Duyguların siyaseti: dijital çağda utanç, itibar ve denetim

Abstract

Bu makale, toplumsal düzenin görünmez duygusal mimarisinde utançtan itibara uzanan dönüşümü incelemektedir. Klasik toplumlarda birey, normatif düzeni utanç yoluyla içselleştirirken; geç modern ve dijital toplumlarda toplumsal kontrol, itibar üzerinden dışsallaşmış bir görünürlük ve performans mantığına evrilmiştir. Entegratif literatür taraması ve kavramsal sentez yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışma, duyguların toplumsal düzenin yeniden üretimindeki işlevini çok katmanlı biçimde analiz etmektedir. Foucault’nun disipliner iktidar çözümlemesi, Goffman’ın dramaturjik etkileşim kuramı, Bourdieu’nun sembolik sermaye yaklaşımı ve Han’ın şeffaflık toplumu kavramsallaştırması temel kuramsal dayanakları oluşturmaktadır. Bulgular, duygusal denetimin içsel öz-disiplinden dışsal görünürlük zorunluluğuna doğru kaydığını ve dijital çağda utanç ile itibarın yeni bir “görünürlük ekonomisi” nin iki tamamlayıcı duygusu hâline geldiğini göstermektedir. Analiz, bu dönüşümün altı temel önerme (P1–P6) etrafında örgütlenen bir duygusal iktidar modeli ürettiğini ortaya koymaktadır: içselleştirilmiş utançtan dışsallaştırılmış itibara geçiş; performansın makro meşruiyete dönüşmesi, ahlâkın metrikleşmesi; utanç-itibar döngüsünün karşılıklı üretimi; itibarın ekonomik bir sermayeye dönüşmesi ve sürekli görünürlük baskısının yarattığı duygusal yorgunluk. Bu süreç, sosyal kredi sistemleri, dijital linç pratikleri ve algoritmik görünmezlik gibi güncel uygulamalarda somutlaşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, iktidarın modern biçimlerinin giderek duyguları ve tanınma arzusunu yöneterek işlediğini göstermektedir. Böylece toplumsal kontrol cezalandırıcı bakıştan ödüllendirici tanınmaya kaymakta; birey artık “utanmamak” için değil “tanınmak” için uyum göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Utanç
• itibar
• toplumsal kontrol
• duygular sosyolojisi.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma ikincil veriler içeren teorik bir çalışmadır. Bu nedenle etik kurul raporu gerektirmemektedir. Araştırma sürecinde tüm diğer etik kurallara uyulmuştur.

The politics of emotion: shame, reputation, and control in the digital age

Abstract

This article examines the transformation from shame to reputation within the invisible emotional architecture of social order. While individuals in classical societies internalized normative order through shame, in late-modern and digital societies social control has shifted toward an externalized logic of visibility and performance structured around reputation. Employing an integrative literature review and conceptual synthesis method, the study offers a multilayered analysis of the role of emotions in the reproduction of social order. Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power, Goffman’s dramaturgical interaction theory, Bourdieu’s conception of symbolic capital, and Han’s theorization of the transparency society constitute the core theoretical foundations of the study. The findings reveal a shift in emotional regulation from internal self-discipline toward an external imperative of visibility, showing that shame and reputation have become two complementary emotions within a new “economy of visibility” in the digital age. The analysis demonstrates that this transformation gives rise to an emotional power model organized around six propositions (P1–P6): the transition from internalized shame to externalized reputation; the translation of micro-performances into macro-level legitimacy; the metricization of moral judgment; the reciprocal production of shame and reputation; the economization of reputation; and the emergence of emotional fatigue driven by constant visibility pressures. This process materializes in contemporary practices such as social credit systems, digital shaming, and algorithmic invisibility. Overall, the study shows that modern forms of power increasingly operate by governing emotions and the desire for recognition. Consequently, social control shifts from punitive observation to rewarding visibility: the individual now conforms not to “avoid shame,” but to “be recognized.”

Keywords

• Shame
• reputation
• social control
• sociology of emotions

Ethical Statement

This study is a theoretical work based on secondary data. Therefore, it does not require an ethics committee approval. All other ethical principles were adhered to throughout the research process.

References

1. Abidin, C. (2021a). Instagram: Visual social media cultures. Polity Press.
2. Abidin, C. (2021b). Mapping internet celebrity: Understanding contemporary celebrity culture. Emerald Publishing.
3. Ahmed, S. (2021). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
4. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
5. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
6. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Polity Press.
7. Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. Houghton Mifflin.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

9. Bucher, T. (2018). If... then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
10. Dean, J. (2019). Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso.
11. Dean, J. (2020). Communicative capitalism: Democracy and ideology in digital society. Polity Press.
12. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., ... & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
13. Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2019). Gendered visibility on social media: Navigating Instagram’s authentic labor economy. International Journal of Communication, 13, 4983–5002.
14. Duffy, B. E. (2022). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.
15. Durkheim, É. (2001). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)
16. Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1939)
17. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2018). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, 18(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117718853
18. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
19. Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the “sexualization of culture” to #MeToo. Sexualities, 21(8), 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718794647
20. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
21. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
22. Han, B.-C. (2012). The transparency society. Stanford University Press.
23. Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso.
24. Han, B.-C. (2022). Infocracy: Digitalization and the crisis of democracy. Polity Press.
25. Harris, A., & Dobson, A. (2023). Digital intimacies and public shaming: Affect, identity, and online cultures. Routledge.
26. Hearn, A. (2010). Structuring feeling: Web 2.0, online ranking and rating, and the digital “reputation” economy. Ephemera, 10(3–4), 421–438.
27. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
28. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.
29. Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity Press.
30. Jane, E. A. (2022). Online abuse and the meaning of shame. Oxford University Press.
31. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage.
32. Kato, T. A., Kanba, S., & Teo, A. R. (2019). Hikikomori: Multidimensional understanding, assessment, and future international perspectives. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 73(8), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12895
33. Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 932–943.
34. Liang, F., Das, V., Kostyuk, N., & Hussain, M. M. (2018). Constructing a data-driven society: China’s social credit system as a state surveillance infrastructure. Policy & Internet, 10(4), 415–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.183
35. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
36. Maio, A. (2022). ESG scores and corporate reputation in the digital age. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04894-3
37. Maio, E. (2022). Corporate reputation and ESG performance: A sustainable strategic advantage. Business Strategy Review, 33(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/busr.12678
38. Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here…: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420918828
39. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
40. Probyn, E. (2005). Blush: Faces of shame. University of Minnesota Press.
41. Retzinger, S. (1995). Resentment and shame: Moral emotions in conflict. Sage.
42. Ronson, J. (2015). So you’ve been publicly shamed. Riverhead Books.
43. Scheff, T. J. (1990). Microsociology: Discourse, emotion, and social structure. University of Chicago Press.
44. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W. W. Norton.
45. Sennett, R. (2006). The culture of the new capitalism. Yale University Press.
46. Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C., Urch-Druskat, V., & Weston, C. (1996). Envy and schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 158-168.
47. 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
48. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton University Press.
49. Terranova, T. (2012). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The Internet as playground and factory (pp. 33–57). Routledge.
50. van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
51. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.