← Writing

Seven Thinkers on Mediated and Hidden Power Draft

A reading companion for the essay built around the ariel app — a single-owner Instagram clone meant as a “philosophical exaggeration” that makes the hidden control of platforms visible — and the broader membrane / interception thesis (technology that interfaces with social media so you don’t have to, sparing you the ads and the algorithmic feed).

This document merges two layers. The interpretive spine maps each thinker onto your argument and your two artifacts (where the ariel app and the membrane layer break each link in the chain). The scholarly apparatus — precise editions, sourced quotations with page numbers, “Relationships,” and citation caveats — comes from the research dossier and is here so you can quote with confidence. Read the spine to understand the argument; mine the apparatus when you write.

How to use this document

Seven thinkers, in the order they should appear in your argument. They are not a grab-bag. Read in this sequence and they assemble into one continuous claim:

  1. The medium is never neutral — McLuhan + Latour. The form, and the artifact, shape you regardless of content. (Note the two pedigrees: McLuhan’s claim is phenomenological/perceptual — media restructure the sensorium; Latour’s is ontological/political — artifacts carry congealed “scripts” that act on us like small laws. Same conclusion, different routes. Don’t conflate them.)
  2. Something is hidden behind the “neutral” thing — Marx + Debord. The commodity and the spectacle conceal the human relations they’re made of. (This claim is Marxist in shape even when post-Marxist in vocabulary: Debord literally détournes the opening of Capital.)
  3. How that power actually operates, and why it’s invisible to its subjects — a clean chronological spine: Foucault (1975) → Deleuze (1990) → Han (2014). Discipline → continuous modulation → power we exercise on ourselves and call freedom. (This arc is a cumulative periodization, not a refutation chain — Deleuze literally calls his text a “postscript” to Foucault, and Han builds on both even where he claims to supersede them.)

Your two artifacts then act against this lineage:

  • The ariel app re-attaches a visible face to a power these thinkers describe as faceless, automatic, and internalized.
  • The membrane / interception layer is a practical refusal of it — re-writing the script, reclaiming the code, and breaking the mediation.

Each section below follows the same shape: context → key works (with editions) → core concepts in depth → direct quotes (sourced) → how it feeds your thesis → relationships → productive tension → what to read first.

One framing caveat to state in the essay itself: this “lineage” is your analytical construct, a retrospective reconstruction — not a documented historical genealogy. None of the seven self-identified as part of a single tradition, and Latour in particular would resist being shelved next to Debord or Marx. Presenting it as your reading (rather than received fact) is both more honest and more interesting.

1. Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980) — the medium is the message

Context

Herbert Marshall McLuhan was born in Edmonton, raised in Winnipeg, took degrees at Manitoba, then went to Trinity Hall, Cambridge (1934), earning a second BA in 1936 and a PhD in 1943 (dissertation on Thomas Nashe). At Cambridge he absorbed the New Criticism of I.A. Richards and F.R. Leavis — so his roots are in close attention to the form of artifacts, not their content. He converted to Catholicism in 1937. He taught at Toronto from 1946 until his death and, with Harold Innis, Edmund Carpenter, and Eric Havelock, formed the Toronto School of Communication Theory. He extended Innis’s work on the political consequences of media (Empire and Communications, 1950) into a phenomenology of perception, looking for a way to think about radio, film, and TV without either moralism or technocratic cheerleading.

Key works

  • The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man (1951) — advertising read as folklore.
  • The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962) — the print revolution produced the linear, individualist modern subject. Relevant.
  • Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (McGraw-Hill, 1964) — ch. 1 “The Medium Is the Message.” The single most relevant text.
  • The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects (with Quentin Fiore, 1967) — illustrated companion; the “Massage” is a pun (the medium works us over).
  • War and Peace in the Global Village (1968).
  • Laws of Media: The New Science (with Eric McLuhan, posthumous, 1988) — the tetrad.

Core concepts

  • The medium is the message. Not that content doesn’t exist, but that the scale, pace, and pattern a medium imposes on human affairs matter more than what’s transmitted. Understanding Media ch. 1: “the personal and social consequences of any medium … result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves.” For your essay: arguing about the posts is a category error; the point is the feed.
  • The content of a medium is always another medium. Speech is the content of writing; writing of print; print of telegraph. We never see the medium itself, only what it contains — which is exactly why its effects are invisible.
  • The “juicy piece of meat.” The content keeps the “watchdog of the mind” busy while the medium reprograms you. Your single most useful McLuhan line for the invisibility theme.
  • Extensions of man / auto-amputation / Narcissus narcosis. Every medium extends a faculty (wheel→foot, print→eye, electric circuitry→central nervous system) — and we go numb to the extended faculty. His reading of Narcissus: hypnotized not by self-love but by an extension of himself he fails to recognize. This is McLuhan’s version of “we are not aware of their influence.”
  • Figure and ground. We perceive figures (content, the post) and ignore the ground (the medium, the platform) — yet the ground is where the action is. Critique means making the ground into a figure.
  • The global village. Electric media collapse space/time and “retribalize” the world — described with ambivalence (anxiety, friction, surveillance), not as utopia.
  • Hot vs. cool media. High-definition/low-participation vs. low-definition/high-participation. Empirically thin — McLuhan even reversed his own examples — so use sparingly.
  • The tetrad (Laws of Media): every medium enhances, obsolesces, retrieves, and (pushed to its limit) reverses.

