The relationship between parent and child is necessarily hierarchical (in a very limited sense) in that parents will and should should use force to compell children to do or not to do certain things. If the child REALLY wants to do dangerous things like run into the road the parent will use force to prevent it.
The relationship need not be hierarchical in the common sense of the term but I believe this is what Chomsky was saying. Using force to compell others to do or not to do things is sometimes justified. In the moment the parent restrains the child the parent is placing themselves in a position where the judgement of the parent supercedes rhe autonomy of child. Once you grant that the parent is right to do so, it follows that the parent is always in a position to do so (at least until the child reaches maturity). While the specifics of when the authority may be justly exercised may wildly vary, at all times the parent posseses the authority to overide the autonomy of the child. This is a hierarchical relationship.
I do find Chomskys metric to be fatally flawed though. The problem with saying that hierarchy is acceptable if it can be justified is that inevitably what is considered a proper justification will be determined by the powerful. It's not a coincidence that philosophy departments are stocked with people who use their immense intellect to rationalize the status quo. The way he describes a just society is inexorably tied to an oppressive meliue. This is a common problem with philosophers in general and acedemics in particular.
A just society will not be one that demands justifications for hierarchy, for violence or anything of that sort. A just society will be one for which such actions are themselves unthinkable. To use an extreme example, when society has discussions about what level of force is unacceptable to coerse sex (everything marital rape being criminalized to the legal status of prostitution) it has already failed, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. In a just society, there would be no discussion. Coersion would be unthinkable.
How about Anarcho-Feudalism? I mean yes this idea has a bit of a joking element, but also serious. It is something around the lines of people freely joining and leaving hierarchical groups. Yes I know it sounds a bit too much like the corporate marketplace right now, so this needs more work.
But basically what I am saying is a lot of people are political submissives. They like to be led, they like to look up to someone, treat them as an idol really, they want to be in someone's fan club, and won't be happy if they don't get it. This would be obviously a gigantic avenue to abuse power, to oppress and exploit, so the safety belt is having many such relatively small groups and making it easy and frictionless to exit one that got exploitative and join one that did not.
Look, we know such a thing as a desire for power exists, modern democracy is pretty much explicitly built on dealing with this danger. What is less known is that not only political dominants exist, political submissives also exist. Some people really love someone else to have power over them. Because if that person is any decent, then they will also offer responsibility for them. And that can feel safe and reassuring. So we have to figure out how to make this safe and the obvious idea is frictionlessly joining and leaving hierarchical groups.
The reason I called it Anarcho-Feudalism is that modern power is often impersonal, and thus lacks the responsibility element. This is IMHO the true tragedy of the modern world, not power, but impersonal power. I would only ever accept someone having power over me if we dine together once a month, get my point? So they know I am human, not statistic, know about my unique needs, there is a personal bond and so on.
There are definitely views of his I don't understand, hence the article, but I'm glad he has brought attention to many of the crimes of capitalism and the relevance of anarchism.
He does tend to focus on philosophical implications in the light of current events. But I'd say he follows the 17th century rationalist philosophy tradition (Descartes/Kant) and Libertarian (Anarchist) Socialism which owes a lot to Proudhon & Godwin (& later Kropotkin). He quotes these as inspirations or sources, especially when speaking about issues that relate to power and hierarchy.
Makes sense to me Mr. Chomsky. Thank you for sharing.
The relationship between parent and child is necessarily hierarchical (in a very limited sense) in that parents will and should should use force to compell children to do or not to do certain things. If the child REALLY wants to do dangerous things like run into the road the parent will use force to prevent it.
The relationship need not be hierarchical in the common sense of the term but I believe this is what Chomsky was saying. Using force to compell others to do or not to do things is sometimes justified. In the moment the parent restrains the child the parent is placing themselves in a position where the judgement of the parent supercedes rhe autonomy of child. Once you grant that the parent is right to do so, it follows that the parent is always in a position to do so (at least until the child reaches maturity). While the specifics of when the authority may be justly exercised may wildly vary, at all times the parent posseses the authority to overide the autonomy of the child. This is a hierarchical relationship.
I do find Chomskys metric to be fatally flawed though. The problem with saying that hierarchy is acceptable if it can be justified is that inevitably what is considered a proper justification will be determined by the powerful. It's not a coincidence that philosophy departments are stocked with people who use their immense intellect to rationalize the status quo. The way he describes a just society is inexorably tied to an oppressive meliue. This is a common problem with philosophers in general and acedemics in particular.
A just society will not be one that demands justifications for hierarchy, for violence or anything of that sort. A just society will be one for which such actions are themselves unthinkable. To use an extreme example, when society has discussions about what level of force is unacceptable to coerse sex (everything marital rape being criminalized to the legal status of prostitution) it has already failed, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. In a just society, there would be no discussion. Coersion would be unthinkable.
None that I can see.
How about Anarcho-Feudalism? I mean yes this idea has a bit of a joking element, but also serious. It is something around the lines of people freely joining and leaving hierarchical groups. Yes I know it sounds a bit too much like the corporate marketplace right now, so this needs more work.
But basically what I am saying is a lot of people are political submissives. They like to be led, they like to look up to someone, treat them as an idol really, they want to be in someone's fan club, and won't be happy if they don't get it. This would be obviously a gigantic avenue to abuse power, to oppress and exploit, so the safety belt is having many such relatively small groups and making it easy and frictionless to exit one that got exploitative and join one that did not.
Look, we know such a thing as a desire for power exists, modern democracy is pretty much explicitly built on dealing with this danger. What is less known is that not only political dominants exist, political submissives also exist. Some people really love someone else to have power over them. Because if that person is any decent, then they will also offer responsibility for them. And that can feel safe and reassuring. So we have to figure out how to make this safe and the obvious idea is frictionlessly joining and leaving hierarchical groups.
The reason I called it Anarcho-Feudalism is that modern power is often impersonal, and thus lacks the responsibility element. This is IMHO the true tragedy of the modern world, not power, but impersonal power. I would only ever accept someone having power over me if we dine together once a month, get my point? So they know I am human, not statistic, know about my unique needs, there is a personal bond and so on.
I love his work, but it's hard to take him seriously when he denies both the Bosnian and Cambodian genocides...
There are definitely views of his I don't understand, hence the article, but I'm glad he has brought attention to many of the crimes of capitalism and the relevance of anarchism.
I’ve always respected Noam Chomsky. And still do. But does he ever reference any philosophers other than himself.
He does tend to focus on philosophical implications in the light of current events. But I'd say he follows the 17th century rationalist philosophy tradition (Descartes/Kant) and Libertarian (Anarchist) Socialism which owes a lot to Proudhon & Godwin (& later Kropotkin). He quotes these as inspirations or sources, especially when speaking about issues that relate to power and hierarchy.
Thank you.