Human nature comprises unique characteristics such as feeling; ways of thinking that are shared by all humankind. All human beings tend to have these features naturally or through experience. To understand human nature, one has to assess the essence of what it is to be human. It also includes the mental-spiritual and the species identity of all human being (Adler, 2013). It is a complex topic as for whether all the characteristics of human are naturally acquired and do not arise from everyday experiences as well as external forces. There are those schools of thoughts that argue that human nature is innate, implying that they are naturally obtained or inborn. On the other hand, there are those that posit that human nature develops from our experiences as well as influenced by external forces. In discussing human nature, to assess whether it is innate, independent or any external experience, a debate between Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault will be examined.
Chomsky and Foucault debate on human nature came about at the height of the Vietnam War where there was a great concern on peace and stability as well as social and political instability. The duos were invited to give an insight into the human nature its characteristics and what makes it up. Chomsky viewed human nature as a biologically endowed concept that is independent of any historical or social influences (Foucault 1971). He claimed that the deepest properties of human nature are genetically determined and the, therefore, any study on human nature should be carried out the same way the functions of body organs are examined. He further posits that any stance taken by a human arises from some conception of what can be good for people in a society. The notion will tacitly assume specific belief as to the establishment of human nature, which are the needs, and potential of humans (Sayers, 2013). Chomsky asserted that all human have some biological functions that are endowed with mental capacities. He believes that the properties of human can be difficult to validate, but no one can argue that they do not exist.
To further emphasize that human nature is innate, Chomsky stated that even though people can grow up in a different environment, they all have a universal aspect on their mental traits. For instance, whatever the environment one grew up in, his/her conception of virtues and vices are the same. In other words, everyone, no matter where they come from agrees on the nature of virtue and vices. Also, people can interact with those who are different from them culturally but can communicate and understand each other (Sayers, 2013). According to Chomsky, evidence in the universality of human nature is the moral justification of their actions. For instance, the Nazis could not boast of killing the Jews, but to give the moral aspect of it, they stated that they were acting in self-defense.
In the same way, Bill Gates and the Himmler give a story that they were working for the benefits of all human being in the world. Therefore, in both the Nazis and the likes of Bill Gates cannot simply state that their actions are to maximize their benefit because in both cases, such an argument would be pathological (Sayers, 2013). This statement shows that everywhere would want to be perceived positively and even where they are involved in acts that are considered immoral such as murder; they would turn the blame to their victims or some other things but will not agree that they did it for the fun of it or their gains.
In analyzing Chomsky’s argument on human nature, one gets the perception that they are innate or inborn. The different environment people live in or grew up in does not change their ability to think, communicate as well as other features that make a human being. Their cultural practices can be different but do not make human nature or their human characteristics from others (Downes & Machery, 2013). All can communicate, feel, eat, behave and even think. It does not necessarily mean that they have to think the same or talk the same language or does things the same, but the fact that all human does all these even in their different ways shows that their nature is biological and is not influenced by any external force.
Chomsky’s case further looked at the revolution experienced in the world. There has been a moral change from previous generations such as the period of the slave trade to the time of its abolition, the feminism movements because people began to accept the responsibilities they have towards other people (Foucault 1971). These changes were experienced in all corners of the world even though the group that initiated such movement did not visit all the states in the world to advocate for the changes, however, the ability to think and take actions that are seen by others to be morally acceptable is what made the spontaneous change in moral levels.
Foucault in his argument claimed that human nature is not inborn as most people believe. He asserts that power structures in every society have a way of influencing human nature. Also, he claimed that human nature is understood differently at any given time. What the ancient people knew about human nature is contrary to the ideas of the current generations. This is attributed to the intrinsic or some elements of human nature(Downes & Machery, 2013). According to Foucault, there is no continuity in the understanding of what comprises human nature. This is because people perceive human nature based on their socio-cultural and political practices as well as their power relations. Therefore the durability of human nature depends on how power or politics is exercised in any given society (Foucault, 1971). In his work and argument in the debate concerning human nature, Foucault emphasizes the role of power in the shaping of the understanding of various issues throughout history. Therefore what constitutes human nature is informed by the power structure because it shapes the central paradigm at any given generation whether religious, scientific or even moral.