Direct quotes (sourced)

  • “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.” — Understanding Media, ch. 1, p. 7 (MIT Press ed.).
  • “The ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” — Understanding Media, ch. 1.
  • “The ‘content’ of writing or print is speech, but the reader is almost entirely unaware either of print or speech.” — Understanding Media, p. 25.
  • DO NOT attribute to McLuhan: “We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us.” This is John M. Culkin, S.J., “A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan,” Saturday Review, March 18, 1967 — the sentence is on p. 70, glossing McLuhan’s “Life imitates art.” In the essay, ”as Culkin glossed McLuhan in 1967” signals scholarly care and is the correct credit.

How it feeds your thesis

McLuhan is the bedrock of “platforms are not neutral.” The neutrality illusion is the belief that a medium is a passive pipe and only content matters. Your ariel app is a McLuhan experiment: it holds the content roughly constant (the Instagram vocabulary — photos, follows, comments, DMs) and changes only the medium (one owner, no algorithm, no ads). Any shift in how it feels is, by definition, a property of the medium. In McLuhan’s terms the app makes the ground into a figure — it forces the invisible environment to appear as an object of attention. And “Narcissus narcosis” + “the juicy meat” together give you the precise mechanism of the invisibility at the heart of your essay.

Relationships

Decisive influence from Harold Innis (whom McLuhan called his master). Baudrillard extended him into simulation; Friedrich Kittler into hardware-oriented German media theory. Latour’s “extensions”/“actants” do analogous boundary-dissolving work, though Latour rarely cites him.

Productive tension

McLuhan is a proud determinist, uninterested in economics, ownership, and politics — who builds the medium and who profits. That’s exactly the gap Marx, Latour, and Foucault fill. Use McLuhan for “the medium shapes us”; pivot immediately to the others for “and here is who shapes the medium, and why.”

Read first

Understanding Media, ch. 1. For the whole argument in an afternoon, read The Medium Is the Massage cover to cover — it’s mostly images.

2. Bruno Latour (1947–2022) — artifacts have scripts; technology is society made durable

Context

Born in Beaune, Burgundy, into the Maison Louis Latour wine family. Trained in philosophy and theology, did fieldwork in Côte d’Ivoire, then the lab ethnography (with Steve Woolgar) that became Laboratory Life (1979), a founding text of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Taught at the École des Mines and Sciences Po; later turned to ecological politics. Where McLuhan is aphoristic and grand, Latour is concrete and mischievous — his arguments hang on door-closers, speed bumps, and hotel keys, which is a gift to an essayist. He died of pancreatic cancer on October 9, 2022, in Paris, aged 75.

Key works

  • Laboratory Life (with Woolgar, Princeton UP, 1979/1986).
  • Science in Action (Harvard UP, 1987).
  • “Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer,” published under the pseudonym Jim Johnson, Social Problems 35:3 (June 1988), pp. 298–310. Key text — the door-closer essay.
  • “Technology Is Society Made Durable,” in John Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters, Sociological Review Monograph 38, Routledge, 1991, pp. 103–131. Key text.
  • We Have Never Been Modern (French 1991; Harvard UP, Porter trans., 1993).
  • “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts,” in Bijker & Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society, MIT Press, 1992, pp. 225–258. Key text — the speed-bump essay.
  • Aramis, or the Love of Technology (French 1992; Harvard UP, 1996).
  • Pandora’s Hope (Harvard UP, 1999).
  • “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?“, Critical Inquiry 30:2 (Winter 2004), pp. 225–248.
  • Reassembling the Social (Oxford UP, 2005).
  • Closely related: Madeleine Akrich, “The De-scription of Technical Objects” (1992) — source of the “script” vocabulary.

Core concepts

  • Actor-Network Theory & the symmetry principle. Society is the temporary stabilization of networks of human and non-human actants; humans and non-humans get the same analytic vocabulary. A door, a microbe, and an engineer are all actants when they make a difference.
  • Scripts, delegation, prescription. Engineers inscribe a program of action into an artifact (a script); the artifact then delegates the disciplinary work a human or sign used to do; and it prescribes behavior back to users — “the moral and ethical dimension of mechanisms” (Johnson 1988, p. 301). A platform UI is dense with scripts: pull-to-refresh, the infinite feed, the streak, the “seen” receipt — each prescribes a behavior you feel as your own impulse.
  • The speed bump / “sleeping policeman.” Engineers translate ”slow down for pedestrians” into a lump of asphalt that addresses you through a different motive — ”slow down or break your suspension.” The political/moral command is translated into matter and changes form en route. The driver obeys morality without feeling moral.
  • The door-closer / “groom.” The hydraulic spring does the labor of a human reminding everyone to shut the door — it disciplines people on the designer’s behalf (and rudely: it slams in children’s faces).
  • “Technology is society made durable.” Power relations are fragile in words and habits; they become durable — they last, scale, and self-enforce — when built into materials humans can’t easily renegotiate. Software is the purest case: a shipped decision acts on millions, around the clock, without re-deciding.
  • Black-boxing. A stable, working network becomes a black box: we stop asking how it works or who assembled it. A black box is, almost by definition, the thing whose politics we no longer see — until it breaks.
  • Immutable mobiles, translation, the Parliament of Things, matters of fact vs. matters of concern (the late, “care”-oriented turn).

Direct quotes (sourced)

  • “Technology is society made durable.” — title/thesis, 1991 (Law, ed., pp. 103–131).
  • On the speed bump (“Missing Masses,” 1992): “there is another radical, nonfigurative solution: the road bumper … ‘un gendarme couché,’ a laid policeman. It is impossible for us not to slow down, or else we break our suspension.”
  • “Here they are, the hidden and despised social masses who make up our morality. They knock at the door of sociology, requesting a place.” — “Missing Masses.”
  • On delegation (Johnson 1988): “what defines our social relations is, for the most part, prescribed back to us by nonhumans. Knowledge, morality, craft, force, sociability are not properties of humans but of humans accompanied by their retinue of delegated characters.” (NB: the “Jim Johnson” pseudonym was forced by editors who wanted French references removed; Latour reveals the joke in the footnotes.)
  • On the critic, from “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?” (2004, p. 246): “The critic is not the one who debunks, but the one who assembles … not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naive believers, but the one who offers … arenas in which to gather.”

