The Case of Noam Chomsky

Home , Deterring Democracy, South End Press

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Werklund School of Education Werklund School of Education Research & Publications

2016 In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky

Fisher, R. M.

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Fisher, R. M. (2016). In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky (Technical Paper No.58). Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110023 Report

Unless otherwise indicated, this material is protected by copyright and has been made available with authorization from the copyright owner. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 58

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky

R. Michael Fisher

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher/author. No permission is necessary in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, or other educational or research purposes. For information and permission address correspond- ence to:

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 507 S. James St., Carbondale, IL 62901

Contact author(s):

[email protected] First Edition 2016

Cover and layout by R. Michael Fisher ISOF Logo (original 1989) designed by RMF

Printed in USA

The In Search of Fearlessness Institute is dedicated to research and publishing on fear, fearlessness and emotions and motiva- tional forces, in general, as well as critical reviews of such works. Preference is given to works with an integral theoretical perspective.

2 3

In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky

- R. Michael Fisher,1 Ph.D.

Technical Paper No. 58

Abstract

The primary focus on fear, its nature and role, for a new philosophy for the 21st century, has been dubbed “philosophy of fearism” by Desh Subba and complemented by R. Michael Fisher in recent years. While still in its infan- cy as a social and pragmatic philosophy to counter the increasing danger of an Extreme Fear Age (Subba), already there have been some initial challenges arising to its merits. This paper looks at the evidence for this challenge and speculates what to expect in the near future. Dr. Noam Chomsky’s work on fear and terror(ism) is brought to the foreground of a fearanalysis by the author. The attempt is to show how Chomsky’s writing and teaching, one of the most powerful political public intellectuals in the West and beyond, is supportive to the premises upon which a philosophy of fearism is based. The author, a promoter of fearism, while making a credible case of implicit allyship with Chomsky, leaves spacious room in this speculative work for Chomsky himself to potentially reject the notion of fearism.

INTRODUCTION

This paper comes about on the heels of the newly released book, Philoso- phy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (Fisher & Subba, 2016), which I spent a longtime crafting how Desh Subba’s work from a more Eastern perspective could integrate with my own work from a more Western perspective. Many years ago, Subba in 1999, and myself in 1997, inde- pendently thought up the term “fearism” to describe what we were both interested in—which in its simplest form, is to consciously locate fear in the

1 Fisher is co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) of which archives can be found at http://www.feareducation.com (click on "Pro- jects"). He is also founder of the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education (http://csiie.org), and is Department Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. He is an independent scholar, public intellectual and pedagogue, author, consultant, researcher, coach, artist and Principal of his own company (http://loveandfearsolutions.com). He can be reached at: [email protected]

3 4 center of what shapes human motivations, emotional life, relationships and much of how we structure social life from families to institutions to nations and the world. Subba (2014) say it well: “[Fear] It’s size is not smaller than the sky. We cannot go beyond it” (p. 15). Although we took somewhat different paths to explicate our notions of fearism or what Subba calls a “fearist perspective” on life, we found we had a good deal of agreement to forge our work and build this new philosophy. We invite others to join us on that mission.

Our written work and teaching on fearism includes many of the problemat- ics of defining “fear” and how to know fear with what methodologies, and the contradictions in when we perceive fear is positive and negative. This paper will not repeat that summative body of knowledge we have already published on. Yet it is important to clarify, at least, the most basic ad- vantage of a philosophy of fearism and a fearist perspective: which, is to reduce the degree, the kinds, and the toxicity of fear. We want people to be more aware of fear’s presence and its dynamics in our lives. Fear and humans have an intimate and inseparable existence. Thus, we wish to help all humans to learn to manage fear better from having better knowledge on the topic. We obviously are not the only one’s writing books on fear with the aim of helping people manage fear better by being less afraid of it (and themselves when they are fearful). At some level, we are all trying to help by constructing fear in a more positive light than in the past when it was seen as only negative.1

However, arguably, our approach turns out to be substantially different. The last minimal (yet important) part of explaining the meaning of and definition of a philosophy of fearism, is to point out that our experience shows that it is not so much a problem of how influential fear is in our lives, it is rather the problem that people are avoiding talking about how this is so— that is, they do not systematically inquire into the topic enough. It is like fear itself as a conversation topic in society has become a taboo. Subba confirms this from his Eastern perspective, and I from a Western perspective. Also, we are not the only ones to have seen this latter problem, which is a greater (if not “wicked”) problem2 because it inhibits us learning more about fear for our benefit in the long run. Thus, myself, as a professional educator, spend most of my research in the field of Education, because that is one place that has to begin talking about fear a whole lot more than it does. Recently, Keegan (2015), after studying for decades the psychology of fear in organizations and the workplace especially, concluded with the same finding:

Fear is rife throughout many contemporary organizations, both in the private and public sectors [worldwide], yet fear is a taboo subject. In some organizations voicing fear is tantamount to admitting weakness, ineptitude, lack of stamina and inadequacy. Fear may be all-pervasive

4 5

but never spoken. In this context, showing fear is arguably the worst mistake an employee new to the organization can make. Is this why there is so little mention of fear in mainstream organizational literature? (pp. 42-43) [bold added for emphasis]

For two decades or more I have argued there are great contradictions in Western society (at least) regarding whether we should be afraid, or not be afraid. I argued the entire W. religious cosmology coming out of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) teach, more or less, don’t be afraid of anything but always be afraid of god or some gods, authorities, etc. (Fisher, 2010, p. 109).

The taboo of talking about the topic fear is rife—and, arguably, it is a dynamic of fear itself running away from knowing itself (i.e., the topic fear). And fear/self are interlinked, so we are, as Alan Watts used to say, most afraid of the taboo of knowing ourselves.3 Furedi (2006), an astute sociolo- gist in the UK, came to a similar conclusion as a critic of misanthropy that has insidiously grown in the W. and its accompanying culture of fear (p. xi).4 Fearism-t is an ideology designed to keep us both ignore-ant and arrogant regarding fear (and ‘fear’5). At least, that is one explanation (theory) I have put forth in my own versions of a philosophy of fearism and philosophy of fearlessness. I’ll leave that topic for another time, and you can read any of my other works to find more on that theory I call “fearism” (that is, toxic fearism = fearism-t) (see Chapter 4 in Fisher and Subba, 2016).

