Foucault & Chmsky ( Was Re: [lbo-talk] Prose Style, was Time to Get Religion)

[Tayssir John Gabbour]

On 12/8/06, bitch <bitch at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> Someone pointed out that Zizek has pressure on him to perform. Likewise,
> the enormous fandom around Chomsky seems to make people think that he can
> speak to all issues. Another version of pressure to perform. My question
> was: why did anyone expect Chomsky to speak to Foucault, who's work Chomsky
> really didn't seem to understand. How can you get up there and then say
> that you can't sketch out a defense of your views of human nature. It may
> not be his bag, which is fine, but then why was he asked?

If he didn't speak to figures like Foucault, wouldn't detractors say
he didn't even try to understand?

The criticisms on this forum have largely been answered in detail by
Chomsky, for example in 1995:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Amazingly, it seems the arguments changed little since a decade ago.
For example, he pointed out, "But instead of trying to provide an
answer to this simple requests, the response is cries of anger: to
raise these questions shows 'elitism,' 'anti-intellectualism,' and
other crimes"...

His nuanced views on Lacan back up Zizek's public view, which I quoted
earlier: "Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and
perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult,
was sensible and I've discussed it in print)"

Tayssir