Robert F. Barsky

This is a biography of an academic by an academic, so it's not quite like anything else I've ever read in that sense. Barsky attempts to explain how Chomsky's extremely influential linguistic/cognitive theories and his equally marginalized political work both fit into his thinking as a whole. As I already knew, Chomsky considers himself a strict rationalist. His politics belongs to the (original--that is, left-)libertarian tradition that comes straight from the Enlightenment, and his linguistic work is just as firmly rooted in the thought of that era.

He unabashedly believes in what he calls "human nature," rejecting the still very influential Lockean "blank slate" idea of the malleability of the human mind/brain. At the same time his political writing and activism are all based on an assumption that external constraints on human expression/behavior are not desirable because they're usually unnecessary. Freed of the coercive psychological, intellectual, and material/physical constraints imposed on the many by a few in our society, human beings have demonstrated a capacity to organize themselves in more egalitarian ways, such as in the Spanish Civil War and in communal kibbutzim like the one Chomsky and his wife lived in for a brief time in the 1950s.

The influences on the development of his linguistics are also thoroughly documented. I found these explanations interesting, if not completely comprehensible for someone without even a rudimentary knowledge of that discipline. The logic behind his position is pretty clear though: kids learn language at about the same age, with the same level of skill, everywhere in the world, so this uniformity requires some kind of generalizing explanation.

The energy and dedication Chomsky has put into his intellectual and political lives--and to keeping them distinct from one another--is impressive, and his humility and desire to make the world a better place are traits I consider worth cultivating. As I'm suggesting there is little to no significant criticism of Chomsky here, a lack which is surprising for an academic writer, but I'm not sure that's a fault in this case.… (mer)