Rather, I wish to move forward to an emerging problem that any philosophy of fearism and its advocates have to deal with, and that is the ‘backlash’ of resistance to the name and concept fearism. To be clear, we are also not the only ones to have used this term (see Fisher & Subba, 2016). Obvious- ly, we both, informally, have already encountered some conflict from others who think the term is silly, too strange, and/or not necessary. Some schol- ars from the field of Terrorist Studies, like Colarik (2006, p. xiv), are beginning to question the damage that the term and its promoters may be having on the clarity and understanding of terrorism.

For some it sounds too somber or “negative” and perhaps it promotes a pessimistic way to look at the major driving force of human existence. Many prefer to see the world through a lovist perspective. These definitely are worldviews that clash, as I have documented elsewhere (Fisher, 2015). We are sympathetic with this initial reaction. We think people will mostly change their minds on that initial resistance when they read more of what it actually is, than what the name/label sounds like. It will take a shifting from our common perspectives that we learned, often as habits, to adopt a fearist perspective that will actually be experienced as a “positive” movement and prove useful. Of course, we offer no guarantees of such a shift for everyone who encounters our work.

5 6

The focus of this exploratory, and incomplete, paper is to bring forward somewhat the growing resistance, and its potential to expand. The purpose is to catch that resistance, not ignore it, and perhaps re-frame and clarify our position in regard to the critique of “fearism.” However, the majority of this paper by far, is about my attempt to do a fearanalysis on the work of Dr. Noam Chomsky, an internationally known American public intellectual. I hypothesize that upon close examination of Chomsky’s writing on fear and terror since the late 1980s until today, there is a case to be made that Chomsky is (and would become) a supporter of fearism as a term and concept. Thus, this paper is speculative in that regard. Someday, perhaps Chomsky will share his views on this paper and add that empirical element to support and/or negate my hypothesis.

MY BACKGROUND WITH NOAM CHOMSKY’S WORK

Many articles, books, blogs, and videos have been created (positively and negatively) commenting on the political writing of Dr. Noam Chomsky (age 80+), emeritus professor of linguistics at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A quick search on the Internet will give you lots to read about him if you don’t already know, as will a Wikipedia search. Ac- cording to Robert Fisk, “Noam Chomsky, [is] America’s foremost moral philosopher”6 and Lokendrajit (2013) considers Chomsky to “represent [the] conscience of the century” (p. ix). To put it simply, Chomsky is an academic with a strong history of social activism in the fight for justice; and is one of the most influential political and moral critics of American elites and American media-driven society today. His influence on my work has been more implicit in the background.

Below, I reflect briefly on my intellectual history with his work beginning in the late 1990s. Before I do that, let me reiterate my goal: to position Chom- sky and his work within a framework that aligns with a philosophy of fearism (and a fearist perspective), even though he himself has not used that term, and only recently has come across it through my initiative to send him information.7 Before attending graduate school I had written lots about fear and fearlessness, but little about the “culture of fear” or “culture of terrorism” (the latter, a term Chomsky seems to have coined first in the late 1980s and is today having some choice-use by others8). I do not recall in those earlier years of my work on fear seeing or hearing about Chomsky. In grad school he was definitely part of the social activist discourse and I cited (in Fisher, 1998/2012) his “Introduction: The Culture of Fear” (Chom- sky, 1996) in a book on genocidal democracy in Colombia. This was not the first time I had seen a scholar take up the “culture of fear” with such a strong political critique that turned part of the cause of such horrid condi-

6 7 tions in Colombia to politics in America; but it was an impactful piece of writing.

A few years later (Fisher, 2000) in my masters thesis in adult education, that examined the notion of “conflict” in education, I cited Chomsky’s (1988) book “The Culture of Terrorism” and did also three years later (Fisher, 2003) in my dissertation, along with Chomsky (2001, 2001a) as all relevant, more or less, to my doctoral study of the culture of fear phenome- non and especially its impact on leadership in the field of Education. Again, I had not read into these works extensively but more glanced at them and felt they were important to document as part of what I called the critics of the culture of fear in a later study (Fisher, 2004). In this latter work of a massive search of the interdisciplinary literature that used the term “culture of fear,” I discussed the differences of the various contemporary critics and concluded that: “If there is one thing all the writers on the culture of fear could agree on, it would likely be that: FEAR is ‘commodity,’ ‘capital,’ ‘power’ (p. 41). I think Chomsky would agree; albeit, we could debate the nu- ance of how best to define fear and culture of fear.

The economic, cultural and political context for researching and understanding fear was the growing interest with these academics and myself, among others. We were attempting to get beyond the psychologization and individualization framework for understanding fear that had dominated the knowledge on fear for too long. In Figure 5 (reproduced below) from Fisher (2004), I was attempting to roughly classify the diversity of culture of fear critics into categories of influence. In retrospective, I see that I missed including Chomsky with the “Popularizing ‘Big Three’ of Furedi, Glassner, Giroux, 1997-2003”—today, I would make that the ‘Big Four’ with Chomsky in that list, and interestingly enough Chomsky’s use of “culture of fear” construct per se was one year earlier than Furedi’s (1997) book on the topic. That’s worth recording, and Chomsky’s The Culture of Terrorism book is 1988, not that we could say Chomsky was all that popular back then, relative to the mid-1990s onward.

7 8

Figure 5 (Fisher, 2004, p. 41)

The points of emphasis I intend in this historical brief review, as substan- tive to potentially support my hypothesis (stated earlier) are:

(1) I underestimated the study and writing Chomsky had done relevant to my own study of the “culture of fear” (and, note, at this time of my graduate work, I had not been using the term “fearism” but “culture of fear” as the primary construct in order to better understand a wider and deeper interdisciplinary conceptualization of fear and fear management/education (FME); today, I would not separate a conceptualization of “fearism” from “culture of fear”

(2) I had not studied “terror” or “terrorism” per se, but was well aware of that literature; for pragmatic reasons I kept to the study of “fear” itself (not focusing on fears); as I recall, Chomsky’s (1996) essay

8 9

on “culture of fear” was not very descriptive or rich in exploring the nature and role of fear theoretically, but was more about his politic- critiques of terrorizing and so it never held a big impact on me at the time (I was more profoundly impacted by Corradi et al. (1992) and their study of state terrorism in Latin America, because they gave “fear” a rich vocabulary per se; which, I believe remains in comparable as a great interdisciplinary work on the “culture of fear”)

