What do you think?
Rate this book
On Democracy & Education
Engaging and incisive, Chomsky on Democracy and Education is the first collection of writings, talks, and interviews, some previously unpublished, of his views on language, power, policy, and method in education.
480 pages, Paperback
First published November 22, 2002
11 people are currently reading
703 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
977 books17.4k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 19, 2025
Chomsky elaborates on the importance of education in creating a truly viable democracy and reveals what we need to do to get there.
A revealing bibliography. Chomsky shows the roots of his beliefs more here than in any other book I have read. He is big on Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, not to mention Rudolf Rocker, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Adam Smith (!). for those concerned with the state of education. (before you get too worked up about the Adam Smith, read the book...)
A revealing bibliography. Chomsky shows the roots of his beliefs more here than in any other book I have read. He is big on Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, not to mention Rudolf Rocker, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Adam Smith (!). for those concerned with the state of education. (before you get too worked up about the Adam Smith, read the book...)
November 26, 2008
My own reaction to the luncay that passes for higher education in the social "sciences" and the humanities is validated by this radical intellectual. Chomsky broadens his case for the powerful few tyrannizing the many with the help of editors who have cut and paste speeches and essays spanning 4 decades. His basic premise is that the university arena is (theoretically) the strong hold of democratic processes where freedom of inquiry and freedom of dissent is not only exected but encouraged. Today these principles are eroding in the modern, corporate-funded university system more than ever. This book is highly relevant to the current trend in "Academic Freedom" issues. If you are not concerned about this issue you could be, check out David Horowitz or just google "academic freedom" to enjoy the new fundementalist right wing approach to education reform as well as the association of professors who are determined to maintain and develope what still remains of open inquiry and dissent in the Ivory Tower.
June 21, 2020
Chomsky'nin demokrasi ve eğitim hakkındaki yazılarının toplandığı bir seçki...
Bu seçkide Chomsky, Plato'nun problemi ve Orwell'in problemi olarak adlandırdığı iki problem üzerinden demokrasi, eğitim ile ilgili meseleleri tartışmaktadır...
Bu seçkide Chomsky, Plato'nun problemi ve Orwell'in problemi olarak adlandırdığı iki problem üzerinden demokrasi, eğitim ile ilgili meseleleri tartışmaktadır...
May 21, 2023
I'm still processing this book since I just finished it.
5 stars is usually something I reserve for something that comes through with impact on nearly every page.
I do not think this book was wordy at all. I do, however, think the profound impact it had on me was dispersed in parts throughout the book. It's just a long read, which there's nothing wrong with that at all, but as far as recommending it to other people, I don't think it would be everyone else's five star, it just was for me personally.
It's a compiliation of essays, articles, and talks, so it wasn't written with the purpose of being a book on education. It doesn't exactly directly approach the topic of education. It has a lot of thoughts that pertain to education. It talks about a lot of things. It talks about the university structure, it talks about the way information is filtered, ignored, misrepresented, and created on the terms dictated by the established power structure. It talks about propaganda taking effect through ignorance, framing, and distraction more than by direct lies or persuasion. It talks about university research being funded by the Pentagon and private industry and public funds being used for private enterprise and not for public benefit. It talks about US violent invasions of other countries and how these aren't taught to most students--at any level of education. It talks about U.S. foreign policy being a matter of coercive and violent mandates that other countries must concede to corporate dominance and exploitation in the name of free trade. So it talks about a lot of very important things that pertain to education.
