Date of creation: 28/12/2010

Avram Noam Chomsky(often transcribed as Chomsky or Chomsky, English Avram Noam Chomsky - Evrem Noem Chomsky; December 7, 1928, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) - American linguist, political journalist and theorist. Institute Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of a classification of formal languages ​​called Chomsky's hierarchy, founder of generative (generative) grammar. Considered by many to be the greatest linguist of the twentieth century.

In addition to his linguistic works, Chomsky is widely known for his radical left political views, as well as his criticism of the foreign policies of US governments. Chomsky himself calls himself a libertarian socialist and a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism.

Name

In English the name is written Avram Noam Chomsky, where Avram (אברם) and Noam (נועם) are Jewish names, and Chomsky is the Slavic origin of the Chomsky surname (ch is the Polish and German way of transmitting the sound [x]). English speakers, like himself, pronounce the name as it is read in accordance with English reading rules: Evrem Noum Chomsky(sound) .

Biography

Chomsky was born in 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His father was Zeev Vladimir William Chomsky, a native of Ukraine, a scientist, and a Jew. Since 1945, Noam Chomsky has studied philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. One of his teachers was linguistics professor Zellig Harris, whose political views he adopted.

Chomsky received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, but for the four years before that he did most of his research at Harvard University. In his doctoral dissertation, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, which he then expanded on in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures. This is perhaps his most famous work in the field of linguistics.

After receiving his Ph.D., Chomsky taught at MIT for 19 years. It was during this time that he became involved in politics, publicly opposing US involvement in the Vietnam War from around 1964. In 1969, Chomsky published a book-essay on the Vietnam War, American Power and the New Mandarins. Since that time, Chomsky has become widely known for his political views, speeches and several other books on the topic. His views, most often classified as libertarian socialism, have earned him both widespread support on the left and many critics from all areas of the political spectrum. Despite his involvement in politics, Chomsky continues to be involved in linguistics and teaching.

The New York Times Book Review once wrote: “Judged by the energy, scope, novelty and influence of his ideas, Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most important intellectual alive today” (as Chomsky wryly noted later in this article there is dissatisfaction with the fact that his political writings, which often accuse the New York Times of misrepresenting facts, are "maddeningly unsophisticated." According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was the most cited living scientist and the eighth most frequently used source for citations overall.

A look at the critique of scientific culture

Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with deconstructionist and postmodernist critiques of science:

I have spent a significant part of my life working on such questions using the only methods I know; those methods that are condemned here as “science”, “rationalism”, “logic” and so on. So I read various papers, hoping that they would allow me to “transcend” these limitations, or perhaps suggest a completely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Perhaps this is my own limitation. Quite often, “my eyes glaze over” when I read polysyllabic discussions on the topics of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is either largely a truism or an error - but this is only part of the whole text. Indeed, there are many other things that I do not understand, such as articles on modern mathematics or physics journals. But there is a difference. In the second case, I know how to come to an understanding, and I did this in cases that were especially interesting to me; and I know that people from these fields can explain the content to me at my level, so that I can achieve the desired understanding (even if partial). On the contrary, no one seems to be able to explain to me why modern post-this-or-that is not (for the most part) a truism, a mistake, or gibberish, and I don't know how to proceed.

Original text(English)

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality", "logic" and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I"m afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don"t understand: the articles in the current issues of mathematics and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.

Chomsky notes that criticism of "white male science" has much in common with the anti-Semitic, politically motivated Nazi attacks against "Jewish physics" during the Deutsche Physik movement, aimed at denigrating the results obtained by Jewish scientists:

In fact, the very idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I'm afraid, of "Jewish physics." Perhaps this is another flaw of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I cannot tell if the author is white or male. The same is true for discussing work in class, in the office, or anywhere else. I highly doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends and colleagues with whom I have worked would have been much impressed by the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differed from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race" . I suspect "surprise" would be too mild a word for their reaction.

Original text(English)

In fact, the entire idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I "m afraid, of "Jewish physics". Perhaps it is another inadequacy of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can"t tell whether the author is white or is male. The same is true of discussion of work in class, the office, or somewhere else. I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I worked would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race " I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.

Political Views

Political activity occupied an important place in Chomsky's life. Left-radical anarchist views were already evident in his early theoretical works. Chomsky remained one of the few Western intellectuals who, having entered the late 1960s. on the path of radical left extremism (“American Power and the New Mandarins”, 1969; “Wars with Asia”, 1972; “Problems of Knowledge and Freedom”, 1971), remains faithful to the attitudes and phraseology of the new left (“Human Rights and American Foreign Policy”, 1978; “The Path to a New Cold War”, 1982; “Culture of Terrorism”, 1988, and others). In numerous political articles, he criticized US foreign and domestic policies, and was especially vocal against the Vietnam War. Chomsky refused to pay taxes to protest military spending; from 1968 he was a member of the executive committee of the movement that called for civil disobedience to protest the Vietnam War.

Chomsky is one of the most famous figures on the left wing of American politics. He characterizes himself in the tradition of anarchism (libertarian socialism), a political philosophy which he briefly explains as the rejection of all forms of hierarchy and their eradication if they are not justified. Chomsky is particularly close to anarcho-syndicalism. Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not always oppose the electoral system; he even supported some candidates. He defines himself as a "fellow traveler" of the anarchist tradition, in contrast to the "pure" anarchist. This explains his willingness to sometimes cooperate with the state. Chomsky also considers himself a conservative (Chomsky's Politics, p. 188), supposedly a classical liberal.

