Feb 2 ML, 6 ,7
An important ethics question: at what point does a prejudice become a judgment? You'd assume after a certain amount of information about a case or person is understood, but how much information? All? Some? "A little learning is a dangerous thing" is a proverb always in good taste, but when is the little learning to become sufficient learning?
Digression. I mean to say I'm fairly prejudicial (or judgmental) of Noam Chomsky. His name is whispered like a deity's in the university, speaking on subjects as broad as linguistics to politics to cultural criticism. He is a lord of academia, commanding from his ivory tower at M.I.T. From the first, I disagreed with his approach to language acquisition that my linguistics prof taught almost exclusively. Then, when I was sitting in a student lounge, I saw a posted letter from Noam Chomsky to a group of linguistics students. They'd thrown a birthday party in his honor and he was declining their invitation. The student who wrote the letter wrote in such an elevated, sycophantic and pretentious style (probably from nervousness) and Chomsky responded equally. Bah. I prejudicially disliked him. Then I saw his interview with Sacha Baron Cohen on Da Ali G show and liked him even less. And then I read our textbook which I dislike a lot and continue in my downward spiral of ill will that surely but not swiftly make me a hateful old cat lady.
Anyway, I find it weird that the chapter that precedes Noam Chomsky's chapter is dedicated to discussing Noam Chomsky's chapter. Before the reader reads it chronologically. Kincheloe, the writer, uses reverent language to describe Chomsky that depicts him as the hero of the intellectual world -- "an inspiration," a visionary, a prophet. It's almost like we're being set up to agree with Chomsky before we've read his own words.
I'm sure he's a nice guy though. The letter mentioned what kind of cookies were his favorite, and I think I liked them too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment