Work, Learning and Freedom

by Noam Chomsky, Michael Kasenbacher

In this often personal interview, renowned linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky outlines a libertarian perspective on work and education, arguing that freedom is the root of creativity and fulfilment.  

The question I would like to ask is what is really wanted work? Maybe we could start with your personal life and your double career in linguistics and political activism? Do you like that kind of work?

If I had the time I would spend far more time doing work on language, philosophy, cognitive science, topics that are intellectually very interesting. But a large part of my life is given to one or another form of political activity: reading, writing, organising, activism and so on. Which is worth doing, it’s necessary but it's not really intellectually challenging. Regarding human affairs we either understand nothing, or it's pretty superficial. It's hard work to get the data and put it all together but it's not terribly challenging intellectually. But I do it because it's necessary. The kind of work that should be the main part of life is the kind of work you would want to do if you weren't being paid for it. It’s work that comes out of your own internal needs, interests and concerns.

The philosopher Frithjof Bergmann says that most people don't know what kind of activities they really want to do. He calls that 'the poverty of desire.' I find this to be true when I talk to a lot of my friends. Did you always know what you wanted to do?

That's a problem I never had - for me there was always too much that I wanted to do. I'm not sure how widespread this is – take, say, a craftsman, I happen to be no good with tools, but take someone who can build things, fix things, they really want to do it. They love doing it: ‘if there's a problem I can solve it’. Or just plain physical labour – that's also gratifying. If you work on command then of course it’s just drudgery but if you do the very same thing out of your own will or interest it's exciting and interesting and appealing. I mean that's why people look for work – gardening for example. So you've had a hard week, you have the weekend off, the kids are running around, you could just lie down to sleep but it's much more fun to be gardening or building something or doing something else.

It's an old insight, not mine. Wilhelm von Humboldt, who did some of the most interesting work on this, once pointed out that if an artisan produces a beautiful object on command we may admire what he did but we despise what he is – he's a tool in the hands of others. If on the other hand he creates that same beautiful object out of his own will we admire it and him and he's fulfilling himself. It's kind of like study at school – I think we all know from our experience  that if you study on command because you have to pass a test you can do fine on the test but two weeks later you've forgotten everything. On the other hand if you do it because you want to find out, and you explore and you make mistakes and you look in the wrong place and so on, then ultimately you remember.

So you think that basically a person knows what it is that he or she wants to do?

Under the right circumstances that would be true. Children for example are naturally curious – they want to know about everything, they want to explore everything but that generally gets knocked out of their heads. They're put into disciplined structures, things are organised for them to act in certain ways so it tends to get beaten out of you. That's why school's boring. School can be exciting. It happens that I went to a Deweyite school until I was about 12. It was an exciting experience, you wanted to be there, you wanted to go. There was no ranking, there were no grades. Things were guided so it wasn't just do anything you feel like. There was a structure but you were basically encouraged to pursue your own interests and concerns and to work together with others. I basically didn't know I was a good student until I got to high school. I went to an academic high school in which everybody was ranked and you had to get to college so you had to pass tests. In elementary school I had actually skipped a year but nobody paid much attention to it. The only thing I saw was that I was the smallest kid in the class.  But it wasn't a big thing that anybody paid attention to. High school was totally different – you've gotta be first in the class, not second. And that's a very destructive environment – it drives people into the situation where you really don't know what you want to do. It happened to me in fact – in high school I kinda lost all interest. When I looked at the college catalogue it was really exciting – lots of courses, great things. But it turned out that the college was like an overgrown high school. After about a year I was going to just drop out and it was just by accident that I stayed in. I happened to meet up with a faculty member who suggested to me I start taking his graduate courses and then I started taking other graduate courses. But I have no professional training. That's why I'm teaching at MIT – I don't have the credentials to teach at an academic university.

