Human Nature and Justice
or
How I've come to like & admire Noam Chomsky even if I don't agree with everything he says
This Saturday we're going to a Noam Chomsky lecture here in Paris. This has been one of the things I've dreamed about ever since I've become acquainted with his work-- at first in the field of linguistics while I was studying modern languages, and then his analyses on politics.
I read quite a few of his political texts and books and watched a few lectures and debates (online). Once one gets used to (and past) his... shall we say overly academic writing style, his thoughts and line of reasoning (and his penchant for irony) become familiar and enjoyable rather quickly.
Nevertheless, I don't want to turn this post into a political tract. Rather, I'd like to share the video of his debate with Michel Foucault, an influential (and dead, alas) French sociologist whose work ranges from a comprehensive study on human sexuality to a history of madness and mental institutions through the prism of power. In other words, Foucault posits that power is the single most important element when analyzing systems of any type, religious, political, educational, etc. Chomsky, on the other hand, is far keener on the idea that a sense of justice has a greater role in society -- or at least in individual relationships -- than many give it credit.
The debate that follows is an exploration of how these two concepts - justice & power - influence institutions, but it is also, and perhaps more importantly, an attempt to explain or define (or even decide whether it exists at all!) human nature and whether a sense of justice (innate) or the idea of power (inculcated) is more significant in human and political/socioeconomic relationships.
PS I think Foucault wins the debate though I agree with Chomsky -- but I'll let you decide for yourself-- aren't I just?
PPS You can find the whole debate in print: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature
5 comments:
I didn't get to rewatch this just now, but I remember it and it's ace, and Foucault just wins hands down. And again, with the proviso that I haven't just rewatched it, my memeory is that F wins because of a strictly marxist analysis- 'how can you assert that human nature is THUS?' If the debate had moved to the theology of marxism- 'the proletariat must come to power because it's historically inevitable' I think the outcome might have been different. As someone who has recently read 'L'Etranger' what do you think, Belparis?
I think Foucault presents a more realistic side as opposed to Chomsky's theoretic idealism. Life is not lived in theory and while what Chomsky posits may be ideal or even desireable, Foucault presents the reality side of how people really live and exist. Even while Foucault approaches from a more realistic perspective, I'm a bit more primal in my views and critique of humanity in general sans political tinting of that view. In that primal glare, no matter what -ism you subscribe to, there will always be dominance and subserviance between humans. How those lines of division are based will vary among the myriad societies and their orientations on our planet. Justice and it's attendant enterpretation, will be left to those dominant and concession will be afforded a certain few key and select members of the subserviant class as a means of staving off insurrection or in a Marxist interpretaion, revolution, with the rise of the proletariat. Except, that if and when they do rise, the circular logic of this entire process becomes blatantly apparent as roles reverse and the cycle begins anew. And while the idea, concept, and notion of justice is the motivator, in the beginning at least for these types of movements, It evolves into the pursuit of two things; money and power. And with one, you can get the other. When you possess both, your innate greed has been realized. I'll digress now back to something Bel said originally, "...draw your own conclusions."
Carl: I think it is of little use to speak of the theology of Marxism given it makes absolutely no reference to the metaphysical; in fact it denies it. L'Étranger references would only come in handy insofar as it introduces this notion towards the end--- and so the only thing which saves the book from being thrown straight into the post-modernist nihilist bucket. There is no historical inevitability, as far as I can see, alas. There are two options: a structural reading in which case Foucault will always be right, or allowing for metaphysical considerations in which case Chomsky wins morally, but not logically/politically. He would be forced to make religious or faith arguments in order to beat Foucault's reasoning, but he refuses to do that--- philosophy, history, political theory etc can't help him here, tho. Too bad.
Bel,
You clearly read a different 'L'Etranger' to me. I read one where Meursault lives in a random universe- one without values- until he begins to create them for himself in the shadow of the guillotine. It is in this context that I refer to it. For this neomarxist analysing the world in terms of power relationships (Karl would have preferred 'class') is an evident and powerful methodology- and, as you don't quite want to admit, will eventually destroy any more 'metaphysical' constructs based on a priori assumptions of the way the world is. And this is why I think that if Choms had persuade Fouc to refer to the historical inevitability of capitalism falling under the weight of its own contradictions he would have found himself on stronger ground - as you point out it's not appeared to be historically inevitable so far.
Meursault goes to the guillotine not for killing an Arab mugger (hardly a crime in the Algeria of the time..) but for failing to cry at his mother's funeral. It's his demonstration of the hollowness of social constructs that condemns him. In this he is Fouc's representative. In the end, finding and cleaving values he has created for himself without any appeal to 'science' or 'philosophy' he challenges Choms in a different way- his last wish is that the crowd should hate him as he climbs the scaffold so that he may feel less alone.
Theology fails, whether we call it marxism or economics- as soon as it becomes prophetic. Solipsism fails to perusade others. And 'science' can only take us so far. Meursault 'proves' Fouc even while he highlights the differences between him and The Chomster.
Carl: without wanting to make my blog an extension of yours, I must nevertheless point out that you're leaving out a crucial element when discussing L'Étranger. Mersault does in fact "create" for himself a world devoid of social constructs and is found guilty because of his dispassionate reaction to his mother's death. Nevertheless, after he goes to jail he receives the visit of a priest daily; this does not affect him until the very end of the novel, right before he is sent to the gallows. This is when it becomes apparent that he does in fact acknowledge that other elements might be important, and when he regrets not having seen it before, so he could have made a better attempt to protect himself.
Of course, this does not mean Foucault's STRUCTURAL assessment isn't correct. Rather, it zooms in on what is missing from it: the acknowledgement that a human being is more than the structure/system which has formed him. This is why Chomsky wins morally. In this debate in particular, he loses because the structure (hehe) of the debate itself is bound by logic and empirical evidence-- hence his conceding not being able to sketch out properly what is innate in human beings-- no empirical evidence, so not admitted in court!
Post a Comment