Michael Foucault and Noam Chomsky, two of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, strongly disagree on the fundamental qualities of human nature; the key for society to achieve its full potential. The Chomsky-Foucault debate of 1971 is one of the greatest and most important philosophical debates in history, as it features two of the most influential thinkers’ opinions on one of the most controversial philosophical theories.
Chomsky starts off the debate highly focused on the theory of linguistics, claiming that language is an element of self-awareness, because without it, we cannot implement our thoughts and ideas or make judgments. Therefore it is the backbone of human nature, separating us from animals. Although there are different languages, they all have universal, underlying grammatical rules that are common to all typically developing humans. This indicates that there is also a universal innate human nature.
On the other hand, Foucault sets off his argument with an analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge, stating that there is no innate human nature, as knowledge and power evolve over time. Foucault claims that constructing a concept of an innate human nature holds society back in moving past certain post-revolutionist power dynamics. Because we evolve as humans and our general morals evolve, Foucault does not believe in a singular, static human nature.
Chomsky famously responded to this theory by stating that “Our concept of human nature is certainly limited, partial, socially conditioned, constrained by our own character defects and the limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist, yet at the same time it's of critical importance that we have some direction, that we know what impossible goals we're trying to achieve, if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals." Essentially, he is saying that we cannot have a full understanding of what human nature is, however we must create a sense of an overarching, impossible goal in order to achieve possible goals, this goal would therefore be base of our innate nature.
The debate quickly evolves into a discussion of power. Which powerful institutions should we be critical of? And which institutions hold essential roles in maintaining power? In Foucault’s eyes, Western society is too focused on political power, and therefore only critical of governments. He believes that family, schools, universities, medicine, and psychiatry all hold essential roles in maintaining power, and it is therefore our duty as a society to be critical of them as well. Chomsky agrees that these institutions hold forgotten power but believes we should mainly be critical of economic institutions, as they hold a majority of power and are therefore responsible for its unequal distribution.
According to Chomsky, acknowledging human nature is essential to fulfilling our potential as humans, because this reveals our goals. Even if those goals are impossible to achieve, we must always strive towards perfection and get as close to it as possible. For Chomsky, if we acknowledge our innate nature, we can live in a world not governed by hierarchy but by the general public. In order for all humans to be able to truly live equally, they must therefore acknowledge their equal nature, with no one person being superior to another. The first step to this utopia is challenging institutions who hold too much power, which in Chomsky’s eyes, are economic ones. Once this is achieved, Chomsky believes that human potential can be fully fulfilled.
Opposingly, Foucault thinks acknowledging human nature hinders societal growth and therefore society’s journey towards its full potential. Although he agrees we must be critical of powerful institutions, he believes power is everywhere and that power is who we are, therefore this is how we are equal as humans. Power is constantly changing and evolving, so humans are constantly changing and evolving, with no innate human nature.
Overall, the two thinkers have many opposing views on the topic of human nature, which is why their debate in 1971 was so impactful to the realm of philosophy. The debate allowed for two opposing viewpoints to directly confront each other and therefore strengthen both theories on the age-old question of human nature.
Comments