Fife 1

Travis Fife

Mrs. Lynch 3A

English III AP

15 December 2010

Morality: A Tool of Oppression

Michel Foucault first introduced the concept of biopower in his book The History of

Sexuality Volume 1. From this he introduced he introduced the concept of normalizing

populations, a concept that dives into the metaethical reasons why society constructs moral

standards. By this it was meant that societies construct moral standards by which normal citizens

ought to act and then based on whether or not an individual meets these standards the individual

is then deemed good or bad. Foucault finds this an essential element to government’s biopolitcal

control over individuals and that the normalization of citizens gives the government a

tremendous ability to dictate citizens’ actions. The example he points to in his literature is the

sexual revolution and how sex became a tool for political control. The logic goes that post-sexual

revolution sex was deemed a bad and secret thing and that homosexuality was out of the norm.

This allowed for governments to justify things such as sexual rehabilitation and even the

subjugation of HIV/AIDS victims in the fear that they were a danger to society. Thus it is

determined that the construction of moral standards leads to the normalization and biopolitcal

control of populations. Therefore, while many claim the “basic morality that used to be the norm

has been replaced by ambiguous standards that are tantamount to a lack of morality” these

decreasing moral standards since the 1920’s should be embraced as a movement towards

individual freedom and a step closer to individual autonomy (Kondracki).

 Fife 2

In the 21st century it seems to be popular to say that my generation has no respect and that

parents no longer get the respect they deserve. For example the family dynamic has greatly

shifted from a dictatorship of parents over kids to more of a democracy of parents and kids.

Critics consider this as the rebels of the 21 st century ignoring society’s codes for acting but rather

I see this as a positive shift in moral standards. This “lapse in moral judgment” in reality has

given kids a voice in the family control hierarchy and rather then being held to the strict moral

standards and being normalized as a rebel or a bad child they are now freer to act. In comparison,

in the 1920’s there was a norm that kids should not back talk or challenge the authority of their

parents and that if they did they were considered bad kids and should be punished based on that

action. Clearly the decreasing of this standard for acting has allowed children to be more

autonomous and less biopolitically controlled.

At the root of Foucault’s biopower is the belief that sex had become a political tool for

power. Since the writing of his book in the 1970’s the 21 st century has seen an increase in the

openness about sexuality and even homosexuality. This change of openness has seen much

criticism and those critics coined the term “sexual immorality.” The common perception of this

term views sexual immorality as a bad thing however this creates another opportunity for

individuals to break free from the normalization that goes along with being deemed sexually

immoral. For example the current gay rights movement has seen an enormous increase in sexual

openness. This sexual immorality of homosexuality has allowed the homosexual population a

newfound autonomy within the society. This culture no longer faces the subjugation that it did

before this openness. Additionally the decreasing of moral standards with regards to male-female

sexual relations has also allowed individuals to be more free and autonomous. Before the 21 st

century sexual relations were based on a perception of sex as a secret act that couldn’t be express
 Fife 3

and this perception allowed for the establishing of societal norms as sex bad and abstinence

good. Stemming from this is a subjugation of individuals that if they didn’t fit into this anti-sex

norm that they were deemed a bad person and were otherizied in the society. This decreasing of

the rigid sexual standards within society has allowed for citizens to be more open and free not

only in sexual relations but also in other facets of their lives and have become more autonomous

as a result of the degradation of these standards.

Foucault’s indictment of society’s moral standards and the impacts those standards have

on individuals is as prevalent now as they have been since his literature was published. The

ultimate goal of his literature is to explore the metaethical implications of creating societal moral

standards. Similarly, while many people have observed the loosening of the moral standards

since the 1920’s, this has allowed for a more individual freedom because citizens are no longer

being normalized based on not fitting into these moral standards. The key element to individual

autonomy is to reveal that societies’ moral standards are just a mask for a form of biopolitcal

government oppression.
 Fife 4

Works Cited

Kondracki, Richard. America's Changing Moral Standards Blessing or Curse? 17 Nov. 2005.

Yahoo. 14 Dec. 2010 <http://www.associatedcontent.com/ article/ 13234/

americas_changing_moral_standards.html?cat=9>.