Foucault and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power and Anarchism By Ana Smokroviü Submitted to Central European University Department of Gender Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Critical Gender Studies Supervisor: Professor Anna Loutfi CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2012 CONTENTS CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ iii 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. SITUATING THE CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE .......................................................................... 5 2.1. Hobbes’s “Hostile Man”..................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Rousseau’s “Savage Man”.................................................................................................. 7 2.3. Schmitt’s “Open question” ............................................................................................... 11 2.4. Kropotkin and principle of “Solidarity” ............................................................................ 14 2.5. Sartre and “Existential humanism” ................................................................................... 17 2.6. Marxism and “Anti-humanism” ........................................................................................ 20 3. THE CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE ON HUMAN NATURE ........................................................ 23 4. Power and Anarcho-syndicalism .............................................................................................. 42 4.1. Power............................................................................................................................... 42 4.1.1. The subject and resistance ........................................................................................ 51 4.1.2. Truth and Knowledge ............................................................................................... 57 4.2. Anarcho-syndicalism ........................................................................................................ 62 5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 75 CEU eTD Collection ii ABSTRACT This thesis discusses the question of human nature as essential in shaping politics. In order to situate the debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, two lines of claims regarding human nature within the framework of modern political philosophy are presented. In one line which stresses the existence of human nature the focus is on contractualism such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, non-contractualism such as Carl Schmitt, and finally, Peter Kropotkin’s anarchism; in this line Noam Chomsky is situated. In the second line, which argues against the existence of human nature, attention is given to Sartre’s existentialism and Marxism, and in this tradition Foucault is situated. After outlining the debate, questions raised in the debate are analysed in much wider scope of Foucault’s and Chomsky’s works in order to detect possible points of convergences. Power and its modus operandi with the critique of a socio-political system which claims to be democratic but is based on hierarchy; class domination and violence; analysis of population regulation by rules and media; the notion of resistance; critique of theoretical knowledge represented as neutral and truthful; together with the critique of elitist intellectualism, are possible points of convergence in the work of Chomsky and Foucault within the Left political framework. Key words: human nature, anarchism, power, resistance. CEU eTD Collection iii 1. INTRODUCTION I find the question of human nature to be essential in shaping politics. In every political theory there is an implicit or explicit stand regarding human nature. The topic of my thesis is “The Chomsky-Foucault Debate” which took place in 1971, in which two great intellectuals debated upon the existence of human nature. Both of them belong to the Left realm of the political, however to two different traditions. Chomsky agrees with the anarchist tradition which argues for the existence of universal human nature and a society founded on freedom and justice, while Foucault has a constructivist approach regarding human nature claiming that it is just a concept created within our civilization, the same as “justice”, and he is restrained from ideas concerning the future of society. Although they are usually seen as divergent in their thinking, in my work I attempt to detect the points of convergences between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky. I found them to be very similar in their political motivation, although they are divergent in their characterization of the intellectual means for implementing it. Their “Debate” reflects a particular historical moment and I shell try to inquire whether it is possible to see “The Debate” from an alternative perspective: that what was seen as divergence of the Left in the 1970s is possible to see through a different lens today. Let me introduce the idea that motivates me. Leftist, critical movements have been suffering through the whole century because of fragmentation and factional struggles, in practice, as well as in theory. The moral CEU eTD Collection of the story is that there have been enough divergences and that it is convergence that should be sought instead. Although Chomsky and Foucault belong to different traditions within the Left, my question is - are they really so different or is it possible to find some convergences in their work? 1 In order to better understand and situate “The Debate” I will begin my thesis with a tentative overview of ideas concerning human nature within the context of modern political philosophy; in order to detect what implications the notion of the existence or non-existence of human nature has in politics and what it implies. I differentiate two lines of thought regarding the existence of human nature. In the first tradition which stresses the existence of human nature I will focus on modern philosophy and contractualism such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, non-contractualism such as Carl Schmitt, and finally, anarchism, present in the work of Peter Kropotkin. In this tradition I will situate Chomsky and his work. I will explore the second tradition of thought which argues against the existence of universal human by focusing on Jean Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism” as well as inquiring into Marxist notions on human nature. In this tradition I will situate Foucault who opposes the idea of human nature. After delineating these two lines of thought within modern political philosophy in regards to the question of human nature, in the second chapter I will focus on the debate itself. I see Foucault and Chomsky to be both Left-oriented intellectuals deeply involved in politics; they are public intellectuals who offer profound critique of social order based on liberal capitalism. In the first part of the debate, the philosophical element, they debate upon the existence of human nature and notions regarding knowledge and science. While “human nature” for Chomsky stands for innate structures of the human mind which guides social and intellectual behaviour, to Foucault it is a mere concept created within our civilization. “Knowledge” to Chomsky represents human’s cognitive precognitions or innate structures for CEU eTD Collection creating knowledge and shaping scientific theories, while for Foucault “knowledge” stands for organization of a particular body of claims in a particular historical moment; he addresses the cultural conditions surrounding a particular body of claims in a particular historical 2 period. What is interesting to me is that in the debate they are not opposed one another but simply observing particular concept from different perspectives. Regarding the second, political element of the debate, Chomsky is focused on the creation of an alternative society based on human nature which will ensure human freedom. However, in this part of the debate Foucault is restrained and maintains the position of the present historical moment and focuses on disclosure of political power which controls and shapes the social body. Regarding the question of resistance present in an act of civil disobedience, these two intellectuals disagree in theory. For Chomsky civil disobedience is necessary in order to put pressure on the government, whilst to Foucault it is just an act within the state framework, so it is not so meaningful. In the question of “justice” they also disagree inasmuch as, “justice” for Chomsky is an essential characteristic of human nature and future society which should be built on it, while for Foucault it is also just an concept created within our civilization; although in his critique of power which creates inequalities, it seems that he has a strong sense of justice. After outlining the debate, in the final chapter I will analyse the constitutive concepts of the debate, such as power, knowledge and anarcho-syndicalism