From the Archives: Noam Chomsky on Fandom
Without divulging too much about my personal political sympathies, I will admit to being an admirer of Noam Chomsky. In addition to being a man of letters with an impressive oeuvre spanning a wide range of topics, he is a native Philadelphian — something with which I can identify.
This fact recently prompted me to wonder whether Noam Chomsky is a baseball fan and, if so, whether he is a fan of the Phillies, which would be just another reason to add to the already long list of reasons that he is a cool dude. Well, as it turns out, Noam Chomsky’s brain is too big for him to be beholden to any one team. Thanks to the power of Twitter, I was pointed to this transcription of an exchange from his 1993 appearance on the talk show Pozner and Donahue (my efforts to locate video of the show were unsuccessful) in which he discusses the cognitive dissonance that is inherent to being a sports fan:
DONAHUE: There’s a part of the documentary which has you on the podium, reliving the experience of going to a high school football game when you were in high school. And you sat there and you said, “Why do I care about this team? I don’t even know anybody on the team.” Here, Professor Chomsky, you go too far. You are cranky, you’re anti-fun. We wonder if you ever knew the experience of a hot dog with mustard and a cold beer. And it is much easier, then, to dismiss you as the Ebenezer Scrooge of social commentary. Go away. You’re not a happy man. You’re scolding us for rooting for the high school football team.
CHOMSKY: I should say, I continued to go root for the high school football team — the reason I bring it up is, it’s a case of how we can somehow live with this strange dissonance. I mean, you conform to the society around you, and you’re part of it, and you have the hot dog and you cheer for the football team. And in another corner of your mind you notice, “This is insane. What do I care whether this …”
DONAHUE: What is insane?
CHOMSKY: What do I care whether this group of professional athletes wins or that group of professional athletes wins? None of them have anything to do with me.
DONAHUE: I don’t know. I grew up with the Indians [baseball team], I was a kid in Cleveland … it was a social experience, it was the smell, this huge Cleveland stadium. … Those are memories. What’s wrong with this? Why wouldn’t you want to celebrate this?
CHOMSKY: I did the same thing. I can remember the first baseball game I saw when I was 10 years old, I can tell you what happened at it — fine. But that’s not my point. See, if you want to enjoy a football game, that’s great. You want to enjoy a baseball game, that’s great. Why do you care who wins? Why do you care who wins? Why do you have to associate yourself with a particular group of professionals, who you are told are your representatives, and they better win or else you’re going to commit suicide, when they’re perfectly interchangeable with the other group of professionals. …
DONAHUE: You had a relative in New York City who had a kiosk which wasn’t quite on the main street, it was behind the train station. And God knows what kind of radical literature he was selling. And you’re there, this little kid listening in — no wonder you grew up to be such a radical who doesn’t like high school football.
CHOMSKY: Unfortunately, I did like it. I’m sorry for that.
As a devoted fan of specific teams myself, I found this to be a rather unsettling thing to read. As Socrates once said, however, “The unexamined fandom is not worth living.”
If we accept the notion that the players we root for are ultimately interchangeable, then fandom can be reduced to rooting for an article of clothing or the more abstract concept of “the franchise.” Rooting for an article of clothing certainly seems no less absurd than rooting for a group of interchangeable professionals. But, of course, the word “fan” itself comes from the word “fanatic,” which by definition means an irrational zeal for a particular cause. Here again we reach that state of cognitive dissonance where we as (mostly) rational people must defend and justify what is by definition an irrational practice.
Chomsky raises an interesting set of questions that would perhaps be worth asking more often — preferably before we resort to violence against others based on little more than their allegiance to a rival team.
A tip of the mortarboard to @BobbyBaseknock for the link.
Pretty sure you are admitting to being uber-liberal, if you say you’re a fan of Noam Chomsky!
Maybe I’m just a fan of his work in the field of linguistics…
Anyways, being labeled a “liberal” makes me cringe.
“Anyways, being labeled a “liberal” makes me cringe.”
