Biyopolitika, Dijital Gözetim ve Ailenin Dönüşümü

Öz

Bu makale, Michel Foucault’nun biyopolitika ve gözetim kavramları üzerinden dijital çağda ailenin dönüşümünü incelemekte ve Shoshana Zuboff, Gilles Deleuze, Donna Haraway, Zygmunt Bauman ve David Lyon’un kuramsal katkılarını bir araya getirmektedir. Çalışmanın temel savı, tarihsel olarak mahremiyet ve sosyalleşme alanı olarak görülen ailenin, dijital iktidar düzeneklerine bireyleri dâhil eden bir biyopolitik ve gözetim mekanizmasına dönüşmüş olduğudur. Foucault’nun disiplinci toplum ve Deleuze’ün kontrol toplumu kavramları çerçevesinde “dijital aile”, gözetim kapitalizminin hem öznesi hem de nesnesi olarak ele alınmaktadır. Algoritmik sistemler ebeveynlik pratiklerini yeniden biçimlendirmekte, mahremiyet sınırlarını dönüştürmekte ve veri temelli teknolojiler aracılığıyla aile içi güven ilişkilerini yeniden tanımlamaktadır. Makale ayrıca liberal demokrasiler, melez rejimler ve otoriter yönetimler arasındaki küresel farklılıkları analiz ederek dijital ailenin evrensel değil, siyasal bağlama göre şekillenen bir olgu olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Devlet, e-devlet altyapılarıyla nüfus verilerini izlerken; piyasa, aile tarafından üretilen verileri ekonomik değere dönüştürmektedir. Bu çift yönlü baskı, aile mahremiyeti ve özerkliğini sınırlandırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, aileler dijital okuryazarlık, seçici teknoloji kullanımı ve etik farkındalık yoluyla mikro ölçekte direnç biçimleri geliştirmektedir. Nitel karşılaştırmalı kuramsal bir yaklaşıma dayanan çalışma, biyopolitika, gözetim toplumu ve dijital kültür tartışmalarını bütüncül bir çerçevede sentezlemekte; dijital çağda ailenin çözülmediğini, yeniden kurulduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyopolitika
• Dijital Aile
• Gözetim Kapitalizmi
• Algoritmik Ebeveynlik
• Michel Foucault

Biopolitics, Digital Surveillance, and the Transformation of the Family

Öz

This article explores the transformation of the family in the digital age through Michel Foucault’s concepts of biopolitics and surveillance, integrating complementary perspectives from Shoshana Zuboff, Gilles Deleuze, Donna Haraway, Zygmunt Bauman, and David Lyon. The study argues that the family, historically a site of intimacy and socialization, has become a key biopolitical and surveillance mechanism that integrates individuals into digital regimes of power. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power and Deleuze’s concept of control societies, the article conceptualizes the “digital family” as both an agent and object of surveillance capitalism. Within this framework, algorithmic systems restructure parenting, reshape privacy boundaries, and mediate intra-family trust through data-driven technologies. The article also analyzes global variations across liberal democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian contexts, demonstrating that the digital family is politically contingent rather than universal. While the state uses e-government infrastructures to monitor populations, the market exploits family-generated data for profit, creating overlapping pressures on autonomy and privacy. Yet families also develop micro-level resistance strategies—through digital literacy, selective technology use, and ethical awareness. Methodologically, the article adopts a comparative theoretical approach that synthesizes fragmented debates in sociology, political science, and digital studies. It concludes that the family, far from dissolving in the digital era, is reconstituted as a hybrid institution where biopolitical regulation, market surveillance, and resistance coexist.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biopolitics
• Digital Family
• Surveillance Capitalism
• Algorithmic Parenting
• Michel Foucault

Kaynakça

1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2. Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. (3. ed.). Sage.
3. Barassi, V. (2020). Child data citizen: How tech companies are profiling us from before birth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6. Bauman, Z. and Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

9. Dai, X. (2018). Toward a reputation state: The social credit system project of China. SSRN Electronic Journal, 6(10), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3193577.
10. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7. Retrieved from https://arsenal.arch.ethz.ch/site/assets/files/8808/voluptas-h78mjgdrvcl8zo17nw95-pdf.pdf.
11. Donzelot, J. (1979). The policing of families. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
12. Durkheim, E. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York, NY: The Free Press.
13. Esposito, R. (2008). Bíos: Biopolitics and philosophy (T. Campbell, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
14. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
15. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
16. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
17. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76 (D. Macey, Trans.). New York, NY: Picador.
18. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
21. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Hintz, A., Dencik, L. and Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2019). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23. Holloway, D. and Green, L. (2016). The internet of toys. Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1266124.
24. Leaver, T. (2017). Intimate surveillance: Normalizing parental monitoring and mediation of infants online. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117707192.
25. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
26. Livingstone, S. and Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Livingstone, S. and Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media and Society, 19(5), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686318.
28. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Lupton, D. and Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media and Society, 19(5), 780–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328.
30. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31. Lyon, D. (2021). Pandemic surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
32. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
34. Parsons, T. and Bales, R. F. (2007). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Routledge.
35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843.
36. Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. (2006). Biopower today. BioSocieties, 1(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206040014.
37. Rao, U. and Nair, V. (2019). Aadhaar: Governing with biometrics. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(3), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2019.1595343.
38. Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (First ed.). Sage.
39. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
40. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
42. Turow, J. (2011). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your identity and your worth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283.
44. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. General Assembly resolution 44/25. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_44_25.pdf.
45. Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
46. Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
47. Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713.
48. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.
49. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.