The Arrogance of Crypto Elites: The Seven Sins of DAOs
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The Arrogance of Crypto Elites: The Seven Sins of DAOs
A 10,000-character in-depth critique combining philosophy and social sciences, analyzing human desires in WEB3 and DAOs.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: VION WILLIAMS
01The True Intentions Behind DAOs
Foundational Definition of DAO (Conceptual Background)
DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), a blockchain-based decentralized autonomous entity, is often discussed in Web3 circles without sufficient attention to two related concepts: DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Corporation) and DAS (Decentralized Autonomous Society).
The concept of DAC was first proposed in 2013 by Daniel Larimer, founder of EOS, who also invented Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS)—a consensus mechanism aligned with DAC principles. In 2016, Vitalik Buterin launched The DAO on Ethereum. Reflecting on the contrasting visions of Daniel Larimer and Vitalik Buterin allows us to view DAC and DAO as two distinct ideological streams within the broader movement toward decentralized autonomous organizations.
When considering how DAOs can develop within existing legal frameworks, corporate structures, and regulatory environments, DAC offers a more practical solution. Although Daniel Larimer has stepped back from the crypto scene, we must not dismiss the valuable aspects of the DAC model.
DAS represents a forward-looking vision held by some pioneers—that an ecosystem of decentralized organizations could form an entirely new social structure, suggesting a possible future for digital humanity. Realizing DAS requires the support of countless DAOs; thus, building a network of interconnected DAOs is an inevitable next step. Vitalik Buterin’s recent paper “Finding Web3’s Soul” further develops this idea, introducing the concept of DeSoc (Decentralized Society).
Therefore, when discussing DAOs, we should recognize it as part of a conceptual family. A foundational understanding of DAO cannot be limited merely to its technical functionality.
Why DAOs Are Trustworthy
The trustworthiness of DAOs lies in their use of computer programs to enforce governance rules and execution processes. At the technical level, key features include public, transparent, and immutable on-chain data, along with automated rule enforcement via smart contracts. Put simply, we perceive DAOs as fair games that uphold consensus and monitor compliance.
While we cannot yet implement all complex commercial contract terms through DAOs, the trend is clear: gradually translating written agreements into technological systems that safeguard collective consensus, thereby significantly reducing opportunities for malicious manipulation during execution.
Another major advantage of DAOs is worker ownership protection and proof. Traditional corporate employment models prioritize shareholder interests through equity structures. Fundamentally, employees are treated as human resources or production tools whose sole purpose is to generate profit for the company.
Under traditional capitalism, everything created by an employee belongs to the company, making individual labor contributions difficult to protect or verify. In contrast, on-chain collaboration records in DAOs effectively resolve this issue, with workers’ on-chain data serving indirectly as future entitlements.
Breaking Free from Functional Limitations
We are well aware of the visible obstacles facing DAO development—engineering implementation challenges rooted in technical limitations. However, faster DAO voting tools won't solve fundamental problems. Improving data presentation for research-focused DAOs or enhancing usability for voters won’t eliminate fairness issues caused by skewed governance weightings.
Our focus has been too narrowly confined to engineering solutions, neglecting deeper underlying causes and lacking broader perspective. We need to re-examine what DAOs truly are and seriously consider what kind of future they might bring.
Thus, this article will not approach DAO development through technical engineering or business design. Though I’ve previously worked as a tech-oriented PM in crypto, here I aim to explore the existential value of DAOs and their relationship with societal evolution—seeking a philosophical path for DAOs in our era, grounded in social development patterns and capable of shaping new commercial norms.
The Ambiguity of DAO Discourse
As an imperfect concept, DAO has been imbued by its believers with meanings far beyond its technical definition. When discussing DAOs, we must acknowledge the ambiguity inherent in the language used. Why use "ambiguity" instead of "ambivalence" or "bias"? Readers may find the term unfamiliar and confusing.
Ambivalence refers to confusion about clearly defined things within definite categories, while bias typically denotes value conflicts arising from differing positions. Some argue that ambiguity is a common linguistic trap, even suggesting it should be translated as a synonym for "ambivalence." I believe this is highly inaccurate.
Simply put, ambiguity occurs when seemingly clear and singular language carries multiple, uncertain meanings. In everyday communication, linguistic ambiguity is widespread. Yet, when seriously examining the ambiguous discourse around DAOs, we risk encountering the sorites paradox—a cluster of paradoxes where something appears true at face value but proves false upon logical analysis (no philosophical debate on truth here).
