When Chomsky debated Foucault on Human Nature

Françoise Foliot - La radio à l'école

The Context

In November 1971 in the Netherlands, a debate took place between two great intellectual heavyweights: Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. They convened to discuss the vexing question whether there is such a thing as human nature and what it may be. The debate was not merely a scholastic exercise but had a political bent. The argument took place against the historical backdrop of decolonization, student protests, imperialist wars, and anti-war agitation. The Vietnam war occupied a particularly important position. 

Chomsky and Foucault’s reflections on human nature influenced their political prescriptions and reflections upon political strategy. Chomsky argued that some notion of human nature and some appeal to universal ideals such as justice, although imperfect, are nonetheless necessary for politics. Foucault argued that such notions and appeals are suspect, and that they serve to cover over power struggles and justify certain forms of political oppression. 

Foucault’s Power Move

Foucault did not think it wise to  present a model of an ideal society. He believed the actual political task was to criticize what are apparently neutral institutions and uncover the political violence that they secretly exercised. For instance, he investigated the way in which homosexuality was classified as a disease by the medical community. Medicine, supposedly a politically neutral scientific discipline, served to marginalise a particular group within society. It failed to live up to its ideal of neutrality. 

Foucault thought that imagining an ideal society would reproduce existing forms of injustice and oppression. He considered our imagination a product of our time. What we imagine might also reproduce forms of injustice and oppression that constrain our thoughts. So any vision of an ideal society risks reproducing existing forms of injustice. To counter this, Foucault insisted on transforming existing institutions by uncovering the interests that lay under their supposed ‘neutrality’. For example, he examined the alleged neutrality of the medical establishment and the power it is able to exercise through its systems of classification. 

What we imagine might also reproduce forms of injustice and oppression that constrain our thoughts.

We might think of monarchs and politicians as the ones who ‘have power.’ Foucault challenges this idea of having and possessing power. He pays attention to how power is exercised. Knowledge is used to (de-)legitimize certain practices. There are relations of power that structure how knowledge is produced and the way in which this knowledge is used. So, for instance, medical associations had significant authority. They had strict rules and procedures that determined who could be a member.  This institution was deemed competent to produce knowledge regarding what should be considered a disease, what is the cause of this disease, and what is the best way to cure it. So, for instance, shock therapy was one of the prescribed manners in which to treat the ‘disease’ of homosexuality. 

Foucault does this for a wide variety of ostensibly apolitical or less overtly political organizations and practices such as schools, prisons, psychiatric wards, hospitals, and universities. These structures ultimately shape society, the people who ‘have’ power do not really possess it. They exercise it, they occupy a particular position within a social structure that requires them to act in a certain way.

Foucault is skeptical of something like a ‘universal interest’ or a ‘general will.’ He is skeptical of the idea that there is a common interest that unites us all. Instead of looking at political dynamics in terms of justice, he examines them through the lens of power. Different groups compete for power, and they legitimate themselves by appealing to justice. However, behind a claim to justice there always resides a power grab. To return to our medical example, to improve public health and cure society from homosexuality a particular homophobic agenda is being carried out (consciously or unconsciously). Particular interests underlie actions, justified as being in the interest of all. 

Françoise Foliot - La radio à l'école

Different groups compete for power, and they legitimate themselves by appealing to justice

Foucault thinks that the ways in which we imagine human nature, or noble notions such as human dignity, justice, love, are shaped by our society. They are the historical product of our time. It is dangerous to use such notions to justify a political struggle as they will be distorted by our own particular prejudices. 

A fight for the general will, or the universal interest, will always be distorted by the particularity of the group that is fighting for it. Likewise, any conception of human nature will be distorted by our own socio-historical lenses. 

Chomsky’s defence of imperfect ideals of justice 

Chomsky, on the other hand, argues that intellectuals have two primary tasks. The first is to understand the nature and power of oppression in our own society, through its institutions. The second task is to develop a vision of a just and free society, in which meaningful human life can take place. For these two tasks, he argues, we need to have some notion of human nature, however flawed. We need this to define what we mean by oppression, justice, and freedom in the first place. What is and isn’t oppressive or just, and what does or doesn’t curtail our freedom depends on nature. 

