PU #236 - CHOMSKY & EPSTEIN - How Much Do The Actions Of The Person Undermine Their Argument?
I’ve defended Noam Chomsky a lot in my time.
I’ve been reading his work since the mid 1990s, and any time I publicly stated any appreciation for his work there would always be someone quickly there to tell me how he turned a blind eye to a genocide here, or an atrocity there, in his research. I’d take the objection on board and then painstakingly explain his wider philosophy of American imperialism and media hegemony — the propaganda model and the manufacturing of consent — and argue back that sometimes accurate information about such things may be difficult to acquire, but that his larger argument seems to remain unscathed even if a specific example or two faltered.
Sometimes the objection to his work was subjective: an individual’s disbelief at his refusal to go along with a traditional narrative of a particular event. His denial of a “genocide” or “atrocity” as genocide or atrocity more a refusal to go along with US propaganda about it than a sign of anything more sinister. Chomsky’s lifelong critique of American foreign policy and capitalist elites wasn’t faultless, but there were a few stale canards out there against his work, raised time and time again, that were widespread acts of intentional propaganda to try and deny the overall soundness of his argument rather than critiques that held any force. Overall, Chomsky’s work has documented decade after decade how America consistently acts in the interests of a small number of powerful people and corporations, at the expense of the wider global population, and how the media has played a continuous role in enabling those acts and keeping the domestic population largely uninformed.
What made his work so compelling for me, was that this worldview wasn’t some wild Conspiracy Theory nonsense about shadowy organisations controlling the global agenda. It was the meticulous laying out of evidence in support of an organic, rational and entirely self-perpetuating accidental conspiracy taking place willingly and in plain sight. Of norms and ideological frameworks that simply ran themselves as those who towed the ideological line tended to rise up the ranks and succeed in the world, and those who asked too many questions, or presented a competing narrative, tended not to. People, therefore, learned to self-censor for their own personal success rather than needing to be forcibly censored. Dominant narratives prevailed and shaped the next chapter of history. And as economic prosperity coincided with ideological compliance, the choice for self-censorship was financially rewarding too. It paid to not think too deeply or ask too many questions about America’s geo-political intentions in the world.
For me then, despite occasional question marks around some of his examples and omissions, and a recognition that (unlike most philosophers) the man never seemed to acknowledge any possible mistakes in his work, change his mind, or admit that he was ever wrong about anything, Noam Chomsky seemed always to be one of the good guys. Out there fighting the good fight and speaking truth to power despite so many attempts to slander his name, ridicule his work, and dismiss him as a crank.
Even those negative aspects of Chomsky I just mentioned — the lack of any public self-reflection or self-criticism of his own work (I once was given the opportunity to interview Chomsky online for UK punk ‘zine, Fracture, in the early 2000s, and when he didn’t return any answers to my questions I suspected it was because one I had asked was whether there was anything he felt he had ever been wrong about or changed his mind on) — were explained by the political weight of his critique. In a country with a history of COINTELPRO and many documented cases of attempted character assassination of any leading figure on the left, Chomsky was perhaps wise to be cautious. Within the propaganda model, complex and nuanced thinking would always lose out to more black or white assurances. Were Chomsky to ever publicly acknowledge some fault in his own thinking, that “Chomsky admits he was wrong” would no doubt be the only fact standing, crowding out all conversation around the many things he was actually right about and shrouding his entire intellectual project in a cloud of doubt. I therefore accepted on some level that the specific target of this particular public intellectual’s critique made it difficult for honest reflection as his work was always entering the world pre-dismissed by the mainstream discourse and carrying the burden of needing to be bullet-proof just to even be listened to.
But in recent months, as you probably already know, Chomsky’s name and image has come up repeatedly in some of the newly released Epstein files. After years of instinctively defending Chomsky from cynical smears to his character, my initial reaction was to seek some less damning explanation for his apparent friendship with a monster. Perhaps, for example, he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes, or ended up in Epstein’s orbit by mistake? But the more I read, the more my instinct for defending Noam Chomsky seemed to have finally run out of ground. While, of course, there have been far worse offenders exposed in these files (and many more likely protected by the redacted and incomplete nature of the drip-feed releases), and the fact of Chomsky relationship with Epstein has been loudly shouted about with clear political motivation, Chomsky’s undeniable involvement with the billionaire sex offender has been heartbreaking to discover and leaves one with serious questions.