One thing I found particularly helpful in this book in keeping with my quest to conceive of a democratic and liberatory pedagogy is insight on how to strike a balance between providing students with concrete tools and information which affords them opportunity to better the quality of life of themselves and their communities, while also not imposing curriculum on students through coercion but allowing students to follow their interests and set their own priorities for their learning and how they spend their time and without neglecting them to the fate of their own limited and undeveloped devices. I do not feel that I have the answer to this, but I feel that I am closer to it. I think the specific insight I've gathered from reading this book and cross referencing with my past ideals and experiences is that students need opportunities to express themselves freely, to interact with their peers, to interact with their instructors creatively and playfully without coersion, that problem solving should involve the students attempts at solutions to a problem and not only teacher explanations. These should not be add-ons to the central pedagogy, but should be the primary constitution of the students' days. Interaction has to be a part of the pedagogy, playful and creative and collaborative interaction. Student contributions to problem solving--even in something with presumably fixed solutions such as math--must be a part of the pedagogy. Student feedback and input and development of their own ideas and opinions and expression of those ideas and opinions must be part of the pedagogy. These are not givens in any school. I think it's okay for the teacher/school system to set an agenda with priorities for student achievement, to the proper extent I don't know. But I think regardless of that extent, there is room--and it should be prioritized--for the methods of teaching to PRIMARILY include the things I just mentioned. While I don't know how to concisely summarize the bullet points of what content should be covered, or even that I adequately know what those bullet points should be, I also think it's imperative that students are addressing problems of their personal lives and communities as well as of the world as part of their curriculum, even at the elementary level. For example--a child should have the opportunity to express their ideas on what makes a good president, and should be taught and encouraged to explore water access, water treatment, and water scarcity--even at an elementary age. I think the challenge of a liberatory pedagogy is not so much dependent on the child setting the agenda--but they should be permitted to give feedback and pushback on that which does not appeal to them. The agenda that the teacher/school system sets can lead the curriculum--and I do believe teachers and school systems even have a responsibility to set an agenda for student learning--that is a vital part of their role--but it should not be implemented through coercion. And so the challenge of a liberatory pedagogy is in how to receive, adapt to, and incorporate student push-back in a way that empowers students to advocate for their personal needs and interests rather than attempting to diminish that advocacy in the interests of the prescribed agenda.
Another helpful insight to me in the same quest is the importance of the students' environment as vital to their propensity to learn. Students cannot be expected to thrive academically in an environment of any kind of deprivation--be it deprivation of beauty, comfort, cheerfulness, quality and quantity of books (presuming literacy is a universal priority), materials for art and self expression, food, safety, movement, play, music, nature, connection, human contact, and so forth. One of problems that I have with advocates of a substantially child-directed learning is that it relies on two false premises--one that parents/teachers have limitless access to money/time/resources to follow students directions, and two, that students will be able to perceive proactively of all that it is that they need to thrive without external introduction. I do not necessarily believe that these advocates believe these things to be true--but the literature of this type of advocacy does not, in my experience, stress the importance of these environmental requirements or any others. I think as liberatory educators we have to be explicit in the requirements which constitute an enriching environment. We may not always agree on what those environmental requirements and resources are, and we may credibly need to improvise to practice liberatory pedagogy in environments of deprivation--but we should be open and frank about these environmental necessities, and whatever others we believe in--and should be advocates for their availability and not accept compensatory practices as adequate even if we don't have a means to provide better.
5 stars is usually something I reserve for something that comes through with impact on nearly every page.
I do not think this book was wordy at all. I do, however, think the profound impact it had on me was dispersed in parts throughout the book. It's just a long read, which there's nothing wrong with that at all, but as far as recommending it to other people, I don't think it would be everyone else's five star, it just was for me personally.
It's a compiliation of essays, articles, and talks, so it wasn't written with the purpose of being a book on education. It doesn't exactly directly approach the topic of education. It has a lot of thoughts that pertain to education. It talks about a lot of things. It talks about the university structure, it talks about the way information is filtered, ignored, misrepresented, and created on the terms dictated by the established power structure. It talks about propaganda taking effect through ignorance, framing, and distraction more than by direct lies or persuasion. It talks about university research being funded by the Pentagon and private industry and public funds being used for private enterprise and not for public benefit. It talks about US violent invasions of other countries and how these aren't taught to most students--at any level of education. It talks about U.S. foreign policy being a matter of coercive and violent mandates that other countries must concede to corporate dominance and exploitation in the name of free trade. So it talks about a lot of very important things that pertain to education.
