The Chomsky Hash

[the-chomsky-hash]

4. Work: that which is likely to introduce a significant difference in the field of knowledge,

a. at the cost of some effort for both

the author

the reader

b. with the potential reward of

a certain pleasure

that is, access to a different understanding of truth

– Michel Foucault, Works in Progress, from Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? by Paul Veyne, 1983

[the-chomsky-hash]

3. With the objective defined [vis., the publishing of otherwise unpublishable works], the means are as follows:

a. A strict effort at economy is required from

the authors

the publisher

the readers

b. They will therefore be asked to accept

writing

publishing

reading

works in which all production elements have been determined as effectively as possible.

– Michel Foucault, Works in Progress, from Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? by Paul Veyne, 1983

[the-chomsky-hash]

[2. The aim of this collection: - cont'd]

b. While

[on one hand,] it is desirable for reading to become more widespread,

[on the other hand,] it is important that different publishing models [e.g., academic versus commercial] are not conflated.

—[thus,] three types of texts will be published here:

lengthy works, which publishers often hesitate to undertake

shorter works that, in a few dozen pages, encapsulate a research project and allow it to develop into a series

translations of foreign works that we need to broaden the scope of research in France

– Michel Foucault, Works in Progress, from Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? by Paul Veyne, 1983

[the-chomsky-hash]

2. The aim of this collection:

a. It is

not to compete with these types of publications [vis., opinion-based works]

not to force scholarly books into the mainstream market

but rather, to establish connections between like-minded individuals

—between

those who are engaged in research

others who are also engaged in research

– Michel Foucault, Works in Progress, from Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? by Paul Veyne, 1983

[the-chomsky-hash]

1. The French publishing landscape currently does not adequately reflect

the work being done in universities and various research institutions

what is being undertaken abroad in the same fields

a. There are economic reasons for this

production costs

translation costs

consequently, the selling price of books

b. There is also

the prominence given to opinion-based works

the attention they receive in the media

– Michel Foucault, Works in Progress, from Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? by Paul Veyne, 1983

[the-chomsky-hash]

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : Beyond politics, wouldn't the rigorous Foucault be an artist? - cont'd]

[MF  : I have a reputation for being cold, dry - cont'd]

3. No, no, I don't believe that this vocabulary you're pointing out, which admittedly isn't very intellectual, I don't believe that this vocabulary [about Iran

from horror

to Greek tragedy

] is a new contribution.

a. I'm not saying this because I refuse to change; I have changed.

b. But there's such a compelling trend of conversion right now; you have to have converted.

Perhaps I will convert;

I've already changed a lot, but in any case, what you're pointing out doesn't seem to me to be an entirely new trait.

FS  : No, I'm not talking about its novelty.

MF  : Ah, okay, okay, okay!

FS  : But these facts as such

MF  : Okay, yes, yes.

FS : An aesthetic way of approaching things.

MF  : Yes, that's it, yes.

FS  : There is an existential aspect to it , that's nothing new, that's nothing new.

Okay, thank you.

MF  : Thank you.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : Beyond politics, wouldn't the rigorous Foucault be an artist? - cont'd]

[MF  : I have a reputation for being cold, dry - cont'd]

2. If I dismantle,

if I try to dismantle, as carefully as possible, the mechanisms of power

if I try to show how power relations actually have a kind of subtle logic and sequence, which gives them their strength without taking away their fragility,

then that doesn't mean I'm emotionally attached, in a positive way, to that sort of thing

—after all, what I did on madness could just as easily be considered a very lyrical book. Right?

FS  : Yes, in your style, in your style, isn't it?

MF  : If I wrote this book about madness, trying to show all these mechanisms, it was not in a climate of indifference to mad subjectivity.

FS  : Yes.

MF  : The same goes for crime and delinquency, etc.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

FS  : Last question, but a bit of a challenge. This will bring an amusing note.

1. I note the following terms in your positions on Iran:

horror

intoxication

beauty

gravity

dramaturgy

scene

theatre

Greek tragedy

2. You speak of the fascination of events, so,

beyond theology and genealogy,

beyond political stances,

wouldn't the rigorous Foucault be an artist of the era of

Francis Bacon?

Rebeyrolle?

Stanley Kubrick?

MF  : Listen, you flatter me by saying that. I'll just add a little something you already know. Indeed, people always talk—I don't know why—I have a reputation for being cold, dry, rigid, someone who only talks about… But:

1. You mustn't confuse the speaker with what they're talking about. You mustn't confuse what you say about something with the meaning you give to talking about that thing.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : You distinguish between two types of intellectuals. - cont'd]

[MF  : So, if you want to distinguish between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual - cont'd]

5. Well, what I meant was that the universal intellectual—

a. if that's someone who wants to function

as if they were the representative of a universal consciousness,

or as if they were, if you will, a bit like a writer, an intellectual, in their work,

or like those political parties that claim to possess both the truth of history and the dynamics of revolution

—I say: no, these intellectuals of the universal who are nothing more than, in a way, doublets of political parties, I don't want them.

b. On the other hand, the intellectual who, through the very intellectual work they do, can play this role of destabilizing

social stability

social, historical, political, and economic immobility…

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : You distinguish between two types of intellectuals. - cont'd]

[MF  : So, if you want to distinguish between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual - cont'd]

4. It's a bit specious...

FS  : Voltaire could call himself a specific intellectual.

MF  : Yes, but I believe, well, I readily believe that, look at the people of the 18th century, that's always how they did it, starting from something quite specific. In other words, it wasn't—I don't think they…—when I

talk about the universal intellectual...

try to distance myself from them...

FS  : For example, Sartre, for you, is he the universal intellectual?

