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