a) What are some of the points Chomsky defends? And Foucault?
Chomsky believes that modern society needs to change fundamentally and that the rigid structure that may have been necessary in previous eras are not necessary. He notes that people should be free to do what they want and pursue their self actualization, instead of being cogs in the machine.
In contrast, Foucault does not have the same believe and doesn't trust human nature. He claims that many of the systems that are in place in free society are merely setup by a higher social class to maintain their order and control over those that they have placed below them. He quotes Chairman Mao about the communist belief that different social classes have different goals.
b) What are some of the qualities seen in this debate that are beneficial to good arguments and mediations?
Both people keep calm and professional, don't resort to personal attacks, and use intellectual reasons to back their views. They don't agree with each other, but they keep their interaction in a civil way.
c) Write a quick sketch of their individual arguments (you will develop more on this on Wednesday, in class).
Chomsky: Human nature is that people are creative and should not be subject to arbitrary coersion, so society should help people fulfill their potential. Therefore, coersion and repression of all kinds must be eliminated.
Foucault: Human nature can't be trusted. Humans created the systems that oppress others. Also, it isn't just government. For instance, the educational system is designed to benefit a certain class of people and to keep others oppressed. He also mentions intellectual fields such as psychiatry and the legal profession that are set up in a way to benefit their own members at the expense of others. These institutions are not independent and impartial, but are used as tools by the powerful for their selfish aims.
No comments:
Post a Comment