Playing football without helmets

I woke up this morning wanting to write about football or Star Wars trivia – anything to get away from the dreary humdrum repeated spectacle of American politics. Zbig’s words “stunningly superficial” repeat again and again in my head. As I used to say about my departed older brother, there are many ways to reason with him … none work.

There are many ways to approach Americans about lies, propaganda, the futility of party politics, the utter corruption of our society and the warmongering machine that is raining hell on the rest of the world. None work. Americans are unreachable, secure in their ignorance, and happy to be diddled and bamboozled time and again by the owners of this place. This time it is ISIS. Before it was to prevent a massacre in Libya (when they were really causing one). Before that it was those fake WMD’s, also used to justify a massacre. There was the whole of 9/11 … it’s a hugely successful franchise.

It’s so frustrating. These plays always work! It’s like the American public has no defense, can’t stop the pass, can’t stop the running game, is even clueless about how the game is played. Americans are playing football without their helmets. No wonder they always lose.

  • Did you see that? Do you believe it? A game winning touchdown called back because timeout was called!!!!!
  • A whole supposed invasion of Ukraine by Russia a big lie with zero evidence in support!!!
  • That pass knocked down in the closing seconds as the Broncos held on to beat the Chiefs!!! Close call!!!
  • The whole of ISIS easily seen to be an American-financed terrorist force being used to justify more American aggression!!!
  • The Bills are 2-0!!! That’s so good for that city, so that the owner might not pull the rug and do a midnight move to Toronto!!!
  • Airliner disappears in mid-flight over the Pacific? Just disappears? Bullshit!!!
  • Democrats and Republicans so painfully obviously using the same play book!!!
  • Too many interceptions in that Vikings game. Maybe the Pats are spying on their practice sessions. Another SpyGate!!!

So by chance, at Facebook of all places, I came across an interview with Noam Chomsky, put up at Alternet and probably in a book I have on my shelf as well. The words are tightly reasoned and illuminating, and gave me great comfort. I know only a couple of people will bother to read it, least of all Swede, who will comment anyway. But these words landed on me like a soothing warm shower after a long hike.

QUESTION: You’ve written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken — in some places you call it a “Cartesian common sense” — of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you’ve written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it’s very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I’m driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I’m listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it’s plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it’s at a level of superficiality that’s beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it’s quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that’s far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that’s in fact what they do. I’m sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used — would be used — under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I’m not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

(My emPHASis)

3 thoughts on “Playing football without helmets

  1. “When new technologies impose themselves on societies long habituated to older technologies, anxieties of all kinds result. Our electronic world now calls for a unified field of global awareness; the kind of private consciousness appropriate to literate man can be viewed as an unbearable kink in the collective consciousness demanded by electronic information movement.” – Marshall McLuhan

    Beyond McLuhan’s concerns about “anxieties” resulting from new technologies, I have often wondered about similar effects from cultural shifts toward more and more specialization and fragmentation. “Tiny bubbles,” for individuals, families, and groups of all sizes and shapes. (Extra Bonus: Juxtaposition of Daine’s ad and Don Ho’s hit)

    Oh God, that’s a, a, an, another metaphor. Would be surprised if there weren’t “real” scientific studies out there for you hyer-realists.

    “Former dictatorships needed collaborators of high quality even in the lower levels of leadership, men who could think and act independently. In the era of modern technique an authoritarian system can do without this. The means of communication alone permit it to mechanize the work of subordinate leadership. As a consequence a new type develops: the uncritical recipient of orders.”
    – Albert Speer, German armaments minister in 1942, Nuremberg.

    “Mechanized ….collaborators.” I like it.


    1. It appears that, military defeat aside, the Germans were quite advanced in areas of control and manipulation of public opinion, and were perhaps on the verge of a great breakthrough, a great society. Maybe that is why the Americans rescued and rehabilitated so many to participate in our own great society.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s