(3) My focus on reading everything on “fear” and “culture of fear” or “climate of fear” or “fear mongering” was problematic in retrospect because it skewed my work to largely ignore the people writing about “terror” or “terrorism” in an economic, political, cultural way (including Chomsky’s massive amount of study and writing)—in retrospect, I ought to have picked up that a good deal of Chomsky’s writing was investigating and explicating the fine-tuned aspects of the dynamics of a “culture of fear” (he would label, in 1988 at least, as a “culture of terrorism” in a poignant way that no one else had done—and, to this day, I admit I have not read in any depth into Chomsky’s work—the only thing missing, was that Chomsky did not join with the other critics of the culture of fear, and they often do not cite Chomsky (and visa versa)—Chomsky was kind of off on his own ‘wing’ (within a different genre of scholarship and activism) so to speak with his critique of the culture of fear, but he was calling it a lot of different things

(4) I repeat: today, I would not separate a conceptualization of “fearism” from “culture of fear” and, I would include “culture of terror” and/or “culture of terrorism” – all of which begs the question if there is acceptance the term “terrorism” why is there not acceptance of the term “fearism”? (this generalized query is a topic

beyond the scope of this paper but something I will comment on later)

The logic of my hypothesis (or reasonable argument) runs something like this: because Chomsky was (and still is) writing about the various kinds of terrorism, and “culture of terrorism,” (by different names), he is inevitably writing about the “culture of fear” (and is a critic of it), he is one of the culture of fear critics. As such, he ought to be located (as in Table 5) amongst them—which is a task that would require a lot more research to do proper- ly, especially because Table 5 was put together over 13 years ago and a good deal of new critics of the culture of fear have joined the ranks.

At this point, I include Figure 6 from Fisher (2004, p.47), showing the dynamics of a “culture of fear” (could also be called other names), of which

9 10

Chomsky is very interested in this dynamic (especially, in “political violence” aspects)—in most all his political writings.

Since 2004, I have cited Chomsky’s work now and then; for example, in my opus work (Fisher, 2010) on a theory of fear management through studying “fearlessness teachings” around the world through time and across cultures, I cited Chomsky on four pages, which I want to examine so I will re- cite my text:

p. xxx- “Cesca, like Huffington and so many others, especially in America [re: reacting to the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections], are fed up with the mis- use of fear in politics. If you have not noticed, social critics (Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux, to name only three) from diverse backgrounds have emerged with a vengeance after the ‘War on Terror’ was declared by Presi- dent G. W. Bush Jr. and his US administration in late 2001. The critics have all condemned government and corporate [main stream media] agendas based on fear [mongering]. It is a tip of the iceberg in terms of the larger Fear

10 11

Problem humanity is being brought to face.... When post-9/11 critics have written so much about terrorism, I write about fearism (defined in Chapter Two). When ‘culture of fear’ critics (like Cesca, Chomsky, Barry Glassner, Frank Furedi and others) with their rational columns of statistics and argu- ments, write about how people are afraid of the wrong things and ought not to be, I write about how fear within a context of fearism is not so simple to understand and alleviate.”9

I indicate above my appreciation of the critics of the culture of fear (which I have included Chomsky by this date of 2010 in contrast to my earlier writing and classifying the critics)—who, really went after the “War on Terror” dynamics perpetuated in America after 9/11 especially (although, arguably, this ‘war on terror’ of some less dramatic proportion was instigated the moment Regan was elected in 1981—a point of criticism made by Chomsky in The Culture of Terrorism (1988), revised in 2015, p. 190). I also indicate my critique of the critics of the culture of fear (including Chomsky). Note, I refer to fearism in this quote above as the implicit or more invisible dimension or underbelly of terrorism. The latter, is the more explicate and spectacular form of fearism, much to my dismay, that gets all the research and press coverage, etc. I’ll come back to this point later. Al- so, in Fisher and Subba (2016) I make a distinction between fearism and fearism-t (= toxic form). But in my 2010 writing I had not made that distinction because I had not come across Subba’s work on a philosophy of fearism. So, all references in 2010 (and my pre-2014 writing) refer to fearism without the ‘t’ but in fact are referring to the toxic ideological form (e.g., see development of this theoretical distinction in Fisher, 2014). Next quote,

p. xxxi- “When I first started tracking the ‘interconnected threads’ of the Fear Problem in societies, or what many have called the growing ‘culture of fear’ (a la Chomsky, Juan Corradi et al., Furedi, Glassner, etc.), it was sociologists for the most part who were studying this (along with some political scientists, anthropologists, and urban/architectural theorists). Most of that focus on the historical, economic, cultural and political dimensions of fear in society began around 1983.... A new academic field called ‘sociophobics’ arose...”.

Note, that Fear Problem is an umbrella concept I created to include the culture of fear critics, and those writing about terrorism. The culture of fear concept is a fear problem, and sociophobics was a term that came and went; but the point being that there are many names for the Fear Problem. Chomsky is definitely dealing with the Fear Problem, even if he doesn’t identify it that way, nor does he cite my work.

p. 176- [paraphrasing] I listed Noam Chomsky, with about 50 other “teachers” who have both influenced me and whom I would classify as non-declared catalytic agents promoting what I call the “Fearlessness Movement” and “(R)evolution.”

11 12

By 2010 in my career, as a fearologist, Chomsky was in my heart and mind as an important figure, whom I felt his emancipatory analysis and recom- mendations, more or less, aligned with my own and others of the Fearless- ness Movement (which, included some of the culture of fear critics; albeit, I did leave out a few of them in this list for some reason). This quote and location of Noam Chomsky puts an interesting ‘spin’ on my fearanalysis10 below—specifically, I want to know what Chomsky says about fearlessness (in one or more of its many forms).

The fourth quote from my 2010 book is one that is part (albeit, a very minor part) of the critical integral fearanalysis I did of several contemporary authors who wrote a lot about the Fear Problem (and culture of fear). This excerpt comes from the fearanalysis of the popular author and activist Frances Moore Lappé.

p. 263- “... my research interest in her FME [fear management/education] discourse came with her 2004 book (with Jeffrey Perkins) entitled You Have the Power: Choosing Courage in a Culture of Fear. Like Noam Chomsky, Henry A. Giroux, and some other political activist/educators, ‘culture of fear’ was directly fronted in the book [title]. What did they say about it?”

I did not attempt a fearanalysis of Chomsky’s (1996) essay where “Culture of Fear” was the subtitle of the chapter. The point of interest here is that I respect the very titling by Chomsky, Giroux and a few others by giving “culture of fear” its due exposure and importance. It also shows, once again, I locate Chomsky comfortably amongst the culture of fear critics. And it im- plies I would, if given the opportunity, critique Chomsky’s work just like I would Giroux, Lappé and others. Reality was, I had not studied Chomsky’s work. The following preliminary fearanalysis is based on my first effort to study the discourse of Chomsky related to fear, fearlessness, etc.

