[lbo-talk] Re: Chomsky on Foucault

[bradhatch]

> Shane Taylor wrote:
>
> >The problem with general denunciations of "abstractions" and "big words"
> >is that
>
> Anyone read Chomsky's linguistics? I haven't gazed at so much as a
> page, but I'll bet it's not comprehensible to the proverbial
> carpenter next door (though I doubt that Noam's neighbor in
> Lexington, Mass., is a pounder of nails). Foucault wasn't writing
> agitprop for a large audience - he was writing philosophy and history
> for a scholarly audience.
>
> And we're getting close to the territory that Zizek talked about in
> my interviews with him - facts are not enough, as much as Chomsky
> would like to believe so. People often don't want to hear, don't want
> to know, and to understand the reasons behind that (and get around
> the defenses) you need the much-maligned theory.
>
> Doug

I've tried to read Chomsky's linguistics and yes they are very difficult. I
tried reading Rules and Representations, which was impossible for long time.
I think I finally started understanding Chomsky's linguistics by reading
Howard Gardners discription of his work as it applies to education and
learning. Even his politics can be difficult for some people. My wife has a
Phd in statistics but she claims that she can't understand a thing he
writes. But to be fair to Chomsky, I think his main point about Foucault was
that, even when one attempts to translate it from acedemic jargon to comon
language, it was still confusing and convoluted. For me, Chomsky's work can
be explained and made relevant to non-acedemic folks. But then I've never
spent the time to understand Foucault's work like I have Chomsky's.

Also, Doug, do you think that theory really makes our message to the
carpenter next store that more understandable? I wonder, because my
exeperience with people is that they have an aversion to theory and tend to
gravitate to concrete nuts and bolts thinking.

Brad