How it feeds your thesis

If McLuhan gives you “the medium is not neutral,” Latour gives the mechanism, and it’s more precise and more damning. The platform is a dense bundle of scripts that delegate its owners’ interests into your behavior, made durable in code, then black-boxed so you stop seeing the hand that wrote it. “We are not aware of their influence” = the black-boxing of a script. Two payoffs:

  • The ariel app opens the black box. Being obviously, personally owned, it un-blackboxes the platform — you can’t pretend “this is just how feeds work,” because here’s the person who decided how this one works.
  • The membrane / interception layer is re-inscription / un-delegation. Software that pulls only what you asked for and renders it your way strips out the platform’s script and writes your own. The speed bump is “the policeman whose face has been removed”; re-attaching the face is the design move.

Relationships

Influenced by Michel Serres (mediation), Garfinkel (ethnomethodology), Greimas (semiotics), and Gabriel Tarde; collaborators Michel Callon and John Law. Hostile to most Marxist critical theory (hence the friction with the Marx–Debord wing of your lineage); courteous but distant from Foucault — both think power as relational, but Latour rejects discipline/discourse in favor of materials.

Productive tension

ANT’s symmetry can flatten power: if a billionaire’s app and a single user’s phone are both “actants,” you can lose the gross asymmetry between them. So don’t let the vocabulary talk you out of naming who has more power. Use Latour for the granular how (scripts, delegation, durability); let Marx and Foucault supply the asymmetry and the interests.

Read first

“Where Are the Missing Masses?” (~25 pp.) + Akrich’s “De-scription” for the script vocabulary. The speed-bump passage in Pandora’s Hope is a couple of pages and worth finding for the quote.

3. Karl Marx (1818–1883) — commodity fetishism and the hidden human relation

Context

Born in Trier into an assimilated Jewish family that converted to Lutheranism; studied at Bonn and Berlin (Young Hegelians); doctorate on Democritus and Epicurus. Edited the Rheinische Zeitung until censorship, then Paris, Brussels, and finally London (1849), writing in the British Museum for the rest of his life, in lifelong partnership with Engels. Das Kapital, Band I: 1867 (Hamburg). You don’t need all of Marx — keep the section tight on concealment, because concealment is your theme.

Key works (the relevant ones)

  • Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (alienation; published 1932).
  • The German Ideology (with Engels, 1846; published 1932) — ideology and the “ruling ideas.”
  • Capital, Vol. I (1867), Ch. 1, §4, “The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret” — the core text, and short.

Core concepts

  • Use-value vs. exchange-value; the labor theory of value (background): exchange-value reflects “socially necessary labor time.”
  • Commodity fetishism (the keystone). Social relations between producers appear as relations between things, and as natural properties of the commodities. A price seems intrinsic to an object, like weight, rather than the congealed trace of human labor and social relations. We bow to the object and forget the people — a fetish by analogy with religious objects endowed with a power that in fact came from the worshippers.
  • Alienation (1844 Manuscripts): estrangement from the product, the act of labor, species-being, and other people.
  • Ideology / the “ruling ideas” (German Ideology): “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” Arrangements that serve the powerful come to seem like neutral common sense; ideology works like a camera obscura, presenting reality upside-down.
  • Reification — Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (1923), “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,” generalizes commodity fetishism into a universal cognitive structure of capitalist society (law, bureaucracy, science, consciousness). This is the decisive bridge from Marx to Debord.
  • The digital extension: Dallas Smythe’s “audience commodity” (1977) — in commercial media the real product is you; your attention is sold to advertisers, and content is bait. Contemporary digital-labor theory (Christian Fuchs) — users perform unwaged labor (posting, liking, tagging) that produces the value owners extract. You work for the platform for free and experience it as leisure.

Direct quotes (sourced)

  • Moore/Aveling translation, Capital I, ch. 1 §4: “There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. … we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. … This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour … so soon as they are produced as commodities.”
  • Fowkes translation (Penguin, 1976, p. 165): “It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things.”
  • Opening of Capital (Fowkes, p. 125): “The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an immense collection of commodities.” (Memorize this — Debord détournes it word-for-word in Thesis 1.)
  • “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” — The German Ideology.

How it feeds your thesis

Commodity fetishism is, almost word for word, the engine of “we are not aware of their influence.” The feed presents itself as a thing with natural properties — “this is just how the timeline behaves” — and that thing-like appearance conceals the human relations behind it: engineers, executives, advertisers, decisions, the extraction of your attention as value. Your ariel app is de-fetishization: it forcibly restores the hidden human relation — this is not a neutral thing, this is my app, the relation behind the screen is a relation to me, Ariel. The “ruling ideas” point names platform neutrality itself as the ideology of the owners, circulating as common sense. The audience-commodity / digital-labor strand sharpens the single-owner provocation into the unavoidable question the big platforms dodge: who profits from your activity?

Relationships

Hegel is the scaffold (the inversion, the verkehrte Welt); Feuerbach supplies the template of religious projection (fetishism = The Essence of Christianity applied to commodities). Lukács is the transmission belt to Debord. Foucault treated Marx as “part of the air everyone breathed” while denying he was a Marxist.

Productive tension

Marx reduces almost everything to economics and class; Foucault and Han argue control runs through more than money — knowledge, norms, the psyche. Use Marx for the concealment and the extraction; let Foucault and Han carry the parts of control that aren’t about money at all.

