The article describes a debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. The subject of the debate was on human nature and was hosted by Fons Elders, a Dutch philosopher. The two were trying to answer the question of whether human nature exists independent of our external influences and experiences. In his approach, Chomsky introduced the ideas of libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism; he uses them to establish and explain how politics and anarchism relate. Foucault also takes the point of view of the classical anarchists, subscribing to thoughts by philosophers like Todd May and Gilles Deleuze. They both critique power and how it affects people; this paper seeks to create an insight into main concepts and ideas developed by the two philosophers.
Development
Chomsky begins his argument by stating that the creativity of human beings contributes to their need to create freely. According to him, a decent society has to be able to maximize its potentials, especially in terms of politics. Such an argument was common among like Pjotr Kropotkin anarchist in the 19th century. Chomsky (2014) notes that society has developed considerably since those ages of anarchism; as a result, he believes that people no longer have to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process. On this matter, Foucault explicitly opposes Chomsky's stand. In response, he points out that the present society is characterized by a regime of a dictatorship of the class, particularly in the western democracies. Therefore, power tends to manifest not only in the contemporary class society and in state apparatus, but also in societal institutions of caring and learning, family, and in science and systems of knowledge.
The philosophers went on to introduce the idea of language and its role in driving political discussions and agendas. They discuss the relationship between politics and linguistics in regards to their contribution to the analysis of the discourse present in the exercise of power. On this matter, there seemed to be a bottom line in the debate as both Chomsky and Foucault sought to translate the basic question using their own terms. Chomsky based his argument on the universality of linguistics in relation to human decency and justice. On the other hand, Foucault focused on the material and historical restrictions brought about by linguistics in relation to the practice of power. Somewhere within the discussion on the matter, the two arrived at a common ground; they acknowledged that language and power, linguistics and politics have significantly contributed to the rise of political intellectuals who have in turn shaped the organization of different human societies (Bricmont, Chomsky & Franck, 2007).
Another matter that arose in the discussion was on political struggle. Chomsky and Foucault sought to explain why and how political struggle can be justified. To begin with, Foucault describes his stand using the aspects of legality and justice. He held that better legality and better justice presents a modest idea in a political quest. He states that although legality and justice are closely related, they are not identical. Therefore, Foucault insists that proletariat instigate a war against a dominating class mainly as it needs to possess the power. He reveals that people begin a war not to win, but because it is considered a justified move. Chomsky is strongly opposed to Foucault's argument. He responds to it by noting that the only thing that the proletariat will achieve through a war and through taking over power is the supersession of the power of the class, generally. However, Foucault reiterates his point and somehow radicalizes it by claiming that justice was developed and implemented as an instrument to be utilized by certain economic and political powers within a society of classes. Thereby, in a society without classes, justice does not even exist or rather cannot be applicable.
According to Chomsky (2014), a perfect society does not and cannot exist. He does not share in Foucault's notion that justice cannot exist in a classless society. He argues that justice exists regardless given that it is based on the argument that drives the push or attempts for the realization of human needs. Furthermore, he notes that justice does not function solely to put certain people or class into power. In this subject of justice, the debate became more of a political disagreement than a dialogue. The discussion turned tense as interruptions by the Elders were not being responded to by either of the two; their behavior embodied what was common within the people of the society of the time. The society then was characterized by a class struggle with the contagious factor being injustices being experienced by minority classes and the lower social echelons of the society.
Nevertheless, Foucault goes on and reinstates his claim that human nature and justice form the integral parts of our class systems. He discredits Chomsky's argument on the justification of struggle for justice as the push for fundamental within a society. He ends by stating that political struggle cannot be justified. From there, Foucault becomes reluctant to take part in the debate as he refuses to comment on the use of classification in the existing society to explain the legality or justice in a political struggle.
From the debate, Chomsky and Foucault's understanding of politics seems to be divergent. For the audience and readers, they presented the predominant philosophical perspectives. The deduction is, thereby, that politics and can be philosophically critiqued using the existing positive argument for ideals through the present ideologies. Foucault tied his empirical claims on the idea that power dominates institutions in the contemporary society. He also believed that the same has been going on since time immemorial. Even though Foucault does not share in the idea of normative ideals present in classless society, he thinks that politics plays a contributive factor. As a result, he is conflicted given that in one hand he acknowledges that power relations exist and on the other, he also believes in a utopian notion society; the relation between the two does not exist. Chomsky also believes in normative ideas; however, he seems to disregard that fact that the ideals have and still progress within the human societies. In regards to the justice element in the society, Chomsky assumes that it crates the practical reasoning that drives real politics and power attempts; Foucault is particularly opposed to this assumption and that is why he stopped participating in the discussion (Punzi, 2014).
Personal Opinion
In my view, as compared to Chomsky's arguments, those by Foucault have some considerable weaknesses. For instance, although he claimed to prefer politics over philosophy, he fails to justify his political argument and scientific explanations, especially the ones on normative aspects and normal logic in practical reasoning. He resorts to making a stern stand and ends his participation after Chomsky justifies his standby linking the political struggle to justice strives within societies. Foucault's claim that power rules among the proletarians regardless of their proclaimed idealism seems unrealistic. For him, politics is simply a source of power that can be utilized by the proletarians. According to Punzi (2014), Foucault does not believe in sovereign power. As a result, he moves towards some type of ‘an-archic’ element in politics where he then tries to explain his idea of political rationality. In a sociological perspective, human needs are intrinsic which makes Chomsky's point of view more justified as compared to that of Foucault. Foucault’s stand has been referred to as post-structural anarchism that is defensive, tactical, and micro-political (Chomsky & Foucault, 2011); I also believe the same and justify his school of thought as ‘pessimistic activism.’
The two had a chance to link their arguments to common social pieces of evidence instead of coming unsubstantiated philosophies. Chomsky states that people respond to power struggle because they are interested in meeting certain needs. Sørensen (2013) rationalizes Chomsky’s point of view by stating that when the working class anarchists set out to push for policy changes, human nature as such does not need a powerful state to resolve the things that are considered wrong or vices. The understanding of what makes it good or bad, right or wrong in the present society has been affected by factors like religion and exploitation through capitalism. Therefore, in this case, Foucault’s proletarian class, was to be eliminated, in principle, human nature can reach a point where there could be no need for any replacements.
Peace can, thereby, be fostered as members of communities or societies can accord each other the chance to satisfy their needs. McHoul, McHoul, Grace (2015) mentions that anarchists that acknowledge the need to secure and ensure human needs are moral rationalists. Chomsky (2014) made his stand because he believed that, social rights could emerge from the derived knowledge of labor and social conditions and that anarchism in the tradition stemming can arise from the working class movement.
Conclusion
Anarchism described by Chomsky and Foucault can be distinguished in terms of social, aesthetic, poetic, or philosophical factors. While there are several philosophers who have criticized the domination of particular institutions so as to acquire popular sovereignty, most of them acknowledge the fact that power can be expressed as an aesthetic distaste for political and social power. Through the years, human societies have attempted to manage the power being attributed to or being wielded by a few groups of people. The universality of human needs has inferred that in the attempt for political stability, people have held similar or shared agendas. Besides the apparent conflicts in science, human nature, and politics, there are other plenty of factors that have caused conflict within and between social communities. This is why even today a debate such as the one by Chomsky and Foucault, even though it happened over 40 years ago, can still result leading to the same conclusions. Human nature remains exemplary not only because of its transnational character but also because of its illumination of the need in regards to matters that press the society and the collective strive to achieve equity and justice.
References
Bricmont, J., Chomsky, N., & Franck, J. (2007). Chomsky (Vol 88). Herne.
Chomsky, N., & Foucault, M. (2011). Human nature: Justice versus power: The Chomsky-Foucault debate. New York: Souvenir Press.
Chomsky, N. (2014). In the name of what to refuse the law in place ?. Way of Seeing , 10, 46-46.
Jordan, É. (2013). V. Plurality of theories. Landmarks , 80-93.
McHoul, A., McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (2015). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power and the subject. New York: Routledge.
Punzi, A. (2014). Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, human nature: Justice vs. power. The Chomsky-Foucault debate. Información Filosófica, 11(22), 123-124.
Sørensen, A. (2013). Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, human nature: Justice vs power. The Chomsky-Foucault debate, edited by Fons Elders (London: Souvenir Press, 2011), ISBN: 978-1-595-58134-1. Foucault Studies, 16, 201-207.
