Noam’s writing and thinking has influenced me in my rather short career in linguistics today. While I am a graduate student at the University of Maryland, College Park now, I wrote this essay as an undergraduate at the University of Wales, Bangor. It was there that I first heard of Noam’s work. I have been politically interested and active for some time before going to Wales, yet I have not come across his work in Germany. When I read his sharp political analyses and constructive solutions, I immediately identified with them; the fact that his general outlook sounded so intuitive to me, in fact captured so concisely what I believed in already but was not able to express, gave me the strength to continue to believe in and fight for equality and justice, determined to bring about changes. For this support, I am extremely grateful to Noam.

This essay originates from a Philosophy of Linguistics class taught by Ian Roberts in the spring of 1995 who I would like to thank for comments on this paper and support in general. It is relevant to the present volume in that it captures both Noam’s political and linguistic impact on young students. Those of us who come to linguistics with a strong political opinion mirroring Noam’s are often startled why the connection between his approach to language and his approach to politics should not be combined. While Noam himself for wise reasons refrains from making these connections, I know of more than one student who walked this path in his or her early years in academics.

If one were to investigate any possible connections between language and politics one should first set out the aims correctly. At first glance, two feasible approaches come to mind: that is on the one hand to look for convergence of the study of language and the study of human life. The study of language, in this sense, I take to be the attempt to investigate human language in order to discover its nature, origin, and use. By the study of human life I mean to somehow establish the nature and origin of human life and its use, i.e. the way humans live together. An alternative approach would be to take language per se and politics per se. Under this conception language is taken for granted, as something humans possess whereas politics refers to a given order of society and conceptually practical alternatives. In this essay, I will arrive at the conclusion that there is a necessary connection between the study of language and the study of politics which is borne out in the essential intrinsic freedom of life.

Language is undoubtedly a human endowment. To what extent it is unique to the human species will be reviewed below. At first it can be securely noted that language is something typical for humans. A question that immediately arises and that could be easily answered in non-specialist ways, is "What is language?".

Language is without doubt a communication system. It is probably the most advanced and developed communication system humans employ. From this point of view one could argue that language functions as a communicator; as such language is a social device. The social function of language is supported by hypothesising that language is the carrier of our thoughts. In other words, if it were true that we dream and think in language there would be no motivation to look further into what language is–language is necessary to make possible the human need to express consciousness to both oneself and others.

It seems that the study of language will shed more light on an explanation for what language is. If one would adopt the view of language as briefly outlined above, namely that language breaks down to be basically a "social thing" which is used to dream, think, and communicate, the question of the nature and origin of language can be answered in a straightforward way. It would then have originated in our very ancestors who felt the compulsion to communicate and thus evolved into language-using mammals. Hence the nature of language is that at that stage of evolution language emerged to communicate easily and boundlessly with one another to make us what we are: the biologically most successful species on earth.

This plain view does certainly not hold when one set out to scrutinise it further. Not only is the evolution and development of language somewhat more complicated, research in various biological fields of study also reveals that we neither dream nor think in language. In the following we will concentrate on a more thorough investigation of language with its main achievements briefly laid out. The points just mentioned can only be touched peripherally–if at all–as the theme and size of this work will concentrate on the more specific details about language concerning innate capacities (for a very good discussion see Pinker 1994).

Within the study of language–linguistics–centuries of research have provided a fairly secure basis of knowledge of and about a number of languages. Traditionally philological techniques were applied in order to typologically account for similarities and differences between languages. When it was discovered in the eighteenth century that various European languages and the old Indian language Sanskrit showed certain similarities that could not be accounted for otherwise than hypothesising a common ancestry. Subsequent work has been conducted in this way. This approach failed, however, to explain what exactly language is in a satisfying manner, i.e. how it evolved, where it comes from and how we acquire and use it.

A turn in the study of language occurred in the mid-fifties when Chomsky presented the main themes of his novel ideas to a symposium at MIT in 1956.