Read first

Capital Vol. I, Ch. 1, §4 (“The Fetishism of the Commodity”) — a few pages, astonishingly relevant. Then the short “ruling ideas” passage from The German Ideology.

4. Guy Debord (1931–1994) — the spectacle is a social relation mediated by images

Context

Born in Paris; arrived in the early 1950s, joined the Lettrist International, and in 1957 co-founded the Situationist International (SI, 1957–1972) — a revolutionary avant-garde fusing the Marxist critique of alienation with surrealist/Dada technique. Members included Asger Jorn and Raoul Vaneigem (many later expelled). Debord made films, played an overstated role in May 1968, became reclusive and alcoholic, and shot himself on November 30, 1994. He writes in numbered theses — dense, aphoristic — and is the bridge from diagnosis to tactics.

Key works

  • “Theory of the Dérive” (Internationale Situationniste no. 2, 1958).
  • La Société du spectacle (Buchet-Chastel, 1967). English: Fredy Perlman et al. (Black & Red, 1970/77, free online, rougher); Donald Nicholson-Smith (Zone Books, 1994, standard for academic citation); Ken Knabb (Bureau of Public Secrets, 2002/2014, most readable + accurate).
  • Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (1988; Verso, Imrie trans., 1990) — the “integrated spectacle.”
  • Panegyric (1989, memoir); In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni (1978 film).

Core concepts

  • The spectacle — not “media”/“images” per se, but a stage of capitalism in which social relations are mediated by, and lived as, images.
  • Concentrated (the dictator’s single image) / diffuse (consumer capitalism’s competing commodity-images) / integrated (1988: the two fuse, weaving surveillance, secrecy, terrorism, and PR into one seamless apparatus — uncannily the platform era, written before the web).
  • Separation and passivity — the spectacle isolates and turns actors into spectators; the more you look, the less you live.
  • Détournement — hijacking and repurposing existing cultural materials to invert their meaning; the SI’s signature technique.
  • Dérive (“drift”) and psychogeography — breaking habitual, managed experience of the city.
  • Recuperation — capital’s absorption and neutralization of radical critique by turning it into commodity.

Direct quotes (sourced; Knabb 2014, with Nicholson-Smith noted)

  • Thesis 1: “In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.” (Knabb’s own annotation flags this as détournement of the opening of Capital.)
  • Thesis 4: “The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.” (Détournement of Capital Vol. I: “Capital is not a thing; it is a social relationship between people mediated by things.” Nicholson-Smith renders it: “The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.“)
  • Thesis 17: “The first stage of the economy’s domination of social life brought about … a degradation of being into having…. The present stage … [shifts] from having to appearing.”
  • Thesis 24: “The fetishistic appearance of pure objectivity in spectacular relations conceals their true character as relations between people and between classes.” (Knabb cites Lukács here — your Marx→Lukács→Debord bridge, made explicit by the translator.)
  • Thesis 30: “The more he contemplates, the less he lives … the less he understands his own life and his own desires.”
  • Thesis 34: “The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point that it becomes image.”

How it feeds your thesis

Debord wrote the diagnosis of social media decades early. On Instagram, relationships are literally mediated by images: your bond with a friend runs through their grid, stories, highlights — Thesis 4 made concrete. The integrated spectacle of 1988 predicts your target — total, ambient, surveilled, inescapable. The Situationist détournement gives your membrane / interception strategy a name and a lineage: repurposing the platform’s own infrastructure against its intended use. The ariel app is détournement too — it hijacks the whole grammar of Instagram (feed, follow, like) to critique Instagram. And Debord supplies the stakes: the spectacle produces separation and passivity; your project’s implicit promise is the opposite — to restore something “directly lived,” to make people build, own, and connect rather than scroll.

Relationships

Lukács is the decisive philosophical influence (through him, Hegel and Marx); Henri Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life and urban sociology are immediate. Secondary source of choice: Anselm Jappe, Guy Debord (California UP, 1999), which argues Debord is an heir of the young Lukács, not a precursor of Baudrillard — see the chapter “Debord and Lukács.” Mutual non-citation with Foucault despite Paris contemporaneity.

Productive tension

Debord is totalizing and bleak — if the spectacle is inescapable, how does anyone resist, and aren’t the remedies (détournement, drifting) romantic and small? But that romanticism is useful: your essay is a hopeful build-your-own-tools romanticism and Debord gives it a serious genealogy. Be honest that the spectacle recuperates most opposition — which is why the exaggeration of the ariel app, rather than another earnest “better feed,” might be the move that resists absorption.

Read first

The Society of the Spectacle — theses 1–34 first (Knabb suggests starting at ch. 4 if ch. 1 is too dense). Then dip into Comments (1988) for the “integrated spectacle.” State which translation you’re quoting.

5. Michel Foucault (1926–1984) — discipline, the Panopticon, and power without an owner

Context

Born in Poitiers; trained at the ENS; shaped by Hyppolite (Hegel), Canguilhem, Dumézil. After May 1968 he co-founded the GIP (Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons) with Deleuze (1971). Held the chair in “History of Systems of Thought” at the Collège de France from 1970 until his death from AIDS-related illness on June 25, 1984. The most influential theorist of power in the last century: power is not mainly a thing held at the top and wielded down, but diffuse, productive, and relational, running through institutions, knowledge, and everyday practice — and it makes the kinds of subjects we are.

Key works

  • Madness and Civilization (1961), The Birth of the Clinic (1963), The Order of Things (1966), The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969).
  • Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Surveiller et punir, Gallimard, 1975; Eng. trans. Alan Sheridan, Pantheon, 1977). The single most relevant work — read “Panopticism.”
  • The History of Sexuality, Vol. I (1976) — biopower; “power is everywhere.”
  • Society Must Be Defended (lectures 1975–76).
  • The Birth of Biopolitics (lectures 1978–79; Palgrave 2008) — the analysis of neoliberalism and homo œconomicus that prefigures Han’s psychopolitics. The bridge from Foucault to Han.

