Known for his outspoken manner and tone in discourse, MIT linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky exhibited that style in a recent telephone interview with David Masciotra for Salon magazine. The topic of discussion was Chomsky’s new book, Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal, co-authored with Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Seven questions were fielded. Setting the tone for the interview, Masciotra notes in the first question;
“while our mainstream discourse often presents a ‘debate’ surrounding climate change, there is no debate at all-”
The comment was related to the recent hearings of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court where the nominee stated she was unfamiliar with the climate change controversy and deferred the issue to scientists. The following series of inquiries covered a Department of Transportation report, natural gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean, fossil fuels, zero emissions, sustainable energy, the auto industry bailout and the election. The most significant responses for rhetorical analysis are questions related to the Department of Transportation report, fossil fuels and the Green New Deal, and the auto industry. With respect to the first, Chomsky highlights the findings in one sentence;
“It concluded that on our present course we will reach four degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.”
He sets the table for replies to subsequent criticism over the direction the political and
economic spheres of influence are taking with regard to the commonplace known as “global warming.” The culprit being fossil fuels and the utter disregard the energy universe has in an effort to contain the use of it, the solution in the mind of the MIT linguist is to “socialize them” or “tax the fossil fuels, but then redistribute the profits to the people who need it.” As for the Green New Deal, Chomsky adds;
“Jobs ranging from construction to retrofitting houses to mass transportation to installing solar panels and wind turbines to research and development. That whole range presents many more opportunities than there are in fossil fuels, and it makes for a better world.”
With respect to the auto industry bailout in 2009, Chomsky states it was “nationalized,” adding that management was paid off and it was responsible for traffic jams nationwide.
From the outset of the interview, when Chomsky noted that Supreme Court nominee Barrett was a scientist, neither he nor the co-author of the book at the center of the interview, Robert Pollin, are not scientists as well. Even before a close reading to discover the rhetorical methodology in Chomsky’s responses, it is evident from those very responses the strong sense of persona and ethos on which Chomsky relies in order to validate his claims. Those traits are not lost on Masciotra in his introduction;
“Noam Chomsky, one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, has provided the international left with wisdom, guidance and inspiration for nearly 60 years. Proving that he operates at the locus where argumentation and activism meet, he demonstrates indispensable intellectual leadership on issues of foreign policy, democratic socialism and rejection of corporate media bromides.”
The interviewer also notes Chomsky’s “manifesto against the Vietnam War.” Clearly, the role of the MIT linguist’s ethos plays an important part in that very credibility. With a close reading, however, and with the use of Jay Heinrichs’ novel approach to examining rhetoric through what he characterizes as “The Seven Deadly Logical Sins.”
Beginning with Chomsky’s comparison of the Department of Transportation’s report whereby it advised a reduction of emission regulations on vehicles instead of the opposite, his comparison was to the 1942 document in Nazi Germany to eradicate the Jews. This might fall between two of Heinrichs’ taboos, False Comparison and Bad Example. Although there is no direct correlation between the two documents, it does fit reasonably into being “false, unbelievable, irrelevant, or wrongly interpreted.” The comparison was clearly meant to sensationalize and is in bad taste. Chomsky calls the Transportation report “the most extraordinary document in human history,” in the same category as the decree to exterminate the Jews. The linguist had an opportunity to utilize facts related to carbon emissions, instead he chose persona and ethos. The first chapter in his co-authored book is replete with scientific evidence of fossil fuels and global warming, along with deforestation, cattle farming and industrial fertilizers. (Chomsky, Pollen, 1-39)
Again, his selling points for the Green New Deal can be deconstructed utilizing Heinrichs fallacies. Chomsky’s solution for the fossil fuel industry is to “socialize them.” Next, tax and redistribute fossil fuel income. He cites Amy Coney Barret’s retreat into scientific ignorance and Greta Thunberg’s call to arms to the youth. All of these appeal to ignorance, betrayal and false dilemma. The False Choice fallacy is evident;
“The number of choices you’re given is not the number of choices that actually exist.”
