Marx, Foucault and Derrida
Marx’s original thesis of the Sociology of Knowledge argues that ideologies (religion, philosophy, law, etc.) are not neutral or ‘objective,’ but instead reflect the material interests and class positions of those who produce them. The ruling class's ideas become the ruling ideas of any era. Knowledge, in this sense, is not innocent, it’s socially situated.
Marx is saying that your beliefs reflect your social position, especially your class interests.
Foucault shifts the emphasis from class to power/knowledge. For him, knowledge is always entangled with power structures. Discourses, such as those of medicine, psychiatry, or sexuality, don’t just reflect power, they produce it by shaping what counts as truth, who gets to speak, and who is silenced.
Where Marx said ideology masks domination, Foucault says truth itself is an effect of power:
“We are subjected to the production of truth through power, and we cannot separate the two.”
So, instead of ideology being a veil over reality, as in Marx, Foucault deconstructs the idea of objective reality itself. There’s no ‘outside’ of discourse to appeal to.
Derrida claims that language undermines itself. He is less sociological than Marx or Foucault, but also attacks the idea of fixed meaning. In deconstruction, texts don’t yield clear, determinate truths because language is slippery, full of internal tensions and contradictions. There’s always a deferral of meaning. His term is différance.
So, for Derrida, “There’s no transcendental signified. Meaning is always deferred, never stable.”
Like Marx and Foucault, Derrida is suspicious of metaphysical claims to objectivity or universality, but from a linguistic and philosophical angle rather than a sociological one.
The question arises: Is this just Marx with knobs on?
Yes, in that all three reject the Enlightenment idea of autonomous, context-free reason that discovers universal truths. All of them argue that knowledge is embedded in structures; class for Marx, power for Foucault, or language for Derrida.
But Foucault and Derrida go further than Marx. They question the possibility of objectivity itself, whereas Marx still believed in a ‘scientific’ socialism that could reveal objective material truths. So, while they share Marx’s suspicion of ideology, they push the critique into more radical, epistemological terrain.
The core concern is that this makes rational debate impossible. If all knowledge is contingent, situated, and power-laden, can we say anything is better or truer than anything else?
Critics point out that this leads to relativism or even nihilism. If there is no neutral ground, how can we adjudicate between competing views? If truth is just a product of power, isn’t this a form of intellectual self-defeat? Why believe Foucault’s analysis if it, too, is just power’s product?
Foucault and Derrida are not just repeating Marx, but extending his critique of ideology into deeper philosophical territory. All three question the idea that knowledge can be pure, objective, or untainted by context. This raises serious questions for traditional ideas of rational debate. It redefines debate as a negotiation of meanings and power, rather than a search for timeless truth.
Why should I listen to you? Your words are just expressions of your place in the class, power or linguistic hierarchy.
Reason flies out of the window. There is no fact, no truth. There is only as Oprah told Meghan, “Tell us your truth.”
It was not a fact that 100 million died under Communism. The statement and the evidence for it and eyewitness tales of it are all just products of people’s class, power and language. BFD. Tell that to the relatives.
Madsen Pirie