This dissertation discusses, in an in-depth fashion, the question of whether the aspect of human nature is essential for shaping the institution of politics, and whether a convergence exists in the intellectual debate between Chomsky and Foucault. In seeking the answers concerning the question at hand in the realm of the debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky, two different directions of claims can be assumed in regards to human nature, both of which can be considered to be within the framework provided by the modern political philosophy. One line of argument, in which Noam Chomsky is situated particularly stresses on the specific existence of human nature, while the second claim is critical about the existence of human nature, and in this, Foucault is situated. After presenting the problematic, the issue of human nature and the shaping of politics is analyzed in a broad scope based on the Chomsky vs. Foucault debate.
Development
While Chomsky appears to agree with the anarchist claim that argues for and acknowledges the existence of human nature as well as a society that can build itself upon it, Foucault remains critical of this claim above. Foucault does not believe in the existence of human nature, and as such considers the ideas concerning human nature or justice as one which is constructivist (Ana, 2012). To that effect, the former thinker argues that such thoughts are only constructs that are cultural, and as such, they are liable to deconstruction. Within such a debate which is characterized by an increasingly unique intellectual depth, the two thinkers are out on an attempt to portray the extent of variable directions in which Left can get concerning the aspect of political philosophy. The approach assumed by both Foucault and Chomsky concerning the social sciences in the 1971 debate that took place in a Netherlands television is different. From the outset, Chomsky takes a perspective that is cognitive concerning his view about humanity in which he presents a positive stand on the question of human nature that forms the foundation of a visionary future for societal forces that are founded on the principle of justice (Noam & Michel, 2016).
In a different direction, Foucault takes a skeptical stance in regards to the concept of human nature, and in his view, along with justice, human nature represents a mere concept that was created within the civilization process of the people (Dan, 2013). However, a common ground is effectively reached by both Foucault and Chomsky in respect to the political agendas of the two; both represent a set of leftists who hugely criticize the social order that is contemporary and one which is based on what is considered to be the liberal capitalism (Ana, 2012). In this way, the two thinkers do not stand in contraction of one another on this aspect above, and merely observe concepts such as knowledge and human nature from two different perspectives based on a leftist framework. To set out on the idea of human nature, Chomsky puts forth that one needs to understand that this concept represents a set of characteristics that have common aspects for in all human beings. The said characteristics are considered as being intrinsic to all humanity and are culturally independent, implying that human nature is not influenced by an individual’s external surroundings (Noam & Michel, 2016).
The philosophical substance of the debate between Foucault and Chomsky is rooted on the aspect of whether people are to be considered a product of varied external factors, or our individual differences notwithstanding, we have a human nature that is common. On the basis of the arguments presented by Chomsky, human beings represent creative creatures, and according to him, creativity would be taken to mean that every individual possesses the capability to express their meanings as well as the ability to comprehend what others say (Dan, 2013). Chomsky puts forth that this set above of human capabilities represent what he considers to be the knowing of a language (Rajchman, 2006). For this reason, the aspect of knowledge is associated with the mastery of a given language in an unconscious manner. In explaining his view of the language and knowledge, he sets out on employing the creativity existent in the ability of a given child to comprehend new sentences that are being encountered for the first time (Peter, 2014). The issue of concern presented by Chomsky is the possible gap existing between children who possess a relatively small quantity of data which eventually results in a sophisticated and complex knowledge.
Furthermore, the phenomenon in which different people have a varied language experience is presented, implying that the said set of people will have different stimuli. Chomsky also holds the view that people will have experiences that are increasingly different, and as a result, limitations are identified for the broad range of languages, and yet, children have the ability to operate in the complex system of languages (Rajchman, 2006). Based on the arguments considered above, Chomsky concluded that there exists a form of knowledge that is increasingly innate and instinctive. The said knowledge stands for a kind of framework which is thought to dictate, from a small quantity of data, the possible acquisition of knowledge that is sophisticated; and moreover, Chomsky argues that the instinctive knowledge is an essential component of the human nature (Teresa, 2015). From the arguments presented by Chomsky, it can be derived that his claims are principally based on the cognitive perspective of individuals; basically talking about the aspect of how people have the ability to create a language for which he considers to be a human characteristic that is universal, representing the so-called universal human nature (Peter, 2014).