One thing I found particularly helpful in this book in keeping with my quest to conceive of a democratic and liberatory pedagogy is insight on how to strike a balance between providing students with concrete tools and information which affords them opportunity to better the quality of life of themselves and their communities, while also not imposing curriculum on students through coercion but allowing students to follow their interests and set their own priorities for their learning and how they spend their time and without neglecting them to the fate of their own limited and undeveloped devices. I do not feel that I have the answer to this, but I feel that I am closer to it. I think the specific insight I've gathered from reading this book and cross referencing with my past ideals and experiences is that students need opportunities to express themselves freely, to interact with their peers, to interact with their instructors creatively and playfully without coersion, that problem solving should involve the students attempts at solutions to a problem and not only teacher explanations. These should not be add-ons to the central pedagogy, but should be the primary constitution of the students' days. Interaction has to be a part of the pedagogy, playful and creative and collaborative interaction. Student contributions to problem solving--even in something with presumably fixed solutions such as math--must be a part of the pedagogy. Student feedback and input and development of their own ideas and opinions and expression of those ideas and opinions must be part of the pedagogy. These are not givens in any school. I think it's okay for the teacher/school system to set an agenda with priorities for student achievement, to the proper extent I don't know. But I think regardless of that extent, there is room--and it should be prioritized--for the methods of teaching to PRIMARILY include the things I just mentioned. While I don't know how to concisely summarize the bullet points of what content should be covered, or even that I adequately know what those bullet points should be, I also think it's imperative that students are addressing problems of their personal lives and communities as well as of the world as part of their curriculum, even at the elementary level. For example--a child should have the opportunity to express their ideas on what makes a good president, and should be taught and encouraged to explore water access, water treatment, and water scarcity--even at an elementary age. I think the challenge of a liberatory pedagogy is not so much dependent on the child setting the agenda--but they should be permitted to give feedback and pushback on that which does not appeal to them. The agenda that the teacher/school system sets can lead the curriculum--and I do believe teachers and school systems even have a responsibility to set an agenda for student learning--that is a vital part of their role--but it should not be implemented through coercion. And so the challenge of a liberatory pedagogy is in how to receive, adapt to, and incorporate student push-back in a way that empowers students to advocate for their personal needs and interests rather than attempting to diminish that advocacy in the interests of the prescribed agenda.
Another helpful insight to me in the same quest is the importance of the students' environment as vital to their propensity to learn. Students cannot be expected to thrive academically in an environment of any kind of deprivation--be it deprivation of beauty, comfort, cheerfulness, quality and quantity of books (presuming literacy is a universal priority), materials for art and self expression, food, safety, movement, play, music, nature, connection, human contact, and so forth. One of problems that I have with advocates of a substantially child-directed learning is that it relies on two false premises--one that parents/teachers have limitless access to money/time/resources to follow students directions, and two, that students will be able to perceive proactively of all that it is that they need to thrive without external introduction. I do not necessarily believe that these advocates believe these things to be true--but the literature of this type of advocacy does not, in my experience, stress the importance of these environmental requirements or any others. I think as liberatory educators we have to be explicit in the requirements which constitute an enriching environment. We may not always agree on what those environmental requirements and resources are, and we may credibly need to improvise to practice liberatory pedagogy in environments of deprivation--but we should be open and frank about these environmental necessities, and whatever others we believe in--and should be advocates for their availability and not accept compensatory practices as adequate even if we don't have a means to provide better.
Read
April 13, 2012i think its better for youth because they are young generation so they don't know how to create a new changing in their country and how can they make good policy in their society and youth can create new idea about their self and they can do for their country and young generation west their time in victory so they will leave at from that's bad things
July 5, 2011
I have a very difficult time with Chomsky because he seems so profoundly sanctimonious about his own superiority. It's not that he doesn't have some good ideas, but his style of presenting them puts me off so much that I actively avoid his work.
August 31, 2010
I lived with the system and took no offense until Chomsky lent me the necessary sense.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews