Foucault vs Chomsky 1971
I just had to share this wonderful footage of a conversation between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky in 1971. Personally, I think Foucault is absolutely right. Chomsky seems quite naive in this video. Watch how nervous Foucault gets when Chomsky speaks of human nature.
Part One
Part Two
Yes, that was a great discussion. It had been awhile since I last watched those clips — but they still get me excited.
However, I find it difficult to think that one ends up being more convincing than the other. While I certainly agree with all the deconstructive points Foucault raises, I’ve always thought that one of his weaknesses (and a weakness common amongst most of the radical Left) is that he lacks any sort of vision as to what we may be constructively striving to attain. Hence, I’m not sure that I agree with his point that it is impossible to speak of, or envision (in any way) what sort of outcome we may desire. Chomsky, although operating with some questionable notions about human nature, justice, etc. (his approach appears Platonic!), at least endeavours to do that with his model of anarcho-syndicalism and so I am sympathetic to him.
Here I am reminded of the words of Che: “We revolutionaries often lack the knowledge and the intellectual audacity to face the task of the development of the new… by methods different from the conventional ones, and the conventional methods suffer from the influence of the society that created them.”
However, that said, I think that when one operates in a philosophical system that does not contain the Christian God, then Foucault’s system (and those others who have followed him and been unable to posit a constructive alternative) might be the only result — Chomsky’s idea is nice, but I reckon it’ll never come about. Ultimately, I think that it is Christianity that enables us to act, and imagine, in a constructive, as well as deconstructive, manner in how we shape our day-to-day lives in response to the Powers-that-be.
dan
February 24, 2008 at 12:53 am
Dan, I had never watched it before. Of course, I’d agree with you that the central problem with both systems of thought is that they are lacking the Christian God. The reason why I like Foucault’s points in this conversation (and the reason why I like Foucault in general) is that he exposes the facade. Although it does not offer us anything constructive, it does provide necessary space for us to think constructively. I am also sympathetic to Chomsky, but it is hard to take him all that seriously. That being said, I think he is correct that we need to talk about human nature when thinking about politics. We just have to be aware that our concepts of human nature are always shaped by a particular tradition.
roflyer
February 24, 2008 at 11:23 am
ROF,
Yes, I agree that we do need to talk about human nature when we think about politics, but I don’t think our concepts of human nature can be at the core of our politics, otherwise we simply continue the anthropocentricism of the Enlightenment tradition (and end up with a Bultmannian approach that reduces theology to anthropology; indeed, this has been a flaw of many Christian responses to capitalism — from Evangelicals like Hay, to Roman Catholics like JPII — they focus on the way in which capitalism operates with a deficient anthropology, never noting that such a deficient anthropology is a symptom of worshipping the wrong God). Granted, our concepts of human nature are always shaped by a particular tradition but I would be more specific and argue that our concepts of human nature are always a symptom of our concepts of God. I think that this is what Scripture tells us: what we believe about God, and which God we end up serving, ends up determining what sort of human nature we possess (i.e. if we worship idols, we become like the idols, if we worship God, we become like God). Of course, this could be the same thing you are implying when you talk about being shaped by traditions, but I just thought I’d throw this out there.
dan
February 24, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Dan,
When I say we need to think about human nature when thinking about politics I mean in the context of Christian tradition. I definitely would not want to imply a sort of anthropocentricism. I am convinced that the church must find its model in the triune God and similarly to be truly human is to participate in the life of God. I agree whole heartedly with you.
My point about human nature is more a point about telling the Christian story about what it means to be human. Liberal democracy has a particular of human nature, which is informed by a Christian view of original sin. The problem is that liberal democratic theorists hope that the state will save us from our sin, instead of Jesus. This was a huge revelation for me, a real turning point in my thinking about politics. It hit me during one of Cavanaugh’s lectures in a course on theology and politics. If you’ve read Cavanaugh’s theopolitical imagination then you’ll have a good perspective on where I coming from here.
roflyer
February 25, 2008 at 1:30 am
My initial observations:
-Foucault is still fashionable! Check out his glasses, the bald head, the slightly sardonic and disinerested gaze (does he speak English?)
-Chomsky is incredibly grounded (and He understands French!)
Roger Flyer
February 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Mynext observation:
I was in the crowd that day as an afro haired freshman. Look at the crowd about 1/2 way through Part 2.
OK I’m kidding
Roger Flyer
February 26, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Finally, maybe Foucault was truly a misunderstood (and highly anxious) genius, but Chomsky’s presentation was well thought out and clearly presented.
i don’t think he came off as naive.
Roger Flyer
February 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Even if one has read Foucault extensively, I can’t understand the fascination with his thought beyond its radical intellectual appeal. To criticize the notion of critique itself for its lowly origins within the system of bourgeois justice begs the question of the criticism’s own origins. Throwing out notions of justice, oppression or liberation leaves the vocabulary of liberation (anti-liberation?) impoverished. A more fitting critique of Chomsky would challenge the concepts of human nature and justice that he puts forth. The possibilities are endless. A basic critique should be obvious to Canadians who know anything about how their country was founded in distinction from the United States. American politics, with a few exceptions, separates into establishment and protest streams that operate under the umbrella of liberalism and the constitutional values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A Canadian perspective could at least start with the conservative Tory values of peace, justice and good government. These values are open to criticism as well. The point is that there are many possibilities, and they emerge from the scum and muck of domination that Foucault despises so much. We should define a better vision of a future society, and the starting point should be public discussion of these possibilities.
Jim Cheatley
March 1, 2008 at 3:42 am
Hey Jim, thanks for your comment. It is 2AM here and I’m standing in my parents garage after a four hour session of tearing my car apart to get to my broken heater motor. So, I was happy to get your comment and take a break from auto repair.
Although you are correct to note that Foucault’s criticism can only get you so far, I think he’s still helpful. He is helpful because he calls us to continually call into question the underlying power behind the liberal-democratic establishment’s discourse of human rights, justice, etc.
Of course you are right that Foucault is subject to his own criticism. I don’t think we have to “throw out notions of justice, etc.” we just have to be clear what we mean by them.
I think you’re right about Chomsky. We certainly must critique his view of human nature, but on what basis? How does one come to any understanding of human nature? It seems to me that this is always a somewhat subject affair relative to one’s guiding presuppositions. Instead of asserting an American or a Canadian perspective, I would want to assert a Christian one.
All notions of human nature put forth will be based on some guiding tradition, which necessarily will assert itself over and against other traditions and perspectives on human nature. For instance, I would argue that the Christian tradition has a radically different understanding of human nature than the American tradition (and the Canadian). And I think this poses a real problem for Christians (or at least it should).
Because I believe think any assertion of a Christian political theology has to be founded on nonviolence, this complicates a vision for society. In other words, because I think Constantinianism is a heresy, the “assertion” I envision will resist coercive implementation.
Did that make any sense? Back to the car…
roflyer
March 1, 2008 at 4:16 am
Very insightful comments. To me, Foucault presents a dilemman. He advocates fighting against power and institutions, but why? On what basis is he judging those institutions to be bad? He has rejected the notions of justice, etc., so how are we to judge anything as “bad” and worth fighting against? And what is his ultimate objective? In the debate Chomsky rejects the idea of overthrowing one tyrant for another. Foucault just answers “why not?” For him I guess its no different than the S&M play he indulged in in those San Francisco bathhouses in the 1970’s.
PB
March 3, 2008 at 11:51 pm
PB ad-hom. argument. You can do better than that.
wobblycity
November 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm