an excerpt from The Chomsky-Foucault debate on human nature,

The New Press, New York & London, 2006.

To make all of this concrete, let me comment in a very personal way: in my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any pro- fessional credentials in mathematics, in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say ... whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better appro- aches are possible - the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, foe example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I’ve repeatedly been challenged on grounds of credentials, or asked, what special train- ing do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters ...

When an event occurs in the world, the mass media - television, the newspapers - look for someone to explain it. In the United States, at least, they turn to the professionals in social science, basing themselves on the notion, which seems superficially reasonable and in some instan- ces is reasonable within limits, that these experts have a special compe- tence to explain what is happening. Correspondingly, it is very important for the professionals to make everyone believe in the existence of an intellectual frame of reference which they alone possess, so that they alone have the right to comment on these affairs or are in a position to do so. This is one of the ways in which the professional intelligentsia serve a useful and effective function within the apparatus of social control. You don’t ask the man in the street how to build a bridge, do you? You tern to a professional expert. Very well, in the same way you should not ask this man in the street: Must we intervene in Angola? Here one needs profes- sionals - very carefully selected, to be sure. [...]

Compare mathematics and the political science - it’s quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content. One might even argue that to deal with substantive issues in the ideological disciplines may be a dangerous thing, because these disciplines are not simply concerned with discovering and explaining the facts as they are; rather, they tend to present these facts and interpret them in a manner that confirms to certain ideological requirements, and to become dangerous to established interests if they do not do so.