Foucault and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power and Anarchism

CEU eTD Collection Foucault and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power andAnarchism Power Nature, on Human and Chomsky Foucault In fulfillmentpartial of the requirements for the degree of Submitted to Central European University European Central to Submitted Master of Arts in Critical Gender Studies Supervisor: Professor Anna Loutfi Departmentof Gender Studies Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Ana Smokrovi 2012 By ü CEU eTD Collection B 5. 4. 3. 1. 2. A C IBLIOGRAPHY ONTENTS BSTRACT 4.2. 4.1. 2.3. 2.6. 2.5. 2.4. 2.2. 2.1. Conclusion 4.1.2. 4.1.1. Power Anarcho-syndicalism and T I S NTRODUCTION ITUATING THE HE C Anarcho-syndicalism Power Schmitt’s “Open question” Marxism and “Anti-humanism” and Marxism humanism” “Existential and Sartre “Solidarity” of principle and Kropotkin Rousseau’s “Savage Man” Hobbes’s “Hostile Man” ii ...... iii ...... HOMSKY Truth andKnowledge The subjectand resistance 75 ...... 42 ...... 71 -F ...... 1 C OUCAULT HOMSKY 62 ...... -F D OUCAULT DEBATE EBATE ON ...... 5 ...... 7 ...... 57 ...... 11 42 ...... 51 ...... 20 ...... 17 C H UMAN ONTENTS 14 ...... ii 5 ...... N ATURE ...... 23 CEU eTD Collection Key words: human nature, anarchism, power, resistance. anarchism,power, nature, human Key words: convergence in the work of Chomsky and Foucault within the Left political framework. of points possible are intellectualism, elitist of critique the with together truthful; and asneutral represented knowledge theoretical of critique resistance; of notion the andmedia; based hierarchy; on classdomination and violence; analysis of by population regulation rules operandi andpossibleitsin todetect ofconvergences.Power Chomsky’s order points works debate, questions raisedexistentialism and Marxism,in and this tradition Foucaultis situated. After outlining the in the debate areattention isSartre’s existencenature, ofhuman given to againstthe line, which argues analysed in second In the issituated. much Chomsky Noam line in this anarchism; widerKropotkin’s Peter finally, scope of Foucault’s and Schmitt, asCarl such non-contractualism Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Hobbes and as Thomas and such ison focus nature the contractualism human of existence the In stresses linewhich one regarding human nature withinof framework the modern political philosophy are presented. lines claims of two Michel Foucault, Chomsky between and debate Noam the situate This thesis thediscusses question humanof nature as essential in shaping politics. In to order with the critique of a socio-political system which claims to be democratic but is but be democratic to claims which system socio-political a of critique the with A BSTRACT iii modus CEU eTD Collection in their work? convergences some find to possible it is or different so really they are - is my question Left, the within traditions different to belong Foucault and Chomsky Although instead. sought be should that is convergence it that and divergences enough been have there isthat story the of in fragmentation because as struggles, and factional of practice, well as in The moral theory. century whole the through suffering been have movements critical Leftist, me. motivates 1970s is see possiblea different to lensthrough me today. Let idea introduce the that in what wasLeft of the the seen as divergence that perspective: from an Debate” alternative “The see to is possible it whether inquire to try shell I and moment historical particular a reflects “Debate” Their it. implementing for means intellectual of the characterization in their divergent are they although motivation, political in their similar be very to them andfound FoucaultChomsky. Noam I between Michel of points detect the convergences from ideasis concerning restrained of future the society. he “justice”, and as same the civilization, within our created justitis aconcept claiming that human regarding justice,approach nature has a freedom and whileFoucault constructivist tradition for which argues existencethe of human and nature universal asociety founded on anarchist the with agrees Chomsky traditions. different two to however political, the of realm intellectuals debated isthesis “The Chomsky-Foucault Debate” which placetook in in 1971, greatwhich two upon the existence political theory is there implicit explicitan or stand regardingof The humannature. topic ofmy human nature. Both of them belong to the Left 1. I NTRODUCTION Although they are usually seen as divergent inAlthough seenasdivergent inthey my Iattemptto are usually their thinking, work I find the question of human nature to be essential in shaping politics. In every In politics. shaping in be essential to nature human of question the find I 1 CEU eTD Collection the cultural conditions surrounding a particular body of claims in a particular historical for of organization a particular body inof claims moment; historical a particularhe addresses “knowledge” whileforcreating and stands Foucault shapingscientific knowledge theories, “Knowledge” toChomsky human’s represents cognitive precognitions orinnate for structures civilization. within itismereour aconcept created Foucault behaviour,to intellectual nature” for Chomsky of innate structures stands for mind human the social which guides and human andnotions While “human existence of the regardingandnature science. knowledge of upon they debate,thethe liberal element, first part philosophical capitalism.debate Inthe politics; they are public intellectuals whooffer profound critique ofsocial based order on involved deeply beboth in intellectuals anditself.Left-oriented see Foucault to Chomsky I debate the on focus will I chapter second in the nature, human of question the to regards nature. human notions on human nature. In this tradition I will situate Foucault who opposes the idea of human by focusing Jean Paul on “Existentialism”Sartre’s as inquiringwell as into Marxist I will explore second the tradition which of thought argues against existence the of universal in present Kropotkin.of Chomsky tradition his this situate and work the Peter I will In work. andfinally, suchas Schmitt, Carl anarchism, Rousseau,non-contractualism and Jean-Jacques human nature Iwill focus modern on philosophy and contractualism such Thomasas Hobbes of theexistence tradition stresses Inwhich first the nature. human existenceof the regarding thought of lines two differentiate I implies. it what and politics in has nature human of detectimplications non-existencenotion what of existencephilosophy;the or the inorderto tentative of within concerningideas overview modern humannature of context the political After lineswithin delineating these thought two of modern philosophypolitical in In order to better understand and situate “The Debate” I will begin my thesis with a with thesis my begin will I Debate” “The situate and understand better to order In 2 CEU eTD Collection are critical towards the theoretical knowledge verified from formal institutions which is which institutions formal from verified thetheoretical knowledge towards are critical and Iwill also try to detect the similarities regarding that question.Furthermore, both of them method of population control. he mediawhich seesasa with isconcerned rules, while Chomsky bydifferent accomplished Both of them share the idea of resistanceconcerning the regulation of population; for Foucaultto controlpower of the social body is structuresideas similar share they me it to that seems Also, and violence. dominance class hierarchy, isbebut basedon democratic to which claims critique of a system a profound are offering their work. Iwill try establishto convergence in their work in regards power.to Both of them the wider scope of Foucault’s of suchasknowledge debate, the depth power, anarcho-syndicalism and in and within greater and Chomsky’s work in order to detect the justice. sense of hehas a strong that seems convergences in within in civilization; created his whichour although of critique itpower inequalities, creates and society future which should be built it, while on for Foucaultis it just an also concept disagree inasmuch as, “justice” for Chomsky is an essential characteristic of human nature within the state framework, so itis not so meaningful. In the question of “justice” they also isit Foucault anact whilstpressure on put just government, the to to innecessary order is disobedience civil Chomsky For in theory. disagree intellectuals two these disobedience, in questionof the an resistanceact of present body.shapes civil social Regarding the present historical momentHowever, and in focusesthis part ofon freedom. human ensure which will nature human on based the society an alternative of creation disclosure debate Foucault of political is restrained power and which maintains controls the position and from perspectives. particular observing concept simply different of the but another one opposed not are they debate in the is that me to interesting is What period. After outlining the debate, in After debate, the outlining final the Iwill chapter concepts analyse the constitutive the on is focused Chomsky of debate, the element political second, the Regarding 3 CEU eTD Collection between two authors, and on the other hand, close reading of their texts. their of reading close hand, other the on and authors, two between humans should aspireto. world better freedom beimperative; society a human in will better which creation towards of isFoucault really his of futurecareful society, vision regarding is Chomsky optimistic Left. I willin the also present elitism, finishintellectual criticize both and truthful and neutral as thisrepresented chapter with Chomsky’s ideas about a future, better society. While Concerning method, I will combine on the one hand the big picture of of bigconvergences picture handthe Iwillcombine ontheone method, Concerning 4 CEU eTD Collection shaped modern society by the placing authority of over the state individualthe and is ofthetheory Hobbes (1588-1679)ashe seenasoneof founders social contract the which nature. the latter tradition I will also situatePaul Sartre’s notionsMichel on existentialism, as well as the MarxistFoucault’s stance on human nature. Within ideas on the non-existenceJean- present nature Iwill human existence of universal the arguesagainst tradition which of human second the Within anarcho-syndicalism. of idea his with Chomsky Noam situate will I here andKropotkin’s anarchism, and such asCarl Schmitt Rousseau, andnon-contractualism philosophy, Iwillfocus in contractualism suchasThomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques within firstthe whichstresses nature ofuniversalhuman political tradition existence the within Withinhuman nature philosophy. political regarding lines the existencethought of of my two is release?in human of aim todifferentiate nature Therefore, existence chapter this non- or existence the of notion the does in politics implications is what hand at question presupposes thatheis or ’bynature good either ‘bynature’ evil’1985:56), the ” (Schmitt and Man of ‘nature’ the on position a takes another or way in one idea political “every within themodern contextof philosophy.political With of understanding the idea the that nature human concerning ideas of overview atentative in Iwill offer chapter nature, this 2. 2.1. S ITUATING THE I would like to start with contractual political philosophy, specifically with Thomas human on debate” “Chomsky-Foucault the understand and tobetter situate In order Hobbes’s “Hostile Man” C HOMSKY -F OUCAULT DEBATE 5 CEU eTD Collection nature violent and hostile, and every man represents an enemy to one another. Therefore, in Therefore, another. one to enemy an represents man every and hostile, and violent nature Hobbes asby onecan seespeople man” So, conclude that man (1999:77). against every power to keep men in fear, as Hobbes calls it, this naturalinevitably, become enemies they (1999:76); hereand aproblemarises.a Therefore, without condition of men is war “of every As men are in also and equal mentally samephysically,are equal desiringthingand they the which livepeople asequals: property. inorder arelivingwhich foundedwe today; onthe concepts of human liberty and private population. government established on principles of liberty and private property 2007:(Ryan 362). 2 2008). (Cudd agreement” mutual or of contract idea the from derives consent this of content and form the authority claims that legitimate authority of government must derive from the consent of the governed, where authority and a moral theory about theoriginor legitimate content of moral norms. The political theory of 1 According to Allan Ryan, liberalism can be seen as politico-social arrangement based on constitutional According to Anne Cudd, “‘contractarianism’ names both apolitical theory of the legitimacy of political In his most famous book “Leviathan”, Hobbes is focused on the state of nature in nature of state onthe focused is “Leviathan”, Hobbes famous book most In his 2 What is Hobbes’ stand on the question of human nature? human of question the on stand is Hobbes’ What 1 danger with himself (1999: 76). in are that same the others with by machination confederacy or secret by either strongest, the kill to enough strength has weakest the body, another may not which pretendto benefit any himself to claim thereupon can man one as that as well as he. For as considerable so not to is man and man thebetween difference the strengthtogether of the body or of in quicker stronger manifestly sometimes be man one there found though that, mind mind body in made hath of theand as faculties mensoequal Nature than another, yet when all is reckoned Also, Hobbes is seen as one of the founders of liberalism, the socio-economic 6 CEU eTD Collection social social theory,contract focusing on the philosophy whichpresents human nature in a positive perceives human nature assomethingviolent andhostile, Iwill frameworkstay within of the So, Hobbes’ position on human nature is that it exists, and itis violent and hostile. change through of hewhichright” founded thegroundsfor social contract theory (1999: 83). or translation, “mutual as he which in describes of a contract act hethe and seesthat nature”, of “state harsh exit the to possibility the have humans that argues Hobbes optimistically maintains astate of humanwar. Thanks to and abovementioned the reason passions, which and causes nature ofhuman facecharacteristics have nasty the to wherethey nature notionsconclude his all of human nature, Hobbes menare with state andequal in of the So, to peace. for man’s eagerness affect life can more comfortable for die and aspiration to human unwillingness reason, Except is over. of peril war of the peace when live in state a humanboth which andhuman natureput on egoism wickedhumansa leash; ensuring that imperatives be they can and seen aspractical laws” ensure human rational “natural Hobbes’ doyeyou, them” to to that (1999:83). “whatsoever shouldothers you do that require of state miserable “laws provides nature which nature” beof in can summed maxim the In his negation of justice and moral, Hobbes is considered to be a realist. The way out of isthere law,this no claims In force Hobbes. this state, and are“cardinal fraud virtues” (1999: 79). of death. a violent threat the fear and is bycontinual war” characterized of “state or state natural This pessimistic. is rather it and nature human is there case Hobbes’ 2.2. In this natural “state of war”, there is no justice or injustice; no right or wrong because or noright justiceis injustice; or of no war”, there “state In this natural Following Hobbes who laidFollowingfoundations Hobbeswho for down contractualist theory and who Rousseau’s “Savage Man” 7 CEU eTD Collection “a slave to others, he becomes weak, fearful, mean-spirited, and his way and and soft effeminate fearful,mean-spirited, weak, “a hebecomes toothers, slave and social became condition” “man in the a domestic into by transforming savage condition” human hisRousseau delineates ideaabout nature. text in that because here text important is an It thesis. my in later on focus will I which does, for exampleChomsky as text, be readasanarchistic can “The Discourse” Second state. Contract” in which he writes isreadas Usually “Thehis introduction Second Discourse” “Thework to an laterSocial about theinequality. human co-existence of origin the upon elaborates he Discourse”, Second “The or Inequality”, of individuals and the on on “Discourse as“The amongInequality Originof the andBasis Men“,Discourse known authority of the amoral and unequal among themselves (Rousseau [1750]2002:60,63).In Rousseau’s by hisintegrity,but byhis once virtuous and talent, innocentpeople inevitably becamewill believes this because of the luxury of these pursuits and because a man islonger no estimated Rousseau humans. on have a badinfluence and sciences how arts explains Discourse”, (Bertram of 2011). self-interest development from child’schild autonomy facilitates the education and protects negative the which through and themselves for decide to in aposition be will who citizens of life communal the protect human freedom: through establishmentthe of political institutions which ensure can destructive uponindividualauthenticity. heachieve Inhiswork explored thebestway to and freedom human and of iscoercive modern world the that philosopher who claimed inbut –the theory. sameframework of the one social contractualist ismanner. understanding opposite It the humanof nature than byHobbes, oneattributed the Rousseau glorifies a “savage man”, that is, a man in a state “Man in is, a nature. inof a man a state that “savage man”, a glorifies Rousseau First “The as known andSciences“, Arts on the in his“Discourse Rousseau IwillHereafter focus on works the Jacquesof a Rousseau Jean (1712-1778), 8 CEU eTD Collection state of state of is manhassociety; barely necessary livingseems forforwhat (2002: 104).It that in anatural simplicitystate and uniformity prevail 2002: 111, (Rousseau 112). a fellowhurtresidence, inequality, war,alienation, man,passions desireto andsocial while is (2002: 107).Civil state by language,industry,characterized of existence the fixed humanity” “firstbecausewhispersreason andhewill answertothe of that and of wisdom, lacks man savage a wholecommunity; which threaten evils are, Rousseau these According to himfrom others. the man alienates and isolates self-love, encourages reason the where reason of state the or civilization opposes Rousseau nature of state Tothe juxtaposed. radically quite which is to there civilization” according “positiveare things a clearduality nature/negative and virtuous; that is before they collide withbenevolent are thehumans evilsthat in asense of civilization. positive, as isrepresented In state Rousseau’s original its in nature writings, andin nature, his human this human for existence the case, of Rousseauargues basically whichhumans has led in civilization towards the which we live today. of isdevelopment of atrajectory there that This implies 96). 