Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (/ˈraɪnhoʊld ˈniːbʊər/; June 21st, 1892 – June 1st, 1971) was an American theologian and commentator on public affairs. Starting as a leftist minister in the 1920s indebted to theological liberalism, he shifted to the new Neo-Orthodox theology in the 1930s, explaining how the sin of pride created evil in the world. He attacked utopianism as ineffectual for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944):

"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

His realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support United States' efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker, he was one of the most influential religious leaders of the 1940s and 1950s in American public affairs.^{[citation needed]} Niebuhr battled with the religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with the religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of "true religion".

His long-term impact involves relating the Christian faith to "realism" in foreign affairs, rather than idealism, and his contribution to modern "just war" thinking. Niebuhr's perspective influenced many liberals, who came to support a "realist" foreign policy.^[1] Such recent leaders of American foreign policy as Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama have acknowledged Niebuhr's importance to them.^[2]

Early life and education[link]

Niebuhr was born in Wright City, Missouri, the son of German immigrants Gustav Niebuhr and his wife Lydia. His father was a German Evangelical pastor; his denomination was the American branch of the established Prussian Church Union in Germany. It is now part of the United Church of Christ. The family spoke German at home. His brother H. Richard Niebuhr became a famous historian of religion, and his sister Hulda Niebuhr became a divinity professor in Chicago.

Reinhold Niebuhr attended Elmhurst College in Illinois and graduated in 1910.^[3] He studied at Eden Theological Seminary in Webster Groves, Missouri. Niebuhr attended Yale Divinity School, where he earned a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1914 and a Master of Arts degree the following year. He always regretted not taking a doctorate. Niebuhr said that Yale gave him intellectual liberation from the localism of his German-American upbringing.^[4]

Marriage and family[link]

In 1931 Niebuhr married Ursula Keppel-Compton. She was a member of the Church of England and was educated at Oxford University in theology and history. She met Niebuhr while studying for her masters degree at Union Theological Seminary. For many years, she was on faculty at Barnard College (the women's college of Columbia University) where she helped establish and then chaired the religious studies department. The Niebuhrs had two children, Christopher Niebuhr and Elisabeth Sifton Niebuhr. Ursula Niebuhr left evidence in her professional papers at the Library of Congress showing that she co-authored some of her husband's later writings. ^[5]

Detroit[link]

In 1915, Niebuhr was ordained a pastor. The German Evangelical mission board sent him to serve at Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Michigan. The congregation numbered sixty-five on his arrival and grew to nearly 700 by the time he left in 1928. The increase reflected his ability to reach people outside the German American community and among the growing population attracted to jobs in the booming automobile industry. In the early 1900s Detroit became the fourth-largest city in the country, attracting many Jewish and Catholic immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, as well as black and white migrants from the rural South. They competed for jobs and limited housing, and the city's rapid changes and rise in social tensions contributed to the growth in numbers of the Ku Klux Klan, which reached its peak in 1925.^[6]

World War I[link]

As America entered the World War in 1917, Niebuhr was the unknown pastor of a small German-speaking congregation in Detroit (it stopped using German in 1919). All German American culture in the United States and nearby Canada was under attack for suspicion of having dual loyalties. Niebuhr repeatedly stressed the need to be loyal to America, and won an audience in national magazines for his appeals to the German Americans to be patriotic.^[7] Theologically, however, he went beyond the issue of national loyalty as he endeavored to fashion a realistic ethical perspective of patriotism and pacifism. He endeavored to work out a realistic approach to the moral danger posed by aggressive powers which many idealists and pacifists failed to recognize. During the war he also served his denomination as Executive Secretary of the War Welfare Commission while maintaining his pastorate in Detroit. A pacifist at heart, he saw compromise as a necessity and was willing to support war in order to find peace — compromising for the sake of righteousness.^[8]

Auto industry[link]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2010)

After seminary he preached the Social Gospel, then started attacking what he considered the brutalization and insecurity of Ford workers.^[9] Niebuhr had moved to the left and was troubled by the demoralizing effects of industrialism on workers. He became an outspoken critic of Henry Ford and allowed union organizers to use his pulpit to expound their message of workers' rights. Niebuhr attacked poor conditions created by the assembly lines and erratic employment practices.^[10]

Because of his opinion about factory work, Niebuhr rejected liberal optimism. He wrote in his diary:

We went through one of the big automobile factories to-day. . . . The foundry interested me particularly. The heat was terrific. The men seemed weary. Here manual labour is a drudgery and toil is slavery. The men cannot possibly find any satisfaction in their work. They simply work to make a living. Their sweat and their dull pain are part of the price paid for the fine cars we all run. And most of us run the cars without knowing what price is being paid for them. . . . We are all responsible. We all want the things which the factory produces and none of us is sensitive enough to care how much in human values the efficiency of the modern factory costs.".^[11]

The historian Ronald H. Stone thinks that Niebuhr never talked to the assembly line workers (many of his parishioners were skilled craftsmen) but projected feelings onto them after discussions with Rev. Samuel Marquis.^[12] As some studies of assembly line workers have shown, the work may have been dull, but workers had complex motivations and could find ways to make meaning of their experiences; many boasted about their jobs and tried hard to place their sons on the assembly line. Ford tried and failed to control work habits. After extensive sociological studies in which workers were interviewed, management concluded that the workers were more interested in controlling their home lives than their work lives. The Ford solution was welfare capitalism, paying relatively high wages with added benefits, such as vacations and retirement, that reduced turnover and appealed primarily to family men.^{[13][Need quotation to verify][page needed]}

Niebuhr's criticism of Ford and capitalism resonated with progressives and helped make him nationally prominent.^[10] His serious commitment to Marxism developed not in Detroit but after he moved to New York in 1928.^[14]

In 1923, Niebuhr visited Europe to meet with intellectuals and theologians. The conditions he saw in Germany under the French occupation of part of Germany dismayed him. They reinforced the pacifist views he had adopted after World War I.

1930s: Growing influence[link]

Niebuhr captured his personal experiences in Detroit in his book Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic. He continued to write and publish throughout his career, and also served as editor of the magazine Christianity and Crisis from 1941 through 1966.

