Gözetim Toplumunun Siyaset, Devlet ve Demokraside Yansımaları: Algoritmik Vatandaşlık Odağında Bir Değerlendirme

Abstract

Gözetim toplumu kendisinden önceki her toplumsal yapı gibi kendisine has bazı spesifik özellikleri ile birlikte giderek yoğunlaşmaktadır. Toplumlar tarım ve sanayiden sonra bilgi toplumuna geçmekle kolay takip edilemeyen boyutta hızlı gelişmeleri de beraberinde yaşamışlardır. Bu baş döndürücü hızda yeni nesil teknolojiler öncü rol oynamıştır. Gözetim toplumu var olan devlet ve toplum temalarını tamamen ortadan kaldırmamış ancak bambaşka boyutlar kazandırmıştır.  Bu yeni toplum modelinin siyaset ve devlet yapısında meydana getirdiği farklılaşmalar demokrasi üzerinde de önemli etkiler oluşturmuştur. Demokratik araçlar üzerinde pozitif fark yarattığı alanlar olmakla birlikte önemli demokratik değerlerin sorgulanmasına da yol açmıştır. Demokrasinin en önemli sürücüsü olan vatandaş kavramı farklılaşarak algoritmik vatandaşlık kavramı sorgulanır olmuştur. Jus algoritmi ya da algoritmik vatandaşlık, bir çeşit veri tabanlı bir vatandaşlık versiyonudur.  Jus algoritmi, gözetim toplumu ile birlikte ortaya çıkan daha çok geleneksel vatandaşlık modellerinden farklı olarak bireysel seçim hakkına dayanan bir vatandaşlıktır.  Çalışmada geniş literatür incelemesi yapılmıştır. Jus algoritmi hakkında bilgiler vererek gözetim toplumun devlet, siyaset ve demokrasideki yansımalarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. 

Keywords

• Siyaset,Algoritmik Vatandaşlık,Devlet,Demokrasi,Gözetim Toplumu

The Reflections of the Surveillance Society on Politics, State and Democracy: An Assessment in the Focus of Algorithmic Citizenship

Abstract

The surveillance society is increasingly concentrated, along with its specific characteristics, like any social structure before it. After the agriculture and industry, societies have experienced rapid developments that cannot be easily followed by the transition to an information society. At this dizzying speed, new generation technologies played a leading role. The surveillance society does not completely eliminate the existing state and society themes, but has brought a whole new dimension. The differentiations of this new society model in politics and the state structure have also had important effects on democracy. While it has areas where it makes a positive difference on democratic instruments, it also leads to questioning of important democratic values. The concept of citizenship, which is the most important driver of democracy, has been differentiated and the concept of algorithmic citizenship has been questioned. Jus algorithm or algorithmic citizenship is a kind of data-based citizenship. Jus algorithm is a citizenship based on individual choice, unlike the more traditional citizenship models that emerged with the surveillance society. A large literature review was conducted in the study. It is aimed to evaluate the reflections

Keywords

• Politics,Algoritmic citizenship,State,Democracy,Surveillence society

References

1. Arendt, H. (1949). The rights of man: What are they? Modern Review, 3, 24-37.
2. Asgardia (2018). The space kingdom, www.asgardia.space/en/ (E.T. 11.02.2019)
3. Akos R.T. (2017). The off-label use of consumer credit ratings, Historical Social Research, 43(1), 52-76. https://www.sitra.fi/en/articles/algorithmic-democracy-technological-transformation-lead-post-truth-era/(E.T. 11.02.2019) http://citizen-ex.com/citizenship (E.T. 10.02.2019)
4. Berelson, B. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 313-330.
5. Bernstein, R. J. (2018). Why read hannah arendt now? Cambridge: Polity.
6. Bridle, J. (2016). Algorithmic citizenship, digital statelessness, GeoHumanities, 2(2), 377-381.
7. Calzada I. (2018). “Algorithmic nations”: seeing like a city-regional and techno-political conceptual assemblage, Regional Studies, Regional Science, 5(1), 267-289.
8. Cohen, J. (1996). “Rights and citizenship in hannah arendt. dilemmas of arendtian republicanism,” Constellations, 3(2), 164-189.