2002: (Rousseau innocence possibility the “perfectibility”,his himoutof andof original which condition peace draws of has man but instincts, their to fated are beasts species; a as and individual as improvement, resistis ortoobey to impulse natural the 2002:95).Manhas (Rousseau a possibility of is man actfreely, is that by afree hehasto instinct, that its agent, a possibility is determinate Mentally, savage man the also hasanatural though,impulse, as to an opposed animal which only concern, whichmeans that asavage manhas afit body and strong (2002: 94,95). alone and always threatened by danger, andcircumstances, inthose self-preservation is his is machine” a“human man or savage idealizes, which Rousseau nature, of state In the 93). livingof theenervation completes atone of hishis strength (Rousseauand of courage” 2002: For Rousseau, life in the state of nature was marked by a sufficiency, while in by a the while life wasmarked nature of sufficiency, in state For Rousseau, the isBy idealizing andman,man, this savage whouncorrupted a strong virtuous 9 CEU eTD Collection Rousseau lost incivilization. individualism and the market aspect,while the later is more focused onhuman virtue, which is, according to context the important distinction betweenliberalism and republicanism is that the formerstresses the dangers of corruption, benefits the of constitutiona mixed andthe rule of law” (Lovett2010). Maybe this in 3 himnearanarchism; elementwhich issituates alsoanother near Rousseau there anarchism, moves him from away Hobbes and liberalism. property idea the of private towards scarcity. antagonism His andcontinual omnipresent and hecould find innature,that while thelife inthe state of issociety markedby surviving he needed what manwanted lifebecause wasasufficient nature of lifeinastate Rousseau So, in the framework of contractualists, he can be seen as a republican. institutions in lifeforwhich canensure acommunal themselves (Bertram citizens thatdecide 2011). political of constitution the for calls he already, mentioned have I as all, after him away liberalism,from although he stays within frameworkthe of contractualism because move ideathe towards property negative sovereign, of private remarks Rousseau’s absolute According to Lowett, republicans highlight “the importance of civic virtue and political participation, the Except forExcept the institutionscritique of andprivate property which can politically situate Although both an both people’sAlthough andRousseauHobbes to areagainst the submission (Rousseau 2002:113).(Rousseau of the earth belong equally listeningof tothis you impostor; arelost,if youforget thethat fruits to us all, and the earth itselfstakes orfilling upthe ditches shouldhave cried tohis fellows: aware to nobody! manwould have that saved human the whopullingspecies, upthe horrors, and misfortunes many how murders, many how wars, many him, was the real founder of the civil society. How many crimes, how head tosay, ‘this is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe man,The first enclosingafter who a it piece ground, took of intohis 10 3 CEU eTD Collection support and active participation in National German Socialism. In a political sense, heis a Northon(Quinton, Carl 2007: 288). was a conservative Schmitt philosopher, notorious for his rulers experienced for politically change preference and to reluctance to tradition, attachment takes. humanconservatism nature towards which stance in interested am I and philosophy political of realm the within directions philosophical major is of one the AsIhave said,conservatism human nature. notion of aconservative delineate into ofCarl order work the Schmitt focus on Iwill Hereafter conservatism. philosophy: political modern in line major more one trace to like would I theory, political contractual competition. to as opposed whichisledbycooperation humans interaction among welfarethe of others; with concern aid, mutual with characterized social relations for stands which “solidarity” of of toKropotkin’s andbasicallyRousseau’s is“pity”sentiment”, concept concept analogous maxim Rousseau natural 108). of callsit (2002: goodness – claimsRousseau a “natural law implies and justice: “Dotoothers as youdo would toyou” haveothersto – isa this humanthe species in general” This (Rousseau 2002:107). in pity stands the natural asstate generosity, what clemency, what humanity,2002: 108).This force isfor of allnatural is virtues: pity social “what source the other but pity applied to the weak, to the guilty,humans is innate emotionan thanks which humanto speciesthe ismaintained (Rousseau or to among pity him, To tone. anarchistic in an read be can pity on notions Rousseau’s namely, 2.3. Conservatism isabody of right-wing opinion iswhich characterized by the After delineating two differentAfter delineating two tendencies towardshuman nature within the Schmitt’s “Open question” 11 CEU eTD Collection 4 empty, even boring. purpose of one’s life in Schmitt’s view. As thoughlife blood without and killing would be the even maybe or life, one’s of values highest is the being human another killing and blood It seems 1996:35). humanlife, beings” sheddingof tome sacrificing the of (Schmitt that shedauthorized sacrifice andkill blood, life, to men be to “whereby other required could that is a world without politicsand apolitical 35). (1996:32, Interestingly,world aworld without friend/enemy the antipode; and war, would be a place lacking that essential distinction realist; like Hobbes, he also claims that “ humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the denying as such effects, incalculable certain has probably term a such monopolize and invoke to humanity, orAfghanistan, that took place 20thin century, thenSchmitt has a clearpoint. “To confiscate the word opponents (Schmitt 1996: 54). If we look atthe “wars for democracy” (or rather for oil and howpolitical when aparticular ego) observes he state inand Iraqfights enemy, of for concept humanity, the itbasicallyexcludes it because usurps a universal conceptproblematic against humanity of its concept militant the finds He 55). According to him, humanity derives from liberal ideology and it is an utopian idea of total depolitization (1996: 5 readiness to die in thecombat(Schmitt 1996: 46, 48,49). enemy”1996: 49). (Schmitt resideinforbeing its ideals fought ornorms justice,in butbeingof its fought areal against political existence 1996: 49). (Schmitt basically allby politicalthe whichcan distinguish between friend andenemy 1996: 37).So, (Schmitt society inin isitself, defined justbut the battle Schmitt, attitude to notthe of according political,the is based on non-political finishesgrouping subordinated and as becomes political (1996:38).The point friend/enemyeconomic, moral other.Thisor friend/enemy isantipode sopowerful inevitably that every antipode as religious, such entities other all from energy its derives say which to so antithesis which represents “concept of political”the which is onthefriend/enemy grounded antithesis -asupra- theand notessence the truth creates of the law” (Schmitt 1985: 33). His political theory is based on the “ InSchmitt’s understanding of political, pacifism has no place because humanity is not apolitical concept. Jus belli That Schmitt is realist is clear from his claim that “the justification of war does not ” (lat. “the law of war”) stands for the request to kill the one which is recognized as an enemy and 5 Furthermore, no order can existprotectionno Furthermore, order without and obedience, 4 To Schmitt, a world without war would be a completely pacified autoritas,veritas non legem facit 12 “ i.e.“the authority CEU eTD Collection driven the to most extreme inhumanity”(Schmitt 1996:54). enemy qualitythe of being human anddeclaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a warcan thereby be Knowing needthe organizations writing for for? Schmitt’s political authority, stands about I menacingis behaviour a resultof social wrong forarrangement. But,what “better” do social his idea tobe of human nature extremely andmilitant. negative nature isnegative, heismore and man in that optimistic hisnotion isan question,open Ifind (Schmitt1996: 61).However,althoughstates “other” Schmitt that theories claim human that problematic human nature, nomatter distinct how they inare in andprominentrank history” political thinker.dangerous and dynamicbeing. be This easilydocumentedcan in worksof the specific every Insofar as they reveal“all genuine theories presuppose man to be evil,i.e., by nomeans as not unproblematic, but a themselves ‘open unfathomable,1996: 60).Henotices (PlesserinSchmitt that and remains an question’” as such they all agreeman is“‘[primarily]being in capable a whocreating his distance’ of essence isundermined, on the idea of a foundation of a human beings. beings? To me it looksWhatspecifically 1996: 33,34). this (Schmitt behaviour” humanpolitical tell does us about that humans a creates and thereby and thinking action human way in a characteristic determines share their militant combat is waris that the but the goal not and “the which of politics, presupposition leading nature andnature. Althoughmilitant he hisclaims also definition that glorifies of doesnot political that conflict their in arereducedto people which theory” and“instinct-driven belies anessentialist appears to as a this say about the humans? According toSchmitt, are people driven by the law of stronger? It politics duelack the to of enemy, will or will weakones 53). What the (1996: disappear does claims and in Schmitt, maintain if onemomentpeople cannot themselvesin sphere the of Lars Vinx (2010) in his text about Carl Larsinabout Vinx(2010)inhistext claims view, Schmitt, that Schmitt’s Man’s In his ideas about human nature, Schmitt refers to Helmuth Plesser who claims that 13 CEU eTD Collection Given characteristics are essentially human characteristics which can me manifested in manifested me can which characteristics human essentially are characteristics Given mutual aid, sympathy,solidarity liberty and individual (Baldwin inKropotkin 2002: 2,3). based on associations”, ofindependent free basis of the cooperation the on reorganization social ofcomplete in forms authority and advocacy inits all as“opposition to understood of 1921); one be leadingtheorists the principle ofanarchism of anarchism. The can relationship between anarchism and Iwill humannature Kropotkinrely on Peter (1842- the of demonstration in the and anarchism, is benevolent) and cooperative altruistic, (meaning because of its militant and warlike tendencies which seem to him beto a purpose negative rather as nature human see I case inhis though nature, human is universal there arguesthat in which tradition shouldthe be situated Schmitt depends onsocial organization. read that for Schmitt human nature exists, but is not fixed and how it willand here Schmitt’s religiousturn element comes about. out to be; it shouldignored because can beonly humans from God relive animosity political 2011) (Vinx 5-7). (1985: ofexception state the proclaim and decide to power a has Sovereign the and decision and norm elements: 6 flourish? will nature human militant where order imply ita political Does social order. “better” of the ideal towards am sceptical InSchmitt's “Political Theology” he discusses the legal order, which according to him, contains of two distinct 2.4. Schmitt findsSchmitt human beings tobe an “open (Plesserquestion” in 1996: 60). Schmitt I One of the lines of political theory which claims that there is a positive human nature Kropotkin andprinciple of“Solidarity” 6 From Schmitt’s perspective, liberal de-politicization liberal perspective, Schmitt’s From 14 of life. of CEU eTD Collection 46). possessionprivate inbe society replacedshould possession bycommon (Kropotkin 2002: advocated asystem governments andauthoritywithout The anarchist(2002: 3). holds thatthe are are considered to be enemies (Kropotkin 2002: 90). canbe well fed up. Selfish ants whichdisobey this rule will bearthe worse treatment thenother species which 9 socialism. “authoritarian” and “libertarian” between differences is, that views, “libertariansocialism”. Furtherin thesis Iwill explain more about different tendencies inLeft-oriented political Kropotkin's words, and due to this characteristic, Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism can be also described as 8 voluntary on based organization associations, social notfor on political authority.stands anarchism and thought, of human enslavement for fromdefeat” their andthey re-adapt (Kropotkin2002: 80). recover So, these mentionedsoon – state structures are priest responsiblethe and lawgiver, the government, – the thought of enemies inveterate “the furthermore, human thought is shaped by “the emptiness of the religious political, legal and social prejudices”, and rulers,lawyers, clerics – carefullyhave enwound (Kropotkin her” 2002: 80).According to the him, history of awakening, and in order to be awaken, Kropotkin“theexplains that the history of human thoughtexiststhought bothperiodsin of slumberand inperiod of frees herself from the chains with which7 those interested – intelligenceto degreeof the of claims or knowledge Kropotkin 92). acquired, (2002: andand This (Kropotkin knowledge evilvariesconception according2002: 90-92). good of hurtful for conceptsFurthermore, society.the and of “good” intelligence depend “bad” on claims that what is useful Kropotkin Inthe context, human and created. “good” “evil” are theideasof imperative for society is that which that to according and maintenance of species imperative the commands rulethe which is good, and what is bad is and evil. of like havepeople,good conceptions animals, developed that what is that claims he animals, of study relentless his In humans. and animals between parallels (Kropotkin 2002: 88).Kropotkin was also azoologist andin his he work oftenmakes He claims that human actioninand morality,is Kropotkin’s writings about what notions humanhisevident nature. are on is guided with longing for satisfaction and prevention of pain synonym of equity, is that anarchism in very deed” (2002:99). anarchistic social Kropotkinorganization which describes as “equality in allthings, the It is well-known in his example with ants. A well fed ant has to give honey to his hungry mates so everybody The characteristic of anarchism is the destruction of state as we know it. It is a no-government system in Aquestionwhich can be raised here: If human nature is positive, why we do not live in anarchist society? 8 As Baldwin notes, anarchism As was“essentially for Baldwin notes, Kropotkin ethics”applied (2002:2), Kropotkin isKropotkin his for means well-known which he that anarchist-communism, 15 7 9 Namely, animals live by CEU eTD Collection claiming that anarcho-syndicalism is an ideal social organization where people organize people where organization social ideal an is anarcho-syndicalism that claiming Chomsky,Noam who cooperation. human mutual on is relies and declaredaltruistic) benevolent, are (humans positive anarcho-syndicalist,itis anarchism, of andinthe case human nature is there auniversal which according to also agrees with this line of philosophy by circumstances” 2002: 92). (Kropotkin is:Kropotkin “Do what toothers you wouldhavedo them you into to same the to according world, animal in the also evident is which morality, the regarding maxim The solidarity: initiative is and courage, forKropotkin struggle, and mutual prerequisite confidence I find that anarchism can be situated within the Western philosophical tradition within findphilosophical Western canbe situated the I anarchism that claims solidarity, of principle the exists people among equals animals, among As 2002: 95-96). individual free hand, initiative other, the and on (Kropotkin one on courage allprogress: of factors main which arethe qualities two those them of all in developed are completely solidarity withmore thoroughly each member of societythe feels his each other triumphantly of strugglethe out hardship against andfoes. The member of theit,habitual themore has chanceitsurviving to andcoming of society, the areequality developed inan society and havebecome animal more and ofsolidarity principles more the the we realizethat being adverse circumstancesanditsagainst against enemies, ourselves strugglethat for existence maintained by each living When we study the animal world and try to explain to 16 CEU eTD Collection 10 “...existence everybody: for chooses he himself, for choosing and men, all for but himself, not beyond (Sartre 1948: that) 30, 32, 39). universalfree, without God), or nature andfeels is despair can do what (he within his power, is (he is abandoned he itself), action of condition a is anguish this and choices, own his make bears 1948: for aresponsibility his34).In (Sartre acts manthis world is in has (he anguish to “man is free, man Man is firstlya being meets which worldthe later and shapes himself. Hestarts as nothing: Namely, 26). before essence(1948: existence comes himself, that refers believe Sartre to existentialism an“optimisticof (Sartre 1948:56).Existential how as doctrine action” atheists, was (1905–1980) Paul an Sartre existentialist and whodenies “humannature” describes human nature in modern political philosophy. of existence the negating of the tradition follows in who seeing Iam interested nature. human legitimizes human demand for freedom. that and mind human a has being another that criterion strong is a language him – to freedom human for argument an as reason human sees Chomsky Namely, need. human fundamental Andfreely. is, toananarchists freedom human according understanding of nature, themselves in small-scale voluntary andorganizations inthatkind ofsocial they order live This relation between language and freedom I will address in details later in the third chapter. third the in later details in address will I freedom and language between relation This 2.5. Hence, Man has a responsibility for his entire life on his shoulders, but not just for Jean- byexistentialists. is taken nature human against stands familiar most the One of Hereafter, in this chapter, I will focus on the tradition which negates the existence of theexistence negates which tradition onthe focus I will in chapter, this Hereafter, Sartre and“Existential humanism” is freedom” and furthermore, from the moment he encounters the world he world the he encounters moment the from furthermore, and freedom” 10 17 CEU eTD Collection that man defines himself again and again (Sartre 1948:47).Thereis manthat definesalso himself something againand (Sartre fact of because the created isbeing constantly which arguesfor “human universality” Sartre others: towards commitment the has 1948: Man 50). his relation byhis isto butalso(Sartre freedom,circumstances characterized morality be cannot canbe andit in upon chosen soMan circumstances, defined only depends embedded theory. socially isdeeply existentialism how clear becomes it Here his own existence. of condition namely, Sartre’s Man in the process of the “intersubjectivity”; implies humans between a mankind of as This kind whole. relationship discovery of himself also discoversitconcerns because much isthus greater individual an of responsibility the means that others as the valid for all for theentire inand epoch 1948: 29),whichwe foundwhich (Sartre ourselves” imageis image, exist that our at sametimeaswefashion the wewill and essence to precedes In making choices for him, Sartre’s Man also makes “choices of his morality”, but this morality is universal 1948: 52). (Sartre although the Thus, contentauthenticity. strict of plane the upon except identified of morality is variable,on earth a certain– I shall race human call formthe of appearance the of scum. accident an ofmerely is it when this But neither necessary, cowardsis existence their that show to try who norOthers, cowards. scum can be call shall I excuses, deterministic with or solemnity of guise its freedom.complete Thosewhohide from inthis freedom,total a and existence their of nature voluntary wholly the themselves from hideform itself,freedom judgements to uponwhoI can those seek in implied is which freedom to will that of name in the thus, ... 