SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İmgelem / 2026 / Sayı: Küresel Modern Toplumsal Çelişkiler Özel Sayı

New Serfdom and Political Alienation in the Digital Age

Dijital Çağda Yeni Serflik ve Siyasi Yabancılaşma

Rabia Burçin Yavuz(UFUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, SİYASET BİLİMİ VE ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-6411-3931
Journal
İmgelem
Pages
247–268
Publication Date
2026-10-20
🏛️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)

Democratization requires democratic oversight of digital infrastructures, regulation of data use, limits on platforms’ monopolistic power, and public restructuring of the digital public sphere.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines digitalization’s relationship to capitalism’s historical transformation regarding political participation, citizenship, and political alienation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Moreover, increased digital visibility and information access do not inherently strengthen democratic participation, since political activities can fragment within echo chambers and filter bubbles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Democratization requires democratic oversight of digital infrastructures, regulation of data use, limits on platforms’ monopolistic power, and public restructuring of the digital public sphere.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Serflik · Siyasi Yabancılaşma · Dijital Platformlar

Abstract

This study examines digitalization’s relationship to capitalism’s historical transformation regarding political participation, citizenship, and political alienation. It shows digital age dependencies cannot be explained solely by economic exploitation and unpaid data production, assessment must include erosion of individuals’ political agency, autonomous thought on public issues, and effective participation in decision-making. Using a theoretical conceptual method, it jointly considers platform capitalism, technofeudalism, surveillance capitalism, and psychopolitics. It argues that major technology companies’ control over data and algorithmic steering makes companies political actors, beyond economic ones, defining public debate’s boundaries. Moreover, increased digital visibility and information access do not inherently strengthen democratic participation, since political activities can fragment within echo chambers and filter bubbles. It proposes that digital serfdom and political alienation may mutually reinforce through specific mechanisms. Democratization requires democratic oversight of digital infrastructures, regulation of data use, limits on platforms’ monopolistic power, and public restructuring of the digital public sphere.

Özet

Bu çalışma, dijitalleşmenin kapitalizmin tarihsel dönüşümüyle ilişkisini siyasal katılım, yurttaşlık ve siyasi yabancılaşma bağlamında incelemektedir. Temel amacı, dijital çağdaki yeni bağımlılık biçimlerinin yalnızca ekonomik sömürü ve ücretsiz veri üretimiyle açıklanamayacağını, bireylerin siyasal özne olma, kamusal meseleler üzerine özerk düşünme ve karar alma süreçlerine etkili katılma kapasitelerindeki aşınmayla birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektir. Kuramsal ve kavramsal yönteme dayanan çalışma, platform kapitalizmi, teknofeodalizm, gözetim kapitalizmi ve psikopolitika yaklaşımlarını birlikte ele almaktadır. Büyük teknoloji şirketlerinin veri ve algoritmik yönlendirme üzerindeki denetimlerinin, onları ekonomik aktörlerin ötesinde kamusal tartışmanın sınırlarını belirleyen siyasal aktörlere dönüştürdüğü ileri sürülmektedir. Ayrıca dijital görünürlük ve bilgiye erişimdeki artışın demokratik katılımı kendiliğinden güçlendirmediği, siyasal faaliyetlerin yankı odaları ve filtre balonlarında parçalanabildiği savunulmaktadır. Çalışma, dijital serflik ile siyasi yabancılaşmanın belirli mekanizmalarla birbirini güçlendirebileceğini öne sürmektedir. Demokratikleşme için dijital altyapıların demokratik denetime açılması, veri kullanımının düzenlenmesi, platformların tekelci güçlerinin sınırlandırılması ve dijital kamusal alanın kamusal biçimde yeniden yapılandırılması gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, R. B. (2026). New Serfdom and Political Alienation in the Digital Age. İmgelem, Sayı: Küresel Modern Toplumsal Çelişkiler Özel Sayı, 247–268. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.2005581

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Allamong, M. B. (2024). Political alienation and the Trump vote in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 88(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad065.
  2. Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/.
  3. Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Harvard University Press.
  4. Bentham, J. (2016). Panoptikon ya da gözetim evi. B. Çoban & Z. Özarslan (Ed.), Panoptikon: Gözün iktidarı içinde (ss. 9–75). Su Yayınları.
  5. Bordo, M. D. (1993). The Bretton Woods international monetary system: A historical overview. M. D. Bordo & B. Eichengreen (Ed.), A retrospective on the Bretton Woods system: Lessons for international monetary reform içinde (ss. 3–108). University of Chicago Press.
  6. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542.
  7. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt17kk9p8.
  8. Citrin, J., McClosky, H., Shanks, J. M., & Sniderman, P. M. (1975). Personal and political sources of political alienation. British Journal of Political Science, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008024.
  9. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632.
  10. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.
  11. De Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12021.
  12. Dean, J. (2005). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. Cultural Politics, 1(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.2752/174321905778054845.
  13. Durand, C. (2024). How Silicon Valley unleashed techno-feudalism: The making of the digital economy (D. Broder, Çev.). Verso.
  14. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. (2011). The financial crisis inquiry report: Final report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf.
  15. Finifter, A. W. (1970). Dimensions of political alienation. American Political Science Review, 64(2), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953840.
  16. Han, B. C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power (E. Butler, Çev.). Verso.
  17. Harrison, S. (2021). Digital feudalism: Sharecropping, ground rent, and tribute. Rethinking Marxism, 33(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2021.1893084.
  18. Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2010). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press.
  19. Küçük, A. (2025). Post-kamusal çağda bilgi iktidarı: Algoritmik filtreleme ve ortak akıl krizi. İmgelem, (Yeni Medya Çalışmaları), 869–898. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1708061.
  20. Marx, K. (1979). Feuerbach üzerine tezler. Ludwig feuerbach ve klasik Alman felsefesinin sonu içinde (ss. 73–76). Sol Yayınları.
  21. Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C. T., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/risj-etxj-7k60.
  22. Saura García, C. (2024). Datafeudalism: The domination of modern societies by big tech companies. Philosophy & Technology, 37(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00777-1.
  23. Şengül, T. H. (2018). İktidar. G. Atılgan & E. A. Aytekin (Ed.), Siyaset bilimi: Kavramlar, ideolojiler, disiplinler arası ilişkiler içinde (ss. 41–55). Yordam Kitap.
  24. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
  25. Sümer, O. (2024). Algoritma tiranlığı: Dijital dünyada bireyin savunmasızlığına yönelik bir sosyo-teknik analiz. İmgelem, (15), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1498729.
  26. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.
  27. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001.
  28. Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: What killed capitalism. The Bodley Head.
  29. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.