In 1928, Niebuhr left Detroit to become Professor of Practical Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He spent the rest of his career there, until retirement in 1960. While teaching theology at Union Theological Seminary, Niebuhr influenced many generations of students, including German minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church.

Niebuhr was among the group of 51 prominent Americans who formed the International Relief Association (IRA) that is today known as the International Rescue Committee (IRC).^[15] The committee mission was to assist Germans suffering from the policies of the Hitler regime.^[16]

Niebuhr and Dewey[link]

In the 1930s Niebuhr was often seen as an intellectual opponent of John Dewey. Both men were professional polemicists and their ideas often clashed despite the fact that both men held sway over the same realms of liberal intellectual schools of thought. Niebuhr was a strong proponent of the "Jerusalem" religious tradition as a corrective to the secular "Athens" tradition insisted upon by Dewey.^[17] In the book Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) a still intellectually young Niebuhr heavily criticized Dewey's philosophy. Two years later, in a review of Dewey's book A Common Faith (1934), Niebuhr was surprisingly calm and respectful towards Dewey's "religious footnote" on his then large body of educational and pragmatic philosophy.^[18]

Neo-orthodox theology[link]

In 1939 Niebuhr explained his theological odyssey:^[19]

In the 1930s Niebuhr worked out many of his ideas about sin and grace, love and justice, faith and reason, realism and idealism, and the irony and tragedy of history, which established his leadership of the neo-orthodox movement in theology. Influenced strongly by Karl Barth and other dialectical theologians of Europe, he began to emphasize the Bible as a human record of divine self-revelation; it offered for Niebuhr a critical but redemptive reorientation of the understanding of man's nature and destiny.^[20]

Niebuhr couched his ideas in Christ-centered principles such as the Great Commandment and the doctrine of original sin. His major contribution was his view of sin as a social event — as pride — with selfish self-centeredness as the root of evil. The sin of pride was apparent not just in criminals, but more dangerously in people who felt good about their deeds — rather like Henry Ford (whom he did not mention by name). The human tendency to corrupt the good was the great insight he saw manifested in governments, business, democracies, utopian societies, and churches. This position is laid out profoundly in one of his most influential books, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932). He was a debunker of hypocrisy and pretense and made the avoidance of self-righteous illusions the center of his thoughts. Niebuhr argued that to approach religion as the individualistic attempt to fulfill biblical commandments in a moralistic sense is not only an impossibility but also a demonstration of man's original sin, which Niebuhr interpreted as self-love. Through self-love man becomes focused on his own goodness and leaps to the false conclusion — one which he calls the "Promethean illusion" — that he can achieve goodness on his own. Thus man mistakes his partial ability to transcend himself for the ability to prove his absolute authority over his own life and world. Constantly frustrated by natural limitations, man develops a lust for power which destroys him and his whole world. History is the record of these crises and judgments which man brings on himself; it is also proof that God does not allow man to overstep his possibilities. In radical contrast to the Promethean illusion, God reveals himself in history, especially personified in Jesus Christ, as sacrificial love which overcomes the human temptation to self-deification and makes possible constructive human history.^[21][22]

Politics[link]

Domestic[link]

During the 1930s, Niebuhr was a prominent leader of the militant faction of the Socialist Party of America, although he disliked die-hard Marxists by calling their beliefs a religion and a thin one at that.^[24] In 1941, he cofounded the Union for Democratic Action, a group with a strongly militarily interventionist, internationalist foreign policy and a pro-union, liberal domestic policy, and was the group's sole president until its transformation into the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947.^[25]

International[link]

Within the framework of Christian Realism, Niebuhr became a supporter of American action in World War II, anti-communism, and the development of nuclear weapons. However, he opposed the Vietnam War.^[26][27]

At the outbreak of World War II, the pacifist component of his liberalism was challenged. Niebuhr began to distance himself from the pacifism of his more liberal colleagues and became a staunch advocate for the war. Niebuhr soon left the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a peace-oriented group of theologians and ministers, and became one of their harshest critics. This departure from his peers evolved into a movement known as Christian Realism. Niebuhr is widely considered to have been its primary advocate.^[28]

Niebuhr supported the Allies during World War II and argued for the engagement of the United States in the war. As a writer popular in both the secular and the religious arena and a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, he was very influential both in the United States and abroad. While many clergy proclaimed themselves pacifists because of their World War I experiences, Niebuhr declared a victory by Germany and Japan would threaten Christianity. He renounced his socialist connections and beliefs and resigned from the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation. He based his arguments on the Protestant beliefs that sin is part of the world, that justice must take precedence over love, and that pacifism is a symbolic portrayal of absolute love but cannot prevent sin. Although his opponents did not portray him favorably, Niebuhr's exchanges with them on the issue helped him mature intellectually.^[29]

Niebuhr debated Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of The Christian Century magazine about America's entry into World War II. Morrison and his pacifistic followers maintained that America's role should be strictly neutral and part of a negotiated peace only, while Niebuhr claimed himself to be a realist, who opposed the use of political power to attain moral ends. Morrison and his followers strongly supported the movement to outlaw war that began after World War I and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The pact was severely challenged by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and in 1932, with his publication of Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr broke ranks with The Christian Century and supported interventionism and power politics, culminating in his support of the reelection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 and the publication of his own magazine, Christianity and Crisis.^[30] In 1945, however, Niebuhr charged that use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was "morally indefensible".