18 CEU eTD Collection to anarchistic ideas, which are usually fond of nature. human fond of anarchistic ideas,which areusually to 1948:(Sartre 46, 47). equals temporarily being,and localizedabsolute absolute equalsbeing intelligible universally freebeing humanity”realising existencechooses essence) –ergo(self-committal; atypeof “free commitment”, of – aconcept existentialism human isbeing made.universality In perpetually liesthis universality coreof the a limitations facing those of And intheprocess them. accept or them discredit limitations; surpass ishim, those attempt So,to to humanpurpose himself,the an claims Sartre. defines them one to respect with lived and are they as subjective and everywhere, with them meet limitations heseesboth becausepeople as which fixed. Those (i.e.objective death) are situations can vary,demands asopposed to whichaccompany factof the existingin the world historical those and a proletarian; or baron feudal a slave, as be born to i.e. faces: Man which what humans really are. And this lands him/her in assumptionsstatist concerning needs humana different nature. tack. And a simplecompetitiveness, and tendency elegant free-rideto about or to dominate. questions the The statistone answer to tries has to theory issolve by it proposingto strong anarchistic saythe state. Anti- reason: thata simple for all Ithink nature, these of human fond are bad tendencies mainstream anarchistic theoretical and areKropotkin not that me to partseems it But of nature. human on theory concrete not always committed to the existence of human nature because one can have ananti-statist stand without a 11 isof universality a“human claims there that 45,46).Nevertheless, he nature” (1948: man thatcanbecalledhuman essence a universal actualize himself and this is what Sartre calls “existential humanism” (Sartre1948: 55). he is also pursuing transcendental aims. Heis self-surpassing and free; always seeking how to and inthis Man isworld always andlosingprojecting himself in worldthe andin this process transcendental in this story of existentialism.According toSartre, Man is abandoned andfree, Isanarchism always committed to the existence of human nature? I am eager to think that no; anarchism is Although Sartre negates the existence of human nature, Isee his ideas beto very close Sartre denies the existence of human nature: “it is impossible to find “it to is impossible in human every each and denies of nature: the existence Sartre 19 condition meaning that “every man realises himself in himself realises man “every that meaning ”, indicating the indicating ”, 11 Namely, Sartre stresses the a priori constraints CEU eTD Collection (Stevenson andHaberman 1988: 131,135).Marx’s humanity has of nature: concept asocial are economic process this manage laws which andanother, to rise gives in history stage one (Hindess 2007:386). society based on co-operative forms of economic organization without class divisions importantmost Marxism,idealFor role” 2007: is society the (Hindess 384). a communism: into a general theory class conflict the integrate to attempt by its is characterised force, of social an as actor class of history in which “the aremany there Marxism, itsdivergences within it 2007:384). (Hindess with on focus the development of economicMarxism go. To comprehend Marxism as a coherentrelations body of thoughtis in difficult nature because human of notions direction in which indicate to just like play would I lines following the andin the literature, body of an covers extensive Marxism because say, soto problematic individual which acts led by the principle of solidarity on the behalf of whole society?and benevolent) and altruistic are humans that (meaning nature human positive the about idea anarchistic the from different really that is How humanity. of whole the affects which acting is intrinsically goodwellbeing of others.in Sartre’s “better society” ishuman not based on religion,but on something which beings – he morality.universalis is focused a He on Man who callsas self-surpassing andconcernedwith the it “free and universality human of idea the and commitment”intersubjectivity, involvement, human of importance – or a possibility of 2.6. Marx’s material conception of history consists of a process by ofaprocess of which development history of consists Marx’s material conception Marxism is the last theory which I will present inmost and, is thischapter Marxism Iwillpresent the lasttheory the which Marxism and “Anti-humanism” 20 CEU eTD Collection Renaissance, the classical period, and the nineteenth century: those structures or formations or structures those century: nineteenth andthe period, classical the Renaissance, the big are episteme His three moment. historical in a particular body thought or of the knowledge determine by governed rules discursive formations “episteme” or Foucault’s tradition against the notion of a universal essenceessence is attributethe of ‘each single individual’ who isits real subject” (Hall 1992: 606). of Man, that is, human this man; isthere of modern essence (2) that proportions of auniversal ‘(1)that philosophy: nature. Namely, abstract an than rather capital) of circuits the power, labour of notionexploitation production, of (modes of Man at social relations “by nature: putting human ideauniversal of againstthe Althusser argues the centre individual. whichshapethe conditions historical the of importance the of533) andstresses his theoreticalAlthusseris decentring ordisplacing humanbeing the history asthesubjectof (Resch 1989: system, 2007:393).Basically, embedded” (Hindess inwhichthey are relations economic other and Marx the of “embodiments as seen be should displacedindividuals that idea an on rests which concept two keyshaped byLouis Althusser andhis in associates France theThey during 1960s. a developed and Haberman 1988: 140). people make for theirlivesplans and for livingthat they labour (Marxinperform Stevenson human from differentiates theirmeans produce animals; people meaning of subsistence, that in ispresent Marx thathumans areactive, beings.Thisis thecharacteristic productive which human nature notion about him. general One surround which circumstances economic on the fixed because -Mannature nature. In words hasno hedepends other universal human human nature” (Marxin Stevenson and Haberman1988:140), we basically can’ttalk about 1988: 140).And because “all ishistory nothing butacontinuous ofsocialtransformation “the of social in nature man totality and isthe real of (Marx relations” Haberman Stevenson Foucault with his claims about episteme also agrees thisepisteme MarxistFoucaultwith hisclaims with anti-humanist agrees also about importantOne direction inis “Marxist as Marxism known whichwas anti-humanism” 21 CEU eTD Collection 10(3): 511-549. Modernism, Postmodernism, and Social Theory: AComparasionof Althusser and Foucualt. 12 decisions andlimitations. rules, with determine the individual they in because centre are fixedandthey the internally are separately but other, replace each matter. sameon the subject andFoucault Chomsky between debate particular focusI will onthe giving this overview in ideasconcerningnexttentative of political chapter humannature, the Marxism. Foucaultin Isituated traditionthis negateswhich universal humanAfternature. and “Existentialism” bySartre’s theory political in modern is represented nature human because human his nature.to the idea is Theon of secondtradition standwhich opposed of andSchmitt, anarchists such Kropotkin.Withinas this tradition haveI Chomsky situated as conservatives Rousseau, and Hobbes as such contactalists mentioned I nature human implies first tradition In theexistenceof which Chomsky-Foucaultlineof the debate. within ofmodern better understand the framework philosophypolitical into andsituate order nature. human totheidea of universal is opposed which philosophy line political of agrees with second the tradition existenceof which stresses whichthe nature human is inhis case,positive, Foucault the with agrees Chomsky’s While nature. human of question the regarding traditions different with agree Chomsky and thatFoucault isit obvious individual,the shapes which episteme structures. discursive them. So,Manis notdetermined with universalsome human butnature with particular Foucault’s Man is establisheda product of ata structures time inhistory; he to issubjected In my thesis I will not address the differences between Foucault and Althusser. See Resch, Robert Paul. Robert Resch, See Althusser. and Foucault between differences the address not will I my thesis In In this chapter my In delineate political onhuman nature wastotry chapter this to the debate aim By his the essencemanclaim of and rejection about emphasizing of importance the 22 12 It seems to me that Poetics Today. CEU eTD Collection change which was seen as a necessary move at that particular moment. Namely, the debate Namely, the moment. particular move atthat necessary as a wasseen which change activism andthe critique of contemporary political system, both of and them for social argued intellectuals”. Their in work academia was intertwined with their analysis publicof discourse, known intellectuals left-orientated in deeplyinvolved politics; say they are soto “public bya characterized economic neo-liberal strong crisis. debate are prominent in again moment historical today’s whichis alsohigh-strung and inThe questionsthe raised establishment. the against reaction characterized byapronounced The debate itselfintellectual was set depth, up theyin Withincan of justbe such that they cultural debate deconstructed. that this are constructs showa tense in which differentpolitical claiming human as nature or constructivist, justice ideas views andconcerning nature human directions moment Left can duringgo in andhuman nature be society it. Foucaultwhich argues built can existenceupon against the of political the thinking. seventies; of universal existence which arguesforthe tradition theanarchist left. agrees with Chomsky the within a traditions momentdifferent two to belonging as seen be can they however political; the of left realm the of belong to them Both society. future idea of the alternative and disobedience, knowledge, justice, question creating ascientific civil thepossibility of theory, of nature, human of existence the as such questions many up bring thinkers leftist influential interest in politics and in the work of both Chomsky and Foucault because in it these two imperative of production and profit to the political and social life, as well as the state (Brown2006: 694). 13 3. To Wendy Brown “neo-liberal” stands for the arrangement characterized by free market which imposes the imposes which market free by characterized arrangement the for stands “neo-liberal” Brown Wendy To T HE Going a few decades back to the 1960s/70s, both 1960s/70s,both back the Going andFoucaultwerewell Chomsky to afewdecades which wasthebook “The my Nature” triggered Chomsky-FoucaultDebate on Human C HOMSKY -F OUCAULT D EBATE ON EBATE H 23 UMAN 13 N ATURE CEU eTD Collection existing establishment, emphasised class inequalities, as well as against the state authority state the emphasisedinequalities, aswell as against class existing establishment, (Ehrmann 1970: 384).Specifically,in in 1968 France, aseries againstof student protests the students believed that precisely intelligentsiathe had acentral significance in thisstruggle values; class own their against rebelled youth class middle the where US in the as well as countries inEuropean place of anumber took movement that larger student were partof a thestudentmovements Hesupported teaching inFrancewhich 1992: 192). (Eribon there he was while existing regime againstthe inTunisia ofMarxist students theprotest supported Healsoideas politically 1993a). (Miller ultra-left advocated and of that Marxists anarchists consisted which movement a “Maoists”; known as the also Left, Proletarian or Proletarianne Gauche the In thesixties hesupported in (Miller 1993a:35). participated demonstrations and interviews, provocative gave petitions, marched,signed He wasan who activist order. establishedinstitutions’” (Breines in Ehrmann 1970: 381). total imperviousness dissent,to have served toremove all sanctity and legitimacy from the only Vietnamwar,the butalso ‘transparency the of Orwellian state’s the language,its and not elsewhere, and in America NewLeft“Forthe establishment: the against was areaction The NewLeft (Ehrmann fight...” 1970: 383). was a therealfight political factor; a political is rebels the of sensibility awaked newly “the political: as well as protest, a cultural was Left its coercive bureaucracy and strong police. From that kind of Stalinism the “New Left” was distancing. was “NewLeft” the ofStalinism kind that From police. strong and bureaucracy coercive its Unionand Soviet afterthe the deathofestablished and Lenin regime in1924, existing Stalin and started Czar the building overthrow 1917 his authoritarianin revolution October rule in whichwho Lenin was and notorious by out in the SovietUnion. At the time, Peter Kropotkin was warning on “red bureaucracy” referring to Bolsheviks 14 leading Frankfurt theory,Marcuse, a figure.school with associated critical as of as spreadingwell Europe within advocating Unitedthe States, social with change, Herbert movement a Marxist was “NewLeft” The Left”. “New of the politics the through articulated placetook in 1971, which was aperiod and of crisis the critique of was existing order The “New Left” asopposed to earlier leftist movements associated withthe Marxist-Leninist ideology carried Foucault was politically active in this story of the revolt against the existing social 24 14 TheNew CEU eTD Collection the socialist states of Europe there was a movement for the liberalization of and of socialism liberalization for the movement wasa there of Europe states socialist the ini.e.Also, Maoism. in the FarEast, stance leadership and anti-bureaucratic revolutionary movementwave)feministpatriarchal against and romanticoppression, the viewsaboutthe American Civil Rights Movementmentionis inevitable grasp the to the time.that of It movementsdynamic spirit to in order for the political affirmationas I part, haveisit described above, important to understand thewiderframework of social of black people, the (second- is also one of the central areas of Chomsky’s work (Edgey 2009). and progressive asdemocratic kindpolicy of that of therepresentation produces which media of business andname capital.in the countries different in He population the wasof control the a on strongfocused is) still apparently critic of Vietnam War (and was in which policy that foreign American of time. critic well-known a The already he was critiqueseventies of own and (Edgey Duringtheir and control sixties the place 2009). work working and own are in private hands which critiquein forsystem economic means his of capitalist the of constant which production enables the welfare for ground-breaking in work linguistics,the as well as his political stands. Chiefly,he is well known rich. He argues that his of because intellectual anacclaimed Chomsky period was In that workers establishment. the should republic.Islamic Revolution, which resulted in 1979 inthe of overthrowing Iran's monarchy, itinto an turning 1992: 210).From seventies, beginning of the he supporter of was also a Iranian the intellectual” whowascriticizing andengagingin (Eribondemonstrations andmanifestos By the end wages, conditionsworking for andbetter against better ofwork. classstrikes unemployment, of the sixties, mass place. calledsolidarity with funding the University’s Students which took regulated Foucault “began to embody the very figure of the militant Beside thestruggle Foucault for change political inwhich both Chomsky took and The Sixties in and seventies USwerethe also bystudentrevolts characterized against 25 CEU eTD Collection characteristics common in all human beings; those characteristics are considered to be natural to areconsidered characteristics beings; those in human all common characteristics words: great following with intellectuals these two the introduces whophilosopher,Elders, aDutch Fons of introduction the from comes debate this for description best the Maybe framework. likeparticularhuman nature from concepts orknowledge different perspectives leftist within the observing simply another, one contradicting not capitalism, liberal on based order social contemporary of who critique giveleftists aprofound are both agenda: common political a have Chomsky and Foucault both However, civilization. our within created a concept ishand, Foucault sceptical ideawhichthe towards human of nature is, justice, along with just him represents the cornerstone for the vision of a future society based on justice. On the other which for on from nature humans human stand andgivesapositive perspective a cognitive at looks Chomsky is debate different. inthe social sciences towards Chomsky’s approach placekey which ofthetelevision in Foucault’spoints and debate 1971 Netherlands. took the out point I will and Foucault Michel and Chomsky Noam between debate the delineate by both a fight and a hope for different political and social order than that which existed. era characterized adynamic was seventies sixties and the isthat it evident consideration, into Soviets against authority taking Therefore, “PragueSpring”). (i.e. the all movementsthese After giving an account to the specific historical context of the debate, hereafter I will To start with the basic concept of “human nature” which can be seen as a set of the of set a as seen be can which nature” “human of concept basic the with start To (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 1). direction other's each in working are they if knowing even without tools, different with mountain same the of sides see astunnellers opposite workingthem through a mountain at Perhaps thebest way compare to both philosophers would be to 26 CEU eTD Collection which guide our social and intellectual intellectual individual whichmean guide oursocial referandbehaviour, andwhat that’s I to (Chomsky,Foucault2005: 4).“...this mass innate organizingof schematisms, principles, nature human of constituent fundamental is a knowledge instinctive this moreover, whichto from small amount isof it data acquire to possible asophisticated knowledge; and concludes is there that instinctive and innateknowledge; itstands for a schematism according Chomsky arguments, mentioned above three of basis the On 3). 