Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky had a debate on a Dutch TV program about the topic of “Human Nature: Justice versus Power.” Chomsky believes that there is a fixed human nature and that true scientific understanding is impossible without it. He also believes that there is a bio-physical structure underlying the mind that enables individuals to learn and use language in a creative way. He aims to uncover these structures through a testable mathematical theory of the mind. Foucault, on the other hand, disagrees with Chomsky’s views and instead of asking if human nature exists, he asks how the concept of human nature has functioned in our society. He believes that the idea of human nature mainly played the role of designating certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history.
Foucault is skeptical of universal truths and instead looks at how concepts like human nature have functioned in society. He believes that there is no external position of certainty and that understanding is shaped by history and society. He aims to understand the various roles that reason has played in society, not to judge it against a fixed standard. He also rejects Chomsky’s idea of Cartesian rationality.
In terms of politics, Chomsky believes that there is a universal human need for creative work and free inquiry, and that society is stifling this. He believes that the real problem is creating a just society in which creativity and reason can thrive. He sees the task of intellectuals as using reason and the concept of human nature as a standard to create a more just society. On the other hand, Foucault does not see the question of why he is interested in politics as important. He instead focuses on how power operates in society. He believes that Western society’s emphasis on utopian schemes and the search for first principles has left us with little understanding of how power works in society. He believes that the idea of justice has been used as a tool of political and economic power and should not be seen as an absolute truth.
Foucault believes that knowledge is connected to the conflicts and struggles in the world and is not separate from them. He disagrees with Chomsky’s view that knowledge is a way out of these struggles. Instead, he sees the desire for knowledge as both a danger and a tool to combat that danger. He argues that knowledge has not detached itself from its origins and is not only subject to reason. He believes that knowledge now calls for experimentation on ourselves, and the sacrifice of the subject of knowledge. He refuses to separate knowledge from power and focuses on understanding the relationship between the subject, knowledge, and power, which he calls “the genealogy of the modern subject.” His aim is to understand how practices and discourse related to the subject have developed and how they are linked to the search for truth.