Sanal dünyaların müzakere potansiyeli: “Second Life” örneği

Year 2016, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 0 - 0, 14.11.2016

Demet Gençer Kasap

https://doi.org/10.19145/gujofoc.32873

Abstract

Bu çalışma üç boyutlu ve çok-kullanıcılı sanal bir dünya olan Second Life üzerinde gerçekleşen kamusal tartışmaların müzakereci yaklaşım açısından niteliksel olarak değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Türkiye’nin kamusal meselelerini konu edinen tartışmalar, Jürgen Habermas’ın İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı (1984) ile Söylem Etiği (1991, 1996) çalışmalarından temellenen akılcı ve etik ilkeler (düşünümsellik, gerekçelendirme, karsılıklılık, söylemsel eşitlik, saygı, dahil olma, bağımsızlık) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında, nicel paradigma ekseninde içerik çözümlemesi ile anket, veri toplama teknikleri olarak işe koşulmuştur. Bulgular göstermektedir ki, incelenen forumlarda Türkiye’nin kamusal gündemi, teknoloji dolayımıyla bir araya gelen katılımcılar tarafından düşünce çeşitliliği çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır. Bununla birlikte tartışmalar, akılcı ve etik ilkeleri tam olarak karşılayamamaktadır. Tartışma süreçlerinde, anlaşmaya yönlenmiş eylemler yerine yarışmacı tarzda başarıya yönlenmiş eylemler ağırlıklı olarak gerçekleşmektedir. Özellikle Second Life’da gerçekleşen bu tartışmalarda gerekçelendirme davranışının oldukça düşük olması, akılcı tartışmaların önünde önemli bir engel oluşturmaktadır. Öte yandan söylemsel eşitlik, karşılıklılık ile saygı ilkelerinin gerçekleştirilmesi ise ortamın müzakereci etkinlikler açısından olumlu yönlerini oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler; Müzakereci Demokrasi, Kamusal Alan, Habermas, Çevrimiçi Müzakere, Second Life.

Deliberation potential of virtual worlds: case of “Second Life”

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate deliberation quality of public discussions which were held in a 3D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) Second Life. Discussions regarding Turkey’s public issues are examined by using the rationalistic and ethical criteria comes from Communicative Action Theory (1984) and discourse ethics studies (1991, 1996) of Jürgen Habermas. Techniques of quantitative content analysis, and survey are employed for data collection. Findings suggest that the current public agenda of Turkey is discussed within the framework of thought diversity by the citizens gathered in this virtual world. However, these discussions do not fully satisfy the Habermasian rationalistic and ethical criteria. Instead of actions that oriented common good, competitive actions directed towards success are more commonly observed. Particularly, MUVE has low level of justification that is a significant barrier for rationalistic discussions. On the other hand, principles of discursive equality, reciprocity, and respect are reflected successfully in the MUVE during the deliberations.

Keywords: Deliberative Democracy, Public Sphere, Habermas, Online Deliberation, Second Life.

References

• BAYM, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity.
• BENHABIB, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratıc legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.) Democracy and Difference (pp. 67-94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
• DAHLBERG, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7, 1, 1-20.
• DAHLBERG, L. (2004). Net-public sphere research: Beyond the ‘first phase’. Javnost-The Public, 11, 1, 27-44.
• DEWALT, K, M & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira.
• EKINIL, B. (2009). A new era on the Internet: Facebook.com to face the Facebook as a huge social phenomen. İletişim, 7, 2. Retrieved from http://ilet.gazi.edu.tr/posts/download?id=13800 (Date: 7.4.2014).
• GEMALMAZ, H. B. (2011). Sanal dünyalarda iktidar ve özgürlük. İstanbul: Beta.
• GRAHAM, T. S. (2008). Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifying and assessing political talk in non-political discussion forums. Javnost-The Public, 15, 2, 17-36.
• GRAHAM, T. S. (2012). Beyond “political”communicative spaces: Talking politics on the wife swap discussion forum, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 1, 31-45.
• GORDON, E. & Manosevitch (2010). Augmented deliberation: Merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning, New Media and Society, 13 (1), 75-95.
• HABERMAS, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon.
• HABERMAS, J. (2001). İletişimsel eylem kuramı. (Çev: M. Tüzel). İstanbul: Kabalcı.
• HABERMAS, J. (1991). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity.
• HABERMAS, J. (1996). Between fact and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT.
• HEPPNER, P.P., Wampold, B. E., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2008). Research design in counseling. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
• IKEGAMI, E. & Hut, P. (2008). Avatars are for real: Virtual communities and public spheres. Journal of Virtual world research, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/288 (Date: 7.4.2014).
• JANKOWSKI, N. W. & Van Os, R. (2004). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in the city of Hoogeveen. In P.M. Shane (Ed), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (181-195). New York: Routledge.
• JANSSEN, D. & Kies, R. (2004). Online forums and deliberative democracy: Hypotheses, variables and methodologies. Conference on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics, European University Institute, Florence. Retrieved from
• http://www.edemocracycentre.ch/files/onlineforums.pdf (Date: 7.4.2014).
• JENSEN, J. L. (2003). Public spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored- A comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26, 4, 249-374.
• KASAP, D. (2013). Sanal iletisim ortamlarinin katilimci demokrasi sureclerine etkisi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskisehir.
• KIES, R. (2003). The e-democracy strategy of Partito Radicale. European Parliament Directorate-general for research: STOA.
• MANNOYER-SMITH, L. & WOJCIK, S. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: A comparison between on and off-line participation, International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5, 1, 24-49.
• MANOSEVITCH, I. (2014). The design of online deliberation: Implications for practice, theory and democratic citizenship, Journal of Public Deliberation, 10, 1, article 9. Retrieved from: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art9 (Date: 7.4.2015).
• MILLARD, W. B. (1997). I flamed Freud: A case study in tele-textual incendiarism. In D. Porter (Ed.). Internet Culture (pp. 145-159). New York: Routledge.
• MIN, S-J. (2009). Deliberation, east meets west: Exploring the cultural dimension of citizen. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Ohio.
• MORISON, J. & D. Newman (2001) ‘Online Citizenship: Consultation and Participation in New Labour’s Britain and Beyond’, International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 15, 2, 171–94.
• MUHLBERGER, P. (2005). Access, skill, and motivation in online political discussion: Testing Cyberrealism. In P.M. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal thought the Internet (pp. 225-237). New York: Routledge.
• PATTON, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd. edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• SCHNEIDER, S. M. (1997). Expanding public sphere through computer-mediated communication: Political discussion about abortion in a Usenet news group. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
• SHEDLETSKY, L. J. & AITKEN, J. E. (2004). Human communication on the Internet. Boston: Pearson Education.
• STEENBERGEN, M. R., BÄCHTIGER, A., SPÖRNDLI, M. & STEINER, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48.
• STROMER-GALLEY, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3, 1, 1-35
• STROMER-GALLEY, J. & MARTINSON, A.M. (2009) Coherence in political computer-mediated communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse and Communication, 3, 2, 195-216.
• VEHOVAR, V., MANFREDA, K. L. (2008). Overview: Online survey. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee and G. Blank (Eds). The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 177-194). Los Angeles: SAGE.
• WILHELM, A.G. (2002). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
• WITSCHGE, T. (2005). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy. In P.M. Shane (Ed.) Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (pp. 47-61). New York: Routledge.
• WRIGHT, S. & STREET, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media and Society, 9, 5, 849-69.