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 © 2016 Technical Paper No. 58 In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 2 In Defense of Fearism: The Case of Noam Chomsky R. Michael Fisher Copyright 2016 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 pub- lisher/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. ©2016 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 per- spective. 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 dif- ferent 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 hu- mans 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 defi- nition 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 perspec- tive. 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 psycholo- gy 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 litera- ture? (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, au- thorities, etc. (Fisher, 2010, p. 109). The taboo of talking about the topic fear is rife—and, arguably, it is a dy- namic 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 ar- rogant 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 philoso- phy 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.