I’m currently reading a book titled “The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature,” which circles around a debate that was held in Holland in 1971 and was hosted by Dutch thinker Fons Elders as part of a series of debates he staged that brought together philosophers from differing reservoirs of twentieth-century thought; it sounds much more intimidating than it really is. Well, actually it’s just as intellectually convoluted as it sounds, but that’s why you have me, dear readers: I can paraphrase and relate their obscurisms to everyday happenstances and enable you to sound like well read, well rounded individuals. Win, win.

 

Noam Chomsky: Professional Optimist

To sum it up as efficiently as possible, Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michel Foucault was a History of Systems of Thought chair at the College de France for many years until his death in 1984, and the two of them fundamentally disagreed about human nature. What it boils down to is how we as humans are able to theorize and alter knowledge? At the root of this activity is the process of creativity and the topical bedfellows of these interactions lead to issues of justice and power. For instance, Chomsky believes that creativity is an intrinsic property of the mind, whereas Foucault believes it is a product of social and intellectual conditions. In other words, it’s the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Can a child growing up in the ghetto be expected to match the achievements of a child that is reared in luxury? And if that child cannot, where is there justice?

Both men mediate their theories through issues of linguistics, and they also tend to relegate their explanations to issues of science because, I would assume, it is harder to argue with the stark realm of science. However, Chomsky is more prone to humanistic, optimistic tendencies, and Foucault remains quintessentially French in his staunch insistence on the inescapability of an institutionalized social framework, one in which justice is obliterated by opportunism. You see, the 1960s were an incredibly rich time for philosophers, because society was in flux and the competition between communism and capitalism was a tumultuous ideological battle, one which gave credence to differing points of view. Wars (international and domestic), as well as social and a moral revolutions were taking place: Vietnam, Watergate, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, and they coalesced into a desire for change. This desire for change, for something other than rampant corruption and ineffectual criticism, occasionally transitioned into the desire for revolution, for justice. Chomsky believes revolutions spring from a collective desire for truth, for justice, whereas Foucault believes a desire for power is what drives revolutionaries to overthrow or, on a smaller scale, criticize those in positions of control which are then explained as justifiable merely to facilitate their grab for power. Which is to say Chomsky believes justice to be an inherent desire while Foucault alleges it to be a fabricated instrument, a construct, if you will, of society, which it then uses as a political and economic weapon.

 

Michel Foucault: French Pessimism at its Best

 

 

Obviously there’s a lot more involved in this and I’ve only offered you a diluted version of a debate that these two men oversimplified for their audience, but you’re in luck: the tutorial is over. Now you get to see where I’m going with this and why I think it’s important to put you through the previous three paragraphs of agony. You see, it occurred to me that these men elucidated the subject of human nature not through their discussion (because they rarely, if ever, directly answered the questions they were asked) but rather through the yin and yang that they represent: pessimism and optimism. If we listened solely to Chomsky, we’d all flit about spouting ideologies of a utopia without reference to the realities of the society we are burdened with, and if we listened solely to Foucault we would seek assisted suicide, for what is the point of living if our thoughts, desires, and actions are formulaically mitigated by institutional constructs? In other words, Chomsky is that annoyingly perky friend who won’t shut up about how beautiful hale is when all you can focus on are the softball-sized dents they’re leaving in the hood of your car, and Foucault is the Debbie-Downer who points out that although the nightclub your in is nice and you’re having a good time, it isn’t up to code and should there be a fire you’ll probably die in a massive inferno because there aren’t enough exits; no one wants either of these friends.

But what’s most tricky about human nature is that it?s not natural enough to explain. Patterns can be identified, but are rarely the rule, and people rarely reveal themselves to be intrinsically good just as they rarely reveal themselves to be the wholly ill formations of their environment; we have to accept the good with the bad, and hope that the middle groundwork that is laid at the very least mimics justice. I say all of this because I’ve experienced, in total, more bad than good, and when I embark on new relationships, whether romantic or friendly, all of this philosophical bullshit is running through my head and I’m incessantly, neurotically looking for warning signs. Where did he grow up? Who are his friends? Does she have many friends she?s known for over 5 years? What are her hobbies? What does he do for a living? How will he or she react to my flaws?

So what do all these questions amount to? They’re ultimately questions of justice. Will this person standing opposite of me at this very moment be just in the way he or she treats me, will there be a shared life which is worth revolutionizing my present fragile state of affairs? Because, let’s face it, folks, whenever you incorporate someone new into your life you are fundamentally overthrowing the one you knew before, and that is why I have to believe in Chomsky over Foucault. I have to believe that you can take what is inside you, combine it with what is inside another person, and create a very personal step towards pacifying the harm that this war torn, politically corrupt, socially inept, and emotively nonchalant society is capable of rendering on our mortal shells.

And I don’t care if that makes me annoyingly optimistic, because I’m sure as hell not going to be the depressing loner at the party eyeing the mini-quiches. No, I’m setting myself in a position to initiate and witness a revolution – what did you decide to do today?