Noam Chomsky and the realist tradition

Abstract

This article examines the assumptions that underlie Noam Chomsky's politics and argues that his analysis of US foreign policy since World War II may best be situated within the realist tradition in international relations. Chomsky's left realism has not been adequately understood or addressed by IR scholars for both political and disciplinary reasons. In opposition to most classical realists, he has insisted that intellectuals should resist rather than serve national power interests. In contrast to most political scientists, he has also refused to theorize, critiquing much of the enterprise of social science in terms of what he sees as highly suspect power interests within the academy. Hostility to Chomsky's normative commitments has consequently prevented IR scholars from discerning key aspects of his project, as well as important historical and theoretical continuities between radical and realist thought.

Knowledge in international relations: Susceptibilities to motivated reasoning among experts and non-experts

“…College students first introduced to the theories may well associate Realism with a rightwing concern for maximizing national power particularly through military means, and Liberalism with a leftwing concern for ameliorating international conflict through institutions and organizations. But by accumulating more information about IR, one becomes exposed to a wide spectrum of political orientations within each theory: for instance, the arch-leftist Noam Chomsky adopts a characteristically Realist perspective in his political analyses (Osborn, 2009), and the arch-Realist E.H Carr adopted a characteristically Marxist perspective in his critique of the 'harmony of interests' (Carr, 1964).…”

Smashing the state gently: Radical realism and realist anarchism

“…This article is constrained in its focus to the realist discourse in political theory, as opposed to debates over realism in International Relations (IR), though there are similar implications. For instance, Noam Chomsky is treated as a 'realist anarchist' in this article and also described as a radical realist in IR literature, with a similar acceptance of central IR realist tenets under a different interpretation (see Osborn, 2009). 2.…”

Realist climate ethics: Promoting climate ambition within the Classical Realist tradition

“…16 While Classical Realists anticipate that structural factors will influence states' choices, they also recognise that leaders possess agency and that states' perceptions of their interests vary over time. By recognising that national interests are to some extent historically contingent, Classical Realists differ from Structural Realists, who argue that the content of state interests derives from the security dilemma, and also from those radical Realists (such as Noam Chomsky) 17 who view the state as acting in defence of elite interests. Classical Realism's concept of 'national interest' has been widely criticised for its indeterminacy.…”