But that's what education ought to be like. Otherwise it can be extremely alienating – I see it with my grandchildren or the circles in which they live. There are kids who just don't know what they want to do so they smoke pot, or they drink, they skip school, or they get into all kinds of other anti-social behaviour. Because they have energy and excitement and nothing to do with it. That's true here, I don't know how it is in Austria[1], but here even the concept of play has changed. I can see it even in the place where I live. My wife and I moved out to this area because it was very good for children – there wasn't a lot of traffic, there were woods out the back and the kids could play in the street. The kids were out playing all the time, riding their bikes whatever. Now there are children around but they're not outside, they're either inside looking at video games or something or else they're involved in organised activities: adult organised sports activities or something. But just the concept of spontaneous play seems to have diminished considerably. There are some studies about this, I've seen them for the United States and England, I don't know if it's true elsewhere but spontaneous play has just declined under social changes. And I think it's a very bad thing because that's where your creative instincts flourish. If you have to make up a game in the streets, if you play baseball with a broom handle you found somewhere that's different from going to an organised league where you have to wear a uniform.

Sometimes it's just surreal – I remember when my grandson was about ten and he was very interested in sports, he was always playing for teams for the town. Once we were over at his mother's house and he came back pretty disconsolate because there was supposed to be a baseball game but the other team that they were playing only had eight players. I don't know if you know how baseball works but everybody's sitting all the time, there's about three people actually doing anything, everybody else is just sitting around. But his team simply couldn't give the other team an extra player so that the kids could have fun  because you have to keep by the league rules. I mean that's carrying it to real absurdity but that's the kind of thing that's happening. It's true in school too – the great educational innovation of Bush and Obama was 'no child left behind'. I can see the effects in schools from talking to teachers, parents and students. It's training to pass tests and the teachers are evaluated on how well the students do in the test – I've talked to teachers who've told me that a kid will be interested in something that comes up in class and want to pursue it and the teacher has to tell them - ' you can't do that because you have to pass this test next week'. That's the opposite of education.

How do you think it is possible in our society, not just in education, for people to counteract all this structuring, this tendency for us to be driven into situations where people don’t know what it is they want to do?

I think it’s the opposite: the social system is taking on a form in which finding out what you want to do is less and less of an option because your life is too structured, organised, controlled and disciplined. The US had the first real mass education (much ahead of Europe in that respect) but if you look back at the system in the late 19th century it was largely designed to turn independent farmers into disciplined factory workers, and a good deal of education maintains that form. And sometimes it’s quite explicit – so if you’ve never read it you might want to have a look at a book called The Crisis of Democracy – a publication of the trilateral commission, who were essentially liberal internationalists from Europe, Japan and the United States, the liberal wing of the intellectual elite. That’s where Jimmy Carter’s whole government came from. The book was expressing the concern of liberal intellectuals over what happened in the 60s. Well what happened in the 60s is that it was too democratic, there was a lot of popular activism, young people trying things out, experimentation – it’s called ‘the time of troubles’. The ‘troubles’ are that it civilised the country: that’s where you get civil rights, the women’s movement, environmental concerns, opposition to aggression. And it’s a much more civilised country as a result but that caused a lot of concern because people were getting out of control. People are supposed to be passive and apathetic and doing what they’re told by the responsible people who are in control. That’s elite ideology across the political spectrum – from liberals to Leninists, it’s essentially the same ideology: people are too stupid and ignorant to do things by themselves so for their own benefit we have to control them. And that very dominant ideology was breaking down in the 60s. And this commission that put together this book was concerned with trying to induce what they called ‘more moderation in democracy’ – turn people back to passivity and obedience so they don’t put so many constraints on state power and so on. In particular they were worried about young people. They were concerned about the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young (that’s their phrase), meaning schools, universities, church and so on – they’re not doing their job, [the young are] not being sufficiently indoctrinated. They’re too free to pursue their own initiatives and concerns and you’ve got to control them better.

If you look back at what happens since that time there have been a lot of measures introduced to impose discipline. Take something as simple as raising tuition fees – it’s much more true in the US than elsewhere, but in the US tuition is now sky high – in part it selects things on a class basis but more than that, it imposes a debt burden. So if you come out of college with a big debt you’re not going to be free to do what you want to do. You may have wanted to be a public interest lawyer but you’re going to have to go to a corporate law firm. That’s quite a serious fact and there are many other things like it. In fact the drug war was started mainly for that reason, the drug war is a disciplinary system, it’s a way of ensuring that people are kept under control and it was almost consciously designed that way… The idea of freedom is very frightening for those who have some degree of privilege and power and I think that shows up in the education system too. And in the workplace… for example, there’s a very good study by a faculty member here, who was denied tenure unfortunately, who studied very carefully the development of computer controlled machine tools – first developed in the 1950s under the military where almost everything is done… 

What is his name?

