The Theory of Shadow Bodies: The Conflict Between Social Invisibility and Digital Representation

Abstract

This study proposes a sociological theory concerning the representation of the human body in the digital age: the Shadow Bodies Theory. Positioned at the intersection of social invisibility and digital representation, the theory gains significance by interrogating how individuals’ physical presence becomes increasingly obscured in the social sphere, while being simultaneously reconstructed through digital imagery. Constructed on the basis of qualitative research methodology, the study employs descriptive analysis and theoretical modeling techniques. As its empirical ground, the study draws upon scholarly literature on human-machine interaction, reports published by various ethics committees on digital privacy and algorithmic transparency, and recent findings on the societal impacts of digital algorithms. Throughout the analytical process, key concepts such as bodily representation in digital platforms, data identity, and algorithmic visibility are examined within a sociological framework. The research demonstrates how digital media reproduce mechanisms of social exclusion. The term Shadow Body refers to the digitally reconstituted yet fragile representation of an individual who is physically present but socially obscured. The findings reveal that although digital representation carries a liberating potential, it simultaneously generates new regimes of control, classification, and exclusion. In this regard, the theory calls for a critical rethinking of visibility and representation in the digital era. The study aims to uncover how individuals’ states of social invisibility are reproduced through digital technologies, and how this process lays the groundwork for novel forms of surveillance and marginalization.

Keywords

• Shadow body
• Digital representation
• Social invisibility
• Algorithmic transparency
• Data identity

Gölge Bedenler Kuramı: Toplumsal Görünmezlik ve Dijital Temsiliyet Arasındaki Çatışma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital çağda insan bedeninin temsiline dair toplumsal bir kuram önerisi sunmaktadır: Gölge Bedenler Kuramı. Toplumsal görünmezlik ile dijital temsiliyet arasındaki gerilim ekseninde şekillenen kuram, bireylerin fiziksel varlıklarının toplumsal alanda nasıl silikleştiğini ve dijital imgeler yoluyla nasıl yeniden inşa edildiğini sorgulamasıyla önem kazanmaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemine dayalı olarak yapılandırılan bu çalışma, betimsel analiz ve kuramsal modelleme teknikleriyle ilerlemiştir. Veri zemini olarak insan-makine etkileşimine dair bilimsel literatür, çeşitli etik kurulların dijital mahremiyet ve algoritmik şeffaflık üzerine yayımladığı bildiriler ile dijital algoritmaların toplumsal etkilerine dair güncel raporlar kullanılmıştır. Analiz sürecinde dijital platformlarda bedenin temsil biçimleri, veri kimliği (data identity) ve algoritmik görünürlük gibi kavramlar sosyolojik bir çerçevede ele alınmış; dijital mecraların toplumsal dışlanmayı nasıl yeniden ürettiği ortaya konmuştur. Gölge Beden, fiziksel olarak var olan ama toplumsal olarak silikleşmiş bireyin, dijitalde yeniden ama kırılgan biçimde temsiline işaret etmektedir. Çalışmanın sonucunda, dijital temsiliyetin özgürleştirici bir potansiyel barındırsa da yeni türden bir denetim, sınıflandırma ve dışlama rejimi yarattığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda kuram, dijital çağda görünürlük ve temsil ilişkilerini yeniden düşünmeyi gerekli kılmaktadır. Araştırma, bireylerin toplumsal alanda görünür olmama hâlinin, dijital teknolojiler aracılığıyla nasıl yeniden üretildiğini ve bu sürecin yeni türden denetim ile dışlama biçimlerine nasıl zemin hazırladığını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Gölge beden
• Dijital temsiliyet
• Toplumsal görünmezlik
• Algoritmik şeffaflık
• Veri kimliği

References

1. Aksoy, H. C. (2022). Kişisel verilerin korunması yönüyle algoritmik karar verme. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, 4(2), 69–87.
2. Andrejevic, M. (2013). Infoglut: How too much information is changing the way we think and know. Routledge.
3. Anthony, D., Campos-Castillo, C., & Horne, C. (2017). Toward a sociology of privacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053643
4. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981).
5. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Polity Press.
6. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.
7. Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (H. Zohn, Trans.). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1936).
8. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge.

