AĞ TOPLUMUNDA POST-DEMOKRATİK GÖZETİM, MİLLÎ KİMLİK, VATANDAŞLIK VE EGEMENLİK İLİŞKİSİ

Yıl 2024, , 93 - 113, 13.08.2024

Serpil Seda Şimşek

https://doi.org/10.35343/kosbed.1490392

Öz

Küreselleşmenin ulus devletlerin sonunu getirmediğinin anlaşılmasının ardından, ağ toplumunda ulus devletlerin, dijital alanda, egemenliklerini yeniden inşa etme ihtiyacı belirmiştir. ABD yönetiminin kendi vatandaşlarını ve sınırlarından binlerce kilometre uzakta yaşayan başka ülkelerin vatandaşlarını kitlesel olarak gözetlediğini ortaya çıkaran Ulusal Güvenlik Ajansı (NSA) skandalı, iletişim ağlarının ve teknolojilerinin küreselleşmesi ya da millîleştirilmesi ve kamulaştırılması tartışmalarını beraberinde getirmiştir. Devletlerin küresel ağ sisteminde geri dönüşü, ulus devletlerin, sadece yasal düzenlemeler ve mevzuatlarla değil, bilgi teknolojisi yaratmadaki rolü açısından da yeni tanımlamalar getirilmesi zorunluluğu doğurmaktadır. Bu yeni ağ toplumu düzeniyle birlikte post-demokrasinin yükselmesinin de güçlü bir ihtimal olarak ortaya çıktığı söylenebilir. Bu çalışmada, post-demokrasilerde, post-demokratik gözetim, millî kimlik, vatandaşlık ve egemenlik ilişkisinin nasıl şekilleneceği sorusunun cevabı aranmaktadır. Crouch, Rancière, Rorty, Wolin, Habermas ve Mouffe tarafından öne sürülen post-demokrasi kavramı açıklanarak, ağ toplumunda post-demokratik gözetim, millî kimlik, vatandaşlık ve egemenlik ilişkisinin dönüşümüne odaklanılmaktadır. Post-demokratik gözetim, millî kimlik, vatandaşlık ve egemenlik ilişkisiyle ilgili bir teorik çerçeve sunularak, literatüre katkıda bulunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Post-demokrasi, Gözetim, Millî Kimlik, Vatandaşlık, Egemenlik