The last historical note for this paper is to say that in the two major books on philosophy of fearism published in English so far (i.e., Subba, 2014; Fisher & Subba, 2016) one will find no citation of Chomsky’s work. This could be a piece of evidence raised against my hypothesis stated in this technical paper. However, I will attempt to show it is an interesting omission but not that important—more so, it is merely an unfortunate oversight in those two texts, especially in Fisher & Subba (2016).

BRIEF FEARANALYSIS OF CHOMSKY’S WRITING

Among many emancipatory claims, a philosophy of fearism posits the op- timistic and positive possibility of not only individuals perceiving, thinking and behaving in fearlessness11 but groups and organizations, even states or nations could do so. It also posits that the next stage of human evolution (if we make it through the Age of Extreme Fear we are in now) is a Fear- less Age.12 With all the difficulties of defining these terms, fear, fearless,

12 13 etc., the general premise is that some fear is positive and some is negative to human development. A philosophy of fearism is not out to eliminate all fear but to improve how fear is managed and to also reduce the excess fear that causes unnecessary suffering and loss of health and freedom. The goal is a just society in harmony with the world. Again, these are broad generalizations that Noam Chomsky, from what I have learned about his ideas and work, would quite agree with in principle, if not in all the details. Yet, this still does not make a good case that Chomsky supports fearism as a new, legitimate, and ‘better’ philosophy than most that we have now, especially in terms of when it comes to the human relationship with fear.

So, to build a stronger case, I will cite several aspects of Chomsky’s writing (realizing this is always a limited way to interpret any author). I begin with his view toward “fearlessness” and “fearless.” Note, I have not chosen to research what he has written about bravery, boldness, courage, and so forth—the more common expressions of how people may experience fear and productively use it to positive ends or move beyond it as a motivator. See Fisher (2010) for a thorough investigation of these common types or “forms of fearlessness.” My intention is to focus on less commonly used or acceptable terms—especially, in the discourses of the West. I am looking for something with a stronger, radical and maverick-like meaning and intention than bravery, or courageous. Chomsky is talked about by many as a rebel,13 a pariah, dissident, a non-conformist, and as exemplar of the archetype of the “maverick.” Hartwell & Chen (2012) have quoted Chomsky for the opening to their archetype of the Maverick:

The Maverick is the definition of audacity, demonstrating a fearless willingness to plunge into the unknown and different.... [Strengths:] Independence, nonconformity, originality, quirkiness, fearlessness. (p. 64)

This illustrates the words “fearlessness” and “fearless” are referring to something a good deal more than mere courageous—they are more edgy, extreme, or radical. I think this is exactly a good descriptor for Chomsky, but Hartwell & Chen left out “ethical” in their list. This is Chomsky the maverick. To repeat: According to Robert Fisk (2006), “Noam Chomsky, [is] America’s foremost moral philosopher” and Lokendrajit (2013) considers Chomsky to “represent [the] conscience of the century” (p. ix).

So what has Chomsky written, and what have others written about Chom- sky, using these more extreme terms related to fear?

First, Chomsky’s books (multitudes of them for over 30 years), seem to not use “fearlessness” at all.14 And the couple of times he used “fearless” were only because he was quoting other authors who used the term (in a positive way).15 There’s no explicit indicator I can see that Chomsky disagrees

13 14 with uses of the term or that he denies such is a reality of experience de- marcating it from courageousness; but more it seems he’s not attracted to it (for some reasons unknown to me; other than, they are not familiar terms in Western political or common discourse; or, I mean they used to not be16—see below). This finding made me curious. Then when I looked at who had written about Chomsky and his work using these extreme terms, there were many, too many to document here. I cite a couple examples:

[from his publisher Allen & Unwin:17] “Fearless and outspoken as always Chomsky uses his impeccable knowledge of United States foreign policy ... to provide a wide ranging analysis of the terrorist attacks and aftermath of September 11”; [and on the back cover by New Press:] “On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky’s fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power”; [from a quote of a Left wing commen- tator Daniel Abraham son:] “Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth.”18 [bold added for emphasis]

Only “fearless” was assigned to Chomsky himself and his work, not “fearlessness.” Again, I’m curious about that. Is it possible that Chomsky, with humility, avoids words that may come across to his readership as arrogant and hyperbolic, or simply untrue, depending how one defines “fearless,” for example? He may not at all see himself this way, especially compared to some of the heroes he writes about amongst the oppressed rebel fighters, etc. However, he also has not to my knowledge explicitly challenged these people who write such extreme expletives about him and his work. Does he avoid extreme adjectives related to fear to label people? You may recall in the earlier section above that I had written (Fisher, 2010) that Noam Chomsky belongs to the Fearlessness Movement and (R)evolution. I as- sure you, there is only a rare a person on the planet that would similarly have made this direct linkage, or used the language (and constructs) that I have in Fisher (2010).

Secondly, if terms like “fearlessness” or “fearless,” which (at a minimum) represent some form of overcoming and undermining of excessive use and abuse of fear (and, the culture of fear, or culture of terrorism), are not used by Chomsky, are there others very similar? I thought to document what he then may write using “without fear.”19 A good deal of modern W. legal, political, and moral history (and discourse) could be written around the notion of making judgments (e.g., police, or judges) “without fear or favor.” The goal is to not let emotions, especially bias, prejudice and such that are driven arguably by fear (and/or its cousins)—get in the way of level-headed clarity, reason, rational argumentation, facts, and ‘good’ judgment (or laws). Ethics and morality (justice), like politics, and sociality are inter- twined with how we understand and manage fear. Fearism also makes this point of the central role of fear in shaping (more or less) nearly every important activity of human beings. Note, the late great political leader Ma-

14 15 hatma Gandhi made “fear” and “fearlessness” critical concepts in his liberation movement and fight for justice. Gandhi once said, “God is fearlessness.”20 But that’s all this is a much larger topic beyond the scope of this paper.

