Cognitive sovereignty: an introduction to psychic autonomy

Warning : This article is based on three intuitions , which is the philosophical concept to justify fundamental thoughts that have no justification.

1. There is something called information and something called the brain .
2. There is some kind of relationship between information and the brain.
3. There is a type of relationship between information and the brain that affects the way we act .

If we had to explain this relationship with epistemic rigor, it wouldn't take a year. It's enough work for a doctoral thesis, a postdoctoral thesis, or at least a paper. Much of the scientific community over the last two hundred years has attempted to explain it, but we're not going to get into that mess. We'll stick with our intuition: the information circulating in the world is apprehended by our brain , and there's also something resembling a causal relationship .

This article isn't intended to build knowledge, but rather to draw the attention of a group of people who—in advance—believe that these two intuitions are more or less true. If you don't believe them to be true, I recommend you stop reading. But if these two intuitions seem more or less true to you, buckle up.

Control societies and biopolitics

Michel Foucault (one of the great theorists of the relationship between capitalism, state, and power ) characterized the exercise of disciplinary power within "classical" capitalism as biopolitics . That is, a series of policies, laws, and discourses oriented toward the human body. These include reproductive policies, mass vaccinations, pandemic management, or rules for cultivating " health ."

Biopolitics is not necessarily a tool of subjugation or a regime of annihilation, but precisely the opposite. This is the great Foucauldian shift. It seems that the whole trick of power is to use tools of social improvement to achieve cohesion. We could call this " social engineering ." And the 20th century, up to the 1970s, is a prime example.

Biopower consists of a series of strategies to shape human life—in the sense of "formatting" a hard drive—through multiplication to become better reproducers of capital or healthy and socially competent citizens. Those effects of traditional capitalism, in this sense, have to do with the care of the body: the explosion of medicine, nutrition, and education. That is, the task of government is to care for and nourish the social body in pursuit of an educated, healthy, and productive community. Therefore, it deploys its punitive side when individuals refuse to abide by social norms.

Hence the Frenchman's research on institutions of confinement , such as prisons and asylums. These areas should be exercised with extreme care by the powers that be, so that the population grows while adapting to the pre-established patterns of those who determine these arrangements.

We understand power, in this case, as a network of government, capital, and legal order , which feed off each other. The government takes on a positive role in that it declares rights to health, education, housing, and a dignified life. Those who benefit from these policies become better workers, better citizens. It's a rather crude summary, but it's understandable. Now, the way this power was exercised was through institutions that shaped individuals: schools, the army, hospitals, factories, churches, prisons. The trick to power is in shaping . Which is more subtle and, at the same time, complex.

A society that no longer exists

The big problem when reading Foucault is that, while his description of that world seems very accurate to early 20th-century society, the model portrays a society that no longer exists. This is the famous transition from "classical" capitalism to neoliberalism , the correlate of which is the transition from modernity to postmodernity .

The transition from traditional (or modern) to postmodern capitalism also brought about a shift in the ways in which power was exercised. But to complement this reading, which is absent from Foucault's work, we need the help of another degenerate Frenchman: Gilles Deleuze himself and his text, *Postscript to the Societies of Control* . There he marks the transition from surveillance societies to societies of control. And just as biopower and biopolitics were the logic of surveillance societies, the era of control produces a new logic: psychopolitics and/or psychopower .

In control societies, institutions no longer format individuals, but rather a new way of being. A new "ontology" where individuals are replaced by " flows " and institutions become " modulators " of those flows. We are no longer institutionalized and formatted in physical locations or rigid institutions (school, prison, church, factory, office) but rather "modulated" by different forms of control . For financial institutions, we become cash flows, between debt and capitalization. The idea of lifelong learning replaces traditional schooling, with the data we create together through the platforms we use.

Let's think about the transition from factory to company. A factory can't move from where it is, but a company is an ideal entity that can be in a building one day and no longer there the next. In fact, with the advent of working from home, it's not even necessary for everyone to occupy the same physical location. Thus, a company can clearly be reduced to a flow of cash and data, becoming more like a soul than a body.