Kaynakça

• Althusser, L. (2014). İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları (A. Tümertekin, Çev.; 6. bs). İthaki Yayınları.
• Anderson, B. (2020). Hayali cemaatler (İ. Savaşır, Çev.; 2. bs). Metis Yayınları.
• Armstrong, J. A. (2017). Nations before nationalism. UNC Press Books.
• Augustin, M. (2017). How to escape from the dead end of post-democracy? Representation and principle of popular sovereignty. Filosoficky Casopis, Special Issue, 93-111. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-016-0024-3
• Bannister, F. (2005). The panoptic state: Privacy, surveillance and the balance of risk. Information Polity, 10(1-2), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2005-0068
• Barassi, V. (2016). Datafied citizens? Social media activism, digital traces and the question about political profiling. Communication and the Public, 1(4), 494-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047316683200
• Bauman, Z. (1999). Küreselleşme: Toplumsal sonuçları (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., & Walker, R. B. J. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048
• Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2016). Akışkan gözetim (E. Yılmaz, Çev.; 2. bs). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Béal, V. (2012). Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements: Post-democracy in French and British cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(4), 404-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776411428562
• Bellamy, R. (2008). Citizenship, a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Bentham, J., Pease-Watkin, C., & Werret, S. (2016). Panoptikon: Gözün iktidarı (B. Çoban & Z. Özarslan, Çev.). Su Yayınları.
• Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. SAGE.
• Blühdorn, I. (2014). Post-ecologist governmentality: Post-democracy, post-politics and the politics of unsustainability. İçinde J. Wilson & E. Swyngedouw (Ed.), Post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics (ss. 146-166). Edinburgh University Press.
• Bodin, J. (1967). Six books of the commonwealth. Alden Press.
• Boyle, J. (1997). Foucault in cyberspace: Surveillance, sovereignty, and hardwired censors. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 66, 177-205.
• Castells, M. (2006). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür cilt 2 Kimliğin gücü (E. Kılıç, Çev.). Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. John Wiley & Sons.
• Clarke, R. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 498-512. https://doi.org/10.1145/42411.42413
• Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.
• Çelik, F. (2022). Panoptik sonrası dünyada küresel hegemonyanın sosyal medya üzerinden değerlendirilmesi: Donald Trump vakasının betimsel analizi. Yeni Medya Dergisi, 13, 229-246. https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1132767
• Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. CQ Press.
• Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Ed.). (2010). Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace. MIT Press.
• Deleuze, G. (2006). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
• Deutsche Telekom plans for a ′national internet′. (2013, Ekim 21). https://www.dw.com/en/deutsche-telekom-plans-for-a-national-internet/a-17171714
• Didier, B. (2008). Globalized (in) security: The field and the ban-opticon. İçinde D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala (Ed.), Terror, insecurity and liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 (ss. 10-48). Routledge.
• Dussel, E. (2008). Twenty theses on politics. Duke University Press.
• Flatscher, M., & Seitz, S. (2019). Of citizens and plebeians: Postnational political figures in Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Rancière. European Law Journal, 25(5), 502-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12344
• Fonte, J. (2004). Democracy’s trojan horse. The National Interest, 76, 117-127.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books.
• Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. İçinde G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Ed.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: With two lectures by and an interview with Michael Foucault (ss. 87-104). University of Chicago Press.
• Foucault, M. (2003). İktidarın gözü (I. Ergüden, Çev.; 3. bs). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Foucault, M. (2013). Hapishanenin doğuşu (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.; 5. bs). İmge Yayınları.
• Fraser, N. (2015). Legitimation crisis? On the political contradictions of financialized capitalism. Critical Historical Studies, 2(2), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.1086/683054
• Glassman, J. (2007). Post-democracy? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(9), 2037-2042. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4088
• Glassman, J. (2010). “The provinces elect governments, Bangkok overthrows them”: Urbanity, class and post-democracy in Thailand. Urban Studies, 47(6), 1301-1323.
• Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the internet?: Illusions of a borderless world. İçinde Who controls the internet? Oxford University Press.
• Habermas, J. (2012a). The crisis of the European Union: A response (C. Cronin, Çev.). Polity Press.
• Habermas, J. (2012b). The crisis of the European Union in the light of a constitutionalization of international law. European Journal of International Law, 23(2), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs019
• Habermas, J. (2015). The lure of technocracy (C. Cronin, Çev.). Polity Press.
• Han, B.-C. (2017). Şeffaflık toplumu (H. Barışcan, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
• Heintschel von Heinegg, W. (2013). Territorial Sovereignty and Neutrality in Cyberspace. International Law Studies, 89(1), 123-156.
• Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance society: Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 11, 731-739.
• Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan. Hackett Publishing.
• Imre, A. (2009). National intimacy and post-socialist networking. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(2), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549409102428
• Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.
• Jiang, M., & Okamoto, K. (2014). National identity, ideological apparatus, or panopticon? A case study of the Chinese national search engine jike. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI353
• King, L. (2001). Information, society and the panopticon. The Western Journal of Graduate Research, 10(1), 40-50.
• Koç, Y. (2019). Post demokrasi ve siyasi parti kavramsallaştırmasını Pierre Bourdieu üzerinden okumak. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 44, 42-61. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.584481
• Koskela, H. (2000). ‘The gaze without eyes’: Video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200668791096
