Yeni medyada siyasal iletişim Sürecinin Kavramsallaştırılmasında Alternatif Modeller: Müzakereci ve Agonistik Demokrasi Yaklaşımları

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 174 - 200, 23.04.2017

Kamil Demirhan

https://doi.org/10.19145/gumuscomm.288417

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı yeni medya platformlarında siyasal
iletişim sürecini açıklamak için liberal modele alternatif kavramsallaştırmalar
sunmaktır. Liberal temsili demokrasiye ilişkin katılımcı eleştiriler müzakereci
ve agonistik demokrasi kuramları çerçevesinde gelişmiştir. Her iki demokrasi
yaklaşımı da siyaset ve siyasal olana ilişkin hem liberal modelden hem de
birbirlerinden farklı tasarımlara sahiptir. Bununla birlikte her iki yaklaşımda
da iletişim siyasetin ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Günümüzde katılım ve iletişim
denildiğinde ilk akla gelen yeni medya platformlarıdır. Müzakereci ve agonistik
demokrasi yaklaşımları, liberal demokrasi yaklaşımında internetin siyasal
pazarlama ve siyasal reklamcılığa katkısını anlamak ve geliştirmek üzerine
kurulan kavramsal çerçeveye alternatif yaklaşımlar sağlamaktadır. Bu alternatif
yaklaşımlar kapsamında geliştirilen kavramsal çerçeveler yeni medya platformlarında
gerçekleştirilen iletişim sürecini açıklama gücüne sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, ilk
olarak, liberal yaklaşıma dayanan kavramsal çerçeveye değinilecektir. İkinci
olarak, müzakereci demokraside önemli bir yeri olan siyaset ve iletişim
ilişkisi çerçevesinde yeni medyada siyasal iletişimin anlamlandırılmasında kullanılabilecek
olan müzakereci model sunulacaktır. Son olarak, agonistik demokrasinin siyaset
ve iletişime ilişkin yaklaşımlardan yola çıkılarak yeni medyada siyasal
iletişimin anlamlandırılmasında kullanılabilecek olan agonistik model açıklanacaktır.
Alan yazında bu alternatif yaklaşımlar içerisinde müzakereci model kapsamında geliştirilen
çalışmalar bulunmakla birlikte yeni medyada siyasal iletişim sürecini açıklamak
üzere agonistik modele başvuran çalışma sayısı oldukça azdır. Bu çalışmanın, ele
aldığı alternatif kavramsal modeller aracılığıyla internet ve sosyal medyada
siyasal iletişim alanının farklı perspektiflerden anlaşılmasına ve analizine katkı
sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnternet, Sosyal Medya, İletişim Ağı, Katılım, Müzakereci Demokrasi, Agonistik Demokrasi

Alternative models for the conceptualizatıon of political communication on new media: deliberative and agonistic democracy approaches

Öz

This study aims at
providing alternative conceptualizations to liberal model explaining political
communication on new media platforms. The participative critics on liberal
representative democracy are released around the theories of deliberative and
agonistic democracy. The projections of these democracy models about “politics”
and “political” differs from both each other and from liberal model. However,
communication is the essential part of politics for both of these theories. Today,
the terms of participation and communication firstly call to mind the new media
platforms. Deliberative and agonistic democracy approaches provide alternative
aspects to the conceptual frame consisting of the perspective of liberal
democracy which aims at explaining the contribution of Internet to political
marketing and political advertisement, and developing it. The conceptual frames,
consisting of these alternative approaches, have potential to explain the
communication process on new media platforms. This study, firstly, insists on the
conceptual frame consisting of liberal approach. Secondly, it presents the
deliberative model which can be used to explain political communication on new
media in terms of the significant place of relationship between politics and
communication in deliberative democracy. Lastly, it presents the agonistic
model which can be used to explain political communication on new media with
reference to the approaches on communication and politics in agonistic
democracy. In literature, among alternative approaches, there are studies
organized in terms of deliberative model, but there are few studies refer to
agonistic model to explain political communication on new media platforms. This
study can contribute to the explanation and the analyses of political
communication on Internet and social media from different perspectives by means
of using alternative conceptualizations. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Internet, Social Media, Communication Network, Participation, Deliberative Democracy, Agonistik Democracy