Attitude towards Israel

Since the Six Day War, Chomsky has been sharply critical of the State of Israel (Peace in the Middle East?, 1974; Fatal Triangle: USA, Israel and the Palestinians, 1983). According to Chomsky, “the policies that Israel pursued after 1967 were extremely dangerous for it, and if we look further into the future, they were simply suicidal” (Zion magazine, 1977, no. 19). Considering Israel's orientation toward an alliance with the United States to be disastrous, Chomsky sees the machinations of world imperialism in the Oslo agreements. Chomsky's speeches against Israeli policies earned him a reputation in Jewish circles as an “anti-Semitic Jew,” a typical representative of Jewish “self-haters.”

Chomsky himself considers himself a Zionist, although he notes that his definition of Zionism is seen by most as anti-Zionism in modern times. He argues that this difference of opinion is due to a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of the word "Zionism". In an interview with C-Span Book TV, he stated:

I have always supported the idea of ​​a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. This is not the same as the Jewish state. There are strong arguments in favor of an ethnic homeland, but whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state, is an entirely different question.

Original text(English)

I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is different from a Jewish state. There"s a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state - that"s entirely another matter.

Is language a space for creativity, a mathematically precise system built into our brains from birth, or both? Today we are looking at how Noam Chomsky influenced the modern understanding of language, why language is more complex than artificial intelligence developers say, and what shortcomings the theory of universal grammar still has.

Reference. Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is known as the founder of the generative trend in linguistics, philosopher, theorist, and political activist. As a student he studied mathematics, linguistics and philosophy. Since 1962, he has been a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and still teaches there to this day. His compatriots call Noam Chomsky “American Socrates.”

One of Chomsky's first and widely known works is the book Syntactic Structures (1957), in which he outlined the idea of ​​generative or generative linguistics.

“The end result of these studies should be a theory of linguistic structure in which the descriptive mechanisms of specific grammars are represented and studied in the abstract, without reference to specific languages.”

The peculiarity of Chomsky's method is that he presented the grammar of natural language as a mechanism that is capable of generating an infinite number of grammatically correct sentences given initially limited linguistic resources. However, his goal was not only to identify a mathematically precise grammatical system, but also to explain the creative use of language by people and the mechanisms of language acquisition in children.

The idea of ​​universal grammar arose on the basis of a whole complex of studies devoted to the topic of the connection between language and thinking, in particular on the text of Vygotsky (“Thinking and Speech”, 1934), and is also based on Descartes’ views regarding the innate nature of thinking.

Noam Chomsky's views have undergone several changes, but his fundamental premise has remained unchanged - the ability to speak is innate. However, what exactly is innate? The scientist believes that universal grammar, as a general set of syntactic rules, is built into the brain. Thus, the logic according to which we build sentences and operate with linguistic structures is dictated by nature itself, the biological characteristics of our brain, and this is one of the conditions according to which a universal grammar exists.

“The study of universal grammar is a study of the nature of human intellectual abilities. It attempts to formulate the necessary and sufficient conditions that a system must satisfy in order to qualify as a potential human language—conditions that do not merely happen to apply to existing human languages, but that are rooted in the human “language faculty” and thus constitute an innate an organization that establishes what counts as linguistic experience and what kind of language knowledge arises on the basis of this experience.”

A really striking example in favor of this idea is watching how children learn language. At about the age of two years, the child already understands speech, apparently without any theoretical basis for this understanding. Moreover, any person with a normal level of mental development is capable of using language.

At the same time, many adults have difficulty studying the mechanisms of biological or physical laws, although these systems are an order of magnitude simpler than the linguistic one, as the scientist claims. Thus, Chomsky is confident that studying the structure of language, as well as its fluent use, will help to understand the structure of the human mind. His theory was a new approach to studying the problem of the relationship between language and thinking.

The most original and truly revolutionary aspect of Chomsky's theory of language was his conviction that the formation of language does not proceed from sounds to words and then to sentences, but, on the contrary, from abstract syntactic structures to phonetics. Thus, generativism began to deal not with the study and description of language, but with modeling the process of language formation in general, at the most abstract level, isolated from reference to any specific language.

However, from the point of view of epistemology, the theory of universal grammar leads us to the recognition of the impossibility of obtaining objective knowledge by an individual, that is, to anti-realism. The innate ability for language, if there is one, provides but also limits our cognitive capabilities - exactly like the categories in Kant's theory.

In this regard, we recall the views of the late Wittgenstein, who was convinced that it is impossible to detect any stable formations in natural language. His point of view rules out the existence of a universal grammar. According to the late Wittgenstein, we are not capable of adequate comprehension of reality as such. The individual is doomed to deal with “epistemological pluralism”, the essence of which is revealed in terms of “language games”, “family resemblances” and “forms of life”.

Read also

No matter how we feel about the practical aspect of the theory of generative grammar, it cannot be denied that its goals are relevant and its methods for solving problems are original. Chomsky's theory, along with its strengths, also has weaknesses, but nevertheless it made a revolution in linguistics: there was a shift from the structuralist paradigm to the generative one. Generative linguistics, based on the principles of rationalism and constructivism, actively criticized behaviorism.

In turn, it is interesting to follow the argumentation of Chomsky, who criticized the theory of language of W. Quine, who builds his theory based on the principles of holism ⓘ Holism is a position in philosophy and science on the problem of the relationship between the part and the whole, based on the qualitative originality and priority of the whole in relation to its parts., empiricism and behaviorism. Quine interprets empiricism as the only possible connection between a person and the outside world - objects influence our senses, which then formalize the information received and send signals to the brain. This point of view corresponds to the behaviorist principle of cognition of the surrounding reality, which can be expressed in the formula “stimulus - response - reinforcement”. According to Quine, language learning occurs according to this pattern. Thus, every word we use is the result of the deliberate influence of the social world on the individual. The principle of holism complements Quine's theory of language and states that a person remembers not just individual words, but entire complexes, contexts in which words can be used.