David Noble. He has a couple of very good books – one of them is called Forces of Production. What he discovered was that as these methods were devised there was a choice – whether to design the methods so that control would be in the hands of skilled machinists or whether it would be controlled by management. They picked the second, although it was not more profitable – when they did studies they found there was no profit advantage to it but it’s just so important to keep workers under control than to have skilled machinists run the industrial process. One reason is that if that mentality spreads sooner or later workers are going to demand what seems obvious to them anyway – that they should just take over the factories and get rid of the bosses who don’t do anything but get in their way. That's frightening. That’s pretty much what led to the New Deal. The New Deal measures were to some extent sparked by the fact that strikes were reaching the level of sit down strikes, and a sit down strike is just one millimetre away from saying, ‘Well why are we sitting here? Let’s run the place’.

If you go back to the 19th century working class literature, by now there’s quite a lot of working class literature, there’s quite a lot of material on [these ideas]. This is mostly right around here where the industrial revolution first started in the United States. Working people were bitterly opposed to the industrial system, they said it was taking away their freedom, their independence, their rights as members of a free republic, that it was destroying their culture. They thought that workers should simply own the mills and run them themselves. In the 19th century here, without any influence of Marxism or any European thinking, it was pretty much assumed that wage labour is about the same as slavery – it’s different only in that it’s temporary. That was such a cliché that it was a slogan of the Republican Party. And for northern workers in the civil war that was the banner under which they fought – that wage slavery is as bad as slavery. That had to be beaten out of people’s heads.

I don’t think it’s far under the surface, I think it could come back at any time. I think it could come back right now – Obama pretty much owns the auto industry and is closing down auto plants, meanwhile his government is making contracts with Spain and France to build high tech rail facilities which the US is very backward in – and using federal stimulus money to pay for it. Sooner or later it’s going to occur to working people in Detroit that ‘we can do those things – let’s take over the factory and do it’. It could lead to industrial revival here and that would be very frightening to the banks and the managerial class.

What is your personal work routine? How do manage to work so much?

Well my wife died a couple of years ago and since then I’ve done nothing but work. I see my children once in a while but almost nothing else. Before that I worked pretty hard but had a personal life outside. But that's unique.

 How many hours of sleep do you get?

I try to get about six or seven hours of sleep if I can. It’s a pretty crazy life – tremendous number of talks and meetings so I don’t have anywhere near as much time as I’d like to just plain work because other things crowd in. But I nearly never have any free time – I never go to the movies or out to dinner. But that’s not a model of any sane kind of existence.

imgPrintable version


imgContact us

Article tools:

printable version share contact NLP jump to comments

First published: 24 December, 2012

Category: Education, Philosophy and Theory

Latest articles...

  1. The Kerry Initiative: The Next Round: by Norman Finkelstein, Jamie Stern-Weiner
  2. Beyond the War and Ndombolo: by Christina Fonthes
  3. The UKIP Puzzle and the Media Establishmentarianisation Hypothesis: by A. L. Shaw
  4. Four Pictures of Migration: by Carl Rowlands
  5. A People’s History: by Steve Warby
  6. Demanding the Impossible? An Experiment in Engaging Urban Working Class Youth with Radical Politics: by Ed Lewis, Jacob Mukherjee


Twitter latest...

16 Comments on "Work, Learning and Freedom"

By Josh, on 24 December 2012 - 20:02 |

Wonderful to hear this from Chomsky. Justifies the child’s protest against the completion of their homework. We need to free the minds of children from these schools; because the schools teach discipline to command more than anything else.

By Nate, on 25 December 2012 - 05:36 |

That phrase “well why are we sitting here? Let’s run the place” keeps bouncing back and forth in my head. It is so powerful, especially coming from Mr. Chomsky, but I can only hope it still has relevance today.

