“The Ledger of Power: Who Benefits, Who Pays” Author: Historian Abstract This work examines political power not through ideology, legality, or declared moral principles, but through a diagnostic lens focused on benefit, cost, and silence. Across democratic, authoritarian, and hybrid systems, it traces how legitimacy is constructed and maintained by the selective distribution of advantage and the deferral or concealment of harm. Rather than asking whether regimes are virtuous, this analysis asks who benefits, who pays, and which costs remain unaccounted for. Drawing on historical patterns and contemporary structures, the text argues that power defines what is considered “right” through enforceability and delivery, while moral language follows as justification rather than guidance. Elections, law, growth, and stability are treated as mechanisms that regulate elite competition, manage consent, and stabilize hierarchical benefit flows. When these mechanisms succeed, legitimacy appears moral; when they fail, narratives collapse and deferred costs surface. The book emphasizes that compliance is often transactional rather than ideological, rooted in material security, predictability, and exhaustion rather than belief. It further shows how stagnation, inequality, and narrative contradiction erode legitimacy, producing cynicism, withdrawal, or instability. Rather than prescribing ideal systems, the work offers an analytical framework for understanding any regime’s trajectory by examining its internal accounting of benefits and burdens. The central claim is simple: power is temporary, legitimacy is conditional, and consequences endure. Understanding political systems requires not moral affirmation or rejection, but clear-eyed accounting of how advantage and harm are distributed over time.
WHAT THIS PAPER ARGUES. Every Popperian tool this corpus has built — falsifiability criteria, self-vaccination, the act-level test, the Personal System Reminder, and the four falsification conditions just added to the Entropy-Resistant Institution (ERI) index — operates inside a discursive formation without ever asking how that formation became possible to inhabit in the first place. This is not a gap Popperian rigor can close by adding a fifth falsification condition or a fifth comparator case, because the question is not whether a claim within the formation is true or false; it is what made this particular kind of claim — a weighted numerical composite, cross-culturally applied, extracted from historical institutions and repurposed as a design template for future governance — a thinkable, legitimate object of knowledge at all. This is the question Michel Foucault's archaeological method exists to ask. This paper argues the corpus needs it, using the just-revised ERI paper as evidence rather than illustration. Four archaeological blind spots are documented directly in ERI's own text. First, its newly added Jiangnan-regeneration section treats "Jiankang, 220–589" as a bounded unit that a fourth comparator case can be added alongside — the unexamined assumption that a historical institution is a natural object rather than one constituted by the apparatus built to measure it, Foucault's critique of "the unity of the book" applied for the first time to a unity of the case. Second, the six attributes assume, without argument, that "legitimacy transfer" and "resource flexibility" name the same kind of variable in a Six Dynasties Chinese, a Shinto-imperial Japanese, and a Catholic canon-law context — a commensurability claim no additional comparator case can test, because the problem is not sample size but an a priori equivalence the index requires in order to function as an index at all. Third, ERI names its own methodological ancestors — Polity5, the Fragile States Index, V-Dem — as if borrowing a value-neutral toolkit, when each is inherited along with the specific historical formation that produced it. Fourth, ERI states plainly that the exercise exists to extract portable institutional design lessons for F2-era governance actors — read here not as incidental motivation but as the archive-producing act itself, the textbook operation of what Foucault calls biopower. The paper's constructive contribution is the Archaeological Symmetry Principle, extending this corpus's existing Principle of Epistemic Symmetry into a register falsifiability cannot reach alone: a researcher who subjects a target argument to falsifiability must, symmetrically, subject their own measuring instrument to historicization. Read this way, the Longevity Asymmetry Corpus is reread as an analysis of biopolitics that has operated, until now, without the name — the Mortality Symmetry Axiom as the statistical anonymity that historically made biopower's tolerance of differential death invisible, the Biological Zero-Day Mechanism as the process that collapses that anonymity back into sovereign-style visibility. The paper closes by naming, honestly, the tension this creates with the corpus's own Popperian commitments, and states plainly what an archaeological stance does not solve.
Open access
2 source records
Foucault, Power, and Ethics
Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Andrew Dryhurst, Daniel ‘Zach’ Sloman, Yazid Zahda
The Morphogenetic Régulation approach (MR) contributes to the Morphogenetic Approach by explaining the material and ideational origins of change and stasis in agency, structure, and culture. In this paper, we focus on the expressive quality of ideas and systemic persistence in three research projects. The first demystifies inclusive governance and its adverse impacts. It shows how, contrary to institutions of governance, inclusiveness is not simply a norm but actually the explication of corporate agents’ ideas about rational choice institutionalism which leads to adverse impacts on vulnerable groups and ecologies known as adverse inclusion. The second investigates the role of ideas as adequacy and self-explication in guiding Palestinian actors’ actions towards the deepening of neoliberalization in Palestine. The third explains the relevance of the systemic persistence problematique for understanding how three juxtaposed themes – Web2, Web3, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) – are shaping the political economy and infrastructure of the Internet.
Aaron Martin, Gargi Sharma, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Linnet Taylor · 10 authors
Debates are ongoing on the limits of - and possibilities for - sovereignty in the digital era. While most observers spotlight the implications of the Internet, cryptocurrencies, artificial intelligence/machine learning and advanced data analytics for the sovereignty of nation states, a critical yet under examined question concerns what digital innovations mean for authority, power and control in the humanitarian sphere in which different rules, values and expectations are thought to apply. This forum brings together practitioners and scholars to explore both conceptually and empirically how digitisation and datafication in aid are (re)shaping notions of sovereign power in humanitarian space. The forum's contributors challenge established understandings of sovereignty in new forms of digital humanitarian action. Among other focus areas, the forum draws attention to how cyber dependencies threaten international humanitarian organisations' purported digital sovereignty. It also contests the potential of technologies like blockchain to revolutionise notions of sovereignty in humanitarian assistance and hypothesises about the ineluctable parasitic qualities of humanitarian technology. The forum concludes by proposing that digital technologies deployed in migration contexts might be understood as 'sovereignty experiments'. We invite readers from scholarly, policy and practitioner communities alike to engage closely with these critical perspectives on digitisation and sovereignty in humanitarian space.
This article explores the complex relationship between law and (scientific) expertise. The author first discusses the difference between scientific knowledge and scientific expertise, tracing the historical roots of the concept of proof in a legal rather than a mathematical context. Second, the historical roots of the fair trial are discussed in terms of the premodern épreuve and the modern preuve, demonstrating the relationship with coordinate and subordinate types of justice. Third, Foucault's analysis of épreuve, enquête, and examèn is extended to clarify how preuve and épreuve have been integrated into the fair trial, which is explained in relation to the formal and the substantive notions of the "Rechtsstaat." This analysis finally allows the author to discuss the difference between two approaches of scientific expertise in court: one claiming that judges should defer to science and another claiming that a court of law is one of the spaces in which such expertise can be contested. The article concludes that the integration of subordinate and coordinate justice exemplified in the fair trial, opens new perspectives for the testing of scientific expertise, taking into account whose interests are at stake.