PANOPTİKON: DEMOKRASİ EKSENİNDE REALİTEDEN KURGUSALA DOĞRU BİR BAKIŞ

Öz

Panoptikon/gözetim uygulamalarının tarihi oldukça eski olmasına rağmen, günümüz dünyasında bazı özel biçimler almış ve özellikle bireyselleşme ve bürokratik örgütlenmeye dayanarak rutin ve sistematik hale gelmiştir. Bütünü gözetlemek anlamına gelen Panoptikon, mükemmel gözetleme ile devlet mekanizmalarını toplumun bütününe yaymaktadır. Günümüz teknolojisi gözetleme ve insanları kamusal ve özel alanda izleme odaklıdır. İleri teknolojiler şeffaflık, yönetişim, demokrasi gibi söylemleri güçlendirirken aynı zamanda mahremiyet kavramının alanını sorgulamaya açmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı Bentham ve Foucault’ta önemli bir konuma gelen Panoptikonu demokrasinin işbirlikçi aracı olarak ortaya koyarak realiteden kurgusala doğru kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktır. Kurgusal kısımda incelenmek üzere, popüler kültürde panoptikonla ilgili önemli ve dikkat çekici yazılı ve görsel çalışmalar seçilmiştir. Seçilen kurgusal eserler: Suzanne Collins'in Açlık Oyunları (2010), Cory Doctorow'un Little Brother”ı (2008) ve Jonathan Nolan tarafından yazılan ve yönetilen Person of Interest dizisidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Panoptikon,Kamu Yönetimi,İnsan Hakları,Demokrasi,Kurgusal Gözetim

PANOPTICON: A REVIEW FROM REALITY TO FICTIONAL ON THE AXIS OF DEMOCRACY

Öz

Although panopticon / surveillance practices are as old as human history, they have taken some special forms in the modern world and have become routine and systematic, especially on the basis of individualization and bureaucratic organization. Panopticon, which means to watch over the whole, spreads state mechanisms to society with perfect surveillance. Today's technology is focused on surveillance and people watching public and private space. Today's advanced technologies are strengthening the discourse such as transparency, governance and democracy, while at the same time opening up the question of the concept of privacy. The intention of working in this context is to present a conceptual framework to reality in terms of fiction by presenting Panopticon as a collaborative tool of democracy, which has an important position in Bentham and Foucault. In the fictional part, important and remarkable written and visual works related to panopticon in popular culture are mentioned. Films selected by study: Suzanne Collins's Hunger Games (2010), Cory Doctorow's Little Brother (2008), and Person of Interest, written and directed by Jonathan Nolan.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Panopticon,Public Administration,Human Rights,Democracy,Fictional Panoptikon

Kaynakça

1. ACUTO, M. (2013). City Leadership In Global Governance, Global Governance, 19(3), pp. 481–498.
2. AGAMBEN, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
3. ALLEN, M. (1994). ‘’See You in the City!” Perth’s Citiplace and the Space of Surveillance’, in K. Gibson and S. Watson (eds) Metropolis Now: Planning and the Urban in Contemporary, Australia (Sydney: Pluto), 137–147.
4. ARAYA, D. (2015). Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies, Edited by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
5. ANDERSON, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. New York: Verso.
6. BAUMAN, Z., and Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
7. BAUMAN, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge).
8. BERDAYES, V. (2002). “Traditional Management Theory as Panoptic Discourse: Language and the Constitution of Somatic Flows”, Culture and Organization, 8, 35–49.

