SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Instagram as a Digital Ideological Apparatus: The Practice of “Self-Data” in the Dialectic of Surveillance and Consent

Dijital İdeolojik Aygıt Olarak Instagram: Gözetim ve Rıza Diyalektiğinde “Öz-Veri” Pratiği

Reyhan Kulluk(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4374-8540
Muhammet Safa Taşkıran0000-0001-8437-8761
Pages
863–882
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️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)

Findings reveal users voluntarily comply with the platform’s call through desires for visibility and social approval, commodifying their emotional labor to become behavioral data-producing objects during this aesthetic performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This phenomenological research examines how active Instagram users interpret their experiences of ideological interpellation and digital surveillance within the platform’s algorithmic structure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using an interpretative phenomenological design, data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 22 criterion-sampled participants aged 18-30.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal users voluntarily comply with the platform’s call through desires for visibility and social approval, commodifying their emotional labor to become behavioral data-producing objects during this aesthetic performance.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İdeolojik Çağırma · Gözetim Kapitalizmi · Öz-veri

Abstract

This phenomenological research examines how active Instagram users interpret their experiences of ideological interpellation and digital surveillance within the platform’s algorithmic structure. Drawing on Althusser’s ideological state apparatuses and Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism, the study empirically investigates individuals’ dialectical relationship with the platform. Using an interpretative phenomenological design, data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 22 criterion-sampled participants aged 18-30. Analysis utilized Max van Manen’s thematic reflection approach, structured around the existentials of lived space, body, time, relation, and materiality. Findings reveal users voluntarily comply with the platform’s call through desires for visibility and social approval, commodifying their emotional labor to become behavioral data-producing objects during this aesthetic performance. Participants’ awareness of data exploitation and privacy violations is rationalized via surveillance realism, driven by algorithmic comfort, social anxiety, and digital exclusion fears. Furthermore, tactical micro-resistance practices against algorithmic domination remain ineffective within the system’s infrastructural data extraction logic. The study’s unique contribution is the “self-data” concept, explaining how the user’s effort to be an independent “subject” (self) is transformed into a commercial “object” (data) by algorithms. Ultimately, findings demonstrate that in algorithmic systems, users simultaneously become subjects of their own domination and unpaid raw materials generating value for capital.

Özet

Bu fenomenolojik araştırma, aktif Instagram kullanıcılarının platformun algoritmik yapısındaki ideolojik çağrılma ve dijital gözetim deneyimlerini nasıl anlamlandırdıklarını incelemektedir. Althusser’in devletin ideolojik aygıtları kuramı ile Zuboff’un gözetim kapitalizmi yaklaşımlarından beslenen çalışmada, bireylerin platformla kurdukları diyalektik ilişki ampirik olarak sorgulanmaktadır. Yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik desenin kullanıldığı araştırmanın verileri, ölçüt örnekleme tekniğiyle belirlenen 18-30 yaş aralığındaki 22 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle toplanmıştır. Bulgular, Max van Manen’in tematik yansıtma yaklaşımı merkeze alınarak yaşantılanan mekân, beden, zaman, ilişki ve maddesellik varoluşsalları ekseninde çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, kullanıcıların görünürlük ve sosyal onay arzusuyla platformun yönlendirici çağrısına gönüllü olarak uyum sağladıklarını, bu estetik performans sürecinde duygusal emeklerini metalaştırarak davranışsal veri üreten nesnelere dönüştüklerini göstermektedir. Katılımcıların veri sömürüsüne ve mahremiyet ihlallerine yönelik farkındalıkları; dijital dışlanma korkusu, sosyal aidiyet kaygısı ve algoritmik konfor aracılığıyla gözetim realizmi bağlamında rasyonalize edilmektedir. Algoritmik tahakküme karşı geliştirilen taktiksel mikro-direniş ve sınır çizme pratikleri ise sistemin altyapısal veri çıkarma mantığı içinde etkisiz kalmaktadır. Çalışmanın literatüre sunduğu özgün katkı, kullanıcının dijital ağlarda bağımsız bir “özne” (öz) olma çabasının algoritmalar tarafından ticari bir “nesneye” (veri) dönüştürülmesi sürecini açıklayan “öz-veri” kavramsallaştırmasıdır. Sonuç olarak bulgular, kullanıcıların aidiyet arzusuyla bağlandıkları algoritmik sistemlerde kendi tahakkümlerinin özneleri ve aynı zamanda sermaye için değer üreten ücretsiz hammaddeleri konumuna geldiklerini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kulluk, R., Taşkıran, M. S. (2026). Instagram as a Digital Ideological Apparatus: The Practice of “Self-Data” in the Dialectic of Surveillance and Consent. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 863–882. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1926112

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (74)

