Chomsky's "The Function of the University in a Time of Crisis"
Originally published in a 1969 Enyclopedia Brittanica yearbook in the wake of the wave of student rebellions across the world, and republished in his crucial early collection of writings, For Reasons of State, this essay raises a number of timely and important issues for anti-complicity activists.
In his typically perceptive and incisive fashion, Chomsky contrasts the concept of the ideal intellectual community articulated by the philosopher von Humboldt with the reality of the university in state capitalist society. Like other radicals, Chomsky naturally argues that the university is inextricably tied to the society in which it functions, and is thus subject to external economic, political, and ideological pressures and demands. Given this inevitable relationship, Chomsky praises the seemingly inherent quality of freedom consitutive of the academy and argues that the non-coercive atmosphere it affords can potentially be used by radical students and intellectuals who require an effective base of operations for launching their campaigns of critique.
Although he indeed notes that "the sharp challenges that have been raised by the student movement are among the few hopeful developments of these troubled years," he is careful to qualify his remarks by referring to the "exaggerations and even flights of fancy" to which radical students appear to be susceptible. In particular, he argues that the funding sources and location of military research projects are ultimately irrelevant, and furthermore, that anti-complicity protests could have the undesired effect of simply pushing the research into private, less visible, and less accountable settings. Most importantly, perhaps, he contends that anti-complicity campaigns that target researchers and scientists could actually have the unintended consequence of introducing the principle of coercion into the academic arena.
To quote at length:
"In certain respects, the specific issue of Defense Deparment funding of research is a misleading one. Research on chemical and biological warfare or counterinsurgency would be no more benign if funded by the National Institutes of Health or the Social Science Research Council, just as work on high energy physics is not corrupted if funding comes through the Department of Defense. The important question is the nature of the work and the uses to which it is likely to be put, not the bureaucratic issue of the source of funding. The latter is of some significance, insofar as one might argue that the Pentagon gains respectability and power by its support of serious research. For American society as a whole, this development is a very minor symptom of a real tragedy, the ongoing and perhaps irreversible militarization of American society. But in the particular case of the universities, these considerations seem to me marginal. Another side issue, in my opinion, is the question of a campus base for military research. In fact, the Vietnamese care very little whether the counterinsurgency technology that is used to destroy and repress them is developed in the halls of the university or in private spin-offs on its periphery. And the victims of the endless arms race - the present victims of the waste of resources, material and intellectual, that are desperately needed elsewhere, or the possible future victims of a devastating catastrophe - to these unfortunates it is of little interest whether their fate is determined in a Department of Death on the university campus or in Los Alamos or Fort Detrick, hundreds of miles away. To move such work off campus is socially irrelevant. It might, in fact, even be a regressive step. It might be argued that as long as such work continues, it would be preferable for it to be done on campus, where it can become a focus for student activism and protest that may not only impede such work but also contribute to growing public awareness."
I rarely disagree with Mr. Chomsky - in fact, this may be the first time - but I find his reasoning to be somewhat questionable in this case.
First, although he's certainly correct to assert that those at the receiving end of US state violence most likely couldn't care less as to the specific origin of the weapons technologies used against them, I think he perhaps forgets that those trapped inside "the belly of the beast" may care, and indeed, should care about our institutional ties to the killing machine. We should ask ourselves: Is it morally acceptable for my university or college to serve as a site for military research, especially during an ongoing imperial occupation of Iraq? Why should an educational institution - purportedly devoted to the expansion of knowledge, the enrichment of culture, and the betterment of the human condition - be allowed to materially and functionally assist in the creation of ever-more effective techologies built to secure and extend the domination of man by man, and country by country? In fact, as Chomsky may ask, do we wish to live in a society that pursues military research in any capacity, no matter where or in what particular settings it takes place?
Second, I entirely agree with Chomsky that the "important question is the nature of the work and the uses to which it is likely to be put." Of course! One might justifiably wonder, however, just exactly what other possible motivations the DofD. may in fact have in funding military research. It's difficult to believe that DARPA would direct funding towards any project that could not have some military utility in the future.
Third, Chomsky begs the question by asserting that it may be more advantageous for the student antiwar movement to actually maintain the presence of military research on campus, so that "it can become a focus for student activism and protest that may not only impede such work but also contribute to growing public awareness." Again, one might justifiably wonder about his logic in this case. Wouldn't an effective anti-complicity campaign that successfully "impedes" military research most likely result in the research moving off-campus? Perhaps Chomsky is here distinguishing between protest on the one hand and resistance on the other, with the former taking on a more symbolic meaning and the undeclared latter posing a more obstructive threat.
Posted: November 16, 2007 3:46 am by Joshua Jackson | 0 comments
Tags: complicity, militarism, military research, Noam Chomsky, student activism