From Biopower to Psychopolitics: The Construction and Destruction of Neoliberal Subjectivity from the Perspective of Byung-Chul Han

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the ontological transition of power mechanisms from Michel Foucault's “Disciplinary Society” to Byung-Chul Han's “Achievement Society”. While the Foucaultian model operated through negative pressure, spatial confinement (schools, prisons), and the prohibitive command of “you should not”, the neoliberal order of the 21st century has evolved into a positive form of power driven by the imperative “you can”. The text explores the evolution of exploitation from Marx to Han. Marx's concept of “external and class-based” exploitation has been replaced by an internal structure where the individual voluntarily exploits themselves under the illusion of freedom. Digitalization and algorithmic governance constitute a “Digital Panopticon”, where individuals, driven by the desire for visibility, voluntarily expose themselves. The topology of violence has shifted from external enemies to an internal war within the psyche, resulting in pathologies such as depression and burnout. Ultimately, the study suggests that escaping this cycle of “positive violence” is possible only by refusing the compulsion of constant performance and reclaiming the capacity for contemplation (vita contemplativa) and stillness.

Extended Abstract: Introduction: The Shift in Power Paradigms The text provides a rigorous philosophical analysis of how the mechanisms of power have mutated from the 18th and 19th centuries to the present day. It begins by establishing Michel Foucault’s concept of the “Disciplinary Society”, characterized by biopolitics—the management of biological life through external regulations. In this model, power was “negative”, operating through institutions of confinement like schools, barracks, and factories. It molded the body through prohibitions (‘You should not’) and physical boundaries. However, the text argues that in the 21st century, this model has been superseded by Byung-Chul Han’s “Achievement Society”. In this new neoliberal order, the negativity of prohibition is replaced by the positivity of capability (‘You can’). Power no longer restricts; it seduces, urging the subject to maximize performance and self-optimize.

The Transformation of Exploitation: Marx vs. Han A central theme of the text is the ontological shift in the nature of exploitation. Karl Marx viewed exploitation as a dialectical tension between the bourgeoisie (owners of production) and the proletariat (workers), resulting in alienation from the product and labor. In this classical view, the enemy was external and visible, allowing for class consciousness and resistance. Byung-Chul Han radicalizes this by arguing that in the Achievement Society, the dialectic of master and slave has collapsed into a single entity. The modern individual is simultaneously the master and the slave, the perpetrator and the victim. This “self-exploitation” is more efficient than external coercion because it is accompanied by a feeling of freedom. The individual does not rebel because they believe their frantic self-optimization is a personal choice, leading to a “war” that is not social but internal.

Psychopolitics and the Digital Panopticon The text details the transition from biopolitics (governing the body) to “Psychopolitics” (governing the soul). Digital surveillance does not operate like Bentham’s Panopticon, where prisoners behave because they might be watched. Instead, the ‘Digital Panopticon’ encourages voluntary exposure. Through social media and algorithms (exemplified by TikTok and the attention economy), individuals willingly strip away their privacy to gain social validation (likes, followers). This regime creates a ‘transparency society’ where mystery and “otherness” are eradicated, leaving the individual trapped in the “Hell of the Same”. The algorithm reinforces this by creating echo chambers, preventing any encounter with a transformative “Other”.

The Topology of Violence and Pathology With the disappearance of the external enemy, violence becomes “neuronal”. The text posits that the pressure to be an “ideal self” creates a gap that the ‘real self’ cannot bridge, leading to auto-aggression. Depression, burnout syndrome, and attention deficit disorders are identified not as personal failures, but as systemic symptoms of this positive violence. The pandemic is highlighted as a catalyst that hybridized biopolitics and psychopolitics; the home became the office, and the “right to disconnect” was obliterated, leading to total exhaustion.

Critique and Conclusion: The Possibility of Resistance The text concludes by addressing the criticism that Han’s philosophy is apolitical. While Han rejects traditional collective action (since the “class” enemy has vanished), he proposes a form of resistance based on refusal. The text argues for the revival of vita contemplativa—the contemplative life. In a world obsessed with speed and hyper-activity, true freedom lies in the capacity to “not do”, to embrace boredom, and to pause. Resistance is reframed not as a clash of forces, but as a “politics of tiredness”, where acknowledging shared vulnerability and the inability to perform becomes the foundation for a new kind of solidarity against the tyranny of success.