SavedAdd your journal

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

Algorithmic Governmentality and Digital Ageing: Invisible Surveillance, Inequality, and New Forms of Power

Algoritmik Yönetimsellik ve Dijital Yaşlanma: Görünmez Denetim, Eşitsizlik ve Yeni İktidar Biçimleri

Fulya Şenay Avcı0000-0002-4565-5700
Journal
İmgelem
Pages
269–290
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)

By bringing critical gerontology into dialogue with digital society scholarship, the study offers a theoretical contribution to understanding the social and political dimensions of digital ageing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The proliferation of digital technologies is transforming not only everyday social practices but also the ways in which power operates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Big data, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making systems generate invisible mechanisms of control that predict and shape individual behavior.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By bringing critical gerontology into dialogue with digital society scholarship, the study offers a theoretical contribution to understanding the social and political dimensions of digital ageing.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Algoritmik Yönetimsellik · Dijital Yaşlanma · Algoritmik Tahakküm

Abstract

The proliferation of digital technologies is transforming not only everyday social practices but also the ways in which power operates. Big data, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making systems generate invisible mechanisms of control that predict and shape individual behavior. Drawing on Foucault’s concept of governmentality and Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism, this study examines digital ageing through the lens of algorithmic governmentality. Its primary contribution is the development of an integrated analytical framework encompassing data-based age invisibility, algorithmic consent production, and algorithmic domination. Building on scholarly debates surrounding algorithmic ageism and domination, the study critically examines older adults’ data representation, autonomy, and positioning within digital systems. It argues that digital ageing cannot be understood solely in terms of technological access and digital literacy but must also be examined in relation to algorithmic visibility, structural inequalities, and power relations. The study concludes that while digital technologies support older adults’ independent living and social participation, they may simultaneously reproduce new forms of exclusion and control. By bringing critical gerontology into dialogue with digital society scholarship, the study offers a theoretical contribution to understanding the social and political dimensions of digital ageing.

Özet

Dijital teknolojilerin yaygınlaşması, gündelik yaşam pratikleriyle birlikte iktidarın işleyiş biçimlerini de dönüştürmektedir. Büyük veri, yapay zekâ ve algoritmik karar sistemleri, bireylerin davranışlarını öngören ve yönlendiren görünmez denetim mekanizmaları üretmektedir. Bu çalışma, dijital yaşlanmayı Foucault’nun yönetimsellik yaklaşımı ve Zuboff’un gözetim kapitalizmi perspektifinden hareketle algoritmik yönetimsellik çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel katkısı, veri temelli yaş görünmezliği, algoritmik rıza üretimi ve algoritmik tahakküm eksenlerini bir araya getiren bütünleşik bir analitik çerçeve geliştirmesidir. Bu çerçevede, literatürdeki algoritmik yaş ayrımcılığı ve tahakküm tartışmaları üzerinden yaşlı bireylerin veri temsiliyeti, özerkliği ve dijital sistemlerdeki konumu değerlendirilmektedir. Dijital yaşlanmanın yalnızca teknolojiye erişim ve dijital okuryazarlıkla açıklanamayacağı; algoritmik görünürlük, yapısal eşitsizlikler ve iktidar ilişkileri bağlamında ele alınması gerektiği savunulmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, dijital teknolojilerin yaşlı bireylerin bağımsız yaşamını ve toplumsal katılımını desteklerken yeni dışlanma ve denetim biçimleri üretebildiği vurgulanmaktadır. Çalışma, eleştirel gerontoloji ile dijital toplum tartışmalarını ilişkilendirerek dijital yaşlanmanın toplumsal ve siyasal boyutlarının anlaşılmasına kuramsal katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Avcı, F. Ş. (2026). Algorithmic Governmentality and Digital Ageing: Invisible Surveillance, Inequality, and New Forms of Power. İmgelem, Sayı: Küresel Modern Toplumsal Çelişkiler Özel Sayı, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.2014075