"In societies of discipline, one was always starting over (from school to barracks, from barracks to factory), while in societies of control, nothing was ever finished: the company, training, service were the metastable and coexisting states of the same modulation, like a universal deformer" ( Gilles Deleuze ).

Psychopolitics and the doctrine of self-exploitation

The much-maligned Byung Chul Han will never be forgiven by his peers for becoming a successful author outside of academia. But the great innovation introduced by the Korean philosopher is the conclusion that, if what defined disciplinary societies was the control and formatting of the body , now in the realm of control societies it is what we call the " mind ," which in Western tradition was for centuries called the " soul ." The immaterial but fundamental part that constitutes the human being.

For those who want to delve deeper into Han's arguments, I highly recommend his book Psychopolitics , and for those who don't feel like reading that much, you can read this article . The key points he points out are that freedom has become a tool of control through the imperative of self-exploitation ; that capital has become a new transcendent end; that neoliberalism subjects everything to the logic of optimization ; and that because of this, there is a boom in what Foucault called "technologies of the Self," in his version of human enhancement systems to achieve greater performance: CrossFit, mindfulness, trading, you name it .

From Han's text, we can say or understand that the mind has become a battlefield . It's the terrain where what used to happen in institutions of confinement took place. Yes, but what is at stake? 

Cognitive sovereignty

For some time now, I've been promoting the concept of " cognitive sovereignty ," which I previously outlined as " mental state sovereignty ." This article is an attempt to organize that concept and clarify some definitions. First, the context: we're currently bombarded with varying levels of mental stimuli. This is what's known as the " attention economy ," where each digital company competes to keep users on their platforms longer.

Since there are only 24 hours in a day, the amount of time we can spend in front of a screen is limited. Therefore, the main task of software engineers, programmers, and marketing departments is to perfect reward systems and dopamine loops to retain users for as long as possible. From this competition, new formats emerge, which are then replicated across all platforms. The most recent recognizable ones are the story format , which basically cannibalized Snapchat, and the now tyrannical TikTok clip format: true dopamine-boosting .

TikTok’s “ dopamine loop ” refers to how the platform’s design can keep users hooked by triggering the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward . The app uses an algorithm that continuously delivers new and engaging content tailored to your interests. Every time you interact with a video – by liking, commenting, or simply watching – the algorithm learns what you like, which keeps the content coming in a way that feels rewarding. This creates a feedback loop , where the pleasure of each new video drives users to keep scrolling, which generates more dopamine release, keeping them hooked.

This doesn't just work on the current flagship network; it's also the way platforms organize their content to achieve the greatest possible exposure: the same thing happens with Spotify, Netflix, or any subscription service. And yet, this example only refers to platforms that compete for our "free" or "leisure" time .

The notion of psychopolitics is much broader and can include processes associated with work , lifestyle , training programs , and personal optimization . In these cases, we are not at the mercy of algorithms, but rather, in many cases, at the mercy of logics of performance or capital reproduction that completely exceed us. The psychopolitical type of life formatting is somewhat more subtle than the biopolitical one and, at the same time, more effective, given that individuals end up internalizing what was previously presented as an agent of external domination. It is at the level of this internalization that all the devices of mental modulation operate .

Ultimately, the current model of psychopolitical control aims to transform us into beings who, both during work and leisure time, are, in one way or another, providing the foundation for capital to maximize ad eternum . We can then say that we have lost the power to choose what to do with our idle/unproductive time.

While current logic demands that we become super-productive beings or reproductive organs of money, the space for personal autonomy and self-determination that would allow us to become masters of our own time and our own lives is conspicuously absent. We live in a constant struggle for our time. Every minute spent on a digital platform is a minute lost for another activity. Are we aware of this trade-off? What is our room for maneuver and choice in the face of these types of situations?

The mind as a battlefield

The first step—always—is awareness . Once we understand what we're exposing ourselves to, we can take action. The main tool we have is our capacity for agency, that is, free will and the ability to choose. While this operates on a biological-chemical basis (which is the level at which constant stimuli operate), there is a certain level of basic autonomy that we can claim for ourselves.

