Cybernetics & Postcolonial Landscape: Exploring a New way to Understand the Power and International Governance in Contemporary Era

: In posthumanism, the cybernetics serves as the striking feature as it acts as the fundamental technology to support the operation of machine. The postcolonial landscape as the modern technology-based world, somewhat, features the key elements cybernetics such as circularity, complexity, and self-regulation etc. The technology in postcolonial time brings the voice of grassroots (including the colonized nations) into the social system of international governance which constitutes an unprecedented power in postcolonial landscape. The colonial period has been brought into an end; however, comprehending the postcolonial landscape proves to be considerably more challenging. International governance is no longer solely a tool for military conquest, but rather an intricate and multifaceted network characterized by circularity, complexity, and self-regulation. In line with these attributes, cybernetics illuminates our understanding of power and international governance in the contemporary era while offering a fresh perspective that rejects linearity and unidirectional patterns. The role of technology at this key period of time has transcended its mere function of convenience and societal facilitation, now reshaping the dynamics of human interaction as well as the power dynamics between colonizing and colonized states. This paper aims to delve into the contemporary relationship among various post-colonial powers and their governance strategies through a cybernetic lens.


INTRODUCTION
The cessation of colonialism does not necessarily entail the termination of the postcolonial mindset.The contemporary postcolonial paradigm is far from being unilateral governance, but rather a multifaceted network in which all "players" engage in the command-execution game [1].The exploitation, invasion, and governance no take on a militarized nature but instead manifest in a myriad of ways.As such, we find ourselves immersed within a globalized network that embodies intricacy, circularity, reflexivity, self-governance, self-regulation, and so forth [2].The relationship between colonizing states and the colonized states in the contemporary postcolonial network is intricate and multifaceted [3].On one hand, a significant power asymmetry between the two groups, with colonizing states wielding greater political, economic, and military might than their colonized counterparts.This dynamic can result in exploitation, subjugation, and resistance from the oppressed societies.Simultaneously though, the relationship between colonizers and those they have colonized is also influenced by historical legacies as well as cultural and social factors [1].The arrival of the colonizers posed a formidable challenge to many colonized societies deeply entrenched in their traditional customs and practices, disrupting their very foundations.Similarly, the interactions between these societies and their environment as well as with each other were profoundly shaped by sweeping historical patterns of migration, trade, and conflict.Furthermore, the dynamic between colonizing states and the colonized states has been shaped by ongoing discourse surrounding colonialism, imperialism, and globalization [4].Some scholars contend that the enduring legacy of colonialism continues to shape contemporary relations between these two groups, whilst others posit that postcolonialism presents novel prospects for dialogue, collaboration, and decolonization.All in all, the relationship between colonizing states and the colonized states during the postcolonial era is a multifaceted and dynamic one, influenced by an array of historical, cultural, economic, and political factors [4].While there undoubtedly exist challenges and tensions amidst these two factions, there also lie prospects for collaboration and comprehension in the pursuit of a more just and equitable global order.However, with the advent of technology, international governance has transformed into a network-like structure rather than a linear distribution [5].The study of network governance by numerous scholars has bestowed upon postcolonial governance a profound enlightenment for the contemporary global political and economic landscape."The network concepts in social theory and network technologies are supposed to be interconnected and lend plausibility to each other, even though they are different fruits of cybernetic ideas" [6].
The study of international governance is a crucial domain that endeavors to comprehend the intricate dynamics through which diverse actors interact and harmonize their actions within the global system.Cybernetics can furnish an invaluable framework for scrutinizing international governance from multiple perspectives [3].One key area where cybernetics can be applied is in the study of communication networks and their impact on international relations.For instance, cybernetic principles can be utilized to analyze the intricate dynamics of communication between nations, as well as the dissemination and propagation of information within these interconnected networks.This can provide valuable insights into the intricate relationships between countries and their capacity for cooperation or conflict [7].Another area where cybernetics can be applied is in the examination of decision-making processes and the manners in which they are influenced by technology.Within the realm of international governance, this encompasses employing algorithms and other forms of automation to render determinations regarding trade policy, foreign policy, and other strategic matters.Cybernetics aids in comprehending how these systems function and what factors shape their outcomes.Ultimately, cybernetics can also be employed to scrutinize power dynamics [3] and he ways in which diverse actors acquire and relinquish influence within the international system are multifaceted.For instance, cybernetics principles can be employed to scrutinize the intricate power dynamics between states, as well as the mechanisms through which non-state actors such as corporations and NGOs exert their sway over these processes.Overall, cybernetics provides a valuable perspective from which to examine international governance comprehensively.By harnessing the insights of this field, we can enhance our comprehension of the intricate dynamics of global politics and strive towards establishing more efficacious and equitable forms of international cooperation.

