> In fact, I'll go so
> far as to claim that capitalism couldn't function without the ideology
> of the essentially free individual!
All in all Mile's statement is logically flawed:
The logical statement of what Miles says is:
"If capitalism then an 'ideology of free individuals'."
This does not mean:
"'If an ideology of free individuals' then capitalism."
And it also does not mean:
"If an ideology of free individuals" then no free individuals"
Logically, if I accept the notion that there is an "ideology of the free individual" that supports capitalism, that does not mean that a society of "free individuals" is not a goal to work for or that (in some sense) we do not have an "instinct for freedom".
Another example as a matter of logic: just because our society legitimates itself with an "ideology of choice" doesn't mean that people don't have choices or that we don't want people to have better choices. In our society the "ideology of choice" limits us to such choices as becoming an "entrepreneur" or a "professional" or a some sort of wage slave. Also the "ideology of choice" defines choice as deciding what brand of identical sugary breakfast cereal we prefer or whether we buy a Lexus or a Toyota or whether we "choose" the political party of the bankers or the political party of the real estate-men. It is not wrong to say that we are for choices but not for how the "ideology of choice" defines choice.
In my view it is part of the way that ideology works that it defines and limits notions to a small circle of denotations, instead of the broader connotations that the words have in natural language. But this is contentious and I stand my argument on the former logical argument and not on the latter description of ideology. Unfortunately it is my tentative and limited view of "human nature" that we tend toward "deception" and "self-deception" in order to get by in our lives, in order to get what we want when the choices are limited, in order to justify ourselves when we only have various kinds of bad choices. Thus we can convince ourselves that the "ideology of choice" is a real choice.
>
> Miles wrote: And this is exactly my problem with Chomsky: by referring to this "inner
> essence of autonomy and freedom", he's contributing to the ideology
> about human nature that helps capitalism to thrive.
There are two kinds of statements about "human nature" that are simply wrong:
1) There is no such thing as human nature:
2) Human nature is precisely (this or that):
The first statement is absurd. It is saying that somehow human beings are not biological and did not evolve. Sartre and Rorty have said this kind of thing often. It is hard to know what the statement even means. Does it mean that homo sapiens do not walk upright, do not have opposable thumbs, and do not use language? As far as I know these are species-universals. Foucault and Derrida also tend to make statements that lead me to think that they believe there is no such thing as human nature.
The second statement is usually empirically wrong and often exhibits the kind of scientism that Ravi rails against.
I may be wrong but Chomsky never talks about "essentially free individuals". He comes close when quoting people such as von Humboldt or others from the tradition of the Enlightenment but these are never his own expressions. He does believe that people in general don't like to be beaten and stepped on and that they prefer to have a say in their own lives. He also believe that people are innately curious and like to accomplish things and that in general people like doing so in cooperation with others.
I am not sure Miles has read Chomsky on these matters, but, except when talking about "creativity" in natural languages, he always phrases the "instinct to freedom" in a tentative and limited way, an instinct that can be beaten down and perverted through life-experiences.
Also I think that Miles, in using the phrase "essentially free individual", might have in mind some notion of "free will" or the ability to make choice. Chomsky does think that "free will" is at least a maintainable idea, but he also thinks that it is a "mystery", as opposed to a problem. A mystery that when argued over only leads to paradox. He admires the philosopher Galen Strawson very much, who argues against any philosophical coherence to the notion of free will.
(see for example the following article http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014 ).
> This insight--that people who
> purportedly challenge and undermine power relations can in fact
> reinforce them--is nicely analyzed by the Foucaults, Butlers, and
> Zizeks. If you pooh-pooh it all as intellectual elitism, you're tacitly
> approving and valorizing ideological claims like Chomsky's that sustain
> capitalism and all of its brutal forms of exploitation.
I think that Miles has accepted the "ideology of ideology".
> One more try: Orwell's point about impoverishing language as a means of
> social control still stands. If we wish to contain thought and behavior
> in narrow, socially approved parameters, we should eliminate all
> "jargon" and make language as "simple" as possible. (I can't resist:
> the will to "simple" language is an instantiation of--the will to power!)
Why do you insist on turning what I say into your own personal aporia?
> Miles
>
>
> ___
I think that we should all take up an "ethics of rhetoric" between ourselves. Arguments and discussions would flow easier.