2005: Foucault (Chomsky, language of within system the operate can a child andyet, languages, of wide range limitations isthe inwhich result different different experience have people Thirdly,other. the same have knowledge can language, the with experience different have they although of speakers, English two the English language,levels i.e. thecongruent inevitably of knowledge; another) languagereach richer stimuli then that is,more to exposed is they one that say let’s stimuli; will different have (they language in beexperience able to understand is there individualshavevaried2005: 3).Furthermore, phenomenaeachthe who Foucault that whichof data somehowresults in anda complex sophisticated (Chomsky, knowledge Whatheardisnever issue the before. hereis whohas thegapbetween a child small quantity have they that sentences new understand to ability a child’s in exists which creativity the with indicateslanguagein mastering toexplainhis anunconscious way.view,begins In order he 2005: called 2).So, Foucault “knowledge” “knowing alanguage” (Chomsky, for Chomsky what they mean and to understand what people say to them say himahuman for and beinghas that means possibility to the and“creativity” are creative, this collection of abilities is human beings” (Elders in Chomsky, Foucault2005: 2)Chomsky argues humansbeingsthat as other each recognize wecan by which nature, human acommon call we could something the product “are question we beginswith fundamental the of debate, the aspect Firstly, philosophical the of all kind intrinsichumansor to andindependentof culture, thatis, from external the surroundings. of external factors, or if, in spite of our differences, we have 27 CEU eTD Collection defined by science in order to indicate something else, and “human nature” is analogue to the isanalogue to indicate somethingnature” and“human else, to indefined order byscience a concept a scientificbutis not concept in Since dies, “life” itself etc). eats, reproduces, science, living it beings); is not used in discourse the of living beings biological notions (i.e. reproduction, offood; assimilation any notion which the concerns todescribein other is which order used lifemeta-concept the notion isa of Foucault, delimit acertain type of scientific discourse (i.e. “life”) (Chomsky,Foucault 2005: 6). So, for to usedinorder particularnotions whichwere in propagated concepts scienceand also, the new demonstrated knowledge biological of transformations century, eighteenth of end living describe itsbeings. than the science andtodescribeobjectof Atthe to rather study, within classification the of human beings. “Life” wasused just todelineate biology as a was used instudies ofnature: conceptthe of “life” wasused inonly tofixorder positionsthe century eighteenth and “life” in seventeenth which the of concept The nature”. “human and history”In his (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 7). elaboration, twoconcepts–“life” hecompares designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to to theology indicator or biology or epistemological of role the played have to mainly me to seems nature human of notion the knowledge, of history “In the that states Foucault another. to one contradicting basically and ascience, human asaconceptwithin nature particular theyHe talks about Chomsky’s claim. are talkingcognitive andrefersunderstandingin not opposes aspects that to he does his explanation about human nature fromthe basis for his claim that there is such a thing as universal human nature. completely which represents humanis characteristic a languageuniversal creating and that are capable of differenthere talks that Chomsky thecognitive about aspect of human beings; how humans basically points to by the concept of humanand nature”, claims Chomsky (Chomsky, Foucault 2005: 4). It is clear not On the other side, Foucault does not see the concept of human nature as scientific. In asscientific. nature human of concept see the not does Foucault side, On theother an indicator an indicator for whatbiologythat will aslivingdefine being (i.e. something which 28 per se ; itisby defined aconcept CEU eTD Collection understanding of humans? Chomsky’s In words: scientific the to lead nature human of concept the could life; of understanding scientific question in apacifist sotospeak: tone, if the oflifeconcept has takenbiologists tothe following andheposes the of systematization knowledge in theprocess of instrumentas an be which can biological used sciences the within “life” is claim ina concept that Foucault’s Foucault agreeswith Chomsky Furthermore, 2005: 7). Foucault naturehuman (Chomsky, of elementisChomsky, it aconstituent biologically andunchangeable and,accordingto given is language, something system andthat of obtain a sophisticated which achildcan heneural talks which about networks humanare the property of cognitive system thanks to organizingof which areusedin concepts himselfconstitution; saysthat processthe Chomsky and science of the constitution nottalkabout does Chomsky nature”. “human defines science constitution of science which defines its concepts, in casesciencethis defines “life” andalso, the about talks Foucault positions. from different argue simply they because contrary notthey in are their argumentation however, of nature; merehuman the question of existence argumentfor Chomsky’s notions ofhuman andnature. Foucault Chomsky to are opposed the for Foucault. concept a scientific alsois “humanfollows nature” not isthat in what of biology, “life” concept I find Foucault’s answer to be exceptional, though I do not find beacontra find bedo notitto answerI to though exceptional, Foucault’s I the biologists, through one might perhaps question this - already inleastscale, the minds of having – at try after to nextpeakto the call ithuman for nature might shorthand, not providefor biology let’s but them, between difference much see don’t I it, call to want we whatever or schematisms mental intrinsic of or mechanisms, human innate whether concept of or organizing nature the andask [...] further bit a speculate might one me that seems to It 29 CEU eTD Collection the language.the Chomsky, amajorisbehaviourists, of critic focused oncreativity in acognitive in present innovation the on than rather process in that present rules and formation language of knowledge and creativity, the linguists before Chomsky were focused on the process of the inwere positionsdifferent aproposknowledge (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 15).In this context thought totheindividualsnotion creativity hecontinues and with of that heand Chomsky the little has given howhe admits Foucault creativity. of and question the with thesubject start human nature towards knowledge. When knowledge,talking about Foucault and Chomsky focused on the critique of political power which controls and shapes the whole social body. more is he and in knowing, succeed they what and are beings human what of readings and interpretation “ideological” about talks He claims. of body a particular of organization the or is the cultural treatment focused on he the history science, and of systemsthoughts, of ideas on studied history otherhand,of the or the Foucault, and scientific theory. shape biological and psychologicalhuman precognitions beings: of howdothey knowledge,create the about more talks language, with concerned principally work his in is who Chomsky Essentially, period. historical ina particular way in a particular classified are claims aroundconcepts intalks which Foucault scienceisshaped, about a particular which the acquirehuman’s language beto ability asystem while whichcan of called“humannature”, to one another, they juxtaposed side”in not from waythatthey are opposite the mountain “climbingthe same the are simply making different claims. Chomsky talks about a universal To conclude with the concept of human nature, Chomsky and Foucault can be seen as The debate proceeds from Chomsky’s and Foucault’s claims on the existence of existence on the claims Foucault’s and from Chomsky’s proceeds The debate (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 7). is life of what question of the some satisfaction to the answered 30 CEU eTD Collection known, which permit and assistchildren to acquire human languages. Chomsky generativein his grammarargues for universalsthe of human linguistic stimulus?) structure, same unlearned to but reactions different have people why then (but reflex creates which stimulus external because behaviourism denied the creativity of the subject claiming that human reactionis conditioned by the reactions in different situations (Graham 2010). Chomsky was one of mostthe critiquesharsh of behaviourism to in relation behaviour analyse to different eager exterior physicalof psychology stimuli.branch a Thirdly,is which analytical or logical behaviourismbehaviourism conditions). which attempts mental the psychological to on decode (not humanSecondly, animals and of humans behaviour the is object whose psychology on focused external elements not internal ones. He distinguishes three types of behaviourism; methodological behaviourism (Graham 2010). Accordingprocesses” to Graham,psychological behaviourism internal to or seesevents humanbehaviour mental to to bereference constitutedultimate in making relationwithout to explained and be described can “behaviour which to according doctrine a as behaviourism explains Graham George 32). 2005: 15 the truth which isnotconstituted in the history, a truth that is hidden and waits beto unveiled (Chomsky,second2005: 16).The Foucaultreferbutsubject” subject not to claim tothe does the of sovereignty the of principle “the it calls Foucault it; for responsible inventor an have had to and be anddated, situated hadto each discovery imposedthat which “attribution”, of isfirst that claims. The two hadtoobey of history knowledge the how Hedescribes interest. hisareaof “discovery” within of process inemphasized the it because too was creativity shadows (Chomsky,isFoucaultFoucault2005: 22,23).Essentially, inpatienttowards emphasis individual was placedon creation, while ofcreationin rules the wereleft the In other words, in the history of thought, which was Foucault’s area of interest, more Foucault2005: 19-20), which I have mentioned above. sense, or creativity at a “lower level” as a normal human act, as he explains it (Chomsky, Chomsky claims how behaviourism is only concerned with behaviour and the control of behaviour (Chomsky behaviour of control the and behaviour with concerned only is behaviourism how claims Chomsky (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 15). history of thought, the problem was completely different combined. In the field of history of science, or, more generally, the he which afterwards little, little by together came information surface onwhich of kind wasa subjectsubject; speakingthe almost whichnothing creativity of the attributed speakingthe to behaviourism, linguistic against fighting been has Chomsky Mr. 31 15 InFoucault’s words: CEU eTD Collection what conditions, and for what reasons the understanding modifies under how, itselfshow to has in itsone formativeone, to rules,“according inquiry: of lines two are there Foucault, to In 2005: 18). history accordingFoucaultthe newknowledge, entirely (Chomsky,of “grille” oran has is say, That medical occurred, logicnewoccurred. of understanding to a inner has limitations and decisions new rules, newwith grid thatacompletely which means 1770-1830wascompletely medicine period from transformed, example whichinthe the of in the point his demonstrates He Sciences”. Human the of Archaeology An Things: of Order “The inhis he work fixed, introduced separately which internally butare replace each other, – which century andnineteenth period, classical –Renaissance, the bigstructures three “episteme”; he in about speaks Foucault acertain 2005: 17), produced (Chomsky, period” be suchaknowledge to allowing such of and rules acollectivetotality “understanding as seen as collective, which be of could to knowledge perspectivegeneration according a differentknowledge on notFoucault of proposes Foucault effects 2005:17). which (Chomsky,subject’ truth?” produced individualunderstanding a multiple, were non-individualcomplex, formation, not‘subjected tothe practice.if “what asks the question, Foucault imperatives, mentionedabove two these Regarding It is obvious that when Foucault talks about science/thought) is always negative in relation to truth, or in Foucault’s words: history (the interestof inof hisknowledge area that concludes Foucault knowledge, intohistory (Chomsky, theseFoucault elementsin 2005: 16).Taken account of two the position in to“discover”order Chomsky, (Foucault, 2005:16). “eccentric” be inan to he had truth; the to finally have access to surmount which or tooutlive hadto inorder of knowledge subject the “prejudices”the thought”, “common the order, collective of phenomena the other: of the “myths”It isn’t difficult to see how these two claims were adjusted,of one to the a period, constituted the obstacles 32 CEU eTD Collection resembles the inprocess which a child revealsits own language. Heclaims thefollowing: achievement of kind that Chomsky To data. of amount a small from theory scientific human ability that can be seen as human nature, and if not, how should that be described? hedoes thinks aboutthe human ability alanguage acquiring isof and thatnotauniversal Iwouldwhat if askFoucault example, this debate, I wasmoderating aspects. For different justfrom directly speaking not opposed, theyare interestingly, Again, tousealanguage. how knows of rules system the mastered has who a person meaning that subject, the of creativity Chomsky, who speaks fromisunderstanding within alwaysbounded of certain rules fora particular Meanwhile, period. the linguistic pointare of view,in the rulesa juxtaposed rules themfrom talks socialthe point of view: about or contradictive. episteme, not Foucault are the condition of Foucault, andthey that rules from are talking which aboutthe perspectives, againis different the position towardsindividual new and unpublished (Chomsky, knowledge” 2005: 18). Foucault the inan can produce understanding of an show working rules the of howthe has one other, to creativitypassing without an through ‘inventor’discoveringoriginal the ‘truth’; and according tothe of the subject, that is, a certain The debate shifts from creativity and knowledge towards the possibility of creatinga of possibility the towards knowledge and from creativity shifts The debate and Chomsky of cases the both in rules with connected is creativity that seems It me, would be the way knowledge on the basisto of a small amount of data.progress That, it seems to towards systemstime inductive the permitting leaptocomplicated of a theory of scientific same the at while knowledge, possible of our scope the restricts and delimits hand, one on that, conditions of set that on precisely focus attention have to we Ithink artistic creation, matter that If we really want to develop a theory of scientific creation, or for 33 CEU eTD Collection particular knowledge whenhe whichis, behaviourism, describes him according to matter of knowledge:a accumulated Chomsky withbecause Foucault heagrees implying wasnot theidea as of progress scientific justsimultaneously,not direction one “progress”of (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 26,27). convergence whichallows many different of making ways several types of knowledge principle of the out He points be auniversalunderstanding. to out turned Foucault, of ideathe of“progress” a and“growth”: European which,understanding according to possibleour knowledge and makethen to aninductive leap Foucaultdrives to make acritique Chomsky’s idea that, in order to develop a scientific theory, one has to focus on the limits of Chomsky is approachingFoucault’s claims about rulesthe which determine a (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 25). of any epistemology in question fact towards or creativity, describe (Chomsky,Foucault2005: 27, 38). you [Foucault] that character andjagged erratic I think, hasthis because this of minds property our of thatthe progress science, comefocusinto orfall of focusout and soon;itis precisely in the ofhistory course and insightand begins experience to which and structures, intelligible possible certain with us presents which perceive, to begin can we way in ageneral think, I which, minds,in property don’tunderstand,but detail which of our we new theories and so of absorption and the new knowledge of addition accumulated on. [...] But it is I didn’t think that scientific is amatter simply progress of the precisely because of this 34 CEU eTD Collection knowledge, and Foucaultis sceptical it: towards of collection aparticular of creating in process the present beings ofhuman aspects subject. the of matter internal the with do to nothing has conditions, external from conditioned deprivedfocusing just thecreativity behaviourof subject the on their isentirely which which in behaviourism case this subject-matter, particular the determine which science finally point from issue namely address aspect, they an questioning same the therules of behaviourism seesits requirements as a grid imposed. (inFoucauldian Herein terms) this construction the on limitations of set a as but science, a as not behaviourism at looks Chomsky of a scientific theory, and it looks to me that this characterization of One can conclude that, in the context of science, Chomsky talks about the cognitive the about talks Chomsky science, of context in the that, conclude can One point of difference between Mr. Chomsky and myself is that when that is myself and Chomsky Mr. between difference of point mind or its naturehuman the to existence, of asconditions connected, are regularities is difficultthese that say to But [...] nature. human of mind the forof interior me to accept. in in the a way, regularities, these of [...] principles the when heplaces Perhaps the is Mr.Chomsky agreewith completely Whereperhaps Idon’t (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 34). interrelation... their and phenomena with directly deal must one rather behaviour; human of ascientific theory create not must one that insistence is arbitrary the behaviourism [...] theory. interesting you and arenotpermitted tocreate that destructive assumption is, whatdefies behaviourism is very the andcurious self- a negation of the possibility of developing a scientific theory. That 35 CEU eTD Collection are not opposed in their claims, orin Chomsky’s words: talking aboutis Foucault mind, human the a of aspect “secondintrinsic the about is talking Chomsky while So, phase” which follows from Chomsky’s cognitive one. Again, they conditions (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 32). particular capacitiesmind; say, yoursof [Foucault’s], the asyou is in the intrinsic the with is least, at connection in this interest, particular my fashion, particular in a arrangement interact they how explain therefore can are factors these we knowwhat when kind of any other discovery, similarly and discovery scientific understand will we rather study; ofAnd it is socialnot a question, exist. that conditions intellectual and of social set as some another, I see it, of which of theseanddepends facts: on some one, two intrinsic property of mind, the we should economic creation scientific of an act that is, Ithink That image. original into the mountain form directions,youropposite touse [Elders’] andI think that illustrates very nicelyother the way in which we’re digging practices (Chomsky, Foucault1005: 29,30). for theories, for education, for foundation the as itself asserts and throughsociety, a particularinto permeates society, dispersed to say; I thinkis itself, that knowledge of Iamspeaking of whereas knowledge, of the contenthe speaks of science heprobably of thinks formalthe organization of various knowledges which is 36 CEU eTD Collection kind of couldsystem workers form theirindependent assemblies and willnolonger represent inin the this present progress technology, the (Chomsky,Foucault to 2005: 38).And thanks system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as otherdecentralized social federated, institutions”“a society: future of vision optimistic isan anarcho-syndicalism for Chomsky, In short, 2005: 37). Foucault (Chomsky,be realized” to characteristics human fundamental this for possibilities the maximize should society a decent that follow itwill course, of then, institution, ofcoercive effects limiting arbitrary without creation free for inquiry, creative for work, creative for need the is nature human of element fundamental “a Chomsky, to according is that, nature human mentioned above and anarcho-syndicalism between 2005: 42). Theconnection (Chomsky, couldbeachieved Foucault characteristics human fundamental those inwhich organization social aparticular with connection connection with freedom, dignity and creativity,and followingin understanding, that in as it hesees nature human to comes it –when socialism libertarian or syndicalism, politics: of importance the of explanation Foucault’s with begins which part political the toward turns debate The finished. is nature human of question the on principally focused Beginningis Chomsky for his whowell-known with political –anarcho- position which aspect philosophical science, the of constitution the notions regarding With the (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 37). in aproblem.” whatconstitutes be that’s politics, interested functioninginNot of society the whichwefind [...] to ourselves. The essenceforms andtheregular andprohibitions of conduct. permissions our regular the defines which power of system the and offunctions, our life society in which we live,the economic production whichitwithin consists,probably the most crucial subject toourexistence, that issay to the after all, of the political 37 CEU eTD Collection state. the towards directed asapressure disobedience civil actof the sees while Chomsky state, the of commandsframework in of the onestillexists the doingbecause so, is ineffective Foucault it commands” disobediencefor appearsthatFoucault civil So, (Chomsky, 2005:46). legal, obligatory behaviour on violation of the commands of the state, which may not be legal is“a ishim an it isnot as act of Chomsky.civil for To resistance disobedience disobedience likewise, passiveness is also arisky act (Chomsky,Foucault 2005: 44, 45). For Foucault, civil bringingdisobedience fascism, but butwith threatensthesocial possibility the of order, activists but they have different stances towards civil disobedience. To Chomsky civil known as both are Chomsky and Foucault