The ambiguous narrative surrounding DAOs leads to such paradoxical constructions, meaning our deconstructions and reconstructions of DAOs throughout development rest on paradoxical foundations. This results in the industry's collective understanding of DAOs becoming a self-referential loop of knowledge—an intellectual exercise detached from comprehensive factual grounding.
The inherent ambiguity of the DAO concept causes widespread misunderstanding within the industry, despite widespread belief in its validity. Resolving ambiguity requires multidisciplinary deconstruction and reconstruction, yet current DAO development lacks awareness of this very characteristic, leading to unclear boundaries in usage—regarding both scope and constraints of applicability.
A deep recognition of DAO as a concept requiring re-deconstruction is a critical intellectual gap across the entire industry. DAO discourse has already transcended technical solutions and become a historically sedimented concept.
Struggle for Conceptual Ownership
An immature yet high-potential concept inevitably triggers competition among stakeholders vying for definitional control. The contest over cultural capital is a crucial method for capturing minds and resources.
Understanding DAO as a new form of social organization reveals its transformative power over social structures—especially concerning redistribution of major利益. Thus, “decentralization” is exaggerated and emphasized by certain actors, weaponized as a tool to dismantle old systems.
In cryptocurrency markets, DAOs are promoted as free-flowing capital arenas where governance serves capital mobility. Any participant can join a seemingly fair research DAO, yet outcomes remain determined by external factors like economic advantage and information asymmetry. DAOs become ATMs for privileged capital.
Behind every DAO business design lies a framework of values—a narrative about function and definition. Controlling the definition of DAO brings substantial rewards. While we strive to build a better digital society, we must avoid being exploited as cannon fodder. The dark forest of crypto capital harbors many ruthless predators; idealistic builders must proceed with caution.
Hidden True Intentions
Light in the deep sea may be bait waiting to lure fish. Similarly, the grand Web3 enlightenment movement contains numerous traps. As Web3 represents a new social paradigm touching vast interests, the real intentions behind DAOs likely stem from capitalist desires that compromise the original ideals of crypto culture.
Can massive public treasuries governed collectively resist short-term temptations under manipulative capital narratives? Can group voting based on economic weight remain loyal to long-term collective interests? Under Ponzi economic models, won’t collective decision-making devolve into a mobocracy?
We must beware of hidden agendas beneath slogans of “freedom,” “democracy,” and “fair decision-making”—especially behind various research DAOs, where human desire hijacks “autonomy” to create unregulated, irresponsible, management-free machines for harvesting “vegetables.”
Unmasking Hypocrisy
DAOs may appear noble, but due to conceptual ambiguity and capital motives, there's a strong chance they’ll fall from idealism into another tool for capital games. Just as certain prominent crypto funds stage Hollywood-style performances, painting a facade of prosperity over pandemic-era bubble economies.
Come, let me help you remove this hypocritical mask and confront the ugliness of the dark forest.
02 Four Critiques of DAO
The Obvious Problems
There are always glaring issues hindering DAO development—not necessarily technical hurdles, but rather a lack of reasonable governance solutions and key theoretical foundations for establishing new consensus. Examples include:
1, the dilemma between decentralization and centralization;
2, how to reasonably design voting weights for autonomous decisions;
3, disputes and limitations between POW and POS consensus;
4, whether shared gains or collective governance matters more;
5, how to prevent tragedy-of-the-commons dynamics in public treasuries;
6, fairness issues in economically-weighted governance;
7, ......
Hidden Issues Beneath the Surface
Non-technical and non-commercial challenges are hard to assess due to their complexity—especially those involving societal dimensions. Solving blockchain’s trilemma won’t automatically enable fully decentralized DAO scaling. Fixing debt problems in a Ponzi economy won’t ensure sustainable public finance in DAOs.
When designing social protocol products for DAOs—such as reputation, credit, or contribution protocols—how do we define good vs. bad reputation? What incentives and governance rights should follow?
Does reputation level equate to governance power? How do we balance economic returns and governance authority derived from reputation? Does blending economic benefits with governance rights lead to digital corruption? How can oversight mechanisms evaluate moral contributions of governors?