THE INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND OTHER POSTCOLONIAL ISSUES
In the postcolonial era, Western powers persist in governing and exerting control over third world countries through a diverse array of mechanisms [8], including military force, economic exploitation, and cultural imperialism.One common approach is the use of military force to maintain control over colonies or other forms of territory [9].This can encompass the deployment of military forces, the establishment of strategic military bases, and the utilization of armed might to quell dissent or opposition.An alternative approach entails economic exploitation, whereby Western powers strive to extract valuable resources from colonized territories for their own gain.This may involve the exploitation of natural resources such as oil, minerals, and timber, as well as the manipulation of labor through coerced servitude or debt-driven economies.Lastly, Western powers also partake in cultural imperialism [7], in which they seek to spread their values and beliefs to the colonized societies.This entails the imposition of Western languages, religions, and educational systems, alongside the suppression of traditional cultures and ways of life.In essence, the governance and control exerted by Western powers over third world countries during the postcolonial era is intricate and multifaceted [10], shaped by a range of historical, political, and cultural factors.While many countries have gained independence and established new forms of government in recent decades, issues related to poverty, inequality, and political instability continue to persist.
There are several Western literary works that embody both international governance and postcolonial discourse.
For instance: "The God of Small Things" by Arundhati Roy; "A Man of the People" by V.S. Naipaul; "The World Is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman; "Democracy in America" by James Baldwin.Among these, "The Postmodern Condition" by Jean-Francois Lyotard is an influential work which explores the relationship between technology, power, and knowledge in the postmodern world.It presents a critical perspective on how technology molds our perception of the world and our position within it.Increasingly, writers and literary critics have come to recognize that global governance operates as a reciprocal process rather than a one-way communication, as the voices of colonized territories or subalterns grow louder and the dominating power can no longer disregard of their voice [11].The way of maintaining the superiority in international governance "coerce" [12] the colonizing powers to seek for more flexible, circular "model" to consolidate their status in postcolonial landscape [13].
Furthermore, there are some Western literary works that explore postcolonial power, control, and governance from a variety of perspectives: "The Postcolonial Studies Reader" edited by P.D. James is a collection of essays which explores the ways in which postcolonial theory has been applied to various literary works and historical contexts, including works by Chinua Achebe, Salman Rushdie, and Amitav Ghosh."Colonialism and the Imagination of the www.centuryscipub.com

Volume 3 Issue 10, 2023
World" by Edward Said is an influential work which argues that colonialism shaped not only the political and economic systems of colonized territories, but also the way in which people thought about themselves and their place in the world.The issue of self-identity and other's recognition of identity always serve as the key "debating area" [14][15] in postcolonial landscape."The Origins of the English Language" by Samuel Johnson is primarily concerned with the history and grammar of the English language, it also touches on issues of power and control in the context of British imperialism."A Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a novel which explores the cyclical nature of power and control in the fictional town of Macondo, as well as the impact of colonialism and imperialism on its residents."Sula" by Toni Morrison is to tell the story of a young African American woman who grows up in rural Mississippi during the Civil Rights era and grapples with issues of identity, power, and oppression.It also explores the legacy of colonialism and slavery in American society.All the Western literary works unveil their doubts over the "traditional governance" and try to find the "new governance" which fits the current global situation regarding issues of identity, power, and oppression etc. [16].
In the contemporary era, states in the developing world are actively striving to emancipate themselves from Western powers' governance and control through a myriad of mechanisms, encompass, economic sanctions, and diplomatic pressure.One prevalent approach entails political revolution whereby citizens mobilize to overthrow incumbent governments and establish new ones that better cater to their needs and aspirations.This may entail resorting to military force or civil disobedience while concurrently establishing novel political parties and institutions.Another strategy involves implementing economic sanctions by Western powers as a means of erecting economic barriers on colonized territories with the aim of dissuading them from collaborating with Western governments [17] or engaging in trade with Western corporations.This can have a significant impact on local economies and can lead to social and political unrest.Finally, diplomatic pressure can also be used to undermine the governance and control of the countries in the third world by Western powers.This can involve the formation of international coalitions that support anti-colonial movements [18] or the imposition of sanctions on Western governments that engage in colonial activities [17].Releasing oneself from the shackles of Western powers in the contemporary era is an intricate and multifaceted process, intricately woven by a myriad of historical, political, and cultural factors.While numerous nations have attained independence and forged novel forms of governance in recent decades, challenges pertaining to poverty, inequality, and political instability persist unabated [19].