On the one hand, philosophers have long argued the importance of distinguishing the person from their argument. Well known ad hominem fallacies and appeals to authority have been dismissed as irrelevant to an argument itself, and it can remain theoretically true that Chomsky turns out to have questionable moral character yet his arguments remain robust. Consider, as comparison, the well-documented racism of Enlightenment thinkers like Kant, Hume and Locke. Awful though it is, we can despite the men but still appreciate (at least some of) their ideas. In more recent years I have recommended famous modern thinkers to my students or shared some of their excellent philosophical work only for a curious Google from someone in the classroom to reveal terrible accusations of abuse or impropriety. Again, their ideas and arguments remained relevant even if the person making them had now lost our respect.
On the other hand though, sometimes the actions of the thinker, or their vile personal opinions, become reflected in their work. A recognition of a particular prejudice or moral failing could have legitimate impact on their arguments. For example, when Hume argues against the existence of miracles because they have only ever been reported in “ignorant and barbarous nations”, the xenophobic basis of such a dismissal undermines it. Once we accept a level of education and intelligence is possible in the countries of the Bible’s origin that Hume’s racism disallows, we have to find other reasons to dismiss the testimony of those there claiming to have witnessed a miracle.
Some of what Chomsky is reported as having said, for example, can be charitably dismissed by those familiar with his work. Readers of Chomsky will be familiar with his droll writing style and frequent use of dry humour when discussing terrible events and awful people. Hearing that Chomsky is reported to have said maintaining “regular contact” with Jeffrey Epstein was a “most valuable experience”, we can hear echoes of similar sentiments from Chomsky’s written work when cynically condemning the things he has learned from reading, say, the business press or a particularly biased historical record. Indeed, some of the purported correspondence literally has Chomsky claiming Epstein taught him “about the intricacies of the global financial system” far more than “the business press and professional journals” could. Sentences which could be damning Epstein more than praising him, depending on context.
However, it is clear from the released documents that Chomsky seemed to consider Epstein to be a “friend”. While it is not impossible to find a villain appealing, or stay friends with someone we believe has done terrible things, it does feel strange to think that such an eminent and vocal critic of American capitalism and powerful elites became friends with a figure who seems the very personification of all that Chomsky vilifies in his writing. Of course, Chomsky famously engaged with the things he opposed. Most of his written work details the lengthy engagements he had with books, journals and newspapers he took great issue with but appeared to read voraciously. To praise Epstein’s “extensive knowledge, penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals” and deem him a “regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation” could be more of Chomsky’s trademark cynical wit describing a fascinating source, fascinating precisely because Epstein exposed his worldview to Chomsky “without a trace of pretentiousness”. A similar reason might explain Chomsky seemingly using Epstein to also get in direct personal contact with people like Steve Bannon.
Likewise, also being charitable, it is absolutely true that Chomsky had many years of personal experience of attempts to slander and defame him, and therefore if he believed Epstein was being similarly smeared in 2019 — whether a friend or foe of Chomsky’s (Chomsky historically defended all manner of arguable reprobates he didn’t politically align with when it came to freedom of speech or anti-smear issues) — it would make sense, if the two were in contact, that Epstein might solicit Chomsky’s advice on how to deal with such a thing. If Chomsky really believed Epstein, his friend, was a victim of a smear campaign then it would explain both him describing “the horrible way you are being treated in the press and public” and the advice he is supposed to have offered, advice he has taken himself many times when being accused of things he has not done: “the best way to proceed is to ignore it”.
Even the very worst soundbite from the released files — Chomsky saying he was “fantasising about the Caribbean island” Epstein owned, and where children were sexually abused — can be charitably explained away if we imagine a man who did not know about, or believe, such things about Epstein (despite him being already convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor at the time of their exchanges), and was simply enamoured at the idea of a possible tropical vacation in his future. A vacation which, according to Chomsky’s wife, he never took.
However… Should we be so charitable? And if we aren’t charitable, does Chomsky’s friendship with Epstein, taken at face value, mean that Chomsky’s philosophical arguments about American power and the media should be somehow reevaluated?