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,^[31] explained his impact:

Traditionally, the idea of the frailty of man led to the demand for obedience to ordained authority. But Niebuhr rejected that ancient conservative argument. Ordained authority, he showed, is all the more subject to the temptations of self-interest, self-deception and self-righteousness. Power must be balanced by power. He persuaded me and many of my contemporaries that original sin provides a far stronger foundation for freedom and self-government than illusions about human perfectibility. Niebuhr's analysis was grounded in the Christianity of Augustine and Calvin, but he had, nonetheless, a special affinity with secular circles. His warnings against utopianism, messianism and perfectionism strike a chord today....We cannot play the role of God to history, and we must strive as best we can to attain decency, clarity and proximate justice in an ambiguous world.^[32]

Niebuhr's defense of Roosevelt made him popular among liberals, as historian Morton White noted with a touch of irony:

The contemporary liberal's fascination with Niebuhr, I suggest, comes less from Niebuhr's dark theory of human nature and more from his actual political pronouncements, from the fact that he is a shrewd, courageous, and right-minded man on many political questions. Those who applaud his politics are too liable to turn then to his theory of human nature and praise it as the philosophical instrument of Niebuhr's political agreement with themselves. But very few of those whom I have called "atheists for Niebuhr" follow this inverted logic to its conclusion: they don't move from praise of Niebuhr's theory of human nature to praise of its theological ground. We may admire them for drawing the line somewhere, but certainly not for their consistency.^[33]

After Joseph Stalin signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Adolf Hitler in August 1939, Niebuhr severed his past ties with any fellow-traveler organization having any known Communist leanings. In 1947, Niebuhr helped found the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). His ideas influenced George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and other realists during the Cold War on the need to contain Communist expansion.

In his last cover story for Time magazine (March 1948), Whittaker Chambers said of Niebuhr:

Most U.S. liberals think of Niebuhr as a solid socialist who has some obscure connection with Union Theological Seminary that does not interfere with his political work. Unlike most clergymen in politics, Dr. Niebuhr is a pragmatist. Says James Loeb, secretary of Americans for Democratic Action: "Most so-called liberals are idealists. They let their hearts run away with their heads. Niebuhr never does. For example, he has always been the leading liberal opponent of pacifism. In that period before we got into the war when pacifism was popular, he held out against it steadfastly." He is also an opponent of Marxism.^[34]

In the 1950s his position became so anticommunist that he believed Senator Joseph McCarthy was a force of evil not so much for disrespecting civil liberties as for being ineffective in rooting out Communists and their sympathizers.^[35] In 1953 he thought the Rosenbergs should be executed, stating "Traitors are never ordinary criminals and the Rosenbergs are quite obviously fiercely loyal Communists.... Stealing atomic secrets is an unprecedented crime".^[35]

Views on race and other religions[link]

His views developed during his pastoral tenure in Detroit, which had become a place of immigration, migration, competition and development as a major industrial city. During the 1920s, Niebuhr spoke out against the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in Detroit, which had recruited many members threatened by the rapid social changes. The Klan proposed positions that were anti-black, anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic. Niebuhr's preaching against the Klan, especially in relation to the 1925 mayoral election, gained him national attention.^[36]

Catholics[link]

Anti-Catholicism surged in Detroit in the 1920s in reaction to the rise in the number of Catholic immigrants from eastern and southern Europe since the early 20th century. It was exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which recruited many members in Detroit. Niebuhr defended pluralism by attacking the Klan. During the Detroit mayoral election of 1925, Niebuhr's sermon, "We fair-minded Protestants cannot deny", was published on the front pages of both the Detroit Times and the Free Press. This sermon urged people to vote against mayoral candidate Charles Bowles, who was being openly endorsed by the Klan. The Catholic incumbent, John W. Smith, won by a narrow 30,000 votes. Niebuhr preached against the Klan and helped to influence its decline in political power in Detroit.^[37] Niebuhr preached:

Race[link]

Niebuhr's thoughts on racial justice developed slowly after he abandoned socialism. Niebuhr attributed the injustices of society to human pride and self love and believed that this innate propensity for evil could not be controlled by humanity. But, he believed that a representative democracy could improve society's ills. Like Edmund Burke, Niebuhr endorsed natural evolution over imposed change and emphasized experience over theory. Niebuhr's Burkean ideology, however, often conflicted with his liberal principles, particularly regarding his perspective on racial justice. Though vehemently opposed to racial inequality, Niebuhr adopted a conservative position on segregation.^[39]

While after World War II most liberals endorsed integration, Niebuhr focused on achieving equal opportunity. He warned against imposing changes that could result in violence. The violence that followed peaceful demonstrations in the 1960s forced Niebuhr to reverse his position against imposed equality; witnessing the problems of the Northern ghettos later caused him to doubt that equality was attainable.^[39]

Martin Luther King[link]

In the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King wrote, "Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals". King valued Niebuhr's social and ethical ideals. King attributed his own non-violent posture more to the influence of Niebuhr and Paul Tillich than to the example of Gandhi.^[40] On the other hand, Niebuhr was friendly to the white South, was not an active supporter of the civil rights movement and refused to sign petitions when asked by King.^[41]

Judaism[link]

As a young pastor in Detroit, he favored conversion of Jews to Christianity, scolding evangelical Christians who were anti-Semitic or ignoring them. He spoke out against "the unchristlike attitude of Christians" and what he described as his fellow Christians' "Jewish bigotry".^[42] His 1933 article in the Christian Century was an attempt to sound the alarm within the Christian community over Hitler's "cultural annihilation of the Jews".^[42] Eventually his theology evolved to the point where he was the first prominent Christian theologian to argue it was inappropriate for Christians to seek to convert Jews to their faith.^[43]

As a preacher, writer, leader, and adviser to political figures, Niebuhr supported Zionism and the development of Israel. His solution to anti-Semitism was a combination of a Jewish homeland, greater tolerance, and assimilation in other countries. As early as 1942, he advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine and their resettlement in other Arabic countries. His position may have related to his religious conviction that life on earth is imperfect, and his concern about German anti-Semitism.^[44]

History[link]

In 1952, Niebuhr published The Irony of American History, in which he interpreted the meaning of the United States' past. Niebuhr questioned whether a humane, "ironical" interpretation of American history was credible on its own merits, or only in the context of a Christian view of history. Niebuhr's concept of irony referred to situations in which "the consequences of an act are diametrically opposed to the original intention", and "the fundamental cause of the disparity lies in the actor himself, and his original purpose". His reading of American history based on this notion, though from the Christian perspective, is so rooted in historical events that readers who do not share his religious views can be led to the same conclusion. Niebuhr's great foe was idealism. American idealism, he believed, comes in two forms: the idealism of the antiwar non-interventionists, who are embarrassed by power; and the idealism of pro-war imperialists, who disguise power as virtue. He said the non-interventionists, without mentioning Harry Emerson Fosdick by name, seek to preserve the purity of their souls, either by denouncing military actions or by demanding that every action taken be unequivocally virtuous. They exaggerate the sins committed by their own country, excuse the malevolence of its enemies and, as later polemicists have put it, inevitably blame America first. Niebuhr argued this approach was a pious way to refuse to face real problems.^[45]

Serenity Prayer[link]

The earliest known version of the prayer, from 1937, has been found in a Christian student newsletter ("The Intercollegian and Far Horizons"), which claimed to reprint the prayer from an earlier edition of the newsletter, and attributes the prayer to Niebuhr in this form:

"Father, give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other."