9. Couldry, N. (2017). Surveillance-democracy, Journal of Information Technology Politics, 14(2), 182-188.
10. Davies, S. (1996). Big brother: Britain’s web of surveillance and the new technological order, London: Pan Books.
11. Dewey, J. (1993). The political writings. D. Morris and I. Shapiro (Eds.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
12. Gandy, O. (1994). The Panoptic society, Boulder, CO: Westview.
13. Giddens A. (1985). The nation-state and violence volume two of a contemporary critique of historical materialism, Polity Press, Cambridge.
14. Gramsci, A. (1984). “Americanism and Fordism”, in Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (trans.) Selection from the Prison Notebooks . New York: International Publishers.
15. Hague B. N. ve Loader B. D. (Edited by) (1999). Digital democracy discourse and decision making in the ınformation age, First Published by Routledge.
16. Harrison, T. M. ve Falvey L. (2001). Democracy and new communication technologies, Annals of the International Communication Association, 25(1), 1-43.
17. Henriques, H. S. Q. ve Schuster, E. J. (1917). “Jus soli” or “jus sanguinis”? Problems Of The War, 3, 119-131.
18. Hintz, A., Dencik, L., ve Wahl-Jorgensen K. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance society, International Journal of Communication 11, 731-739.
19. Howard P. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: information technology and political Islam, Oxford University Press.
20. Isın, E., ve Ruppert, E. (2015). Becoming digital citizens. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
21. Lefebvre, H. (1974/1991). The production of space. Trans. D. Nicholson- Smith. Oxford: Blackwell.
22. Leistert, O. (2015). The revolution will not be liked: on the systematic constraints of corporate social media platforms for protest. In L. Dencik and O. Leistert (Eds.), Critical perspectives on social media and protest: Between control and emancipation (pp. 35-52). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
23. Lippold, C. J. (2011). A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture, Society, 28(6) 164-181.
24. Lippold, C. J. (2016). Jus algoritmi: how the national security agency remade citizenship, International Journal of Communication, 10 (2016), 1721–1742. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4480/1618
25. Lutz, B. ve Toit, P. D. (2014). Defining democracy in a digital age: political support on social media, Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Lyon, D. (2006). Theorizing surveillance the panopticon and beyond, Willan Publishing.
27. Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: the rise of the surveillance society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
28. Malina, A. (1999). Perspectives on citizen democratisation and alienation in the virtual public sphere. (Edited By) Hague Barry N. And Loader Brian D. Digital democracy discourse and decision making in the information age. USA: Routledge.
29. Chorzempa, M., Triolo, P. ve Sacks, S. (2018). China’s social credit system: a mark of progress or a threat to privacy? Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief , 18-143. Ogura, T. (2006). Electronic government and surveillance-oriented society, Edited By, Lyon, David, Theorizing Surveillance The Panopticon And Beyond, Willan Publishing.
30. O’harrow, R. (2005). No place to hide, A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc.
31. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Penguin Books.
32. O’toole, J. (1990). Information and power: social and political consequences of advanced, Tele/Computing Technology, The Annual Review-1990, 211-249. Queenstown, MD: Institute for Information Studies.
33. Rodriguez-Posé, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy And Society, 11(1), 189-209.
34. Puura, A., Sılm, S., ve Ahas, R. (2017). The relationship between social networks and spatial mobility: a mobilephone based study in Estonia, Journal Of Urban Technology, 25(2), 7-25.
35. Schwartz, P. M. (1999). Privacy and democracy in cyberspace, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 1607.
36. Síthigh, D. ve Siems, M. (2019). The chinese social credit system: a model for other countries? European University Institute Department of Law, EUI Working Paper LAW 2019/01.
37. Tewksbury, D. ve Rittenberg, J. (2012). News on the ınternet ınformation and citizenship in the 21st century, Oxford University Press.
38. Torpey, J. (2018). The ınvention of the passport surveillance, citizenship and the state, Cambridge University Press.
39. Webster, C. ve William, R. (1999). Closed circuit television and ınformation age policy processes, (Edited by) Hague Barry N. and Loader Brian D. Digital Democracy Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, First published by Routledge.
40. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75-89.