By Labrys, on 27 December 2012 - 02:35 |

This is a very sobering and stimulating piece by Chomsky, making it very clear indeed how far we’ve come away from social and civic sanity. Seems almost impossible to reproduce or revive that today. But of course all these changes are no accident but have been designed quite deliberately to pacify populations. I see my own university students beaten down into not only passivity but genuine despair. The brightest and most creative seem to feel that there’s no hope for the US and are searching for places to emigrate to,but what possibilities are there?  

By Prof. Lozan Stoimenov, on 28 December 2012 - 02:29 |

“But a large part of my life is given to one or another form of political activity: reading, writing, organising, activism and so on. Which is worth doing, it’s necessary but it’s not really intellectually challenging. Regarding human affairs we either understand nothing, or it’s pretty superficial. It’s hard work to get the data and put it all together but it’s not terribly challenging intellectually.”

Sorry, Mr. Chomsky,but I shoud point out that socio-economic system is the most complex among all system at particular time and its understanding and projects for its progressive development are the highest levels intellectual challenges. This is why all protests movements do not offer scientifically based project for alternative for capitalism.

By Martin Zatroch, on 30 December 2012 - 23:43 |

An excellent reading! Just want to say thank you and wish this portal and Mr. Chomsky all the best in 2013. Greetings from Slovakia.

Post Scriptum: Definitely will obtain a paperback book from David Noble!

By Michael Moser, on 31 December 2012 - 14:08 |

Are cooperatives effective owners?  If a general assembly of the workers has to decide between long term capital investment and short term pay rises, wont it choose a short term
pay rise in most cases ?

An example: the Kibbutz movement in Israel went bust due to inefficient management decisions, resulting in bad bank loans;

Now those guys were part of the elite of Israel; only the Kibbutzim are to blame for their own problems. Also cooperatives in other places like Yugoslavia ran into similar problems.

By stefan benediktsson, on 31 December 2012 - 14:39 |

“the Kibbutz movement in Israel went bust due to inefficient management decisions, resulting in bad bank loans”. This must be the joke of the year. Question: How many private enterprises have gone bankrupt this year? Should we abandon private ownership?

By Michael Moser, on 31 December 2012 - 20:55 |

I was arguing that failure of Kibbutz movement and problems of self management
in Yugoslavia are things that can’t be attributed to oppression and the 
evil scheming of hostile elites. 

Cooperative ownership has real problems, one of them is called the ‘Tragedy of commons’
If you have an owner then there are other problems, but not this one in particular.

By AB, on 01 January 2013 - 17:23 |

yes we should abandon private owenership

By Prof. Lozan Stoimenov, on 02 January 2013 - 07:30 |

Ownership of means for production is an area of problem in which Marxism was not able to offer proper scientific understanding and positions. The problem is related to procedures for decision making and positions of subject and object in governance of economy. At the same time both are related to the competence of decision makers, in general of people in the case of people’s ownwrship, which is different from cooperative and workers’ ownership.

By Will, on 02 January 2013 - 19:52 |

“The US had the first real mass education (much ahead of Europe in that respect) but if you look back at the system in the late 19th century it was largely designed to turn independent farmers into disciplined factory workers, and a good deal of education maintains that form.”

An example that springs to mind is the prevalence of military-style roll calls in classrooms. This practice is a boring, unnecessary, enforced wastage of everyone’s time, usually at the outset of class. Why not just have a student go around and ask if so-and-so are here, while the class does something interesting, or let the students check their names off themselves? The usual response is: they might lie. At this point we must ask, why the presumption of distrust and mutual hostility? The students will pick up on that immediately. Shouldn’t the students feel their teacher respects and encourages them?

By Neil, on 03 January 2013 - 13:56 |

I’m not an educational theorist, nor have I read extensively on the subject, however the best analysis of the phenomenon that Chomsky talks about  here that I’ve ever read is in ‘Deschooling Society’ (1970) by the unjustly neglected radical intellectual, Ivan Illich. It begins with the following very insightful statement:

“Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is “schooled” to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavour are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.”

Illich’s central insight was into the processes of institutionalisation and professionalisation in society and the way this contributes to dehumanisation.  IMO since Deschooling was written the key features of Illich’s critique of the modern education system have intensified and arguably become even more problematic for individual freedom, social justice and equality, and addressing our most intractable and serious problems. 