In a different direction, Foucault argues against the concept of human nature and its scientific associations. According to him, the aspect of human nature cannot be viewed from a cognitive angle; he puts forward that in his understanding of the knowledge of history, human nature has the role of an epistemological indicator that is, designating discourses in opposition to or in relation to such disciplines like history, biology, and theology (Dan, 2013). To effectively bring out his stance that stands in contradiction of Chomsky’s claims, Foucault draws a comparison between the concepts of human nature and life. He puts forward the claim that the idea of life is meant to describe a subject of study merely, and is not tailored towards describing living things (Ana, 2012). Similarly, he argues that the concept of human nature is an effective analog to the concept of life as applied in biology, and on that basis, human nature cannot be regarded to be a concept of scientific nature.
With the debate changing its course towards the political frontier, Foucault begins by explaining the importance of the institution of politics. He views politics as one of the fundamental subjects of the existence of humanity (Teresa, 2015). He considers politics to be central to the functioning of the entire society. On the flip side, Chomsky holds a political position that is increasingly libertarian socialism in nature, implying that he views human nature as a connection to creativity, dignity, and freedom on which he bases his understanding of its connection to specific social organizations crucial to the realization of human characteristics. Since Chomsky believes that human nature is needed for the development of creative inquiries, it follows that such social organizations as seen in politics should derive their progress from creativity, which is a fundamental aspect of human nature. To this effect, Chomsky particularly concludes that for most political philosophies, there has to be a stand that is either explicit or explicit in regards to human nature.
Personal Position
I find the question of human nature as being fundamental in the shaping of politics. As a matter of principle, virtually every political philosophy will have a standing that can be explicit or implicit concerning the concept of human nature. Although the two intellectuals seem to take opposing stands concerning the question of human nature and the way it shapes politics, keen analysis of their respective arguments offers a rare point of convergence between the claims by Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. For this reason, I find some of their claims be similar by the political motivation they carry, even though a clear divergence can be derived in the manner in which an attempt is made to characterize the intellectual means used for implementing the political motivation.
Following an in-depth delineation of the different lines of claims presented concerning the concept of human nature in regards to political philosophy as seen in the debate between Chomsky and Foucault, I find both of the intellectuals to be Left-oriented. That is to mean, they both represent public intellectuals of the time who are deeply passionate in their involvement in politics. As such, Foucault and Chomsky provide a profound criticism of the social order that is based on liberal capitalism. The initial part of the debate is rooted in the philosophical element of science, knowledge, and human nature together with its existence. For the larger part, Chomsky’s stand that human structures innately guide an individual’s intellectual as well as the social behavior is well supported. The argument informs this that human nature cannot be a product of human civilization alone, and as such, it entails both explicit and implicit stands that shape politics in regards to human nature.
Conclusion
It is derived that even though Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky seem to be opposed to each other in their debate on the issue of human nature and its existence, the two public intellectuals share a point of convergence in their deep involvement with politics. While Chomsky argues his points in support of the existence of a kind of human nature that he considers being universal, Foucault, on the flip side, stands opposed to this stand above. The situating of the Chomsky-Foucault debate calls for an overview that is tentatively presented concerning the concept of human nature in the realm of the political philosophy. While both of them take a critical stand in regards to intellectual elitism, they are split on the question of the future; Foucault restrains himself from speculation and focuses on disclosing a political power that shapes social bodies. In a different direction, Chomsky offers a visionary futuristic society that is based on justice.
References
Ana, S. (2012). Foucaul and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power and Anarchism. Central European University History Journal, 2-33.
Dan, C. (2013). Clash of the Ttans: Noam Chomsky and michel Foucault Debate Human nature and Power on Dutch TV, 1971. Retrieved from Open Culture: http://www.openculture.com/2013/03/noam_chomsky_michel_foucault_debate_human_nature_power_in_1971.html
Noam , C., & Michel, F. (2016). The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature. New York: The New Press.
Peter, W. (2014). Chomsky and Foucault on Human Nature and Politics: An Essential Difference? Journal of Social Theory and Practice, 177-205.
Rajchman. (2006). Chomsky vs Foucault: Forward to the Chomsky-Foucault Debate. London: The New Press.
Teresa, P. (2015). Foucault versus Chomsky: The 1971 Debate. Retrieved from Social Democracy: https://www.socialdemocracy21stcentury.com/2015/04/fouccault-versus-chomsky-1971-debate.html?m=1