What has Chomsky written re: “without fear”? It turns out, a good deal. It is by far his more common expression in relation to fear and its absence or overcoming it (again, recall that I did not study his use of terms bravery or courage). Here are a few examples, all which have some similar but dis- tinct connotations for Chomsky:

[re: critique of Regan Administration’s attempt to eliminate international terrorism] “The Regan Public Relations system proceeded at once to construct a series of appropriate demons [enemies to America]: Qaddafi, the PLO, the Sandinistas.... [for Regan] They can be attacked by us or our allies without fear that we will suffer in the process...”. (Chomsky, 1988/2015, p. 190)

“One important achievement of the new imperial age is that it further margin- alizes the general population, clearing the way to uplifting rhetoric about democratic ideals without fear that the wrong people might take it seriously. The global rulers can now operate with fewer restraints... and less interference from the rabble...” (Chomsky, 2015a, p. 88)

“The failure of the argument [in question] does not lie in the identification of the ‘power drive’ as the cause of imperialist intervention; the premise is suffi- ciently vague so that we can grant it to be true without fear or refutation.” (Chomsky, 2010, p. 249)

[re: relations with Egypt] “... which permitted Israel to concentrate its military forces in the north without fear of military retaliation by the Arab states.” (Chomsky, 2015b, p. 226)

“While the opposition in Nicaragua has suffered severe harassment during the U. S. war against Nicaragua, it can at least function without fear of being slaughtered. But as the record of the 1980s clearly shows, this is not likely to be the case in El Salvador” (Chomsky, 1988/2015, p. 134)

“The other Indonesia includes the vast majority of people, who would join the protest if they were able to learn the truth and react without fear—as we can, with no difficulty at all” (Chomsky, 2015c, p. 225)

“The US of course has no intention of adhering to the judgment of the World Court.... The eyes of the public are focused on the Gulf [War], but the state has many busy hands, and the present moment is an opportune one to pur- sue its goals without fear of exposure (minimal at best)” (Chomsky, 2004, p. 85)

Chomsky’s use of this term “without fear” is often a negative one—a common connotation, probably not literal in the sense of a total absence of fear

15 16 in the situations he writes about; but there is (according to his view) a relative lack of fear. Implicitly, (common in many political writers) there is a sense that “without fear” (or lack of sufficient fear) shown by any government that is doing illegal, unjust and unethical things that cause others to suffer, is not a good thing. It is unethical itself to be without sufficient fear because fear would at least be some constraint to horrible and unjust acts. The is typical W. moral values and thinking in contrast to the E.21 Thus, Chomsky carries a discourse on fear and without fear that is common with most activists. They want their government (or virtually any authority with differential and dominating power) to be fearful (to some degree) of the people, of the rabble, of the reactions by the ‘powerless’ to their unethical, unjust or illegal actions.

Political writers often debate back and forth about the role of fear, and for some the Machiavellian leadership principle of “better to be feared than loved” is also invoked to understand political and social dynamics. Chom- sky would likely eschew, in principle, this Machiavellian dictum. Also we see in Chomsky’s writing a positive attribution to a state of being “without fear” but it is attributed only to the oppressed. There is not space to go into this all much more deeply for this initial paper. But I do want to look at a similar term “freedom from fear” that also appears, rarely, in Chomsky’s writing. To reiterate the point of close analysis here, I want to see what values, beliefs, discourses are operating in Chomsky’s general philosophy and stance in politics and how that may reflect his very view of human nature, the human condition and human potential. The terms “fearlessness,” “fearless,” “without fear,” and “freedom from fear” are notions I like to sample in a quick fearanalysis to see where a writer comes from in terms of their discourse toward fear itself and concomitantly how they teach fear management. Also, below, I’ll cite Chomsky’s writing as it directly utilizes terms like “fear,” and “terror.”

As early as the mid-1990s, it was recognized by observers that Chomsky both embraced and simultaneously critiqued the “Four Freedoms” (one of which is “freedom from fear”) that Franklin Roosevelt (and Eleanor Roose- velt) spear-headed to eventually have them located in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Haley and Lunsford (1994) remarked that Chomsky wished to add (sarcastically) a fifth “freedom to rob and exploit” (p. 176); because he saw some dominant countries (e.g., the USA) use the rhetoric of “Four Freedoms” but disregard it in practice when it was conven- ient for them to do so “with little notice or concern” (Chomsky, 1988/2015, p. xx).22 Other than this reference, Chomsky does not use “freedom from fear” in his books. I then asked how does Chomsky use “fear of freedom” (a la Erich Fromm). He doesn’t use it, though I found the psychoanalyst C. G. Jung (2014) discussing this insight into Fromm’s work by starting off that text with a quote from Chomsky: “Erich Fromm speaks with wisdom, com- passion, learning and insight into the problems of individuals trapped in a social world that is needlessly cruel and hostile” (p. 200). I believe Chom-

16 17 sky would not disagree that the social world has become excessively anx- ious, fearful and terrorized and it has reduced the quality of life on this planet. Fear and cruelty cannot be unlinked. And, likewise, the necessary “freedom from fear” is set in mirror-reflection with the dilemma (and dialec- tic) of people’s enormous “fear of freedom.” I think the entire political discourses of our times ought to pivot on that existential dilemma. However, Subba and I argue that existential philosophy (like all philosophies) is inadequate. Today, we need a new philosophy of fearism, to really deconstruct that dilemma adequately and reconstruct a society that is no longer willing to accept a fear-based architecture (a normalizing of fear and terror) that rests on that dilemma. I wonder what Chomsky would say to that?

Thirdly, how does Chomsky use “fear” and “terror” and in what context of use ought we be most concerned with in a preliminary fearanalysis? The sociopolitical and historical cultural context of most importance in understanding “fear” and “terror” today has to be the current dominating “culture of fear” context. I have argued in all my writing for decades that this context means everything, if we are to truly get a better handle on understanding and managing fear now and in the future. There are many others who share my view (albeit, most not as radically). I think the geopolitical emotional analysis of Moïsi (2009) is a classic indicator that we cannot avoid looking at the context of fear, or culture of fear, when we attempt to try to understand the shaping forces of global politics in a postmodern era.

Chomsky rarely uses “culture of fear,” “climate of fear” (more so) and “culture of terrorism” and “culture of terror” (the most)—albeit, all these terms he actually doesn’t use very often per se. Fortunately, he well under- stands these greater contexts and shaping forces from the individual level to the communal level, micro to macro. However, in my view, he does not (to my knowledge) engage the vast literature and studies of “culture of fear” critics in his own work. I am not sure why, other than he has his own angle on describing and critiquing the culture of fear, and more so the culture of terror(ism), that is more populist than academic and theoretical. He’s a practical realist in his activist analysis and is a public intellectual in that sense.