Further, he viewed power as the instrument that molds as well as sustain process in the production of truth or a unique set of cultural practices that are seen in different societies. This implies that human nature cannot be universal among all humans all over the world but different because of the external forces like power structure (Foucault, 1971). The order of reason in every epoch is different because the power configuration in each era determines what they perceive as truth. Also, power relations in such society model the formation and acquisition of knowledge in any given age. Therefore it is the power and knowledge in every generation that shapes what they believe to be true(Foucault, 1971). This argument implies that what Chomsky believes as the truth on human nature is based on this current generation and its power structure. Therefore, if Chomsky were to live long enough to several centuries to come, he would most probably see the different reasons concerning human nature.
For this reason, Chomsky’s opinion on human nature has been shaped by the power relations in the society that he resides hence cannot be taken as the universal truth about human nature. Foucault further claimed that power produces the makeup and ability on how humans see themselves in the world. In this essence, what human all over the world considers as virtue or vice depends on their society and the power structure. One can take Foucault’s view as true especially when one assess why cultures are different. There are those that believe in war and those that consider it an immoral act. The two societies can be said to have different nature of humans as their beliefs are different and most probably shaped by the power relations. The power in every corner of the world is not something that can be shared by different societies. It informs people’s notion about what is illegitimate or legitimate and also what is considered immoral and moral. In other words, in Foucault’s opinion, there is nothing as inborn nature when it comes to the human race. Every way they think and the reason is shaped by their society and powers that structure that is found in it.
Having assessed the argument of these two philosophers concerning the innateness of human nature, one can, therefore, conclude that indeed human nature is innate, inborn and is not influenced by external forces. This is because the keen analysis of the opinions put forward by the two, they tend to arrive on the same location even though they have taken different vectors. Chomsky’s arguments were not that people are the same all over the world or that they think the same and act the same. He simply stated that all human have a mind to think and it can be in the same direction or not (Green & Piel, 2015). The main issue was that they all have this ability to think things and act. Foucault based his notion on power relations and how they shape society. In all this, there is still one truth on human nature, they think. As a result, people that make up power in the societies described by Foucault can think on how to govern their people or manipulate them in a certain way.
Moreover, Chomsky stated that in what human beings engages in, they would have a justification for it, it is human nature. Therefore those who engage in practices that are considered immoral, if approached, would justify their actions in a way to appeal to those different from them that they are not bad people or people with no virtues, but those that have been left with no choice other than the way they react (Downes & Machery, 2013). This is common in societies. Chomsky does not reject the fact that power exists and that shapes human behavior in the society, but the universal thing is the “behavior” which everyone acts in a certain way (Prinz, 2014).
In conclusion, the two philosophers can be said to be right in both their argument event even though they did not agree on the innateness of human nature. The opinion by Foucault that power shapes human behavior and thinking concerning what is immoral or moral is true. The societies where we come from have different beliefs specifically to what can be considered right or wrong. However Chomsky’s perception did not dispute these, in his opinion, all human have the definition of vice and virtue. It does not necessarily have to be the same, but the fact that they all have such sense makes human nature inborn. Also, Foucault’s argument that power might shape people’s thinking about what is true or false is real, but according to Chomsky, it does not take away the ability to think which is universal in all humans. Therefore human nature can be said to be innate and not influence by our experience or any external force.
References
Adler, A. (2013). Understanding Human Nature (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.
Downes, S. M., & Machery, E. (2013). Arguing about human nature: Contemporary debates.
Foucault, M. (1971). The Foucault-Chomsky Debate. New York: The New.
Green, M. G., & Piel, J. A. (2015). Theories of human development: A comparative approach. Psychology Press.
Prinz, J. J. (2014). Beyond human nature: How culture and experience shape the human mind. WW Norton & Company.
Sayers, S. (2013). Marxism and human nature. Routledge.