  1. Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86-100. doi:10.1177/1329878X16665177
  2. Aka, L. B. (2024). Sosyal Ağlar ve Dijital Gözetim. Uşak Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 40-48.
  3. Aliu, O. H., Omaji, S., Ukhurebor, K. E., Abiodun, A. O. ve Onaseso, O. O. (2024). Analysis of users’ perceptions of data privacy on social media networks in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 7(3), 878-887. doi:10.53894/ijirss.v7i3.2959
  4. Alter, A. (2018). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. New York: Penguin Books.
  5. Althusser, L. (2010). İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları. (A. Tümertekin, Çev.) (4. bs.). İthaki Yayınları.
  6. Althusser, L. (2007). Kapital’i okumak. (A. Işık. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.
  7. Althusser, L. (2015). Marx için. (Işık. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.
  8. Andrejevic, M. (2019). Automating Surveillance. Surveillance and Society, 17(1/2), 7-13. doi:10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12930
  9. Backer, D. (2022). Althusser and Education. Radical Politics and Education (First edition.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. doi:10.5040/9781350101517
  10. Bennett, T. (2015). Theories of the Media, Theories of Society. T. Bennett, J. Curran, M. Gurevitch ve J. Wollacott (Ed.), Culture, Society and the Media içinde (ss. 30-55). Routledge.
  11. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven London: Yale University Press.
  12. Brinkmann, S. ve Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (Second edition.). Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE.
  13. Bucher, T. (2018). If.Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (Oxford Studies in Digital Politics. Oxford University Press, USA.
  14. Certeau, M. de. (2002). The practice of everyday life. (S. Rendall, Çev.) (2. baskı.). Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press.
  15. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2019). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York: New York University Press.
  16. Churchill, S. D. (2022). Essentials of existential phenomenological research. Essentials of qualitative methods series. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  17. Cohen, N. (2008). The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a Political Economy of Facebook. Democ-ratic Communiqué Volume 22 Issue 1 2008. doi:10.7275/DEMOCRATIC-COMMUNIQUE.290
  18. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Cambridge Malden, MA: Polity.
  19. Couldry, N. ve Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge Malden (Mass.): Polity press.
  20. Couldry, N. ve Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Culture and economic life. Stanford, [California]: Stanford University Press.
  21. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. (M. Bütün, Çev.) (3. bs.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  22. De Ruvo, G. (2025). Algorithmic Objectivity as Ideology: Toward a Critical Ethics of Digital Capitalism. Topoi, 44(1), 175-186. doi:10.1007/s11245-024-10117-9
  23. Dencik, L. (2018). Surveillance Realism and the Politics of Imagination: Is There No Alternative? Krisis Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, 38(1), 31-43. doi:10.21827/krisis.38.1.38829
  24. Draper, N. A. ve Turow, J. (2019). The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media and Society, 21(8), 1824-1839. doi:10.1177/1461444819833331
  25. Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build Habit-Forming products. Erscheinungsort nicht zu ermitteln: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  26. Foucault, M. (2015). Öznenin Yorumbilgisi: Collage de France Dersleri (1981-1982). (F. Keskin, Çev.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  27. Foucault, M. (2012). Cinselliğin tarihi. (H. U. Tanrıöver, Çev.) (4. bs.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  28. Fuchs, C. (2024). Social media: A critical introduction (4th edition.). London Thousand Oaks New Delhi Singapore: SAGE.
  29. Gerlitz, C. ve Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media and Society, 15(8), 1348-1365. doi:10.1177/1461444812472322
  30. Gondek, N., Tutak, G. ve Gondek, J. (2025). Ideologies in Algorithms. How Do Ideologies Give Shape to Algorithms? Studia Gilsoniana, 14(2), 375-394. doi:10.26385/SG.140213
  31. Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post‐structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2), 91-114. doi:10.1080/15295038509360070
  32. Hargittai, E. ve Marwick, A. (2016). “What Can I Really Do?” Explaining the Privacy Paradox with Online Apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737-3757.
  33. Ignatow, G. ve Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital, 20(7), 950-966. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301519
  34. Joseph, J. (2025). The algorithmic self: How AI is reshaping human identity, introspection, and agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1-6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645795
  35. Kalafat Çat, A. ve Aydın, B. (2023). Sosyal Medyada Dijital Kimlik İnşası: Instagram Kullanıcılarının Biyografi Yazılarının Cinsiyet ve Kuşak Kategorisine Göre İçerik Analizi, 6(2), 219-233.
  36. Karatzogianni, A. ve Matthews, J. (2020). Platform Ideologies: Ideological Production in Digital Intermediation Platforms and Structural Effectivity in the “Sharing Economy”. Television and New Media, 21(1), 95-114. doi:10.1177/1527476418808029
