<div>On 5/24/06, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> martin wrote: We are, of course, on alert not to produce a little authoritarian, but some degree of coercion comes with the territory. I think the idea that undergirds a lot of anarchist thought - not just Bookchin but Chomsky, who's said as much - that humans are hard-wired for freedom (or are born free but are everywhere in chains, as some old Froggie put it) is wishful thinking. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Doug ___</blockquote></div> Not to get into a long argument over this because there is nothing anyone can prove one way or another.  I think Chomsky often talks of an "instinct" for freedom and creativity in relation to boundaries and rules. His analogy is of course creativity to creativity in language.  But he often emphasizes the idea that creativity and freedom is always within a context of rules.  At which point the question becomes where do the boundaries and rules come from?  With language he contends they come to a large extent from our biological make-up.  In social relations the boundaries and rules vary to a great degree.  If pressed I am sure Chomsky would agree that humans also have an  instinct or need for security and safety also.  Basically though, if purged of some of its neo-Freudianism I don't think that Chomsky would disagree with some of the popularizes of the Frankfurt school, such as Erich Fromm in "Escape from Freedom," that humans fear insecurity to such an extent that they will run from freedom and accept authoritarianism as long as the authority is mainly imposed on others.  As usual in the social sphere the question with rules, authority, etc becomes "who whom?"  What it seems to me that Chomsky and most anarchists don't take account of is something that is really species specific among homo sapiens.  No other primate puts so much emphasis on "privacy" as human beings seem to do, in sexual relations and family relations especially.  I don't think this is a bourgeois phenomena (though the extent of the emphasis on private life is probably a part of the rise of complicated societies) but rather something that first differentiated our way of socializing from other primates.  Even Nietzschean notions such as the will to power or the way Butler describes power can be translated into a desire for freedom on some level.  But a desire for your freedom does not mean that you desire my freedom.  An instinct for freedom, unfortunately does not imply a solidaristic desire for the other person's freedom.  And if some how you have "negotiated" a lot of freedom in your own life and have built a private life that is tolerable and perhaps even likable it doesn't mean that you wouldn't see my freedom as a threat to your life-ways.  I don't think I have stated anything but truisms, so accept a small apology.  When speaking on such an abstract level I don't think it is possible to do anything but state truisms.  All of this is merely to say that from my reading of Chomsky's interviews, where he does speak of these things, I think he is very much aware of these problems.  He just prefers to think optimistically (wishfully, if you must) on some matters.  Jerry -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/ </a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>