Watching this video, a classic debate between Chomsky and Foucault in 1971, will be an excercise between listening to Chomskys spoken english, and reading the english subtitles of what Foucault is saying in French.
Upload and text taken from youtube user hiperf289:
Justice Vs. Power – Chomsky Vs. Foucault, Part 1
video run time 06:50
In 1971, American linguist/social activist Noam Chomsky squared off against French philosopher Michel Foucault on Dutch television … the program was entitled ‘Human Nature: Justice Vs. Power’ and offered sharp contrasts between the more traditional view of ‘human nature’ and what would become a postmodernist perspective … Chomsky, following a rationalist lineage going back to at least Plato, believes that there is a foundational ‘nature’ and that its positive aspects (love, creativity, recognizing and embracing justice) must be realized, while Foucault remains skeptical of any such notion… for him, the issue is not so much whether ‘justice’ or ‘human nature’ ‘exists,’ but how they have historically (and currently) function in society … in regard to justice, he says (this is not included in the clips): “… the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power…” The point of any political struggle, for Foucault, is to alter the ‘power relations’ in which we all find ourselves
April 21, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Are we still in the same dabte? I don´t know. I want to believe in something as a natural humanism or a natrual ethic, but this is a believing difficult to mantain as I look around the actually social reality.
I don´t know..I don´t…
April 22, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Yeah I don’t think we are in the same debate. Or maybe the same debate is still going, but I think 36 years later there are more developed ideas being discussed. I mean here I think the world is too complicated to be reduced into such simple terms. I also think we need to name and discuss things without so many abstractions. What is encouraging, is that I don’t think there is one “debate” but maybe there is a common concept of similar reflections and experiences between a decentralized organism connected by people and their conversations. And I think naming these common themes, and naming them in an inclusive and accessible manner is a realistic process to develop.