These layered questions quickly escalate into systemic challenges of social governance—far exceeding typical service design needs. Unlike Web2 platform membership systems—closed ecosystems where platforms retain interpretive and amendment rights—Web3 reputation protocols must be open-source and global, addressing all natively crypto-literate individuals.
You’re essentially proposing a governance solution for a global crypto society, seeking recognition and financial reward. Even if creators exit, projects continue autonomously. So your challenge isn’t just meeting commercial demand—it’s solving governance for a global encrypted society.
The complexity and difficulty of Web3’s challenges vastly exceed imagination. The questions we’re beginning to grapple with in 2022 represent only the tip of the iceberg.
Symptomatic: Inequality in Governance Rights
Most DAOs currently rely on POS or DPOS consensus mechanisms, using tokens as equity instruments. Voting eligibility and weight depend on metrics like token holdings, holding duration, or locked amounts. Community members act as shareholder-participants contributing to project growth and sharing economic returns. Yet this seemingly fair system clearly creates unfair realities—economic elites gain dominant influence over community governance, turning DAO’s autonomy ideal into fertile ground for capital control.
Why do we embrace DAO ideology? Because we seek equitable outcomes through fair, self-governing models. — “Equality means everyone or every group receives the same resources or opportunities. Equity acknowledges different circumstances and allocates precise resources and opportunities needed for equal outcomes.”
If we hope DAOs become order-keepers of future digital societies—ensuring fair distribution via ‘Code is Law’—their legitimacy hinges on delivering just outcomes. Ignoring responsibility for equitable results enables external advantages to exploit these rules, exacerbating inequality.
Focusing solely on procedural fairness while ignoring outcome accountability perpetuates elite dominance through technical or knowledge-based discipline—using process fairness to mask unfair results. This violates ethical justice—and contradicts our moral aspirations in building DAOs.
Ignoring how external economic advantages distort governance outcomes is a natural flaw in applying POS-like mechanisms internally within DAOs and externally across DAO networks—the most apparent deficiency we feel today.
Root Cause: Limitations of Consensus Algorithms
If we adopt a broad definition of DAO, Bitcoin and Ethereum may be the most successful DAOs in the crypto world. Both POW and POS underpin current cryptographic consensus. All evolved consensus mechanisms ultimately aim to validate distributed ledger states.
Financial ledgers redesigned via cryptography into sequential block structures serve as time machines—mortgaging historical assets to cash out future value. This reflects finance’s spatiotemporal transformation ability. Bitcoin couples time with ledger state via timestamps, maintaining global consensus through POW, mathematical puzzles, and the longest chain rule.
Electricity costs consumed by computational power—historical assets—are exchanged for future-value Bitcoin by maintaining ledger integrity. This offers a fresh perspective on valuing consensus mechanisms—not merely for accounting rights or Sybil resistance.
To address POW’s flaws, the industry introduced POS—not just to reduce resource waste, but to promote a new consensus value paradigm: participants staking personal stakes supposedly lower node malfeasance risks. This reflects a value-driven technical philosophy, not objective fact. Evidence shows POS applications in DAOs still suffer from collusive node attacks.
If any new algorithm offers hope, Solana’s Proof of History (PoH) stands out. Its key innovation decouples time from state at the data block level, enabling asynchronous ledger updates via a global clock—a fundamental breakthrough.
Unfortunately, PoH addresses blockchain timing, not Solana’s core consensus. Still, innovating block coupling structures opens new pathways for tackling root-level DAO governance challenges.
Easter Egg: History is fascinating—Quantum Mechanic first proposed the POS algorithm on bitcointalk in 2011, which led Vion Williams down a rabbit hole researching DAO governance issues in 2022, culminating in this article for you, the reader, right now.
Social Dimension: Illusion of Liberal Democracy
DAOs sometimes create illusions of liberal democracy. Some harbor unrealistic fantasies—like protecting privacy so anyone can freely enter/exit DAOs, advocating egalitarian universal voting, maximizing freeloading benefits while minimizing leadership—all amidst a flood of ideologically vague 'liberalisms.'
Ironically, DAO’s ostensibly open governance becomes fertile ground for myths of freedom and democracy—spiritual vessels for impractical dreams. DAOs become identity havens of existential dependence, where people cling to hyper-romanticized consensus. They turn into collective utopian寄托.
DAOs emerge as symbolic carriers of social currents, much like PFP NFTs reflecting zeitgeist aesthetics distorted by capital manipulation. Though we know they stem from free-market speculation, they become undeniable parts of crypto history.