Chomsky criticizes the principle of behaviorism and shows its inconsistency, pointing to the creative foundations of language. A word used in a non-trivial context does not confuse us; we still understand what object is meant, despite the word being used in an unusual way for us. We use language in accordance with a given situation. The individual is able to understand - just as well as create - sentences that he has not previously heard.

While, according to behaviorism, an individual will learn only those words that have been sufficiently reinforced, this excludes the possibility of non-trivial use of language constructs. The assumption that the ability to create and use language is biologically inherent in us does not conflict with the fact of its creative use, since it is not limited by external factors, as, for example, in behaviorism.

Moreover, behaviorism does not explain the nature of synonymy. Within the framework of this concept, it is impossible to explain the process of an individual’s understanding of different words with similar meanings. Thus, it is unclear how a limited set of stimuli would generate an unlimited number of variations in word use.

The emergence of generative linguistics became possible thanks to such previous traditions of language study as philosophical grammar, which originated in the seventeenth century, as well as structuralism, the founder of which is considered to be Ferdinand de Saussure.

According to Chomsky,

Structuralism is a fruitful field of study and “showed that there are structural relationships in language that can be studied in the abstract.”

Many of the ideas that are embodied in generative grammar were taken from the structuralist tradition. For example, Saussure's methods of segmentation and classification, slightly modified, found their application in Chomsky's work in the surface structure of language. However, generative grammar covers more areas of study and is closely intertwined with neurophysiology and cognitive psychology.

Chomsky's seminal work Language and Thought (1972) consists of three chapters, which in turn are based on lectures he gave in 1967 at the University of California at Berkeley. In the first chapter, the author describes the achievements of past scientists regarding the study of thinking through the prism of the natural features of language. In the second chapter, Chomsky describes the modern achievements of linguists regarding this problem. And in the third chapter, he describes his speculative predictions about the future achievements of linguistics in the study of language and thinking.

The theory connecting language, thinking and consciousness (mental triad) arises in opposition to the idea of ​​​​creating a formalized language and machines with artificial intelligence. Chomsky insists that human language and thinking are more complex than artificial intelligence developers believe. Mathematical theory and social-behavioral sciences greatly simplify the process of language acquisition and the formation of thinking, reducing everything exclusively to a system of algorithms.

“Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that existing technology can provide the required depth of insight and understanding and produce useful results; it clearly failed to do so and, in fact, the considerable expenditure of time, energy and money on the use of computing machines in linguistic research has not produced any significant progress in our understanding of language use and its nature.”

Chomsky is a supporter of psychologism; he emphasizes the need to study the human psyche and consciousness. Otherwise, “it is as if the natural sciences were to be called the science of measuring instruments.”

Let's go deeper

At the same time, Chomsky criticizes the approach in which the capacity for language is seen as evolving. To say that the ability to speak developed depending on the goals of the individual is incorrect, the scientist believes, because language has too many functions and different forms of its use.

“There is no more reason to admit the evolutionary development of “higher” stages from “lower” ones than to admit the evolutionary development from breathing to walking.”

For example, animals with a limited set of sign language use communication for strictly defined purposes. A chimpanzee will always show the same sign or make the same sound when wanting to communicate the information recorded behind this action. Human use of language is based on different principles. The human individual is capable of communicating the same fact in many different ways. In addition, a person can speak simply because he wants to communicate, he can deceive, joke, use metaphors, and so on. In this regard, there is a need to introduce the term “linguistic competence”.

“Linguistic competence is the knowledge of a language that every normal speaker of a language has,” as well as knowledge of some ways of using the language in the process of its use by the speaker or listener.

In other words, the scope of language is so complex that there is no doubt about the uniqueness of the structure of human intelligence.

Read on topic

Chomsky admits that he does not provide conclusive evidence that universal semantics has a biological origin. Moreover, his theory does not cover the totality of facts regarding language and thinking. However, he is so confident in the correctness of the chosen direction for the development of linguistics that he calls on scientists to actively develop their ideas in the future.

In the conclusion to Language and Thought, Chomsky writes:

“I have tried to establish the idea that the study of language may well, as traditionally supposed, offer a very favorable prospect for the study of human mental processes. The creative aspect of the use of language, when examined with due care and attention to facts, shows that the now current concepts of habit and generalization as factors determining behavior or knowledge are completely inadequate. The abstractness of linguistic structure confirms this conclusion, and it further suggests that in both perception and acquisition, thinking plays an active role in determining the nature of the knowledge acquired. Empirical research into linguistic universals has led to the formulation of very restrictive and, I think, quite plausible hypotheses concerning the possible diversity of human languages, hypotheses which are a contribution to the attempt to develop a theory of knowledge acquisition that gives due place to internal mental activity. It seems to me that, therefore, the study of language should occupy a central place in general psychology."

Links to sources

Chomsky N. Syntactic structures = SyntacticStructures // New in linguistics. - M., 1962. - Issue. II. P. 415

Chomsky N. Language and thinking // M.: Publishing house. Moscow University, 1972. pp. 16 - 38

Wittgenstein L. Philosophical studies // Wittgenstein L. Philosophical works. M.: Gnosis, 1994. Part I. P. 75–319.

Vygotsky Lev Semenovich. Thinking and speech. Ed. 5, rev. - Publishing house 'Labyrinth', M., 1999. - 352 p.

Kubryakova E.S. The evolution of linguistic ideas in the second half of the twentieth century // Language and science at the end of the twentieth century. M., 1995. S. 144-238.

Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax / Chomsky N. - M.: Publishing house. Moscow University, 1972. S. – 278

Chomsky N. Cartesian linguistics. Chapter from the history of rationalistic thought: Trans. from English / Preface B. P. Narumova. - M.: KomKniga, 2005. - 232 p.

