SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research Journal of Business and Management / 2024 / Volume: 11 Issue: 2

UNRAVELING SOCIETAL DYNAMICS FROM MARCUSE TO THE DIGITAL AGE

Bayram Arda Kuş(İlbank)0000-0002-0921-9418
Sait Ebinc(VAN YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3529-921X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Through a multidisciplinary lens and historical and contemporary examples, the study advocates for careful, inclusive strategies to ensure that technological advancements support social cohesion and political stability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose- This paper explores the complex interplay between technology and society, focusing on technopolitics to understand how technological advancements shape social and political dynamics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on Herbert Marcuse’s critical perspectives in One-Dimensional Man, the study investigates how technopolitical forces contribute to contemporary challenges like social isolation, political polarization, and changes in public discourse.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Through a multidisciplinary lens and historical and contemporary examples, the study advocates for careful, inclusive strategies to ensure that technological advancements support social cohesion and political stability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Technopolitics · social impact · marcuse

Abstract

Purpose- This paper explores the complex interplay between technology and society, focusing on technopolitics to understand how technological advancements shape social and political dynamics. Drawing on Herbert Marcuse’s critical perspectives in One-Dimensional Man, the study investigates how technopolitical forces contribute to contemporary challenges like social isolation, political polarization, and changes in public discourse. Incorporating insights from sociology, political science, psychology, and technology studies, this research provides a comprehensive look at the evolution of technopolitical structures and their effects on modern society. The paper aims to offer a deeper understanding of technopolitics along with practical insights for addressing its impacts on society. Methodology- A diverse methodological approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, case studies, and historical comparisons, has been used to capture the multi-layered nature of technopolitics and its varied implications for social structures and governance. Findings- The research highlights that rapid technological changes have redefined human interactions, fostering social isolation and weakening traditional community ties. As technology increasingly intersects with politics, it reshapes political engagement, with digital platforms altering public discourse and transforming the nature of conflict and participation. An important finding is the evolving role of engineers, who now not only develop technological systems but also influence political processes and public opinion. The concept of a “technopolitical ecosystem” is introduced, emphasizing the close link between technology and politics and the need for a comprehensive approach to navigate these impacts. The findings underline the importance of considering technological advancements from a sociological perspective to develop policies that are both sustainable and effective. Conclusion- This paper underscores the profound influence of technological progress on social and political structures, demonstrating how technopolitics shapes relationships and governance alike. Through a multidisciplinary lens and historical and contemporary examples, the study advocates for careful, inclusive strategies to ensure that technological advancements support social cohesion and political stability.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kuş, B. A., Ebinc, S. (2024). UNRAVELING SOCIETAL DYNAMICS FROM MARCUSE TO THE DIGITAL AGE. Research Journal of Business and Management, Volume: 11 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2024.1947

