>>859>>860Having only watched the excerpt and not the entire thing (though I hope I'll get around to it eventually) I'm not entirely sure I agree.
Chomsky is undoubtedly demonstrating a certain naïvety when he proposes values that are intrinsically worthy of being upheld - he even outright states that he couldn't substantiate that claim if pressed. And while I don't believe that this is at all sufficient to justify a complex system of executing those "rights", I do not think it is far-fetched at all to consider notions like human rights and humanist values to be sufficient or even minimal cornerstones of a "just" society - in a pseudo-objective sense.
Naturally this is debatable, especially because it is considerd very "western" and with questionable international (heck, even national) application. I can only assume that this topic is discussed during the full-length debate between the two.
Foucault on the other hand makes a statement that is also unsubstantiated (in the excerpt that is), namely that "justice", both the institution and the values themselves, only exist in a class-society, and would not and could not transcend that. I can somewhat understand that in his example of universities (in that, by the flawed nature of the institution, not everyone has equal access to the positions of influence and power within it), but otherwise I fail to understand how such a thing as, say, freedom of speech is inheretly classist and should not be held valuable after a supposed abolishment of the class-system itself.
Though he seems to think that ANY value we can possibly have is a child born from our society and culture, and thus cannot ever be held in a greater objectivity than them. I am not entirely sure I agree, since many "values" exist that are de facto not truly cultivated by any culture, or that even outright contradict that culture.
Again, I've only seen the excerpt. If these points are explicated in the rest, I will gladly take them back.
Another point is the question of idealism, which Chomsky proposes as a course of action to achieve possible, smaller goals, as opposed to the criticism and attack of fake neutrality of institution that is the only course of action left with Foucaults position. Even if the values and notions are born from a specific culture, isn't it possible to concede their utility beyond that cultural context as well? This is another point that can be very divisive, but the point itself is not refuted by the mere idea that the values are, in fact, cultural in nature.