Quine W.V.O. Word and object. - Harvard university & the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1960. P. - 277

Name

In English the name is written Avram Noam Chomsky, where Avram (אברם) and Noam (נועם) are Jewish names, and Chomsky is the Slavic origin of the Chomsky surname (ch is the Polish and German way of transmitting the sound [x]). English speakers, like himself, pronounce the name as it is read in accordance with English reading rules: Evrem Noum Chomsky(sound) .

Biography

Contributions to linguistics

Chomsky's most famous work, "Syntactic Structures" () had a huge influence on the development of the science of language throughout the world; many talk about the “Chomskyan revolution” in linguistics (a change of scientific paradigm in Kuhn’s terms). The perception of certain ideas of the theory of generative grammar (generativism) created by Chomsky is felt even in those areas of linguistics that do not accept its basic provisions and sharply criticize this theory.

Over time, Chomsky's theory evolved (so that one can speak of his theories in the plural), but its fundamental position, from which, according to the creator, all others are derived - about the innate nature of the ability to speak a language - remained unshakable. It was first expressed in Chomsky's early work "The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory" in 1955 (republished in), in which he introduced the concept of transformational grammar. Theory considers expressions(sequences of words) corresponding to abstract “surface structures”, which in turn correspond to even more abstract “deep structures”. (In modern versions of the theory, the distinction between surface and deep structures has largely blurred.) Transformational rules, together with structural rules and principles, describe both the creation and interpretation of expressions. With a finite set of grammatical rules and concepts, people can create an unlimited number of sentences, including creating sentences that have never been expressed before. The ability to structure our expressions in this way is an innate part of the genetic program of humans. We are practically unaware of these structural principles, just as we are unaware of most of our other biological and cognitive features.

Recent versions of Chomsky's theory (such as the "Minimalist Agenda") make strong claims about universal grammar. According to his views, the grammatical principles underlying languages ​​are innate and unchangeable, and the differences between the world's languages ​​can be explained in terms of parametric settings of the brain, which can be compared to switches. Based on this point of view, in order to learn a language, a child only needs to learn lexical units (that is, words) and morphemes, as well as determine the necessary parameter values, which is done on the basis of several key examples.

This approach, according to Chomsky, explains the amazing speed with which children learn languages, the similar stages of language learning by a child regardless of the specific language, as well as the types of characteristic errors that children who acquire their native language make, while others seem to logical mistakes don't happen. According to Chomsky, the non-occurrence or occurrence of such errors indicates the method used: general (innate) or language-specific.

Chomsky's ideas have had a great influence on scientists studying language acquisition in children, although some of them disagree with these ideas, following emergenceist or connectionist theories, which are based on attempts to explain the general processes of information processing in the brain. However, almost all theories explaining the process of language acquisition are still controversial, and testing of Chomsky’s theories (as well as other theories) continues.

A look at the critique of scientific culture

Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with deconstructionist and postmodernist critiques of science:

I have spent a significant part of my life working on such questions using the only methods I know; those methods that are condemned here as “science”, “rationalism”, “logic” and so on. So I read various papers, hoping that they would allow me to “transcend” these limitations, or perhaps suggest a completely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Perhaps this is my own limitation. Quite often, “my eyes glaze over” when I read polysyllabic discussions on the topics of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is either largely a truism or a mistake, but this is only part of the entire text. Indeed, there are many other things that I do not understand, such as articles on modern mathematics or physics journals. But there is a difference. In the second case, I know how to come to an understanding, and I did this in cases that were especially interesting to me; and I know that people from these fields can explain the content to me at my level, so that I can achieve the desired understanding (even if partial). On the contrary, no one seems to be able to explain to me why modern post-this-or-that is not (for the most part) a truism, a mistake, or gibberish, and I don't know how to proceed.

Original text(English)

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality", "logic" and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I"m afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don"t understand: the articles in the current issues of mathematics and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.

Chomsky notes that criticism of "white male science" has much in common with the anti-Semitic, politically motivated Nazi attacks against "Jewish physics" during the Deutsche Physik movement, aimed at denigrating the results obtained by Jewish scientists:

In fact, the very idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I'm afraid, of "Jewish physics." Perhaps this is another flaw of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I cannot tell if the author is white or male. The same is true for discussing work in class, in the office, or anywhere else. I highly doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends and colleagues with whom I have worked would have been much impressed by the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differed from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race" . I suspect "surprise" would be too mild a word for their reaction.

Original text(English)

In fact, the entire idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I "m afraid, of "Jewish physics". Perhaps it is another inadequacy of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can"t tell whether the author is white or is male. The same is true of discussion of work in class, the office, or somewhere else. I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I worked would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race " I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.

Political Views

Chomsky is one of the most prominent figures on the left in American politics. He characterizes himself in the tradition of anarchism (libertarian socialism), a political philosophy which he briefly explains as the rejection of all forms of hierarchy and their eradication unless they are justified. Chomsky is particularly close to anarcho-syndicalism. Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not always oppose the electoral system; he even supported some candidates. He defines himself as a "fellow traveler" of the anarchist tradition, in contrast to the "pure" anarchist. This explains his willingness to sometimes cooperate with the state.

Chomsky has a large following around the world and a busy speaking schedule, attracting the attention of many people wherever he goes. His performances are often planned for a long time, up to two years in advance. He was one of the main speakers at the 2002 World Social Forum.

Chomsky on terrorism

Criticism of US policy

Chomsky is a consistent critic of US governments and their policies. He gives two reasons for his special attention to the United States. Firstly, this is his country and his government, so the work of studying and criticizing them will have a greater effect. Secondly, the United States is the only superpower at the moment, and therefore pursues an aggressive policy, like all superpowers. However, Chomsky also briefly criticizes the official enemies of the United States, such as the Soviet Union.