The most popular version, whose authorship is unknown, reads:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can change, And wisdom to know the difference."

The longest version has these additional lines:

"Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next. Amen."^[46]

The prayer is frequently used by Alcoholics Anonymous, which uses it in a slightly different form. An Alcoholics Anonymous website reports: "What is undisputed is the claim of authorship by the theologian Dr. Rheinhold [sic] Niebuhr, who recounted to interviewers on several occasions that he had written the prayer as a 'tag line' to a sermon he had delivered on Practical Christianity. Yet even Dr. Niebuhr added at least a touch of doubt to his claim when he told one interviewer, 'Of course, it may have been spooking around for years, even centuries, but I don't think so. I honestly do believe that I wrote it myself.'"^[47]

His claim to authorship was supported in detail by his daughter, Elisabeth Sifton, in The Serenity Prayer (2003), where she said that her father first wrote it in 1943. In 2008, Yale Book of Quotations editor Fred R. Shapiro cast doubt on Niebuhr's claim of authorship. He demonstrated that the prayer was in circulation by 1936 but not attributed to Niebuhr until 1942.^[48] However, he acknowledged the possibility that Niebuhr introduced the prayer by the mid-1930s in an unpublished or private setting.^[48] Sifton, in a response published with Shapiro's article, argues that the prayer must have come from one of the tradition's most gifted practitioners, which she believes could only be her father.^[49] In 2009, Duke University librarian Stephen Goranson unearthed the copy of the prayer from 1937 (above). In response to this finding, Shapiro conceded that "The new evidence does not prove that Reinhold Niebuhr wrote [the prayer], but it does significantly improve the likelihood that he was the originator." ^[50]

Influence and honors[link]

Niebuhr exerted a significant influence upon mainline Protestant clergy in the years immediately following World War II, much of it in concord with the neo-orthodox and the related movements. That influence began to wane and then precipitously drop toward the end of his life.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger described the legacy of Niebuhr as being contested between American liberals and conservatives, both of whom wanted to claim him.^[51] Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave credit to Niebuhr's influence. Foreign-policy conservatives point to Niebuhr's support of the containment doctrine during the Cold War as an instance of moral realism; progressives cite his later opposition to the Vietnam War.^[52]

In more recent years, Niebuhr has enjoyed something of a renaissance in contemporary thought, although usually not in liberal Protestant theological circles. Both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election cited Niebuhr as an influence: Senator John McCain, in his work Hard Call, "celebrated Niebuhr as a paragon of clarity about the costs of a good war."^[53] President Barack Obama said that Niebuhr was his "favorite philosopher"^[54] and "favorite theologian".^[55] Slate magazine columnist Fred Kaplan characterized Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a "faithful reflection" of Niebuhr.^[56]

Kenneth Waltz's seminal work on international relations theory, Man, the State, and War, includes many references to Niebuhr's thought. Waltz emphasizes Niebuhr's contributions to political realism, especially "the impossibility of human perfection."^[57] Andrew Bacevich's book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism refers to Niebuhr 13 times.^[58] Bacevich emphasises Niebuhr's humility and his belief that Americans were in danger of becoming enamored of US power.

Legacy and honors[link]

• During his lifetime, Niebuhr was awarded several honorary doctorates.
• In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson awarded Niebuhr the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
• In Niebuhr's honor, New York City named West 120th Street between Broadway and Riverside Drive Reinhold Niebuhr Place.^{[citation needed]} This is the site of Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan.

Personal style[link]

Niebuhr was often described as a charismatic speaker. The journalist Alden Whitman wrote of his speaking style: "He possessed a deep voice and large blue eyes. He used his arms as though he were an orchestra conductor. Occasionally one hand would strike out, with a pointed finger at the end, to accent a trenchant sentence. He talked rapidly and (because he disliked to wear spectacles for his far-sightedness) without notes; yet he was adroit at building logical climaxes and in communicating a sense of passionate involvement in what he was saying."^[23]

Bibliography[link]

Works by Niebuhr[link]

• Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic, Richard R. Smith pub, (1930), Westminster John Knox Press 1991 reissue: ISBN 0-664-25164-1, diary of a young minister's trials
• Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics, Charles Scribner's Sons (1932), Westminster John Knox Press 2002: ISBN 0-664-22474-1;
• Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Harper & Brothers (1935)
• Beyond Tragedy: Essays on the Christian Interpretation of History, Charles Scribner's Sons (1937), ISBN 0-684-71853-7
• Christianity and Power Politics, Charles Scribner's Sons (1940)
• The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation, Charles Scribner's Sons (1943), from his 1939 Gifford Lectures, Volume one: Human Nature, Volume two: Human Destiny. Reprint editions include: Prentice Hall vol. 1: ISBN 0-02-387510-0, Westminster John Knox Press 1996 set of 2 vols: ISBN 0-664-25709-7
• The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Charles Scribner's Sons (1944), Prentice Hall 1974 edition: ISBN 0-02-387530-5, Macmillan 1985 edition: ISBN 0-684-15027-1, 2011 reprint from the University of Chicago Press, with a new introduction by Gary Dorrien: ISBN 978-0-226-58400-3
• Faith and History (1949) ISBN 0-684-15318-1
• The Irony of American History, Charles Scribner’s Sons (1952), 1985 reprint: ISBN 0-684-71855-3, Simon and Schuster: ISBN 0-684-15122-7, 2008 reprint from the University of Chicago Press, with a new introduction by Andrew J. Bacevich: ISBN 978-0-226-58398-3, read an excerpt
• Christian Realism and Political Problems (1953) ISBN 0-678-02757-9
• The Self and the Dramas of History, Charles Scribner’s Sons (1955), University Press of America, 1988 edition: ISBN 0-8191-6690-1
• Love and Justice: Selections from the Shorter Writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, ed. D. B. Robertson (1957), Westminster John Knox Press 1992 reprint, ISBN 0-664-25322-9
• Pious and Secular America (1958) ISBN 0-678-02756-0
• Reinhold Niebuhr on Politics: His Political Philosophy and Its Application to Our Age as Expressed in His Writings ed. by Harry R. Davis and Robert C. Good. (1960) online edition
• A Nation So Conceived: Reflections on the History of America From Its Early Visions to its Present Power with Alan Heimert, Charles Scribner’s Sons (1963)
• The Structure of Nations and Empires (1959) ISBN 0-678-02755-2
• Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses ed. by Robert McAffee Brown (1986). 264 pp. Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-04001-6
• Remembering Reinhold Niebuhr. Letters of Reinhold & Ursula M. Niebuhr, ed. by Ursula Niebuhr (1991) Harper, 0060662344