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Aytaç, Ö., & İlhan, S. (2008). Yeni kapitalizmin kaotik evreni: Belirsizlik, sömürü ve ahlâki kriz. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(1), 182-210.
  2. Bartky, W., & Birkhoff, G. D. (1928). Dynamical Systems. The American Mathematical Monthly, 35(10), 561. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298176
  3. Barber, B. (1995). Güçlü demokrasi: Yeni bir çağ için katılımcı siyaset (M. Beşikçi Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  4. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information Communication and Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
  5. Casero-Ripollés, A., Feenstra, R. A., & Tormey, S. (2014). İspanya’da Siyaset: Bir gözlemci demokrasi vakası. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary And, 21(3), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216645340
  6. Chou, M. (2015). From crisis to crisis: Democracy, crisis and the occupy movement. Political Studies Review, 13(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12070
  7. Coomes, M. D. (2016). “Students Armed With a Dream”: The 1960s’ New Left Student Movement. Journal of College Student Development, 57(3), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0032
  8. Coşğun, S. (2015). Bir yurttaş yetiştirme denemesi: Sokrates ve ideal insanı. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 68–80.
  9. Cukier, K., & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2014). The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way we think about the world. The best writing on mathematics, 2014, 20-32.
  10. Devine, J. (2000). The positive political economy of individualism and collectivism: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Politics & Society, 28(2), 265-304.
  11. Echeverría, J., Amann, A., Almendro, S. L., & Martella, F. (2020). Techno-Architecture and Online Loneliness.
  12. Faist, T., Bodemann, Y. M., & Yurdakul, G. (2006). Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos.
  13. Hale, M., Musso, J., & Weare, C. (2005). Developing digital democracy: Evidence from Californian municipal web pages. In Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age (pp. 97–116). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984031-16
  14. Howard, P. N., Ganesh, B., Liotsiou, D., Kelly, J., & François, C. (2018). The IRA, social media and political polarization in the United States, 2012-2018.
  15. Kirby, W. C. (2017). Engineering China: Birth of the Development State, 1928–1937. In The Pacific in the Age of Early Industrialization (pp. 215-238). Routledge.
  16. Kolind, T. (2008). Post-war identification: everyday Muslim counterdiscourse in Bosnia Herzegovina. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
  17. Kramer, S. N. (1961). Mythology of Sumer and Akkad. In Mythologies of the Ancient World (pp. 93–137). http://photoarchives.ca/Mythology of Sumer.pdf
  18. Kurban, C., Peña-López, I., & Haberer, M. (2017). What is technopolitics? A conceptual schema for understanding politics in the digital age. IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, (24), 3-20.
  19. Landsberger, B., & Tosun, M. O. (1943). Sümerler. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(5), 89-96.
  20. Laskar, M. (2013). Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Locke and Rousseau (April 4, 2013).
  21. Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of atmospheric sciences, 20(2), 130-141.
  22. Lorenz, E. N., & Haman, K. (1996). The essence of chaos. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 147(3), 598-599.
  23. Mair, P. (2023). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. Verso books.
  24. Marcuse, H. (2004). Technology, War and Fascism. In Technology, War and Fascism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203208311
  25. Martijn, L. (2019). A Political History of the World: Three Thousand Years of War and Peace.
  26. Meentemeyer, V. (1989). Geographical perspectives of space, time, and scale. Landscape Ecology, 3(3–4), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00131535
  27. Mendoza, C. (2022). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Church, Communication and Culture, 7(2), 452–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2022.2086891
  28. Milan, S., & Gutiérrez, M. (2018). Technopolitics in the age of Big Data. In Networks, movements and technopolitics in Latin America (pp. 95–109). Springer.
  29. Milan, S., & Velden, L. van der. (2016). The Alternative Epistemologies of Data Activism. Digital Culture & Society, 2(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2016-0205
  30. Nash, J. (1951). Non-Cooperative Games. The Annals of Mathematics, 54(2), 286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969529
  31. Noble, S. M., Mende, M., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (2022). The Fifth Industrial Revolution: How Harmonious Human–Machine Collaboration is Triggering a Retail and Service [R]evolution. Journal of Retailing, 98(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2022.04.003
  32. Nunes, B. A. A., Mendonca, M., Nguyen, X. N., Obraczka, K., & Turletti, T. (2014). A survey of software-defined networking: Past, present, and future of programmable networks. IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials, 16(3), 1617-1634.
  33. Pasquale, F. (2020). New laws of robotics. Harvard University Press.
  34. P Poincaré, H. (1890). Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique. Acta mathematica, 13(1), A3-A270.
  35. Robeyns, I. (2005). The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266
  36. Rumold, M. (2015). The Freedom of Information Act and the fight against secret (surveillance) law. Santa Clara L. Rev., 55, 161.
  37. Sahlins, M. Marshall Sahlins-4-Stone Age Economics [book 1972].
  38. Sassen, S. (2013). The repositioning of citizenship and alienage: Emergent subjects and spaces for politics. In The Global Politics of Globalization (pp. 79-94). Routledge.
  39. Skrbis, Z. (2008). Book Review: Cosmopolitan Vision Ulrich Beck Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2006, x +201 pp. (paperback). Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833080440010602
  40. Sneed, M. (2020). An Obituary for “Wisdom Literature”: The Birth, Death, and Intertextual Reintegration of a Biblical Corpus. By Will Kynes.
  41. Şan, M. K., & Hira, İ. (2007). Frankfurt Okulu ve kültür endüstrisi eleştirisi. Sosyoloji yazıları I, 324, 340.
  42. Tainter, J. A. (2011). Energy, complexity, and sustainability: A historical perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIST.2010.12.001
  43. Tormey, S., & Feenstra, R. A. (2015). Reinventing the political party in Spain: the case of 15M and the Spanish mobilisations. Policy Studies, 36(6), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1073243
  44. Webster, C., & Ruskin, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Handbook of research methods on social entrepreneurship, 150-169.
  45. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004