CYBERNETICS, POWER AND GOVERNANCE
The term "cybernetics" came from a debate over technology [6].Instead of solely focusing on technological advancements or cybernetic studies, the debate appeared to be inclined towards post-war politics.To be more precise, the rationalization of governance through technical approaches struck a nerve with the public and sparked intense debates in which cybernetics served as a technological program aimed at optimizing and rationalizing communities, both domestically and internationally, through machinery systems, data, sensors, etc [7].
Cybernetics is a discipline within the realms of engineering and computer science, delving into the intricate study of how living organisms, machines, and systems can be orchestrated to exhibit heightened efficiency and efficacy.The term "cybernetics" originates from the Greek words "kybernetos" (meaning concealed) and "logos" (meaning discourse), encapsulating the notion that comprehending behavior encompasses both covert physiological processes and logical principles of communication.During its nascent stages, cybernetics scrutinizing the human nervous system's potential in governing [3].Later, the field expanded to include the study of other biological systems, such as animals and plants, as well as machines and artificial intelligence systems.The fundamental concept in cybernetics lies in the notion that all systems, whether they be of mechanical nature, can be elegantly depicted as intricate networks comprising interdependent components.This enables researchers to comprehend how alterations within one facet of the system can reverberate throughout its entirety, thereby facilitating the development of methodologies aimed at governing and optimizing these systems with utmost efficacy [7].The field of cybernetics, in today's world, encompasses a vast array of subjects ranging from robotics and control systems to communication networks and artificial intelligence.It continues to play an indispensable role in shaping the development of cutting-edge technologies while simultaneously enhancing the performance of existing systems.
Enlightened by cybernetics, the governance of the international community should be characterized by technological control, self-organization, circularity, and other related aspects.Additionally, it is crucial to emphasize two-way communication, feedback loops, generativeness, and reproduction [7].Cybernetics, as a cross-disciplinary field, devoted itself to a much broader sense and range, such as neuro-psysiology etc.The phrase was never defined in a narrow sense in that Norbert Wienner, who coined the phrase, sought for "universal framework for regulation in human beings, animals, tech products like machines, plants human society or the holistic eco-system" [20].As Foucault illustrated, "Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere" [22].The directionality of governance runs rely on who gains the power, which still takes place "everywhere" in the world even after colonialism has been brought into an end.Therefore, the western powers, who take the superior position in power, seek for every means of governing the third world.Foucault also remarks, "where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power" [22].The resistance of the third world is no less than exerting their influence upon the western powers in order to compel them to modify their policies regarding trade regulations, military cooperation, and technological exchange.Consequently, the new governance in the international community embodies the principles of cybernetics rather than a unidirectional approach reminiscent of colonial times.
The network rationality does not coincide with neo-liberalism, as some researchers claimed [25].It rather forms a distinct tradition of diverse social theories and political practices inspired by cybernetics.Further investigating their origins, trajectories and consequences will therefore enhance our analysis of contemporary societies.The neo-liberal movement encompasses a political philosophy and economic approach that emerged in the late 20th century as a response to perceived failures of liberal policies in the aftermath of World War II.Neo-liberalism places emphasis on free-market principles, individual rights, and limited government intervention in the economy.It ardently advocates for deregulation, privatization, and free trade with the ultimate goal of fostering economic growth and alleviating poverty.The influence of neo-liberalism has been far-reaching, shaping policy decisions across numerous countries worldwide, particularly within the realms of finance, economics, and foreign affairs.Consequently, cybernetics serves as an invaluable tool to keep neo-liberalism in check so as to prevent it from straying off course.