One of the key aspirations of the superpowers, according to Chomsky, is to organize and reorganize the surrounding world in their own interests using military and economic means. Thus, the United States entered the Vietnam War and the Indochina conflict that included it due to the fact that Vietnam, or more precisely, part of it, withdrew from the American economic system. Chomsky was also critical of US interference in Central and South American countries and military support for Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Chomsky continually emphasizes his theory that much of American foreign policy is based on the “threat of good example” (which he considers another name for the domino theory). The "good example threat" is that a country could successfully develop outside the US sphere of influence, thereby providing another workable model for other countries, including those in which the US has a strong economic interest. This, Chomsky argues, has repeatedly led the United States to intervene to suppress “independent development, regardless of ideology,” even in regions of the world where the United States does not have significant economic or national security interests. In one of his most famous works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky used this particular theory to explain the US invasions of Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua and Grenada.

Chomsky believes that US policy during the Cold War was explained not only by anti-Soviet paranoia, but more by the desire to maintain ideological and economic dominance in the world. As he wrote in Uncle Sam: “What the United States really wants is stability, which means security for the top of society and large foreign enterprises.”

Although Chomsky criticizes US foreign policy in almost all its forms, in many of his books and interviews he has expressed admiration for the freedom of speech that Americans enjoy. Even other Western democracies, such as France or Canada, are not so liberal on this issue, and Chomsky does not miss the opportunity to criticize them for this, as in the Faurisson case. However, many of Chomsky's critics view his handling of US foreign policy as an attack on the values ​​on which American society is founded, seemingly overlooking his views on free speech.

Views on socialism

Chomsky is an implacable oppositionist to (in his words) “corporate-state capitalism” practiced by the United States and its allies. He is a supporter of the anarchist (libertarian socialist) ideas of Mikhail Bakunin, demanding economic freedom, as well as "control of production by the working people themselves, and not by the owners and managers who stand above them and control all decisions." Chomsky calls this "real socialism" and considers Soviet-style socialism to be similar (in terms of "totalitarian control") to US-style capitalism, arguing that both systems are based on different types and levels of control rather than organization and efficiency. In defense of this thesis, he sometimes notes that F. W. Taylor's philosophy of scientific management provided the organizational basis for both Soviet industrialization and corporate America.

Chomsky notes that Bakunin's remarks about the totalitarian state were a prediction of the coming Soviet "barracks socialism." He repeats the words of Bakunin: “…in a year… the revolution will be worse than the Tsar himself,” appealing to the idea that the tyrannical Soviet state was a natural consequence of the Bolshevik ideology of state control. Chomsky defines Soviet communism as "false socialism" and argues that, contrary to popular belief, the collapse of the USSR should be seen as a "small victory for socialism" rather than capitalism.

In For Reasons of State, Chomsky advocates that instead of a capitalist system in which people are “wage slaves,” and instead of an authoritarian system in which decisions are made centrally, society can function without paid labor. He says people should be free to do the work they choose. Then they will be able to act in accordance with their desires, and freely chosen work will be both “reward in itself” and “socially useful.” Society would exist in a state of peaceful anarchy, without a state or other governing institutions. Work that is fundamentally unpleasant for everyone, if it exists, would be distributed among all members of society.

Bibliography

• 1999 - Profit on people. Neoliberalism and world order ( Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order)
• Works by Noam Chomsky on English-language Wikisource
• Complete bibliography of works on linguistics (on the MIT website).

Notes

Literature about N. Chomsky

• Litvinov V. P. The Thinking of Noam Chomsky: A Course of Lectures / International Academy of Business and Banking. - Tolyatti, 1999.
• Guryanova N.V. The concept of language, knowledge of language and mastery of this knowledge in the concept of language and thinking by N. Chomsky // Scientist. zap. Ulyanov. state un-ta. Ser.: Education. - Ulyanovsk, 1999. - Issue. 2. - pp. 182-191.
• Kapishin A. E.“Generative linguistics” by N. Chomsky // Foreign language at school. - 2002. - No. 2. - P. 81-86.
• Guryanova N.V. Modern linguistic concept of N. Chomsky: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 02.10.19 / [Moscow State. Linguistic University]. - M., 1998.

Date of creation: 28/12/2010

Avram Noam Chomsky(often transcribed as Chomsky or Chomsky, English Avram Noam Chomsky - Evrem Noem Chomsky; December 7, 1928, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) - American linguist, political journalist and theorist. Institute Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of a classification of formal languages ​​called Chomsky's hierarchy, founder of generative (generative) grammar. Considered by many to be the greatest linguist of the twentieth century.

In addition to his linguistic works, Chomsky is widely known for his radical left political views, as well as his criticism of the foreign policies of US governments. Chomsky himself calls himself a libertarian socialist and a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism.

Name

In English the name is written Avram Noam Chomsky, where Avram (אברם) and Noam (נועם) are Jewish names, and Chomsky is the Slavic origin of the Chomsky surname (ch is the Polish and German way of transmitting the sound [x]). English speakers, like himself, pronounce the name as it is read in accordance with English reading rules: Evrem Noum Chomsky(sound) .

Biography

Chomsky was born in 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His father was Zeev Vladimir William Chomsky, a native of Ukraine, a scientist, and a Jew. Since 1945, Noam Chomsky has studied philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. One of his teachers was linguistics professor Zellig Harris, whose political views he adopted.

Chomsky received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, but for the four years before that he did most of his research at Harvard University. In his doctoral dissertation, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, which he then expanded on in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures. This is perhaps his most famous work in the field of linguistics.

After receiving his Ph.D., Chomsky taught at MIT for 19 years. It was during this time that he became involved in politics, publicly opposing US involvement in the Vietnam War from around 1964. In 1969, Chomsky published a book-essay on the Vietnam War, American Power and the New Mandarins. Since that time, Chomsky has become widely known for his political views, speeches and several other books on the topic. His views, most often classified as libertarian socialism, have earned him both widespread support on the left and many critics from all areas of the political spectrum. Despite his involvement in politics, Chomsky continues to be involved in linguistics and teaching.