Firstly, the type of language modern linguistics is concerned with is the spoken language (as opposed to written forms). Reasons for this are numerous, among them is the fact that many languages do not use writing systems of any kind or only developed them recently, and oldest forms of language surely did not have it. Also, children first acquire spoken language before they learn the ‘special skills’ of reading and writing (Lyons, 1977). Secondly, the term grammar is used in a sense that deviates from the traditional, grammarian notion. A grammar in the ‘Chomskyan’ sense is the whole concept of a language including the structure, but also meaning and sound and their respective interrelation. The notion generative grammar denotes the rule system that accounts for the construction of sentences in language, and more generally generative linguistics which is concerned with the study of language in this sense (Chomsky, 1965). A further criterion for establishing human language is its uniqueness among all communication systems. The features of language as identified in the late 1950s such as creativity, duality and structure-dependency are crucial for his theories. Human language is creative in that it can produce an infinite number of possible sentences, dual with respect to sound and representation and structure-dependent in sentence construction.

Right from the beginning of his ‘thinking life in public’, Chomsky (1957; 1959) felt that there was more at stake in the study of language than previous studies could and would account for. He sees the roots for his approach in the philosophical orientation of rationalism. Simplistically captured, the rationalists (inter alia Descartes, Kant, Locke, Leibniz, Humboldt) assume that knowledge originates in the mind from the start of life, innately, or as Chomsky (1965: 51) puts it, "the general form of a system of knowledge is fixed in advance as a disposition of mind". With respect to language–which he assumes to be undoubtedly being such a ‘system of knowledge’ (Chomsky, 1957; 1959; 1965 etc.; see below)–Chomsky (1965: 51) applies the rationalist view along the lines of Humboldt (1836) who

And it was also Humboldt who characterised language as making "infinite use of finite means" which to take seriously, as Chomsky pointed out, is the most remarkable innovation of the cognitive approach (Chomsky, 1988: 379).

Chomsky’s approach to language study is scientific throughout his work. In particular, when he speaks of grammar as a device of producing all possible, i.e. grammatical, sentences of language (in the ‘universal’ sense of languages in general) he (Chomsky, 1957) refers to the philosophy of science in which a theory that accounts for the known can also be applied to clear the unknown (Lyons, 1977). This scientific approach made Chomsky’s work so radically different from traditional studies and ‘revolutionised’ linguistics. In his critique of Skinner (1957) Chomsky (1959) argues against the role of the stimulus in language acquisition. He observes assertion of his rationalist view, the stipulation of innate knowledge of language, in the acquisition of language in children. The rapid speed with which children acquire language and the poor amount of input data leading a child to perfect knowledge of the native language indicate a complex way "which we cannot yet describe or begin to understand, and which may be largely innate, or may develop through some sort of learning or through maturation of the nervous system" (1959: 43).

In the sense of studying language just outlined linguistics is part of (cognitive) psychology. It conceives of knowing language as having acquired a certain system of knowledge of which a grammar is a representation. Its being in the mind of humans, this is what psychology deals with: to make out the systems of beliefs and knowledge humans possess, how they acquire it, and how they put it to use (Chomsky, 1988).

The notion politics has two basic conceptions. On the one hand it refers to the art or way how a state is led and how government is conducted. On the other way politics means the more general study of how humans live together. So one can safely say that today’s politics revolve around a few powerful countries that determine much of the world’s fate. Their power stretches from economic resources to ideological supremacy. The belief that these powerful countries are on the right track (after all, they are the successful ones) and that they want to do good for the rest of the world (to share their found way to nirvana) also leads to assume that it is established that free enterprise capitalism is what humans need.

The concept of politics this essay will deal with is the rational investigation of how humans should live together. This is in accordance with the rationalist investigation of language. Looking at political issues in a rationalist way quickly leads to an alternative view of the world as it is. The dream of capitalism as the only form of society humans should live in is borne out in the belief that capitalism as we know it is real democracy and democratic society is what is fair. But applying rationalist principles to analyse what is really happening will change the picture invariably. And this is what Noam Chomsky and others (e.g., economists such as Edward Herman) have been doing for the last thirty years or so. As the topic of this piece of work is concerned with possible connections between politics and language Chomsky’s work will be used as the main source to look into the subject; he is engaged in both a rationalist investigation of language as well as of politics. His main contribution to politics is his analysis of various specific occurrences and a critical assessment thereof.