• Krause, P. (2020, Mart 26). Carl Schmitt and the concept of sovereignty. Discourses on Minerva. https://minervawisdom.com/2020/03/26/carl-schmitt-and-the-concept-of-sovereignty/
• Laffin, M. (2016). Planning in England: New public management, network governance or post-democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 354-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315581807
• Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242288
• Lessig, L. (1999). The limits in open code: Regulatory standards and the future of the net. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2), 759-769.
• Lessig, L. (2006). Code (Version 2.0). Basic Books.
• Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. Doubleday & Company.
• Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861
• Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Polity Press.
• MacKinnon, R. (2012). The netizen. Development, 55(2), 201-204. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2012.5
• Marshall, T. H. (1983). Citizenship and social class. İçinde D. Held (Ed.), States and societies (ss. 248-260). New York University Press.
• Mathiesen, T. (1997). The viewer society: Michel Foucault’s `panopticon’ revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215-234.
• Mendieta, E. (2015). Post-democracy: From the depoliticisation of citizens to the political automata of perpetual war. Juncture, 22(3), 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2050-5876.2015.00861.x
• Miller, C. R. (2020). Living under post-democracy: Citizenship in fleetingly democratic times. Routledge.
• Mitchell, W. J. (1996). City of bits: Space, place, and the infobahn. MIT Press.
• Muggah, R. (2013, Eylül 19). After NSA scandal, will Brazil try to unravel the internet? [The Globe and Mail]. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/after-nsa-scandal-will-brazil-try-to-unravel-the-internet/article14407678/
• Nash, K. (1996). Post‐democracy, politics and philosophy: An interview with Jacques Rancière. Angelaki: : Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 1(3), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09697259608571905
• Niedzviecki, H. (2010). Dikizleme günlüğü: Kendimizi ve komşularımızı gözetlemeyi niçin bu kadar sevdik? (G. Gündüç, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Nye, J. S. (2014). The regime complex for managing global cyber. London: Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Royal Institute for International Affairs.
• Orwell, G. (2021). Nineteen eighty-four. Oxford University Press.
• Özdel, G. (2012). Foucault bağlamında iktidarın görünmezliği ve “panoptikon” ile “iktidarın gözü” göstergeleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 2(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.7456/10201100/003
• Perritt, H. H. (1998). The internet as a threat to sovereignty? Thoughts on the internet’s role in strengthening national and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 5(2), 423-442.
• Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social contexts. University of Chicago Press.
• Poster, M. (1996). Databases as discourse; or, electronic interpellations. İçinde D. Lyon & E. Zureik (Ed.), Computers, surveillance, and privacy (ss. 175-192). University of Minnesota Press.
• Poster, M. (1999). National identities and communications technologies. The Information Society, 15(4), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/019722499128394
• Price, M. E. (2002). Media and sovereignty: The global information revolution and Its challenge to state power. MIT Press.
• Rancière, J. (1995). On the shores of politics (L. Heron, Çev.). Verso Press.
• Rancière, J. (1999). Dis-agreement: Politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press.
• Reidenberg, J. R. (1997-1998). Lex informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Review, 76(3), 553-593.
• Rogers, R., Weltevrede, E., Borra, E., & Niederer, S. (2013). National web studies the case of Iran online. İçinde J. Hartley, A. Bruns, & J. Burgess (Ed.), A companion to new media dynamics (ss. 142-166). Blackwell.
• Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, elections, parties: Approaches to the comparative study of the processes of development. Universitetsforlaget.
• Rorty, R. (2004, Nisan 1). Post-democracy. London Review of Books, 26(07). https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v26/n07/richard-rorty/post-democracy
• Rosen, J. (2004). The naked crowd: Reclaımıng securıty and freedom in an anxıous age. Random House.
• Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology; Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Çev.). The University of Chicago Press.
• Sekerák, M. (2023). Havel’s idea of post-democracy in a comparative perspective. History of European Ideas, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2023.2267068
• Smith, A. D. (2016). Milli kimlik (B. S. Şener, Çev.; 8. bs). İletişim Yayınları.
• Sprague, R. (2007). From Taylorism to the omnipticon: Expanding employee surveillance beyond the workplace. John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 25, 1-35.
• Stefik, M. (1997). Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths, and metaphors. MIT Press.
• Stefik, M. (2000). The internet edge: Social, technical, and legal challenges for a networked world. MIT Press.
• Şimşek, S. S. (2021a). Siber gözetim. İçinde N. Akdemir & C. O. Tuncer (Ed.), Siber ansiklopedi: Siber ortama çok disiplinli bir yaklaşım (ss. 392-397). Pegem Akademi.
• Şimşek, S. S. (2021b). Siber kültür. İçinde N. Akdemir & C. O. Tuncer (Ed.), Siber ansiklopedi: Siber ortama çok disiplinli bir yaklaşım (ss. 447-451). Pegem Akademi.
• Şimşek, S. S. (2021c). Siber yönetişim. İçinde N. Akdemir & C. O. Tuncer (Ed.), Siber ansiklopedi: Siber ortama çok disiplinli bir yaklaşım (ss. 508-513). Pegem Akademi.
• Tanrıverdi, E. G. (2017). Sosyolojik açıdan küreselleşme ve ulus-devlet (Giddens, Bauman ve Habermas örneği). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Tilly, C. (1995). Citizenship, identity and social history. International Review of Social History, 40(S3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000113586
• Ünlü, D. G. (2018). Şeffaflık toplumu: Şeffaf toplumun eleştirisi üzerine bir okuma. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi, 28, 281-290. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.436058
• Warren, M. E. (2013). Citizen representatives. İçinde J. H. Nagel & R. M. Smith (Ed.), Representation: Elections and beyond (ss. 269-294). University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Weber, M. (2004). Politics as vocation. İçinde R. Livingstone (Çev.), The vocation lectures (ss. 34-62). Hackett Pub.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage Publications.
• Wolin, S. S. (2001). Tocqueville between two worlds: The making of a political and theoretical life. Princeton University Press.
• Wolin, S. S. (2008). Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton University Press.
• Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5