Although nothing released so far seems to implicate Chomsky personally in any of the sexual abuse Epstein was involved in, and there is no reason to assume there will be, an argument against being charitable to our interpretation of what has been released so far is that it does show Chomsky repeatedly schmoozing with the very worst example of the sort of amoral billionaire monster his life’s work seems to oppose. Doing so long after Epstein had already been convicted of sexual crimes against minors once and doing so seemingly completely uncritically despite an existing public record against the man. Although Chomsky’s wife, Valeria, apologised last week for their “grave mistake” in being “careless” about not thoroughly researching Epstein’s background before befriending him, and admitted “it was deeply disturbing for both of us to realise we had engaged with someone who presented as a helpful friend but led a hidden life of criminal, inhumane, and perverted acts”, it does make one ask the question: if Chomsky failed to research Epstein all that thoroughly, what else in his academic work might be equally glazed over so that it fit the conclusion he wanted? And if Chomsky was not aware that the billionaire who, in the words of his wife, “began to encircle Noam, sending gifts and creating opportunities for interesting discussions in areas Noam has been working on extensively” might be doing this “as a strategy to ensnare us and to try to undermine the causes Noam stands for”, then how secure is Chomsky’s claim to understand the hidden ways in which power works across society to achieve the ends of a minority of elites?
Ultimately, Epstein was a blindspot for Chomsky. One he seems to have enjoyed the company of and advantages of being friends with. An example of the way power can corrupt imperceptibly and insidiously by offering certain benefits in return for compliance and support, and the threat of their removal if too many questions are asked.
Finding out Noam Chomsky was friends with Jeffrey Epstein is like finding out that the DIY punk band you’ve always admired for their ethical integrity were secretly funded by Sony all along. The songs might sound the same, but something about them feels different now.
But is the story of an old man, in the latter decades of his life, married to a second wife and trying to sort out the finances of his estate being seduced by a wealthy and influential snake sufficient to undo Chomsky’s lifetime of philosophical work and political activism? Especially at a point in Chomsky’s life where, at 97 years old, he has been bed-bound and unable to communicate at all, let alone defend himself, since a stroke he suffered in 2024? Is it really a sign of something important or merely another example of Epstein’s exploitation? Another self-serving scam, this time targeting the elderly and vulnerable instead of those vulnerable and young?
If Chomsky’s persistent thesis since first criticising the war in Vietnam in the 1960s has been that powerful elites will use their power to hide their crimes against humanity and justify their egregious acts in the language of moral righteousness and necessity, then the case of his latter day friendship with Epstein could be seen as yet another example of just that. A rich and powerful man getting away with terrible crimes because his wealth allowed him protection from an enabling and complicit media, with Chomsky himself being used this time as part of Epstein’s own “propaganda model”, offering (without coercion) his own liberal credentials in support of his friend to bolster Epstein’s false narrative that he had done nothing wrong?
Or, less charitably, Chomsky the celebrity had, at this stage in his life and career, reached the position himself of becoming one of the powerful elites. And did so, as per his own thesis, by turning a blind eye to any discrepancies and moral inconsistencies in those around him from whom he personally benefitted so that he could continue enjoying his privileges, regardless of the potential human cost.
Even if that unthinkable latter scenario were the true one, it seems that on either interpretation of Chomsky’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein it serves, while certainly throwing doubt on the moral character of the philosopher himself, to add only further supporting evidence to the validity of Chomsky’s philosophical argument about the nefarious and self-serving nature of power in America.
Author: DaN McKee (he/him)
If you liked this post and have enjoyed what I do here at Philosophy Unleashed - and have been doing every year since 2019 - and want to buy me a coffee or cool philosophy book as a gift to say thank you, feel free to send a small donation/tip my way here.
My book, ANARCHIST ATHEIST PUNK ROCK TEACHER, is out everywhere on paperback and eBook. You can order it direct from the publisher or from places like Amazon. Paperback or e-book. I also have a short horror story in the new anthology, HARDCORE HORROR, also available to buy from Earth Island.
My other book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE , from the publisher, and from all good booksellers, either in paperback or as an e-Book. I also have a chapter in THIS BOOK on punk and anarchism.
Listen to me on The Independent Teacher podcast here. Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. My paper - ‘An error of punishment defences in the context of schooling’ - is in the Journal of Philosophy of Education (behind an annoying paywall!) here. Listen to me on the Philosophy Gets Schooled podcast here. Listen to me talk anarchism and wrestling here or anarchism and education here.
For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com