How Gilles Deleuze imagined an analogue Web3

DAO Politics — a podcast series from Forklog, in which we, together with invited experts, examine how decentralized autonomous organisations are structured, and discuss their conceptual and technological foundations. The fourth episode is devoted to Gilles Deleuze — one of the most radical theorists of decentralisation. The philosopher Ivan Belonogov explains whether the co-author of “A Thousand Plateaus” invented the Internet and why it is important to train the power of imagination.

1. There are organisations—vertical and networked. The former operate within an internal hierarchy; the latter are created on a network principle. They are typically contrasted. In hierarchical organisations personal status becomes paramount. The first question a new participant in a hierarchical structure asks a colleague is: “What rank are you?” If their status is lower than the newcomer’s, it means they should be spoken to as a subordinate. If higher — you must pretend to be a trembling creature. In other words, in hierarchies people do not communicate directly, but through their ranks. This form of organisation is not the most efficient, but in some situations it is indispensable. For example, when something critical occurs, an emergency, and rapid decision-making is required.

In networked organisations, the effects of ranks are significantly weaker. They differ from hierarchies not in the absence of a core, but in the fact that there may be many of them. The centre becomes a node that accumulates a greater number of connections. In a network there is more freedom: you can always switch from one centre to another, for instance, the one more suited to the task. Yet there are constraints too: unwritten rules of conduct. If you do not follow them, people will not deal with you.

2. And there is the rhizome. This popular concept proposed in 1976 by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. The rhizome is often described as a “fungus” or “mycelium” and is considered to be a network. But that is not quite right.

The rhizome can survive several breaks: if you remove two of your five friends, you will still have three through whom you will be connected to news and trends. But in case of a full severance of ties with everyone, you drop out of the network. The rhizome is arranged differently: in it each node is dynamic, it grows from itself and can be incorporated into different configurations. If necessary — it will become part of a hierarchy or fuse into a multicore network. Such an organisation is likened to a market. In the market all nodes are lone actors; they are initially autonomous and only at the next step can they interact or compete with each other.

In a hierarchy, the most important thing is ranks and statuses. In a network, abilities matter, but statuses are important too. In the rhizomatic model the emphasis shifts to skills: how useful you are to others. Therefore in a rhizomatic community a person constantly changes, adapts and retrains, thereby gaining freedom and independence. In the example of a network with five friends it is clear that the person will strive with all their might not to lose connection to the network, perhaps even going against themselves, denying themselves freedom. A rhizomatically minded person is autonomous. Even if everyone abandons them, they will not lose touch with reality, will continue their journey, and will find new nodes of connection. Web3 lends itself to something similar.

3. The rhizome concept pairs well with third-order cybernetics. To understand the present internet, let us discuss its origins. First-order cybernetics is the cybernetics of a single subject, a subject–object model. It was developed by Norbert Wiener. The point is that we observe and study its properties on the basis of negative feedback loops. This principle implies that only the final goal is taken into account, and everything else is discarded. A clear example: a person decides at the end of the month to buy an iPhone, therefore they will refuse any other expenses. Additional expenses will not help them achieve the goal, so they avoid them.

Second-order cybernetics is the subject–subject model. It takes into account not only the fact that a person observes the subject, but that the person themselves is also a subject. Positive feedback emerges, which helps solve the problem of the absence of a concrete goal. Imagine a person decides to learn to play a musical instrument. They go into a shop, strum a guitar — not the one; tap on drums — not for them; take a bass and feel pleasure, continue playing. This is an example of positive feedback — there is no definite goal yet, the person has not chosen what to play, but one instrument already appeals. The process of choosing a goal based on positive feedback and recursion is second-order cybernetics.

Third-order cybernetics takes into account the chaotic environment. Return to the music shop and notice that besides instruments there are many other objects that can sound. For example, a trash can or a windowsill. So besides the already ready-to-interact subjects and objects in third-order cybernetics there is also the environment, which also affects what is in it. It serves as potential matter for future larval subjects.

Third-order cybernetics is the rhizomatic Internet Web3, where people interact with programs, things and people. Second-order cybernetics is Web 2.0, where people interact with people.

4. Not only the French philosopher pondered this. Deleuze, indeed, laid down conceptual foundations for the Internet and even Web3. But to complete the picture we must supplement his ideas with Russian cosmism. The philosopher Vladimir Vernadsky introduced the concept of the noosphere — the planetary sphere of mind, in which nature and society interact. This used to be just a theory, and now we have 5G towers; the Internet is transmitted through the air. Is it not time to think about how the Internet-filled atmosphere can react to human actions? About what else can be connected to it. A toothbrush? Pets?

5. Pterodactyls? We can imagine and predict quantitative changes. But qualitative changes we cannot predict. To do this one must free the imagination.

The future is built on innovations and inventions. Suppose tomorrow a scientist revives pterodactyls and flights on them become fashionable. The range of tasks will change completely: we will need to ensure that the Internet reaches the flight line with winged dinosaurs. Therefore the future depends only on us — in the sense that we unfold it through our imagination.