Whether it is “culture of fear” (Chomsky, 1992,23 199624) or “climate of fear” (Chomsky, 1992; Chomsky and Herman, 2011, 2014), it is obvious he does not think these are a good state of affairs for anyone. His preferred term is “culture of terrorism” (of which he is the originator of that term, from what I can tell). His 1988 book The Culture of Terrorism is by all my analyses, a documentation of some fundamental aspects of what most would call a “culture of fear” (and, it is my preference). Propaganda, terrorizing the people to keep them passive, and so on, characterize this type of culture and organizational (political) dynamic. I am left wondering why Chomsky prefers “culture of terrorism” or “culture of terror” labels (constructs) in his writ-

17 18 ing, while leaving behind the “culture of fear” label to his late 1996 one chapter—even that latter work was not directly an engagement with fear or “culture of fear” as political constructs per se. Again, he is more interested in its practical causes and effects than the problem of knowing fear (‘fear’) and reconstructing and reimagining a new 21st century way of managing fear (‘fear’) in radically new ways.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A major stimulus for this paper is what I perceive is a need for a defense of “fearism” in relation to a philosophy of fearism in general, but more specifically in relation to terrorism discourses that dominate today. Colarik (2006) expresses this in a way that ought to be taken seriously:

... the term ‘terrorism’ has been hijacked by self-interests seeking an expan- sion of their respective controls and power base by turning this term into a form of fearism. This book seeks to establish cyber terrorism as it is applied to the global information infrastructure and its use by terrorists for the creation of violence and not just fear. (p. xiv)

Although in reading this passage by Colarik and the text around it, he gives no more information of whom these hijackers are. We are left guessing. He never uses the term fearism again in his book. He wants to keep terrorism clean and separate from calls for fearism. This is a rather false dichotomy in the first place, but my focus is not to critique Colarik (or others who interpret fearism like him).

I want to point out merely what is starting to happen. It comes down to a very relevant tension point with Chomsky’s work and the philosophy of fearism. It comes down to how we think and construct notions of “terrorism” and “fearism” and how we think they are interrelated and complementary (as Subba and I would), or that they are in disharmony and one is per- ceived as a threat to the other (as Colarik is). My only suggestion at this point is that we all need to dialogue on this interplay, on the same table, with due respect to all discourses. What can we learn from each other? Yes, there will be defensiveness, as Colarik or myself will sometimes move into (as in this paper); yet, we need not be stuck in only a defensive mode. We can imagine collaboration as well as critique.

To write more obviously about “terror(ism),” as so much of Chomsky’s work does, places him in a more traditional academic discourse of Terrorism Studies, and political W. discourse in general. This keeps his work high on recognition as legitimate, of practical interest and on best-seller lists. I am not saying he doesn’t deserve to be on those lists or get that attention; but his pragmatic realism style, if you will, is not that radical regarding his knowledge and discourse on fear and its management (and abuses). He is

18 19 appealing to many, and the study of terror(ism) is a ‘big game’ territory of late. Arguably, it wasn’t so appealing earlier in his career. I do think he is somewhat of a leader in advancing Terrorism Studies but what do I know about that field and what they think of Chomsky? Rightly or wrongly, I doubt if Chomsky cares less what academics in that field think, nor what culture of fear critics think about his work. He’s primarily a populist leader in his political writing and in teaching about terror (and fear) and its worst side-affects on a global scale. Is he a good fear management educator? That’s a longer inquiry.

Obviously, the culture of fear underpins the more dramatic culture of terror—at least, as I see it. And both have the decidedly determinate pro- cesses of “fear mongering”25 going on. I’m not sure Chomsky sees it that way, but I think he would from doing this quick fearanalysis. My (rather gross) sense is that Chomsky focused in his books primarily on overt and covert political terrorism (including State terrorism and State-sanctioned terrorism), that is, he focused on the political and military social aspects of a “culture of fear” dynamic (see Figure 6) and less on the nuances of the “cultural” side of the “culture of fear” (see Figure 6), although he is a great critic of the role of media in this all.

As far as I am concerned, he may as well have written a book in 1988 (or anytime after) that was entitled The Culture of Fearism: Getting to the Roots of the Culture of Terrorism. Being pragmatic, he wouldn’t have likely gone far with the “fearism” title, and I can say that from experience of promoting fearism for some time in the West. Although, speculating, it is interesting to think: What if he did title his 1988 book with “fearism” as the roots of “terrorism”?

I appreciate what he has done, make no mistake about it. However, I was more attracted to reading Juan Corradi et al. (1992) and how they led the deep work on the roots of State Terror(ism), and resistance to it in Latin America, by examining fear—no, they never called it fearism back then. However, they focused first conference (as early as 1985) and interdisciplinary scholarship on examining the “culture of fear.” At the same time, I have reflected on Corradi’s (1992) chapter “Toward Societies Without Fear” and how he pragmatically, like Chomsky, might think such would be a good idea, yet, they have their reservations about any such utopia.

Neither Subba nor I see our new philosophy as utopian either. My point is, that terror(ism) and Terrorism Studies are not (or should not) be separate from fear(ism) and Fearism Studies. Unfortunately, the hegemony of Ter- rorism Studies and discourses on terror(ism) in the political landscape will long prevent fearism from getting a voice.

19 20

I believe that I have presented, through several threads in the paper, explicit and implicit, reasonable evidence that Chomsky has fundamentally been a critic of the “culture of fear”—and, to a lesser interpretive extension, he is one of the proponents of a liberation from excessive fear in this world. Both these are primary aims and contexts for the intervention of a philosophy of fearism in recent years (see Fisher and Subba, 2016). Logically, he ought to be a supporter of a philosophy of fearism to guide his own work (somewhat, somehow) and offer everyone another valuable angle into the injustice of this world as it confronts its roots in the human Fear Problem.

As for the differences between myself, as a philosopher-theorist (often), on fear and fearlessness, and Chomsky, as a realist practical person, on fear and terror(ism) and resistance to them—there are also similarities. I think there is going to be a time soon when “fearism” is not so odd or even ideal- istic as a construct and philosophy. I’ve often argued that fearism-t is an important construct to understand a good deal of the dynamics of the culture of fear and terror. I’m heartened to find a realist and practical person (internationally renowned and award-winning journalist), Linden MacIntyre (of CBC’s radio program “The Fifth Estate”), recently speaking on his tours about the necessity of not only talking about terrorism but also “the other side of the coin of terrorism... a sinister reality called ‘fearism’” (MacIntyre, 2015, p. 34).

