The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

by Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, John Rajchman (Foreword)

Two of the twentieth century's most influential thinkers debate a perennial question.
In 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War and at a time of great political and social instability, two of the world's leading intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, were invited by Dutch philosopher Fons Edlers to debate an age-old question: is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences?
The resulting dialogue is one of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault), soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviorism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice in the realm of politics.
In addition to the debate itself, this volume features a newly written introduction by noted Foucault scholar John Rajchman and includes additional text by Noam Chomsky.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Theory, Science

213 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't finished this book and probably will not get a chance to read the other essays in it for a while now. All the same, the transcript of the debate (if you could really call it that) between Foucault and Chomsky is interesting for a number of reasons. The first is that Foucault doesn't really get going at all and this is due to the problems of the medium. Television seems like it really ought to be quite an impressive medium - whereas it is a really pathetic waste of time. My favourite part is where Foucault asks the presenter if he will have time to respond and the presenter says there will be lots of time, so Foucault asks how much time is lots of time and the presenter answers two minutes. The text says, "Foucault laughs" - I reckon, despite my not knowing any French at all - that even I would be able to interpret that laugh into English. I suspect the adverb that would go after it wouldn't be he laughed heartily or jovially. I suspect one would have to say, Foucault laughed with ironic resignation. Certainly he would not have used the standard "haw, haw, haw, mon ami" of which the French are rightly famous.

Where this book is particularly interesting is in relation to Chomsky. For years I've struggled to understand the relationship between Chomsky's linguistics and his political ideas. I am hardly the first person to wonder about this. Pinker mentions it in one of this books on how the mind works - and more or less says it is surprising that someone who has contributed so much to our understanding of linguistics can have such nutty political views. Now, that's exactly what I would expect someone to think who believes that the nature / nurture debate has been settled in favour of nature. Chomsky's linguistics is based on the idea that our biology is key. He believes this on the basis that the poverty of instruction children receive ought to mean it would be impossible for them to learn language at all. This view has been undermined by much of the work that has been done by the sociolinguists such as Halliday, but I've discussed that in other reviews. The point is that Chomsky's genetic determinism has always struck me as being in contradiction to his political views.

Put simply - if something so basic as language is genetically determined, then it doesn't seem such a stretch to also believe that our political institutions and systems are manifestations of this basic 'human nature'. If that is the case then it would seem odd to talk of social change and to complain about these institutions. What is, it would seem, is human nature made social and so Chomsky's complaints about society have always seemed to me in opposition to the biological determinism implied in his linguistics.

But this is where this text is interesting. To quote Chomsky:

"I think it is too hasty to characterize our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression."

And why? Well, as I've said, they must be manifestation of a deeper human nature Chomsky believes this human nature is fundamentally just in its character. The problem is that this fundamental human nature has been perverted by powerful institutions - so the corrective is to find means to allow these innate human preferences for justice to gain the upper hand. This is criticised by Foucault, who sees these issues not at all based on fundamental and innate human characteristics, but rather on the basis of socially defined power relationships that create the cultural discourse of any particular moment. As he replies:

"I would like to reply to you in terms of Spinoza and say that the proletariat doesn't wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just. The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power."

Chomsky immediately disagrees. The point is that humans are innately disposed to justice and the task is not to overthrow and recreate more just systems - but rather to allow the current (eternal?) human tendencies towards justice a chance to flourish. As he says:

"I think we're safer in hoping for progress on the basis of those human instincts than on the basis of the institutions of centralised power, which, I believe, will almost inevitably act in the interests of their powerful components."

I suspect Chomsky's innate view of human nature may well be part of the reason he often leaves me feeling somewhat helpless after reading him. It may be that believing, as he does, that a tendency toward social justice is innate implies that exposing the excesses of power to people should outrage their sense of justice and thus motivate them to action. But I tend to think the opposite happens and people feel so overwhelmed that all hope evaporates.

I have learnt much from Chomsky over the years, but I do not agree with his innate and biologically driven linguistics and I don't subscribe to his innate and biologically driven notions of justice either. I think human culture is much more complicated than can be explained away by our biology and that the patterns that are discernible on the social scale are not exhausted by reference to our biology. I much prefer Foucault's view that one must analyse social power to make sense of social institutions.

So, reading this - even only the first part of this book - has answered a long-standing problem I have had with Chomsky. For that alone it has proven a worthwhile read.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

As it turns out the two titans had a televised discussion in Sweden in 1971. That's some pretty esoteric TV. The transcript is an intellectual snack -- like a philosophy pizza bagel -- that looks great on the box but turned out kind of mushy in the microwave.

Both Chomsky and Foucault are illuminating writers: you can jump into one of their books and feel like you're super smart and you're finally getting all the answers. For this reason both have given me fits of adulation at various times. So for me it would be bordering on the sublime to see them duke it out verbally. A perfect after school snack.

But alas, they didn't really delve deep into questions where they disagree (linguistics, the nature of power, the goal of social revolution, etc.) as much as politely touch upon them and move along. I think this because they wouldn't have known where to start a debate, since they come from totally different places. Big C is a "libertarian" writing in the Anglo-American liberal tradition, so he likes to jones about individual freedom and knowledge and creativity in the face of the repressive state. Foucault is a (post)structuralist Frenchman, so he's trying to get away from "the subject" altogether and start thinking about discursive structures instead. For example at one point it becomes clear that while C is striving towards Justice with a big J, F would rather concentrate on teasing out the power relations behind "justice." There's not much overlap there -- or rather, it would take a very nutritious home cooked intellectual history meal to get at it, and who's in the mood for that?

[عبدالرحمن عقاب · Rating 2 out of 5]

خيّب هذا الكتابي أملي به.
أردته مدخلًا إلى عالم الكاتبين خاصة (فوكو) لأني على معرفة جيدة –إلى حدٍ ما- ب (تشومسكي)، وأردته ‏بحثًا في (طبيعة الإنسان) تحديدًا كما أوحى العنوان. خاصة بعد أن فشلت في الاستماع باستمتاع وتركيز إلى ‏نصّ المحاضرة المتوفر على اليوتيوب بسبب تعدّد اللغات وسوء الترجمة. ‏
لكنّي للأسف وجدته حديثًا متشعبًا لا يشبع باحثًا، ولا يُغني دارسًا، ولا يمتع قارئًا، بالإضافة إلى أنّه بعيد عن ‏عنوانه. ‏
وختامًا، وقعتُ في فخٍ أعرفه- للأسف- وهو قراءة محاضرةٍ مفرّغة أو حوارٍ مفرّغٍ دون تحرير يحوّل الكلام ‏‏(المقول) إلى نصّ (مكتوب). فلكلّ منهما طبيعته.‏

[Ahmed Ibrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

المناظرة المباشرة أظرف كثيرا من تفريغها في كتاب ومن الجيد توفرها على يوتيوب، بالإضافة للمناظرة يضيف الكتاب حوارات ومقالات أخرى للكتاب.
ليست المناظرة مدخلا بأي شكل لفكر أي منهما لأنها ليست أفكار مقدمة بشكل ترتيبي يستطيع القارئ أو المشاهد تتبعه، بل هي خاضعة لما يفرضه الحوار من تطرق إلى مواضيع مختلفة.

المناظرة المباشرة نفسها ممتعة جدا، أمتع من الكتاب، لكن يجب أن تكون مطلعا يشكل جيد على أفكار تشومسكي وفوكو قبل هذا لكي تستطيع أن تستمتع بها.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty good window into the thought of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. I'm not sure this volume would stand alone very well, but it certainly clarifies the work of each by showing them in contrast, and thus makes a great companion to each man's writings.

This the is the transcript of a debate held by Dutch television in 1971, in which Chomsky (speaking in English) and Foucault (in French) responded to the questions posted by moderator Fons Elders regarding human nature and political justice. Loosely speaking, Chomsky argued that there is such a thing as a universal human nature and an ideal of justice that transcends self-interest; Foucault argued that human thought is the result of its cultural context and that political activity is an expression of collective self-interest. (To speak much too broadly, they were debating whether human experience is defined by nature or nurture.) In fact, however, the two men stood in agreement on most crucial points, and most differences between them were differences in emphasis.

Chomsky's key contention was that human language and human scientific "creativity" (i.e., the generation of scientific hypotheses, experiments, and theories) require a certain inborn set of mental dispositions. There is something human brains have in common at birth that make it possible for us to make sense of (and in) the world. It is natural for us to construct workable scientific theories, and it is natural for us to acquire languages very quickly as children based on minimal exposure, because the brain is organized to perceive and comprehend certain kinds of patterns. What we do not do, Chomsky argued, is encounter the natural world, or the sentences constructed by older people, as blank slates, open to all possible patterns. We do not simply receive information passively as it arrives; we file it in mysterious preset categories. Therefore, there is such a thing as "human nature"; there are predispositions in the human mind that are universal to the species.

Foucault, on the other hand, emphasized a different aspect of scientific "creativity" -- the generation of strikingly new systems of thought -- only to downplay its significance. The achievements of a Newton or an Einstein, he said, were not so much the result of individual brilliance as the manifestation of preexisting social tendencies. Scientific creativity in this sense, therefore, is not as liberating as it is often portrayed as being; it is an outgrowth of, and is constrained by, the same larger forces it supposedly challenges.

To some extent, therefore, Chomsky and Foucault were not debating the existence of human nature but rather arguing that different aspects of it are salient. They frequently agreed with each other. When the conversation turned to the question of political justice, however, two key points of disagreement emerged.

Both Chomsky and Foucault, of course, identified strongly with the Left, albeit in idiosyncratic ways. In practical terms, Chomsky spoke as an anarcho-syndicalist, advocating class-conscious resistance to the concentrated power of governments and property owners. Foucault took arguably a more cynical position, suggesting that there is no means of escaping from power. The role of an intellectual, instead, is to point out how power operates in order to allow the desired class to appropriate it.

In moral terms, accordingly, Chomsky argued that the role of an intellectual is to speak for justice -- for this is what all legitimate political movements seek. Foucault countered that all political movements seek is politics itself -- that is, the members of an oppressed class take to the streets not in order to achieve justice but rather to become society's rulers themselves. This proposition clearly disturbed Chomsky.

[Khawla Al jafari · Rating 4 out of 5]

الحوار لعبة ؛ الشخص المُحاوِر يحدّد كلامك وما ستقوله وكأنّهُ يضعكَ في قيد ، أو لنقلْ في لحظة الحوار تصادر الحقيقة وبمجرّد بدء الكلام تَكُونُ قد دخلت في اللعبة ، لذا من يشاهد المناظرة سيجد أن فوكو لم يكن مرتاحًا وفي بعض الأحيان كان يصحح أسئلة " إلدرز" خاصّة عندما سألهُ : لماذا أنت مهتمّ بالسّياسة ؟
ومع كلّ هذا كانت آراؤه - بالنسبة إليّ - أكثر إقناعًا ؛ فهو دومًا ينفي فكرة الثّابت والمستقرّ سواء عندما تحدّث عن الإبداع أو بجزئيّة العدالة وهذا أمر مريح نسبيًا ، كذلك حفرياته العميقة في الأبعاد التّاريخية والسيكولوجية ومحاولة وضعها في شبكة من العلاقات أمر يلفتني .
هامش :
* من أهمّ المناظرات التي قد تمرّ بك.
* استمتعتُ بمشاهدة المناظرة أكثر من قراءتها :)

[Yazeed AlMogren · Rating 2 out of 5]

أعتقد أن تسمية الكتاب بـ "الطبيعة الانسانية" لايعكس محتوى الكتاب فعليًا، الكتاب يحوي على مناظرة بين ميشيل فوكو ونعوم تشومسكي يتحاورون في قضايا سياسية واقتصادية ولغوية، الكتاب لايناسب القارئ العادي الغير متخصص

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

يبدأ هذا الكتاب بالمناظرة الشهيرة لكل من نعوم تشومسكي وميشيل فوكو والتي جرت في هولندا في نوفمبر 1971 بإدارة المفكر الهولندي الشهير فونس إلدر، وكانت النقطتان الرئيسيتان في الحوار "سؤال الطبيعة الانسانية- والسياسة"

أتاح الحوار مساحة للنقاش عبر الجغرافيات الفكرية والسياسية، والذي أبدى وجهات النظر المختلفة لكل من تشومسكي وفوكو تبعاً لاختلاف نهجهم ( اللغوي-الفلسفي ) والسياسي في ذات الوقت- والذي يلمس جلياً في أطروحاتهم الفكرية.

كان هناك اتفاق جزئي بين تشومسكي وفوكو بما يتعلق بسؤال "الطبيعة الانسانية" والذي دار كثيرا حول مفهوم الابداع وأثره في نيل الحريات والعدالة الاجتماعية؛ يرى تشومسكي الابداع على أنه " جانب من الاستخدام العادي واليومي للغة والفعل الإنساني بشكل عام". كما يذكر بأن " أي علم اجتماعي حقيقي، أو نظرية للتغير الإجتماعي يجب أن تؤسس على مبدأ ما للطبيعة الإنسانية".

أما فوكو يركز على الأساس الإجتماعي والفكري العام للإبداعات، والإمكانات النظرية التي تنتج تنوع الظروف الإجتماعية التي يمكن للذكاء الإنساني أن يزدهر بداخلها. فهو يفكر كما يرى تشومسكي ب- " ظروف الابتكار الراديكالي".

ويتفق تشومسكي مع فوكو بأن الطبيعة الإنسانية لم تعد داخل نطاق العلم. وبالنسبة للحاضر هي تهربت من متناول البحث العلمي ولكنه يرى بأن الحقول الخاصة مثل دراسة اللغة تساعدنا على أن نبدأ بصياغة مبدأ مهم " للطبيعة الإنسانية" ؛ في جوانبه العقلية والإدراكية باعتبار ملكة اللغة جزءاً من الطبيعة الإنسانية.

باختصار شديد : تشومسكي أبدى اهتمام كبير "بالملكة الجوهرية للعقل " و فوكو " مزج بين الظروف الإجتماعية والفكرية + المنظور التاريخي لها".

حقيقةً آراء تشومسكي حول إبداع الفرد ودوره في الطبيعة البشرية إلى حد كبير قريبة من أفكار كارل بوبر وفلسفته في الهندسة الاجتماعية الجزئية وأثرها في الابداع الفردي ونيل الحريات العامة والخاصة.

بالنسبة للاختلافات حول السياسة كانت عديدة أحصر من بينها على سبيل المثال الصراع أو النضال الطبقي ودوره في تحقيق العدالة الإجتماعية وإدارة السلطة بتحولاتها.

فوكو: " ان المرء ينغمس في النضال الطبقي لينتصر، وليس لأن هذا سيقود لمجتمع أكثر عدالة".

تشومسكي :" النضال الطبقي لا يمكن تبريره الا اذا كان مدعوماً بحجة- حتى لوكانت حجة غير مباشرة معتمدة على أسئلة حقيقية وقيِّمة غير مفهومة كلياً- تزعم أنها تظهر أن نتائج هذا النضال ستكون مفيدة للبشر وستستحضر مجتمعاً أكثر صلاحاً."

الى هنا ينتهي الفصل الأول من الكتاب .

في الفصل الثاني والثالث يستمر الحواران اللذان أجريا مع تشومسكي عن السياسة واللغة " بإدارة ميتسو رونا" في عام 1971 . تطرق في حواره السياسي الى الأيديولوجية الإمبريالية الأمريكية وأثرها في المسار العقلي الإجتماعي، كما تطرق الى الدور الإجتماعي للنخبة، ومواضيع أخرى من مثل القمع والنضال ومواجهة المؤسسات والسلطة لنيل الحقوق المدنية والديمقراطية.

في اللغة تطرق تشومسكي للمشاكل الإمبريقية التي تواجه دارسي اللغة . كما تطرق لأثر ودور اللغة في دراسة السلوك الإنساني، وفهمنا للبنى الإجتماعية المعقدة.

في الفصل الرابع والخامس محاضرات ل-ميشيل فوكو حول "الحقيقة والسلطة" و " نحو نقد للعقل السياسي" والفصل السادس مقالة ل-فوكو حول " مواجهة الحكومات: حقوق الإنسان".

ناقش فوكو ونقد السلطة والعقل السياسي من منظور تاريخي وديني " الحكم الرعوي للناس "
مبرزاً أثرها على الوعي الإجتماعي والإنساني "الهوية " كما أفرد مساحة ل- دور المثقف في النضال السياسي.

كما اهتم فوكو في إظهار نمط العقلانية التي تصاحب ممارسة سلطة الدولة؛ والتحليل التاريخي ل- ما يعرف اصطلاحاً ب- "فن الحكم".

