Analysis of Michel Foucault

Noonan describes this contradiction further: “This is a general problem that affects the postmodern attempt to think oppression and resistance to it without grounding this thinking in a concept of human self-determination. On the whole, the various sites of oppression generate a critique of that oppression that activates concepts such as self-determination, human rights, and equality and that have employed violent means to acquire them.”4 Certainly, if human essence is non-existent, as is freedom and control over one’s environment and circumstances, then the human has no ability to make decisions, and hence no sense of individuality. The concept of oppression is interwoven with the concepts of freedom and self-determination, for oppression batters freedom and human rights. Without an understanding of what makes one human, oppression is meaningless.

Foucault believes freedom and human autonomy are a myth, which necessitates that oppression is unavoidable. Yet, he misses that freedom itself is a value established by the ruling class of a historical period. Throughout history, freedom has predominantly been defined by the white, European male. Hence, freedom cannot be presupposed as a universal quality that humans lack; the definition of freedom is itself a value imposed by power and dominance by the rulers of a time. Again, Foucault is seized in the clutches of his own web.

In conclusion, Michel Foucault’s views have been the agent of both controversy and influence, as exemplified by the support from the postmodern movement and the critique from Jeff Noonan. Foucault’s denial in values and human essence ultimately contradicts his purpose of superseding oppression, for there is no oppression without an understanding of what makes one human and what dehumanizes us. At the same time, his ideas have inspired a following of postmodern thought and political system that continues to be a subject of interest in modern philosophy.