  37. Kaye, D. B. V., Chen, X. ve Zeng, J. (2021). The co-evolution of two Chinese mobile short video apps: Parallel platformization of Douyin and TikTok. Mobile Media and Communication, 9(2), 229-253. doi:10.1177/2050157920952120
  38. Krips, H. (2006). Interpellation, Populism, and Perversion: Althusser, Laclau and Lacan, 27(2), 81-101.
  39. Lanzing, M. (2019). “Strongly Recommended” Revisiting Decisional Privacy to Judge Hypernudging in Self-Tracking Technologies. Philosophy and Technology, 32(3), 549-568. doi:10.1007/s13347-018-0316-4
  40. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
  41. Mager, A. (2012). Algorithmic Ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 769-787. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056
  42. Manokha, I. (2018). Surveillance: The DNA of Platform Capital—The Case of Cambridge Analytica Put into Perspective. Theory and Event, 21(4), 891-913. doi:10.1353/tae.2018.0054.
  43. Mendonça, R. F., Almeida, V. A. F. ve Filgueiras, F. (2024). Algorithmic Institutionalism: The Changing Rules of Social and Political Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
  44. Metzler, H. ve Garcia, D. (2022). Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. doi:10.31234/osf.io/cxa9u
  45. Mezzadra, S. ve Neilson, B. (2017). On the multiple frontiers of extraction: Excavating contemporary capitalism. Cultural Studies, 31(2-3), 185-204. doi:10.1080/09502386.2017.1303425
  46. Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., Wang, X. (2016). How the World Changed Social Media. Why we post. London: UCL Press.
  47. Muldoon, J. ve Wu, B. A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in the Colonial Matrix of Power. Philosophy and Technology, 36(4), 1-24. doi:10.1007/s13347-023-00687-8
  48. Neuman, W. L. (2020). Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri (Cilt 1): Nitel ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar. (Ö. Akkaya, Çev.) (8. bs.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  49. Ökten, M. S. (2024). Dijital Çağda Kimlik İnşası: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Online Kimlikleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 27(2), 1-30. doi:10.18490/sosars.1575239
  50. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford studies in digital politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition.). Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC: SAGE.
  52. Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N. ve Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society, 20(1), 293-310. doi:10.1177/1461444816661553
  53. Sahu, S. K. ve Sahu, P. (2024). Social Media and Surveillance Capitalism: Facebook, Political Polarization, Orwellian Dystopia, and American Democracy. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 141-160. doi:10.30958/ajss.11-3-1
  54. Saldana, J. (2019). Nitel Araştırmacılar İçin Kodlama El Kitabı. (S. N. Şad ve A. Tüfekçi, Çev.) (2. bs.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  55. Saygın, T. (2009). Louis Althusser. 1900’den günümüze büyük düşünürler içinde (ss. 519-589). İstanbul: Etik Yayınları.
  56. Schüll, N. D. (2014). Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton Classics Series. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  57. Solove, D. J. (2009). Understanding privacy (First Harvard University Press paperback edition.). Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: Harvard University Press.
  58. Srnicek, N. (2019). Platform capitalism. Theory redux (Reprinted.). Cambridge Malden, MA: Polity.
  59. Terranova, T. (2010). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
  60. Therborn, G. (1999). The ideology of power and the power of ideology (4th impression, 1999, Verso Classics ed.). London New York NY: Verso.
  61. Topsakal, T. (2023). Instagram Kullanıcılarının Gözetim Farkındalıklarının Ortaya Konulmasına Yönelik Nitel Bir Çalışma. Yeni Medya Dergisi, 217-234. doi:10.55609/yenimedya.1247898
  62. Turan, Y. (2024). Sosyal Medyada Gözetim ve Mahremiyet Algısı: Instagram Kullanıcıları Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, (47), 146-169. doi:10.31123/akil.1427283
  63. Tüfekçi, Z. (2019). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press.
  64. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2021). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  65. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
  66. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. SUNY series in the philosophy of education. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
  67. van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. London New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  68. Yılmaz, A., Yeşil, A. ve Ulaş, M. (2022). Surveillance Of The Individual Digital Image: An Empirical Research On Instagram Stalk Practice. İNİF E- Dergi, 115-135. doi:10.47107/inifedergi.1076559
  69. Zake, I. (2002). The Construction of National(ist) Subject: Applying the Ideals of Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault to Nationalism. Social Thought and Research, 25(1 and 2), 217-246. doi:10.17161/STR.1808.5195
  70. Zizek, S. (2008). The sublime object of ideology. The essential Žižek. London New York: Verso.
  71. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  72. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5
  73. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
  74. Bucher, T. (2018). If.Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (Oxford Studies in Digital Politics. Oxford University Press, USA.