في حوارات فوكو تمت الإشارة كثيرا الى ماجاء في كتابي " تاريخ الجنون في العصر الكلاسيكي على وجه الخصوص" و "المراقبة والعقاب". أرى بأن اطلاع القارئ على أحد هذين الكتابين؛ يجعل استيعابه لأفكار فوكو الواردة في هذا الكتاب أكثر وضوحاً.

الكتاب رائع لكل المهتمين بالعلوم الانسانية و السياسية.

[Abdelrahman Badran · Rating 4 out of 5]

بلا شَك أن تشومسكي وفوكو هما من أعظم الفلاسفة في الفترة المعاصرة وهذا الكِتاب يعبر عن ذلك بوضوح في عمق الطرح لعدة مسائل ناقشاها في المناظرة الشهيرة والتي كان هذا الكتاب تلخيصاً لها -ولحسن الحظ أن المناظرة موجودة على اليوتيوب ومترجمة للعربية- . انبجس هذا النقاش عن ثلاثةَ عيون رئيسية الأولى كانت عن الطبيعة البشرية وفيها عرض تشومسكي وجهة نظره التي تأثرت بشكل أو بآخر بطبيعة عمله "فيلسوف لغويات" فرسخَ المفهوم الغريزي في فهم هذه الطبيعة وضرب مثالاً بقابلية الطفل لتعلم أي لُغة بشرية لأنه يتعرف عليها كلغة إنسانية ، عارضهُ فوكو في هذه النقطة وأكد على ضرورة الفهم العلمي الذي يتطور ويغير مع الوقت فهمنا لهذه الطبيعة. النقطة الثانية التي تناقشا فيها هي الإبداع في حياة الفرد حيثُ استطاع فوكو أن يقنع تشومسكي بأن الأثر الأكبر في الإبداع هو للظروف الإجتماعية والسياسية والسياقات التاريخية أكثر من أن يكون حادثة فردية. النقطة الثالثة تناقشا في فلسفة التغيير السياسي للمجتمعات الرأسمالية أكد تشومسكي أن التغيير يجب أن يضع أمامه مفهوم العدالة كهدف ، بينما يريد فوكو التغيير لمجرد التغيير في هذه المجتمعات وأكد أن مفهوم العدالة نسبي وأنه غامض وغير قابل للتحقيق في كثير من الظروف وكان النقاش يدور حول هذه النقطة ، قد يكون تلخيصي مُخلاً نوعاً ما لكثير من العرض حيث أنه من الصعوبة بما كان أن تكتب بسطحية عن طرح عميق ، ولكن الشيء الذي أؤكده أنها مناظرة ممتعة.
مشاهدة أو قراءة ممتعة للجميع

[Mr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is now widely conceded among post-modern/post-structuralist circles that Foucault broke the back of linguist-political scientist Noam Chomsky in this televised debate on Dutch television. Perhaps this conception further contributed to Chomksy's disdain with the French intellectual community entire in subsequent years. Nevertheless, regardless of one's political/philosophical disposition, this is an endlessly fascinating debate, between two thinkers working as "tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other's direction" (2), to use the moderators' description.

The debate begins technically, Chomksy addresses his discoveries within the domain of cognitive linguistics, and Foucault outlines his historical research into the sciences in Western civilization. Chomsky is a self-described rational `Cartesian,' a philosophical disposition largely rejected by post-modernity after the detruktion of Western philosophy by Martin Heidegger. Foucault, on the other hand, (who began as a major Heideggerian) seems to adopt a Nietzschean disposition; he rejects Chomsky's assertion that a genuine concept of human justice is rooted biologically in the human species. Rather, that our knowledge of morality and human nature are always necessarily rooted in social conditioning. Chomsky actually fails (here as well as elsewhere) to really confront the philosophy of Nietzsche, who necessarily put a dent in all forms of socialism, whether democratic, libertarian, or totalitarian. To illustrate Chomsky's elusiveness: "FOUCAULT: it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice" (54-55). But Chomksy replies by reasserting his belief that there must be an absolute basis in which notions of human justice are "grounded" (ibid), however, he relies once again solely on his partial knowledge of what `human nature' is.

[Maddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some interesting points of view. With some of them I can agree, with some of them I disagree. The debate itself didn't really feel like a debate at all. And it is definitely noticeable that at least one of them [participants] is a linguist in that way of quoting and mentioning references that would not mean anything to someone who is not part of this field, while saying much without saying anything at all. And I still believe that title is misleading in a way that this book provides a very narrow perspective on human nature, only in a sense of the creativity and intelligence, mostly arguing two opposing opinions - creativity determines intelligence, or intelligence determines the level of creativity. While hypothesis was introduced eventually, the first part of the debate was nonsensical and very narrow-minded, considering that "creativity" was mostly discussed in connection with scientific discoveries and development of scientific theories. The second part of debate about the power and politics was better and made more sense. However, it still felt somewhat disconnected from the long narrations of the first part about creativity. The continued essays are a nice addition, yet quite redundant, considering how they cover already discussed issues in greater details and with new references to other researchers, which again, do not mean anything to someone not involved in the field. Which makes it ironic how the author insists on intelligence available to everyone, granting them the right of expressing their opinion regardless of their credentials on the matter, not just the intelligentsia, yet keeps quoting and unquoting a bunch of the members of this "intelligentsia" as points of references. Interesting book of course, but not overly so.

[Ellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was my re-introduction to Noam Chomksy (I studied his linguistics work in grad school) and my first introduction to Michel Foucault. Chomksy was not asked to speak very often in the U.S and, if you are to believe his supporters and his own comments, he was actively prevented from speaking or publishing his work in the U.S in the past. This is the first time this dialogue has been available in the U.S. Based on a television program recorded in France for Dutch television in the early seventies, the much maligned Chomsky debated Foucault on the subject of human nature. This broad topic could have taken the discussion in many directions, but Chomsky and Foucault examined the social and political implications of either accepting that there is an innate human nature (Chomsky) or denying its existence, deeming that human behavior is purely the derivative of society at any given time (Foucault). Or is the truth somewhere in between? Chomsky and Foucault take the debate through history, referring to the writings of great minds like Descartes and Francis Bacon, and trying to prove their points. And then they take it into the modern political world, debating whether it is the denial of an inherent human nature that creates the political and societal crisis of today, or if it is just another phase in the development of human kind.

It is quite amusing to see how often they do not address specifically the points the other is making, and, in fact, seemed to be missing them entirely.

The debate takes up only one third of the book. The rest is devoted to interviews and writings done separately by each speaker/author that gives the reader more background on each of their philosophies.

[Ahmed Almawali · Rating 3 out of 5]

طبيعةُ الكتابِ مخادعةٌ، فالمناظرةُ اقتصرتْ على التسعين صفحة الأولى وما بعدها فحواراتٌ ومقالاتٌ لكلا الفيلسوفين مع عدمِ إشارةِ الدارِ لهذا الأمرِ على غلافِ الكتابِ وفي هذا إستغفالٌ للقارئِ الذي يظنُّ أن ما بينَ دفتي الكتاب هي المناظرةُ. لندعَ هذا الأمرَ الشكلي جانبا ولندخلَ في عمقِ المناظرةِ التي تحتاجُ لذهنٍ متقد وتركيزٍ كبيرٍ لفهمِ محورين رئيسينِ دارَ حولَهما اللقاءُ "الطبيعةِ الإنسانيةِ" و "السياسةِ" فهم وإن اتفقوا والتقوا كثيرا في الأولى فإنهمْ اختلفوا في الثانيةِ، إذْ المعرفةُ العلميةُ عند فوكو والإبداعُ العلمي لا يتصوره إلا في أنساقٍ متتابعةٍ متعاقبةٍ تاريخيا فهو يؤكدُ على الأساسِ الاجتماعي الفكري باختصارٍ "المعرفةُ كشبكةٍ أو نسقٍ" بخلافِ صاحبه الذي لا يعيرُ للجانب التاريخي كثيرَ اهتمامٍ

[Muath Aziz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I watched the one hour debate on Youtube and read few papers analyzing and arguing about the two thinkers' opinions.

It's an interesting debate. I think Chomsky has a point, but that Foucault understands Chomsky more than Chomsky understanding him.

For me, Foucault wins philosophically, but he gets us nowhere. At least Chomsky is more practical for our current societies.

[Twilight O. ☭ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Genuinely very funny to read/listen to because Chomsky is essentially correct but is powerless to argue against Foucault simply because he can't make sense of the man. Chomsky seems incapable of understanding why someone would hold the views Foucault held, and Foucault is having a lot of fun with this by playing up how esoteric and weird he is. That doesn't make for a very engaging or substantive debate, but it's objectively hilarious. As a positive, I like Chomsky's take on Descartes.* Modern readers engaging with Descartes are often very uncharitable to him, but Chomsky is very sympathetic and explains well why Descartes made the philosophical moves he made. It's this good-natured sincerity that leads to Chomsky's loss here. It's simply a poor match-up against Foucault's trickster archetype.

Foucault's anti-essentialist position leaves radicals scratching their heads about what a human being is, let alone why they would prefer one mode of social reproduction to another. It deprives us of ground from which to launch a normative attack on society, which Foucault is aware of and is alright with because he sees morality as suspect. Having helped a friend write a book whose core point is that radicals would benefit from incorporating Nietzssche's critique of morality into their worldview, I'm sympathetic to Foucault's concerns. Nevertheless, I find him taking one step too many. Allow me to illustrate.

At one point, Foucault notes that the working class does not wage war against the capitalist class because it finds its current situation unjust but because "for the first time in history, it wants to take power." Implicit here is that radicalism stems not from the better angels of our nature but rather from our greed. Chomsky fumbles his response, arguing the classic anarchist position that centralizing power in a revolution is dangerous and that we'd do better to place our hopes in humankind's instinct for justice. I'd ask both men why they counterpose power to justice as if they are contradictory.

The problem with Foucault's position here is that, without normative content, it's difficult to see what's desirable about power in the first place. Why should we be concerned with radicalism if what it brings us is not connected to our highest good? It speaks volumes that, by the end of his life in the 1980s, Foucault had abandoned his radicalism in favor of a strange brand of neoliberalism. On the other hand, Chomsky is as much an anarchist at 94 as he was at 43! Even if he naively accepts the duality between the desire for power and eudaimonia, Chomsky's position roots radicalism in something real, whereas Foucault's does not, and their lives speak to this.

Unfortunately, Chomsky's naivety does render him incapable of grappling with Foucault because, ultimately, Chomsky's position is that of a radical republican, and Foucault's position is the result of grappling with the failures of that tradition. Chomsky may have personally remained a radical, but it isn't easy to see what his radicalism has brought about in reality. If Chomsky's view of human nature has allowed him to see the profound value of a future anarchist society, what has prevented him from doing much meaningful work to bring it about?

In essence, Chomsky believes that humankind is naturally drawn to justice but that the powers have perverted this natural inclination. The education system indoctrinates children to believe falsehoods about the past, and the news-media brainwash adults into lies about the present. Then, the spreading of class consciousness must hinge on combating this propaganda. We must allow others to see as we do, with eyes unclouded. Once this is accomplished, humanity's natural desire for justice will win out more or less automatically.

