August, V. (2021), Technologisches Regieren - Der Aufstieg des Netzwerk-Denkens in der Krise der Moderne. Foucault, Luhmann und die Kybernetik, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

The transition in political and social thought from the mid-20th century to the present represents a change from the Sovereignty model to a Technological or Network-Thinking model of governance. Following the crisis of modernity in the 1970s, traditional hierarchical structures and humanist ontologies began to dissolve in favor of cybernetic concepts such as feedback loops, complexity, and self-regulation. It was a move away from the post-1945 ideal of a centralised, goal-oriented state acting as the moral and organisational center of society. Systemic thinking was adopted. It prioritises how things function over what they essentially are, effectively blurring the lines between humans and machines in administrative logic. Network Governance emerged, where power is viewed as a systemic net rather than a top-down command structure. Michel Foucault and Niklas Luhmall were two primary intellectual architects who utilised cybernetic figures of thought to critique Old European concepts of power and politics, proposing instead models of self-governance and autopoietic systems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Counter-Model: The Paradigm of Sovereignty (Post-1945)

In the immediate wake of World War II, Western Europe reconstructed its political identity around the concept of Sovereignty. This model served as a defense against both the total collapse of social order and the potential for a monolithic world government.

1. Humanist Foundations

The sovereignty paradigm was rooted in a humanist ontology that viewed the world as manageable and progress-oriented. It maintained a clear separation between the acting subject (individual or state) and the object of governance. Political actions were believed to have direct, predictable effects on social outcomes. Governance was aimed at a specific developmental goal: the realisation of human nature and the essence of communal life.

2. The Role of the State

The state was envisioned as the steering center of society, responsible for merging disparate social layers and interests into a unified whole; acting as the singular voice for a territory and its culture; leaders were seen as sovereign personalities tasked with the moral and economic development of the nation.

3. Divergent Narratives of Sovereignty

Sovereignty was interpreted in three different ways during this time.

Subversive (Frantz Fanon): Sovereignty as a process of consciousness-building and self-empowerment; the transition from colonised to sovereign citizen.

Christian-Liberal (Bertrand de Jouvenel): Sovereignty bound to divine justice; focused on moral education, trust (confiance), and the duty to rule according to objective will.

Bourgeois-Republican (Wilhelm Hennis) - Rejection of purely legalistic rule of law (Kelsen) in favor of a will-endowed sovereign that creates social unity through political form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Technologics: The Cybernetic Alternative

As the sovereignty model faced practical limitations, a new Technological mode of thinking emerged from the field of Cybernetics. This approach did not merely provide tools for administration but offered a new framework for interpreting reality.

1. From What to How

Cybernetics replaced the search for essences with the study of functions. As pioneered by Ross Ashby, the focus changed from identifying what a thing is to how it behaves and controls itself through communication.

2. Core Concepts of Network Thinking

Governance is redefined as a circular process of information exchange. Systems adjust their behaviour based on feedback rather than top-down commands.

Modern society is viewed as too complex for centralised control. Higher connectivity (more relations between elements) is required for a system to remain stable and adaptable to unforeseen irritations.

Regulation occurs through the mutual influence of interconnected parts within a system, rather than through an external steering center.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Crisis of Modernity and the 1970s Structural Break

The dominance of sovereignty thinking was shattered in the 1970s by a convergence of economic and social crises, including stagflation, mass protests, and the perceived failure of the welfare state.

1. Failure of Traditional Steering

Institutionalists and Neo-Marxists alike diagnosed a dilemma of democratic sovereignty, arguing that the state could no longer fulfill its promise of total social integration and economic stability.

2. Competitive Interpretations

Two main intellectual movements rose to fill this vacuum:

• Neoliberalism critiqued the state's lack of rationality and proposed the market as the primary organising principle.
• Network-Thinking argued that the rationality of modernity itself was outdated. This view contended that a highly differentiated society could only be governed through decentralised networks that respect the complexity and autonomy of social sub-systems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The Architects of Network Power: Foucault and Luhmann

Michel Foucault and Niklas Luhmann are identified by August as crown witnesses of the transition to technological governance. Despite their different backgrounds, both adopted cybernetic figures of thought to deconstruct the sovereignty paradigm.

1. Michel Foucault: The Systemic Net

Foucault moved away from the concept of power as a top-down command.

• Power as a Network: Power is viewed as a systemic net of operations that exists everywhere in society.
• Technologies of the Self: Governance changes from external coercion to the self-governance of individuals who constantly critique and reinvent themselves.
• Decentered State: The state is no longer a singular actor but one node in a vast array of discursive systems.

2. Niklas Luhmann: Autopoietic Systems

Luhmann explicitly utilised cybernetics to define a Politics of Society.

The political system is merely one specialized part of society, not its center. Social systems (law, economy, politics) are self-producing and function according to their own internal codes. The state's role is transformed from controlling the future to managing risks and maintaining cognitive innovation within its own logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Characteristics and Implications of Technological Governance

The rise of network thinking has profound consequences for the understanding of modern politics and the constitution of the subject.

1. Normative Shifts

While sovereignty sought unity and stability, network thinking prioritises diversity and situational identity. Creative use of tools and strategies replaces moral or rationalistic judgments. Usability becomes a primary criterion for success. Power is exercised through Self-Leadership, where individuals and organisations are expected to be flexible, creative, and self-optimising.

2. From Government to Governance

The analysis concludes that this change is best summarised as the move from Government (centralised, hierarchical, state-led) to Governance (decentralised, complex regulation within networks).