FROM "BEING" AS AN KIND OF EXISTENCE TO "DOING" AS A WAY OF PRACTITIONER
Cybernetics garnered significant attention for its audacious rejection of the rigid dichotomy between humans and machines, thereby challenging post-war humanism.In positioning itself as a fourth revolution after Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud, cybernetics sought to dethrone the human subject [26].Cybernetics assumed the role of an epistemological critique aimed at challenging the simplistic and reductionist models of modern science that were prevalent in Newtonian mechanics and ontological reasoning [27][28].As these two concepts are rooted in essentialist differentiations between subjects and objects or life and machines, they give rise to an "under-complex" comprehension of the world.To be more precise, they oversimplify the true diversity of possibilities by isolating variables and constructing linear causalities, thereby explaining the world with inadequate models of stimulus and response, cause and effect, or motivation and action [27].
As a matter of fact, cyberneticians believed that this "old" world view increasingly fails to grasp the growing complexity of the world.To overcome the "old" and embrace the "new", Ross Ashby already proclaimed a revolutionary shift towards an operational epistemology that disposes of the ontology inherent in humanism and mechanics by switching the attention from "being" to "doing": "cybernetics ...... does not ask 'what is this thing' but 'what does it do' [27].
For developing this operational approach, cybernetics invented a range of concepts to deal with the assembly of elements and model how these elements my connected to do something [29].Presenting "connectivity" as the core idea of cybernetics, stafford Beer once advanced five models of connectivity in a single paragraph ---machines, systems, networks, diagram and electric circuits: A machine is a system, a set of points joined together by certain specified relationships.Therefore we may set up as its model a simple network.... the lines by which these dots are connected reveal the possible modes in which the system can operate ... [30] From what Beer portrayed above, cybernetics defined a set of models to conceptualize connectivity, in which one model is used to explain another model as well as setting up a network.In another word, the apparatus of cybernetics encompasses graphical models (flow charts, circuit diagrams etc.), material models (machines and computers etc.), conceptual models (network, system) and mathematical models (matrices).Adopting the model of games, strategy and tactics, because it enabled them to describe connectivity and complexity from the perspective of actors without conceptualizing them in humanistic terms [31].As portrayed from Figure 1. the cybernetics alters the traditional philosophical view of how we understand state (such as identity) of them and the action they take.As mentioned, cybernetic solely focus on what you are doing than what/who you are, hereby, the transformation is somewhat "dynamicalization" and more significance is attached on action.Furthermore, we have to points out that network in cybernetics is much more intelligible in connectivity of different elements than an entity of random combination [7].The epistemological foundations of cybernetic modeling encompass two fundamental premises: firstly, a multitude of interdependent relationships that intricately shape one another; secondly, the intricate complexity within cybernetics unveils an inherent connection between realized and potential associations.Consequently, what we are able to perceive is not the essence of an entity or the identity of an individual, but merely a singular possibility brought into fruition at any given moment.Thus emerges the transition from essence to action, which was ultimately elucidated by second-order cybernetics: systems or networks solely exist through their actions, their processes, and their real-time reproduction of elements and relations.The pattern of the network undergoes a transformative process known as "evolution" as relations reproduce themselves in response to changes in the network and its environment.Unlike stable identities that develop coherently over time, this evolution is characterized by erratic, unintentional shifts that cannot be reduced to previous formations.Consequently, second-order cybernetics challenges both modern theories of identity and linear history.As a result, colonized countries have a voice in shaping the postcolonial landscape [32] rather than solely "a lamp to be slaughtered" because with the modern technology (like social media etc.), the voice of the third countries can be heard and used to instigate its civics to revolt against the "command" of western powers.That's why, western powers are so meticulous in dealing with the response (such as revolt; dissatisfaction etc.) from ever-colonized countries.The new approach of governance lies in the practice of "doer" rather than who they are even you are used to be the dominator (as the superior identity) in order to maintain the governance in postcolonial period.

INTERDEPENDENT GOVERNANCE IN CIRCULARITY AND SELF-REGULATED ENTITY
In accordance with their unequivocal rejection of mechanics and ontological philosophy, cybernetics vehemently dismissed linear-causal and mechanistic concepts of steering, particularly hierarchical forms of organization, command-and-control approaches, and central planning.Cybernetics regarded these models of regulation as "primitive" and "naive" [30], because they are based on a reductionist idea of causality and imply that systems can be steered intentionally and hierarchically.While this critique targeted the models of modern science (not political decision-making), some cyberneticians argued that the "old" rationality also yields insufficient concepts of governance and power.Those concepts are still prevailing post-war societies and simply identify control with coercion.
