Dans cette deuxième et dernière partie d’entrevue, Noam Chomsky met l’accent sur la concentration du pouvoir aux USA, et le contrôle de la population par la peur.

Avant de vous laisser lire le reste, voici quelques commentaires sur le rôle des intellectuels publics dans notre société.

Je me souviens, il y a de cela plusieurs années maintenant, d’une conversation à la radio entre Marie-France Bazzo (animatrice à l’époque de l’émission ‘Indicatif Présent’) et Pierre Bourgault (intellectuel public souverainiste) à savoir qui était un intellectuel. Bourgault ne comprenait pas pourquoi Bazzo n’assumait pas son rôle d’intellectuel. Cette dernière, même si elle animait une émission d’affaires publiques, même si elle transigeait dans les idées, affirmait être beaucoup trop intéressée par sa collection de souliers pour être considérée comme une intellectuelle. La conversation se termina en queue de poisson, Bougault raccrochant tout simplement le téléphone. C’était une conversation fascinante, un moment de radio fort.

Quel est le rôle de l’intellectuel public? Qui est, donc, un intellectuel public?

L’intellectuel public propose, critique, éduque et informe. Il débat des idées, nous force à penser et il n’hésite pas à aller à contre-courant. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’avoir une plateforme, de dire des inepties, d’avoir la cote. La personne ne peut pas être séparée du message. En même temps, il ne s’agit pas de prêcher aux convertis. Parler avec de beaux mots ne suffit pas. Il faut rejoindre un public, être lu, être entendu, avoir une voix. Par définition, l’intellectuel public est politique, controversé et dérangeant. Le politicien, le chef d’entreprise, l’activiste, le journaliste, parle beaucoup, mais dit peu. L’intellectuel public, de son côté, a un propos plus réfléchi. Il n’a pas toujours raison, personne, bien entendu, n’a le monopole de la raison. Lorsqu’il s’exprime, toutefois, l’opinion mérite d’être entendue, elle mérite réflexion.

Le Canada, et le Québec, possède plusieurs intellectuels publics. De Margaret Atwood, à Naomi Klein, à John Ralston Saul, en passant par Charles Taylor, pour n’en nommer que quelques-uns; ces gens ont une voix qui porte. Les lieux de débats au Canada, parfois, manquent. N’empêche, les intellectuels publics canadiens ont considérablement enrichi notre discours, et notre vie politique.

A l’heure ou les supposés élites sont critiquées, l’intellectuel public demeure source d’inspiration pour mieux comprendre notre monde, ce qui nous entoure, et ce qui nous attend.

Maintenant, le reste de l’entretien de Milos Jankevic avec Noam Chomsky, que certains considèrent comme le plus grand intellectuel public au monde.

MJ: Professor Andrew Bacevich at the University of Boston, in his new book, Washington Rules, states that presidential administrations, if I may paraphrase this, are no more than leaves in the wind. They have no control. Everything is done according to the general sentiment of the populace.

NC: The populace has little effect in the cases he discusses, I think.

MJ: He goes on to say that the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 was merely an echo of public sentiment.

NC: The population didn’t even know about it. The population of the United States didn’t even know it existed. I mean that was an administrative decision. People didn’t even know. If people would have been asked, they would have been in favor of it, that’s undoubtedly true. But the decision wasn’t made by the population, who literally didn’t know.

MJ: But in the United States, is it predominantly popular concern which perpetuates the American agenda: the 45 bombing of Hiroshima, the 61 Bay of Pigs invasion, the 65 troop surge in Vietnam?

NC: It is not pushed by the population. By and large, the population has heard very little about it. I mean it’s true that once the government decides to engage in violence, usually there’s a ‘huddle under the umbrella of power’ phenomenon. Take the invasion of Iraq, the government had to create public support for it. That was the point of Condolezza Rice saying, next time we hear from Saddam, it will be a mushroom cloud over New York, and so on. So it’s that manufacturing of consent. It’s manufacturing. I mean it’s fairly easy to do in the United States. We’re a very frightened country, have been since our origins.

MJ: You say in your book that America was founded upon an insurgency. Is it that perpetual sense of fear that propagates still to this day?

NC: There is a sense of fear. There are some studies, if you’re interested. There is a very good literary scholar named Bruce Franklin who has studied American popular literature back to colonial times. And he finds a striking continuity in the fear of some great force that’s about to destroy us, and at the last minute, we’re rescued by a superweapon, superhero, or something, and that continues. I presume it has to do with at least the fact that this is a settler colonial society. Settler colonial societies are the most destructive form of imperialism. It’s not called imperialism, but the conquest of the national territory was basically extermination of the population: There was fear of the native population, there was fear of slaves, and there was fear of the country right outside your borders, and so on. That’s why the United States tried to conquer Canada repeatedly, and would have done it, if it weren’t for the British deterrent.

MJ: You note in one of your books that John Dewey says that ‘government is the shadow cast upon society by big business’. Could you elaborate on that?

NC: There is an illusion that the distribution of domestic power doesn’t influence government policy – but of course it influences it overwhelmingly. And the distribution of power in the United States is not a secret: it’s very highly concentrated in the business community, in the corporate world. They sometimes virtually buy elections, and they set the framework within which policy proceeds. It’s not a hundred percent. There are interesting cases where state policy and business interests conflict: there are such cases, and they’re interesting. But, overwhelmingly, it’s of course true. They largely staff the executive, they provide the funding, they run the information system, and they’re closely linked to government. Actually, Adam Smith regarded this as a truism.

It’s rather striking that modern international relations theory ignores it. Take a look at contemporary international relations theory, which you’re studying I guess, it has two main doctrines: realism and idealism. Realism holds that states are the agents in international affairs. It doesn’t matter what their internal structure is. And they’re seeking security in an anarchic world, and so on. It’s totally unrealistic, as Adam Smith understood already. States are acting in the interest of particular domestic groups – those who have power, that’s Dewey’s point. The other doctrine, idealism, is just a bad joke.

MJ: Thank you kindly for your time Dr Chomsky.

Caveat lector : Les opinions exprimées dans ce blogue sont strictement personnelles et ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de Global Brief ou de l’École des affaires publiques et internationales de Glendon.