Dijital Mahremiyet ve Mikro-Otoriterlik: Sağ Popülist Aile Söyleminin Türkiye’de Evlilik ve Instagram Kullanımı Üzerinden Yeniden Üretimi

Öz

Bu makale, Türkiye’de evli genç kadınların Instagram kullanım pratiklerini inceleyerek dijital kültür, toplumsal cinsiyet ve sağ popülist aile ideolojisinin kesişim alanını analiz etmektedir. Sağ popülist rejimlerin 21. yüzyılda aileyi merkezî bir siyasal özne olarak yeniden inşa ettiği ve geleneksel toplumsal cinsiyet normlarını modern teknolojik araçlar üzerinden tahkim ettiği literatürde geniş biçimde tartışılmaktadır. Ancak dijital platformların gündelik evlilik pratiklerinde bu ideolojik çerçeveyi nasıl mikro düzeyde yeniden ürettiğine dair çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu araştırma, nitel bir tasarım çerçevesinde 8 evli kadın ile yapılan yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmelere dayanmaktadır. MAXQDA ile yürütülen tematik analiz, dört temel bulgu ortaya koymaktadır: (1) Instagram'ın evlilik içinde ayrı bir iletişim ve duygusal temas alanı olarak kurulması; (2) dijital gözetim, kontrol ve şifre paylaşımı üzerinden kurulan güven rejimleri; (3) algoritmik yönlendirmelerin kıskançlık, kriz ve şüpheyi tetikleyerek ilişkisel kırılganlığı artırması; (4) dijital pratiklerin ev içi iktidar ilişkilerini yeniden şekillendirerek “mikro-otoriter” düzenekler oluşturması. Bulgular, sağ popülist aile söyleminin öngördüğü heteronormatif, ahlaki ve disipline edici aile modelinin dijital kültür tarafından desteklendiğini göstermektedir. Instagram, sadece eğlence ve iletişim aracı değil, aynı zamanda partnerlerin birbirinin davranışlarını takip ettiği, mahremiyet sınırlarının müzakere edildiği ve toplumsal cinsiyet rollerinin yeniden üretildiği bir gözetim alanına dönüşmektedir. Çalışma, sağ popülizmin makro-ideolojik çerçevesi ile evlilik içi mikro-pratikler arasındaki bağlantıları görünür kılarak “dijital mikro-otoriterlik” kavramını literatüre kazandırmaktadır. Dijital mahremiyet, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ve aile içi ilişkiler bağlamında yeni sınırların oluştuğunu tartışan çalışma, gelecekteki araştırmalar için önemli bir zemin sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital mahremiyet
• Sağ popülizm
• Aile ideolojisi
• Evlilik
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Mikro-otoriterlik

Digital Privacy and Micro-Authoritarianism: The Reproduction of Right-Populist Family Discourse Through Marriage and Instagram Use in Turkey

Öz

This article analyzes the intersection of digital culture, gender, and right-populist family ideology by examining the Instagram practices of young married women in Turkey. While the literature widely discusses how right-populist regimes in the twenty-first century reconstruct the family as a central political subject and reinforce traditional gender norms through modern technological tools, there is limited research on how digital platforms reproduce this ideological framework at the micro level within everyday marital practices. Drawing on a qualitative research design, the study is based on semi-structured interviews with eight married women. A thematic analysis conducted using MAXQDA reveals four key findings: (1) Instagram functions as a distinct space of communication and emotional connection within marriage; (2) regimes of trust are shaped by digital surveillance, control, and password sharing; (3) algorithmic recommendations amplify jealousy, suspicion, and relational crises, thereby increasing emotional fragility; and (4) digital practices restructure domestic power relations, generating “micro-authoritarian” mechanisms within the household. The findings indicate that the heteronormative, moralizing, and disciplinary family model promoted by right-populist discourse is reinforced by digital culture. Instagram becomes not merely a tool for entertainment and communication but a space of surveillance in which partners monitor each other’s behaviors, negotiate the boundaries of privacy, and reproduce gendered expectations. By uncovering the linkages between the macro-ideological frame of right-wing populism and micro-level marital practices, the study introduces the concept of “digital micro-authoritarianism” into the literature. It highlights the emergence of new boundaries in relation to digital privacy, gender equality, and intimate relationships, offering a crucial foundation for future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital privacy
• Right-wing populism
• family ideology
• İnstagram
• Marriage
• Gender
• Micro-Authoritarianism

Kaynakça

1. Andrejevic, M. (2014). Surveillance and alienation in the online economy. Surveillance & Society, 12(3), 381–397.
2. Băluță, I. & Tufiș, C. (2024). Preaching the “traditional family” in the Romanian Parliament: The political stakes and meanings of a hegemonic narrative. East European Politics and Societies, 38(2), 616-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254231181069.
3. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. Routledge.
4. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
5. Bearman, S., Korobov, N., & Thorne, A. (2009). The fabric of internalized sexism. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 1(1), 10–47.
6. Benezra, B. (2014). The institutional history of family planning in Turkey. In K. Kamp, A. Kaya, F. Keyman, & Ö. Onursal Beşgül (Eds.), Contemporary Turkey at a glance: Interdisciplinary perspectives on local and translocal dynamics (pp. 41-56). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04916-4.
7. Ben-Porat, G., Filc, D., Ozturk, A. E., & Ozzano, L. (2023). Populism, religion and family values policies in Israel, Italy and Turkey. Mediterranean Politics, 28(2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2021.1901484.
8. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44.

