Noam Chomsky is easily the most frustrating intellectual and public figure for a radical behaviorist leftist (RBL). He is well known among leftist circles for his decade long criticism of corporatism, US imperialism and advocacy for social justice, democratic rule, anarcho-syndicalism. Likewise, he is famous among psychological circles – he is the linguist that with one fatal stroke allegedly dismantled behaviorism, Skinner’s Verbal Behavior and started the so-called “cognitive revolution” in psychology.
Nevertheless, a reappraisal and a critical look from the RBL perspective of Chomsky’s position is warranted to find out where he truly stands in relation to behavioral theory. We will see that his social views are not irreconcilable but rather, very compatible with Skinner’s radical behaviorism.
Peer evaluation of Chomsky
Let us examine a short collection of quotes, where Noam Chomsky’s views are reviewed. First of all, Sampson (1981) notes that there is a pronounced difference between political views that are advocated by authors prone to psychologization on the one side and Chomsky who takes up a more behavioral, perhaps even dialectical materialist point of view on the other:
For example, Billig contrasts Deutsch’s with Chomsky’s account of the United States in Vietnam. He suggests that whereas Deutsch emphasized “errors of judgment made by decision-makers” (Billig, 1976, p. 229) as key factors in the conflict, Chomsky saw these psychological errors to be derivatives of certain national practices involving the “needs of capitalist production” (Billig, 1976, p. 231). By reducing conflicts to individual subjective processes, we overlook those questions of social structure that are necessary to ground both our understanding and our recommendations for resolution. When we psychologize conflicts and their resolution, we fail to test or challenge the structures and practices of the larger society within which the various subjectivisms have developed and whose interests they often both veil and serve.
Sampson (1981) – Cognitive Psychology as Ideology (p. 730)
The second quote exposes Chomsky’s conflicting views. In his psychological accounts there is a tendency to promote an agential point of view that violates behavioral principles. From scientific grounds, however, this opposition is not viable anymore and one would suspect that Chomsky is aware of this:
Thirdly, Skinner’s account in Verbal Behavior left no room for the “autonomous speaking agent,” the speaker was a “locality” rather than an “actor.” This view directly contrasts with the agent inherent in Chomsky’s formulation, a view that Chomsky in recent years has related to political and moral causes; namely, that the concept of human rights is necessarily tied to particular views of human nature. Andresen asserts to the contrary, “The power of essentializing humanism is running out of steam, and the search for those genetically-encoded, hardwired, essential absolutes of humanness must eventually be abandoned” (p. 152). For Andresen, malevolence occurs “without any theory of language (or human nature) whatever” (p. 153). She observes that Chomsky has shifted his arguments against radical behaviorism from epistemological grounds to moral ones.
Knapp (1990) – Verbal Behavior and the History of Linguistics (p. 152)
Perhaps Chomsky fears that given widespread acceptance, the technology of behavior might end up in the wrong hands. Well, we should remind him and ourselves that this already is the case:
There are those who possess the power of algorithmic analysis and data mining to navigate a world in which there are too many pieces of data to be studied individually. These include market research agencies, social media platforms and the security services. But for the rest of us, impulse and emotion have become how we orientate and simplify our decisions. <..> ‘We’ simply feel our way around, while ‘they’ observe and algorithmically analyse the results. Two separate languages are at work.
William Davies (2015) – The Happiness Industry (p. 198-199)
The third quote might be less straightforward, but it is interesting to see what the anthropologist Marvin Harris has to say on the topic. It seems that he respected Chomsky’s account insofar it deals with sociocultural processes, while distancing himself from individualized explanations:
The tenacity with which even friendly linguists cling to the idea that the word is the alpha and omega of existence is truly astonishing. Words have no measurable energy cost; sociocultural evolution must concern itself with the energy budgets of specific populations in specific environments. Chomsky’s ideas will become relevant to the study of the evolution of technology, economic organization, kinship organization, political organization, and ideology, when he relates the rules of grammar to the rules which govern techno-economic and techno-environmental adaptations. In the meantime, I leave it strictly to the linguists to evaluate Chomsky’s influences upon anthropological studies of languages.
