cunard-n
Thanks. I'll check these as soon as I have a second.

------
michaelkeenan
I was intrigued by the Adam Smith quote:

 _> [Adam Smith] says that division of labor will destroy human beings and
turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a
human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is
going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from
proceeding to its limits._

I read the context around that Adam Smith quote. As I interpret it, Smith's
solution was not preventing the division of labor; it was improving education.

 _The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple
operations...generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a
human creature to become.

...

[C]ommon people...have little time to spare for education. Their parents can
scarce afford to maintain them even in infancy. As soon as they are able to
work they must apply to some trade by which they can earn their subsistence.

...

But though the common people cannot, in any civilised society, be so well
instructed as people of some rank and fortune, the most essential parts of
education, however, to read, write, and account, can be acquired at so early a
period of life that the greater part even of those who are to be bred to the
lowest occupations have time to acquire them before they can be employed in
those occupations. For a very small expense the public can facilitate, can
encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people the
necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.

The public can facilitate this acquisition by establishing in every parish or
district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so
moderate that even a common labourer may afford it...In Scotland the
establishment of such parish schools has taught almost the whole common people
to read, and a very great proportion of them to write and account...If in
those little schools the books, by which the children are taught to read, were
a little more instructive than they commonly are, and if, instead of a little
smattering of Latin, which the children of the common people are sometimes
taught there, and which can scarce ever be of any use to them, they were
instructed in the elementary parts of geometry and mechanics, the literary
education of this rank of people would perhaps be as complete as it can be.

...

The public can impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity
of acquiring those most essential parts of education, by obliging every man to
undergo an examination or probation in them before he can obtain the freedom
in any corporation, or be allowed to set up any trade either in a village or
town corporate._

Smith just wanted public education. He didn't mention preventing the division
of labor.

------
known
Asking WHY is a taboo in most of the school education.

~~~
dbul
Taboo or just that the teachers haven't the slightest?

------
kiba
I invoked Rothbard's Law.

"everyone specializes in what he is worst at"

Chomsky is no exception. For a brilliant linguist, he know little of
economics. Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be
"democratic"(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)

~~~
davidmathers
_Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be democratic
(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)_

Um, you know nothing about anarchism. The first person to call himself an
anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose most famous line is "property is
theft". The first international was made up primarily of communists, led by
Marx, and anarchists, led by Bakunin. Bakunin and the anarchists split from
the international because they thought Marx's ideas would lead to
totalitarianism. Bakunin's famous line is (paraphrasing):

"freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality"

Democratic may be the opposite of what you think of as anarchism, but what you
think of as anarchism has no basis in history. You should probably choose a
different word.

The anarchists who fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war, and who for
a brief moment actually implemented anarchism in the real world, were
explicitly anarcho-syndicalists.

~~~
kiba
Um, Pierre-Jopesph Proundhourn also claim "property is freedom". I also
derives my political heritage from indiviualist anarchists such as Lysander
Spooner.

I know about the Spanish civil war and Proudhourn as well the socialist
heritage of anarchism thank you very much!

The only thing anarchists of different stride have in common with each other
is they accuse each other of being non-anarchists. Thus the attempt to define
each other out of existence.

(I consider democracy evil because it is two wolf and one sheep deciding what
to eat for dinner)

------
cunard3
One of Chomsky's strongest works as a non-linguist is his "American Power and
the New Mandarins." (1967, 1968) In it you can find sections titled: "On the
responsibility of intellectuals" and "some thoughts on Intellectuals and the
Schools." He also co-authored "Manufacturing Consent." In "Power" he relays an
anecdote about seeing, in the Smithsonian, I believe, an exhibit wherein
museum goers could interact with a (Vietnamese) jungle scene. The interaction
was to take hold of a 50 caliber mounted in a mock-up of a helicopter and
shoot at villagers. That exhibit was designed and constructed by someone.
Presumably someone who had a "good job" at the museum. We are designers, most
of us. And I for one can't help thinking sometimes: How much designing do I
really do? Clearly if I define myself as a non-intellectual, my responsibility
doesn't really change. I know that I am both educated and trained but that has
not yet made me free. So what do I have: Theoretical freedom without
socialism. Oh, and illusion...lots of illusion.

------
arcadeparade
I left a link to this article in a comment a few hours ago, and it's a great
feeling to then see it lead to the front page where hundreds of people can
read about something I think is of great interest and importance.

------
devin
Chomsky on YC?! Voted up! Read this a few years ago-- great to give it another
look.

Thanks.

------
rodburch
"Which is a sign of how efficient the educational system has been, and the
propaganda system, in simply destroying even our awareness of our own
immediate intellectual background."

lord god the sky is falling.

my response to ridiculous statements such as this one is always "where the
holy fuck do you live"???

teachers struggle to get 99% of the kids to give a damn about anything beyond
sports sex music and games. the few who do give a damn can find and read
anything they want.

where is it different?

------
TweedHeads
Education is obedience, knowledge is power.

There is a big difference.

------
gaius
Flagged; flamebait.

~~~
DougBTX
I must be new here, this is first time I've seen a post [dead]. Does this
count as "the community defending itself"? This article was the top link when
I first saw it, I found it a good read. Not even any distracting ads.

Anyone have a link to the list of [dead] articles?

~~~
gaius
I believe there is a "showdead" feature.

Seriously, tho', _Chomsky_? Would an Ann Coulter diatribe last as long?

~~~
gojomo
I love the idea that Chomsky fills the Coulter niche for a certain audience.

~~~
jibiki
> the Coulter niche for a certain audience

Michael Moore is the closest I could come up with. What makes Coulter unique
is that she actively tries to offend liberals. I can't really think of anyone
famous for trying to offend conservatives (although lots of people have become
"almost famous" that way.)

~~~
gojomo
They're not alike in their tones or most famous aspects -- but their appeal to
their ardent fans is similar. "Here's truth that the [corporate|liberal] media
contrives to obscure." Each offers a mostly self-consistent (but in other ways
bizarro) world to make their audiences feel among the enlightened minority.

I happen to think both sometimes make useful and thought-provoking points,
though followup conversations about them are prone to derailment into all
sorts of superficial reactions and over-rehearsed ideological set-pieces.

~~~
berntb
I agree with "both sometimes make useful and thought-provoking points".

The problem is that these people create true believers. The world could really
use sane alternate viewpoints -- and we mainly get lots of conspiracy
theorists unable to change viewpoints.

~~~
MaysonL
I would be interested in a citation for this observation as far as Coulter
goes.

~~~
berntb
I am European, so the only thing I know about Coulter is that she is some form
of right wing crazy; a less formally polite Chomsky... :-)

That is also more than I care to know; the US extreme left/right looks equally
insane. I just wish neither was popular here. But I guess you get the good
with the bad.

I agreed with a quote as a way of saying that they generate hypotheses that
probably aren't correct, but potentially fruitful to work from.

