In debate between Chomsky & Foucault, Noam described the relativistic problem as the creative use of language by the typical 'adult' human being. Which seems to speak to the issue of whether language is an 'innate' aspect of human nature or an 'invented' tool to enhance the prospects of survival? Arguably a tool for making 'allusions' about the unseen nature of reality? Like the way our names are allusions about our own unseen reality? For example, my name is David Bates and when asked if l am David Bates, l say "l am."
To use the author's own words, such is "the power of discourse in shaping reality?" Although l offer the comment that the power of discourse shapes our perception of reality through a psychological 'thought-sight' that overrides the innate power of our biological eye-sight? Hence the philosophical advice "don't think, just look. Don't judge, but perceive?" And R. D. Laing's "we are all in a post-hypnotic trance induced in early infancy?"
It is true that the Chomsky–Foucault debate pivots on a fundamental tension: is language an innate biological capacity (as Chomsky holds), or is it shaped by historical and social contingencies (as Foucault suggests)? Your suggestion that names function as "allusions to unseen realities" is a very ood illustration which resonates with both traditions, albeit differently.
Chomsky would likely see the act of saying "I am David Bates" as made possible by the deep structures of universal grammar—an innate, species-specific cognitive faculty. Foucault, on the other hand, might focus on the historical and discursive conditions that allow certain names, pronouns, and affirmations of identity to carry meaning within a given episteme. For Foucault, it’s not the name itself that matters, but the institutional and cultural structures that render the act of naming intelligible and powerful.
thinks that your point about "thought-sight" overriding biological sight moves us toward epistemology and perception theory. Philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, and even R. D. Laing—as you quote—have all questioned the apparent immediacy of perception, suggesting that what we see is filtered through layers of language, socialisation, and prior expectation. Foucault, too, was concerned with how regimes of knowledge structure what is seen and what remains invisible—what he called the "visible and articulable."
Another approach could be to consider thinkers who try to move beyond this binary. Vygotsky, for instance, foregrounds the social shaping of cognition without rejecting biological foundations. Others, such as Roy Harris (integrational linguistics), argue that language is not a fixed system (innate or otherwise) but a creative, context-dependent activity embedded in real-time communication.
So rather than treating language as either a biological endowment or a cultural invention, we might ask: how do biology and culture co-produce our linguistic capacities—and how do these in turn mediate not just what we perceive, but what we are permitted or trained to perceive?
The comment raises an important philosophical challenge, but Foucault’s work does not necessarily collapse under its own logic. Maybe it invites us to critically engage with the historical contingency of knowledge while still recognizing the power of discourse in shaping reality?
Critical Discourse Analysis is fascinating. I have always wanted to go into it in more detail because it shows you how society is struczured in terms of power
Thank you for sharing but I am confused by Benthams PANOPTICANISM please excuse bad spelling I have been taught 300 times on its definition origin the history of penalty Jeremy Bentham the madness that travels into madness based on the lack of privacy and modes of punishment Can you refer a simplilar breakdown of this crueltyhh
Hi! great question. Not necessarily an easy question to answer. But I'll try!
In short:
panopticism has grown from:
- a building (prison)
- to a theory (discipline)
- to a condition of modern life (self-surveillance and digital control)
Jeremy Bentham designed a building he called the **Panopticon**, a circular prison where all inmates could be watched by a single guard, who sat in a central tower. Crucially, the prisoners couldn’t see the guard, so they never knew if they were being watched or not. The idea was that this uncertainty would lead them to monitor and control their own behaviour, just in case they were being observed.
Bentham saw this as a rational and efficient model for reforming prisoners—less beating, more thinking.
The Panopticon became a symbol of power through surveillance. You don’t need violence if people internalise the gaze and start policing themselves. Bentham’s dream of total visibility—a world where people behave because they might be seen—didn’t stay in prison design. It grew into something much larger.
Bentham’s original Panopticon was never widely built. But the idea behind it: **control through visibility** devlopped. It proved far more influential than the architecture itself. A simple but deep logic still applicable today. Most people are less likely to steal from a shop if they see cameras (real or fake) an believe they may be watched.
This idea turned out to be a highly efficient tool of discipline, not only in prisons but also in schools, factories, military barracks, hospitals, and offices—places where obedience, regularity, and self-control are prized.
Michel Foucault reinterpreted Bentham’s idea in his book 'Discipline and Punish'. He argued that the Panopticon had become a metaphor for modern disciplinary society. What had started as a prison blueprint now described a whole structure of power that shapes everyday life.
In other words, the Panopticon “grew” into a way of understanding how modern institutions work: not by forcing us, but by making us regulate ourselves.
