Dijital Çağda Varoluşsal Gözetimin İnşası

Abstract

21. yy. dijital ekosistemi, gözetimi klasik “izleme” ve “mahremiyet ihlali” çerçevesinin ötesinde, bireyin yaşamını sürdürebilmesinin altyapısal bir koşulu hâline getirmektedir. Bu çalışma, söz konusu dönüşümü “varoluşsal gözetim” kavramı üzerinden kavramsallaştırmakta ve bu rejimin bilinci ve ölümü de kapsayan uzantısını nekrogözetim kavramıyla tartışmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, dijital gözetimin çağdaş biçimini varoluşsal ve nekro boyutlarıyla analiz etmek ve bu dönüşümün bilinç, rıza ve ölüm üzerindeki etkilerini bir medya anlatısı üzerinden incelemektir. Bu bağlamda Black Mirror dizisinin “Common People” bölümü bir medya anlatısı olarak ve eleştirel söylem analizi yaklaşımıyla incelenmiştir. Analize diyaloglar, arayüz mesajları, teknik bildirimler, sözleşme ekranları, geri sayım sayaçları ve sessizlikler dâhil edilerek çok katmanlı biçimde çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, gözetimin dışsal bir disiplin mekanizması olmaktan çıkarak yaşamın sürdürülebilirliğini belirleyen bir altyapı rejimine dönüştüğünü göstermektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında önerilen varoluşsal gözetim modeli, altyapısal bağımlılık, tasarlanmış rıza, algoritmik yönetişim, varoluşsal ipotek, nekrogözetim ve ontolojik aşınmadan oluşan döngüsel bir süreç olarak kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Anlatıda rıza, hukukî bildirimlere dayalı bilinçli bir onaydan ziyade zaman baskısı, arayüz tasarımı ve teknik eşikler yoluyla üretilen tasarlanmış bir mekanizma olarak işlemektedir. Bilinç ve hissiyat, abonelik paketleri üzerinden kademelendirilmekte, beden ve bilişsel kapasite artık değer üretiminin doğrudan kaynağına dönüşmektedir. Son aşamada ise ölüm, sistemden çıkışı temsil eden bir sınır olmaktan çok, bilincin reklam ve veri üretimi amacıyla işlevselleştirildiği nekrokapitalist bir evre olarak kodlanmaktadır. Çalışma, biyopolitika, gözetim kapitalizmi ve nekropolitika literatürlerini dijital altyapılar bağlamında bir araya getirerek varoluşsal gözetim kavramını bütüncül bir analitik çerçeveyle önermekte ve mahremiyet merkezli özgürlük tartışmalarını yaşamın sürdürülebilirliği, bilişsel egemenlik ve bütünlük ekseninde yeniden düşünmeye açmaktadır.

Keywords

• dijital iletişim
• varoluşsal gözetim
• nekrogözetim
• algoritmik yönetişim
• gözetim

The Construction of Existential Surveillance in the Digital Age

Abstract

The twenty-first-century digital ecosystem has transformed surveillance beyond the classical framework of monitoring and privacy violations into an infrastructural condition for sustaining human existence. This study conceptualizes this transformation through the notion of existential surveillance and discusses its extension to consciousness and death through necro-surveillance. It aims to examine the contemporary form of digital surveillance through its existential and necro dimensions and to analyze its implications for consciousness, consent, and death using the Black Mirror episode Common People. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis, the study examines dialogues, interface messages, technical notifications, contract screens, countdown timers, and silences. The findings show that surveillance has evolved from an external disciplinary mechanism into an infrastructural regime that sustains life. The proposed existential surveillance model conceptualizes this transformation as a cyclical process consisting of infrastructural dependency, engineered consent, algorithmic governance, existential mortgage, necro-surveillance, and existential erosion. Consent operates not as informed approval but as an engineered mechanism produced through time pressure, interface design, and technical thresholds. Consciousness and affect are stratified through subscription-based access, while the body and cognitive capacity become direct sources of surplus value. In the final stage, death is transformed from an exit point into a necro-capitalist phase in which consciousness is instrumentalized for advertising and data production. By bringing together the literatures on biopolitics, surveillance capitalism, and necropolitics, the study proposes existential surveillance as an integrated analytical framework and rethinks privacy-centered conceptions of freedom through the lenses of sustaining life, cognitive sovereignty, and existential integrity.

Keywords

• digital communication
• existential surveillance
• necro-surveillance
• algorithmic governance
• surveillance

References

1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Çev.). University of Chicago Press.
2. Alper, M., Rauchberg, J. S., Simpson, E., Guberman, J., & Feinberg, S. (2025). TikTok as algorithmically mediated biographical illumination: Autism, self-discovery, and platformed diagnosis on# autisktok. New Media & Society, 27(3), 1378-1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231193091
3. Altawaiji, M., Algobaei, F., & Telha, M. (2025). Necropolitics and neo-orientalism: Theory and practice. Arab Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.13169/arabstudquar.47.3.0003
4. Bentham, J. (2008). Panoptikon: Gözün İktidarı (B. Çoban & Z. Özaslan, Çev.). Su Yayınları.
5. Brooker, C. (Writer), Ali, B. K. (Story), & Pankiw, A. (Director). (2025, April 10). Common People (Season 7, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. Black Mirror. Netflix.
6. Christensen, A.-B., Gyrd-Jones, R., & Beverland, M. B. (2024). Dialectical Emotional Labour in Digital Person-branding: The case of digital influencers. Organization Studies, 45(4), 571-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231208370
7. Curran, D. (2023). Surveillance Capitalism and Systemic Digital Risk: The Imperative to Collect and Connect and the Risks of Interconnectedness. Big Data & Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231177621
8. D’Cruz, L. (2026). What Demarcates Necropolitics from Biopolitics? A Foucauldian Critique of Mbembe. Theory, Culture & Society, 43(2), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764251379790

