KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1

DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND ALGORITHMIC POWER: A THEORETICAL READING THROUGH FOUCAULT, WEBER, AND ZUBOFF

Büşra Yiğitol(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7846-3393
Sayfa
1141–1159
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Çalışma, yapay zekâ, büyük veri, Nesnelerin İnterneti (IoT), blok zinciri ve dijital ikizler de dahil olmak üzere dijital teknolojilerin yalnızca veri toplama araçları olarak işlev görmekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda bireysel davranışları tahmin etmede, şekillendirmede ve ekonomik olarak değerlendirmede aktif olarak rol aldığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Foucault'nun disiplin gücü teorisini, Weber'in rasyonel bürokrasi fikrini ve Zuboff'un gözetim kapitalizmi kavramını uzlaştırarak, dijital gözetim çağı için teorik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Çalışma, yapay zekâ, büyük veri, Nesnelerin İnterneti (IoT), blok zinciri ve dijital ikizler de dahil olmak üzere dijital teknolojilerin yalnızca veri toplama araçları olarak işlev görmekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda bireysel davranışları tahmin etmede, şekillendirmede ve ekonomik olarak değerlendirmede aktif olarak rol aldığını göstermektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ayrıca, dijital gözetimin işlevsel boyutlarını (verimlilik, güvenlik ve tahmin kapasitesi gibi) ve mahremiyetin aşınması, etik belirsizlik ve bireysel özerkliğin zayıflaması gibi kritik sonuçlarını da incelemektedir
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Dijital gözetim · yapay zekâ · dijital panoptisizm

Özet

Bu çalışma, Foucault'nun disiplin gücü teorisini, Weber'in rasyonel bürokrasi fikrini ve Zuboff'un gözetim kapitalizmi kavramını uzlaştırarak, dijital gözetim çağı için teorik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Tanımlayıcı açıklamaların ötesine geçen çalışma, çağdaş dijital gözetimi, disiplin, bürokratik rasyonellik ve veri odaklı ekonomik süreçlerin kesişim noktasında işleyen bir yönetim biçimi olarak kavramsallaştırmak için "algoritmik güç" kavramını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, yapay zekâ, büyük veri, Nesnelerin İnterneti (IoT), blok zinciri ve dijital ikizler de dahil olmak üzere dijital teknolojilerin yalnızca veri toplama araçları olarak işlev görmekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda bireysel davranışları tahmin etmede, şekillendirmede ve ekonomik olarak değerlendirmede aktif olarak rol aldığını göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, Foucault'nun öz disiplin modeli otomatikleştirilmiş algoritmik kontrol biçimlerine dönüşür; Weber'in rasyonelleştirmesi veri odaklı bürokratik yönetime dönüşür ve Zuboff'un gözetim kapitalizmi, davranışsal verilerin metalaştırıldığı ekonomik mantığı sağlar. Klasik sosyal teoriyi çağdaş dijital altyapılarla birleştirerek, bu çalışma, veri odaklı toplumlarda gücün nasıl yeniden yapılandırıldığını anlamak için bütünleşik bir kavramsal bakış açısı sunarak literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca, dijital gözetimin işlevsel boyutlarını (verimlilik, güvenlik ve tahmin kapasitesi gibi) ve mahremiyetin aşınması, etik belirsizlik ve bireysel özerkliğin zayıflaması gibi kritik sonuçlarını da incelemektedir

Abstract

This study offers a theoretical framework for the digital age of surveillance by reconciling Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power, Weber’s idea of rational bureaucracy and Zuboff’s concept of surveillance capitalism. Moving beyond descriptive accounts, the study introduces the concept of “algorithmic power” to conceptualize contemporary digital surveillance as a form of governance operating at the intersection of discipline, bureaucratic rationality, and data-driven economic processes. The study demonstrates that digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, and digital twins, not only collect data but also predict, shape, and assign economic value to individual behavior. In this context, Foucault's model of self-discipline transforms into automated algorithmic control; Weber's rationalization transforms into data-driven bureaucratic governance; and Zuboff's surveillance capitalism provides the economic logic that commodifies behavioral data. By combining classical social theory with contemporary digital infrastructures, this study contributes to the literature by offering an integrated conceptual perspective for understanding how power is restructured in data-driven societies. It also examines the functional dimensions of digital surveillance (such as efficiency, security, and predictive capacity) and its critical consequences, including the erosion of privacy, the ethical uncertainty, and the weakening of individual autonomy.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yiğitol, B. (2026). DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND ALGORITHMIC POWER: A THEORETICAL READING THROUGH FOUCAULT, WEBER, AND ZUBOFF. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 1141–1159. https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1820379