MF : …

FS  : Actually, you're mainly talking about the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But when I said that, I was mainly thinking about the period in France that preceded the 1960s. You mentioned Hungary and Poland.

MF  : Yes, yes, I think we need to talk about it. No, but I meant, ah, I'm starting to get completely tired.

FS  : Hmm, I'm bothering you with my questions.

MF  : No, no, no, no, that's a very interesting question you're asking me.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : You distinguish between two types of intellectuals. - cont'd]

[MF  : So, if you want to distinguish between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual - cont'd]

3. So it's true that when we talk about Iran or Vietnam, on what grounds do we do so? Well,

I don't believe that abandoning one's position as a specific intellectual is a mistake

to say, as a citizen, that there are certain things a government should never do...

FS  : But the government doesn't matter much…

MF  : Yes, regardless of the government. In other words, what allows anyone to talk about their problems

not the universality of human beings, if you will,

but rather the generality of what happens in the relations between rulers and ruled that allows anyone to talk about their problems.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

[FS  : You distinguish between two types of intellectuals. - cont'd]

[MF  : So, if you want to distinguish between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual - cont'd]

2. That's where we come back to this concept of uprising I was talking about earlier.

a. The idea is that the role of the intellectual is

[not, e.g., as a prophet having a special relationship with God

but rather] to show how fragile this reality, which is presented to us as obvious and self-evident, actually is.

b. Well, whether it's

the physicist in their laboratory

the historian who knows Christianity in the early centuries

the sociologist studying a society

it seems to me that all these people can perfectly well, even from

the most specialized aspects of their field,

the most specific aspects of their knowledge,

bring to light these

points of vulnerability

obvious truths

realities

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

FS  : You distinguish between two types of intellectuals.

On the one hand, the universal intellectual, whom you sometimes present as the heir to the Marxist vision of the proletariat and sometimes as the heir to the man of justice and law. And whose death you somewhat prophesy—it's a bit complicated.

And on the other hand, the specific intellectual, who developed from 1945 onward.

Don't your recent stances on Iran and the Vietnam War lead you back to a representation of the universal?

MF  : No. So, if you want to distinguish between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual, I mean that it seems to me, at least in a society like ours, in the West, in Europe,

1. to play a political role, the intellectual

a. doesn't have to distance themselves

from their knowledge

from, let's say, their specialty

[e.g., Oppenheimer, from nuclear physics]

b. doesn't have to present themselves

as a prophet for humanity in general

[as if in a special relationship with God]

c. [rather] I think it's enough for them to look at

what they're doing

what's happening within what they're doing

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

FS  : In any case, in your last article [Useless to Revolt?] in Le Monde , there were still a number of questions raised here, there are a lot of problems raised that deserve further consideration.

MF  : Yes, yes. But if you want all that, well, I'm never really sure of what I say anyway.

1. I would very much like us to be able to have exchanges, discussions, and for people who disagree to be able to express their disagreements and ask questions, etc.

2. But when you're faced with

people who only act like prosecutors, denouncing you as an enemy, a sellout, an agent of this or that, etc., what do you do?

Or people who manipulate texts and bring lawsuits against us with falsified documents.

3. Indeed, all this stuff about Iran, I very much regret not having been able to have, not having had the opportunity to have, sustained discussions with Iranians or even just Muslims. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I want to be credited with exactly what I said and nothing else. 

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

FS  : Now there's this whole story, first, last year, of "the new philosophy", which you initially committed to, but from which you withdrew.

MF  : No, no, no, I didn't retract my statement because I was never committed to it; I simply said, by the way…

FS  : But you said somewhere that you were taken on more than you wanted.

MF  : ah no no

FS  : Either in Le Nouvel Obs , or in L'Arc …

MF  : Ah, listen, I don't think so.

FS  : You didn't want to get involved…

MF  : I may have said I didn't want to get involved. I did a piece: an article about Glucksmann's book, which I believe is an important book. And especially his two books—

1. well, *  The Cook and the Man-Eater *  seemed to me, at the time, a very important book, and one that didn't receive the attention it deserved, it seems to me. When the second book came out, I thought: well, this time I mustn't miss the opportunity. It turned out to be a huge success, and I didn't need to...

2. but Glucksmann's book had posed some problems for me. That's all. Glucksmann was considered a "new philosopher," a label he rejected.

3. Personally, I don't really care. Glucksmann's book interests me, but the other books by the so-called "new philosophers" don't. So little, in fact, that after skimming a few, I stopped reading them. I don't care, it's completely irrelevant to me, I feel it's not my thing, and that's that. So I can't have gotten involved.

4. But it's true that because I said Glucksmann's book was interesting for certain problems... well...

5. Oh, but all this is very unhealthy. Again,

either we police people who write nonsense, in which case we'd spend all day on it,

or we let it go, with the resulting burden that people feel free to say absolutely anything

—and that's one of the political and moral problems I haven't been able to solve.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979

[the-chomsky-hash]

MF  : Well,

when I say: "what I saw seems to prove that the Iranians are searching for something like a political spirituality, which is something we no longer know," it seems to me that the sentence is clear and there's no room for discussion

when you're faced with people like Claude Roy or others who manipulate the text and say, "Foucault aspires to a political spirituality,"

then you're confronted with such a degree of falsehood and bad faith

1. You know perfectly well that if you use, if you send a correction, the correction will be read the same way, and there will be further falsifications, and so on.

2. So I keep quiet for a while. I let it all settle. And then one day, in an article, in a book, I'll take stock of it all, and I'll show that it was a web of lies.

3. I don't want to get into polemics with people whose lack of intelligence and bad faith are blatant. That said, perhaps I was wrong; perhaps every time someone …

FS  : Ah, no, that's not necessary.

– Michel Foucault, Interview with Farès Sassine, 1979