9. Dişci, Z. (2025). Biopolitics and Governmentality During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authoritarianism in Turkey. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 60(4), 2640-2653. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096231224678
10. Esposito, M., & Tse, T. (2024). Mitigating the risks of generative AI in government through algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 605-609. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657054.3657124
11. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.
12. Galvão, V. F., Maciel, C., Pereira, V. C., Garcia, A. C. B., Pereira, R., & Viterbo, J. (2021). Posthumous data at stake: An overview of digital immortality issues. Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472301.3484358
13. Geneviève, L. D., Martani, A., Wangmo, T., Paolotti, D., Koppeschaar, C., Kjelsø, C., Guerrisi, C., Hirsch, M., Woolley-Meza, O., & Lukowicz, P. (2019). Participatory disease surveillance systems: Ethical framework. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5), e12273. https://doi.org/10.2196/12273
14. Geoghegan, S., & Cugurullo, F. (2025). Beyond dystopian smart cities? Unlocking a progressive utopian future in smart urbanism. Urban Geography, 46(8), 1865-1886, https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2025.2496508
15. Gilbert, J. (2024). Techno-feudalism or platform capitalism? Conceptualising the digital society. European Journal of Social Theory, 27(4), 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310241276474
16. Good, N. S., Grossklags, J., Mulligan, D. K., & Konstan, J. A. (2007). Noticing notice: A large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240720
17. Gritsenko, D., & Wood, M. (2022). Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12367
18. Grover, R., Widera, J., & Ananny, M. (2026). Data disaffection: Toward a relational and affective understanding of datafication. New Media & Society, 28(3), 1239–1254, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241310901
19. Güleşce, Ü. (2023). The biopower and biopolitics concepts and reflections of them on women in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi, 6(2), 444-458. https://doi.org/10.33708/ktc.1312679
20. Hall, J., Hiebert, B., Facca, D., & Donelle, L. (2023). ‘Putting all my eggs into the app’: Self, relational and systemic surveillance of mothers’ use of digital technologies during the transition to parenting. Digital Health, 9, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221150742.
21. Harju, A. A. (2024). Theorising digital afterlife as techno-affective assemblage: On relationality, materiality, and the affective potential of data. Social Sciences, 13(4), Article 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13040227
22. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
23. Huang, L., Zou, W., & Huang, Y. (2025). “He is my savior, my guiding light in the dark”: Imagination and domestication in Chinese women’s romantic relationships with AI companions. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1571707, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1571707
24. Karakaya, Ö. F. (2024). Deepfake teknolojisi özelinde ölüm sonrası kişilik haklarının korunması. Kadir Has Üniversitesi Hukuk Bülteni. https://hukukbulteni.khas.edu.tr/bulten/128
25. Kitchin, R. (2020). Civil liberties or public health, or civil liberties and public health? Using surveillance technologies to tackle the spread of COVID-19. Space and Polity, 24(3), 362-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1770587
26. Latzer, M., & Festic, N. (2019). A guideline for understanding and measuring algorithmic governance in everyday life. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1415
27. Lee, S., Lee, S., Choi, Y., Ben-Othman, J., Mokdad, L., Jun, K., & Kim, H. (2023). Affective Surveillance Management in Virtual Emotion Based Smart Complex Infrastructure. IEEE Communications Magazine, 61(10), 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.003.2200798
28. Lozka, K. (2026). The Creation of Death-Worlds: Visual Necropolitics and Russia’s War on Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2025.10116
29. Lyon, D., & Höller, C. (1997). Surveillance Systems Towards an Electronic Panoptical Society? Telepolis. https://archiv.telepolis.de/features/Surveillance-Systems-Towards-an-electronic-panoptical-society-3449575.html
30. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11-40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11
31. Moe, M. (2016). Can hackers break my heart? [Video kaydı]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1YWpVMpPi8
32. Sarku, R., & Ayamga, M. (2025). Is the right going wrong? Analysing digital platformization, data extractivism and surveillance practices in small holder farming in Ghana. Information Technology for Development, 31(4), 1039-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2024.2447596
33. Smith, K. L. (2023). Thomas Aquinas, Ronald Dworkin, and the Fourth Revolution: The Foundations of Law in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Laws, 12(3), Article 40, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12030040
34. Tucker, I. (2024). The emotional in-formation of digital life: Simondon, individuation and affectivity. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 25(3), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2023.2224523
35. Waddell, T. F., Auriemma, J. R., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Make it Simple, or Force Users to Read? Paraphrased Design Improves Comprehension of End User License Agreements. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5252-5256. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858149
36. Zohny, H. (2025). The Specter of Corporate Necromancy: Who Controls the Dead in the Age of Digital Doppelgängers? The American Journal of Bioethics, 25(2), 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2441755
37. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
38. Zuboff, S. (2022). Surveillance Capitalism or Democracy? The Death Match of Institutional Orders and the Politics of Knowledge in Our Information Civilization. Organization Theory, 3(3), 1-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221129290