As mentioned earlier, capital interests have tainted DAO development. The current dream of liberal democracy is itself a fabricated illusion, closely tied to anti-globalization sentiments. Now, a new fantasy of globally liberated democratic capitalism is rising in the Web3 world.
Historical Dimension: Decline of Crypto Spirit
Web3 ≠ Crypto. Web3 emerged from Crypto, inheriting its cryptographic culture. Yet few discuss how the legacy of crypto spirit affects Web3 construction. When building DAOs in the Web3 era, what crypto spirit do they inherit? Most Chinese-speaking DAOs possess nearly zero crypto spirit.
Julian Assange warned the world in *Cypherpunks*: “To prevent surrendering personal rights to any form of violent power.”
Crypto spirit awakens individual sovereignty. Bitcoin arose to protect private wealth from traditional financial interference. In the Web3 era, this translates to awakening awareness of personal data ownership—the right to control one’s data monetization. “Self-defined data value” should be central to Web3 thinking.
Yet the industry seems intent on legitimizing Ponzi economic models, reminding me of early crypto figures with traditional finance backgrounds introducing securitized tokens—turning crypto into a收割 machine for free capital.
Just as Cypherpunks used encrypted email for privacy, and Bitcoin ensured inviolable private property… how many current Web3 projects genuinely protect user data ownership?
Web3 shows signs of losing authentic crypto spirit. Projects cloaked in Web3 skins flood the space, creating illusions of prosperity amid volatile market swings.
Truly native Web3 projects and DAOs remain rare. Without understanding authentic crypto spirit, we cannot distinguish real Web3 initiatives nor build DAOs with genuine crypto-cultural cores. Some may accuse me of clinging to Crypto-native orthodoxy—I respond with Satoshi’s words:
if you don't believe me or don't get it, i don't have time to try to convince you, sorry
Technological Manifestation of Human Desire
In summary, many obstacles to DAO development arise from利益博弈—human desires influencing technological outcomes—loudly echoing through Crypto and Web3 worlds. Some well-intentioned Web3 believers lose sight due to short-term gains. Let me quote a community announcement I once posted:
The three monkeys emoji suffix—“see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”—serves as a self-disciplinary symbol pinned atop our chat. Like the sword of Damocles hanging overhead, it reminds us lone warriors of this age: amid epochal transformation and bull-bear cycles, amidst fading speculative bubbles and emerging investment philosophies, avoiding hearsay, illusions, and dishonesty prevents being swept away by fleeting prosperity, preserving authenticity and preventing misjudging industry trends.
We may enjoy generational boons or suffer fateful blows, oscillating between pioneer and martyr. Regardless, maintain rational critique, independence, and self-restraint—listen carefully, watch wisely, speak thoughtfully. Find your place in chaotic times, stay true to初心, pursue authenticity—a pilgrimage to make money from what you believe.
Beware: collective consensus may reflect时代 bias. Truth often resides with minorities. True Web3 builders must wield the weapons of truth.
03The Seven Sins of DAO
Human Nature as a Non-Technical Variable in DAO
In a previous article, I criticized DAO thus:
“DAO is a difficult and idealistic direction. Whether it’s correct, I’m unsure—any social organizational system is complex. Current DAO thinking stems from rational instrumentalism, offering little tolerance for complex individuals. Human emotions cannot be quantified, nor can individual will be constrained by data protocols.”
I tried excluding human nature—a non-quantifiable factor—from DAO design, even suggesting CryptoAIGC+DAO as a better path. Please forgive my ignorance then, and accept my apology to readers.
Human nature is a non-technical variable in DAO design—a factor that must inform governance rule structures. Cultural architectures embedded in reputation, contribution, and trust protocols implicitly guide human behavior. I’ll elaborate later on embedding protocols into DAO power structures.
Now, let’s confront the seven deadly sins—how they manifest vividly in DAO development. Dante ranked them in *Divine Comedy* by severity: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride. I’ll reverse the order—from root cause to surface symptom—to describe DAO’s seven sins.
Pride: Technocratic Discipline and Illegitimate Authority
Early crypto leaders advocated building public, freely accessible digital spaces immune to authoritarian interference. Yet some crypto elites attempt to monopolize this space via encryption, establishing “self-governance” protocols above real-world law.