9. Bourdieu, P., Célestin, R., DalMolin, E., & Courtivron, I. (2016). Symbolic violence. In Beyond French feminisms: Debates on women, culture and politics in France 1980-2001 (pp. 272–287). Springer.
10. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
11. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. Routledge.
12. Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 931–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116638396
13. Casement, A. (2012). The shadow. In R. Withers (Ed.), The handbook of Jungian psychology (pp. 94–112). Routledge.
14. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press.
15. Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. MIT Press.
16. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
17. Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
18. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828
19. Devisch, R. (1985). Approaches to symbol and symptom in bodily space‐time. International Journal of Psychology, 20(3-4), 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598508247548
20. Erol, M. U. (2024). Dijitalleşmenin insan haklarına getirdiği ikilemleri savunmasız gruplar örneği üzerinden anlamak. Türk-Alman Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 414–453. https://doi.org/10.59933/tauhfd.1610497
21. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
22. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
23. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975).
24. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. Routledge.
26. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.
27. Friese, C. (2024). The shadow bodies of mice: Invisible work in translational medicine. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 50(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241276276
28. Friston, K. (2011). Embodied inference: Or I think therefore I am, if I am what I think. In W. Tschacher & C. Bergomi (Eds.), The implications of embodiment (Cognition and Communication) (pp. 89–125). Imprint Academic.
29. Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. SAGE.
30. Galloway, A. R. (2012). The interface effect. Polity.
31. Gartner. (2024). Digital avatars and AI representation growth. https://www.gartner.com/digital-avatars-2024
32. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
33. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Edited by Stuart Hall, Sage Publications.
34. Han, B. C. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford University Press.
35. Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper Perennial. (Original work published 1927).
36. Hilpisch, Y. (2015). Derivatives analytics with Python: Data analysis, models, simulation, calibration and hedging. Wiley.
37. Jagger, G. (2008). Judith Butler: Sexual politics, social change and the power of the performative. Routledge.
38. Karakuş, M. (2024). Dijital şiddet ve sosyal medya üzerine bibliyometrik bir araştırma. TRT Akademi, 9(20), 204–227. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1401797
39. Kaufmann, T. D. C. (1975). The perspective of shadows: The history of the theory of shadow projection. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 38(1), 258–287. https://www.jstor.org/stable/750900
40. Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021: Global overview report. We Are Social & Hootsuite. https://wearesocial.com/us/blog/2021/01/digital-2021-the-latest-insights-into-the-state-of-digital/
41. Kılınç, U. (2021). Dijital dünyada sosyal medya, benlik sunumu, gözetim-denetim ve riskler arasındaki ilişkiler. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(4), 1647–1669.
42. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Open University Press.
43. Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Polity Press.
44. Mirzoeff, N. (2015). How to see the world. Pelican.
45. Motzkin, G. (2002). Representation. Synthese, 130(2), 201–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117212
46. Nakamura, L. (2007). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the Internet. University of Minnesota Press.
47. Navarro Tejero, A. (2004). Telling (her) story: An overview of subaltern studies. Feminismo/s, 4, 85–96.
48. Nietzsche, F. (1995). Thus spoke Zarathustra (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Modern Library. (Original work published 1883).
49. Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Contextual integrity up and down the data food chain. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 20(1), 221–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2019-0008
50. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
51. Odabaşoğlu, A. N. (2020). Farklı engel türüne sahip bireylerin dijital eşitsizlik deneyimleri üzerine nitel bir araştırma [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University].
52. Orsini, A. (2024). Marxism and conflict theory. In Sociological theory: From Comte to postcolonialism (pp. 361–434). Springer.
53. Öztürk, L. (2005). Türkiye’de dijital eşitsizlik: TÜBİTAK-BİLTEN anketleri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 111–131.
54. Pak, B., Chua, A., & Moere, A. V. (2017). FixMyStreet Brussels: Socio-demographic inequality in crowdsourced civic participation. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(2), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2016.1270047
55. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
56. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
57. Pew Research Center. (2024). Online anonymity and identity perception. https://www.pewresearch.org/digital-anonymity-2024
58. Roberts, A. (2012). WikiLeaks: The illusion of transparency. International review of administrative sciences, 78(1), 116-133.
59. Rule, J. B. (2017). [Review of Windows into the soul: Surveillance and society in an age of high technology, by G. T. Marx]. The British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), 1524–1527. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26779953
60. Sarışın, M. (2022). Toplumsal cinsiyet odaklı dijital şiddet: Kadın gazetecilerin Twitter hesapları üzerinden bir inceleme [Doctoral dissertation, Giresun University].
61. Spivak, G. C. (2020). Madun konuşabilir mi? (E. Koyuncu, Trans.). Dipnot Yayınları. (Original work published 1988).
62. Statista. (2024). Social media exclusion and youth perception. https://www.statista.com/social-media-exclusion-2024
63. STGM. (2025). Connect Humanity report: Further steps on the digitization journey of CSOs. https://www.stgm.org.tr/en/connect-humanity-report-further-steps-digitization-journey-csos
64. Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2017). The gig economy and information infrastructure: The case of the digital nomad community. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 1(CSCW), 1-24.
65. Taylor, C. (2014). Biopower. In Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 41–54). Routledge.
66. TBİD & Sivil Sayfalar. (2025). Türkiye’de dijital şiddet araştırması. https://www.sivilsayfalar.org/raporlar/toplumsal-bilgi-ve-iletisim-dernegi-turkiyede-dijital-siddet-arastirmasi/
67. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Stanford University Press.
68. Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 263-285.
69. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
70. TÜİK. (2024). 2024 sosyal medya ve internet kullanım istatistikleri. https://www.tuik.gov.tr
71. UN Women. (2020). Online and ICT-facilitated violence against women and girls during COVID-19. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Brief-Online-and-ICT-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls-during-COVID-19-en.pdf
72. Virilio, P. (1994). The vision machine. Indiana University Press.
73. We Are Social & DataReportal. (2024). Digital 2024: Global overview report. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report
74. Yavuz, Y. (2024). Dijital determinizm bağlamında yapay zekanın kullanımı: Veri gizliliği sorunları [Master’s thesis, Marmara University].
75. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.