ŞEFFAF DUVARLAR: SOSYAL MEDYANIN KUŞAKLARARASI İLETİŞİM, MAHREMİYET VE OTORİTE ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Şanlıurfa gibi geleneksel, kolektif ve ataerkil kodların güçlü olduğu bir bağlamda, sosyal medyanın kuşaklararası iletişim üzerindeki paradoksal etkilerini incelemektedir. Mevcut literatür büyük ölçüde birey odaklı bir perspektife sahip olup, dijital mahremiyeti genellikle devlet veya şirketler gibi dışsal tehditler üzerinden okuma eğilimindedir. Bu araştırma ise mahremiyet mücadelesinin ve gözetim dinamiklerinin merkezine “aile içi” aktörleri yerleştirerek literatürdeki bu boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlamaktadır. Şanlıurfa’da literatürde “dijital yerli” ve “dijital göçmen” olarak tanımlanan iki farklı teknolojik habitusa sahip 30 katılımcıyla yürütülen derinlemesine görüşmelere dayanan bu çalışma, yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik bir tasarım izlemiş; görüşme verileri refleksif tematik analizle çözümlenmiştir. Çalışma, ayrıca sosyal medyanın aile içinde paradoksal bir “şeffaf duvar” işlevi gördüğünü öne sürmektedir. Bu metaforun “şeffaflık” boyutu, aile üyeleri arasında “çevresel farkındalık” yoluyla sürekli bir bağlantı illüzyonu yaratırken; “duvar” boyutu üç temel alanda gerilim üretmektedir. Bulgular, sosyal medyanın (1) Meyrowitz’in “bağlam çöküşü” teorisiyle uyumlu olarak aileyi bir “panoptik aile”ye dönüştürdüğünü; (2) küresel değerleri bir “gizli müfredat” olarak yayarak yerel “ahlaki ekonomi” ile çatıştırdığını ve (3) dijital göçmenlerin, dijital yerlilere olan teknik bağımlılığı nedeniyle geleneksel otorite hiyerarşilerini tersine çevirerek “tersine evcilleştirme” sürecini tetiklediğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Sosyal Medya
• Kuşaklararası İletişim
• Şanlıurfa
• Panoptik Aile
• Tersine Evcilleştirme

TRANSPARENT WALLS: THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNICATION, PRIVACY, AND AUTHORITY

Abstract

This study examines the paradoxical effects of social media on intergenerational communication in a context such as Şanlıurfa, where traditional, collective, and patriarchal codes are strong. The existing literature largely adopts a Western-centric perspective and tends to interpret digital privacy primarily through external threats such as the state or corporations. This research aims to fill this gap in the literature by placing “intra-familial” actors at the center of the privacy struggle and surveillance dynamics It is based on in-depth interviews with 30 participants in Şanlıurfa who are defined as having two different technological habits: “digital natives” and “digital immigrants.” Designed within an interpretive phenomenological framework, the interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. This study argues that social media functions as a paradoxical “transparent wall” within the family. The “transparency” dimension of this metaphor creates an illusion of constant connection among family members through “environmental awareness,” while the “wall” dimension generates tension in three key areas. The findings suggest that social media (1) transforms the family into a “panoptic family,” consistent with Meyrowitz’s “context collapse” theory; (2) it disseminates global values as a “hidden curriculum,” conflicting with the local “moral economy”; and (3) it triggers a process of “reverse domestication” by inverting traditional authority hierarchies due to digital immigrants’ technical dependence on digital natives.

Keywords

• Social Media
• Şanlıurfa
• Panoptic Family
• Reverse Domestication
• Intergenerational Communication

References

1. Abbas, R., Pataki, S., Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., & Ilaiyan, S. (2018). What do they want from my life? Parent-child relationships as perceived by Druze adolescents in Israel. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(3), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.177/0743558418764088
2. Abel, S., Machin, T., & Brownlow, C. (2020). Social media, rituals, and long-distance family relationship maintenance: A mixed-methods systematic review. New Media & Society, 23(3), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.177/1461444820958717
3. Abu-Asbah, K. (2018). Intergenerational gaps in digital understanding and skills in Palestinian society in Israel. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 2991–3006. https://doi.org/10.007/s10639-018-9755-x
4. Adam, I. (2020). Perceptions of social media use and family values in the Northern Region of Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i1/6852
5. Ahmad, N., Shahdan, T., & Yahya, N. (2025). Bridging generations: A scoping review of teaching technology to the elderly using intergenerational strategies. International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology, 14(2), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1591/ijict.v14i2.pp529-539
6. Akdoğan, R., & Çimşir, E. (2022). Collectivistic ambivalence: A potential source of social anxiety for individuals with higher inferiority feelings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 90, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.016/j.ijintrel.2022.07.003
7. Alinejad, D. (2019). Careful co-presence: The transnational mediation of emotional intimacy. Social Media + Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.177/2056305119854222
8. Alinejad, D. (2020). Techno-emotional mediations of transnational intimacy: Social media and care relations in long-distance Romanian families. Media, Culture & Society, 43(3), 444–459. https://doi.org/10.177/0163443720972313