About Niebuhr[link]

• Beckley, Harlan. Passion for Justice: Retrieving the Legacies of Walter Rauschenbusch, John A. Ryan, and Reinhold Niebuhr. (1992). 391 pp.
• Bingham, June. Courage to Change: An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr. (1961), popular biography
• Brooks, David. "A Man on a Gray Horse: The Mid-Century Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr May Have Gotten a Lot of Things Wrong-But We Could Use a Thinker like Him Today," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 290, September 2002 online edition, sees Niebuhr as 25% conservative
• Brown, Charles C. Niebuhr and His Age: Reinhold Niebuhr's Prophetic Role in the Twentieth Century. (1992). 317 pp.
• Carnahan, Kevin. Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Ramsey: Idealist and Pragmatic Christians on Politics, Philosophy, Religion, and War. (2010)
• Chen, Liang. "From a Christian Socialist to a Christian Realist: Reinhold Niebuhr and the Soviet Union, 1930-1945". Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, National University of Singapore, 2007.
• Chambers, Whittaker. "Faith for a Lenten Age," Time (March 8, 1948)
• Craig, Campbell. "The New Meaning of Modern War in the Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr." Journal of the History of Ideas" 1992 53(4): 687-701 in JSTOR
• Crouter, Richard. Reinhold Niebuhr: On Politics, Religion, and Christian Faith (2010).
• Davies, David Richard. Reinhold Niebuhr: Prophet from America (1945) 94 pages; full text online
• Diggins, John Patrick. Why Niebuhr Now? (2011). 152 pp. Engages the question of why politicians and social commentators have returned to Niebuhr now. ISBN 978-0-226-14883-0
• Doenecke, Justus D. "Reinhold Niebuhr and his Critics: The Interventionist Controversy in World War II." Anglican and Episcopal History 1995 64(4): 459-481. 0896-8039, by a leading conservative historian
• Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity 1900-1950 (2003) excerpt and text search
• Fox, Richard Wightman. "Niebuhr, Reinhold" in American National Biography Online Feb. 2000, very good starting point
• Fox, Richard Wightman. Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography. (1985). 325 pp., the standard scholarly biography; a well-researched, fair, and engaging treatment of Niebuhr's theological and political work that emphasizes his skill in working with Scripture and in interpreting human nature and the human condition. online review
• Harland, Gordon. The Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr (1960) online edition
• Harries, Richard, and Stephen Platten, eds. Reinhold Niebuhr and Contemporary Politics (2010)
• Hofmann, Hans. The Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr (1956)
• Kegley, Charles W., and Robert W. Bretall, eds. Reinhold Niebuhr: His Religious, Social, and Political Thought. (1956) 486pp 20 essays by scholars and reply by Niebuhr; online edition
• Jackson, Kenneth T. (1992) The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930, Oxford University Press, 1967 (reprinted 1992)
• Kennealy, Peter (1985) "History, Politics, and the Sense of Sin: The Case of Reinhold Niebuhr," In Athanasios Moulakis (ed.), The Promise of History: Essays in Political Philosophy. W. De Gruyter. Offers a systematic and analytic account of the central categories of Niebuhr's political theology and philosophy of history.
• Lovin, Robin. "Reinhold Niebuhr in Contemporary Scholarship: A Review Essay," Journal of Religious Ethics 31 (Winter, 2003), 489-505 abridged version online
• McCann, Dennis. Christian Realism and Liberation Theology (1981).
• Merkley, Paul. Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Account (1975),
• Meyer, Donald B. The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941 (1960).
• Novak, Michael. "Father of Neoconservatives: Nowadays, the Truest Disciples of the Liberal Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr Are Conservatives," National Review, Vol. 44, May 11, 1992 online edition, sees Niebuhr as a conservative
• Patton Howard G. Reinhold Niebuhr (1977) full text online
• Rice, Daniel F. Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey. (1993). 358 pp.
• Rice, Daniel F., ed. Reinhold Niebuhr Revisited: Engagements with an American Original (2009), old liberals still claim him online review
• Rosenthal, Joel H. Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age. (1991). 191 pp. Compares Niebuhr with Hans J. Morgenthau, Walter Lippmann, George F. Kennan, and Dean Acheson
• Smith, David L. A Handbook of Contemporary Theology (1992), ch 2. a Fundamentalist view of Niebuhr
• Warren, Heather A. Theologians of a New World Order: Reinhold Niebuhr and the Christian Realists, 1920-1948. (1997). 199 pp.

External links[link]

• detailed bibliography of Niebuhr's publications
• Obama's Theologian, EJ Dionne & David Brooks debate on Speaking of Faith, American Public Media
• Niebuhr, Reinhold. "The Public Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr" (radio interviews online)

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Reinhold Niebuhr

• Reinhold Niebuhr books and articles online
• The Niebuhr Legacy
• Reinhold Niebuhr Papers, (Library of Congress)
• Works by or about Reinhold Niebuhr in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• "The Ironic Element in the American Situation", an excerpt from The Irony of American History
• Reinhold Niebuhr: April 27, 1958 Interview, The Mike Wallace Interview collection, The University of Texas at Austin.
• "Reinhold Niebuhr", Time Magazine Cover (Mar. 8 1948)
• Brian Urquhart, "What You Can Learn from Reinhold Niebuhr", The New York Review of Books
• The Niebuhr Society

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2009)

Stanley Hauerwas (born July 24, 1940) is a Christian theologian and ethicist. He has taught at the University of Notre Dame and is currently the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at the Duke University School of Law.