From the perspective of cybernetics, the two shifts continue to embody contemporary governance in an exquisite manner.Firstly, it upholds the notion that regulation is a universal and omnipresent phenomenon, with every society encompassing varying degrees of regulation manifested through coercion or linear causality.The intricate systems are "exquisitely differentiated," rendering them resistant to easy manipulation from a control center.Instead, the interdependent elements within an autonomously regulate themselves through reciprocal influence [7].Each element in a system is shaped by connecting processes and, at the same time, it shapes those processes by redirecting the flow of communication.In other words, cybernetics argued that regulation is but the name for the circular processes of communication and coordination [29].
The concept of circularity represents a novel approach to governance in the modern era, also referred to as the "feedback loop" in cybernetics.More precisely, it resembles a circular system that utilizes its own output as input.In contrast to first-order cybernetics, second-order cybernetics posits that input and output are not merely objective terms; rather, what qualifies as input is determined by internal processes within the system itself.As an organism functions as a circularly organized system, it interprets perturbations not simply as transmitted information but rather as informative stimuli [33].Circularity is such one the key characters in postcolonial landscape that both western power (colonizing states) and the countries in the third world (colonized states) are having reciprocal impact towards each other as well as constituting a circular model.In this circular model, the impact are conspicuously two-way rather than significantly one-way in colonial period and this type of model is going on and on via self-regulation.This self-regulation is deeply rooted in circularity because if each element (such as the issues in economy, trade, politics or other conflicts between two parties) goes wrong, the model will do everything to regulate in order to remain operational even there will be certain loss on each side.This conceptual clarification radicalized cybernetics' idea of control as self-organization.First-order approaches already argued that the elements of the networks regulate themselves by their own "language" [29] or code [27].But the second -order cybernetics was even more rigid because the environment a network is only "noise" until the network selects on which turbulence in the stream of noise it is going to act [1].because there are so many connections and co-denpendencies in a network and they are completely self-organization.The complexity and self-organization go hand in hand.The international governance is never easy as before but much complex and it is this complexity grows its feature of self-organization (self-regulation).It is the complicated relation between all elements (such as economy, trade, military, geo-politics etc. between colonizing states and colonized states) are check and balance reciprocally and mutually so as to stay relatively steady by itself like a cybernetic system.Just as delineated in Figure 2, cybernetics denies the linear governance and advocates the circularity since the whole system of governance in postcolonial landscape is no longer an "one-way dominance".All elements render their feedback, no matter positive or negative, while the "Control Center" carries out its governance, what's more, the "Control Center" takes certain steps to regulate its governance by taking the feedback into account so as to comprise a system which features circularity and self-organization.The concepts of are descriptive and normative.The descriptive aspect is that (according to cybernetics) complex systems have internal processes that are highly differentiated and flexible.This observation is famously stated by Ashby's "law of requisite variety" [27].Complex systems depend on diversity, flexibility and self-regulation, because they allow them to innovate, experiment a design new answers in response to a highly volatile environment.
Foucault's concepts bear traces of cybernetic ideas, the impact of the cybernetics rationality has not been explored very systematically which concentrates on structuralism [5] or reconstruction that lack a heuristic.Moreover, Foucault's approach obviously differs in many ways from socio-cybernetics attempts like Nikalas Luhmann's that openly and systematically embraced cybernetics to build a theory of society.Foucault explicitly affiliated himself with the cybernetic idea of a universal methodology that interprets the world through information, communication and regulation.He puts forward a cybernetic metaphor: we are at a moment when the world experiences itself, I think, less like a great life that would develop over time, but like a network that connects points and intersects with its own thread [23].