9. Arya, E. (2024). Social media’s role in shifting cultures: From collective roots to individual branches. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4785094
10. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
12. Cabalquinto, E. (2018a). Ambivalent intimacies: Entangled pains and gains through Facebook use in transnational family life. New Media & Society, 20(2), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816682078
13. Cabalquinto, E. (2018b). “We’re not only here but we’re there in spirit”: Asymmetrical mobile intimacy and the transnational Filipino family. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157917722058
14. Chassiakos, Y., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M., & Cross, C. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162593. https://doi.org/10.542/peds.2016-2593
15. Cheng, H., Lyu, K., Li, J., & Shiu, H. (2021). Bridging the digital divide for rural older adults by family intergenerational learning: A classroom case in a rural primary school in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010371
16. Correa, T., Straubhaar, J., Chen, W., & Spence, J. (2013). Brokering new technologies: The role of children in their parents’ usage of the internet. New Media & Society, 17(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.177/1461444813506975
17. Creswell, J. W. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (B. Demir & M. Bütün, Çev. Ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
18. Damkjær, M. S., Southerton, C., & Albrechtslund, A. (2019). Relief from communication: Parental surveillance technologies, trust and care. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research.
19. Davis, K., & James, C. (2013). Tweens’ conceptions of privacy online: Implications for educators. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.080/17439884.2012.658404
20. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
21. De Wolf, R. (2019). Contextualizing how teens manage personal and interpersonal privacy on social media. New Media & Society, 22(6), 1058–1075. https://doi.org/10.177/1461444819876570
22. Dewi, A. (2023). Kajian literatur manajemen privasi dalam konteks hubungan keluarga di Facebook. Jurnal Komunikatif, 12(2), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.33508/jk.v12i2.4749
23. Druker, M., & Yanovskaya, G. (2021). Media memes as a way of representing family values in social media. Izvestia Ural Federal University Journal Series 1. Issues in Education, Science and Culture, 27(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.5826/izv1.2021.27..009
24. Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P., Vartanian, L., & Halliwell, E. (2015). The mediating role of appearance comparisons in the relationship between media usage and self-objectification in young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.177/0361684315581841
25. Farrukh, M., Hassan, A., & Ramazan, T. (2023). Unraveling virtual threads: The impact of social media engagement on family dynamics and real-life relationships. Research Journal for Societal Issues, 5(3), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.56976/rjsi.v5i3.59
26. Fingerman, K., Huo, M., & Birditt, K. (2020). A decade of research on intergenerational ties: Technological, economic, political, and demographic changes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.111/jomf.2604
27. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Polity Press.
28. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
29. Goodman-Deane, J., Mieczakowski, A., Johnson, D., Goldhaber, T., & Clarkson, P. (2016). The impact of communication technologies on life and relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.016/j.chb.2015.1.053
30. Greyson, D., Chabot, C., Mniszak, C., & Shoveller, J. (2021). Social media and online safety practices of young parents. Journal of Information Science, 49(6), 1344–1357. https://doi.org/10.177/01655515211053808
31. Hampton, K. (2015). Persistent and pervasive community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.177/0002764215601714
32. Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., Byron, P., Robards, B., & Churchill, B. (2019). ‘That’s not necessarily for them’: LGBTIQ+ young people, social media platform affordances and identity curation. Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.177/0163443719846612
33. Hopkins, J. (2020). Networked individualism and networked families in Malaysia. In Social media in Malaysia (pp. 31–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.007/978-94-024-1790-6-3
34. Jozani, M., Ayaburi, E., Ko, M., & Choo, K. (2020). Privacy concerns and benefits of engagement with social media-enabled apps: A privacy calculus perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106260. https://doi.org/10.016/j.chb.2020.06260
35. Kang, H., Shin, W., & Huang, J. (2021). Teens’ privacy management on video-sharing social media: The roles of perceived privacy risk and parental mediation. Internet Research, 32(1), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.108/INTR-01-2021-0005
36. Latuheru, M., Manuputty, F., & Angkotasan, S. (2024). Interactions between generations in digital literacy education: A case of millennial families in Suli, Central Maluku. BAILEO: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora. https://doi.org/10.30598/baileofisipvol1iss2pp141-154
37. Leonardi, P. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom”. MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4
