> What I do find troublesome is the criticism of say Chomsky on the
> grounds that his analysis is superficial, inadequate, incomplete,
> useless, etc in comparison to an alternative. In such a case, especially
> in human matters (e.g: politics), I think it is not disingenuous for me
> to claim a non-partisan role and look for knowledge and reasoning that I
> can use to understand the issues and act. It is (I claim) a matter of
> coincidence that Chomsky chooses the language of the non-expert
> non-partisan: common sense. In other words, it is not that I choose
> common sense narratives because I support Chomsky but the other way
> around: I (as a non-expert non-partisan) choose Chomsky because his
> language is (or is reducible) to the language of the non-expert
> non-partisan (whose life is what the issues are about). That this is so
> will (hopefully) be made clear in my criticism of Chomsky below. If Marx
> or Zizek's language is understandable (and more so) to you, there is not
> much reason to set up a contest of truth claims.
[snip]
> I have written, it is at the least required of the special language
> expert to be able to raise his/her objections/criticism in the general
> language, even if she/he cannot reduce their explanations to the general
> language.
>
> --ravi
agreed on both points. I recently watched this extended version of the debate between Chomsky and Foucault (perhaps this has already been posted here, not sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E3NRI_x2iA
The debate in the comments isn't all that different than the one we're havin here. but I was struck by the fact that Foucault was refusing to give in to Chomsky on a point that I think he should have much affinity: namely that there is a very important part to be played for the use of strategic language--that of Chomsky, which assumes some metaphysical arguments in order to make any argument at all that can move people forward. This, in some cases, relies on drawing an analytically arbitrary line and saying things in plain language even if you know you're simplifying. Perhaps Foucault just wanted Chomsky to admit that he was simplifying (in this case, the concept of "human nature"--I think this doesn't actually happen until the second part of the you tube clip) in order to make an argument and in order to struggle against the society that had created this construct (much as he says the originally repressive term homosexual was eventually given a positive content, even if it initially had to be posited on some essentialism); on the other hand, I thought Chomsky was being purposefully resistant to considering Foucault's argument as valid philosophically. It seems that both of them are, in their own ways, denying the opposite of the two points you make, which I think are, on the whole, valid and not necessarily mutually exclusive, as this argument has so far made it seem that they are.