Marvin Harris’s Reply to Marshall Durbin (1968) – The Rise Of Anthropological Theory (p. 530)
Chomsky tells us how it is
After sifting through several secondary accounts let’s turn to the primary source. Having in mind how resentfully Chomsky has commented on behaviorism, let’s appreciate some ideas from the 2011 book How the World Works:
Does that mean that the desire to kill people is innate? In certain circumstances that desire is going to come out, even if it’s your best friend. There are circumstances under which this aspect of our personality will dominate. But there are other circumstances in which other aspects will dominate. If you want to create a humane world, you change the circumstances. (p. 129)
Does that mean they’re different genetically? No. There’s something about the social conditions in which they’re growing up that makes this acceptable behavior, even natural behavior. Anyone who has grown up in an urban area must be aware of this. (p. 130)
But that aside, what people want is in part socially created—it depends on what sort of experiences they’ve had in their lives, and what sort of opportunities. Change the structure and they’ll choose different things. (p. 246)
Noam Chomsky (2011) – How The World Works
To anyone with at least cursory understanding of Chomsky’s bibliography, these thoughts might seem astounding, perhaps even shocking. We would more likely expect to find such formulations in B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971) rather than in any of Chomsky’s work. Additionally note that the first two quotes are taken from the chapter called Human nature and self-image (p. 127-131).
Environmentalism and the left
As is advocated in this blog, being a leftist requires one to be a clear environmentalist – this means taking individual and systemic conditions into account when evaluating human behavior. In the words of Richard Owen:
The will of man has no power whatever over his opinions; he must, and ever did, and ever will believe what has been, is, or may be impressed on his mind by his predecessors and the circumstances which surround him.
Richard Owen (1813) – A New View of Society (p. 28)
Noam Chomsky neatly reflects this. Of course, in various contexts Chomsky’s verbal behavior differs – as for linguistics we have strange ramblings about genetically determined structures and generative grammar while discussing economics and society we get an analysis of systemic problems. I guess variations of such accounts manifest from most people and public figures who identify as leftists.
One has to be aware of the problem that denial of determinism regarding behavior and reliance on individual autonomy, responsibility and choice unwittingly leads into reactionary theory. It is enough to mention the conservative pundit Ayn Rand and her wish-wash about Skinner to make a point. Anyway, we don’t need look that far for an illustration – in the same book, Chomsky provides us with already questionable and quite ironic opinions:
When you get to cultural patterns, belief systems and the like, the guess of the next guy you meet at the bus stop is about as good as that of the best scientist. Nobody knows anything. People can rant about it if they like, but they basically know almost nothing. (p. 127)
The public also hated the true prophets—they didn’t want to hear the truth either. Not because they were bad people, but for all the usual reasons—short-term interest, manipulation, dependence on power. (p. 316)
Noam Chomsky (2011) – How The World Works
Some speculation
A question begs to be asked – how has such an ardent critic of the US and its criminal imperialist politics manage to achieve widespread fame? Why shouldn’t such a deviant be muzzled?
One might call this a conspiracy theory, but I would speculate that Noam Chomsky is a net asset for the legitimacy of the establishment despite his social critique. This benefit comes exactly because of his attitude towards Skinner and radical behaviorism. While social criticism is mostly benign, a scientific account defying the attitudes beneficial to the status quo is potentially uncontrollable. The criticism of radical behaviorism and the emersion of cognitive psychology was popularized by the elites, the powerful, the “haves” and the corporate media to obstruct the development of a dialectically materialist, progressive view of human nature and behavior. That is exactly why Chomsky was and is still “allowed” to criticize the establishment – he is used to disarm proper theoretical developments. I guess there is more than one way to fall prey to the traps discussed in Manufacturing Consent (2002).
Final evaluation
It is time to answer the question of the title – can Noam Chomsky be considered a radical behaviorist?
One comes to a clear conclusion – no. Nevertheless, Chomsky, has to be at least identified as a crude environmentalist as is said in Beyond Freedom And Dignity (p. 180-181)
The evidence for a crude environmentalism is clear enough. People are extraordinarily different in different places, and possibly just because of the places.
B.F. Skinner (1971) – Beyond Freedom and Dignity (p. 180)
His ideas and views regarding societal and political issues are definitely noteworthy. For that reason, he has been and will surely be cited in the future in this blog.
P.S. An attempt to integrate Skinner and Chomsky
A quite concise overview of Skinner’s philosophy is provided by the interview called “Philosophy of Behaviorism (1988). The interviewer is Eve Segal and she has attempted to integrate Skinner’s and Chomsky’s approaches. While the piece is quite difficult to understand, one might find the experiment interesting:
The plan of this chapter is to sketch one version of generative grammatical theory, the version of Chomsky’s (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, which is often called the “standard” generative transformational theory of syntax. Then I will sketch Skinner’s (1957) theory of verbal behavior. Then I will try to show, in a general way, how the theories complement one another.
Eve Segal (1977) – Toward a Coherent Psychology of Language (p. 1)
Radical behaviorist leftist 