THE POWER OF ALGORITHMS: DIGITAL HEGEMONY, CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION AND NEW FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION

Year 2026, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 213 - 234, 15.03.2026

Hakan Asta

https://doi.org/10.58702/teyd.1737603

https://izlik.org/JA97WE37NA

Abstract

This study departs from the premise that algorithms in the digital age are not merely tools regulating technical processes but also structures that produce ideological and cultural hegemony. The theoretical framework is grounded in Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. In light of these perspectives, the study examines how algorithms shape access to information, visibility, forms of representation, and political orientations. The aim of the research is to reveal how algorithmic systems shape democratic processes and social inequalities at both theoretical and empirical levels. The study adopts a qualitative case study design and analyzes four cases: algorithmic micro-targeting in the 2014 Indian elections, election manipulation through personal data in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, algorithmic racism in Google’s search engine, and digital exclusion of the poor in social welfare systems. Findings indicate that algorithms do more than organize information; they function as ideological actors that reproduce social biases and influence democratic processes through consent production, exclusion, and direction. This demonstrates that addressing digital inequality is a multi-layered process involving ethical, cultural, and political dimensions, not merely technical ones. In conclusion, the study argues that algorithmic systems should be restructured within the framework of transparency, accountability, and critical media literacy.

Keywords

Algorithmic hegemony , digital inequality , electoral manipulation , representational crisis , algorithmic discrimination

ALGORİTMALARIN İKTİDARI: DİJİTAL HEGEMONYA, TEMSİL KRİZİ VE AYRIMCILIĞIN YENİ BİÇİMLERİ

https://izlik.org/JA97WE37NA

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital çağda algoritmaların yalnızca teknik işleyişi düzenleyen araçlar değil, aynı zamanda ideolojik ve kültürel hegemonya üreten yapılar olduğu tezinden hareket etmektedir. Gramsci’nin kültürel hegemonya kuramı ile Laclau ve Mouffe’un söylem kuramı, çalışmanın teorik çerçevesini oluşturmaktadır. Bu kuramlar ışığında, algoritmaların bilgiye erişim, görünürlük, temsiliyet biçimleri ve siyasal yönelimler üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın amacı, algoritmik sistemlerin demokratik süreçleri ve toplumsal eşitsizlikleri nasıl şekillendirdiğini hem teorik hem de ampirik düzeyde ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma, nitel örnek olay incelemesi yöntemiyle yürütülmüş; 2014 Hindistan seçimleri, Cambridge Analytica skandalı, Google arama motorundaki algoritmik ırkçılık ve sosyal yardım sistemlerinde dijital dışlanma olmak üzere dört vaka analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, algoritmaların yalnızca bilgi organize etmediğini; aynı zamanda rıza üretimi, dışlama ve yönlendirme işlevleriyle toplumsal önyargıları pekiştiren ve demokratik süreçleri etkileyen ideolojik aktörler olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum, dijital eşitsizlikle mücadelenin yalnızca teknik değil; etik, kültürel ve politik boyutları olan çok katmanlı bir süreç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, algoritmik sistemlerin şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve eleştirel medya okuryazarlığı çerçevesinde yeniden düzenlenmesi gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

Keywords

Algoritmik hegemonya , dijital eşitsizlik , seçim manipülasyonu , temsil krizi , algoritmik ayrımcılık

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

References

• Altheide, D. L. (1984). Media hegemony: A Failure of Perspective. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/268844
• Altheide, D. L. (1987). Media logic and social interaction. Symbolic Interaction, 10(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1987.10.1.129
• Bates, R. J. (1975). Trends in the sociology of the school. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 11(3), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078337501100302
• Bradshaw, S. ve Howard, P. N. (2018). The global organization of social media disinformation campaigns. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5), 23–32.
• Buttigieg, J. A. (1995). Gramsci on civil society. Boundary 2, 22(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/303721
• Chhibber, P. ve Verma, R. (2014). The BJP’s 2014 “Modi Wave”: An ideological consolidation of the right. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(39), 50–56.
• Epstein, R. ve Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 112(33) 4512-4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
• Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
• Fuchs, C. (2020). Communication and struggles for alternatives. In Communication and capitalism: A critical theory. University of Westminster Press, (15), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12fw7t5.18
• Gordon, F. (2019). Virginia Eubanks - Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: Picador, St Martin’s Press. Law, Technology and Humans, 1(1) 162-164. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj. v1i0.1386.
• Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage Publications, Inc; Open University Press.
• Laclau, E. ve Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards radical democratic politics (2. Baskı). Verso.
• McArthur, S. A. (2016). Black girls and critical media literacy for social activism. English Education, 48(4), 362–379.
• Mitra, S. K. ve Schöttli, J. (2016). India’s 2014 general elections: A critical realignment in Indian politics?. Asian Survey, 56(4), 605–628.
• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5
• Schiffrin, A. (2017). Disinformation and democracy: The internet transformed protest but did not improve democracy. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1), 117–126.
• Stoddart, J. F. (2017). Mechanically interlocked molecules (MIMs)—Molecular shuttles, switches and machines (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56(37), 11094–11125. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201703216
• Yerlikaya, T. ve Aslan, S. T. (2020). Social media and fake news in the post-truth era: The manipulation of politics in the election process. Insight Turkey, 22(2), 177–196.