Infocracy presents a philosophical critique of the impact of digitalization on the fundamental structures of democracy and human agency. The book’s central thesis is that we are transitioning from a disciplinary society, as analyzed by Foucault, into an “infocracy”—a new form of governance where power is exercised not through repression but through the total capture and algorithmic management of information.
The book’s content is built upon a series of sharp philosophical distinctions that define its argument. Han begins by contrasting the current digital paradigm with the previous era. He argues that the 20th century was defined by “discourse,” a realm of shared language, narrative, and reasoned debate that forms the bedrock of the public sphere and democratic life. In contrast, the 21st century is dominated by “information.” Han defines information as decontextualized, fragmented, and accelerated data points that lack truth-value and narrative cohesion, serving primarily to optimize systems and generate noise.
A core concept in the book is the shift from Michel Foucault’s “panopticon”—a metaphor for disciplinary society where individuals are aware of being watched and thus self-regulate—to what Han calls the “pan-data-ism” of infocracy. In this new model, individuals voluntarily and incessantly produce data through their digital activities. Power no longer needs to repress; it operates by harvesting this data to predict, nudge, and control behavior on a systemic level, replacing political persuasion with algorithmic determinism.
The book’s analysis directly links this shift to a crisis in democracy. Han contends that democracy requires a public sphere capable of forming a collective “We,” built through slow, deliberative discourse. Infocracy, however, shatters this sphere. The relentless flood of information destroys the capacity for contemplative truth-seeking, replaces shared reality with personalized filter bubbles, and reduces citizens to isolated “information atoms” or data points—a fragmented “I” incapable of forming a political “We.”
Han further argues that this new form of power is more totalizing than its predecessors. While disciplinary society produced “law-breaking subjects” and biopower produced “deviants,” infocracy produces “the transparent, data-generating subject.” Freedom, in this context, becomes merely the freedom to disclose information and choose between pre-defined digital options, which Han sees as a form of compulsion masquerading as liberty.
The tone of the book is diagnostic and polemical, offering a stark warning rather than a practical list of solutions. Its content is a dense, philosophical exploration of the underlying structures of digital society, concluding that the very medium of information itself is transforming the subject and the political space in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance as we have known it.