On the other hand, Foucault argued that focusing on language, as structuralists did, narrowed their perspective.Language is not a representation of thinking, he plead, but only one "form of communication".The theory of language, thus, refers to a more general theory of communication that works with concepts, such as "sender", "receiver", "messages", "codes and regularities", that can now be used to describe "the social" altogether [23].In the mid-1970s, Foucault translated his political commitment into an analytical form.Similar to his earlier critique of humanism and the sovereign subject, his perspective on power attacked the long standing theory of "law and sovereignty", aiming for a "much more complex" analysis of the "technology" that governs subjects [22].The narrative that humanistic and mechanistic theories must be replaced with a new way of thinking that register " much more complex" relations was planted by cybernetics.It shifted the attention from being to doing and from questions of who and what to questioning how a certain effect is produced by connections among the elements of a network.Foucault formulated this approach in a similar manner, shifting the analysis of power from what to how and transforming it into a question of ubiquitous control that governs behaviour: This concept of power entails socio-ontological assumptions that correspond with cybernetics.Like the cybernetic concept of control, Foucault assumed an "omnipresence of power", arguing that there is no society without control mechanisms [21].Omnipresence, however, did not mean that power is a monolithic and stable structure or a substantial thing that can be owned.Foucault rejected to think of power as linear, causal steering originating in a control center [22].Foucault conceptualized power as the conceptualized control of cybernetics: as decentralized self-organization.He maintained that power is but a term of the "complex strategical situation" that emerges from the permanent self-reproduction of the elements in a network: Power, insofar as it is permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing, is simply the over-all effect that emerges from all these mobilities [22].This conceptualization not only echoes with cybernetics's terminology, it also shares its epistemological premise.Firstly, power must be (re-)produced in any moment of time.In this process of self-reproduction, power.Secondly, has a "strictly relational character" [22].It is produced through the connectivity of the elements in a network that connect with each other "from one point to another".these processes, thirdly, are self-organizing in that they lack a controlling center; the elements relate themselves to other elements, yielding a pattern that is neither planned nor pre-determined.Finally, the network model of power has an impact on the role of subjectivity and of historical change.Cybernetics concepts of emergence and evolution provided an epistemology in line with Foucault's critique of viewing history as a linear, continuous development [6].Adopting the cybernetic imaginary, however, also transformed the role of the subject.In Foucault's network approach to power, subjects are no longer envisioned as integer persons or human beings, as it would be in the sovereignty paradigm.Instead, the individual now "functions, serves as node in the systemic network or occurs as a relay in the electric circuit: Power functions, power is exercised as a network, and in this network, individuals do not only circulate, they are always in a position in which they experience power as well as they exercise this power; they are always their relays [23].
Network places priority on the comprehensive and holistic picture of the landscape of power [33] which bestows the governance deficit among colonizing states and colonized states.While Foucault often stressed the ways the participants (all elements between colonizing states and colonized states) is conditioned by power technologies [21], for instance by disciplinary power, the image of a subject as a relay in an electric circuit already implied that the subject has an active part: a relay is not only controlled by the incoming power, it also always (re)directs it.

www.centuryscipub.com Volume 3 Issue 10, 2023
Moreover, cybernetics' impact on Foucault goes beyond vague metaphors as he incorporated the rationality behind it [6], stressing complexity, circulation and connectivity which shed light upon the international governance as well.

THE CYBERNETICS OF INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE IN POSTCOLONIAL DISCOURSE
Postcolonial discourse refers to the ways in which writers and scholars from the former colonial world have engaged with their own cultural heritage and history, as well as with the legacies of colonialism [19].It is a complex and multifaceted field that encompasses a wide range of literary and cultural practices, including postcolonial literature, film, art, music, and philosophy.The complexity features the cybernetics in it which unravels the inner connection between cybernetics and postcolonial discourse.In colonial period, the discourse between colonizing states and colonized states are relatively unilateral and the governance is simply militarily oppressing any revolts from colonized states.Furthermore, postcolonial discourse is characterized by a critical engagement with the ways in which colonialism shaped and was shaped by local cultures and histories [4].It seeks to challenge Eurocentric narratives and assumptions about the "other" and to promote greater understanding and appreciation of diverse perspectives and experiences [17].The voice against Eurocentric narratives turns into the circularity in cybernetic concepts in that the revolts from colonized states never fades away in the world governing mechanism as long as historical human hierarchies exist.The circular system in postcolonial discourse unveils the two-way communication flow between the two parties and none of which want to devolve into a full scale war, thereby, the circularity in cybernetics serves as an outlet for mutual understanding and better communication.With the advancement of technology, the circular communication will be consolidated and the features of cybernetics in international governance will be more striking.
Postcolonial discourse reflects a deep concern for social justice and equity [2], and seeks to address the ongoing inequalities and injustices that result from colonialism and its aftermath [4].It often critiques the ways in which colonialism has led to the marginalization and oppression of certain groups, and advocates for the empowerment of marginalized communities.Postcolonial discourse serves as a platform for "talking" between colonizing states and colonized states which embodies the power, international status and the current situation of international governance.Digital infrastructure and the ways in which it shapes our experiences of space and time.For example, the rise of the internet and social media has transformed the way we communicate and interact with one another, but it has also led to new forms of surveillance and control which resonate with how cybernetics portrays the communication between colonizing states and colonized states in postcolonial period [17].