The New York Times Book Review once wrote: “Judged by the energy, scope, novelty and influence of his ideas, Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most important intellectual alive today” (as Chomsky wryly noted later in this article there is dissatisfaction with the fact that his political writings, which often accuse the New York Times of misrepresenting facts, are "maddeningly unsophisticated." According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was the most cited living scientist and the eighth most frequently used source for citations overall.

A look at the critique of scientific culture

Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with deconstructionist and postmodernist critiques of science:

I have spent a significant part of my life working on such questions using the only methods I know; those methods that are condemned here as “science”, “rationalism”, “logic” and so on. So I read various papers, hoping that they would allow me to “transcend” these limitations, or perhaps suggest a completely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Perhaps this is my own limitation. Quite often, “my eyes glaze over” when I read polysyllabic discussions on the topics of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is either largely a truism or an error - but this is only part of the whole text. Indeed, there are many other things that I do not understand, such as articles on modern mathematics or physics journals. But there is a difference. In the second case, I know how to come to an understanding, and I did this in cases that were especially interesting to me; and I know that people from these fields can explain the content to me at my level, so that I can achieve the desired understanding (even if partial). On the contrary, no one seems to be able to explain to me why modern post-this-or-that is not (for the most part) a truism, a mistake, or gibberish, and I don't know how to proceed.

Original text(English)

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality", "logic" and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I"m afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don"t understand: the articles in the current issues of mathematics and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.

Chomsky notes that criticism of "white male science" has much in common with the anti-Semitic, politically motivated Nazi attacks against "Jewish physics" during the Deutsche Physik movement, aimed at denigrating the results obtained by Jewish scientists:

In fact, the very idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I'm afraid, of "Jewish physics." Perhaps this is another flaw of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I cannot tell if the author is white or male. The same is true for discussing work in class, in the office, or anywhere else. I highly doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends and colleagues with whom I have worked would have been much impressed by the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differed from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race" . I suspect "surprise" would be too mild a word for their reaction.

Original text(English)

In fact, the entire idea of ​​"white male science" reminds me, I "m afraid, of "Jewish physics". Perhaps it is another inadequacy of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can"t tell whether the author is white or is male. The same is true of discussion of work in class, the office, or somewhere else. I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I worked would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race " I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.

Political Views

Political activity occupied an important place in Chomsky's life. Left-radical anarchist views were already evident in his early theoretical works. Chomsky remained one of the few Western intellectuals who, having entered the late 1960s. on the path of radical left extremism (“American Power and the New Mandarins”, 1969; “Wars with Asia”, 1972; “Problems of Knowledge and Freedom”, 1971), remains faithful to the attitudes and phraseology of the new left (“Human Rights and American Foreign Policy”, 1978; “The Path to a New Cold War”, 1982; “Culture of Terrorism”, 1988, and others). In numerous political articles, he criticized US foreign and domestic policies, and was especially vocal against the Vietnam War. Chomsky refused to pay taxes to protest military spending; from 1968 he was a member of the executive committee of the movement that called for civil disobedience to protest the Vietnam War.

Chomsky is one of the most famous figures on the left wing of American politics. He characterizes himself in the tradition of anarchism (libertarian socialism), a political philosophy which he briefly explains as the rejection of all forms of hierarchy and their eradication if they are not justified. Chomsky is particularly close to anarcho-syndicalism. Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not always oppose the electoral system; he even supported some candidates. He defines himself as a "fellow traveler" of the anarchist tradition, in contrast to the "pure" anarchist. This explains his willingness to sometimes cooperate with the state. Chomsky also considers himself a conservative (Chomsky's Politics, p. 188), supposedly a classical liberal.

Attitude towards Israel

Since the Six Day War, Chomsky has been sharply critical of the State of Israel (Peace in the Middle East?, 1974; Fatal Triangle: USA, Israel and the Palestinians, 1983). According to Chomsky, “the policies that Israel pursued after 1967 were extremely dangerous for it, and if we look further into the future, they were simply suicidal” (Zion magazine, 1977, no. 19). Considering Israel's orientation toward an alliance with the United States to be disastrous, Chomsky sees the machinations of world imperialism in the Oslo agreements. Chomsky's speeches against Israeli policies earned him a reputation in Jewish circles as an “anti-Semitic Jew,” a typical representative of Jewish “self-haters.”

Chomsky himself considers himself a Zionist, although he notes that his definition of Zionism is seen by most as anti-Zionism in modern times. He argues that this difference of opinion is due to a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of the word "Zionism". In an interview with C-Span Book TV, he stated:

I have always supported the idea of ​​a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. This is not the same as the Jewish state. There are strong arguments in favor of an ethnic homeland, but whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state, is an entirely different question.

Original text(English)

I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is different from a Jewish state. There"s a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state - that"s entirely another matter.

Chomsky Noam Abraham was born in 1928, December 7, in Pennsylvania (USA). His works on generative grammars contributed to the development of cognitive sciences and made a significant contribution to the fall of behaviorism. Main discipline in which he excelled Noam Chomsky, - linguistics. In addition, he is considered one of the leading theorists, philosophers and publicists of our time.

General information

Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of many works. In works authored by Noam Chomsky, language and thought people occupy a leading position. In addition to his scientific works, his radical left-wing political views brought him fame. The philosopher actively criticized US foreign policy. Libertarian socialist and supporter of anarcho-syndicalism - that’s what he calls himself Noam Chomsky. Quotes this scientist were among the most used in the period from 1980 to 1992.

Name

Its English spelling looks like this: Avram Noam Chomsky. The first two names are Jewish. The surname comes from the Russian former name of the city in Poland (Helm). English speakers pronounce the name according to the rules: Chomsky.