Education and influences[link]

Stanley Hauerwas was raised in Pleasant Grove, Texas, in a working class family. He attended both Pleasant Grove High School (1954-56) and W. W. Samuell High School (1956-58).^[1] As the son of a bricklayer, Hauerwas was early on apprenticed to the craft of bricklaying under his father.^[2] The experience was extremely formative for his later life, as he himself has often compared the skill and hard work that bricklaying requires with both his own approach to theological work and the challenges of living a fully Christian life.^[3]

The Hauerwas family attended Pleasant Mound Methodist Church, where Stanley experienced Baptism, Confirmation and Communion. At the age of 15, he presented himself for ministry at a Sunday night worship service, presuming then he would be "saved".^[4]

After leaving Pleasant Grove, Hauerwas matriculated at Southwestern University, a liberal arts college affiliated with the United Methodist Church.^[5] He received a B.A. there in 1962. He was also a member of Phi Delta Theta while at Southwestern University. He went on to earn the B.D., M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees from Yale University. Upon delivering the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 2001, Hauerwas would also be awarded an honorary D.D. from the University of Edinburgh.

Following his graduation from Yale University, Hauerwas taught first at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, before joining the faculty at the University of Notre Dame in 1970.^[6] He was later invited to assume a faculty position at the Divinity School of Duke University in 1983,^[7] where he currently teaches in the area of theological ethics.[1]

Hauerwas' influences are wide-ranging, including figures as diverse as Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Howard Yoder, and Alasdair MacIntyre.^[8]

Career[link]

Hauerwas has sometimes been associated with narrative theology or post-liberalism, both of which are often attached to Yale scholars Brevard Childs (a biblical scholar under whom Hauerwas studied), Hans Frei, and George Lindbeck. He received his theological training at Yale University during the 1960s.

Hauerwas writes of narrative as "the necessary grammar of Christian convictions" in that Christian claims are inextricably linked to what God has done in history and to the ongoing story of God's people as they move through time. This sense of a "hypertemporal God" Hauerwas claims to have gotten from John Howard Yoder, who impressed upon him the need of always locating God's actions in the "timeliness" of the created order as witnessed by the Bible.^[9] He has explained this understanding of a people (i.e., church) constituted by their ongoing story with God in terms of a pointed and oft-repeated aphorism:

My claim, so offensive to some, that the first task of the church is to make the world the world, not to make the world more just, is a correlative of this theological metaphysics. The world simply cannot be narrated - the world cannot have a story - unless a people exist who make the world the world. That is an eschatological claim that presupposes we know there was a beginning only because we have seen the end ... [C]reation names God's continuing action, God's unrelenting desire for us to want to be loved by that love manifest in Christ's life, death, and resurrection.^[9]

Though Hauerwas believes that the strong distinction between the church and the world is a necessary mark of the Christian life, it is also a view that has drawn criticism. What he sees as a faithful way of constituting a people of God, others see as defining him as a "sectarian, fideistic, tribalist." Hauerwas collaborated with William H. Willimon (now a bishop in the United Methodist Church) in 1989 to offer an accessible version of his vision of the Christian life in the book Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony.^[10]

Honors[link]

Time magazine in 2001 named him "America's Best Theologian".^[11] He responded by saying, "'Best' is not a theological category."^{[citation needed]}

Also in 2001, he was invited to give the Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews in Scotland, which were published as With the Grain of the Universe, a text in which Karl Barth's interpretation of St. Anselm's analogy of faith featured. In 1997 he gave the Scottish Journal of Theology lectures at Aberdeen, published as Sanctify Them in Truth (1998).

Views on human experimentation[link]

Deontological and utilitarian thought[link]

The basic utilitarian rationalization for research on human beings is the ends justify the means. This means that any sort of research on a human being is justified by the possibility of successfully saving others. For example, all cancer research would be justified by the possibility of finding a cure for cancer, which would inevitably save the life of many others. The utilitarian argument focuses on the greatest good for the greatest amount of people or the greater good. Under the utilitarian justification it is a person's duty to sacrifice himself or herself if it would save others as long as the individual person's societal worth is less than the combined societal worth of the others. Therefore, if either a doctor or a homeless person must die to save the lives of many others, the homeless person must sacrifice himself since he is worth less to society than the doctor.

The Deontological argument against research on human beings is that persons are an ends in themselves. This means we cannot use people for any purpose. The Deontological argument relies on the belief that we should treat others as he or she would like to be so treated. Say someone was suffering from a terminal illness and they are likely to die shortly. Under deontology, research cannot be done on this person even if it means saving the lives of millions. Deontology focuses on keeping your principle at all times no matter the situation.

Understanding of experimentation[link]

Hauerwas finds these two moral theories very limiting because they are quandary ethics, cases that rely on extreme situations. He believes that there needs to be a third reasoning that falls somewhere in between these two. He believes that the basic doctor-patient relationship should be built on trust and caring. This characterizes him as more of deontological thinker; however, he does believe in research on human beings. Hauerwas’s perspective is that there needs to be a middle ground between these two perspectives. The patient becomes dehumanized through research; however, without this research there would be little medical improvement. Hauerwas therefore believes this middle ground should focus on caring for the patient instead of curing. With this, Hauerwas believes we do not have the moral understanding to handle current medicine.

As mentioned above, Hauerwas believes that the moral issue of experimentation on humans cannot be answered from a utilitarianism versus deontological perspective. He believes that society lacks a cohesive understanding of the notions of “the good of mankind” and “the rights of the individual.” Only when this issue is solved can society come to a conclusive decision on how science should be used to serve humans needs. Therapeutic and nontherapeutic experimentation on humans are differentiated by the intent of the procedure. Therapeutic experimentation is meant to help the patient with their current needs, while nontherapeutic experimentation has no intention of helping the patient, but to collect research for the benefit of future patients. The issue becomes: should medical progress be helping the current patient or the future patient? Stanley Hauerwas believes society has no consensus of the meanings of health and illness, which contributes to the issue of how patients should be treated. Only when society comes to a universal understanding of these issues can the moral dilemma of experimentation on humans be resolved.