order. thesocial activity which threatens concrete (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 40,41). andheits Marxist,As by managed institutions arguesthata true state are class a ruling is onthe ofpowerwhichshapesthesociety.Foucault concentrated 2005: 41).He disclosure working ofinstitutions, which appear tobeboth neutral and (Chomsky, independent” the iscriticize to ours such as in task a society “thepolitical real him it that seems to that claiming moment, historical ofthe present maintains he theposition society but firmly better wewillthat beled into error?” (Chomsky,Foucaulthave2005: 44).Hedoesnot avision ofa is much more careful: “...it is difficult to say exactly what human nature is. Isn’t there a risk 2005: 41). Foucault (Chomsky, anddestruction oppression, terror the nature of power, detects which society, while future second is creation of on the a just Thefirst focused tasks. intellectual vision of a future society because he sees it asatask. Essentially, he argues that there are two just awheel in (Chomsky, the productive process FoucaultChomsky 2005: 39). givesthis In this political part the question of the disturbance of social order comes intofocus; a society,Foucault andnature On in story hand, future human this other the concerning 38 CEU eTD Collection did overthrow the ruling class, it established a centralized and authoritarian state greatly rulingitthe state established acentralizeddid and class, authoritarian overthrow proletariat wherethe state asocialist Union which constituted Soviet example of the concrete injust towinmore level,On order power? ifconsideration a moreinto grounded we take the more power war for go to theproletariat is would question justice, the on was built society first place? I mean, if51). My first question was,is generally whatspeaking, the goal of proletariatthe fightin the the geometry of power was fairly designed in the society, that is, if the ruling class ruling the inrelativistic hisin notions are evident the claim warwhich against that proletariatthe wages his Nevertheless, systems. political undemocratic of critique in his isevident which justice of has relativisticnotions of justice, it seemsme to that Foucault nevertheless has astrong sense (Chomsky, Foucault2005: 51).Ifind hisnotions on justice interesting because he although isitwin, because “one just.” makeswarto not heclaims of that because butpower; justice, of because class ruling warcontra into the go not does proletariat the that He claims Foucault2005: 58). and our form of philosophy, and that as a ourtype within of civilization, and whichhavebeenformedknowledge within our concepts result form part of our class system… “notions are nature” as well as “human (Chomsky, tohim,“justice” justice; ideas regarding different has justice, people kind confrontthat should system Foucault of 2005:51). Foucault(Chomsky, lawwith ifthelaw juridical isnot includesjustice butwhen organized around apparatus He separates inpeople andclaims“justice” “legality”50). shouldact the andaccordance that are in doisposition to imaginejust and organize more society (Chomsky,Foucault 2005: people biased; what however, limited andtoo too are because people ideal society justice and ideal of a system creating in of a position not people are very that clearly states He dialogue. Foucault has a different and interesting view on justice; I would say a relativistic one. arelativistic say Iwould justice; on view interesting and adifferent has Foucault Civil the question leadsusto of justice.disobedience Chomsky opensupinthis spiritus movens is not justice isnot butfight (Chomsky,for a power Foucault 2005: 39 CEU eTD Collection sense justiceof and altruism,it should be seen as a tool for raising consciousness against neo- a have benevolent, are they that meaning nature human positive have humans that presumes it because naive and asutopian seen be can debate in the present anarchism Although competitiveness. and individualism on insists which ethos a neo-liberal to subjected are and isworld shaped with regard toprofit; humans are subjected rentingto themselves in markets profit is ina imperative. where private ‘competition’, terminology Thecontemporary world nature human that notion on the based are politics neo-liberal Today’s is nature. human regarding negative and thatRussia, which in one moment took a wrong turn. everybody and in socialism Europe with situation the heinto consideration takes it asthough appears shouldisuniversal perspective Foucault while muchmore careful justice when talking because about be (Chomsky,wantto” Here Foucault2005: 57). isit Chomskythat evident talks from a seenthey because power, into group other some putting as of ends the in merely not needs, human an ‘enemy’ or, in today’s you’re trying to achieve tryingyou’re to solidarity and so on (Chomsky,Foucault 2005: 55). Chomsky says, the “social revolution that such grounded; love, with humanly sympathy, valuableconcepts kindness, as together true is justice of notion “real” the there and qualities human fundamental in the resides which Foucault 2005:54).Chomsky in answers asimple wayby claiming issome there that basis Furthermore, in a classless society that kind of concept would be unnecessary (Chomsky, for andisby oppression. the asajustification aconceptshaped subordinated functions the power or as a weapon against that power” (Chomsky, Foucault 2005: 54). Basically,“justice” put to work in different types societiesof as an instrument of a certain political and economic by further that“justice” “in claiming itself ideais an which in has inventedeffect been and based on violence and control, Foucault’s caution makes sense. Foucault even goes a step To conclude,To behind everypolitical philosophy implicitis there explicit an or stand is in the ends of justice, 40 is in the ends of realizing fundamental realizing of ends inthe CEU eTD Collection convergences in their work. in their convergences detect totry the to inorder Chomsky’s of work Foucault’s and depth, within wider scope the of knowledge such debate, in the constitutive parts aspower, greater and anarcho-syndicalism outlinedfollowing the debate,andin will chapterI the analyze theconcepts which are the I chapter this In consideration. into taken seriously be should issue that on precaution Foucault’s and vision of a society, as well alternative as Chomsky’s order, of social critique worldwide economic crisis. In kindof this political situation, andFoucault’s Chomsky’s ideology,liberal especially in historical moment this whenwe are witnessing an enormous 41 CEU eTD Collection that concept. What does it signifies in the work of Foucault and Chomsky, and what is the intoof anarchism. be he direction the seen asgoing can juridical whichishimapparatus nothing to more than residue the bourgeoisthe of social order, the of abolishment the about claims anti-statist his consideration into take if we Furthermore, heis thinker. aneo-Marxist from evidently andclassaspect, coming power democracy,the Foucaultsituate is becausehissyndicalism. more complicated according to To critique of anarcho- as known justice, and associations voluntary on based asociety of vision a and Chomsky is an explicitly self-declared anarchist with a profound critique ofliberal capitalism context? inapolitical them between similarities are the is what here Ipose which question inrealm political theThe Left-orientated views.Theyboth operate thought. political of be in very Ifindthem their to similar nevertheless, justice; such and as knowledge concepts concomitant the all and nature human of existence the dispute they “Debate” the In politics. Chomsky and Foucaultto be both Left-orientated political intellectuals deeply involved in structures, comingfrom formal institutions. Furthermore, thepossibility of subjects’ topower resistance and Chomsky’s “truth”,“knowledge”,brings and problem which aboutthe critiqueof of knowledge theoretical “anarcho-syndicalism” as a possible alternative society. I find in and general:“power” its parts work of constituent whichtheir areatthesametime inChomsky “Debate”, mention the 4. 4.1. Power andAnarcho-syndicalism Since Foucault’s work is primarily associated with power, I will start my analysis with In this IwillfocuswhichIn importantthis onconcepts chapter and most Foucault the Power modus operandi 42 , In addition to collated concepts such as CEU eTD Collection the productionthe power“truth”: of needs whichdiscourses initare grounded and alsothis power fundamental can areof and“discourses” “knowledge”, in “power”, process units say that the “tactical blocks elements or operating inthefield force of relations” (FoucaultWe 1980: 102). as presented it meaningtruthful “knowledge” differentdiscoursesandconstitutes or neutral, Power shapes every of aspect human life in a way that,when joined with something which is axisof whichlife population the of represented two 2003: 139). power (Foucaultcontrol political existence (Foucault2003: 242-243).As such, discipline the body of the and regulation biopolitics out forfirstthat the points in time history,biological existence was in reflected fertility of management andmortality birth rate, population, The of emergenceof of rate. education, sexuality, hygiene,child-care, on rules the regulated human the race which eighteenth century onwards: “anatomo-politics” of individual human body and “biopolitics” of 1980: 94).Foucault’s notionsimplicates on power two technologies of form present power the innumerable andof divisions effects points the powerarethe andinequalitiesthis (Foucault we have which an power omnipresent runs through socialthe body isandfrom exercised a complex to insociety”1980: 102).Therefore, situation strategically aparticular (Foucault is attributes name with; one it that the we areendowed is ita certain neitherstrength structure; vertically, according to Foucault’s understanding “power is not an institution, and not a runs power in which toanunderstanding contrary So, 1980: 102). (Foucaulteverywhere itis from comes because runs body; social everywhere whole through the that power is something that exceeds from top down. To him, power comes from below; power is a force him,Accordingholds. to between is andtheruled nobinary rulers inasense there thatpower employ just repression is seen, orprohibition not itis andpower something as often thatone 1960s/70s Foucaultreshaped thiskind doesby claiming of understanding not that power running vertically from levelthe of thebottom,authority towards people.the towards Inthe as wasseen which power of common paradigm the changed it? Foucault of importance 43 CEU eTD Collection popular justice (Foucault in Eribon 1992: 243). So, according to Foucault, the court isFoucault, court the according to So, 1992:243). in Eribon justice (Foucaultpopular stated that the importance of the historical function of the court is to regulate and repress the based on the heritage of the bourgeois socio-economic class. Let me give an example; Foucault society totoday’s alternative is asufficient Foucault notoffering problemthe isthat However, him,can be anarchistic socialaccording residueof seen as bourgeois the one. to a order, is, which apparatus juridical a of abolition the concerning ideas His anarchism. of direction (Chomsky,2005: 40).And Foucault bydoing so,theysupport theexisting political order. class” social another of power of instruments the exclude to and power; in class social certain like medicinewhichappeartobeneutral knowledgemade are alsobut to“maintain inorder a decisions. Itwill also be achieved institutionsthrough such as family various institutionsor of which have a political whichisinpower, evidentmake their to power and transmitthe governments orinstitutions likearmies oradministrations, all or apparatuses sort of state divided hierarchically isand above all undemocratic (Chomsky,Foucault2005: 39). we live in a society which is the successor of the bourgeois socio-economic order and is 2003: 24,25).Thiswhere isapoint hisneo-Marxist analysis of class occurs; essentially, that (Foucaultbe produced” needs to institutions: “the truth through truth systematize particular Except for his neo-Marxist critique of power, Foucault can be seen as going into the This dictatorship of class which mentionsFoucault isnot achieved just through isn’tany question democracy of for us(Chomsky,Foucault2005: 39). there degree, to that and constitutional; and institutional are violence this of instruments the when even violence, by itself imposes which class that we are living under aregime ofa dictatorship of class, of a power of clear is too only It from democracy. far we arevery that clear is itquite population iswhich neither divided norhierarchically inordered classes, If one understands by democracy the effective exercise of power by a 44 CEU eTD Collection courts, which are parts of the juridical arrangement grounded on and bourgeoisgrounded on the criterions, juridical which of courts, are parts arrangement the the ifanarchism society deconstructs butalso ingeneral: to anarchistFoucault, just directed to on bourgeois ideology, which on societygrounds should stand? isnotjustThis aquestion particular class. The question is however, after the deconstruction of thejuridical system based and apparatus a serves is state a which system juridical the critique Foucault’s of I agreewith 6): he arguesfor apopularjustice as an“act justice of by people”the (Foucaultin Gordon 1980: 1, and power” of instrumentclass and public authority, of apparatus,representative “aand state in practice (Foucault Eribon 1992: 246). itsideology which could ideology about bring that into come backand popular enable to and juridical complete happen apparatus abolishmentof anything society the can the through ideology Foucault ofcourts/police/prisons.andclaims compound in necessary that revolution bourgeois on build system juridical complex a have we society in today’s So, dishonesty. which is based on categoriesa form of popular justice but its first deformation,such and it firstly implies asbourgeois ideologytheft,be seen itnot shouldas false.However, the and true betweenthe rule the dividing establishing fraud, and moral categories its capableof between and people enemies, stands institution asaneutral which represented such as honesty and Foucault is against the present juridical isbasically is a bourgeois presentconcept which Foucaultsystem the against (Foucault in(Foucault 1980:28).Gordon Chinacasebesociety, knowabout inourIdon’t –isto avoided involvingto re-education, without which in the form court of – any harmed them,methods of retribution which from range punishment have collectively or individually who those of enemies, their The masses will discover a way of dealing with the problem of 45 CEU eTD Collection Gulag system”in (Foucault 1980:137).Gordon insofarnonefunctiona more-or-less since as of managed to these 1917 has without developed bebe country.question posedforanyand to posed forevery every socialist Ithasto country, “The a isnot it. from InGulag in words: wasfar Foucault’s practice however the communism, Europe which were relying on a communistideology which in theory leads fairto and classless error?”intoled2005: 44). (Chomsky, This implies in Foucault acritique of states socialist nature, “...it is difficulthuman and justice on based society to alternative of say creation the of exactly context the in “Debate” what human nature is. Isn’t there a is ininterested Foucault not somerisk delineating because kindofideal the society as hesaidin the that we will be they are today. than undemocratic their is own becauseproblematic it opens up the possibility things that could be moreeven the chapter. For now I will just say that hoping that somehow ideas about future will arrive on particularly detailed inhis of sketching alternative society out an andin Iwilladdress later this is not is Chomsky also who to similar Foucault andsolidarity. by peace characterized really not is which moment present in the system juridical the if dismiss we are they than juridicalcritique of presentthe it; however, with system things and agree couldbeeven worse mean itis Foucault’s justicedoes acollective decision and itthat I understand acceptable? some nationalistic Croatianensure some kindminimalconsensus of about human Letrights? us say inhabitants of that place decide to kill whata neighbour is the whoconcrete is a Serb, wayjuridical thethat freedom, present human system ensures justiceor universal but equality or if ofthat “dealing is popular with enemies”? minimum secure some human kindargue existence? wantnot I certainly of of to decency do If we adopt will what moment, popularin thepresent juridical system the If betreated? extreme, we dismiss the justice, whatgo and to to then killers, rapists should apparatuses,how state isa policethe which repressive will Besides the analysis of political power that shapes and controls the social body, social the controls and shapes that power political of analysis the Besides 46 CEU eTD Collection repression are present(Chomsky 2005: 134). are forced to lifesocial in general(Chomsky, a 2005:188).Heis society critical towards in whichpeople rent themselves the –they culture life:determine politics, economics, andin aspectsof all over command are as ancillaryjoined with governments power perform corporations their where private based market onfree tools as an arrangement hepresents which of critique capitalism, on the focused heis greatly work and wherebludgeon,by must bymeans” democracy the besubverted 2005: his other (Chomsky 158). In the elementsbe secured when cannot that obedience aware well been long“elites have in elites that a way of coercionmakes the distinctions and that between is from them, from theflows the power the and hands elitestheir in top control the all have to powerful the and rich bottom,the and the commontoNamely, body. social thosethe throughout effects has people that and who hands, private in is power are effective who governed are governed (Chomsky by the Marxist2005: 158). way, Chomsky sees power inasmuch in which Foucault’s Chomsky,understanding from that atrue of power differs as running vertically.now move For over him to Chomskythe problem andand enablesthedominance of rulingthe classby institutional and constitutional means, Iwill his is notionsthat in on a power.society Chomsky the is clear and concise in his From Foucault who is focused on the critique of power which shapes the social body which is shapesthe social power on of From who focused critique Foucaultthe children, our control of futurechildren, generations… our of [...] fate the and parents women, and men among relations management, humanincludes freedom. political That ownershipand power, of increase thescope to be dismantled, andshould illegitimate, challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are hierarchy, inauthority,life, domination and every aspect of and to I think makes itonly senseseek to outand identify of structures 47 CEU eTD Collection nevermet anyone whowasso totally amoral.”