Biography

Chomsky Noam was born into a Jewish family. The hometown of his mother, Elsie Simonovskaya, was Bobruisk. Father is the famous professor W. Chomsky. Noam took up philosophy in 1945. One of the teachers at the University of Pennsylvania was Z. Harris. He advised the future philosopher to create the semantic structure of any language of his choice. It is worth saying that the young scientist was particularly influenced by Harris’ political ideas. In 1947, Noam began dating his future wife Carol Schatz. They met as children. In 1949, their marriage was registered, which lasted until the death of his wife in 2008. During their marriage, Carol and Noam had three children.

Scientific activity

In 1955, Chomsky was awarded a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania. However, for 4 years up to this point, he conducted most of his research at Harvard. In his dissertation he began to develop certain ideas about generative grammar. This Noam Chomsky's theory became revolutionary in science. He outlined his concept in detail in Syntactic Structures, published in 1957. In 1955, he received an offer from the Massachusetts Institute and from 1961 began teaching linguistics there.

Entering the political arena

It occurred while teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Around 1964, the United States first learned who Chomsky was. Noam openly opposed US policy in Vietnam. In 1969, his essay on the war was published. From that moment on, the ideas put forward by Noam Chomsky. Books, written while teaching on the topic of war and US foreign policy, caused a wide response. His position, most often seen as libertarian socialism, was supported by the left. At the same time, the ideas expressed Noam Chomsky, books it was met with a barrage of criticism from representatives of other political sectors. It is worth saying that the scientist did not seek to make social phenomena the central objects of his analysis. Despite his passion for political processes, he continued to study linguistics and teach.

Contribution to science

Syntactic Structures is the most famous work Chomsky created. Noam, with his ideas, had a great influence on the development of science throughout the world. Many authors talk about a kind of revolution in the discipline. The perception of the ideas of generative grammar is felt even in such linguistic directions that do not accept its key provisions, criticizing them.

Key Ideas

Over time, the theory created by Chomsky has evolved significantly. Today it is quite possible to talk about his concepts in the plural. Meanwhile, the fundamental position from which, in the author’s opinion, all others proceed, remains unchanged. The key idea is that there is an innate ability to express oneself in language. This position was first expressed in 1955. Then he published his early work, “The Logical Structure of a Linguistic Concept.” In it, the author introduced the term “transformational grammar”.

The theory considers expressions (sequences of words) that correspond to “surface structures” (abstract), they, in turn, are compared with “deep categories”. It is worth noting that in modern versions of the concept, the boundaries between these levels are often absent. Structural and transformational rules and principles reflect the features of the creation and interpretation of expressions. Using a finite set of concepts and norms, a person can create an unlimited number of proposals, including those that have never been expressed by anyone before. The ability for such structuring acts as an innate part of the individual’s genetic program. People are almost unaware of these principles, as well as most cognitive and biological features.

Modern versions of the concept

They contain statements regarding universal grammar. According to Chomsky, the grammatical principles on which language systems are based should be considered innate and unchangeable. Moreover, the differences between the words used by different peoples of the world can be explained in terms of parametric brain settings, comparable to switches. According to this position, to learn a language, a child only needs to learn words (lexical units) and morphemes and determine the meanings of the parameters. The latter is achieved by providing a number of basic examples. Based on this concept, Chomsky explains the speed with which children can learn languages, similar stages of cognition, regardless of a particular language family, and the types of common errors. According to the author, the occurrence or absence of the latter will indicate the method used. It may be innate (general) or language-specific.

conclusions

The ideas that Chomsky promoted had a huge influence on scientists who studied language acquisition in childhood. Of course, not all authors agree with the position expressed. This is due to the influence of connectivist and emergenceist concepts based on attempts to explain the processes of data processing by the brain. Meanwhile, almost all theories related to the study of language acquisition are considered controversial today.

Contributions to psychology

According to Chomsky, one of the branches of this discipline is linguistics. His work "Syntactic Structures" explains the latter's connection with cognitive psychology. The concept of universal grammar was perceived by many authors as a criticism of the established ideas of behaviorism.

Criticism of "Verbal Behavior"

The work was published by Chomsky in 1959. Criticism of Skinner's work “Verbal Behavior” gave impetus to the cognitive revolution, a change in the key paradigm of psychology. As Chomsky notes, the infinite number of sentences that a person is able to construct is a very good reason for rejecting the behaviorist concept of learning through reinforcement of a conditioned reflex. A child at a young age can formulate new sentences that are not supported by previous behavioral experience. Accordingly, understanding a language is determined not so much by the past as by the “mechanism of acquisition.” It, in turn, acts as the internal mental structure of the individual. The mechanism of language acquisition determines the scope of possible grammatical structures. It helps to master new structures from heard speech.

Policy

Chomsky characterizes himself within the framework of anarchism, a political philosophy which he explains as the rejection and eradication of all hierarchical forms if they are not justified. The philosopher is especially close to anarcho-syndicalism. Analysis of foreign policy is a large area that I studied Noam Chomsky. "Systems of Power"- another of his fundamental works. It is worth saying that electoral models are not always subject to his criticism. Moreover, he even supported some candidates. He himself characterizes himself as a “fellow traveler” of the anarchist tradition.