This raises important questions about the role of technology in shaping our identities and our ability to exercise agency in the world.Data ethics and the ways in which technology shapes our relationship to information [6].As more and more personal data is collected by companies (transnational companies) and governments in colonizing states and colonized states, there are growing concerns about privacy, security, and the potential for abuse.Postcolonial scholars have often highlighted the ways in which marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by these practices [2], and have called for greater accountability and transparency from those who control this data in contemporary.Those data are used in international governance therefore the colonizing states and colonized states is capable of better understanding their international "data situation" of people to maintain stable by making concession; oppression the public opinion etc..In addition to postcolonial discourse, the postcolonial control (the purpose of postcolonial discourse) is what colonizing states endeavor to maintain.Postcolonial control can be viewed from the perspective of cybernetics, which is the study of the interaction between organisms and their environment [4].In this context, postcolonial control refers to the ways in which colonial powers have maintained their control over colonized territories through the use of technology and communication.One common approach is the use of surveillance and monitoring technologies to track and control the behavior of colonized populations [1][3].This can involve the installation of cameras, sensors, and other electronic devices that are used to monitor people's movements, activities, and communications.Another approach is the use of information technology to control access to information and resources.This can involve the imposition of digital censorship, the blocking of websites and social media platforms, and the restriction of access to information and knowledge.Postcolonial control can also be seen as a form of cultural imperialism [17], in which Western powers seek to impose their values and beliefs on the colonized societies through the use of technology and communication.This can involve the spread of Western languages, religions, and educational systems [2], as well as the suppression of traditional cultures and ways of life.The postcolonial control from the perspective of cybernetics highlights the ways in which colonial powers have maintained their control over colonized territories through the use of technology and communication [1][3].While many countries have achieved independence and established new forms of government in recent decades, issues related to privacy, freedom of expression, and cultural diversity continue to persist.
Cybernetic approaches in postcolonial discourse embody the brand new ways of communication between colonizing states and colonized states with regard to all elements in the postcolonial landscape.One common approach is the use of communication technologies to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas between colonial powers and colonized societies [5].This can involve the establishment of telecommunication networks, email systems, and social media platforms that are used to facilitate communication between individuals, organizations, and governments.Another approach is the use of technology to facilitate economic interactions between colonial powers and colonized societies [6].This can involve the establishment of trade networks, online marketplaces, and digital payment systems that are used to facilitate the exchange of goods and services between individuals and businesses.

CONCLUSION
The postcolonial governance in the contemporary era refers to the ways in which postcolonial states and societies have developed their own forms of government and power structures [17] in response to historical experiences of colonialism, imperialism, and globalization.Firstly, much research on the "network society" and "network governance" diagnoses (or even supports) a spread of networks and a higher degree of connectivity, but they do so by using concepts that are designed to view the world as a world of complex networks [1][3].Their diagnoses are, thus, potentially an artefact of their conceptual framework.Moreover, the associated argument that computer and internet brought a structural change that makes networks necessary is denounced.Applying the cybernetic imaginary to the social world was instrumental to discouraging other political approaches, such as neo-Marxism.Cybernetics and social governance are two fields that have some overlap, as both deal with the study of complex systems and how they can be controlled and optimized for maximum efficiency.Governance is like discipline which is a set of techniques for controlling the functions of the body [5].Discipline manipulated an individual's movements as well as his perception of space and time [24].In the context of social governance, cybernetics can be used to analyze and improve the functioning of government institutions and policies.One area where cybernetics can be applied in social governance is in the analysis of public opinion and sentiment.Cybernetic methods can be used to study how people's emotions and attitudes are influenced by different communication channels and media outlets, and to develop strategies for shaping public opinion in a way that promotes political goals.Another area where cybernetics can be applied in social governance is in the analysis of social networks and communication systems [5].Cybernetic methods can be used to study how these systems operate, how they are used to spread information and ideas, and how they can be manipulated to influence political outcomes.In addition, cybernetic techniques can also be used to optimize government policies and decision-making processes [6].For example, by using feedback mechanisms and adaptive control algorithms, governments can learn from their mistakes and adjust their policies accordingly, leading to more effective and efficient governance.Overall, cybernetics has the potential to play an important role in improving the effectiveness of social governance, by providing new tools and methods for understanding complex systems and optimizing their performance.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: The Circularity in Cybernetics