As an historical analyst Chomsky started out to reassess American foreign politics. Having started to commit himself to political issues publicly in the 1960s he waged against the American war in Vietnam. Commonly known as the "Vietnam-Crisis" or the "Vietnam-Conflict" most of Americans could be divided into two classes: on the one hand there were the "hawks", those who supported the war wholeheartedly and who believed in a great American victory in the end. On the other side there were the "doves" who did not believe in an American victory after the war has been going on for quite a while and who wanted to pull out the troops. This division did not satisfy Chomsky. In fact, looking rationally at the debate that was going on he pointed out that the people involved had missed out a third alternative, a question that has never been asked in public: was the American invasion in Vietnam legitimate, did they have a right to fight the war in the first place? Chomsky’s answer was, of course, "no" (e.g., Chomsky, 1969; 1973; 1988).

This kind of asking is typical for Chomsky’ political analysis. He never accepts the values given but always asks another question, a deeper question. And most of the time this additional question is actually the one that has been overlooked the whole time and which may solve an entire dilemma. This characteristic of Chomsky does certainly not stem from a nosy mind that likes to ask uncomfortable questions. Rather it is deeply rooted in a political idealism based on rationalist principles. These principles involve homo sapiens as the protagonist in a society rather than white men, black men, red men etc. or Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. In such as society human life is valued above all: love for all others, love for oneself. And all the so-called "values" of today’s (first) world can be dispensed with: if everybody does not take everything for himself, there will be no more property; money will be redundant as there will be no need for it; if people use their minds in a rational way to live together there will be no government and so on. As Emma Goldman put it some sixty years ago (quoted from the anarchy-list, 1995):

This is the idea behind Chomky’s political writings: anarchism–or alternatively libertarian socialism. The rational mind strive for pure freedom. In this view anarchism cannot mean libertarianism; libertarianism is a political conception that has been used for the last hundred years or so by (mainly) American liberals and more recently by the right advocating a New Republic in a "liberal sense". Neither can anarchism be equalled with socialism; as Chomsky points out at several instances socialism is based on quite totalitarian principles (Stalinism) or at least require authority in some sense (Marxism). As stated by Goldman and repeatedly by Chomsky an anarchist world must not be guided by authority but rather by the rational mind (Chomsky, 1988; 1991; 1994).

With this background Chomsky analyses the world order we live in today. And the conception of the United States as the benevolent nation will vanish rapidly. Criticising American foreign politics Chomsky detects rather malevolent behaviour in supporting military regimes in South and Central America (e.g., Colombia, Chile), hoaxing and corrupting presidential votes in countries striving for democracy (e.g., Nicaragua, Panama), accepting illegitimate invasions instead of condemning them (e.g, Israel, Indochina) and so on (all Chomsky, 1991; summaries can be elicited from Chomsky, 1987; 1988; 1993). The list is endless; the basic rationale underlying all these actions is American imperialism that has nothing to do with real democracy but rather tries to manipulate its citizens and other nations making them believe in the good nature of these acts. A big role is taken by the media. The media is the government’s means to develop "necessary illusions" to keep the people happy and ignorant (Chomsky, 1989) and create a "manufacture of consent" (Chomsky and Herman, 1988) to unite the people in full support for the official line.

Chomsky’s work is heavily influenced by traditional philosophers, activists and others. Among those he lists the ideas of Rousseau, Bakunin, Luxemburg, and Russell as the probably most cited sources. What connects these ideas is the human determination for absolute freedom and a society based on rationally guided principles of peace and care.

Chomsky himself–the intellectual father of modern linguistics and the academic patron of human rights – never actually denied a conceptual connection between the studies he has been (and still is) conducting in linguistics and his political activities he has been (and still is) involved with all his life. At numerous occasions, however, he denied any practical connection, meaning that although one may think of seeing similarities any stringent equation had to be avoided. One of his most-cited counter-arguments to an inherent connection between politics and linguistics is that the latter is done purely scientifically. In this sense linguistics is the field of study conducted by a group of trained specialists who investigate the nature, origin and use of language (see section II) in order to get a better picture of the human mind and learn more about the evolution of the human species. As a science linguistics certainly contributes to human achievements but it fails to involve the "common man", so to speak. Politics, on the other hand, deals with forms of human social interaction (see above) and as such concerns everybody directly (if interpreted Chomky’s implications correctly). Thus political investigations can–and should, in the way Chomky proposes–be conducted by the "common man", i.e. everybody or non-specialists. There is nothing scientific about politics and along Chomsky’s lines this is what politicians want us to believe to hold up their power.