It's a very liberal way of thinking about things in that it sees education and the lack of it as the defining features of our political landscape. Our enemies aren't evil, according to Chomsky. They're misinformed. This is a nice way of viewing things and is much better than the moralistic alternative, but it is wrong. Ironically, Chomsky would have done well to learn from Erich Fromm's writings, which he dismissed as superficial. Far from it, Fromm's ideas provide depth exactly where Chomsky's are lacking. Fromm, a Jewish man living in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party, had a front-row seat watching perfectly intelligent and well-informed people bring a man to power who very clearly was not going to do well by them.

I won't bother regurgitating Fromm's arguments here, but the relevance of this kind of analysis is clear. At the risk of being accusatory, Chomsky's understanding of radicalism is one in which he, as an academic, gets to play a role front and center, and I don't think this is a coincidence. As a wannabe intellectual myself, I understand the temptation, but that does not change the fact that it is deeply, deeply wrong. What's needed is a new view that weds Chomsky's understanding of the depth of human values with Foucault's appreciation of humankind's selfishness and propensity for self-transformation. Fromm laid much groundwork for such a view but failed to articulate this comprehensively. Moreover, Fromm was something of a liberal himself at the end of the day and so often shied away from the most critical implications of his work.

Yes, I did turn this into a plug for my own ideas. Sue me xD

[♡ layla · Rating 3 out of 5]

imagine foucault and chomsky debating on live television on a random tuesday

[Karim essam · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب له قدر من الاهمية ، لان من خلاله يقدر القارئ يتعرف على نبذات من أفكار الفيلسوفين نعوم تشومسكي و ميشيل فوكو بشكل بسيط
الكتاب تدور موضوعاته حول الطبيعة الانسانية ،و الابداع ، و السلطة ، و نقد العقل السياسي ، و الخطاب السياسي
و انا وقع اهتمامي على موقف نعوم تشومسكي و ميشيل فوكو من السلطة ، تشومسكي في رأيه ان النظام الأمريكي ليس نظاماً ديمقراطياً بل يعتقد أن لو كانت هناك ديكتاورية فاشية عقلانية فسوف تختار النظام الأمريكي ، و قدم تشومسكي دلائل و حجج عقليلة كثيرة تؤكد موقفه
وأشار تشومسكي في حديثه إلى النخبة الامريكية و إلى الاعلام الجماهيري و في رأيه أن الإعلام الأمريكي ليس حراً لانه عبارة عن مؤسسات رأسمالية
وقد اتفق ميشيل فوكو مع هذا الرأي فهو يعتقد انه يعيش تحت نظام ديكتاتورية طبقية ، أي تحت سلطة طبقة تفرض نفسها بالعنف

و مما استوقفني في قراءة الكتاب فكرة ميشيل فوكو عن العدالة : وهو يقول إن فكرة العدالة فكرة مخترعة و تستخدم في المجتمعات كأداة لسلطة سياسية و
اقتصادية أو كسلاح ضد هذه السلطة، و أن فكرة العدالة تعمل داخل مجتمع من الطبقات كزعم للطبقة المقموعة و كتبرير لها ، أي ان العدالة هو مجرد سلاح تستخدمه أي طبقة مقموعة كسلاح لها في قمع الطبقة المستغلة فيما بعد، و بالطبع لم يوافق تشومسكي على موقف فوكو في هذا الشأن

الكتاب يصعب أن يكتب عنه مراجعة شاملة لتشعب موضوعات خاصة و إن الكتاب عبارة عن مقابلة تلفزيونية جمعت بين الفيلسوفين تناولوا فيها آراءهم في
موضوعات مختلفة و هذه المقابلة موجودة على اليوتيوب، كما ينطوي الكتاب على عدد من المقالات المكتوبة لكلا المفكرين
اعتقد ان الكتاب قدم لي مقدمة للتعارف على نعوم تشومسكي و ميشيل فوكو بشكل أكبر

[Muhammed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Foucault ve Chomsky'nin iktidar ve adalete dair yaptığı tartışma. Fikir üstünlüğü çabası yok, ikisi de entelektüel, fakat Chomsky iktidar ve adalet kavramlarını kendini vakfettiği alandan bağımsız bir şekilde ele alamıyor. Daha çok dil alanıyla ilgilendiği için Foucault kadar konuya hakim değil gibi geldi bana ama yine de kendini iyi ifade ettiğini düşünüyorum (çok iyi değil; sadece iyi).

Öte yandan moderatör Elders (bir ara Foucault tarafından darbe yese de) çok bilgili ve konuya hakim. Sorular çok isabetli. Nitekim Foucault ve Chomsky'yi aynı paydada buluşturmak ve eleştirel bir düzlem yaratmak çok da kolay değil.

Bir diğer konu, Foucault burada karşımıza yine tanıdık bir sima ile çıkıyor; bilgi arkeoloğu. Konuya ilgisi olanların istifade edeceğine inandığım güzel bir kaynak.

Not: Meraklısı için youtube'da Türkçe altyazılı video da mevcut.

[Shane Eide · Rating 5 out of 5]

www.emergenthermit.com

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault are described in this book by Fons Elders as ‘tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other’s direction.’ Human Nature: Justice vs. Power is the title of the debate, which originally aired on Dutch television in 1971.

The title is taken from the stance that both men arrived at (or continued to entertain) into in the late stages of their careers. To reduce it to its simplest explanation—a job that the title of the book has already prepared us for—, Chomsky tends to think that some sense of justice is responsible for human nature while Foucault tends to think that programs of power play more into human behavior. One might be tempted to pin the whole occasion down to a manifestation of an ongoing war between foundationalism and hermeneutics, Chomsky being a likely tie to the former and Foucault a likely tie to the latter.

