The Chomsky-Foucault Debate [excerpt, part 1/2]

This is an excerpt from the Chomsky-Foucault debate which was aired on Dutch television in 1971. The moderator seen here is Fons Elder. I am unaware of any full length copies of the original video, however the debate has been reprinted (and translated, of course) several times. For a copy of this debate and several interesting interviews that followed, see Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, _The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature_ (New York: The New Press, 2006).

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Chomsky
• Foucault
• human
• nature
• philosophy
• language
• sociology
• politics

[gsrs1277]

@RebeccaKnightly1 think about what truth being an effect of power means. foucault said that power doesn't come from the top down, that it saturates all aspects of society, from the lowest to the highest; power as a point of resistance, the opportunity for a counter-strategy. speaking truth to power was what he devoted his life's work to. you take a cheap shot at academics who are sympathetic to theory; but can't you see why knowledge-power would be an attractive idea for embattled minorities?

[hernamine38]

The main "problem" with NC here is the way he relates to something I'd call "intrinsic', if you wish, difference in forms of this what he calls 'creative need' b/w humans. Can you truly 'eliminate' the historic part from any human...and this even from (epi)genetic perspective?? But, then again, the last sentence MF pronounces at the end of part 2 indicates the beginning of an answer to this question. NC looks like a kid next to this guy...

[mellkiades]

@viniii12345 Hi Viniii, you misunderstood what he said. He never once said that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions. He said "me, you, as a citizen, must criticize the bad working of these institutions, and he implied that it also included the government." He implied this by clearly explaining that these institutions are giving the impression that they are independant from the government, but they aren't in reality.

[viniii12345]

@mellkiades I mean those instituions he says "which seem to have nothing in common with political power". Foucalt says that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions so they will be unmasked, but how is this possible when these institutions are actually connected to the government? He problably knows that but it is not clearly stated in this part of the speech.

[mellkiades]

@viniii12345 and that is exactly what he says, so really, I don't see your point here.

[mellkiades]

@omgitsaghiles I must point you guys to Turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish, a hydrozoan whose form can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. So you are both wrong: thepostnihilist because he thinks that all is immortal, and omgitsaghiles because she doesn't want to become sexually mature and thus, will face extinction, one day, when we'll have assimilated the jellyfish' technique of immortality.

[mellkiades]

@DaNeedle is this trivia gossip or documented? If yes, I want to see your sources!

[2029AD]

@DaNeedle haha source?

[SSTTEEAALLTTHH]

@viniii12345

What I got from philosophy at the university about Foucault is that he feels power is decentralized. Chomsky thinks it's centralized. The problem is Chomsky is talking about a sort of legislative power, while Foucaults power is abstract. It's the conformity-enforcing, the self-perpetuating nature of power itself. The tendency of people to normalize and the reactionary nature of things. It's hard to describe and I'm sure I don't completely understand it myself.

[DaNeedle]

interesting trivia: after the debate Chomsky called Foucault the most immoral man he ever met. Foucault had accepted to do it only if he would receive a block of hashish in compensation after the debate (which he then called the Chomsky-hashish) ∆thx, calle!∆

[omgitsaghiles]

@thepostnihilist Yeah i will carry on my behavior, i will eat, i will breath, i will have intercourse and so on, And you can carry on beeing an antisocial sad person. bye bye.

[thepostnihilist]

@omgitsaghiles

I am actually a female. And I choose not to continue this conversation. But carry on with both your behavior and your wrong assumptions. Again, who am I to stand in your way? Goodbye.