Technology functions not only as public power but also embodies moral metaphors enforcing disciplinary control. When Ethereum’s tech community declared orthodoxy, they began asserting technological authority. But legitimacy demands prior justification.
“The spirit of crypto aims to prevent totalitarian control—such as modern states merging with internet tech to form digital surveillance regimes. From a progressive view, this improves governance efficiency. But technology is double-edged. During turbulent eras, nationalist authoritarianism combined with digital capitalism might birth cyberpunk-inspired digital leviathans—cybernetic revolutions enabling total digital erosion of human society.”
Elite pride betrays crypto’s original intent, birthing a new force monopolizing digital space through cryptography—subjugating digital citizens via “consensus entitlements.”
Envy: Exclusionary Struggles Through Power Bribery
Transparent governance rules ironically encourage frequent economic bribery. Transparent decision-making exposes potential profits, breeding envy where disparities appear.
Money serves not only as exchange value but also as a lever regulating economic systems. In public governance, ignoring money’s role in economic fairness hides theft of governance rights and erases legitimacy. Economic superiority becomes competitive governance advantage.
At the DAO consensus layer, treating economic input as fair seems reasonable—but when income gaps are large, economic weight creates financial power capable of monopolizing public interest. This fuels bribery phenomena where increased economic strength opposes others’ power. Ultimately, collective governance becomes a tool benefiting minorities.
Envy inevitably concentrates利益 into power blocs until absolute monopoly emerges—an innate flaw in DAO’s economic governance structure when confronting human nature.
Wrath: Executing Power Under False Pretenses of Justice
In crypto circles, we often see founders ousted via community votes after past ethical violations—say, discriminatory remarks—driven by political correctness.
Legally speaking, once a criminal completes their sentence, most civil rights and social interactions remain accessible—employment, social life, etc.—protected by national law.
But in crypto’s dark forest, inflammatory rhetoric from self-righteous voices prompts masses wielding voting power to enact punitive justice—primitive governance repeated in cutting-edge tech domains. Crypto natives who see themselves as elites reveal human weaknesses indistinguishable from primitives.
Sloth: Irresponsibility Masquerading as Non-Intervention
Some claim DAO governance should be spontaneous, self-driven, free from managerial interference—everything unfolding naturally. Daoist philosophy’s “wu wei” (non-action) provides ideological support: a good DAO emerges organically, like Satoshi’s hands-off Bitcoin governance—a common analogy, though ignoring that Satoshi worked years before stepping away, supported by other cryptographers.
This intellectual laziness misleads early DAO builders. Those profiting are mobile capital focused only on returns, and freeloaders who contribute nothing. When a DAO holds relative resource advantages, “free governance” gives professional “shearers” free rein to plunder, draining public resources.
Governance laziness reflects lost responsibility—especially dangerous when DAO theory is incomplete and infrastructure nascent. Importing mature-stage “wu wei” as governance mode guarantees failure. Worse, it demotivates early contributors.
Greed: Ruthless Exploitation of Data Value
Moderate speculation lubricates healthy financial markets—arbitrage boosts liquidity. But crypto remains an immature financial market, and DAO development depends on this environment. DeFi is central to DAOs, yet all DeFi and Xfi engage in maximal profit hunts—speculation dominates.
DAOs won’t remain purely financial entities—they’ll transform digital existence. Task flows and cash flows may become Web3’s economic indicators. To boost transaction liquidity, AMM concepts will migrate from DeFi to DAO networks, accelerating task and cash flow efficiency. This trains automation bots and turns DAO participants into rapid task-ordering machines.
What follows greed? Crypto capitalists with technical advantages exploit weaker individuals—those disadvantaged economically and professionally—who pledge data rights for minimal liquidity yields. As data extraction and algorithm optimization advance, when staking yields hit zero, Web3’s vulnerable will be “optimized out” as surplus.
We celebrate Web3 liberating data ownership, yet lock users’ data long-term via Staking economies. Once capitalists榨 dry data value, the weak are discarded mercilessly.
Gluttony: Total Consumption of Native Data
Web3, as a movement reclaiming data ownership, awakens users to their data rights. Owning personal data means controlling its usage. Yet as a special resource, most users fail to grasp specific data utility. Transforming data into digital assets becomes the commercial goal of most Web3 services—and a lucrative harvest opportunity for many crypto projects.