According to Climate Crisis and the Global New Deal, capitalism is the global warming culprit and socialism is the answer. Tax and more tax, as Chomsky states in the interview, socialism, the enemy of the rich can be compared to “...Social Security, ...we ram it down their throats through popular pressure.”
The claim of the auto industry “have them go back to what they were doing — make traffic jams in Chicago and Boston” is patently false. Through a hasty generalization, Chomsky uses no examples and arrives at a ludicrous conclusion, that car manufacturers are responsible for freeway gridlock and not the drivers of the vehicles.
Across the board, in spite of his skills as a world renowned linguist with the capacity to influence using sound rhetorical tools, Noam Chomsky relied on his charisma and personality to validate the points made during the interview. In black and white, the evidence for his claims were spelled out in no uncertain terms in his newly released book. Perhaps the content might just have been too dry for the audience.
Part Two: Minorities on the Silver Screen
Recently, the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences (AMPAC) announced dramatic changes in requirements for a film to be eligible for an academy award. The changes were a result of the UCLA release titled Hollywood Diversity Report, 2020: "A Tale of Two Hollywoods” compiled by Dr. Darnell Hunt and his team in the social sciences department.
The comprehensive report addresses topics such as the representation imbalance of minorities and women in key production slots of the film industry. These include not just title roles for acting, but directing and screenwriting as well. Following the production analysis, the report moves on to distribution and the box office. That second part offers analysis through invitational rhetoric. In fact, according to the Sonja K. Foss, Cindy L. Griffin essay, Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric;
“Change may be the result of invitational rhetoric, but change is not its purpose. When change does occur as a result of understanding, it is different from the kind of change that typifies the persuasive actions of traditional rhetoric.” (Foss, Griffin, 6)
The difference lies in power and control. Traditional rhetoric assumes change is power, for invitational rhetoric, that change is equality, the first aspect along with immanent value and self-determination. The diversity report created the environment for the industry, the “audience,” to initiate that change. Certainly the charts, graphs and statistics of the 50 page report illustrated in no uncertain terms the inequality that exists for minorities and women. The report invited the audience to participate in the discourse and the result was a change for equality. Not long after the report was released, the Academy for Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAC) released new requirements for films to be eligible for “accolades,” in effect, the Oscars;
“Today, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category, as part of its Academy Aperture 2025 initiative. The standards are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience.” (oscars.org)
Broken down into four standards, the new inclusion requirements make mandatory one lead role be represented by a minority, 30 percent of an ensemble cast be from an underrepresented group as well as the main story line. In addition, casting, key roles and overall crew composition must also meet similar requirements. Internships, training and publicity roles must also be filled by underrepresented groups.
If “audience participation” loosely defines invitational rhetoric, then Foss and Griffin need to be assured their voices were heard by the film industry. The three components of invitational rhetoric were incorporated in AMPAC’s new Oscar eligibility rules, change is on an equal basis. This is an outstanding example of a theory put to practice with but one dissenting factor. Soon after AMPAC released its inclusion requirements, the Writers Guild of America protested that there was nothing written in the script for older screenwriters;
“The WGA West committee states that the exclusion of older people in the Academy's new rules continues decades of a ‘painful reality – that older writers are the only diversity category that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.’ Discrimination has taken the form of older writers being ‘shut out’ of representation by agents and managers, who champion writers to major companies; hiring entities saying they ‘don’t know how to find’ older writers; hiring entities claiming older writers are out of touch with today's audiences or won't be able to write about people of other generations; and networks and studios maintaining ‘approved writers lists,’ among other practices, according to the letter.” (Hollywood Reporter)
The objective of the UCLA diversity report was, in a word, objective. It achieved that goal, well written, backed up by eye opening statistics. The conclusion is subjective regarding “behind the camera is a different story. Here, White men remain firmly in charge.” The report invited the audience, the white men firmly in charge, to initiate a change, not for power, but for equality.