Informed consent[link]

Hauerwas finds little justification for human experimentation through informed consent. He argues that a patient’s understanding of an experimental procedure will never approach that of his or her physician. He questions even the possibility of a patient reaching a state of “informed consent.” He further believes that if individuals reach such a state of “informed consent”, this does not mean individuals should consent, or fully understand the meaning of their consent. “For persons can misuse themselves even if they do so voluntarily and with full knowledge.”^[12] Individuals consenting to experimentation through the justification of the human good, turn themselves into objects for the use of the experimentation. The issue is further complicated for Hauerwas as to whom should be considered for medical experimentation. The use of prisoners only proliferates social stereotypes and denigration. He believes that informed consent is necessary for human experimentation, but it does not provide justification for our willingness to submit and participate in experimentation.

Language of rights[link]

Hauerwas finds the language of “rights” to be disturbing as it assumes that people relate to others as strangers, and lends even the understanding of the family to that of a contractual society. He argues that being part of a family, however, is not a voluntary undertaking. As such, when one is part of a family, the kinds of responsibilities each member holds are in relation to each other. Hauerwas finds that as a parent, you have a duty to your children, not just because you brought them into existence, but because the role of parent is to ensure the children are brought up in a way that is conducive to the community’s values. Thus, the issue with “rights” language is that it attempts to prevent maltreatment of individuals to the point of exclusion of familial and communal responsibility. Hauerwas’s bottom line is that there can be no real society if its members only relate in terms of noninterference. The language of rights destroys society because we regard people as strangers instead of assuming the responsibility towards them as family and members of the community that we share.

Views on death and dying well[link]

Hauerwas believes that there is a difference between the concept of death and the criteria for death. The concept of death “involves a philosophical judgment of a significant change that has happened in a person”^[13] and therefore “is a correlative of what one takes to be the necessary condition of human life, e.g., … the potential for consciousness”.^[13] The criteria of death, however, are “those empirical measurements that can be made to determine whether a person is dead, such as cessation of respiration or a flat EEG”.^[13] Thus, brain death is a criterion of death that may serve “as a symbol of when it is time to die”.^[14] A person must not delay death so long that it no longer possible to die a good death.

On the subject of suicide, Hauerwas challenges the claim that autonomous suicide is morally acceptable, but also wants to distinguish himself from the position that denies rational suicide. He believes that suicide can be and often is a rational decision of an “autonomous” agent, but does not agree with the notion that it is justified. He contends that suicide as an institution must be considered morally doubtful, as the life that we are given should be considered a gift bestowed upon us by God. To many, the term "rational suicide" is based on the assumption that the decision to live or die depends on whether life has a meaning or purpose.^{[citation needed]} Hauerwas, however, contends that the reason we should live on, is because our lives are not ours, and as such, reminds us that there is a commitment to keep on living. Yet, while there may be times in our lives where suicide may seem rational, mere existence allows us to enjoy certain joys, such as helping another, or healing the sick, that should be enough to sustain our commitment to living.

According to Hauerwas, a “good death is a death that we can prepare for through living because we are able to see that death is but a necessary correlative to a good life." A long life may give a person more of a chance to have a good death because he may be able to get himself morally in line during that time period, but it is also possible to die well quickly if you have lived morally. A good death also requires that the death be morally in proportion with the way one lived and was sustained, and occurs in a way that allows those caring for us to see that they are sustaining us.

Partial bibliography[link]

Many of his books are collections of essays; some are structured monographs. Among his more commonly known works are:

• Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection (1974)
• Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics (1975)
• Truthfulness and Tragedy: Further Investigations into Christian Ethics (1977)
• A Community of Character (1981) ISBN 0-268-00735-7
• The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (1983) ISBN 0-268-01554-6
• Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society (1985) ISBN 0-86683-957-7
• Suffering Presence: Theological Reflections on Medicine, the Mentally Handicapped, and the Church (1986)
• Christian Existence Today: Essays on Church, World, and Living in Between (1988)
• Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (with William Willimon) (1989) ISBN 0-687-36159-1
• Naming the Silence: God, Medicine and the Problem of Suffering (1990)
• After Christendom: How the Church Is to Behave If Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation Are Bad Ideas (1991) ISBN 0-687-00929-4
• Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America (1993) ISBN 0-687-31678-2
• Dispatches from the Front: Theological Engagements with the Secular (1994)
• In Good Company: The Church as Polis (1995)
• Where Resident Aliens Live (with William Willimon) (1996)
• Christians Among the Virtues: Theological Conversations with Ancient and Modern Ethics (with Charles Pinches) (1997)
• Wilderness Wanderings: Probing Twentieth Century Theology and Philosophy (1997)
• Sanctify Them in Truth: Holiness Exemplified (1998)
• A Better Hope: Resources for a church confronting capitalism, democracy and postmodernity (2000)
• The Hauerwas Reader (2001) ISBN 0-8223-2691-4
• With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology (2001) ISBN 1-58743-016-9
• The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (with Samuel Wells) (2004)
• Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Non-Violence (2004) ISBN 1-58743-076-2
• That State of the University: Academic Knowledges and the Knowledge of God (2007)
• Christianity, Democracy, and the Radical Ordinary: Conversations between a Radical Democrat and a Christian (with Romand Coles) (2008)
• Stanley Hauerwas on America’s God: Lecture at Church of the Incarnation, Dallas, Texas, on March 7, 2010. Retrieved Aug 13, 2010 here.
• "Disciplined Seeing: Forms of Christianity and Forms of Life," South Atlantic Quarterly 109:4 (Fall 2010), 765-790 (with Brian Goldstone) http://saq.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/109/4/765
• Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir (2010)
• Working with Words: On Learning to Speak Christian (2011)
• War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity (2011)

Hauerwas is series co-editor (with Jewish theologian Peter Ochs) of Radical Traditions: Theology in a Postcritical Key, published by Westview Press/Harper Collins and SCM Press/Eerdmans,^[15] and series co-editor (with Peter Ochs and Ibrahim Moosa) of Encountering Traditions, published by Stanford University Press.^[16]