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (89)

  1. Al-Sahan, L., Al-Jabiri, F., Abdelsalam, N., Mohamed, A., Elfouly, T., and Abdallah, M. (2020). Public security surveillance system using blockchain technology and advanced image processing techniques. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Informatics, IoT, and Enabling Technologies (ICIoT) (pp. 104–111). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIoT48696.2020.9089523
  2. Andrejevic, M. (2014). Surveillance in the big data era. In K. D. Pimple (Ed.), Emerging pervasive information and communication technologies(PICT):Ethical challenges, opportunities and safeguards (pp. 55–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6833-8_4
  3. Andrejevic, M., and Gates, K. (2014). Big data surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance & Society, 12(2),185–196. Babaoğlu, C., ve Memiş, L. (2024). Dijital ikiz ve akıllı şehirler. SETA Yayınları.
  4. Baptist Andrews, L. J., D, S., and Raj, R. A. (2023). IoT based surveillance camera with GPS module. 2023 IEEE International Students’ Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Science(SCEECS) (pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1109/SCEECS57921.2023.10062961
  5. Bauman, Z. (1998). Sosyolojik düşünmek (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  6. Bauman, Z., and Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Bentham, J. (2011). The panopticon writings. Verso Books.
  8. Bentham, J. (2016). Panoptikon Gözün İktidarı (B. Çoban & Z. Özarslan, Trans.). Su Yayınevi.
  9. Bin Saif, M., Migliorini, S., & Spoto, F. (2024). Efficient and secure distributed data storage and retrieval using interplanetary file system and blockchain. Future Internet, 16(3), 98.
  10. Brown, W. (2006). Power after Foucault. In J. Dryzek, B. Honig, and A. Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political theory (pp. 65–84). Oxford University Press.
  11. Capurro, R. (2017). Digitization as an ethical challenge. Ai & Society, 32(2), 277–283.
  12. Chen, N., and Chen, Y. (2018). Smart city surveillance at the network edge in the era of IoT: Opportunities and challenges. In Z. Mahmood (Ed.), Smart cities: Development and governance frameworks (pp. 153–176). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76669-0_7
  13. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press. Cobbe, J. (2019). Big data, surveillance, and the digital citizen. Belfast: Queen’s University.
  14. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & new media, 20(4), 336-349.
  15. Darmody, A., and Zwick, D. (2020). Manipulate to empower: Hyper-relevance and the contradictions of marketing in the age of surveillance capitalism. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 2053951720904112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720904112
  16. Değermen, A., & Mohammadabbasi, M. (2023). Using big data in analysis of consumer behavior: A qualitative study. Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 100-122.
  17. Deleuze, G. (2017). Postscript on the societies of control. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance, crime and social control (pp. 35–39). Routledge.
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2),147–160.
  19. Duman, M. Ç. (2022). İşletmeler için yeni bir verimlilik teknolojisi: Dijital ikiz. Verimlilik Dergisi, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.981349
  20. Emmanuel, I., and Stanier, C. (2016). Defining big data. Communications in Science and Technology, 1(1), 1–6.
  21. Foucault, M. (1979). Part three: Discipline. In Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (pp. 135–230). Vintage.
  22. Foucault, M. (2002). The birth of the clinic. Routledge.
  23. Foucault, M. (2005). Özne ve iktidar (İ. Ergüden vd., Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  24. Foucault, M. (2012). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
  25. Giddens, A. (1986). The nation-state and violence. Capital & Class, 10(2), 216-220.
  26. Gould, M., and Howson, A. (2021). Bureaucratic surveillance. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com
  27. Graglia, M. A. V., Huelsen, P., & Lazzareschi, N. (2021). The growing moral challenge in the face of technologies: Internet, social networks, IoT, blockchain and artificial intelligence. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS, 12(2), 17–29.
  28. Greco, M. (1993). Psychosomatic subjects and the ‘duty to be well’: Personal agency within. Economy and Society, 22(3),357–372.
  29. Grieves, M. (2016). Origins of the digital twin concept. Florida Institute of Technology/NASA.
  30. He, Y., Guo, J., and Zheng, X. (2018). From surveillance to digital twin: Challenges and recent advances of signal processing for industrial internet of things. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 35(5), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.2842228