A few decades ago, it was turning off the television. Today, it might be turning off the phone, putting it on airplane mode, or buying a slightly older cell phone. There's a design space between us and technology . We have the ability to choose what we expose ourselves to and what we don't. What information flows we're exposed to, how many hours a day, and for what purpose. It's not just the algorithms, but understanding that information is part of a larger, more complex system, with its own agenda .

There is no such thing as neutral information. All the information we consume responds in one way or another to corporate, media, business, and political interests . To understand this, one only needs to review all the information created around the war in Ukraine, where the news itself and the media that circulate it are part of the battle to control the narrative . And one might wonder what the point of controlling a narrative is while bombs are falling from the sky: in Ukraine, it's key to maintaining the support of its main allies and their constant outlays of funds to sustain its defenses. Information, its control, and the public's perception of it are as crucial as tanks, soldiers, missiles, and drones.

It's about reclaiming the design space between what the current world offers us and what we want from it. If there's a point of attack within the psychopolitical model , it's that since we ourselves are the tool of control, we are also the ones who can refuse to follow that programming.

An exit option

It's essential to use free time for something beyond mere entertainment technology or work. Any contact with the body and analog reality is vital. Go for a walk, run, exercise, train (anything), spend time with friends, have barbecue, cook , garden or have plants , play a board game, read a book, write in a notebook, ride a skateboard , bike, or roller skates, go to a plaza, learn to knit, make pottery (?). The possibilities are endless.

But the goal is the same: to be masters of our own time, masters of our thoughts, and to have the ability to know whether the desires that govern our psychic system are our own or implanted. The development of these activities does not seek to permanently eliminate the influence of technology in our lives. It is impossible and, moreover, not even desirable. It is about being aware and always trying to have the ability to decide . Reserving for ourselves the privilege of being able to decide and experiment.

Bey and the "temporarily autonomous zones"

There's a very short but intense text, Pirate Utopias , by the American author Hakim Bey , where he poses a very simple point. It's obvious to him that the revolution will never happen, or at least not soon enough for him to see it. However, it's impossible for humans to postpone their desire to feel completely free. Thus, the author develops a series of strategies so that individuals can achieve this, far from everyone's eyes, protected from the power relations within the contemporary world.

In particular, he develops the concept of a " temporarily autonomous zone ," a place where, through negligence rather than anything else, the state and the market withdraw, opening up the possibility of human organization on a larger scale, where, at least for the duration of this window of "anarchy?", participants feel completely free, as if a revolution had taken place.

It's worth clarifying that while I no longer even consider revolution a horizon of possibility, the idea of the ZTA is crucial. And I think it's a bit like what happens when you go camping with friends to some remote place or fishing on the banks of the Paraná River. There's no authority there effectively charged with ensuring that the participants abide by the law and don't do anything illegal. The same thing happens at a barbecue with friends or a large gathering. Or when a fan prepares for a soccer game. Small pockets of temporary happiness beyond the scrutiny of external control devices. The ability to move through territories off the map , or participate in events unreported on social media, hiding from the permanent and ever-vigilant algorithmic eye. It reminds me of that Almafuerte song that says:

If there is no downpour, everything will be fine,
burning flowers will perfume the babble,
laughter certain of freedom that the living God gives,
but not the government in power.

In this era of what we have termed " psychopolitics ," while control systems and mechanisms have become more refined and subtle, they are also more vulnerable to attentive minds. Developing our own information filtering systems , choosing when to submit to the flow of information or when and how to consume entertainment, is the ability—in the terms of this article—to modulate oneself. None of us, in isolation (or even as a group), is capable of creating a space outside of this era. But we still have the possibility of 1) modulating that relationship and 2) using all the benefits of this era to our advantage.

The recovery of analog space, or as we usually say, of " layer one ", together with the space for leisure, play and circumstantial freedom that we can obtain by moving outside the "map" (that is, let's say, layer two, the digital noosphere ), can be a by no means insignificant antidote to the era of information bombardment and cognitive warfare .