SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5

From Classical Civil Society Theories to the Digital Public Sphere

Klasik Sivil Toplum Teorilerinden Dijital Kamusal Alana

Dilek Çelik Uygur(Şırnak Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4181-8568
Pages
418–435
Publication Date
2026-10-15
🏛️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)

The main reason for this shrinkage, as indicated by the literature, stems from increasing surveillance and digital repression.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The concept of civil society is a significant phenomenon that has been debated for years and affects the political, economic, and social spheres.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, technological advancements and the acceleration of information throughout history have altered or transformed this effectiveness of civil society.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The main reason for this shrinkage, as indicated by the literature, stems from increasing surveillance and digital repression.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sivil Toplum · Janoski Modeli · Dijital Kamusal Alan

Abstract

The concept of civil society is a significant phenomenon that has been debated for years and affects the political, economic, and social spheres. However, technological advancements and the acceleration of information throughout history have altered or transformed this effectiveness of civil society. This study examines the historical development and transformation of the concept of civil society and the digital public sphere in this context. Contrary to the liberal perspective, it is argued that the independent appearance of civil society is linked to the economic contradictions created by capitalism and digitalization. The study discusses the historical development of civil society from Ancient Greece to the modern era and is based on Thomas Janoski's model of citizenship. The findings of the literature review show that the boundaries in Janoski's model have loosened with the development of digitalization. However, the freedom of data sharing has transformed into an economic sphere of interest, limiting the liberating effect of digitalization. Discussions within the framework of Althusser's ideological apparatuses and Gramsci's hegemony concepts reveal that the civil sphere is shrinking despite digitalization. The main reason for this shrinkage, as indicated by the literature, stems from increasing surveillance and digital repression.

Özet

Sivil toplum kavramı, yıllardır tartışılan ve siyasi, ekonomik ve sosyal alanları etkileyen önemli bir olgudur. Bununla birlikte, teknolojik gelişmeler ve bilginin hızlanması, sivil toplumun bu etkinliğini değiştirmiş veya dönüştürmüştür. Bu çalışma, bu bağlamda sivil toplum kavramının ve dijital kamusal alanın tarihsel gelişimini ve dönüşümünü incelemektedir. Liberal bakış açısının aksine, sivil toplumun bağımsız görünümünün kapitalizm ve dijitalleşmenin yarattığı ekonomik çelişkilerle bağlantılı olduğu savunulmaktadır. Çalışma, Antik Yunan'dan modern çağa kadar sivil toplumun tarihsel gelişimini ele almakta ve Thomas Janoski'nin vatandaşlık modeline dayanmaktadır. Literatür taramasının bulguları, Janoski'nin modelindeki sınırların dijitalleşmenin gelişmesiyle gevşediğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, veri paylaşım özgürlüğü, dijitalleşmenin özgürleştirici etkisini sınırlayan ekonomik bir çıkar alanına dönüşmüştür. Althusser'in ideolojik aygıtları ve Gramsci'nin hegemonya kavramları çerçevesindeki tartışmalar, dijitalleşmeye rağmen sivil alanın daraldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Literatürün de belirttiği gibi, bu küçülmenin temel nedeni artan gözetim ve dijital baskıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uygur, D. Ç. (2026). From Classical Civil Society Theories to the Digital Public Sphere. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 418–435. https://doi.org/10.59445/ijephss.1987416

