I fail to see what the "modern notion of abscence of free will" is.
I am extremely wary of scientists/peudo-philosophers who run arround and claim that free will doesn't "really" exist.
Their argument often runs along the lines of :
(1) Physical systems are deterministic
(2) The brain is a physical system
(3) Consciousness is produced by the brain
(4) Free will is a conscious perception
It follows that free will is "determined", therefore it doesn't exist...
(2) is often discussed, but in my opinion the problem with this argument is a misuse of premise (1) which rests upon a misunderstanding of the notion of causality.
Wittgenstein famously states that "Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus", since the only existing necessity is logical.
Causality is an extremely useful tool, which rests on a powerful a priori intuition, but it is unwarranted to conflate it with an absolute metaphysical determinism. Besides, one runs into several problems if we look at the implications, because it implies that everything in the world is necessary. This is very similar to Leibniz' theodicy of "everything is for the better in the pest possible world), which tried to reconciliate the apparent evil in the world with his idea of an all-good and all-powerful God.
Confronted with this idea, Sartre would undoubtedly say that the free-will denier is trying to escape his or her condition of being for-itself and the anxiety associated with freedom (être en-soi) by objectifying( chosifier) oneself into a being in-itslef (être en-soi).
It is also clear that the idea of absolute determinism denies the value of political engagement, and might be advanced by those who have an interest in keeping things as they are.