Noam Chomsky vs. Michel Foucault

Note: I do not know how to post a video on my blog yet, but I will post the video I am responding to as soon as I know how.

The video to which I am referring is a conversation between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault about justice vs. power. It seems that enhancing our literary theory knowledge by surfing Youtube is the "in" thing to do, so I thought I'd give it a try as well. I was particularly interested in this clip because I recognized both names in the video's title. I learned about Chomsky in my Spanish Linguistics class, specifically his push for a "gramatica generativa" or a general, universal grammar, just like the structuralists love. He wanted to find an explicit, mechanical set of rules to govern the construction of sentences. He wanted to find an underlying structure to language, just like the structuralists and poststructuralists we learn about in Lit Crit. I just love when the topics I learned in different classes overlap. It's really quite magical!

So Foucault is also associated with structuralism and poststructuralism. After reading and discussing "What is an Author?" we see that the text has a structure that is dependent on the discourse that has been developed out of our particular culture. The text does not stand alone in what it means to us, we view it and talk about it and analyze it based on the discourse we use for it. I think Chomsky would agree with this line of thinking, this structuring, if you will.

So, the video. It is only a six minute clip of a larger discussion, but I think some meaning can be gaged in and of itself from both men. They are basically in agreement with one another, yet Chomsky seems a bit more idealistic in his idea that the fundamental element of human nature is free creation and how that will, if realized, rise above our oppressive systems and institutions. He seems to want to find a quick, though idealistic, answer to societal problems, while Foucault simply states what he believes and does not offer a solution because he does not know if there is one. I think this is why Foucault is so gripping and evocative. He does not claim to know all the answers, yet he is REALLY brilliant. His ideas about power and its nature are fascinating and so true (just look at the enthusiasm of the audience to clue you in!).

But seriously, I find his thoughts on power so interesting. Chomsky seems to want to compartmentalize power as oppressive, whereas Foucault says it is productive because it produces knowledge, at least the knowledge that counts. He says in this video that political power is exerted by independent, private institutions apart from the government that should not be exerting political power. Foucault directly attacks the educational system by saying that this power-- this knowledge-- is held in the hands of a certain social class and is excluded from another social class. His views have a Marxist...coloring to them. His focus is on power and social class and how that plays out. Who has the power? And how is it exerted?

I took Comparative International Education last semester and we analyzed international education through all the schools of theory, including Marxism. We talked about how society will represent the dominant culture (whether that be a social majority or minority) in all its institutions, including schools. The dominant society welds the power, the power produces acceptable knowledge, whoever cannot latch onto that accepted knowledge is pushed to the margins, we then just go on and use that accepted knowledge to talk about whatever, literature let's say, and that's the way it's done. So what I want to know is, why is that?

Foucault exclaims in the video that the institutions which weld that political power must be challenged or else they will reconstitute themselves and the process will never end. So I wonder if discourse can be changed? What does change it if it can be changed? Would Foucault think Messiah College was an oppressive institution, welding its undeserved poltical power as a representative of the dominant society? Should we challenge the dominant society? I think, maybe yes. For example, if I decided to speak Ebonics in my classes at Messiah (or let's say an African American friend at Messiah) wanted to do that, would she be accepted? I can't help but believe more than one professor would be appalled. Or let's say we petitioned the English department to teach obscure Medieval Renaissance and 19th century writers for such prescribed requirements of the major. If we had a solid case, would they agree to it? I think not. What about all those high school students who didnt have the proper SAT scores to get into Messiah? Certainly they couldnt bring much of value to the school if their grades werent evidence that they could be groomed for intellectualism.

There is a discourse already applied to Messiah College. It is embedded in the campus and I feel like we could never change it. I hear Cumberland Valley school teachers were going to strike. What if Messiah students decided to strike on the grounds that we shouldnt have to believe that what we are learning and, more importantly, how we are learning is so essential to what it means to be educated in our society? Would we have a shot at being heard? Could we get some answers?