Belirsizlikten Aidiyete: Küresel Güvensizlik Çağında Kimliğin Politikleşmesi

Abstract

Küresel belirsizlik ve enformasyon fazlasının belirlediği post-hakikat çağında, siyasal davranış giderek bilgi temelli olmaktan çıkarak duygusal güvenlik arayışı etrafında şekillenmektedir. Bu çalışma, bireylerin küresel güvensizlik ortamında istikrarı olgusal doğrularda değil, duygusal aidiyetlerde aradığını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu eğilim, siyasal katılım biçimlerinin rasyonel tartışmadan ziyade duygusal yankı üzerinden örgütlenmesine yol açmaktadır. Çalışma, kavramsal çözümleme, literatür karşılaştırması ve kuramsal sentez tekniklerinden yararlanılarak eleştirel–yorumlayıcı nitel araştırma deseniyle yürütülmüştür. Harari, Han, Ahmed, Bauman, Beck ve Giddens gibi düşünürlerin yaklaşımları karşılaştırmalı biçimde incelenmiştir. Bulgular, post-hakikat çağında siyasal davranışın “duygusal güvenlik rejimi” adı verilen dört temel bileşen üzerinden biçimlendiğini göstermektedir: (1) bilgi bolluğunun yarattığı ontolojik güvensizlik, bireyleri aidiyet arayışına yöneltmektedir; (2) duygular irrasyonel değil, stratejik biçimde rasyonelleşmiş siyasal araçlara dönüşmektedir; (3) hakikat-sonrası yurttaş, bilgiden çok duygusal güvenliğe dayalı kimlik inşa etmektedir; (4) dijital teknolojiler, bu duygusal yönelimleri gözetim ve algoritmik denetim yoluyla kurumsallaştırmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, duygusal güvenlik arayışının zamanla duygusal fanatizm ve kutuplaşma biçimlerinde kurumsallaşarak siyasal meşruiyetin temelini oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda “duygusal güvenlik rejimi”, post-hakikat çağında aidiyetin politikleşmesini anlamak için açıklayıcı ve gelecekteki araştırmalar açısından yönlendirici bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Post-hakikat
• Duygusal güvenlik rejimi
• Aidiyet
• Enfokrasi
• Duygusal kutuplaşma

Ethical Statement

Bu teorik bir çalışma olduğundan etik kurul raporu gerektirmemektedir. Çalışmada tüm etik ilklere uyulmuştur.

From Uncertainty to Belonging: The Politicization of Identity in the Age of Global Insecurity

Abstract

In the post-truth era characterized by global uncertainty and an overabundance of information, political behavior has increasingly shifted from being knowledge-based to being organized around the pursuit of emotional security. This study aims to demonstrate that individuals, within a climate of global insecurity, seek stability not in factual truths but in emotional attachments. This tendency leads political participation to be structured through emotional resonance rather than rational deliberation. The study employs a critical–interpretive qualitative design based on conceptual analysis, literature comparison, and theoretical synthesis. The approaches of thinkers such as Harari, Han, Ahmed, Bauman, Beck, and Giddens are examined comparatively. The findings indicate that political behavior in the post-truth era is shaped by four fundamental components of what is termed the “emotional security regime”: (1) the ontological insecurity produced by information overload drives individuals toward the search for belonging; (2) emotions are not irrational but become strategically rationalized political instruments; (3) the post-truth citizen constructs identity not through knowledge but through emotional security; and (4) digital technologies institutionalize these emotional orientations through surveillance and algorithmic control. The results suggest that the pursuit of emotional security gradually becomes institutionalized in the forms of emotional fanaticism and polarization, constituting the basis of political legitimacy. In this context, the “emotional security regime” offers an explanatory and conceptually guiding framework for understanding the politicization of belonging in the post-truth age.

Keywords

• Post-truth
• Emotional Security Regime
• Belonging
• Infocracy
• Emotional Polarization

Ethical Statement

Since this is a theoretical study, it does not require an ethics committee report. All ethical principles have been followed in this study.

References

1. Acemoğlu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Ulusların düşüşü: Güç, zenginlik ve yoksulluğun kökenleri (Çev. F. Çulhaoğlu). Doğan Kitap.
2. Acemoğlu, D. (2021). Dar koridor: Devletler, toplumlar ve özgürlüğün geleceği (Çev. F. Çulhaoğlu). Doğan Kitap.
3. Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
4. Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of small numbers: An essay on the geography of anger. Duke University Press.
5. Bauman, Z. (2017). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
7. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.
8. Clough, P. T., & Halley, J. (Eds.). (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press.

9. Collier, D., & Mahon, J. E. (1993). Conceptual “stretching” revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 87(4), 845–855.
10. Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. International Psycho-Analytical Press.
11. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
12. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
13. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
14. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.
15. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.
16. Han, B.-C. (2022). Infocracy: Digitization and the crisis of democracy. Polity Press.
17. Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.
18. Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape.
19. Harari, Y. N. (2018, August 5). Humans are a post-truth species. The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-post-truth-species
20. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.
21. Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity Press.
22. Illouz, E. (2020). The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. Oxford University Press.
23. Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741–767.
24. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
25. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
26. Marcus, G. E. (2020). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics (2nd ed.). Penn State University Press.
27. Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of affect. Polity Press.
28. Metzler, A., Huber, R. A., & Schaub, M. (2023a). Affective polarization in the digital age. Political Communication, 40(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2172429
29. Metzler, H., Lazer, D., Wilson, C., & Soroka, S. (2023b). Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. PNAS Nexus, 2(12), pgae257. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae257
30. Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press.
31. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370.
32. Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Polity Press.
33. Mutz, D. C. (2021). The psychology of political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 1–21.
34. Oxford Languages. (2016). Word of the Year 2016: Post-truth. Oxford University Press. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/
35. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
36. Robertson, C. E., Wilson, T. D., & Soroka, S. (2023). Negativity drives online news consumption. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 782–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01529-5
37. Robertson, C. T., Wilson, C., & Soroka, S. (2023). Emotion and the echo chamber: How social media amplifies affective polarization. Journal of Communication, 73(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac046
38. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.
39. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage.
40. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–74). Princeton University Press.
41. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. Sage.
42. Wodak, R. (2020). The politics of fear: The shameless normalization of far-right discourse (2nd ed.). Sage.