References[link]

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2010)

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Stanley Hauerwas

• Wunderkammer Magazine Interview, 2010
• Interview with Hauerwas, 2004
• Interview with Hauerwas, 2008
• Hauerwas biography at Duke
• Stanley Hauerwas Online: Unofficial Internet Archive
• Stanley Hauerwas Reading Room at Tyndale Seminary
• Stanley Hauerwas: The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology
• A few articles and one audio lecture by Hauerwas at Jesus Radicals
• A Guide to the published writings of Stanley Hauerwas

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky visiting Vancouver, British Columbia in 2004
Other names	Avram Noam Chomsky
Born	(1928-12-07) December 7, 1928 (age 83) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Era	20th / 21st-century philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Generative linguistics, Analytic philosophy
Main interests	Linguistics · Psychology Philosophy of language Philosophy of mind Politics · Ethics
Notable ideas	Generative grammar, universal grammar, transformational grammar, government and binding, X-bar theory, Chomsky hierarchy, context-free grammar, principles and parameters, Minimalist program, language acquisition device, poverty of the stimulus, Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem, Chomsky Normal Form, propaganda model[1]
Influenced by Dwight Macdonald,[2] Pāṇini, Bertrand Russell,[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Dewey, Mikhail Bakunin, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Adam Smith, Zellig Harris, Rudolf Rocker, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, George Orwell, C. West Churchman, Alan Turing, W. V. O. Quine, Russian literature, Hebrew literature[4]
Influenced Colin McGinn, Edward Said, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Peter Ludlow, Tanya Reinhart, Morris Halle, Gilbert Harman, Jerry Fodor, Howard Lasnik, Robert Fisk, Neil Smith, Ray Jackendoff, Norbert Hornstein, Jean Bricmont, Marc Hauser, Norman Finkelstein, Robert Lees, Hugo Chavez, Mark Baker, Julian Boyd, Ray C. Dougherty, Derek Bickerton, Amy Goodman, Michael Albert

Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,^[5][6] cognitive scientist, historian, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.^[7] Chomsky has been described as the "father of modern linguistics"^[8][9][10] and a major figure of analytic philosophy.^[5] His work has influenced fields such as computer science, mathematics, and psychology.^[11][12]

Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy^[13] and contemporary capitalism,^[14] and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.^[15] His media criticism has included Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, an analysis articulating the propaganda model theory for examining the media.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992, and was the eighth most cited source overall.^{[16][17][18][19]} Chomsky is the author of over 100 books.^[20] He is credited as the creator or co-creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, the universal grammar theory, and the Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem.

Life and career[link]

Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928, to Jewish parents in the affluent East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the elder son of noted professor of Hebrew at Gratz College and IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) member William Chomsky (1896–1977), a native of Ukraine. His mother, Elsie Chomsky (née Simonofsky)—a native of what is present-day Belarus—grew up in the United States and, unlike her husband, spoke "ordinary New York English". Chomsky's parents' first language was Yiddish,^[21] but Chomsky said it was "taboo" in his family to speak it.^[21] Although Chomsky's mother was part of the radical activism in the 1930s, he was influenced largely by his uncle who, having never passed 4th grade, owned a newsstand that acted as an "intellectual center [where] professors of this and that argu[ed] all night".^[22] Chomsky was influenced also by being a part of a Hebrew-based, Zionist organization, as well as by hanging around anarchist bookstores.^[22]

He describes his family as living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto", split into a "Yiddish side" and "Hebrew side", with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up "immersed in Hebrew culture and literature", though he means more a "cultural ghetto than a physical one".^[23] Chomsky also describes tensions he experienced with Irish Catholics and German Catholics and anti-semitism in the mid-1930s. He recalls "beer parties" celebrating the fall of Paris to the Nazis.^[23] In a discussion of the irony of his staying in the 1980s in a Jesuit House in Central America, Chomsky explained that during his childhood, "We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome."^[24]

Chomsky remembers the first article he wrote was at age 10 while a student at Oak Lane Country Day School about the threat of the spread of fascism, following the fall of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War. From the age of 12 or 13, he identified more fully with anarchist politics.^[25]

A graduate of Central High School of Philadelphia, Chomsky began studying philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945, taking classes with philosophers such as C. West Churchman and Nelson Goodman and linguist Zellig Harris. Harris's teaching included his discovery of transformations as a mathematical analysis of language structure (mappings from one subset to another in the set of sentences). Chomsky referred to the morphophonemic rules in his 1951 master's thesis—The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew—as transformations in the sense of Carnap's 1938 notion of rules of transformation (vs. rules of formation), and subsequently reinterpreted the notion of grammatical transformations in a very different way from Harris, as operations on the productions of a context-free grammar (derived from Post production systems). Harris's political views were instrumental in shaping those of Chomsky.^[26] Chomsky earned a BA in 1949 and an MA in 1951.

In 1949, he married linguist Carol Schatz. They remained married for 59 years until her death from cancer in December 2008.^[27] The couple had two daughters, Aviva (b. 1957) and Diane (b. 1960), and a son, Harry (b. 1967). With his wife Carol, Chomsky spent time in 1953 living in HaZore'a, a kibbutz in Israel. Asked in an interview whether the stay was "a disappointment" Chomsky replied, "No, I loved it"; however, he "couldn't stand the ideological atmosphere" and "fervent nationalism" in the early 1950s at the kibbutz, with Stalin being defended by many of the left-leaning kibbutz members who chose to paint a rosy image of future possibilities and contemporary realities in the USSR.^[28] Chomsky notes seeing many positive elements in the commune-like living of the kibbutz, in which parents and children lived together in separate houses, and when asked whether there were "lessons that we have learned from the history of the kibbutz", responded,^[29][30] that in "some respects, the kibbutzim came closer to the anarchist ideal than any other attempt that lasted for more than a very brief moment before destruction, or that was on anything like a similar scale. In these respects, I think they were extremely attractive and successful; apart from personal accident, I probably would have lived there myself – for how long, it's hard to guess."

Chomsky received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. He conducted part of his doctoral research during four years at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow. In his doctoral thesis, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, elaborating on them in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures, one of his best-known works in linguistics.