9. Conrads, J., & Höppner, G. (2024). Populism and the question of the welfare of women. In J. C.
10. Chennattuserrt, M. Deshpande, & P. Hong (Eds.), Encyclopedia of New Populism andResponses in the 21st Century. (pp. 1-4). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92045-0.
11. Coopamootoo, K. P. L., & Ng, M. (2023). Un-Equal Online Safety? A Gender Analysis of Security and Privacy Protection Advice and Behaviour Patterns. Proceedings of the 32nd USENIX Security Symposium.
12. Copur, Z,. & Taylor, K. D. (2018). Family life education in Turkey. In M. Robila, & A. Taylor (Eds), Global Perspectives on Family Life Education. (pp. 345-359) Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77589-0_22
13. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection. Stanford University Press.
14. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.
15. Doğan, G. (2025). Family-oriented discourse and policymaking in right-wing populist governments: A comparative study of Türkiye and Poland. Politics, Religion and Ideology,26(1), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2025.2493095.
16. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
17. Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(6), 771–794.
18. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie et al. (Eds.), Media technologies (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
19. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.
20. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. University of California Press.
21. Illouz, E. (2007). Consuming the romantic utopia. University of California Press.
22. Imam, M., Manimekalai, N., & Suba, S. (2025). From data to discrimination: Gender, privacy, and the politics of digital surveillance. Synergy: International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(2), 52–64.
23. Kahlina, K. (2020). On behalf of the family and the people: The right-wing populist repertoire in Croatia. In M. Kranert (Ed.) Discursive Approaches to Populism Across Disciplines. (pp. 227-250) Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55038-7_9.
24. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004.
25. Linnamäki, K. (2024). Populism, familialism, and borders: The interplay of family and anti Muslim immigration policies in Hungary. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, 1-10.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1490608.
26. Maerz, S. F. (2024). The internet and autocratization. In A. Croissant & L. Tomini (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Autocratization (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003306900-17.
27. Martina, L. (2025). Digital authoritarianism: ICT-enabled repression across regime types. CEU Workshop Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rvmj2 v1.
28. Marwick, A. E. (2012). The public domain: Surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v9i4.4342.
29. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441–444.
30. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. NYU Press.
31. Penna, G., & Sátyro, N. (2024). Brazilian family policies under the neo-conservatism rhetoric of Bolsonaro. In N. Sátyro (Ed.), Social Policies in Times of Austerity and Populism: Lessons From Brazil. (pp. 257-277) Roudledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003487777.
32. Radke, L., & Rolofs, G. (2023). Gender and right-wing populism: Analysing the role of women at the ministerial level. Acta Politologica, 15(1), 33-57. https://doi.org/10.14712/1803-8220/37_2021.
33. Roberts, T., & Oosterom, M. (2024). Digital authoritarianism: A systematic literature review.
34. Information Technology for Development, 31(4), 860-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2024.2425352.
35. Sanders, R., & Jenkins, L. D. (2023). Patriarchal populism: The Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC) and the transnational politics of authoritarian anti-feminism. International
36. Spectator, 58(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2225660.
37. Sauer, B. (2019). Anti-feminist mobilization in Europe: Struggle for a new political hegemony? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 13(3), 339-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-019-00430-8.
38. Scrinzi, F. (2024). The racialization of sexism: Men, women and gender in the populist radical right. New York/Abingdon, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4000/12kpv.
39. T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (n.d.). Aile yılı hakkında. Erişim tarihi: 29 Kasım 2025, https://aileyili.gov.trT.C. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (n.d.). Aile yılı hakkında.
40. Trottier, D. (2016). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Routledge.
41. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. Basic Books.
42. Villora, B., et al. (2019). Gender norms and online behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 33–41.
43. Yabanci, B. (2025). Surveil, datafy, publicize: digital authoritarianism and migration governance in Turkey. Democratization, 32(4), 1016–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2433091.
44. Yetiş, E. Ö. (2025). Relocating gendered violence and anti-genderism within authoritarian populist imagination in Turkey. Frontiers in Political Science. 7, Article 1624746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1624746.
45. Zeybek, T., & Kasap, F. (2020). Social perspective for family functions in society. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 71, 305-324. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.71.19.