From a human nature standpoint, developers’ deceptive grabs meet data owners’ decisional laziness. Today’s Web3 users blindly accept X2EARN hype, unknowingly granting Xfi entities data usage rights. With growing data volume and maturing XFI models, abuses like those in P2P credit reporting will inevitably recur.
Future DAO network protocols—reputation, contribution, credit—especially terrifying credit protocols—will justify comprehensive user data monitoring under risk control pretexts. Worse, they’ll incentivize endless data generation. Eventually, developers consume all user data. Credit, as financial backing, completes indirect capital alienation of users.
We just freed user data from Web2 giants, only to have lurking Web3 monsters devour it whole. What’s the point anymore!
Lust: False Prosperity Behind Pretty Metrics
We constantly see grandiose projects citing data as evidence. Crypto fund investment models rely heavily on quantitative metrics. Given DAOs’ early stage, many flaunt success via metrics—community size, treasury funds, topic counts, etc.
Metrics objectively reflect facts, but metric design can be deceptive. In highly unequal societies, average income masks reality—possibly 1% ultra-rich, 9% affluent, 20% middle-income, 50% poor, 20% extremely poor.
Focusing on underlying truths and long-term sustainability matters more than chasing attractive metrics today. Crypto is a dark forest rife with舆论 manipulation—question all public data metrics.
The Struggle for Existential Power Behind Human Nature
Behind these vivid displays of human nature lies competition for social survival power. The seven sins are conscious acts driven by survival desires. The fluidity of human desire forms the basis of fluid power relations.
04On DAO Power Structures
Power Discipline in Space Production
Last year, pondering metaverse theoretical foundations, I stumbled upon a thick book at Wan Sheng Book Garden titled *The Production of Space* by French philosopher Henri Lefebvre—a uniquely styled, intricately reasoned philosophical masterpiece, hailed as one of five Western Marxist "great books." I didn’t fully grasp it then, but sensed its profound value. Following my principle of forming connections first, results later, I shelved it.
This year, while studying DAO network construction, I coincidentally read Wang Min’an’s *Body, Space, and Postmodernity*. In the chapter “Political Economy of Space Production,” I finally cracked open a window into spatial production theory, linking insights from *Space, Knowledge, and Power*, deepening my understanding of space-power dynamics. Gratitude to Professor Wang Min’an.
Lefebvre’s theory doesn’t refer to material production within space, but the production of space itself. Space is man-made, political, the product of competing interests, saturated with ideologies.
“Every society, each mode of production, each specific set of production relations produces its own unique space. Since each mode generates a particular spatial form, transitions between modes necessarily involve new spaces—planned and organized systematically.” This precisely reflects DAO space production.
In Foucault’s *Discipline and Punish*, modern society is spatialized. The panopticon prison exemplifies social spatialization—space displaying disciplinary power through automatic, anonymous surveillance, omnipresent and constant. Power flows through space to reshape and produce individuals—an automatic, anonymous, enduring mechanism.
“In general monetary economies, especially capitalist societies, the mutual control of money, time, and space forms a series of significant social forces. Money, time, and space are deeply interrelated, mutually influencing and controlling each other. Practices of space and time are never neutral in social affairs. They express class or other social contents and often become focal points of intense social struggle. To expand social power, one must seize spatial dominance—meaning whoever controls spatial deployment, transportation technologies, and geopolitical distribution commands societal leadership.” — Excerpt from *Political Economy of Space Production*
When Lefebvre’s and Foucault’s theories converge, a foundation emerges for understanding DAO power structures through spatial production theory.
Distributed and Penetrative Micro-Power
Knowledge-based discipline is Foucault’s most famous power theory—a ubiquitous micro-power operating subtly throughout life. Wherever differences exist between individuals, power relations emerge. This omnipresent power defines Foucault’s “disciplinary society.”
Foucault said: “Power is not a mechanism, a structure, or a force we possess; it’s merely a name we give to complex strategic situations in specific societies. Power is everywhere—not because it envelops everything in an invincible totality, but because it is produced at every moment, everywhere, even in all relationships. Power is everywhere not because it includes everything, but because it comes from everywhere.”
Knowledge-based power permeates regulations and institutional systems. Moral punishment manifests through symbolic rule systems. New economics and technologies produce what Foucault calls “symbolic techniques,” built on six principles:
Minimum Quantity Principle: Punishment must make
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@Vion_Williams
