Chomsky and Focault Analysis free essay sample

Foucault debate on human nature brought together arguably the two most prominent Western intellectual-activists of the day in a debate that shows clearly the train of thought prominent where each writer was situated. The discussion was in two parts, the first an analysis of where and how knowledge was created, with particular focus for the natural sciences, the second explicitly focused on the role and practice of oppositional politics within Western capitalist democracies which I believe were in response to the unfolding Vietnam War. The discussion between Chomsky and Foucault reveals insight into many features of their work, and there is far too much of interest in the discussion to be expressed within the limits of a single article as you can see through Elders request to the men to try to somewhat limit their answers. The discussions raise many questions as to the debates in social and political thought. I am going to examine a limited number of themes in this article. We will write a custom essay sample on Chomsky and Focault Analysis or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page For instance, the title of the discussion, Human Nature: Power vs. Justice, describes a great deal about each of the antimodernist and modernist positions of Foucault and Chomsky. The discussion touches on past and present debates about ideas of essentialism that are of importance for the social sciences. In this essay I am going to present what I take to be the three main aspects of Foucaults anti-essentialist critique and its effects on social and political thought. This is only one strand of Foucaults work, but it is only these specific themes that I am concerned with here. I will then turn to Chomskys rationalist account of human nature to show its effect for social and political thought and the ways in which it might be able to counter the powerful anti-essentialist critique made by Foucault. In doing this I will outline three aspects of Chomskys work as a defense of a rationalist understanding of epistemology. I am arguing that an understanding of some form of materialism is needed for social and political thought and that Chomskys ideas provide some useful insights into what form this might take. Ultimately, Chomskys work provides good grounds for rejecting the contrast of either strong materialism or â€Å"essentialism. † Foucault and Chomsky are major intellectual-activist of the past thirty years in the Western world, and their discussion is of some significance in setting out not only their different views, which I thought were quite profound and extraordinarily complicated, but also their similarities. As the discussion goes on to show, Chomsky and Foucault share a similar understanding of the history of scientific knowledge and its development and also its misapplication in the social or human sciences. In the political world, both men recognize the need to challenge sources of illegitimate power and authority within their own societies. In addition, they also share an opposition to â€Å"vanguardist† political strategies, an anarchist ideal that connects their social and political thought. In the end, what I illustrated was that their respective positions rest on fundamentally different idea of human nature, epistemology, and ontology. In many respects, it is when they turn to questions of social and political theory and practice that these differences are most at the most obvious to the reader and what I guess to be their respective modernist and antimodernist positions are clearly revealed. In conclusion their ideas about politics and emancipation from unjust rule are related to their respective essentialist or anti-essentialist philosophies.