Core concepts

  • Power/knowledge — inseparable; every form of knowledge implies a regime of power (statistics, medicine, the data profile).
  • Productive power — power doesn’t just forbid; it produces subjects, bodies, desires, discourses.
  • Sovereign → disciplinary power. The book opens with a gruesome public execution, then a dull prison timetable. Sovereign power = spectacular, occasional, aimed at the body (the scaffold). Disciplinary power = continuous, quiet, aimed at training — “docile bodies” via surveillance, timetables, drill, ranking, the examination — and it operates in enclosures (prison, school, barracks, factory, hospital).
  • The Panopticon. Bentham’s design as the diagram of modern power: a ring of backlit cells around a central tower; the inmate can never tell whether they’re watched, so they watch themselves. Two consequences decisive for you: power becomes automatic (no guard need be present) and disindividualized (“it does not matter who exercises power”).
  • Power is diffuse and relational — “comes from everywhere”; exercised from innumerable points, not stored on a throne.
  • Governmentality / the entrepreneur of the self — the late lectures analyze neoliberalism as a rationality that reshapes the subject into a little enterprise. The seed Han grows.

Direct quotes (sourced; Sheridan trans., Vintage/Pantheon 1977/1995, “Panopticism”)

  • “Visibility is a trap.” (p. 200)
  • “Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” (p. 201)
  • “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; … he becomes the principle of his own subjection.” (pp. 202–203)
  • “The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power.” (p. 202)
  • On productive power (p. 194): “We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes,’ it ‘represses’ … In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”
  • History of Sexuality I (Hurley trans., 1978, p. 93): “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” And (p. 95): “Where there is power, there is resistance.”

How it feeds your thesis

Foucault names the deep structure of the platform. The feed is a digital Panopticon: permanent potential visibility (your activity, data, “seen” status, the possibility that someone or some algorithm is watching), so you discipline yourself — curate, perform, self-edit. His ”automatic functioning of power” and ”it does not matter who exercises power” diagnose why the controller is invisible: the system runs on its own, the tower can look empty, the power feels ownerless and natural. And here is your sharpest single move: Foucault insists modern power has no single owner — and the big platforms exploit exactly this, presenting their power as automatic and ownerless (“it’s the algorithm,” “it’s just the platform”) to hide that there is, in cold fact, an owner. The ariel app reverses two centuries of power becoming faceless: it collapses the empty-tower Panopticon back into an old-fashioned sovereign and puts one named human — you — visibly in the tower. Not “platforms are panopticons” (everyone says that), but “platforms weaponize the ownerlessness of the panopticon, and the cure is to make ownership visible again.” That is a genuine, citable contribution.

Relationships

Master: Canguilhem; rival: Sartre; ally: Deleuze (the GIP). Read Nietzsche as the source of genealogy; distant-but-not-hostile to Marx; Habermas his great German antagonist. Deleuze wrote a book-length tribute (Foucault, 1986).

Productive tension

The diffuse-power model is so good at explaining how power is everywhere that it can make power seem to belong to no one — convenient for actual billionaires. For you this isn’t a problem — it’s the engine of your argument: the platforms trade on this dissolution of responsibility, and your artifacts re-locate it. Name the tension and you turn it into the pivot of your essay.

Read first

Discipline and Punish, Part 3, ch. 3, “Panopticism.” If you read one chapter of theory for this essay, read that. Then the “power is everywhere” pages of History of Sexuality I. (Cite pagination consistently — the 1977 Pantheon hardcover, 1995 Vintage, and UK Penguin differ even though the Sheridan translation is the same.)

6. Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) — societies of control and the algorithmic feed, predicted

Context

Born in Paris (his brother died in deportation). Studied under Hyppolite, Canguilhem, Alquié; taught at the experimental Paris VIII–Vincennes, where his seminars were legendary. He had chronic respiratory illness (tuberculosis, a lung removed; a heavy smoker) and ended his life on November 4, 1995, by jumping from his apartment window, after a tracheotomy for worsening illness. For your essay you need one short, freestanding text — resist dragging in the vast Deleuze-Guattari corpus, which would dilute a surgical fit.

Key works (relevant only)

  • Foucault (Minuit, 1986; Minnesota, 1988) — his reading of Foucault, the year after Foucault’s death.
  • “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” French: “Post-scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle,” L’Autre Journal no. 1, May 1990 (collected in Pourparlers, Minuit, 1990). English: trans. Martin Joughin, October vol. 59 (Winter 1992), pp. 3–7 (MIT Press); also in Negotiations, Columbia UP, 1995, pp. 177–182, retitled “Postscript on Control Societies.” Five pages. Read the whole thing.

Core concepts

  • From enclosures to control. Foucault’s disciplinary enclosures (family, school, barracks, factory, prison) — discrete institutions you pass through, each a fresh start — are everywhere “in crisis.” We are entering societies of control: continuous modulation across porous, networked institutions.
  • Molds vs. modulation. Enclosures are molds (fixed castings); control is modulation — “a self-deforming cast that continuously changes.” No walls, no end: “one is never finished with anything.” Infinite scroll is modulation made literal.
  • The dividual. You fragment from an individual (signature + number in a mass) into a “dividual” — a bundle of data points, scores, and profile fragments; masses become “samples, data, markets, or ‘banks.‘”
  • Code vs. watchword. Discipline ran on watchwords; control runs on codes “that mark access to information, or reject it” — passwords, access, the gate that silently opens or doesn’t.
  • “The corporation is a spirit, a gas.” Perpetual modulating competition (bonuses, rankings, continuous assessment) replaces the solid factory.
  • Deleuze credits William S. Burroughs for the term “control.”