Kaynakça

• ABBOTT, Jason P. (2001). “Democracy @internet.asia? The Challanges to the emancipatory potential of the net: lessons from China and Malaysia”, Third World Querterly, 22(1), s.99-114.
• ANDUIZA, Eva; CANTIJOCHA, Marta; GALLEGOA, Aina (2009). “Political Participation and The Internet”, Information, Communication & Society, 12(6).
• ATTON, Chris (2002). Alternative Media, UK: Sage.
• AUSSERHOFER, Julian ve MAIREDER, Axel (2013). “National Politics on Twitter”, Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), s.291-314.
• BARBER, Benjamin (1995). Güçlü Demokrasi Yeni Bir Çağ İçin Katılımcı Siyaset, (Çev: Mehmet Beşikçi), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• BARLOW, John Perry (1996). “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”, https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence, Erişim Tarihi: 08.01.2017.
• BENHABİB, Seyla (1999a). Demokratik Moment ve Farklılık Sorunu, (Editör), Seyla Benhabib. Demokrasi ve Farklılık, (Çev: Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel). İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, s.11-33.
• BENHABİB, Seyla (1999b). Müzakereci Demokratik Meşruiyet Modeline Doğru, (Editör), Seyla Benhabib. Demokrasi ve Farklılık, (Çev: Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel). İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, s.101-139.
• BENNETT, W. Lance ve ENTMAN, Robert M. (2001). Mediated Politics: An Introduction, (Editörler), W. Lance Bennett ve Robert M. Entman. Mediated Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, s.1-33.
• BESSETTE, Joseph (1980). Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republician Government, (Editörler), Robert A. Goldwin ve William A. Schambra. How Democratic is the Constitution? Washington: American Enterprise Institute.
• BOHMAN, James (1997). Delierative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources and Oppurtunities, (Editörler), James Bohman ve William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology, s.321-348.
• BRUNS, Axel ve BURGESS, Jean E. (2011). “‘#Ausvotes: how Twitter covered the 2010 Australian Federal Election”, Communication, Politics and Culture, 44(2), s.37–56.
• BUCKLER, Steve ve DOLOWITZ, David (2005). Politics on the Internet, USA: Routledge.
• BURNETT, Robert ve MARSHALL, P. David (2003). Web Theory: An Introduction, USA: Routledge.
• CASTELLS, Manuel (2008). “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance”, ANNALS, AAPSS, s.616.
• CASTELLS, Manuel (2009). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford: Blackwell.
• CASTELLS, Manuel (2013). Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür – Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi, (Çev: Ebru Kılıç). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• CHIRISTIANO, Thomas (1997). The Significance of Public Deliberation, (Editörler), James Bohman ve William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology, s. 243-278.
• CROTEU, David ve HOYNES, William (2003). Media/Society: Industries, Images and Audiences, London: Sage.
• DAHLBERG, Lincoln ve SIAPERA, Eugenia (2007). Tracing Radical Democracy and the Internet. (Editörler), Lincoln Dahlberg ve Eugenia Siapera. Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, s. 1-16.
• DAHLBERG, Lincoln (2001). “The Internet and Democractic Discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere”, Information, Communication & Society, 4(4).
• DAHLBERG, Lincoln (2007). The Internet and Discursive Exclusion: From Deliberative to Agonistic Public Sphere Theory, (Editörler), Lincoln Dahlberg ve Eugenia Siapera. Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, s.128-147.
• DOWNING, John (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movemets, London: Sage.
• DRYZEK, John (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Sience, Cambridge: Cmabridge University Press.
• DYSON, Esther; GILDER, George; KEYWORTH, George; TOFFLER, Alvin (1994). “Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age”, Future Insight, 1(2).
• ECAS (2015). Futurum. http://www.ecas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ECAS-Publication-online-version.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.01.2017.
• ELSTER, Jon (1997). The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory, (Editörler), James Bohman ve William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology, s.3-34.
• FINLAYSON, Atkins (2009). Rhetoric and Radical Democratic Political Theory. (Editörler), Adrian Little ve Moya Lloyd. The Politics of Radical Democracy, UK: Edinburgh University Press, s.13-32.
• FRASER, Nancy (2004). Kamusal Alanı Yeniden Düşünmek: Gerçekte Varolan Demokrasinin Eleştirisine Bir Katkı. (Editör), Meral Özbek. Kamusal Alan, İstanbul: Hil Yayınları, s.103-132.
• FUCHS, Christian (2010). “Alternative Media as Critical Media”, European Journal of Social Theory, 13(2), s.173-192.
• GABY, Sarah ve CAREN, Neal (2012). “Occupy Online: How cute old men and Malcolm X Recruited 400,000 U.S. Users to OWS on Facebook”, Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), s.367-374.
• GAUS, Gerald F. (1997). Reason, Justification, and Consensus: Why Democracy Can’t Have It All, (Editörler), James Bohman ve William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology, s.205-242.
• GERBAUDO, Paolo (2014). Twitler ve Sokaklar: Sosyal Medya ve Günümüz Eylemciliği, (Çev: Osman Akınhay). İstanbul: Agorakitaplığı
• GIMMLER, Antje (2001). “Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet”, Philosophy Social Criticism, 27(4), s.21-39.
• GOULD, Carol C. (1999). Çeşitlilik ve Demokrasi: Farklılıkların Temsili. (Editör), Seyla Benhabib. Demokrasi ve Farklılık, (Çev: Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel). İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, s.244-267.