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Verso: London.
  2. Augustine, S. (2008). The city of God: Books XVII–XXII (G. G. Walsh & D. J. Honan, Trans.; R. P. Russell, Ed.). The Catholic University of America Press. (Original work published in Latin ca. 413–426 A.D.).
  3. Bax, T. (2026). Rise of the algopticon: The algoptic gaze in the age of algorithmic governance and surveillance capitalism. AI & Society, 41, 415–427.
  4. Bobbio, N. (1988). Civil society. In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil society and the state: New European perspectives (pp. 23–43). Verso.
  5. Bohman, J. (2004). Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy. The sociological review, 52(1), 131-155.
  6. Buyse, A. (2018). Squeezing civic space: Restrictions on civil society organizations and the linkages with human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(8), 966-988.
  7. Castells, M. (2008). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür: Ağ toplumunun yükselişi (E. Kılıç, Çev.; 2. Baskı). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  8. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Wiley-Blackwell.
  9. Covell, C. (2020). Hegel on Civil Society. Tsu-kuba Hosei, (83), 1-8.
  10. Çaha, Ö. (2000). Aşkın Devletten Sivil Topluma. İstanbul: Gendaş Yayınevi.
  11. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
  12. Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Agoras, ancient and modern, and a framework for science-society debate. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 137-153.
  13. Deibert, R. J. (2019). The road to digital unfreedom: Three painful truths about social media. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 25-39.
  14. Doğan, İ. (2003). Özgürlükçü ve totaliter düşünce geleneğinde sivil toplum. Alfa Yayınları.
  15. Eliaeson, S., & Jedrzejewska, S. (2004). Neo-Liberalism and Civil Society. Swedish Exceptionalism and Polish Pluralism. L’Europe en Formation, (4).
  16. Erdoğan Tosun, G. (2001). Demokratikleşme perspektifinde devlet-sivil toplum ilişkisi (Türkiye örneği). Alfa Yayınları.
  17. Erken, B. (2020). Hegel’de sivil toplum ve devlet üzerine teorik bir inceleme. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(4), 33-53.
  18. Fraser, N. (2013) The fortunes of feminism: From women’s liberation to identity politics to anti-capitalism, London: Verso.
  19. Fuchs, C. (2010). Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society, 26(3), 179-196.
  20. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.
  21. Gözübüyük Tamer, M. (2010). Tarihsel süreçte sivil toplum. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 177-194.
  22. Gramsci, A. (1986). Hapishane defterleri seçmeler (K. Somer, Çev.). Onur Yayınları.
  23. Gramsci, A. (1992). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers: New York.
  24. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
  25. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press: Cambridge.
  26. Hobbes, T. (2014). Leviathan (N. Malcolm, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651).
  27. Hognogi, G. G., Meltzer, M., Alexandrescu, F., & Ștefănescu, L. (2023). The role of citizen science mobile apps in facilitating a contemporary digital agora. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 863.
  28. Hunt, G. (1987). The development of the concept of civil society in Marx. History of Political Thought, 8(2), 263-276.
  29. Janoski, Thomas (1998) Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional and Social Democratic Regimes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Isin, E. F. & Wood, P.K. (1999). Citizenship and Identity. Sage, London (1999).
  31. Kausche, K., & Weiss, M. (2025). Platform power and regulatory capture in digital governance. Business and Politics, 27(2), 284–308.
  32. Kumar, K. (1993). Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 375-395.
  33. Locke, J. (1773). An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. Boston: Edes and Gill. (Original work published 1690).
  34. Makwudo, K. K., & Emmanuel, N. A. (2025). Social media as the new agora: a Habermasian inquiry into the public sphere and deliberative democracy in the digital age. Trinitarian: International Journal Of Arts And Humanities, 1(1).
  35. Markovitz, I. L. (1998). Uncivil society, capitalism and the state in Africa. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 36(2), 21-53.
  36. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German ideology. Prometheus Books.
  37. Mergen, A. (2026). The Algorithmic Leviathan or the Digital Agora? Mechanisms of Enclosure and Pathways to Rights-Based Governance of Digital Commons. Business & Society, 1-46.
  38. Montesquieu, C. de S. (2015). The spirit of the laws (A. M. Cohler, B. C. Miller, & H. S. Stone, Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1748).
  39. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
  40. Rousseau, J.-J. (2002). The social contract and the first and second discourses (S. Dunn, Ed. & Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original works published 1750, 1753, 1762).
  41. Rousseau, J.-J. (2022). Discourse on the origin of inequality among men. Delhi Open Books. (Original work published 1755).
  42. Sarpaşan, C. (2008). Devletin sivil topluma yaklaşımı çerçevesinden devlet-sivil toplum ilişkisi. TC. İçişleri Bakanlığı Demekler Dairesi Başkanlığı Yeterlilik Tezi, Ankara.
  43. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
  44. Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text, 18(2), 33–58.
  45. Tocqueville, A. (1962). Amerika'da demokrasi (T. Timur, Çev.). Yenilik Basımevi.
  46. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
  47. Tuncel, G. (2011). Sivil toplum ve devlet. Bilsam Yayınları.
  48. Vlassopoulos, K. (2007). Free spaces: identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens. The Classical Quarterly, 57(1), 33-52.
  49. Yetiş, M. (2003). Marx ve sivil toplum. Praksis Dergisi, 31, 35-72.
  50. Zöller, G. (2022). Liberty and Freedom: Hegel on Civil Society and the Political State. Studia hegeliana, (3), 1-15.
  51. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books