Direct quotes (sourced; Joughin trans., October 59, 1992, pp. 3–7)

  • “Enclosures are molds, distinct castings, but controls are a modulation, like a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point.” (p. 4)
  • “The corporation has replaced the factory, and the corporation is a spirit, a gas.” (p. 4)
  • “In the disciplinary societies one was always starting again … while in the societies of control one is never finished with anything.” (p. 5)
  • “Individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and masses, samples, data, markets, or ‘banks.‘” (p. 5)
  • “The man of control is undulatory, in orbit, in a continuous network. Everywhere surfing has replaced the older sports.” (p. 6)
  • Closing: “It’s not a question of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons.” (Arguably your design brief.)

How it feeds your thesis

This is the best description of the algorithmic feed ever written, and it predates the feed by fifteen-plus years. The mapping is almost embarrassing:

  • Modulation / “self-deforming cast”: the feed is never the same twice; “one is never finished with anything” = you can never reach the bottom.
  • The dividual: the platform addresses your profile — a recombined statistical ghost wearing your name — not you.
  • Codes and passwords: your whole relationship is gated by access; what you can see is what the code grants.

Where Foucault’s Panopticon is still architectural (a building, a place), Deleuze captures what’s new: control that is spaceless, continuous, ambient, with no walls to stand outside of. That’s the feed exactly. And it sharpens both artifacts:

  • The membrane / interception layer is a refusal of modulation — to pull only what you chose, in a fixed order, with an end, is to re-introduce a boundary against a power whose nature is to have none; it also reclaims the code (you hold the password; you decide what’s granted/rejected). “Find new weapons” is the brief, and a modulating power can’t be met by a static org-chart dashboard — the tool must itself surface the current face of the current decision.
  • The ariel app makes you an individual again, not a dividual — it refuses to slice you into a profile to modulate; it addresses whole people who chose to follow a whole person.

Relationships

Decisive bond with Foucault (close friends and GIP allies until a late-1970s falling-out; the 1986 Foucault book and 1985–86 seminar prepare the Postscript, which explicitly continues Discipline and Punish). With Guattari, the broader apparatus (assemblages, rhizomes) that informs the Postscript even when uninvoked.

Productive tension

The “Postscript” is suggestive, not systematic — explicitly a sketch; Deleuze doesn’t work the mechanics out. For an essayist the brevity is a feature: quotable, self-contained, and you’re not on the hook for the whole Deleuzian metaphysics. Cite it for the image (modulation, dividual, gas); don’t pretend it’s a complete theory.

Read first

The “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” in full — about five pages; read it three times. It will reshape how you see your phone. (Cite whichever edition you read — the October 1992 and Negotiations 1995 versions differ slightly, including the title.)

7. Byung-Chul Han (b. 1959) — psychopolitics, transparency, and power that feels like freedom

Context

Born in Seoul; studied metallurgy at Korea University, then arrived in Germany at 22 without knowing German, having told his parents he was continuing science. Studied philosophy, German literature, and Catholic theology at Freiburg and Munich; PhD at Freiburg (1994) on Stimmung (mood) in Heidegger; habilitation at Basel (2000). Taught at the HfG Karlsruhe and, from 2012, the Universität der Künste Berlin. Reclusive by design — he declines interviews and won’t give his birth date, accusing transparency itself of being totalitarian. His books are short, aphoristic, and prolific (30+), and bestsellers especially in the Hispanophone world. He was named the 2025 Princess of Asturias Award laureate for Communication and Humanities. He is the capstone of your lineage: he answers the question the others leave hanging — if power is this pervasive, why don’t we feel oppressed or resist? Answer: because today’s power doesn’t oppress — it pleases, and we do it to ourselves.

Key works (German / English)

  • Müdigkeitsgesellschaft (2010) / The Burnout Society (Stanford UP, trans. Erik Butler, 2015) — the achievement-subject.
  • Transparenzgesellschaft (2012) / The Transparency Society (Stanford UP, 2015) — compulsory exposure.
  • Im Schwarm (2013) / In the Swarm: Digital Prospects (MIT Press, 2017) — the digital swarm; loss of respect/distance.
  • Psychopolitik (S. Fischer, 2014) / Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power (Verso, trans. Erik Butler, 2017). The single most relevant work.
  • Later: The Disappearance of Rituals (2019/2020), Non-things (2021/2022), Infocracy (2021/2022), Vita Contemplativa (2022/2024).

Core concepts

  • The achievement society / achievement-subject (Leistungssubjekt). Foucault’s disciplinary subject obeyed negatives (“you should not”); the contemporary subject obeys positives (“you can,” “Yes, we can”). It feels like a free entrepreneur but is the slave of an internalized imperative to optimize — “perpetrator and victim at once.”
  • Self-exploitation / auto-exploitation. Marx’s worker was exploited by a capitalist; Han’s subject exploits itself, and so “class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself.”
  • Smart power / friendly power. Neoliberal power doesn’t threaten or forbid — it seduces, motivates, pleases; it speaks in the voice of Siri and the “Like.” “The greater power is, the more quietly it works.”
  • Freedom as the form of coercion — the most arresting claim: “freedom itself … is producing coercion.” We aren’t forced to post or optimize — we choose to, and are governed precisely through that free choice.
  • The transparency society. The demand for total openness is coercive, not liberating; it eliminates negativity, secrecy, distance, mystery. His update to the Panopticon: the digital panopticon has no central tower — the inmates illuminate themselves, voluntarily, and call it connection.
  • The swarm. Digital communication produces not a public (rational deliberation) but a leaderless swarm with no collective “we” — shitstorms, not strikes; it erodes respect (which needs distance).
  • Psychopolitics — where biopolitics targeted biological life, psychopolitics targets the psyche via emotional data, predictive analytics, nudges.
  • Positivity vs. negativity; the disappearance of rituals; the “hell of the same” (Hölle des Gleichen) — the expulsion of the Other in favor of a closed loop of recognition.
  • The smartphone as devotional object — the “Like” as the digital “Amen,” self-tracking as confession.