Now, if those who are resistant to “fearism” and/or resistant to critics like Noam Chomsky—who, see him as one of a group of “dangerous profes- sors” (e.g., David Horowitz), this is something that also indicates where we are at in society as a whole. My research for over 27 years on the topic of fear and fearlessness, shows that there are contradictions and conflicts in how to best make meaning of fear and its role in our lives. I don’t expect this will disappear overnight. What I propose as a new “fear education” on the planet is just as controversial (or will be someday) as introducing cur- riculum on “sex education.” We are treading in the territories of major cultural taboos. I do expect the philosophy of fearism, with or without Chomsky ‘on board’ its development and promotion, will offer a credible avenue for thinking anew, and people of all political stripes are welcome to the table of that dialogue.

Feel free to contact me: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Babe, R. E. (2015). Wilbur Schramm and Noam Chomsky meet Harold Innis: Media, power, and democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Barsky, R. F. (2007). The Chomsky effect: A radical works beyond the Ivory Tower.

20 21

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2015). Culture of terrorism. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. [revised ed., originally published in1988]

Chomsky, N. (2015a). Year 501: The conquest continues. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

Chomsky, N. (2015b). Fateful triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. [re vised ed.]. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

Chomsky, N. (2015c). Powers and prospects: Reflections on nature and the social order. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

Chomsky, N. (2013). Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies. Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press.

Chomsky, N. (2010). American power and the new mandarins. ReadHowYouWant.com

Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rational thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (ed. by Barry Pateman) (2005). On Anarchism. Chico, CA: AK Press.

Chomsky, N. (2004). Letters from Lexington: Reflections on propaganda. London, UK: Pluto Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). 9-11. NY: Seven Stories Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001a) (interviews by David Barsimian). Propaganda and the public mind. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Chomsky, N. (1996). Introduction: The culture of fear. In J. S. J. Giraldo (Ed.), Colombia: The genocidal democracy (pp. 7-16). Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Chomsky, N. (1992). Deterring democracy. NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Chomsky, N. (1988). The culture of terrorism. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Chomsky, N., and Herman, E. S. (2014). The Washington connection and the Third World fascism: The political economy of human rights: Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

Chomsky, N., and Herman, E. S. (2011). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. [originally published in 1988] NY: Knopf Doubleday.

Clymer, J. A. (2003). America’s culture of terrorism: Violence, capitalism, and the written word. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Colarik, A. M. (2006). Cyberterrorism: Political and economic implication. Idea Group, Inc.

Corradi, J. E. (1992). Toward societies without fear. In J. E. Corradi, P. W. Fagen, and M. A. Garretón (Eds.), Fear at the edge: State terror and resistance in Latin America (pp. 267- 92). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Corradi, J. E., Fagen, P. W., and Garretón, M. A. (1992) (Eds.). Fear at the edge: State terror and resistance in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Fisher, R. M. (2015). Educating ourselves: Lovist or fearist perspective? Technical Paper No. 54. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

21 22

Fisher, R. M. (2014). Towards a theory of fearism. Technical Paper No. 51. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (2012). Fearanalysis: A first guidebook. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearless- ness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world’s fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Fisher, R. M. (2004). Capitalizing on fear: A baseline study on the culture of fear, for leaders. Minneapolis, MN: Intellectual Architects, Ltd.

Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the ‘Fear’ Matrix. Unpublished disser tation. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.

Fisher, R. M. (2000). Toward a ‘conflict’ pedagogy: A critical discourse analysis of ‘conflict’ in conflict management education. Unpublished masters thesis. Vancouver, BC: The Uni versity of British Columbia.

Fisher, R. M. (1998/2012). Culture of 'fear': Toxification of landscape-mindscape as meta- context for education in the 21st century. Technical Paper No. 7. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R.M. (1995). An introduction to defining 'fear'; A spectrum approach. Technical Paper No. 1. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

Fisk, R. (2006). Robert Fisk: United States of Israel? Independent, Apr. 26. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-united-states-of- israel-6102654.html

Furedi, F. (2006). Culture of fear revisited: Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. [4th ed.]. London: Continuum.

Furedi, F. (1997). Culture of fear: Risk and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.

Haley, M. C., and Lunsford, R. F. (1994). Noam Chomsky. Woodbridge, CN: Twayne Publishers.

Hartwell, M., and Chen, J. C. (2012). Archetypes in branding: A toolkit for creatives and strategists. How Books.

Heim, M. (2004). Theories of the gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on dãna. NY: Routledge.

Hibbets, M. (1999). Saving them from yourself: An inquiry into the South Asian gift of fearlessness. Journal of Religious Ethics, 27, 437-62.

Jung, C. G. (2014). On the nature of the psyche. NY: Routledge.

Keegan, S. M. (2015). The psychology of fear in organizations: How to transform anxiety into well-being, productivity and innovation. London: Kogan Page.

Kovalik, D. (2014). The culture of fear continues in Colombia. Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/24/the-death-squads-embassy-in-washington/

22 23

Lokendrjit, S. (2013). Who is a terrorist? WABA Publications.

MacIntyre, L. (2015). Voices on campus: Linden MacIntyre. Bridgewater Review, 34(1), 32- 34. Retrieved from http://vc.bridgew.edu/br_rev/vol34/iss1/11

Moïsi, D. (2009). The geopolitics of emotion: How cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping the world. NY: Doubleday.

Seshagri Rao, K. L. (1978). Mahatma Gandhi and comparative religion. India: Motilal Banarsidass.

Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism. Australia: Xlibris.

Watkins, A., and Wilber, K. (2015). Wicked and wise: How to solve the world’s toughest prob lems. Chatham Kent, UK: Urbane Publications.

Watts, A. (1989). The book: On the taboo against knowing who you are. NY: Vintage Books.

End Notes

1 I am a critic of any attempt at “the normalization of fear” that Frank Furedi (as one critic of the culture of fear) is also concerned (Furedi, 2006, p. xi). When fear is taken as a complex phenomena, I also have argued we have to be especially cautious to not merely fall into a reactive fear-positivism ideology and discourse that ‘swings’ too far in the other direction from the fear-negativism ideology and discourse. “I take a highly precautionary view of any positive-discourse regarding fear (‘fear’)”.... [one reason is] “The slow evolution of accu- mulating fear (‘fear’) is noteworthy [linked to trauma; and, this can hardly be cast as ‘positive’ at all]...” (Fisher, 2010, p. 97); see also pp. 100-02. 2 I am recently calling the Fear Problem a “wicked problem” in the sense of the general category of global problems; see Watkins and Wilber (2015). 3 See Watts (1989); also, see the epistemological problems of knowing fear that make up a significant part of a philosophy of fearism in Fisher and Subba (2016). 4 Re: in the culture of fear of the day, “Instead of playing the role of problem solvers, people are [constructed] as the problem. Misanthropy has gained unprecedented influence in Western societies. It is the fear of ourselves as human beings that underpins the normalization of fear in contemporary society” (Furedi, 2006, p. xi). 5 The (‘) marks on the term put it under deconstruction and reconstruction so that there is no one traditional or authoritarian meaning (or definition) that ought to be presumed as the one and only one. ‘Fear’ refers to a constructed “fear,” if you will (e.g., see Fisher, 1995) that is constantly morphing with time and environmental conditions. It is a complex ‘fear’ relative to those who are happy with a biopsychological definition of “fear” as simple. The latter totally dominates how we understand fear today and it is very problematic from a fearolo- gists (fearist) perspective. A philosophy of fearism includes and attempts to integrate in a meaningful way the simple and complex meanings of fear (‘fear’). Thus, a philosophy of fearism is inherently inter- and trans-disciplinary and thus, postmodern in approach.