However, nothing between these two thinkers is ever quite that simple. As Chomsky continues on insisting that certain attributes of human language and creativity stem from fundamental biological properties, we start to gather that this insistence has more to do with a scientific need to push forward with a theory in order to see if it stands or falls in some provided context. This also gives Chomsky a chance to remain optimistic about the nature of man by postulating that some notion of justice or, at least, a notion of ‘better justice’ is what drives human nature—which is probably a means of remaining optimistic about the future of man.

This also gives him the opportunity to remain fairly constant through both subjects—creativity and politics. On the subject of creativity, Foucault seems to disagree with him very little or only in small ways, while remaining suspicious of the inherent logical movement of Chomsky’s assumptions. They split on Descartes and the mind, and the nuance of this split is representative of the paradigmic relationship that these two thinkers have with the subject matter.

The subject of politics is where Foucault is at his most rigorous. When asked why he is interested in politics, the most basic answer he can provide is that it would be far stranger for someone not to be interested in politics, at which point it would be justifiable to ask, ‘Well, damit, why the hell not?’ A self proclaimed ‘Nietzschean,’ Foucault’s specialty is in the genealogies and pedigrees of certain ideas and assumptions. Through socio-linguistic turns, through the intellectual extracts of different sets of phenomena and the inter-subjective dialogue possible between them through different texts, Foucault made a career out of constantly trying to step outside of the historical contexts in which we’re thrown and creating brand new narratives in such a way that they would read as though they were things hidden since the beginning of man.

The most fundamental disagreement happens late into the debate, in the political section, in which Foucault postulates, not without hesitation as though trying to avoid an impolite subject, that the notion of ‘justice’ was created and then perpetuated by the oppressed class as a justification for a certain kind of economic and political power. Chomsky defends justice as being sought as a network of basic human needs like love, decency, kindness and sympathy, whereas Foucault’s view of justice, Chomsky claims, is very specific to only certain political situations and doesn’t take into account instances like two countries going to war—One is left to choose one side, which reduces the objective to a level of basic human needs and the mutual striving of the citizens to achieve it for one another as well as themselves.

Often, Foucault, eager to escape essentialist trappings, always comes back to the subject of power as a means to clarify certain issues, though he does seem to rest there much the way Nietzsche did. However Foucault does deserve credit for defining Power along more complex lines than the Nietzschean idea of power as ‘the sensation of having overcome,’ or the force by which every set of phenomena can be reduced—‘will to power.’ Foucault takes it further by saying that power is not simply a way of measuring the ways in which the strong constrain the weak but that it can also be manifested through one culture’s influence of educational tools and medical practices. This turns Foucault around from what some have been tempted to call a pessimistic reading in favor of a liberal project that coincides with that of Chomsky’s—to work on a more livable world for all.

The debate only takes up about a third of the book. It’s followed up by another great interview with Chomsky alone, in which he discusses American policy, Vietnam, McCarthyism, the crimes of the FBI and the climate of counter culture and how various revolutions developed. There’s one long and one short essay by Foucault and in them, he sets out on a mission to map, with vague hope, a better political future while on the other hand deconstructing basic terms and ideas like ‘justice,’ ‘man of justice,’ ‘shepherd,’ and ‘lawgiver.’

Though no real conclusion is reached between them (as one might expect), it is an interesting look at a very important project for humanity, even if the means to get there are a bit hazy.

www.emergenthermit.com

[Hameed Younis · Rating 3 out of 5]

مقاربة جميلة بين نعوم تشومسكي وميشيل فوكو، فيها جانب رائع حول توظيف المؤسسات ومفهوم العدالة والسلطة والقوة.
امتعتني المناظرة كثيراً، خاصة بعد ان اتبعتها بمشاهدة الجانب المنشور من المناظرة في اليوتيوب.
لطالما احببت القراءة لفوكو وطريقة تناوله التاريخ والسلطة، دائماً تجد لديه جانباً جديداً ومستحدثاً وغير مطروق

[imane · Rating 5 out of 5]

هل قواعد اللعبة وجدت قبل الانسان او ان الانسان هو من صنع قواعد اللعبة. هل النظام الثقافة الحضارة العلوم هي التي تتحرك ام ان الانسان كائن فاعل يتحرك. هل دفع نظام لنظام اخر سيؤدي الى عدالة اكثر او انه ظلم من نوع اخر فقط هل هي رغبة في السلطة او رغبة في العدالة
https://youtu.be/YcYOuffbQ8c

[Tiago F · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've known about this debate forever, but for whatever reason, I was always lazy to finally go through it. Somehow I discovered a paperback transcript and gave it a go.

The first part of the debate is about human nature and where it is that "located". Chomsky argues that not only we have such a thing as human nature, but it is crucial for our ability to be creative. In this context, he uses creativity as the ability to produce near-unlimited valuable outputs from very little input. From is heavily based on his linguistic work, where it's impossible to account for a child's linguistic development without assumption a sort of linguist base which our brains have by default from our evolutionary history.

Foucault, on the other way, argues for one that we ought to be skeptical of the concept of human nature, and if there is such a thing, it is a limitation that resides within society, but not within the brain per se. I actually think there is a great point to Foucault, especially in relation to the development of scientific progress and its contingent socio-historical background. Nevertheless, Chomsky's argument is rather straightforward, and I find it hard to argue against. Just on philosophical grounds alone taking into our evolutionary history (and even without by a more Kantian approach), but even more so with Chomsky's linguistic work.

