Dijital Yerli Genç Kimliğinin Çok Katmanlı İnşası: Akışkan Modernite, Algoritmik İktidar ve Dijital Sermaye Perspektifinden Kuramsal Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, dijital yerli genç kuşağın kimlik inşa süreçlerini çok katmanlı bir sosyolojik çerçeve içinde kuramsal olarak analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Dijitalleşmenin yalnızca teknolojik bir dönüşüm değil, aynı zamanda benlik üretimi, aidiyet biçimleri ve güç ilişkileri açısından yapısal bir paradigma değişimi olduğu varsayımından hareket edilmektedir. Çalışmada, yorumlayıcı epistemolojiye dayalı teorik araştırma tasarımı benimsemekte; sembolik etkileşimcilik (Goffman), akışkan modernite ve düşünümsel kimlik (Bauman, Giddens, Beck), ağ toplumu ve algoritmik iktidar (Castells, Foucault, Zuboff) ile dijital sermaye ve sembolik güç (Bourdieu) kuramlarını bütüncül bir analitik çerçevede sentezlemektedir. Bulgular, dijital yerli kimliğinin mikro düzeyde performatif benlik sunumu, mezo düzeyde refleksif ve akışkan kimlik projesi ve makro düzeyde algoritmik yönetişim ile sembolik sermaye mücadeleleri arasındaki diyalektik ilişkide şekillendiğini göstermektedir. Dijital platformlar bir yandan görünürlük, ağ kurma ve öz-ifade imkânları sunarken; diğer yandan gözetim kapitalizmi, veri temelli yönlendirme ve sembolik eşitsizlikler üretmektedir. Sonuç olarak dijital yerli birey, özgürlük ile denetim, ajans ile yapı ve görünürlük ile kırılganlık arasında konumlanan hibrit bir kimlik formu geliştirmektedir. Çalışma, dijital kimlik araştırmalarına çok düzeyli kuramsal bir model önererek literatüre kavramsal katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Yerli Gençler
• Dijital Kimlik
• Ağ Toplumu.

The Multilayered Construction of Digital Native Youth Identity: A Theoretical Analysis from the Perspective of Liquid Modernity, Algorithmic Power, and Digital Capital

Öz

This study aims to theoretically analyze the identity construction processes of the digitally native young generation within a multi-layered sociological framework. It proceeds from the assumption that digitalization is not only a technological transformation but also a structural paradigm shift in terms of self-production, forms of belonging, and power relations. The study adopts a theoretical research design based on interpretive epistemology; synthesizing theories of symbolic interactionism (Goffman), fluid modernity and reflective identity (Bauman, Giddens, Beck), network society and algorithmic power (Castells, Foucault, Zuboff), and digital capital and symbolic power (Bourdieu) within a holistic analytical framework. The findings show that the digitally native identity is shaped by the dialectical relationship between performative self-presentation at the micro level, reflexive and fluid identity projects at the meso level, and algorithmic governance and symbolic capital struggles at the macro level. While digital platforms offer opportunities for visibility, networking, and self-expression; On the other hand, surveillance capitalism produces data-driven manipulation and symbolic inequalities. As a result, the digital native develops a hybrid identity form positioned between freedom and control, agency and structure, and visibility and vulnerability. This study offers a conceptual contribution to the literature by proposing a multi-level theoretical model for digital identity research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Native Youth
• Digital İdentity
• Network Society.

Kaynakça

1. Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v2i4.3359
2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
3. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315
4. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
5. Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Polity Press.
6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
7. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147
8. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
13. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
14. Can, Y., & Öztürk, M. (2023). Biyopolitikanın anonimleşmesi sürecinde yeni medya teknolojileri. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 34, 311-329. https://doi.org/10.15182/diclesosbed.1264843
15. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.
16. Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
18. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner’s.
19. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon.
20. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin et al. (Eds.), Technologies of the self (pp. 16–49). University of Massachusetts Press.
21. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press.
22. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
23. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). Sage.
24. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell.
25. Marwick, A. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.
26. Marwick, A., & Boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
27. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.
28. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. Penguin.
29. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
30. Ragnedda, M. (2018). Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2366–2375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.006
31. Rose, N. (1999). Governing The Soul The Shaping of The Private Self. Free Association Books.
32. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
33. Van Dijk, J. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society, Sage. https://doi.org/ 10.4135/9781452229812
34. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001
35. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.. PublicAffairs