23 24

6 See Frisk, R. (2006) @ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert- fisk-united-states-of-israel-6102654.html 7 He responded to my email in late Feb. 2016, with a positive note that indicated he thinks it timely to look at the human Fear Problem today, and he planned to have a look at the book material as well as an extra attached technical paper on applying a philosophy of fearism to terrorism today (Fisher and Subba, 2016a). 8 For example, Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the US, in a 2014 interview on NPR (radio), said, “Palestinian society is a culture of terrorism that has been created. When you glorify killers [i.e., Palestinians who attack and terrorize Israelis]... you are talking about a deep problem within the society.” See interview @ http://www.npr.org/2014/ 07/01/327369336/addressing-killed-teens-israeli-ambassador-decries-culture-of-terrorism; also, see Clymer (2003). 9 “I qualify my position by asserting that a context of a 5000 year patriarchal Western ‘Dominator culture’ [a la Riane Eisler] (i.e., ‘Matrix of Domination’ [a la Patricia Hill Collins], ‘Fear’ Matrix [a la R. M. Fisher] or ‘Fear’s Empire’ [a la Benjamin Barber]) has installed fear-fullness and terror very deep in the human and world soul, and no simple rational ‘risk’ statistic or argument is adequate to analyze or ‘correct’ what is seemingly an out-of-control spiral of trauma and irrationality (i.e., fear patterning) in the 21st century” (Fisher, 2010, p. xxxi). 10 For the explanation of the methodology of fearanalysis, see Fisher (2012). 11 For e.g., Subba (2014) wrote of the fundamental teachings of many great philosophers through human history are all speaking about liberation in diverse ways. He wrote, “All the liberations are in the journey of fearlessness. The journey goes on continually until it reach- es fearlessness” (p. 164). Fisher (2010) makes a similar point and argues for a “Fearless” fear management system at the highest end of the journey or path of fearlessness. See also Subba (2014), Chapter 29 “Fearless Path.” 12 Subba (2014), p. 45. 13 In Barsky (2007), there is mention of U2’s Bono having popularly called Chomsky “rebel without a pause” (p. x). 14 This is a very quick and dirty study of the discourses of Chomsky, as I primarily relied on the Internet, and especially Google Books to do this searching of word use. It ought to be transparent such is inadequate, partial, but useful. I have a strong trust that my method gives a good sample for making generalizations. Chomsky himself would ideally be the one to validate this or not, although others may chose to do such a similar study with more time and rigor. 15 Chomsky (2009), p. 138 he cited Virgil; and in Chomsky (1996), p. 40 he cited Julio Goday. 16 With searching one can find a lot of people in political discourses using these terms, including journalists, public figures etc. I have found them used back into the late 19th century in the West often associated with heroism. They seem to have gone out of favor at some point for a century or more, and slowly in the last decades they are coming back, especially popular these days is “fearless.” I say this all very speculatively, as I have not done a thorough historical or genealogical review of the terms. 17 See the best-seller book 9/11 (Chomsky, 2001); quote from the book’s website on Ama- zon. 18 See Chomsky (2013).

24 25

19 Similarly, “freedom from fear” is a parallel term (see later). 20 Cited in Seshagri Rao (1978), p. 69. 21 This would be a long argument to make, but the short of it is that I have discovered the “gift of fearlessness” ethical (explicit) imperative in philosophical traditions of South Asian countries (e.g., in Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism); see the ethical religious scholarship of Hibbets (1999) and Heim (2004). 22 I do not know exactly Chomsky’s full rationale, cautionary, and critique of the “Four Freedoms” and their applications in the real world of politics but it seems he prefers that it applies to the oppressed and not (or less so) to the oppressor (e.g., the State); again, if this is true it would fit my earlier argument on this page that Chomsky wants to see the government or State (and all authorities) more afraid of the people, in comparison to the people more afraid of the government. This latter, is not uncommon amongst most activists who struggle for the rights of the weaker, marginalized and/or oppressed; it also is consistent, likely, with any anarchism. Note, Chomsky (2005) has written on anarchism, in which he comes out supportive of it and locates himself somewhat within that camp, as I understand, not having actually read the book edited by Barry Pateman. 23 In what appears his first writing (in a book) using “culture of fear” (Chomsky, 1992, p. 392), Chomsky only cited another author who used the term (i.e., a Latin American scholar Piero Gleijeses). This was a single sentence quote only. See also Chomsky (n.d.) in “The Culture of Fear” in Z Magazine online @ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/culture-of- fear.html ; and he appears in brief interview clips in the documentary film (n.d.) “Culture of Fear” @ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ culture-of-fear/ 24 Kovalik (2014) includes Chomsky’s 1996 Introduction (in Giraldo’s book Colombia: The Genocidal Democracy) as part of the culture of fear problem. Kovalik wrote, “Back in 1996, Noam Chomsky wrote a quite terrifying piece about the U.S.-backed ‘Dirty War’ in Colombia, and in Latin America generally...”; Kovalik (2014) is writing about the “culture of fear” in remembering Chomsky, and thus this validates my view that Chomsky is a culture of fear critic, even though it looks like he is a culture of terror(sim) critic. 25 Interestingly, “fear mongering” is not a word that appeared in Chomsky’s texts, but it did when he cited Reuven Pedatzur (a military correspondent) in Chomsky (2007), p. 180; and, in Babe (2015), writing on Chomsky, “Ominously, Chomsky related fear mongering on the one hand and government subsidization of armaments industries on the other, to fascism...” (p. 183). That said, the rare use is perhaps only a formal and technical omission, because he continually writes about the cause and effects of fear mongering (abuses of fear).