9. BENTHAM, J. (1995). The Panopticon Writing (edited by M. Bozovic) (London: Verso).
10. BENTHAM, J. (1995). Panopticon (Preface). In Miran Bozovic (ed.), The Panopticon Writings, London: Verso, 29-95.
11. BİLGİN, N. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde İçerik Analizi, Teknikler ve Örnek Çalışmalar, Siyasal Kitabevi Ankara.
12. BOUSQUET, G. (1998). “Space, Power, Globalization: The Internet Symptom”, Societies 4, 105–13.
13. BOYNE, R. (2000). “Post-Panopticism”, Economy and Society, 29 (2), 285–307.
14. COLLINS, S. (2010). The Hunger Games. London: Scholastic Children’s Books.
15. DANDEKER, C. (1990). Surveillance, Power and Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).
16. DEBORD, G. (1988). “Comments on the society of the spectacle.” Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://libcom.org/files/Comments%20on%20the%20Society%20of%20the %20Spectacle.pdf
17. DEFLEM, M. (2008) Surveıllance And Governance: Crıme Control And Beyond, Edıted By University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
18. DE LANDA, M. (1991). War In The Age of Intelligent Machines (New York: Zone).
19. DOCTOROW, Cory. 2010. Little brother. Tor Teen, April 13
20. FOUCAULT, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
21. FORREST, J. D. (1896). Anti-Monopoly Legislation In The United States, American Journal of Sociology, 1, 411–425.
22. GIDDENS, A. (2008). Ulus Devlet ve Şiddet, Cumhur Atay (çev.), İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları.
23. GIDDENS, A. (1987). The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24. GILL, S. (1995). “The Global Panopticon: The Neo-Liberal State, Economic Life, and Democratic Surveillance”, Alternatives, 20 (1), 1–49.
25. GOLDBERG, B. (2011). “Privacy worries grow more public.” American Libraries, 42(5/6), pp. 26–27.
26. GOOMBRIDGE, N. (2003) “Crime Control or Crime Culture TV?”, Surveillance and Society, 1 (1), 30–46. Available at: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ articles1/cctvculture.pdf.
27. GORDON, D. (1990) “The Electronic Panopticon”, in The Justice Juggernaut: Fighting Street Crime, Controlling Citizens (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), 438–51.
28. IRISS (2011). Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies.
29. JAY, M. (1994) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision In Twentieth Century French Thought (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
30. LANGMUIR, A. D. (1965). Developing Concepts In Surveillance, The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 43, 369–372.
31. LEMAN-LANGOIS, S. (2003). “The Myoptic Panopticon: The Social Consequences of Policing Through the Lens”, Policing and Society, 13 (1), 43–58.
32. LEROY, M.-L. (2015). Transparency and Politics: The Reversed Panopticon As a Response To Abuse of Power.
33. LOVEMAN, M. (2005). The Modern State and The Primitive Accumulation of Symbolic Power, The American Journal of Sociology, 110(6), 1651–1684.
34. LYON, D. (Ed.). (2006). Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
35. LYON, D. (2006). Gözetlenen Toplum, İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları, s.14.
36. LYON, D. (1991). “Bentham’s Panopticon: From Moral Architecture to Electronic Surveillance”, Queen’s Quarterly, 98 (3), 596–617.
37. LYON, D. (1993). “An Electronic Panopticon? A Sociological Critique of Surveillance Theory”, The Sociological Review, 41 (3).
38. LYON, D. (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life (Buckingham: Open University Press).
39. MARX, G.T. (1988). Under Cover: Police Surveillance In America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
40. MONAHAN, T. (2006). Surveillance And Security Technological Politics And Power In Everyday Life, by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
41. NOVECK, B. S. (2009). Wikigovernment: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42. MANN, S., Nolan, J. And Wellman, B. (2003) “Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection In Surveillance Environments”, Surveillance and Society, 1 (3), 331–55. Available at: http:// www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf.
43. MATHIESEN, T. (1997) “The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon” Revisited’, Theoretical Criminology, 1 (2), 215–34.
44. PEREZ, C. (2002). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Retrieved from: http:// www.carlotaperez.org/pubs?s=tf&l=en&a=technologicalrevolutionsandfinanci alcapital. 06.01.2017
45. PIMENTA, E. (2008). Low Power Society. E-Book
46. PRICE, A. (2003). “Surveillance and The City.” The Next American City, 2, pp. 36–38.
47. POSTER, M. (1990) The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
48. ROSEN, J. (2003). “A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance.” In P. Griset and S. Mahan (eds.), Terrorism In Perspective (pp. 303–312). London: Sage.
49. SCOTT, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State, New Haven: Yale University Press.
50. SWEENY, R. (2004.) “Pedagopticon: Beyond Discipline and Punish In the Classroom”, In New Forms Festival (Vancouver, BC).
51. TORPEY, J. (2000). The Invention of the Passport. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. WACQUANT, L. (2001). “The Penalisation of Poverty and the Rise of Neo-Liberalism”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 9, 401–12.
53. WEBSTER, F. And Robins, K. (1986). Information Technology: A Luddite Analysis (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
54. YAR, M. (2003). ‘Panoptic Power and the Pathologisation of Vision: Critical Reflections on the Foucauldian Thesis’, Surveillance and Society, 1 (3), 254– 71. Available at: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/ pathologisation.pdf.
55. ZURAWSKI, N. (Ed.). (2007). Surveillance Studies: Perspektiven Eines Forschungsfeldes, Opladen, Germany: Budrich.
56. www.publicus.net/articles/edempublicnetwork.html, 06.01.2017.
57. http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Themes/e-voting/definition.asp, 06.01.2017.