Noam Chomsky: "Requiem for the American Dream"

In 2015, a documentary film was released in which the scientist himself was filmed. It is characterized by a dynamic plot and the presence of intriguing moments. In the film, the philosopher appears as an outspoken critic of capitalism in all its forms. In this film the author tells, how the world works. Noam Chomsky acts as an irreconcilable oppositionist to the policies pursued by the United States. He is a supporter of Bakunin's anarchist ideas based on economic freedom. His main views on this matter are set out in the work " Profit on people." Noam Chomsky believes that the global economy, which emerged after the USSR lost the Cold War, is aimed at satisfying the interests of a minority that oppresses and exploits the majority. The United States plays a key role in this. He criticizes US policies, constantly focusing on his concept. According to it, most US foreign policy actions are based on the "threat of good example." This model is that any country would have completely successful development outside the sphere of American influence. This, in turn, presupposes the formation of a working structure for other powers, including those that are of particular economic interest to the United States. Accordingly, there is a threat of certain countries leaving the influence of the States. This prompts, according to Chomsky, the United States to intervene to suppress “independence in development regardless of ideology” even in those regions in which the country has no special interests related to the economy or national security. When discussing the role of the United States on the world stage, the author uses facts and documents collected during his research. At work “It will be as we say!” Noam Chomsky explores the causes and consequences of the US invasions of Iraq and other countries. Meanwhile, in all his works, along with criticism of the government, there is the idea of ​​​​creating a new model of existence.

"Free society"

In his work" Future State" Noam Chomsky defends the idea that society can exist without paid labor. The author suggests allowing people to independently choose the work they want to do. This will allow them to act according to their desires. In this case, the work chosen voluntarily will become “socially useful” and in itself will act as a reward. The destruction of the capitalist model is the basis of the concept put forward by Noam Chomsky. "Creating the future" - a work devoted to the formation of a qualitatively new structure of life. The author proposes to create a peaceful anarchy. In this model there should be no state and other management structures. If work arises that is unpleasant for everyone, then it could be distributed among people.

Noam Chomsky: 10 Ways to Manipulate the Media

Studying the political process, the scientist came to the conclusion that there is a certain algorithm for influencing people. At the same time, the media is the main instrument of influence, says Noam Chomsky. The 10 ways of manipulation are as follows:

1. Distraction.
2. Creating a problem and offering solutions to it.
3. Gradual application method.
4. Postponement of execution.
5. Treating citizens like children.
6. More emphasis on emotions than thoughts.
7. Cultivating mediocrity, maintaining ignorance among the masses.
8. Spreading among citizens the idea that being ill-mannered, stupid and vulgar is fashionable.
9. Increased feelings of guilt.
10. Know more about citizens than they know about themselves.

Distraction

According to Chomsky, it acts as a key tool for managing society. The people's attention is diverted from important decisions and problems that are in the hands of the economic and political ruling circles. To achieve this, the information space is constantly saturated with insignificant messages. This tool makes it possible to create obstacles for the population to obtain important knowledge in the scientific, political, economic, cybernetic, neurobiological, and psychological spheres, says Noam Chomsky. Quotes from the work "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" substantiate his position. In particular, the author says that the ruling circles strive to continuously distract the people's attention from real, pressing social issues, switching it to topics that have no real significance. The authorities are trying to ensure that people are constantly busy with something, so that they do not have time to think (“from the field to the pen, like animals”).

Creating problems and offering solutions

A certain situation is being formed, which is designed to provoke a specific reaction among the masses. The people are brought to such a state in which they themselves begin to demand the adoption of measures necessary for the ruling elite. For example, a spiral of violence in cities unfolds, bloody massacres are organized. The population, outraged by the situation, begins to demand the adoption of laws that enhance security and the implementation of policies aimed at restricting civil liberties. Another example is provoking an economic crisis, in order for the people to accept the violation of their rights and the cessation of city services as a necessary evil.

Gradual application method

This tool is used to promote and pass unpopular measures. They are not implemented immediately, but gradually, day by day, year by year. This method was used to impose socio-economic conditions in the 80-90s. last century. A decrease in wages that does not provide a decent life, unemployment, a decrease in the volume of government functions, instability, uncertainty, privatization could have happened simultaneously, but with a high degree of probability caused a revolution among the people.

Postponement of execution

This is another method of making an unpopular decision. The essence of the method is to present the measure to the population in order to obtain citizens' consent to implement it in the future. In this case, the decision-making process of people is greatly facilitated from a psychological point of view. First of all, citizens understand that an unpopular measure will not be introduced tomorrow. At the same time, people tend to idealize the future, hoping that later the authorities’ opinion will change and they will change their mind. As a result, the delay allows people to get used to the idea and subsequently accept the changes with humility.

Treating citizens like little children

Most propaganda speeches that are intended for a wide audience contain the same arguments, words, and intonations that are used in schools for students with developmental delays or mental disabilities. The more the speaker strives to mislead the listeners, the more he uses infantile expressions in his speech. This is due to the fact that if someone addresses an individual as if he were about 12 or even younger, then, due to suggestibility, there will be no critical assessment in the person’s reaction or answer, which is typical for children of this age.

Emphasis on emotions

This technique is considered classic. It is focused on blocking the ability to think rationally and analyze what is happening. At the same time, using this technique allows you to open the door to the subconscious. This, in turn, contributes to the introduction of thoughts, fears, ideas, fears, compulsions, as well as sustainable behavioral patterns.

Ignorance

Another method of manipulation is the desire to ensure that the people become unable to understand the methods that are used to govern them. If this principle is followed, the quality of education received by the lower strata of society is significantly reduced. It becomes mediocre so that the ignorance that divides the classes remains at a level that cannot be overcome.

Increased feelings of guilt

This method involves instilling in a person his responsibility in his misfortunes. The feeling of guilt is enhanced by demonstrating a person’s inability to improve the situation due to lack of effort and mental abilities. This leads to self-flagellation. This, in turn, causes depression, a depressed state. Instead of the revolution that should have happened, there is inaction.

Having information about people

Over the course of half a century, advances in science have created a significant gap between the knowledge of ordinary people and the data held and used by the ruling classes. Thanks to applied psychology and neurobiology, the authorities received advanced information about a person both physiologically and mentally. The ruling elites were able to learn more about people than they knew about themselves. This, in turn, means that the system has more power and controls the people more than the people themselves.