‘Free creation’ within the constraints of the state

I recently watched a debate  between Noam Chomsky (linguist, public intellectual and advocate of ‘anarcho-synicalism’) and the French social theorist Michel Foucault from 1971. Something interested me when Chomsky differentiated between inherent human interests and political institutions, suggesting that the two were incompatible. He emphasises a ‘fundamental need’ in humans to participate in what he calls ‘free creative enquiry’. (In Marxist circles the term ‘creative’ can be attached to romantic notions of labour and often remains deliberately ambiguous)

 Chomsky, However, points out the societal constraints against this human urge – he identifies these as being the ’arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions’. His underlying motives account for this damning critique of government as he seeks to propose an essentially anarcho-syndicalist model of society instead, based on a utopianvision of mutual aid ordered by collective trade unions. However, Chomsky does raise a valid question as to why ‘creative enquiry’ cannot be reconciled with the interests of the state. Are both ‘forces’ not essentially man-made?

The most accessible way of gauging where these duties of both state and individual lie is through a study of the constitution (Although the UK is a slight exception in this respect.) Yet what has always striked me as odd, in terms of the teaching of politics, is that a study of the constitution is often presented as the most tedious and dry aspect of courses. By far the best way to create political polarisation is by proposing constitutional ammendments, prompting questions as to the legitimacy of traditional authority which touches a raw nerve with the Right. – It is this that leads Foucault to seek a re-evaluation of the state ; citizens need to do more than just accept a predetermined system.

 If you consider the intricate framework in which societies operate - a study of  a constitution (with its plethora of obscure ad hoc ammendments) reinforces the often forgotten fact that this is wholly man-made. Over great periods of time, certain blueprints for societies and judicial systems have gradually become entrenched – in the form of statute laws, historical conventions etc. This results in a preordained and inherited system (or in the case of colonies – often an imposed system) which citizens are alienated from and feel little responsibility to. As governmental procedures cannot be effectively combatted with the means of the average citizen, As official written documents often remain esoteric, any sense of popular empowerment is lost. (I would be tempted to link this to the voter apathy that is especially prevalent in younger generations at a risk of biting off more than I can chew.)    Why are initiatives to involve greater numbers of people in politics ultimately futile? – especially when the sovereignty of the state is theoretically vested in the ‘people’? 

At this point I try to remain open when attempting to answer why this is the case, and not seek the easy answers voiced by Leftists. Marxist rhetoricians often talk of the political and economic ‘hegemony’ of the dominant classes which subordinates the proletariat. It is easy to see how Marx’s concept of the workers’ alienation from his product, can easily encorporate a political dimension… i.e. -The worker is also alienated from political activity. (Although this new approach to Marxist thought is somewhat anachronistic; proletarian suffrage in the 19thcentury was virtually unheard of)  This theory has now become more sophisticated.In a more modern context Foucault cites the example of government involvement in the ‘appareil scholaire’ (education system) as a means of entrenching  their political and cultural interests and ‘distributing’ it to the next generation. Foucault’s draconian image of the state/individual relationship relies for its effect on a propaganda of victimisation, that is often unhelpful and obscures the central question being addressed.

Yet we are now in the 21st century; the prospect of ‘spontaneous revolution’ is as distant as ever (- Although far-fetched columnists cling to hopes of a Thatcherite regress and frenzied syndicalist activity in light of the current economic state of affairs.) Through the labyrinthine structures of Parliament and the bureaucratic nature of the state -Politics are becoming dehumanised. All this talk of the conflicting interests of the state and individual overlooks a crucial point ; both are essentially within our control and need to be put within the reach of the average citizen. Foucault sets society the task of criticising the workings of institutions (”de critiquer le jeux des institutions”) to come to some sort of re-evaluation.

Advertisement