(Chomsky in Miller 1993b: 201).This me I’d “He struck asacompletely amoral. following: Foucault the of Chomsky remarked particular class:abourgeoisis class unfair the that working towards class.Afterthedebate justice in inhis is Foucault, a negative understanding, associated waywith andwith class, a class with whichtranscendent values,while notion isauniversal 2005: 55).Tohimjustice people should aspire towards a society based onjustice and freedom that believes he (Chomsky, and Foucault qualities human fundamental the of one as is grounded justice that argues claims that the problem is that workers haveworkers is to: problem that thatthe claims Concerning justice, Chomsky has a different understanding than Foucault. Chomsky Foucault. than understanding a different has Chomsky justice, Concerning The importance of class is also a fundamental issue in Chomsky’s work; namely, he namely, work; in Chomsky’s issue fundamental a is also class of importance The 2005: 149). (Chomsky entrenchedsuppress anypower to be,challenge to need violence when state of resources call the upon to and agenda, its parameters and basic function, which will process political the within conditions basic the determine to interests, in their on) so shape ideologicalthe system media,schools, universities(the and are to able easily resources, withover their control furthermore, and of who, of managers society, owners the the serve theinterests subordinate themselves and their interests tothe overridingneed to (Chomsky 2005:178). control most of the domestic and international economy and so on that tyrannies private unaccountable the state, the and control: huge the institutions of coercion means to Naturally,a challenge this 48 CEU eTD Collection 2005: 171). This process is based on a “necessary illusion that permits society This isbased function 2005: 171). in a“necessary society illusion to permits process that on publicthe ismarginalized andremoved from publicthe arena in (Chomsky decision-making secure massesby just meanshasbutby of control force,population that the to or other people, cannot state the in which consent” of “manufacture the about thinking in Chomsky’s seen ideas of Similarbe society of can 2003: 239-265). control the objective “knowledge”(Foucault sexuality which are and hygiene, mortality ofbirth fertility managementof rate rate, of education, population, justified with i.e. child-care,rules on body with social different complete whichdifferentthe controls from state the assemblies of claims representedFoucault and Chomsky can be seen as sharing similar ideas about that issue. as truthfulfind inthat general.I by internalization people the order consequence existing the of of and the consequence of a usurpationjustis not class of aparticular domination the Furthermore, class. domination a particular of of power by that particular body which results in geometry whichof ispower basedon a privilege thatensures the class, but also the social power which through runs towards both critical andare Chomsky canFoucault earlier, be seen as a forhave rich the and overrule and said (Chomsky 2005:237).I powerful work population 157), which the isnot case in who’s asociety hasgovernments which freeinsofar and is tocoerce as power of democratic state the limited”the (Chomsky 2005: distinction hierarchy and Chomskyfor Chomsky 2005:4), (Foucault, are “societies considered class Whilefor and violence. society Foucaultbefreeshould dominance democratic from class inconverge of is their tobedemocratic, critique a system which but claims basedonhierarchy, considerations. dismissmoral/ethical ready to matter of taste). On the one hand, Foucaultis adamant about justice, personal merely on a the other,beyond sometimes(way stance Foucault's within tension a deep to points comment Namely, Foucault stresses the existence of the regulatory technology of power coming Chomsky and Foucault both operate within the Leftist framework based on class and 49 raison d'être is to CEU eTD Collection population massesthe or are beingin control a more subtle way by force.than Both pure ways the how both of explore them them; between massessee convergences Ialso or population the which are governed by them, ergo common one the peopletowards or masses.governments, as such In power their of notionsinstances the from of way, thein one and control vertically of functions idealoyal the which of is more to Chomsky power asneutral), misrepresented are institution he isfocused in(but on hiswork critiquethe of power. While Foucault claims that power runs horizontally and is not contained in any of government and democracy. I would say that they dissent in the ideas regarding the flow of them aboutthethink social lensthe through of both of class andthem aprofoundgive critique dominance byviolence, whichis, institutional asFoucaultstated, and constitutional.of Both its class ahierarchical wherein social ensures of body dominant class andthe creates order similaritiesin them between which unfolding are evident of the powerwhichcontrols the the managementideasseen assimilar aboutthe masses having of or the population. the masses (Chomsky 2005:171).Therefore, toacertain bedegree, FoucaultandChomsky can public isjust aspectator, and this kind system of indoctrination shapes stupid and ignorant the while opinion” “common the shape men” “public unfortunately, process in this However, is“publicman”The the in that serviceproblem isusually with realpower. those the of of certain issues which deal with wholethe community of people andshape common thinking. not have, information, do “public men”offer anddue totheaccessibility the understandings of of the specialized class of “public men” who have access to information which common people system which isin hands of governments and those who wield power, and there is also the role media the mostly through Chomsky,achieved is, to according consent” the “manufacturing of process system. The existing the of perpetuation the notionsensure which of internalization is that powerand (Chomsky intereststhe concentrated on of privilege” the 2005:171), By setting out Foucault’s and Chomsky’s ideas about power I wanted to show the show to wanted I power about ideas Chomsky’s and Foucault’s out setting By 50 loci of orinstitutions which power of CEU eTD Collection to the power which “applies itself to immediate everyday life categorizes the individual, marks individual, the categorizes life everyday immediate to itself “applies which power the to (Foucault2006: 150). Accordinghim, to individual the becomes a subject bybeing subjugated framework theparticular whichFoucaultcallsconstitution historical regards “genealogy” subjectthe is within constituted historicalthe framework of period.the This kindof constitution of subject Foucault rejects and this is an explicit critique of Marxism.For Foucault phenomenological it and subject as passivepresented history. objectof This kindof ideas about that issue similar in any way? are their does; structures power tothe responds who one how and asubject becomes one how is, That place? first inthe social in the embedded becomes individual the how is question my control of the population. the and violence hierarchy, class on basis the lays really but democratic as represented is withinmilieu. the Leftinasmuch They converge intheirwork as they asociety criticize which These two lines of understanding ishefrom andnothing for andthat granted. highlightsthat everywhere power betaken should power can also be seenof elements in society and institutions which seem to be neutral like family university or are far as two ways of thinking interplay standsfor acomplex power sensemeaning that functions inabroader thepower how of power grasps Foucault characteristics. andhuman nature human to adjusted society a democratic not peoplecontemporary in ruledhis whoarebeing he is that upon is and argumentsociety strong ordinary towards ofsociety and governments from structure the running through elite the of thinking of power are similar. Chomsky is focused on a political geometry of power, To begin with Foucault who criticized the French intellectual active the for taking Left intellectual French the who criticized Foucault To begin with Foucault and understand both Chomsky individualaspartof the social;the therefore, 4.1.1. The subject and resistance and subject The 51 CEU eTD Collection following that we cannot differentiate “right resistance” from “bad” one in some general way in some general “bad”from one resistance” “right differentiate we cannot following that transformative which process in and situations indifferent occurs ways, and different a as resistance understand is,we can That way? inthat resistance understand also can we to the notion of resistance? are in doctors mother, continuous educator, shifts1980: 99).Can (Foucault we applythisrule If the father, relationship of made groupings instance, for variations”); continual of rule (“the ofmodifications power and knowledge in constant are of transformation” “matrices are of power-knowledge relations the Secondly, in constant shift, “knowledge”. theconstitution particular in of of isinherent mereprocess the power the that basically knowledge is inseparable from power in the mere process of constitution. problem is in the conditions inwhich scientific verifications orfalsifications are dictated by the power, so 16 notdistancedit power, from (“the ruleimmanence”). of Foucault’s understanding of power, should the methodology follow that logic? asitin is image asamirror power if of implied resistance we understand Furthermore, which ofmethodology kind is for investigatingappropriate various forms of resistance? have thatresistance exists. I he resistance; concerning afollowing juststates ideas question: Basically, if we have power, we have a resistance, though he does notgo intodetail about his (Foucault1980: 95). in be theresistance” whichcan everywhere find powerstructure is from society inseparable on resistance becausepower“depends a multiplicity of of points forsubject resistance? Foucaultclaims thatthisomnipresentwhich power through the runs power, subjugated andfollowingto a question results: that whatare possibilitiesthe of a subjectthe (Foucault2000: 331). him hemusthavethat recognizeand him torecognize in him”andOther intoturns inevitably him by individuality,his own him attaches hisownidentity to and imposesalaw of on truth Inmore details I will address this furtherinthe chapter; for now wouldI like to stress forthat Foucault the Foucault states four rules of power. According to first one, knowledge is immanent to immanent first knowledge is one, four to According rules of power. states Foucault be will they that is, that a subject, become will individual the that inevitable is It 52 16 It is rather clear how Foucault claims CEU eTD Collection of of inactive participation politics, that is,civil imposed against socialthe disobedience by order number of unanswered questions. For Chomsky, ideas about resistance are based on the notion leaves a he exists and that in justarguesthat resistance of into hisnotions resistance, details iswhata meaning thatacceptable that brings result. good about consequentialism, to leads us answer Theaffirmative imperative? resistance of goals are the resistance be seen through lensesthe of productivity and strategical integration? Furthermore, andstrategical integration resistance?the 1980: 101).Does (Foucault applyto this Should this fourth rule, shouldpoints: discourses be tactical inregardstotwo questioned productivity According to (Foucault 1980:101). discourses anddifferent contradictory cancoexist there arenaandas tactical which within be power the elements operate understood simultaneously the rule ofthe tactical polyvalence of discourse in which Foucault states that discourses should particular action from coming state the (the third rule of“double conditioning”). The last oneis and heteromorphous is insular Because family organization each other. to andheteromorphous family the are state with regard to other power mechanisms allowstwo. And we, theorists, must offer some criteria. it to be a target the distinguish to bemust careful Left, the And then, we, resistance. for “good” rhetoric leftist of the in used only normally is it hand, other the On is demanding. power whatever with comply because the notion of resistance seems tobe defined in terms of the resistants' unwillingness to could be seen as that is akind Aryan resistance of race of “purity” preserve the to fascists inorder of resistance generally “bad? example,the For accept. to is difficult that in asense relativism, may leadto resistance I see resistancevariations for the Left different have only we and contextual his completely rule, to is, according resistance because orto bestrategies an important concept of resistance? It seems to me that Foucault’s general notions on While for Foucault the mere power implies the existence of resistance he does not go not he does of resistance mere implies existence the the power Foucault While for instance the isomorphic. For arenot situation of power the elements the Furthermore, 53 CEU eTD Collection in the part concerning “anarcho-syndicalism”. concerning part the in 17 (Chomsky, law power enables of which segment a particular against anaction undertake to important is it him, to according and values, human certain represents law Chomsky, according Chomsky, to make pressure onthecurrent system (Chomsky, For 2005: 237). is,peoplerealise bechanged get things consciousness-raising,the that can apossibleway to to After consent”. of manufacture “the of context in the context in the earlier mentioned as 223); butcontrolledmodification byforce bythe anymore, consciousness of their(Chomsky, 2005: which according to created arenot is people “asubordination” internalised:of consciousness gaining consciousness the oppression becauseabout in society, today’s is oppression struggle” (Chomskylogic, 2005:167).Following first that the step towardsresistance is and expression humanof beings (Chomsky 2005:115-116). freedom guarantee would inwhere rules asociety live we should and analogously,language, a system has whosubject” use whichenablesthem of rules ahumanmindand hasacquired to “speaking creative the about he speaks case, in Chomsky’s the a subject of constitution to the (Chomsky 2005: 114).Basically,in sentencethis he hisgives notions of resistance. In regards community” free in a participation and achievement, cultural consciousness, moral of growth intellectual the for framework development, the thatprovide humancharacteristics intrinsic He argues believe1984: 29-42).determinate those that who the inthehumanswill“try to (deCerteau of power andisestablishedfrom place the coming an postulation power of action by the whichisorganized tostrategy asopposed by power, of absence the weak” determinate “an tacticimplying artof the of the is that view, point a tacticmight add, indeCerteau’s Hecontinues thatresistance bystating isa (Chomsky resistance” 1967). I political and tactic, which he part willsimply anylonger. Reachingrefuse totake he that point, will be drawninto him,governments. For is when“a resistance person has tochoose for himself at pointthe I will address Chomsky's views regarding the connection between freedom and language later in the chapter the in later language and freedom between connection the regarding views Chomsky's address will I Chomsky states Chomsky states “rightsestablishedthat are not won by but words, andsustained by 54 17 CEU eTD Collection levels: personal structural; and and Hardt Negri in a loud Leftist toneclaimin that order to appearon has two to better somethingchange to towards will resistance and the think that inmake lifemake everyday do in is this a difference; away in life. action direct everyday I much age’ may However thatwe choices Ithink the talk, that seem likethis ‘new connected. way of living in everyday life. Namely, people have influences upon one on another and are all usually seen in the act of civil disobedience, tome resistance and activism are also presentin a is for which activism, except will Nevertheless, occur. context in changes socio-economic publicly demandforthe structural change.when Hopefully,a critical masswillgather,bigger pressuringsupport Chomsky’s ideaof civil for disobedience governments and articulating I resistance, about Talking politics. liberal by formed order social existing the challenge to passionate activist, he is not contradictive to Chomsky who calls for civil disobedience in order commands” (Chomsky,However,intoconsideration Foucault 2005: 46). he taking that wasa obligatory behaviour on violation of of commands the which state, the maybe not legal legal, “a is disobedience civil of act the framework, liberal the within remains still one because disobedience really not is disobedience civil that claimed he Although power. from inevitable is resistance that idea the with is concerned he writings his In upon. elaborate not hedoes which resistance approach to has amore abstract Foucault exists. resistance idea that share the and Chomsky Foucault Both, success. of trajectory asimilar have could resistance nonviolent that hopes optimistically and US in movement rights civil the of achievements further oppression ideology andfrom government.the Helookscoming at themajor as itmaya result some discourage people from actionsundertaking it andwill also, support the and in violence, governments the with compete can one no because him to absurd is resistance (incorrectly) by the statecivilHe talks is “directFoucaultdefiance2006: 47). asaalleged disobedience about of what to be law” (Chomsky, Foucault 2006: 45). Violence as a tactic of 55 CEU eTD Collection capitalism can recognize itself as a part of proletariat – a bearer of necessary social social –abearerchange. of necessary apartof proletariat itself as recognize can capitalism feels by basically exploitedperson who every Negri2000: World” 224). So, (Hardt, capitalist system is onthe which grounded exploitation of from workers the “Thirdthe the of because in them is revolution global the for potential the workers; World” “Third of the importance they stress Also, 332). Negri 2000: (Hardt, momenthistorical particular as isin by exploited a proletariat workingclassstood the capitalism, the industrial that who everybody denotes which term general a is it them To useful. proletariat of idea Negri’s (Chomsky,power 2005: 64).WhenFoucault Ifind mentioning proletariat, and Hardt’s in seesfor Chomsky the decentralization inadequately of Precisely tool divided. technology like the system justiceof andmany things,intoother tool of becauserepression thepoweris is but converted, which canbeliberating, of technology theimportance stresses Chomsky engineers,workers, professionals, (Chomsky, scientists, studentsetc. Foucault2005: 62). him, will be thepeople those includedin –arangea productive work of consistedpeople of of Andby inpeople. groups on butcarried to ofallbeings” undertaken particular the“name be should revolution the Chomsky, To work. their over power him, to according have, manualsociety, (Chomsky,Foucault 2005: 59).And andwork” intellectual should proletariat the productiveof do the “peoplehim, To work the standfor who context. concepts the meanings and historicaland weight, be has to given a newmeaning applicable totoday’s is notion ChomskyForsociety loaded Chomsky, with of (Foucault, 2005: 59)? proletariat the inproletariat for stand society, canbetoday’s highly which seenas developed technological of concept does the What of change. social andseenasthebearer framework political Leftist inliving world”the (Hardt,Negri 2000: 184). of way new a of vision “global a on be based to has Anti-Empire the Empire, the overthrow When we talk about resistance, it is important to mention the proletariat who is in the in is who proletariat the mention to important is it resistance, about talk we When 56 CEU eTD Collection had to formulate the uniform “truth” of sexuality in order to gain control of both the life sexuality discourses which on “true” for generating in complex motion century,apparatus set of the Volume 1” explains how the bourgeoisie, capitalist orindustrial society that arise in nineteenth way. Let me givein negative arather andis power represented knowledge discredits Foucault notion power, of a concrete With this thepower. with “infected” so tosay, whichare, statements among scientific power example. such,Foucault power is within scientific statements inand its by effects As power. falsificationsthe aredictated or scientific verifications inwhich conditions the his the creation workof an internal regime “Theof or of internal is regime merepower, Therefore,of problem the the constitution the 2006: 145). History(Foucault science by falsified or verified be can and approved ofscientifically is which notions Sexuality: of a body as constituted are they how and assertions particular manages is what question When2006: 169). talking about relationship the and between fortruth Foucault knowledge, the (Foucault politicalof economic and localized structures asaresult discourse scientific within is144). 