What Do We Mean by “Human Nature”? Foucault, Chomsky, and the Historical Conditions of Intelligibility
A Debate. AI image I. The Question Behind the Question The 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is often presented as a disagreement about human nature . Chomsky argues that there are universal features of human beings; Foucault is said to reject such universality in favour of historical and social determination. The contrast is attractive because it is simple. It is also misleading. The more interesting question is not simply whether human nature exists. It is what each thinker is asking when he uses the expression human nature in the first place. A concept does not acquire its signification in isolation. What it can mean, what questions it permits us to formulate, and what counts as a satisfactory answer depend on the relations within which it operates. To ask what human nature is may therefore already presuppose a particular way of organizing knowledge: one in which something called “human nature” can be identified, investigated, and explained. The debate ...