Chomsky accepts that his concept of human nature is limited, particular, and constrained by social conditions, sure. But since we need to have some direction, we must be bold enough to speculate, make decisions, and create social theories based on partial knowledge whilst remaining open to our errors. Political acts are always undertaken in conditions of uncertainty. Uncertainty about the consequences of political practices is inevitable. 

Any particular political act, say an act of civil disobedience, could threaten the social order in such a way that it could lead to the establishment of a dictator. However, not acting, say not engaging in civil disobedience, could also lead to the establishment of a dictator. While there is great danger in acting, there is also great danger in not acting. We cannot escape danger, and we cannot escape action. 

Chomsky thinks any political struggle must ultimately refer to some notion of justice. Contrary to Foucault, he argues that behind any power claim, there is always some conception of why such a claim to power would be just/justified.

The state enforces a particular concept of what is legal, and it sees the law as embodying  justice. The state may be right or wrong in doing so. Power does not imply justice. When the state is acting in a criminal capacity, its laws are not just. It thus becomes ‘legal,’ even more an obligation to act against them. 

Intellectuals have two primary tasks. The first is to understand the nature and power of oppression in our own society, through its institutions. The second task is to develop a vision of a just and free society.

Justice is not merely defined by the state. It is not merely a historical product of our time. It also embodies and gropes towards an ideal notion of justice.

Woman in Black Dress Holding Balance Scale

As an example, Chomsky takes international law. He argues that international law is rather weak and tends to be the instrument of the powerful, insofar that it is biased towards states. It facilitates forceful intervention in support of states, as opposed to the masses of people that may organize themselves in opposition to states. Nonetheless, the  U.N. Charter does contain some principles that permits, and even obliges, citizens to act against their state. So it is not entirely skewed towards state power but also embodies, however imperfectly, some universal ideal of justice. Chomsky thinks you shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

Whilst we acknowledge that it is possible, indeed highly probable, that our concepts may be wrong (in certain respects at least), political practice requires concepts. It is not necessary to refer to an “ideal justice” in political practice. It suffices to refer to a better justice, which of course will have its own problems. 

While there is great danger in acting, there is also great danger in not acting. We cannot escape danger, and we cannot escape action. 

Chomsky appeals to a fundamental human nature grounded in human creativity. It is in our nature to want to create, and a society which arbitrarily impinges upon this fundamental human creativity is coercive. It is on the basis of such an idea of human nature, that Chomsky thinks we can develop a real notion of justice tied to decency, love, and kindness. 

Existing systems of justice are not merely coercive power formations. They are rather the groping of the empirical towards the ideal. They are attempts to realize ideals of justice. For Chomsky, this ideal is somehow grounded in our human nature, although he admits he cannot fully explain this if you push him to do so. 

Who won? 

We might say that Foucault offers us a highly skeptical, if not somewhat paranoid, view on human nature. He distrusts universal ideals and sees everywhere particulars struggling for power. He is wary of legitimating political struggles in terms of alluring universal ideals that appeal to noble sentiments. He thinks we are quickly prone to deception. Appeals to something like human nature serves particular political interests. Power, in its expanded sense, resides in all social institutions and must be analyzed in terms of war and struggle, not in terms of justice. 

Chomsky seeks to engage us to act politically, and offers us a more empowering, if not somewhat romantic, view on human nature. Whilst recognizing how ideals serve to veil the interests of power, nonetheless he thinks they are necessary. Moreover, he thinks these ideals are somehow grounded in all of us, in the very psychological make up of human beings. We are fundamentally creative beings with an innate sense of justice. That means that we want and can transform social institutions to make them more just. We need not think that we can ever fully attain an ideal of justice but we must keep striving for better justice. Power must necessarily be analyzed in terms of justice. 

So, who won?