Direct quotes (sourced; Psychopolitics, Verso 2017, trans. Butler, unless noted)

  • “The freedom of Can generates even more coercion than the disciplinarian Should …. But now freedom itself, which is supposed to be the opposite of constraint, is producing coercion.”
  • “Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one.”
  • “In so far as it willingly exploits itself without a master, [the achievement-subject] is an absolute slave.”
  • “Power need not exclude, prohibit or censor …. The greater power is, the more quietly it works. It just happens: it has no need to draw attention to itself.”
  • The Burnout Society (2015): “The complaint of the depressive individual, ‘Nothing is possible,’ can only occur in a society that thinks, ‘Nothing is impossible.‘”
  • The Transparency Society (2015): “Only machines are transparent. … A transparent relationship is a dead one, altogether lacking attraction and vitality.”

How it feeds your thesis

Han is where “we are not aware of their influence” reaches its purest, most disturbing form. The others explain how influence is hidden; Han explains why we don’t even experience it as influence — we experience it as our own free, joyful self-expression. The platform never forces you; it pleases you, and your compliance feels like autonomy. He’s the natural climax: Foucault’s power is exercised on us, Deleuze’s modulates around us, Han’s is the power we lovingly exercise on ourselves. Two specific payoffs:

  • It sharpens the ariel-app provocation morally. By making the controller external, named, visible — obviously Ariel’s app — you puncture the central illusion Han diagnoses (that your activity is purely your own free self-expression). You re-externalize a power smart power had hidden by internalizing. The app says: someone other than you set the terms here — which, on every platform, is also true, and which smart power exists to make you forget.
  • It gives the membrane / interception thesis its moral content — a refusal of compulsory transparency, re-introducing negativity, distance, and the right not to be seen and not to see; reclaiming the “no” in a regime built on a frictionless “yes.”

One honest discomfort to put in the essay. Han’s transparency critique also cuts at your own design: a single-broadcaster app where one person exhibits themselves to followers is, in one light, the very society of exhibition he condemns. Don’t hide from it — use it. The exaggeration works because it’s a little uncomfortable: you make yourself the visible exhibitionist-sovereign so the invisible ones become legible by contrast. Naming the discomfort is what turns the app from a gadget into an argument.

Relationships

Heidegger is bedrock (dwelling, contemplative time, the Other); Hegel in the negativity books; Foucault the explicit interlocutor/antagonist; Baudrillard (disappearance of the real, seduction) and Lévinas (the Other) in the background; Adorno in the late melancholy. Recognizably critical theory despite his distance from Frankfurt School affiliation.

Productive tension

Han offers diagnosis rather than a program, and writes in sweeping aphorism — but no one names the affective texture of digital life (why it feels like freedom while functioning like a trap) better. Use him for the feeling and the diagnosis; let your own project supply the thing he won’t: an actual thing to build.

Read first

Psychopolitics (for “smart power” and “freedom as coercion”), then The Burnout Society; The Transparency Society and In the Swarm for the digital-panopticon and “no more we” arguments. Each is ~100 small pages.

Synthesis: how the seven assemble, and where your project breaks the chain

The lineage as actual citation chains (so you can defend it)

  • McLuhan ← Innis (Toronto School).
  • Latour mostly cites STS (Bloor, Callon, Law), not the others — his “delegation” does work analogous to McLuhan’s “extensions,” both undoing the human/tool boundary.
  • Marx ← Hegel, Feuerbach → Lukács (reification, 1923) → Debord. This is the most documented chain of the seven (see Jappe, 1999) — and the translators’ own annotations to Debord’s Theses 1, 4, and 24 make it explicit.
  • Foucault ← Nietzsche, Canguilhem, Bachelard.
  • Deleuze ← Foucault (the Postscript explicitly continues Discipline and Punish; the 1986 Foucault prepares it).
  • Han ← Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Hegel.

Where they diverge (worth a sentence, so the essay isn’t naïve): Latour rejects the whole critical-theory project (Marx, Debord, Frankfurt School) as having “run out of steam” — he wants description, not denunciation. Foucault refused both Marxist economism and humanist normativity. Deleuze rejected the Hegelian dialectic the Marx–Debord wing relies on. So the “lineage” is your retrospective reconstruction, not a club they joined — present it that way.

The argument, in one paragraph

The medium is never neutral: its form reshapes us regardless of content (McLuhan) and its design carries a script that delegates its makers’ interests into our behavior, frozen into durable code (Latour). That neutrality is an illusion concealing something — the human relations and the extraction behind the commodity (Marx), grown into a whole life lived through representations (Debord). And the power doing the concealing has a history: the self-policing visibility of the Panopticon, whose trick was to run automatically, empty tower, no nameable owner (Foucault); then continuous, ambient modulation that slices us into data-profiles and gates us with codes — the algorithmic feed, described before it existed (Deleuze); culminating in a “smart power” that doesn’t repress but pleases, so we expose and exploit ourselves freely and call it self-expression (Han). At every stage the mechanism is the same: real human control, made to look like a neutral, natural, ownerless thing.

