LET'S READ FOUCAULT: CHAPTER 1 (CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE

Michael Foucault, in my opinion, is the most influential thinker of 20th Century. No cap. I think the extent to which he has inspired literary theory, Philosophy, Sociology and Contemporary thought in general, it is immeasurable.

I mean, everyone thinks he is not Foucauldian until I tell them what actually Foucauldian is, and then they realize that most of their actions in their lives is Post-modern and hence Foucauldian. 

Here, in a couple of chapters, we will try to understand Foucault and his thoughts. In no way, it is meant to create an analysis of his work or trying to interpret his work. It is just an informative blog., the way I understand him, I would like to present so as to consolidate my knowledge. Next in the series might be Marx, Zizek, Lacan, whatever. 

My beginning to understand him began when I watched this debate happened on a Dutch Television show, where these two Great thinkers, Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault, appeared. At that time, and it was some 4-5 years ago. That time, I will be honest, I thought he is just a reactionary right winger, but little did I know what I was witnessing. It was a radically original idea. 

Let's see, if I can recall the key points of the Debate. 

1. Debate on Universals like Human nature.

Chomsky believed there is a basic human nature to begin with. His reference is the linguistic research that he has been doing since a long time. The capacity to develop a language of himself, from the scratch, from the fragments of experiences, requires a sound background of a common universal nature across geographical, social and political boundaries in all of humanity. Something which I used in my blog on Subjective accumulation of Meaning. The templates used to make sense of the world. People that time said, it is post-modernity I am talking about, But I knew I was wittgensteinian. 

Coming to Chomsky. So, For Chomsky, these universal categories exist, like: Human nature, Science, Truth etc. And we use them to make sense of the nuances of our theories. These universal categories make it easily understandable the need to make good and just societies in itself. That's what Chomsky says. 

Foucault rejects it. Typically, enough for Foucault, He does not answer the question whether a basic universal human nature exist. The question he is interested in is, "How has the concept of Human nature evolved and functioned in our society in history?" 

The merit and beauty of this kind of posing of the question is in its form. Historicizing categories instead of theorizing them. It makes me think, what an original way to look at things. And how honest! Can we surely say there has always been a human nature as an objective universal category? We cannot, right? It might as well be an imagination of us humans to make sense better of the world we live in. So, why ask the unanswerable question when you just have some hunches or guesses about it. Ask the more relevant question. In history, this category, "Human nature", we surely find in written works of many thinkers. Why not ask, how this category functioned? What was its function, even if it is an imaginary construct. 

To which, Foucault, expands his argument. He says, in history, there have been two kinds of categories. Actual operational categories which were directly used in day to day lives in different points in history, whereas these Universal categories, like Human nature, The Truth, Science, functioned as a commonsense background, which made easy for humans to understand the nuances. But the existence of these universal categories is actually an assumed truth. Foucault says that nobody in history has ever studied Human nature directly, nor do anyone know what Nature all is about. These are categories of convenience. It is like "Aether medium" of Physics. Defined to explain many things but its own existence is not sure. 

Foucault's attempt to historicize is not new. We find it in Hegel. We find it in Marx. What is new is his Historicism of Universal categories especially categories of common sense or reason. Here, we get Fundamental difference between Chomsky and Foucault. Chomsky is a normal everyday thinker, nothing radical. But Foucault, there is some sexiness of the idea in him. 

2. Approach to Mass Politics

Secondly, when asked why these two thinkers got interested in Politics? Chomsky replied with recalling the ideas of Basic human nature and universal ideals of Justice. Trying to create a just human society. Chomsky says, there is a possibility that all human political action ends one day, and we create a just human society. 

Foucault again, dodges the main question, saying it is nonsensical and ridiculously obvious why one would be interested in Politics. He again asks the how question. The idea of an "Ideal society" a "Utopia", how has it aged and functioned in our society? How this idea, this knowledge has created a quest for power. For Foucault, It is "Will to knowledge". He says, our societies have been mostly guided by "Will to knowledge", rather than "Will to power", He means that all our attempts at social sciences are attempts not to create just power structures but to create knowledge that justifies the present power structures. This will to knowledge is dangerous because it deludes man into thinking that ideals have been achieved. It justifies certain kinds of Political violence that every regime does and hence justifies coercion through creation of knowledge. 

For Foucault, it seems, no standards of ideals exist. For him, these are categories, again to make sense to certain realities. For him, the Idea of justice has been created to support a certain kind of regime and oppose a certain kind of regime. For him, Reality does not precede knowledge, Knowledge precedes Reality. First Knowledge is created and accordingly the reality is shaped. 

For him, Power struggle is the main motive of political action. It is a quest to grab power. Unless we, humans become honest to ourselves, we cannot admit the fact and we keep using categories like justice etc. to justify our behavior. It is actually a power grabbing move. It surely does not out these ideals on a pedestal. But it equalizes, in my opinion, the moral Highground the left usually takes, employing usage of these ideals. 

For Foucault, Knowledge is not external to the political action that is taking place. Knowledge has not detached itself empirically from roots of these studies, like in Physics, or other physical sciences. Foucault calls this approach of historicizing categories and analysis as "The genealogy of Modern subject". How via various ways, humans become subjects. Subjects of regimes, knowledge, Subjects that behave as the regime wishes, as if thinking, they are behaving on their own will. 

All in all, this was a small beginning of an attempt to understand the most influential thinker of 20th century. You might have felt the magnitude of originality and a kind of "Seduction of Idea" that every great thinker had in his time. Some thinkers even transcend their times and remain sexy forever. Or maybe the generation to understand him is born only now. 

All in All, I would love to express Foucault clearly to you in upcoming blogs. I have my own dislike for Foucault but along with that I have some serious admirations as well. Hope one day, I can critique him and move past him. But that too, cannot happen without knowing his way of analysis. His way of analysis is the only way he can be defeated. I like Foucault man! He is wonderful. See you in next blog.