Also, the reason there is no rapprochement between chomsky and foucault is this: chomsky is clueless as to the critique of human nature Foucault is talking about. if he were knowledgeable, he'd never have said what he said. he would have attacked Foucault where it hurt. Instead, and you can see Foucault getting antsy and smirking with disdain because C deserved it, Chomsky rambles on as if this is a debate between a positivist and an interpretivist in the social sciences. oh, jeez, sorry to use shorthand there. Which is to say, Chomsky characterizes Foucault as suggesting that what he's about is criticizing the content of of the concept of human nature C offered. But foucault is not. He is denying that there is a human nature at all. He is arguing not that we are misguided, our knowledge lacking and thus we can only make provisional claims. Foucault is saying there can be no claim made to the character or essence of human nature and there is no need to in order to change the freakin' world.
Now C doesn't know all this b/c he doesn't aprticipate in those discussions but is, for some reason, considered a heavy weight who did happen to know them.
If he did, then I'd have to go with purposefully disingenuous and disruptive to the debate in that instance b/c he was refusing to address the issue and pretending that it was about something else.
So, in the end, Chomsky only looked like he lacked knowledge of the debate and issues at hand and actually lost a chance to cream Foucault by actually arguing with Foucault and not some figment of C's imagination.
I know, I know: what a blasphemer I am!
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org