Where the ariel app breaks each link

  • vs. McLuhan — it changes the medium, not the content (the only change he thinks is real); it makes the ground a figure.
  • vs. Latour — it opens the black box and shows the author of the script; it un-delegates.
  • vs. Marx — it de-fetishizes: the relation behind the screen is restored to view (a relation to a named person).
  • vs. Debord — it’s a détournement: it hijacks Instagram’s grammar to critique Instagram.
  • vs. Foucault — it re-personalizes power, collapsing the empty-tower Panopticon back into a visible sovereign.
  • vs. Deleuze — it makes you an individual again, not a dividual; it re-introduces a boundary against endless modulation.
  • vs. Han — it re-externalizes a power smart power had hidden by internalizing, puncturing the illusion that your activity is purely your own free choice.

Where the membrane / interception layer breaks each link

  • It re-writes the script in your favor and un-delegates the policeman (Latour).
  • It reclaims the code / password — you decide what is granted and rejected; and being a modulating power’s antagonist, it must itself modulate, surfacing the current face of the current decision (Deleuze).
  • It refuses compulsory transparency, restoring distance and the right not to be seen (Han).
  • It is Situationist détournement as working software — the platform’s own infrastructure turned against its intended use (Debord).

The one tension that is actually your thesis

Foucault and Han insist modern power has no single owner — it is automatic, diffuse, internalized. Your claim is that there is an ultimate owner. These aren’t in conflict; the synthesis is your essay’s central insight: the big platforms deliberately exploit the appearance of ownerless, automatic, self-chosen power in order to hide that, underneath, someone owns it, decides it, and profits from it. The ariel app’s exaggeration drags that hidden owner into the light by becoming the honest version: a platform that admits it has a king. The discomfort that produces — yes, a tiny benevolent dictatorship; yes, pure self-exhibition — is not a flaw in the argument. It is the argument.

Recommendations for writing the essay

  1. Consider leading with the Marx–Debord pivot, not McLuhan–Latour. “The medium is the message” is over-cited and can sound TED-talk; the Marx fetishism passage carries the moral charge — the apparatus is a frozen social relation, and there are people behind it. (Counter-view: if your audience is designers/product people, lead with Latour, who is concrete and methodological; if it’s activists/critical-theory readers, lead with Debord and Han.)
  2. Pair Foucault’s “visibility is a trap” directly with Han on smart power. Foucault: the prisoner can’t see the watcher. Han: the user can’t see the watcher because it’s been replaced by a friendly interface mistaken for a mirror. The ariel app restores the watcher to view.
  3. Use Deleuze’s “self-deforming cast” as a design constraint, not just a quote. If power is modulation, a static transparency dashboard is inadequate — the app must itself modulate. “Find new weapons” is the brief.
  4. Use Latour’s speed bump as the founding metaphor: the policeman whose face has been removed. Re-attaching the face is the design move.
  5. If you need to defend the app against “this is paranoid,” Foucault’s productivity of power is your best resource: this is not a conspiracy but a relational structure — much harder to dismiss than a cabal.

Recommended reading order (fastest path to “really getting it”)

Phase 1 — primary texts, in lineage order:

  1. Marx, Capital Vol. I, ch. 1 only (Fowkes, Penguin 1976), esp. §4.
  2. McLuhan, Understanding Media (1964), Part 1 (chs. 1–7); skim Part 2. (Or the whole Medium Is the Massage in an afternoon.)
  3. Debord, Society of the Spectacle (Knabb) — start at ch. 4 if ch. 1 is too dense, then chs. 1–3.
  4. Foucault, Discipline and Punish — the “Panopticism” chapter is core; Parts 3–4 ideally.
  5. Latour, “Where Are the Missing Masses?” (1992) + “Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together” (Johnson, 1988) — ~50 pp.
  6. Deleuze, “Postscript on the Societies of Control” — five pages; read three times.
  7. Han, Psychopolitics, then The Burnout Society.

Phase 2 — secondary literature that pays:

  • Anselm Jappe, Guy Debord (California UP, 1999) — indispensable for the Marx→Lukács→Debord chain.
  • Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, the “Reification” essay.
  • Deleuze, Foucault (Minnesota, 1988).
  • Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics (Palgrave, 2008) — the neoliberal-subject lectures that prefigure Han.
  • SEP entries on Foucault, Marx, Debord/Situationists, Deleuze, Lukács.

Phase 3 — optional but rewarding: Latour, Aramis (1996); Han, In the Swarm and The Transparency Society; Greil Marcus, Lipstick Traces (1989).

Caveats on citation (read before you quote anything)

  • The “lineage” is your analytical construct, not a documented genealogy — present it as a retrospective reconstruction. Latour especially would resist the company.
  • The Culkin/McLuhan error is widespread. “We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us” is Culkin, 1967, p. 70. Write “as Culkin glossed McLuhan in 1967,” never “as McLuhan said.”
  • Debord translations differ: Knabb (most readable + accurate), Nicholson-Smith (academic standard), Perlman/Black & Red (free, rougher). State which you use.
  • Foucault pagination differs across the 1977 Pantheon, 1995 Vintage, and UK Penguin editions even though the Sheridan translation is identical. Cite one edition consistently.
  • The Deleuze “Postscript” exists in two slightly different Joughin translations — October 59 (1992), pp. 3–7, vs. Negotiations (1995), pp. 177–182, with different titles (“Societies of Control” vs. “Control Societies”). Cite whichever you read.
  • Han is a moving target — he restates himself annually. Treat Psychopolitics and The Burnout Society as canonical; cite later books only for genuinely new concepts.
  • General rule: verify any sentence you put inside quotation marks against the specific edition/translation you cite before publishing — translations of Marx, Debord, Foucault, Deleuze, and Han vary, and page numbers shift by edition.