With Illich’s critique in mind, in my opinion three of the most important educational developments since 1970 in have been (1) the increasing penetration of what we might call the ‘ideology of schooling’ into the universities with a concomitant assault on intellectual freedom and creativity; (2) an intensification of the qualification ‘arms race’ which seems to be resulting in an increasing average time spent in formal education *with diminishing returns*, increased dependence on experts, heightened social polarisation, and increased economic cost; and (3) a growing commodification of education which increases the utilitarian attitude towards education and destruction of alternative human values, and also forces increasing numbers of people into long-term debt peonage.  

To end off, here is another nice quote from Deschooling that is relevant to Chomsky’s article: 

“Alienation, in the traditional scheme, was a direct consequence of work’s becoming wage-labor which deprived man of the opportunity to create and be recreated. Now young people are prealienated by schools that isolate them while they pretend to be both producers and consumers of their own knowledge, which is conceived of as a commodity put on the market in school. School makes alienation preparatory to life, thus depriving education of reality and work of creativity. School prepares for the alienating institutionalization of life by teaching the need to be taught. Once this lesson is learned, people lose their incentive to grow in independence; they no longer find relatedness attractive, and close themselves off to the surprises which life offers when it is not predetermined by institutional definition. And school directly or indirectly employs a major portion of the population. School either keeps people for life or makes sure that they will fit into some institution.”

But what though about those who haven’t been fitted into this machine ... or don’t want to anymore? What is the current Left’s answer to this nascent crisis and this critique? 

By Paul Davis, on 03 January 2013 - 19:47 |

@Michael Moser: from the very wikipedia article you referenced:

“Hardin’s essay has been widely criticized. Public policy experts have argued that Hardin’s account of the breakdown of common grazing land was inaccurate, and that such commons were effectively managed to prevent overgrazing. Referring to Hardin’s crucial passage on page 1244, Partha Dasgupta, for example, comments that “it is difficult to find a passage of comparable length and fame that contains so many errors as the one quoted.”

The “tragedy of the commons” is an appealingly simple idea that turns out to be almost completely wrong, and demonstrates a failure to understand the complexities of social organization, especially those involving conventions and techniques disfavored either by the present or a particular writer.

By Paul Davis, on 03 January 2013 - 19:53 |

What really puzzles me in Chomsky’s view of the world (which I largely agree with) is his continued apparent insistence that there are no fuzzy boundaries between management and ownership which complicate the realization “‘Well why are we sitting here? Let’s run the place”. Making a case that capitalistic ownership of production is counterproductive, immoral, unsustainable, etc. etc is one thing (and has been done by many, including Chomsky). But “running the place” is very different, and I never get the sense that Chomsky recognizes the notion that the people with the skills and personal disposition to manage business enterprises are caught in a strange gray zone between owners and workers. When I was 20, it was easy to see the stark divide between owners and workers, but 29 years later, what I tend to notice is all the gray, and sometimes I wish that Chomsky would identify that too.

By Neil, on 05 January 2013 - 14:31 |

There are two things I find sad regarding this article - one, that - with slight exception - we respondents (and I include myself) seem incapable of having a useful debate on this topic - instead mostly each going off in separate disconnected directions not even approaching a useful positive conclusion; and secondly, that most of the commentary that it has generated  has occurred on Crooked Timber where it was cross posted.  Although Crooked Timber  admittedly focuses on some interesting subjects - the reason I occasionally look at it - I often find it extremely pretentious, covertly liberal, and stuffed with idle poseurs.  I hope at least that cross-posting this piece there might encourage some regualar readers of Crooked Timber to vist (and comment on) this website.

By Ojala Mwalimu, on 27 June 2013 - 20:25 |

as a classroom teacher and a harborer of intense meta-cognative memories and social observations from the student’s seat as a child, I am appreciative of Chomsky’s work in that its helps to give language to feelings and experiences often unexpressed externally.  there is tangible, often violently articulated frustration among youth with this schooling system.  it’s written on their faces, its written on their blank homework, its written on their often conscientious objection and ‘refusal to learn’ cards called i’m not going to school and when I do i’m not really there because you don’t see me anyway.     

All comments are moderated, and should be respectful of other voices in the discussion. Comments may be edited or deleted at the moderator's discretion.


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?