2006: truth” (Foucault of economy “political true” scientifically basically the So, about truth, one really speaks about “the rules formationof of statements which are accepted as when speaking So, 2006: 168). (Foucault true” makes function itas accepts and discourse of types the is, that – truth of politics’ ‘general “ the about rather but truth, about speak cannot one that, argues Foucault Essentially, “knowledge”. a particular of which isaconstituent control of the population or masses and the maintenance of the existing social order. for institutionsfrom neutral, formal butreally astruthful of purpose the and constructed of knowledge.Both them verifiednotionstheoretical about are critical knowledge towards In order hasIn order one “knowledge”, “truth” concerning ideas tomention to realize Foucault’s One intersection Foucault’s possible ideasof canbeinand Chomsky’s their seen 4.1.2. Truth and Knowledge 57 CEU eTD Collection they they popularargue against movements forwhich fight mass in makingparticipation decision in which position elitist the embrace will policies of in creation participate and events interpret with followingthe presumption: if ideology isthe usedfor selfishgoals, intellectuals who is Hebegins formal with knowledge. like Foucault, production of preoccupied alsotheoretical Chomsky, integrity (Chomsky 2005:12). scholarship the aseriousof threatto Chomsky, pose to whichaccording factors, professionalization; and sharedideology, power, access to the about he worries is when Foucault with coincides Chomsky where Namely, understanding. of genealogy. knowledge Chomsky’s critiqueformal of Foucault’s isverysimilar to anti-science with subversion possible its and knowledge of production theoretical centralized is by AsIhave critiqueapproved the of concernedwith shown,Foucault regime. existing the 2003: 7). (Foucault that of isas scientific” characteristics any regarded power-effects discourse knowledge…”2003: 9). (Foucault Therefore, genealogy is an itantiscience; fight“has to the body in name them of of the a true organize hierarchies, into them organize them, filter be ableto claims to that instance unitary theological against off knowledges nonlegitimized together make “genealogy” whichis “a way playingof local, disqualified, discontinuous, or “knowledge form bellow” and singularlocal knowledges of the people “what people know” kind of knowledge is truthful. Hearguesthat thatthis kindsubjugated knowledge of or thisburied this and hastoreveal institutions andpractices that knowledge formal discourses, So, thecritique (Foucault of 2003: 7). structure unseen bytheestablished kept camouflaged or mentions the“insurrection by subjugated knowledge” of historical hereferswhich to contents andbe order existingshould critically. the approached socio-economic which perpetuates andisneutral machinery thepartof the as“scientific”, ergo truthful, which is represented individual life inand the (Foucault1980). Basically, species the general of “knowledge”, Both, Foucaultand Chomsky, giveaprofound offormal critique knowledge shapedand he knowledge when towards approach hasapositive also Foucault Nevertheless, 58 CEU eTD Collection (Chomsky 2005: 46). broader context in which SovietUnion wanted to build a strong anti-fascist association with democratic West, 18 was stop essential and aroundto the turn course of social (Chomsky revolution To 2005: 64). it Republic, interestthe of for the that and one correct the was policy Communist which the to necessary, andthentofocus on anti-Francothe struggle (Chomsky 2005: 66). them it byforce re-establishif transformation Spain; oldwas necessary of to to the order, Chomsky 2005: association49). Theliberal-Communist the disapproved revolutionary in formerforce, andformer authority the of (Borkenau restored regime apparatus police masses in (Borkenau Chomsky 2005: 46-49). reinstalment of pre-revolutionary structure - and that was precisely opposite of andfor demands militia, the of authority for the local assemblies; the of abolition for the were of the (Chomsky 2005:44).TheCommunists wereopposing rural industrial and collectives; they between anarchists social and the workers on one hand, andCommunist Republican forces” “dual is(Chomsky of that powerwhich 2005:44-45).1936wasaperiod was divided power Chomsky claims successful, surprisingly was commerce and industry of collectivization ofSpain. and urban parts The rural the industry the through and commerce spread of incollectivization of were process by and the charge, anarchist the dominated assemblies revolution, the In 43). 2005: (Chomsky conditions economic and social of transformation and rural industrial and agricultural anarchist andsocialist wereinvolved workers in radical began in 1936 when social a spontaneous placetook revolution in whichthemasses urban of tool used liberalby present ideology (Chomsky 42). 2005: 41). He claims that the animosity towards 2005: mass (Chomsky movements knowledge” and“necessary to the social have who change those of is guidance a the powerful for stand will and Chomsky points out that the Communist-led counterrevolutionary struggle should be understood inthe The view thatprevails Spanish of the among Waris historians the Civil one according which War Civil Spanish of example the on taking argument his continues Chomsky 18 59 The Communist dictatorship came to power by CEU eTD Collection master of justice”: of andtruth master “the not is schema new in this intellectual asthe inasmuch scheme Marxist the from diverges and itbelocal on genealogy andsingular could articulated knowledge subjugated where anew based knowledge schemaof proposed Foucault realization of the communism. towards enabled “actcorrectly” andhad them knowledge clear that to obtained consciousness class the class conscious,intellectuals assuch proletariat Marxist andthe (Foucault2006: 161).So, universal the of bearers the of role the proletariat the while justice, and truth of masters the intellectuals Leftthe rolethe whotook spokesmen themselves of andrepresented universal as andacademia isin intellectualism. evident gives of critique their a Foucault sharp critique of influencedalso by power. butneutral a process is not process knowledge of production of theoretical process formal the the that stress them of both knowledge; towards approach in their Foucault and Chomsky comprehendto “political (Chomsky factor” the 2005:58).Iseethe between resemblance historians often have aversion for popular movements, and furthermore, liberal historians fail liberal-Communist interpretationliberal War” (Chomsky 2005: Civil the of 58). Heclaims that the dominates that bias “elitist the expose to tries Chomsky War, Civil Spanish of example the and provides “counterrevolutionaryan example subordination” of (Chomsky 2005:74).Using majorto overlook historical currents; commitmentthis leads tostrikingfailure of objectivity of bourgeoisorder liberal misrepresentation democracy leadsauthors eventsand to of crucial scholarship bias wherethedeep againstvalues the andsocial and social revolution devotion to liberal of example excellent an is in Spain revolution social of representation the Chomsky, The next point of convergence in the work of Foucault and Chomsky is in the realm of make himself heard.Hecan in write give papers, his of point the information rather than intothe system of production. He is able to of system the into hooked guy a is me, for intellectual An 60 CEU eTD Collection truthful and also serves valid, ergo with whichis asscientifically presented power” critique infected of “knowledge as tool in perpetuationmaintenance Foucault’s with scholarship,liberal social coincides of to existing devoted order of existing social“knowledge” which functions order.as a means to control the population. Chomsky’s They critique of also share(Chomsky, 2005:217).Ifind Foucaultand Chomsky tobe similarin their critique of the that'sabout another that, by technique intellectuals people dominate which inmyopinion” people abouttopics thatno one understands very much Oneabout. shouldbe very sceptical ordinary to convey can't they that insights fantastic these have to people enables that place “Andyou Ithink must that askyourselves very carefully greatwhat leap has in evolution taken following: andwell the hehe states argues self-interest” when and control and marginalization According2005: 216). Chomsky, to techniqueemployed is this byintellectuals of a “technique for power create themselves (Chomsky, careers and to be andfinally great important, appear to to the common tosubordinate people, inorder understand, language difficultto sophisticated accuses intellectuals,including those on Left, makingof things complicated look and using Chomsky shares with Foucault the critique of intellectual elitism. Namely, Chomsky Namely, elitism. intellectual of critique the Foucault with shares Chomsky workers’ knowledgeworkers’ in (Foucault Eribon 1992: 253). the to in relation partial is always knowledge intellectual’s the this: workers,not tobe aware of wewhat is[...] can happening. say people andwhoare other workers, circulated. other help This will be to and system information the enter to knowledge, workers’ this allow consciousness, this butto already exists, since that role, consequently, is not to form the workers’ consciousness, books, that other people donothave directly available tothem. His has the knowledge,view. He obtainingis also hooked into from a former reading system of information. a certain He number of 61 CEU eTD Collection freedom. Furthermore, human needs should be articulated solely in collective terms, as terms, incollective solely be articulated needsshould human Furthermore, freedom. social which be order for acceptable will of this kind based nature understandinghuman of on derive wehaveof from Chomsky, aconception nature to human to andaccording freedom, to has aright one in human nature Therefore, 37). 2005: Foucault (Chomsky, realized” society should maximize the forpossibilities fundamental this human characteristics be to a decent it will that follow of course, then, institution, of effects coercive limiting arbitrary freeforwithout creation for inquiry, creative work, “needfor creative whichimplies nature the to. can which one towards aspire alternative have to satisfactory important an equally find that in order to change the political and social reality, except the critique of the reality,it is becauseI of anarcho-syndicalism characteristics the sketch to itis important find I that future, concerning inquestions was cautious Foucault as Chomsky, Foucaultand between differences and similarities with be dealing not Iwill section inthis Although capitalism. liberal neo- totoday’s asanalternative society stands and idea better is of an a on based concept analogous freedom, social justice whichfounded could beon order and This abundance. Chomsky’s because political work it hispositiveall human grasps beings regarding beliefs and concept ofFoucault, inspired by onhuman their debate nature, hereafter Iwouldfocus like to on the anarcho-syndicalism. I would say that this is the most based social onauthority hierarchy.order and important existing of maintenance in the role significant a has also which elitism intellectual of critique concept in 4.2. To Chomsky, visionTo society a human a future of should aconceptof begrounded on After the overview of convergences and divergences in the works of Chomsky and ofChomsky in works and divergences the Afterconvergences overview the of Anarcho-syndicalism 62 CEU eTD Collection freedom; accordingly, there is no room for authority: is a humanbeingimportant of characteristic most the Heclaimsthat (Chomsky 2005: 114). intolerable and be antihuman findsto Chomsky of capitalism This characteristics power. man who turns himself market, to exploitation, andauthority in tomaximizeorder money and a competitive of concept the in has one which i.e.capitalism contemporary society, to opposed “authoritarian socialist”/”State socialists” and Bakunin, on the other hand, which Chomsky which hand, other the on Bakunin, and socialists” socialist”/”State “authoritarian as describes Chomsky which Engels, or Marx like socialists between distinction basic is the power state of destruction the of question the his understanding, to According Chomsky. claims socialists, “authoritarian” and “libertarian” differentiate views, wecan political for isLeft-orientated “Socialism” If consideration into an term that 236). we take umbrella organized social as order; Chomsky would say,itis a“life [a]ruler” without (Chomsky 2005: ahighly is rules, without anarchism of really isastate chaos anarchism understanding that common the to contrary however, “noorder”, or archos”, “an Greek old from comes word the of etymology The society. of understanding anti-statist an on based philosophy political As an introduction to anarcho-syndicalism, let me start with anarchism which is a is which anarchism with start me let anarcho-syndicalism, to introduction an As 114). free andincommunity participation 2005: achievement, a (Chomsky intellectual growth moral of the development, cultural consciousness, for provide theframework that human characteristics intrinsic the determinate to try will and so not is this hope will species human in confidence with some Those thecentral committee. or technocrat, behaviour’ by authority, state the corporate manager, the the of for ‘shaping the heis afit then subject social or character, acultural of needs intrinsic no and mind of structures innate no with being, plastic completely malleable, indefinitely an is man fact in If 63 CEU eTD Collection 2005: 235). movement has nothingThis to 215). do withthe rest2005: of anarchistic(Chomsky, movementseen” .i.e. ever left-anarchistic have world the workingthat class movementmonster (Chomsky,totalitarian worst “the creating state, of the power the minimizing and sectors private the strengthening means which capitalism, market free of right or“individualistic anarchism”, present in the libertarianparties, and whichis anti-statists, but inthe name which is, according to Chomsky, characteristic of the US, where one has to distinguish betweenlibertarian ultra- 19 incourse, question regards tothe republic.of or State describes as “libertarian socialists”/”anarchists” or“Left-Marxists” (Chomsky 2005:121); of 2005: 120). in Chomsky making(Rocker decision democratic is from bellow”, or that making; “the power and themselves organize into assemblies which basedare on solidarity, andmutual decision hands own in their productions of process the of management the over take will who workers work (Chomsky 2005: 134). The core of anarchism is seen in the solidaric collaboration of the fundamental anarchist The 133). level 2005: principles(Chomsky eveninternational or national an create the on organization to are self-managementbasictwo assembliesareworkplace and And the neighbourhood. ground on that itis possible and control of workershe it conceives ahighly as form organized society of on organized groundsthe - of assemblies over their own political (Chomskydecisions 2005:146). He situates “anarchism” in libertarian the Leftand realizes which needforadministration is an no thatthere groupandheadvocates orientated in made146). Chomskyis bureaucracy byanational situated 2005: Left former the (Chomsky subject-matter decisionsthe by are carried out workingthe classwhichis well-acquainted with particularthe part in decision making process and control over them. In the case of anarchists (left-Marxists) taking linethe questions of in socialist tothe from regards State differs the politics orientated working class is decides onewhothe (Chomsky 2005:147).This kindof understanding of left- educated inwhich informedorganization onworkers’ the assemblies and and isgrounded In the context of terminology, itis important to mention the distinction within the concept of “anarchism”, Anarchists can be seen as one Left tradition which focuses on small scale and localized , while in the instances of State socialists, there is a need for a national plan national a for need is a there socialists, State of instances in the while 64 19 CEU eTD Collection society society where freedom would rules humans. guarantee of inlanguage, of live a weshouldhas freedom acquireda particular rulesthe who a subject of guarantee freedom andhuman self-expression beings.of Like thelanguage the guarantee a based which society on rules create language),we shoulduse particular itmakes possible to individualsubject (an “knows whomastered a language” arrangement the of rules which a of creativity the of condition arethe which rules of collection on an based which isagain inevident thehumanmind. if Basically,argues Chomsky language that ismirror ofmind a mirror of the mind and functions itis heproposes isa society society, vision evidentthat his a which consideration a future of accordingly to the 115). Chomsky is claims language how of mind amirror into (Chomsky 2005: 115).Taking characteristics of humanencourages need solidarity fundamental the for creative work, and (Chomsky justice 2005: nature that are based intrinsicon human a characteristics; organizationsocial which is based on and which arrangement an he proposes anarcho-syndicalism, By proposing nature. human he calls what of cornerstone is the that language in the inscribed is freedom human for right the him to So, organism hasamind and for an self-expressionability free andfor thought, finally, freedom. productive work of society,the manual intellectual and (Foucault, Chomskywork” 2005:60). or the proletariat in the highly developed technological society refers to “the people who do the into hands the (ChomskyThe workingdecision-making process workers class of 2005:226). use it. Technology could beusedas a intool managerial eliminating roles and putting the how is how to asto achoice there andemphasizes instrument”, neutral as a“pretty technology basedarrangement voluntary on alliances and democracy (Chomsky 2005:114).Hesees for and labour” imbecile for social can stand asafoundation “necessity specialized, the modern from man can and heargues save science technology that characterized bytechnology; Chomsky argues thatthe languageChomsky anotheris a for that argues determining basic criterion is which society neo-liberal today’s of issue the neglect not does Chomsky 65 CEU eTD Collection a developer of linguistics.Cartesian In Chomsky’s words: to Rousseau’s theory of freedom, and according tothat understanding, Rousseau can be seen as toconclude, linguistics(Chomsky thatCartesian So, Chomsky isparallel argues 2005:106). clear thatManhas a mind, and by heusing language performs hisfreedom of thought is Cartesians it Chomsky, to to According language. amindisthe useof has organism another Furthermore, accordingdistinguishes himfrom isanimals – that known “creativeas principle”(Chomsky 2005: 108). to Chomsky’s interpretationis aclever “machine”guided byinstincts, while Manis free and hasconsciousness which of Descartes,which to “mechanical according Cartesians animal whodevelopedthe model principle” of the the only reliablein sighChomsky that (Kant free be must individual an realizeexperience to and experience of asaresult only reason 2005: 105). learn tomakehow useof freely powers one’s and individual and usefully”, an can acquire The thirdfreedom figure (Chomskyhuman for argument important most is the 2005: reason human the that thatclaims who 104).Rousseau to He alsoChomsky refers to Kant herefers also, berejected; should they therefore and freedom human restrict which institutions whorefers claims that “one to must authoritarian of asacritique lens an anarchistic through “SecondDiscourse” Rousseau’s isbe free Descartes to reads Chomsky my of firstchapter thesis. mentioned inthe whichIhavealready Discourse”, and thereconstruction of left-libertarian the tradition, whereheRousseau refers to andhis “Second In order to show the connection between language and freedom, Chomsky goes into the into goes Chomsky freedom, and language between connection the show to order In free thought and self-expression, and with the essential human essential the with and self-expression, and thought free organism is being with a humanmind and human the