But there is certainly a view under which a connection is a virtual conceptual necessity. If politics is the activity to think about forms of society in which humans live together and deals with ways of communication and social interaction, and linguistics is the study of language which itself is a means of communication, then a connection between the two can be seen in the way that both involve communication. This blunt view can be put in concrete terms with a philosophical example Chomsky gives. In attacking behaviourism, an extreme form of empiricist tradition, he showed that the empiricist conception of the mind lays the foundation of authoritarian society. Assuming that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, all knowledge and belief is produced and collected by experience. This means that mind is malleable: if there is nothing at the initial onset, and if living in the world, in the community, in the social circumstances of any type, will bring the experience required to "fill" the systems, then what will determine which system of belief and outlook in general is being acquired? Chomsky argues that an authoritarian state-form will flourish under this view as it can directly influence the various systems of belief (Chomsky, 1988). An alternative example stems from Orwell’s essay on Newspeak (cf. Chomsky, 1986; Pinker, 1994). In this work he sees the grim future of the world in the twenty-first century in a totalitarian form that became to be established by succeeding in manipulating language and language use. With Newspeak as the only language which is controlled in any conceivable way all citizens are thinking the same. This argument crucially supposes that the language used in communication is the same as used for thinking. Even if humans possess a language of thought, or mentalese, (Fodor, 1975), and thus the implications of Orwell’s Newspeak will not be evoked, his point is clear: the authoritarian regime uses language as a direct weapon to control the people.

The probably most convincing conception of a connection between politics and language is the innateness of the human mind. As argued at various places by Chomsky himself the innateness hypothesis of language and the innate human determination to be free go hand in hand (in the way outlined above). Language as an innate system of knowledge–as well as other innate cognitive systems–"underlie[s] free and creative self-expression in other domains" (Chomsky, 1988: 386). Thus by nature humans are endowed to think what they want to think and express these thoughts in any conceivable way. Moreover language as part of an innate system of knowledge is free in the sense that nothing or no one can influence the initial state (apart from nature as in pathology). The political implication of this natural state has been coined "instinct for freedom" by Bakunin (as cited by Chomsky in Chomsky, 1988: 386) and sees man as intrinsically free of any authority. The only authority natural human beings follow is in order to survive. Along these lines it can hardly be maintained that humans’ everyday way of life–being exposed to lies and manipulations by politicians, corporations or technocrats–is necessary for survival.

As a last example for a possible connection between language and politics, I will use a quote from Bertrand Russell used by Chomsky (1972). Interestingly Chomsky cited this little extract during his memorial lectures for Russell; these lectures consisted of one talk given on the topic of knowledge and one on freedom. So even if Chomsky considers the connection "tenuous" he uses it as much as combining it into a memorial lecture.

What emerges from the preceding discussion is that if one accepts the innate status of language as well as the universal "instinct for freedom" there seems to be a particular relationship between language and politics (as specified above). Chomsky considers this relationship rather "tenuous" and it may fall under the category "not practically related". Nevertheless the connection is (virtually) conceptually necessary; this conceptual necessity can probably be verified and supported by saying that when one looks at the nature, origin and use of language in a rationalist manner, one is bound to discover that language is innate and free. And if one studies human politics rationally, the way we live together in society, one is bound to determine the inherent freedom of man. Thus the connection between language and politics can be captured from the philosophical point of view of rationalist thinking. The question whether this theoretical conception holds for practical circumstances in everyday life will be left unanswered. It is up to the individual to decide whether rationalist principles will hold up to concrete life or whether they will halt in the mentalese.

After looking at some issues in both language and politics it emerges that in order to argue for or against possible connections both fields have to be specified. It is put forward that for issues of language the cognitive scientific view has to be considered. This includes that language as part of the cognitive system of the mind is innate to human beings and thus can and must be established to be free initially. Politics, on the other hand, must be conceived of as more than just the possible systems of society present. It needs to be understood as the critical study of human society, the ways we live, we grow up in, and we are manipulated in – the critical assessment of the world. This view supposes the ideas of libertarian socialistic principles according to which humans are inherently free individuals. The rationale behind the connection thus arising is that no human power can influence the innate system of cognitive structures and no human power can control human life. In this ideal state the rationalist way of thinking not only leads human thought and feeling but also human communication and society. And the "utopian dream" (that is the practical impossibility) behind the realization of anarchy as often argued is probably as true as the realization of cognitive science, namely to fully understand and specify the human mind. Is it or is it not?