In this great debate from 1971, Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky disagree about the fundamental qualities of ”human nature” and the key task of social science in helping humanity achieve its collective potential. Chomsky believes that the social sciences should draw up a framework for an ideal society where creativity, freedom and scientific discovery will flourish. He sees it is our task to help to put this plan into action. Foucault argues that there is no ideal concept of social justice that can be universally applied. Instead, he sees that social scientists are tasked with critiquing social institutions and relations of power in different societies. Foucault says:

…one of the tasks that seems immediate and urgent to me, over and above anything else, is this: that we should indicate and show up, even where they are hidden, all the relationships of political power which actually control the social body and oppress or repress it. What I want to say is this: it is the custom, at least in European society, to consider that power is localised in the hands of the government and that it is exercised through a certain number of particular institutions, such as the administration, the police, the army, and the apparatus of the state…. But I believe that political power also exercises itself through the mediation of a certain number of institutions which look as if they have nothing in common with the political power, and as if they are independent of it, while they are not.

One knows this in relation to the family; and one knows that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. Institutions of knowledge, of foresight and care, such as medicine, also help to support the political power. It’s also obvious, even to the point of scandal, in certain cases related to psychiatry.

It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.

Read the entire transcript . Watch the debate and bliss out: part 1 and part 2.

Recent comments

Blog comments powered by Disqus


  1. switchbladenaif reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  2. dietsunglasses reblogged this from zeezeescorner and added:
    Universal claims to power disguise their particular point of enunciation and their specific ideological position.
  3. comicbookbunny reblogged this from bornofanatombomb
  4. bornofanatombomb reblogged this from wolvensnothere
  5. wolvensnothere reblogged this from swissshard
  6. swissshard reblogged this from ideo-logie
  7. ideo-logie reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  8. notesfromtheambush reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  9. vroing reblogged this from ozlemhepsen
  10. funkronomicon reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  11. camdogg36 reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  12. eddsure reblogged this from zeezeescorner
  13. cultivatinggrace reblogged this from fearandwar
  14. passecliche reblogged this from atitlehere
  15. sassysadiesays reblogged this from muslimrave
  16. injuriosa reblogged this from fearandwar
  17. ifindyourpresencedistressing reblogged this from mikerugnetta
  18. bosmerheck reblogged this from roger-sterlings-lsd-trip
  19. bethwithfeels reblogged this from fearandwar
  20. aponia-and-ataraxia reblogged this from everythingisacasestudy
  21. everythingisacasestudy reblogged this from hongkongteacher
  22. arundhottie-roy reblogged this from ziriamundane
  23. anewbody reblogged this from mikerugnetta
  24. sociologygirl reblogged this from corneredmonkey and added:
    Oh yes! He gives us in sociology a massive nerd boner.
  25. bard-in-the-north reblogged this from polygrrrl