In debate between Chomsky & Foucault, Noam described the relativistic problem as the creative use of language by the typical 'adult' human being. Which seems to speak to the issue of whether language is an 'innate' aspect of human nature or an 'invented' tool to enhance the prospects of survival? Arguably a tool for making 'allusions' about the unseen nature of reality? Like the way our names are allusions about our own unseen reality? For example, my name is David Bates and when asked if l am David Bates, l say "l am."
To use the author's own words, such is "the power of discourse in shaping reality?" Although l offer the comment that the power of discourse shapes our perception of reality through a psychological 'thought-sight' that overrides the innate power of our biological eye-sight? Hence the philosophical advice "don't think, just look. Don't judge, but perceive?" And R. D. Laing's "we are all in a post-hypnotic trance induced in early infancy?"
It is true that the Chomsky–Foucault debate pivots on a fundamental tension: is language an innate biological capacity (as Chomsky holds), or is it shaped by historical and social contingencies (as Foucault suggests)? Your suggestion that names function as "allusions to unseen realities" is a very ood illustration which resonates with both traditions, albeit differently.
Chomsky would likely see the act of saying "I am David Bates" as made possible by the deep structures of universal grammar—an innate, species-specific cognitive faculty. Foucault, on the other hand, might focus on the historical and discursive conditions that allow certain names, pronouns, and affirmations of identity to carry meaning within a given episteme. For Foucault, it’s not the name itself that matters, but the institutional and cultural structures that render the act of naming intelligible and powerful.
thinks that your point about "thought-sight" overriding biological sight moves us toward epistemology and perception theory. Philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, and even R. D. Laing—as you quote—have all questioned the apparent immediacy of perception, suggesting that what we see is filtered through layers of language, socialisation, and prior expectation. Foucault, too, was concerned with how regimes of knowledge structure what is seen and what remains invisible—what he called the "visible and articulable."
Another approach could be to consider thinkers who try to move beyond this binary. Vygotsky, for instance, foregrounds the social shaping of cognition without rejecting biological foundations. Others, such as Roy Harris (integrational linguistics), argue that language is not a fixed system (innate or otherwise) but a creative, context-dependent activity embedded in real-time communication.
So rather than treating language as either a biological endowment or a cultural invention, we might ask: how do biology and culture co-produce our linguistic capacities—and how do these in turn mediate not just what we perceive, but what we are permitted or trained to perceive?
Thanks for this - very helpful
Another great piece, friend. One can see why Foucault is still praised for his ideas today.
Yes, if every theory is entangled in a specific discourse, so is Foucault's own theory. So that's the relativistic problem.
The comment raises an important philosophical challenge, but Foucault’s work does not necessarily collapse under its own logic. Maybe it invites us to critically engage with the historical contingency of knowledge while still recognizing the power of discourse in shaping reality?
Yes, I think that's the best way to look at it.
Critical Discourse Analysis is fascinating. I have always wanted to go into it in more detail because it shows you how society is struczured in terms of power
Thank you for sharing but I am confused by Benthams PANOPTICANISM please excuse bad spelling I have been taught 300 times on its definition origin the history of penalty Jeremy Bentham the madness that travels into madness based on the lack of privacy and modes of punishment Can you refer a simplilar breakdown of this crueltyhh
Hi! great question. Not necessarily an easy question to answer. But I'll try!
In short:
panopticism has grown from:
- a building (prison)
- to a theory (discipline)
- to a condition of modern life (self-surveillance and digital control)
Jeremy Bentham designed a building he called the **Panopticon**, a circular prison where all inmates could be watched by a single guard, who sat in a central tower. Crucially, the prisoners couldn’t see the guard, so they never knew if they were being watched or not. The idea was that this uncertainty would lead them to monitor and control their own behaviour, just in case they were being observed.
Bentham saw this as a rational and efficient model for reforming prisoners—less beating, more thinking.
The Panopticon became a symbol of power through surveillance. You don’t need violence if people internalise the gaze and start policing themselves. Bentham’s dream of total visibility—a world where people behave because they might be seen—didn’t stay in prison design. It grew into something much larger.
Bentham’s original Panopticon was never widely built. But the idea behind it: **control through visibility** devlopped. It proved far more influential than the architecture itself. A simple but deep logic still applicable today. Most people are less likely to steal from a shop if they see cameras (real or fake) an believe they may be watched.
This idea turned out to be a highly efficient tool of discipline, not only in prisons but also in schools, factories, military barracks, hospitals, and offices—places where obedience, regularity, and self-control are prized.
Michel Foucault reinterpreted Bentham’s idea in his book 'Discipline and Punish'. He argued that the Panopticon had become a metaphor for modern disciplinary society. What had started as a prison blueprint now described a whole structure of power that shapes everyday life.
In other words, the Panopticon “grew” into a way of understanding how modern institutions work: not by forcing us, but by making us regulate ourselves.
Let me know if I have answered your question.
With great thanks always peace
Thank you so peace and joy