38. Levordashka, A., & Utz, S. (2016). Ambient awareness: From random noise to digital closeness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.016/j.chb.2016.02.037
39. Madianou, M. (2016). Ambient co-presence: Transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global Networks, 16(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.111/glob.2105
40. Maihasni, M., Fachrina, F., Anggraini, N., & Ariesta, A. (2025). Social cohesion and social media threats to families in the digital era. Society. https://doi.org/10.33019/society.v13i2.833
41. Marciano, A. (2021). Parental surveillance and parenting styles: Toward a model of familial surveillance climates. Mobile Media & Communication, 10(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.177/20501579211012436
42. Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.177/1461444814543995
43. Mertala, P., López-Pernas, S., Vartiainen, H., Saqr, M., & Tedre, M. (2023). Digital natives in the scientific literature: A topic modeling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, 108076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108076
44. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. Oxford University Press.
45. Mols, A., Campos, J., & Pridmore, J. (2023). Family surveillance: Understanding parental monitoring, reciprocal practices, and digital resilience. Surveillance & Society, 21(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i4.5645
46. Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
47. Novita, D., Sar’an, M., Ridwansah, A., Suharyono, S., & Ardiansyah, H. (2025). Family conflict disclosure on social media in Islamic law: Islah as a reconciliation mechanism. Al-Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum Islam. https://doi.org/10.29240/jhi.v10i1.2658
48. Oropilla, C. T., & Ødegaard, E. E. (2021). Strengthening the call for intentional intergenerational programmes towards sustainable futures for children and families. Sustainability, 13(10), 5564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105564
49. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
50. Patton, M. Q. (2021). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemi (B. Demiş & M. Bütün, Çev. Ed., 3. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
51. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
52. Procentese, F., Gatti, F., & Di Napoli, I. (2019). Families and social media use: The role of parents’ perceptions about social media impact on family systems in the relationship between family collective efficacy and open communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5006. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245006
53. Rathore, S., Sharma, P., Loia, V., Jeong, Y., & Park, J. (2017). Social network security: Issues, challenges, threats, and solutions. Information Sciences, 421, 43–69. https://doi.org/10.016/j.ins.2017.08.063
54. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44). Sage.
55. Rosales, A., & Blanche-T, D. (2021). Explicit and implicit intergenerational digital literacy dynamics: How families contribute to overcome the digital divide of grandmothers. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 20(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.080/15350770.2021.921651
56. Sarasvuo, S., Rindell, A., & Kovalchuk, M. (2022). Toward a conceptual understanding of co-creation in branding. Journal of Business Research, 150, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.016/j.jbusres.2021.09.051
57. Sherman, L., Payton, A., Hernandez, L., Greenfield, P., & Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.177/0956797616645673
58. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
59. Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. Routledge.
60. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces(pp. 15–31). Routledge.
61. Tariq, A., Khan, S. R., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., & Basharat, A. (2023). Association of social media use with family connectedness and parental monitoring: A survey study of young adults in Pakistan. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023, 9623086.
62. Tariq, A., Sáez, D., & Khan, S. (2021). Social media use and family connectedness: A systematic review of quantitative literature. New Media & Society, 24(4), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.177/14614448211016885
63. Thangavel, P., & Chandra, B. (2024). Digital immigrants versus digital natives: Decoding their e-commerce adoption behavior. SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241282437
64. Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine.
65. Vieweg, S., & Hodges, A. (2016). Surveillance & modesty on social media: How Qataris navigate modernity and maintain tradition. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing.
66. Yavuz, A., & Aytekin, P. (2025). Tradwife influencers in the U.S. and Türkiye: A comparison of traditional womanhood and family roles on social media. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.629970
67. Yayman, E., & Bilgin, O. (2020). Relationship between social media addiction, game addiction and family functions. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4), 979. https://doi.org/10.1591/ijere.v9i4.20680
68. Yıldırım, M., Çi̇çek, I., Öztekin, G., Aziz, I., & Hu, J. (2023). Associations between problematic social media use and psychological adjustment in Turkish adolescents: Mediating roles of family relationships. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. https://doi.org/10.007/s11469-023-01138