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Akbuğa, F. (2023). Yaşlı bireylerin sosyal ağlardaki “dijital suskunluğu”. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 62(62), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.29228/SOBIDER.67696.
  2. Alkan, E. Ö. (2026). Dijitalleşen toplumun yeni eşitsizlik biçimi: Dijital eşitsizlik ve Türkiye’deki göstergeleri. İmgelem, (18), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1836204.
  3. Arcury, T. A., Sandberg, J. C., Melius, K. P., Quandt, S. A., Leng, X., Latulipe, C., Miller, D. P., Jr., Smith, D. A., & Bertoni, A. G. (2020). Older adult internet use and eHealth literacy. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464818807468.
  4. Arun, Ö. (2018). Yaşlanmayı aşmak: Türkiye’de yaşlılık hâlleri. Phoenix Yayınevi.
  5. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31.
  6. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Akışkan gözetim (E. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  7. Beer, D. (2016). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147.
  8. Bucher, T. (2018). If. Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
  9. Cameron, L. D. (2024). The making of the “good bad” job: How algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 458–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241236163.
  10. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2. bs.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  11. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press.
  12. Choi, N. G., DiNitto, D. M., Marti, C. N., & Choi, B. Y. (2022). Telehealth use among older adults during COVID-19: Associations with sociodemographic and health characteristics, technology device ownership, and technology learning. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 41(3), 600–609.
  13. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
  14. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.
  15. Dinç, G. (2026). Dijital çağda din veya inanç özgürlüğünün güvenlikleştirilmesi. İmgelem, (19), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1901483.
  16. Estes, C. L., Biggs, S., & Phillipson, C. (2003). Social theory, social policy and ageing: A critical introduction. Open University Press.
  17. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Picador, St Martin’s Press.
  18. Fernández-Ardèvol, M., & Grenier, L. (2024). Exploring data ageism: What good data can(’t) tell us about the digital practices of older people? New Media & Society, 26(8), 4611–4628. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221127261.
  19. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Pantheon Books.
  20. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Ed.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality içinde (ss. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.
  21. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the collège de France, 1977–1978 (M. Senellart, Ed.) (G. Burchell, Çev.). Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Friemel, T. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331.
  23. Galière, S. (2020). When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: A Foucauldian perspective. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12177.
  24. Gerçeker, K., & Erdem, R. (2026). Yaşlı yetişkinlerde dijital sağlık teknolojilerinin kullanımına ilişkin kolaylaştırıcı ve zorlaştırıcı faktörler ile iyileştirme önerileri: Bir kapsam incelemesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(1), 194–210.
  25. Han, B. C. (2020). Psikopolitika: Neoliberalizm ve yeni iktidar teknikleri (H. Barışcan, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
  26. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942.
  27. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087.
  28. Lemke, T. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York University Press.
  29. Lupton, D. (2018). Digital health: Critical and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
  30. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
  31. Marston, H. R., & van Hoof, J. (2019). “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-friendly cities model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525.
  32. Muldoon, J., & Raekstad, P. (2023). Algorithmic domination in the gig economy. European Journal of Political Theory, 22(4), 587–607.
  33. Neves, B. B., Franz, R., Judges, R., Beermann, C., & Baecker, R. (2018). Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 38(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817741369.
  34. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
  35. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342.
  36. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group.
  37. Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2020). Ageism in the era of digital platforms. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 26(5–6), 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520930905.
  38. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuality. Réseaux, No 177(1), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163.
  39. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37(4), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/37.4.433.
  40. Seifert, A., Cotten, S. R., & Xie, B. (2021). A double burden of exclusion? Digital and social exclusion of older adults in times of COVID-19. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(3), e99–e103. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa098.
  41. Sixsmith, A. (2021). Technology and the challenge of aging. D. Gu & M. E. Dupre (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging içinde (ss. 5397–5404). Springer.
  42. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
  43. Stypinska, J. (2023). AI ageism: A critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies. AI & Society, 38(2), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01553-5.
  44. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(4), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2499658.
  45. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
  46. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2024). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması 2024. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  47. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
  48. Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776.
  49. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812.
  50. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Ed.), Communication and information technologies annual içinde (ss. 29–52). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.
  51. Walker, A. (2002). A strategy for active ageing. International Social Security Review, 55(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-246X.00118.
  52. Yeung, K. (2017). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158.
  53. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.