• GUTMANN, Amy ve THOMPSON, Dennis (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? UK: Princeton University Press.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen (1996). Between Facts and Norms Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge: MIT.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen (1999). Demokrasinin Üç Normatif Modeli, (Editör), Seyla Benhabib. Demokrasi ve Farklılık, (Çev: Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel), İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, s.37-50.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı, (Çev: Mustafa Tüzel). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen (2005). “Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, Acta Politica, 40, s.384–392.
• HABERMAS, Jurgen (2010). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü, (Çev. Tanıl Bora ve Mithat Sancar). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• HALPERN, Daniel ve GIBBS, Jennifer L. (2013). “Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression”, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, s.1159-1168.
• HSU, Chien-leng ve PARK, Han Woo (2012). “Mapping online social networks of Korean politicians”, Government Information Quarterly, 29, s.169–181.
• JENSEN, Jakob Linaa (2003). “Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison”, Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349-74.
• JENSEN, Jakob Linaa (2006). The Minnesota E-Democracy Project Mobilising the Mobilised, (Editörler), Sarah Oates, Diana Owen ve Rachel K. Gibson. The Internet and Politics, London & New York: Routledge, s.34-51.
• JORDAN, Tim (2007). Online Direct Action: Hacktivism and Radical Democracy. (Editörler), Lincoln Dahlberg ve Eugenia Siapera. Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, s.73-88.
• KAHN, Richard ve KELLNER, Douglas (2007). Globalization, Technopolitics, and Radical Democracy. (Editörler), Lincoln Dahlberg ve Eugenia Siapera. Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, s.17-36.
• KNIGHT, Jack ve JOHNSON, James (1997). What Sort of Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (Editörler), James Bohman ve William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology, s.279-320.
• LACLAU, Ernesto ve MOUFFE, Chantal (2010). Hegemonya ve Sosyalist Strateji, (Çev: Ahmet Kardam). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• LOSIFIDIS, Petros (2011). “The Public Sphere, Social Networks and Public Service Media”, Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), s.619-637.
• LOVELAND, Matthew T. ve POPESCU, Delia (2011). “Democracy On the Web”, Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), s.684-703.
• LUSOLI, Wainer; WARD, Stephen; GIBSON, Rachel (2006). “(Re)connecting Politics? Parliament, the Public and the Internet”, Parliamentary Affairs, 59(1), s.24-42.
• MOUFFE, Chantal (1998). Demokrasi, İktidar ve Siyasal Düzen. (Editör), Seyla Benhabib. Demokrasi ve Farklılık, (Çev: Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel), İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, s.347-363.
• MOUFFE, Chantal (2001). Demokratik Paradoks, (Çev: A. Cevdet Aşkın), Ankara: Epos.
• MOUFFE, Chantal (2010). Siyasal Üzerine (Çev: Mehmet Ratip). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• MURRU, Maria F. (2009). ‘New media – new public spheres? An analysis of online shared spaces becoming public agoras’, (Editörler), Nico Carpentier, Pille Pruumann-Vengerfeldt, Richard Kilborn, Tobias Olsson ve E. Sundin. Communicative Approaches to Politics and Ethics in Europe, Estonia: Tartu University Press, s.141–153.
• MURTHY, Dhiraj (2013). Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, UK: Polity.
• OATES, Sarah ve GIBSON, Rachel K. (2006). The Internet, Civil Society and Democracy. (Editörler), Sarah Oates, Diana Owen ve Rachel K. Gibson. The Internet and Politics, London & New York: Routledge, s.1-17.
• PARMELEE, John H. ve BICHARD, Shannon L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter Revolution, UK: Lexington Books.
• PRICE, Vincent ve CAPELLA, Joseph N. (2003). “Online Deliberation and Its Influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000”, IT & Society, 1, s.303-328.
• SIMONS, Jon (2005). The radical democratic possibilities of popular culture. (Editörler), Lars Tonder ve Lasse Thomassen. Radical Democracy, Manchester: Manchester University, s.149-166.
• SMALL, Tamara A. (2012). What the Hashtag? A Content Analysis of Canadian Politics on Twitter. (Editörler), Brian D. Loader ve Dan Mercea. Social Media and Democracy, New York: Routledge, s.109-128.
• SMITH, Anna Marie (1998). Laclau and Mouffe the Radical Demeocratic Imaginary, London: Routledge.
• ŞAYLAN, Gencay (2008). Temsili Liberal Demokrasinin Önlenemez Krizi, İstanbul: İmge Yayınları.
• THOMPSON, John B. (1995). The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media, California: Stanford University Press.
• TREANOR, Paul (1996). Internet As Hyper-Liberalism, Telepolis, http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/net.hyperliberal.html, Erişim Tarihi 08.01.2017
• van DIJK, Jan (1999). The Network Society, London: Sage.
• van DIJK, Jan (2006). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, London: Sage.
• WARF, Barney (2011). “Myths, realities and lessons of the Arab Spring”, The Arab Word Geographer, 14(2), s.166-8.
• WOO-YOUNG, Chang (2005). “Online civic participation, and political empowerment: online media and public opinion formation in Korea”, Media, Culture & Society, 27, s.925-935.
• WRIGHT, Scott ve STREET, John (2007). “Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion Forums”, New Media Society (9).