capacity for another that for determining criterion basic the use provides freedom.in Language its essential and themanner ofits properties we might develop aninteresting connectionbetween language and and Cartesians], [Rousseau speculations these Where wecombine 66 CEU eTD Collection known as capitalist economy. For Chomsky, things got nasty somewhere along the way. He way. the along somewhere nasty got things Chomsky, For economy. capitalist as known slavery modern of chains the in are people of majority the while exploiters, of elite abundant which is inan seen today may;itthat market results today evident freewe have economic Following that,Chomsky liberalismargues that in beginning the wasnot negative as itmay be Kantand byRousseau, Humboldt. which are postulated samesources directions havethe political three all Therefore, right-libertarianism. and liberalism, anarchism, or libertarianism left- the in threecases: basic all as concept the freedom liberty, standing notion of and the buildis Chomsky, which upon ground according a common to there can one that conclude – known as capitalism order is socio-economic that doctrine, liberal ofclassical representatives industrial society” (Chomsky 2005: 113). ideals, as a presenter of of liberal be isInterestingly,a classicpromoter who regardedto Chomsky seesHumboldt, “an anarchist vision thathearth, hasten in in and weshall (Humboldt Chomsky, step” every progress 2005: 109). is appropriate, perhaps, him.which oppress Let us feelingoneundo by them as freedom of one, the awakens inmen’s to the next state of neglectedby nature, and is degradedbycircumstances however of – true this all bonds the however – earth the in man no of but power... intellectual and moral of want a from arise freedom is essential incapacity an for “The Man’sdevelopment: criterion forfreedom only can According122). Chomsky, to criticizes the Humboldt authoritarianby state claiming that seen liberalinas a classicof itsis essencethought, (Chomskyan anti-capitalist work 2005: and 1792 in written Action”, State of Limits “The work, his that claims Chomsky Humboldt. William author, more one to refers Chomsky freedom, human language and between By invoking Kant,Descartes and Rousseau, Humboldt –who usually are seen as the connection the toshow inorder thought, left-libertarian of reconstruction In his authority authority (Chomsky 2005:106). repressive of constraints external the from freedom for need 67 CEU eTD Collection is following:the it?”,it,“can questionit can humans isbecause him, butthe him forwe do obvious that to do vision society.of Accordinghim, to for question the detailed planningfor future the is not pointanotherto interestingout statementnotionsfutureregarding ontheplanning his of a state. of the abolition the of goal long term in a way indeCerteau’s asatactic be seen could powers private against strengtheningpolicy, organize inlimited state the participate, andaffect way.So, although can in which people arena today means apublic state inlong because terms state the So,protecting(Chomskyfactor state 2005:213). the is abolishingtoday really a steptowards organizations; in abolishing thestate would momentthis dictatorshipin result private totalitarian private of into hands the power means placing sectortoday state the opposing that he claims and always as realistic as is Chomsky revolution? for time appropriate the is when in system words to adifferent thetransformation other or, with whatbutabout inequality, ideas. liberal classical from deviation a is it it, see I as and antihuman, fundamentally as regarded be should Chomsky, individualism”,“ideology labour, andcompetition shapes the according to possessive of which 192). Capitalismarising wage time atthat asa 2005:122, (Chomsky based onmarket, system ideaswhich upholdarrangementan ideology those was social the into to which perverted capitalistaway autocracy were ideasby swept liberalism the state the argues that of classical Evidently, the time for anarchism has notarrived, according Chomsky.to Iwould like Until this point it is clear that Chomsky sees capitalism as a rotten system based on institutionalhuman into life.structures we know enough Do about society,beings, aboutinstitutions, ofintroducing the effects human about enough know we whether it’s but it, do can we Sure 68 CEU eTD Collection existing social order and power geometry. As well, both well, andpowergeometry.of both As social existingare critical them order towards maintaining the really agendabut of with asneutral, formal presented knowledge towards as a possible threat of importance resistance tothe stresses while Chomsky from power, the is inseparable Foucault political order and for mention which resistance of them also Both aregoverned. massesthe which towards a tool for social change.directions, Both of whilethem Chomskyare criticalinasmuchresemble as another Foucaultsees one forceas an omnipotent power going inall looks at power as a force concerning ideas power Their knownasliberalism. order in socio-economic undemocratic the going from the governments and elites would notbe more undemocratic then is it now? self-buildingspontaneous infrastructure. of society’s Whatstands as a guarantee thatsituation Onebe forof beingsceptical wouldthis forgiven the aspectanarchism towards regarding collapse? not freedom exists intoday’s world would consensuson that the that can guarantee for beof Who particularpeople? even groups this that newtype not society would worse of details and explain the logistics of that kind of social order. Furthermore, who can guarantee and plan state Thisis itsnasty inadequate inasmuch go an as itapparatuses. not intodoes livein will without and society a free in people scale organization small state will the gather anarchism in general, asan anti-statist political theory which is based on notiona that instead society. Thisisnot just problematic inChomsky’s this iswork, aproblematic issue of I find both that Foucaultand Chomsky sharesimilarideas concerning class dominance future the out sketching in be careful have thathumans headvocates this By saying natural natural to them? (Chomsky,221). 2005: comes what see and maze this through working of ways different peopleliberty, andlet and equality,authority domination explore Or shoulditbe experimental,by guided certain ideas boutgeneral that to be able to plan in any detail what a society should look like? 69 CEU eTD Collection and reinforced with a deep economic crisis, questions raised in should debate this be revisited. theseventies, similar to establishment, againstthe massrebellion with characterised situation stay in the present day and he does of a future. While Chomsky is optimistic in his vision future society,of Foucault prefers to not go into anyvisions in their is depart speculations they in which point one However, points. of anumber on convergent of future society. In today’sintellectual elitism. So, it looks to me that these two Left-orientated intellectuals are 70 CEU eTD Collection finally be free. In this tradition of political philosophy haveI Chomsky. situated solidarity and in a non-government society, based on voluntary associations of peoples, will humans are by interdependentnature social beings which exist bythe principlemutual of notions on anarchism claims is there that also nature human and,in his way of thinking, glorification of conflict as if it were the purpose of human life. Finally, Peter Kropotkin in his behumanfriend/enemy nature his to negative life reduction due to of to distinction, and social dependingquestion” on an nevertheless, Ifind hisnotionsorganization; on adequate politicalmentioned theory SchmittI aconservative whoarguedthat Manis Carl “open an effect on humans), he also advocated the social contract. Furthermore, in the realm of modern hasanegative of (which civilization state in free persons this of ensure the co-existence to idealisedof andthe“Savagenature state Man”and inorder who Jacques Rousseau the is Jean- there contractualism of side other the On others. with contract into entering by leash liberalism, assaw human nature somethingand which violent, dangerous be held can on a modern of naturewithin framework human the regarding ideas of overview I have atentative offered political better to it. understandorder to second isopposed In Chomsky-Foucault’s debate, andsituate philosophy.regarding thisquestion.for One argues existencethe of while humannature universal the ideas regarding human nature within political philosophy by delineating two traditions Contractualistpolitics, tobe sharing points of convergence in their works. Thomas notion and existence of human nature, Ifind these two public intellectuals, deeply involved in Hobbes, Foucaultand Although in Noam Chomsky. they concerning “The Debate” are opposed the one of the founders5. of Conclusion In order to detect these convergences I began my work with a tentative overview of overview with atentative work my I began convergences these detect to In order In this work myIn detect aimwas work thethis possiblein to Michel of the convergences work 71 CEU eTD Collection Chomsky shares criticism towards power which and isundemocratic. is order hierarchically of socio-economic divided bourgeois the which for him is in the hands of governments is in welivetoday asuccessor which society basically the inequalities; itflowin that creates and and its greater scope of their work, they converge on a number of points. In the analysis and nature human future society. of power strong sense of itin his analysis of power, while to Chomsky the idea of justice is the basis of a though justice, notion regarding has arelativistFoucault inasmuch differthat justice, they future;the Concerning he moment. about speculations historical inpresent remains the intoenter want not to does Foucaulthumans, for freedom rules whichwill guarantee regarding theirfuture vision of society. While an ideaChomsky proposes of society based on differ debatethey of the in context political the Nevertheless, “knowledge”. formed as in isbody which aparticularclaims acertain of determining cultural period conditions is Foucault whichfocused more knowledge, on while focusing oninnatestructures create from perspective.different Chomsky argues from cognitivethe aspectof human beings concepts the butsimply findcontradictone another, observing not them do debateto itself I the In traditions. different in apparently though Left, political the of realm the to belong “human inAnd about nature”. I situatedthis tradition Foucault. talk to impossible is it so conditions, social his from is undistinguishable who being human the shape which conditions social of importance the stressed thought of body a coherent advocated Man’s for responsibility hisfor own fellowacts and his also humans.Marxism,as and nature human of the existence he negated where “Existentialism” with presented Satre’s In further in-depth analysis of the constitutive concepts of the debate within the within debate the of concepts constitutive the of analysis in-depth further In them of both nature, human on Debate” Chomsky-Foucault “The the Concerning On otherhand,the tradition the which argues against universal human nature is modus operandi , Foucault argues that power runs through the whole social body and body social whole the through runs power that argues Foucault , 72 CEU eTD Collection the convergence of their work. The questions raised in the debate arepresentagain intoday’s in questions The the debate raised work. convergencetheirthe of the Leftin regards to human nature, in the end it appears that they share a number of points in andframework, although both of them can be seendifferent belongingas to traditions within societybased society; onjustice.future a better disclosure which ofpolitical power body,vision givesshapes thesocial a Chomsky a of isspeculate aboutwant and future not the to butisfocused ontheFoucault cautious does well as those on the Left. bourgeois democracy. scholarship ofvaluesto themaintenance liberal whichisdevoted of social and order In addition,liberal the towards critical is Chomsky both subordination, counterrevolutionary of of study his them are in critical that, to Similar institutions. formal from knowledge verified towards towards anti-science possible intellectual elitism,Namely, argues for genealogy apointalso Foucaultas a in of convergence work. their as is knowledge, asneutral which is represented and truthful, institution from coming a formal undistinguishable in hevigorous from power), activist. wasaThe practice of critique isit that claimed just is;he whatresistance hereally clear in his was not work (however, framework because is anactwithin it state’s the meaningful isnotreally resistance this Foucault kindof claimed that socio-political existingthe andalthough against order, idea of resistance to power structures.Furthermore, To Chomsky both civilof them disobedience isconvergences.by inThis is media points the of power.of alsothose one which possessed were (and is Chomskya way of rebellion still using different rules, whileis)Chomsky to themasses are being primarily regulated through passionate activists social the complete body the of To Foucault regulates technology seen as power converging. who shared the elites who control the rest of the society; essentially in this critique of society they can be To conclude, I see both intellectualsconclude,withinLeftistboth of asactingpolitical To see great those I inThe is splitfuture. point which do regarding inWhile they up on the question the 73 CEU eTD Collection that issue; all should be taken into consideration in thinking about a more democratic society. regarding incisive caution society idea Foucault’s and of a better it, of Chomsky’s importance power structures andthe resistance to ideas regarding neutral represented), usually as modus operandi finally hegemony in Theirachieve Left context. brilliant apolitical critiqueandits of power and pushing further,perspectives both them shouldbe taken intoconsideration in to order notsothat much energy should bein the spent finding theoretical in divergences their work means This evanescent. become Foucault, and Chomsky between case in this Left, the within system. neo-liberal of institutions strikes, and inanumber of movements who share common the agenda fightingof againstthe unionstrikes, in andworkers trade inequality;student the ispresentof form the resistance economic and social against movements social numerous by is accompanied crisis the situation, kind politico-economic of pessimistic that Analogously to poorer. getting generally wheeling towards politicalthe Right; numberofunemployedthe isincreasing, andpeople are political Right in a number of states is rising, which means that a number of governments the companies. Meanwhile, of private state increasestheownership hands of privatization are is of welfaresupport savings andstructural the and dangerously decreasing, reforms; policies strict countries of inthe most are enforcing councils who and commissions, leaders, autonomy has is seriouslybecause autonomy states mostly inof declined EU hands the of IntheEU national most crisis. facing of serious countries, them twenty seven European counts which confederation supra-national Union, a Take theEuropean states. of European of radical Rightwhich are taking anevergreaterpartin forming thegovernments ofnumber historical moment whichis characterised by a strong worldwide economic crisis and risethe Taking into consideration this pessimistic socio-political context, the differences the context, socio-political pessimistic this consideration into Taking , critique of , critiqueinstitutions of and knowledge (which are far from objective and 74 CEU eTD Collection Dunn,2002 Susan,ed. Baldwin, Roger, N., ed. 2002. Bertram, Christopher. 2011. "Jean Jacques Rousseau". Bertram, Christopher. de Certeau, Michel. de Certeau, Cudd, Ann.2008."Contractarianism", Chomsky, andMichel Noam, Foucault. 2006. Chomsky, 1967. Noam. Bertani, Mauro and Alessandro Fontana, eds. 2003. Tony,Bennet etal. 2005. Brown, Wendy. 2006. “American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De- Second Discourses http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/contractarianism/). Philosophy. (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19671207.htm). Kropotkin April April 24 Malden: Blackwell Publishing. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/rousseau/). Nature. Democratization.” defended. Lectures attheCollegedeFrancedefended. 1975-1976. NY: The NewPress. NY:The th 2012(URL= The Practice ofEveryday Life The Practice . New York: Dover Pulications, Inc. . Jean-JacquesRousseau: The Social Contract andThe First and Retrived April 27 On Resistance New Keywords: A Revisited Vocabulary of Culture and New A RevisitedVocabularyofCulture Society. Keywords: ”. London: Yale University Press. Political Theory Anarchism: acollection ofrevolutionary writings: Peter The StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy. .Retrived March 23rd 2012 B th IBLIOGRAPHY 2012(URL= . (34):6. 690-714.. (34):6. 75 The Chomsky-Foucault debate on Human The Chomsky-Foucault debateon . Berkeley: University of California Press. Michel Foucault: Societymust be The Stanford The Stanford Encyclopedia of New York: Picador. Retrived CEU eTD Collection Graham, George. 2010. Graham,"Behaviorism". George. Hall, and Stuart, Anthony Mcgrew 1992.“The question of cultural identity”. Faubion,ed. 2000. James D., Hindess, Barry 2007. “Marxism”. Pp. Hardt, Michael, AntonioNegri. and 2000. Gordon Hay, Rod, ed. 1999. Michel. Foucault, Eribon, Didier. 1992. Enhrmann, W. Henry 1970.“The agony Utopia.” of Edgley,Allison. 2009. “Manufacturing Consistency: Social Science, Rhetoric and ,Colin. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/behaviorism/) by MichelFoucault Press. May 5 Its Futures. Its (originally published 1651). ecclesiasticall andcivill common-wealth, Books. London: Penguin group. Goodin, etal. E. Robert Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 383-403. 23-42. Chomsky’s critique.” 1980. th 2012(URL= 1980. Hobbes, Thomas.Leviathan, or, Thematter, andpowerforme, ofa Power Cambridge: Polity 596-632. Press. Michel Foucault. History ofSexualityVolume 1:AnIntroduction. / Knowledge Power: EssentialWorks Foucault, of 1954-1984,Volume III. . New York: Pantheon. Westminster Papers in CommunicationandCulture ACompanion toContemporary Political Philosophy. Cambridge MA: : The StanfordEncyclopediaPhilosophy. of Selected Interviews and OtherWritings, 1972-1977 Empire. 76 Cambridge MA:Harvard University , Hamilton, Ont. : McMaster University Polity. Harvard University Press. University Harvard 2(3):380-391. New York: Vintage York: New Modernity and Retrived . 6(2): CEU eTD Collection Quinton, Anthony, and Anne Norton. 2007. “Conservativism” in Pateman,2005. Barry, ed. Stevenson, Leslie, and David L. Haberman. 1988. Carl.Schmitt, 1985. Carl.Schmitt, 1996. Jean-Paul.Sartre, 1948. Vinx, Lars.2010."Carl Schmitt". Resch, Robert Paul. 1989. “Modernism, Postmodernism, and Social Theory: A Comparasion Miller James.1993.“Foucault’s Politics in Biographical Perspective”. Miller, James. 1993. Lovett, Frank.Lovett, "Republicanism". 2010. Cambridge: MIT Press. MIT Cambridge: of of andAlthusser Foucualt”. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/republicanism/) York: Oxford University Press. Publishing. 285-312. Contemporary PoliticalPhilosophy. Press. May 17 24 th 2012(URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/schmitt/). th 2012 (URL= The Concept of thePolitical. Political Theology: Four Chapters ontheConcept ofSovereignty. The Passion of MichelFoucault. Existentialism and Humanism. Chomsky onAnarchism The Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. Poetics Today. The Stanford Encyclopedia ofThe Stanford Philosophy. 77 Goodin, Robert E. et al. Oxford: Blackwell Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. . Oakland, CA : AK Press. Ten Theories of HumanNature 10(3): 511-549. Cambridge MA: Harvard University London : ACompanionto Methuen &Co Methuen Salmagundi. Retrived April . . New Ltd Retrived 97:30-44. .