The second part is about justice vs power, which rose due to politics getting into the conversation. This part was rather frustrating, can be easily summarized that Chomsky arguing that there is such a thing as true justice, and violence (or revolution) is only justified if we perceive that to somehow produce a higher level of justice. Foucault rejects this completely, for him, justice is only a concept specific to our civilization and always dependent on power. It neatly represents the worse that postmodernism can get, especially in its Foucaultian flavor, where power quite literally becomes its only ontology and everything is subservient to it.

Overall it was an enjoyable debate, and there were interesting points from both sides. I ended up seeing part of the debate on video afterward out of curiosity. Unsure if I would recommend the paperback. I would say try the video first, and if the format isn't your cup of tea, try the paperback.

[Aman]

2019: It's not clear why they're disagreeing, or what Foucault's point even is. Obviously norms are produced by societal institutions. Obviously they inhere in us. Chomsky is actually making an important point about human freedom. We can't just attack society, we need a positive plan.

2020: So, it's just two academic leftists talking past each other. Interesting for me, as someone (now) aware of the analytic-Continental split. But Chomsky doesn't seem to be engaging with Foucault. I mean, how can we design our future? Isn't this just Utopian? It's not about lacking a plan; it's about avoiding utopian universalism and responding to the current social makeup.

2021: Debates are annoying if you're reading them with an eye for a triumphant party. This is fun for me because it's like seeing in-person what happens in my head (being a student interested in Continental philosophy at an analytic university, and also studying generative linguistics). While there are definitely more productive entanglements between the two traditions, it's interesting to see one that is more improvisational (less methodical).

[Basma Abdallah Uraiqat · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting and short read combining two great minds. It discusses the concept of human nature as innate property or social construct, offering very interesting arguments. It also discusses the concept of justice vs power and I found this section particularly powerful and exciting to read! I personally find Foucault a much more convincing and deep thinker than Chomsky and I was extremely disappointed in how little he spoke, it almost seemed like the interviewer would not allow him to speak and would let Chomsky go on for pages about idealist notions that I personally do not agree with.

It is always interesting to listen to or read a debate between thinkers, but this one was somewhat cut short as we were not allowed to get to Foucault's thought as much as Chomsky.

[Mr Shahabi · Rating 2 out of 5]

المقابلة بينهم كانت أقل من ما نزقعت

يعني انا توقعت اشوف نعال أو نعالين يتطايرون، شسوي متعود عالجزيرة و سوالفها

[zuzanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

as much as I respect Chomsky, definetely team Foucault

[ريم الدعجاني · Rating 1 out of 5]

عنوان الكتاب خادع لا يمت بشكل مباشر للمحتوى، المناظرة مناسبة للمختصين و ليست للقارئ العادي، و مابعد المناظرة المفرغة يوجد مقالات فقط لزيادة صفحات الكتاب.

[stl̓laqsšn̓ · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best philosophy book I’ve ever read. It is short, sweet and to the point.

[Sultan76 · Rating 5 out of 5]

أنصح بقراءته وبشدددده

لأولئك المهتمين بالسياسة والفلسفة

[Michael Palkowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

The differences in thought are quite subtle at times and the exchange concerning 'just' future societies is quite embryonic for obvious reasons, However there are clear oppositional and contentious moments that within the context of the debate are worth recognizing

1)- The concept of a 'just' action or society was debated with Chomsky asserting an absolute, universalized almost innate 'schematicism' linked to human nature. The idea is linked to enlightenment values of progressively getting better forms of justice and allowing a society of creative individuals pursuing creativity outside the repetition of inane work. Foucault notes that when looking at for example the proletarians taking power over the bourgeois, there would be a different understanding of justice because these concepts are embedded within a certain set of class relations and societal configurations. Interestingly, Chomsky is clear that he accepts that these things have a degree of social constructivism but maintains that actions that are defined as progressive wouldn't be undertaken if they were not considered 'just'. Foucault I believe is saying in response that 'just' is a product of the social formation we exist in and objective justifications of this are not possible. He rejects Satre's idea of public tribunals as a key place in criticism/activism as these points are a product of history.

What I find interesting is the extent to which Chomsky is not paralyzed by his own ideas but still maintains a healthy form of civil disobedience and activism against at the time the Vietnam war. Despite Foucault's rhetoric which seems more leftist than Chomsky at times, he doesn't seem to have the praxis.

2)- The idea of innate structures or predisposition seems to be contested too. Foucault says that life as a concept was hardly used when classifying nature in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was classified regardless of living or not in hierarchical tableau. Life in short wasn't a concept they used. This kind of historical point regarding social construction is quite powerful because it shows that human nature may have differences depending on the context and paradigm. Chomsky argues we have an epistemological indicator similar to his universal grammar model in that humans can reach conclusions on these topics, usually quite similar ones, using limited sensual empirical data.

3)- An unspoken disagreement over autobiographical involvement is clear. Foucault spars with the moderator who asks him a personal question. He believes that such questions are deeply uninteresting. He shares a lot in common here with Heidegger when he said that the best way to summarize Aristotle's work was to say 'he was born, he thought, he died'. The ideas are more important than the person saying them basically. Chomsky speaks a lot about his personal involvement in disobedience and his activism in the Vietnam war. He often uses examples albeit fictionally that would relate to his own life. This shows a difference in method and in the extent to which thinkers allow their own personal lives get involved in their work. It's somewhat interesting that Foucault feels this way considering his constructivist approach.

The disagreement therefore is over method. Chomsky values communitarian networks of free association and seeks to orient his thinking politically and socially into achieving this. Whereas Foucault is seeking to critique institutions and showcase a non linearity to thinking and process over time using his genealogical analysis