Why? What’s so bad about caring about improving roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, levees, and dams?
What’s so bad about investing in schools so children have a safe place to go where they can get a quality education?
What’s so bad about breathing clean air and drinking clean water?
What’s so bad about investing in renewable and alternative energies so we aren’t so reliant upon Middle Eastern oil?
What’s so bad about the most wealthy, privileged, elite members of society paying tax rates something along the lines of what they paid under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford?
And what’s so good about wars, death, job loss, economic stagnation, polluted air and water, failing schools, a radical “Christian” agenda, and a $15 trillion national debt?
(I put “Christian” in quotes because Jesus Christ was a poor, humble carpenter who preached peace, non-violence, charity, giving people the shirt off your back, and, most importantly, not judging others. Conservatives and mega-churches are far closer to being embodiments of the anti-Christ than they are to representing Jesus’ teachings.)
Being against endless war and the total control of a nation by a small, moneyed elite makes you an (apparently derogatory) liberal. Welcome to the end of America.
Suffice it to say that I am very left of center and the term “liberal” doesn’t adequately describe my politics.
I object to it being used synonymously with “on the left.”
Very true. Democrats and Republicans both generally support liberal ideas while being on the right, and far-right of the political spectrum.
I can see why you didn’t use the ‘S’ word because of the negative reactions it inspires in so many.
In truth, the United States is one of the most socialist countries in the world – if you are wealthy or part of a large corporation – your needs and interests will be taken care of by the corporate nanny state.
Anyone else? Pull yourself up by your own boot straps, just like all those banks and oil companies did.
You’re a dead man!
Whoa, easy, man. I still buy tickets for your baseball team. I admit they are in the nosebleeds, and sometimes I smuggle in food, but you still own me.
Your opinions have hurt me emotionally. To call it even, I suggest you come over and clean my squash court.
Sure. Don’t bother paying me, of course. Wouldn’t want people to think I’m a socialist.
“Pretty sure you are admitting to being uber-liberal, if you say you’re a fan of Noam Chomsky!”
It really depends on definitions of “liberal” and “conservative.” Today’s Republican Party, which is commonly described as “conservative,” is not actually the least bit conservative.
For example, the idea that we could invade two countries in the Middle East, create a new government agency (DHS), cut taxes, and balance the budget ALL AT THE SAME TIME when NO COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD had done such a thing, was not in the least bit “conservative,” ideologically or fiscally.
In fact, to say we should raise taxes back to what they were under Nixon, stop fighting costly Middle Eastern wars entirely of choice, put some of that money towards paying off the debt, and spend the rest improving American schools, infrastructure, transportation, etc… is actually a far more pragmatic, practical, CONSERVATIVE plan.
Of course, we live in an “up-is-down, black-is-white” world. Today’s Republican politicians aren’t “conservative.” They are merely well-compensated advocates for the corporations and special interests that bankroll their political careers. Just because you take a few million dollars from Halliburton and cast some votes to send American soldiers to kill and die in the Middle East doesn’t make one “conservative.” These people are function as mere subsidiaries in Washington, D.C. for their parent corporations on Wall St., and for weapons manufacturers and private contractors, the people who profit from all the blood being spilled.
These terms like “liberal” and “conservative” have been created and are exploited to confuse and divide us. The top 10% of this country controls 84% of the nation’s collective wealth. This group of people have been sucking money and resources out of our economy via wars, government subsidies for their private interests, and reckless and unaffordable tax breaks for themselves.
At the same time, they have been cutting spending on goods and services on which American people have come to rely, goods and services THAT WE PAY FOR via our tax dollars. Then, they use their spokespeople on NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, FNC, MSNBC, talk radio, the Internet, etc… to create a divisive discourse where the 80% of us who are seeing our jobs disappear overseas and our wages plummet and stagnate are left fighting over the crumbs while the top 20% makes-off with the whole pie.
And we foolishly keep falling for it again and again.