  31. Hintz, A., Dencik, L., and Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Ibrahim, S. W. (2016). A comprehensive review on intelligent surveillance systems. Communications in Science and Technology, 1(1).
  33. Jarvis, T. (2005). The digital cage: Digital surveillance and bureaucratic governance. On Politics, 1(1),5–16.
  34. Jorna, F., and Wagenaar, P. (2007). The ‘iron cage’ strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline. Public Administration, 85(1), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00640.x
  35. Joshi, A. P., Han, M., and Wang, Y. (2018). A survey on security and privacy issues of blockchain technology. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 1(2).
  36. Keddell, E. (2021). “Make them dance”: Shoshana Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism, behavior modification and Fraser’s “abnormal justice.”
  37. Khan, P. W., Byun, Y.-C., and Park, N. (2020). A data verification system for CCTV surveillance cameras using blockchain technology in smart cities. Electronics, 9(3), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9030484
  38. Kirkpatrick, K. (2016). Battling algorithmic bias: How do we ensure algorithms treat us fairly? Communications of the ACM, 59(10), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2983270
  39. Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1),11-31.
  40. Lee, R. L. (2020). Charisma and the digital age: Mass re-enchantment online and networking the new iron cage. In I. M. Sacks and W. M. Smith (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of charisma (pp. 457–467). Routledge.
  41. Lulla, G., Kumar, A., Pole, G., and Deshmukh, G. (2021). IoT based smart security and surveillance system. 2021 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics(ESCI) (pp. 385–390). https://doi.org/10.1109/ESCI50559.2021.9396843
  42. Malik, S. (2024). Using AI for behavioral analytics in cybersecurity: Detecting anomalies and insider threats. Journal of Cybersecurity Research, 5(2), 45–60.
  43. Manokha, I. (2018). Surveillance, panopticism, and self-discipline in the digital age. Surveillance and Society, 16(2). https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a8f5e604-0e3e-42d2-b373-a4e650b39dcb
  44. Matzner, T. (2016). Beyond data as representation: The performativity of big data in surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 14(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v14i2.5831
  45. Matzner, T. (2017). Opening black boxes is not enough: Data-based surveillance in discipline and punish and today. Foucault Studies, 27–45.
  46. Memos, V. A., Psannis, K. E., Ishibashi, Y., Kim, B.-G., and Gupta, B. B.(2018). An efficient algorithm for media-based surveillance system (EAMSuS) in IoT smart city framework. Future Generation Computer Systems, 83, 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.04.039
  47. Milton, F. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
  48. Mitzman, A. (2002). The iron cage: An historical interpretation of Max Weber. Transaction Publishers.
  49. Mohammadi, N., and Taylor, J. E. (2017). Smart city digital twins. 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2017.8285439
  50. Mohanta, B. K., Jena, D., Ramasubbareddy, S., Daneshmand, M., and Gandomi, A. H. (2021). Addressing security and privacy issues of IoT using blockchain technology. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(2), 881–888. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3008906
  51. Montasari, R. (2023). The application of big data predictive analytics and surveillance technologies in the field of policing. In R. Montasari (Ed.), Countering cyberterrorism: The confluence of artificial intelligence, cyber forensics and digital policing in US and UK national cybersecurity (pp. 81–114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21920-7_5
  52. Muellerleile, C., and Robertson, S. L. (2018). Digital Weberianism: Bureaucracy, information, and the techno-rationality of neoliberal capitalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 25(1), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.25.1.0187
  53. Muzaffar, J., and Mazher, N. (2024). AI-powered behavioral analysis for insider threat detection in enterprise networks. Baltic Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(2),1–11.
  54. Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia, 2(1), 486-497.
  55. Newman, J., Mintrom, M., and O’Neill, D. (2022). Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic transformation. Futures, 136, 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102886
  56. Ölmez, M. (2025). Yerel sürdürülebilirlikte dijital ikiz teknolojisi ve doğal afetleri önlemede etkisi: Japonya örneği. İşletme, 6(1), 103–127.
  57. Ongsulee, P., Chotchaung, V., Bamrungsi, E., and Rodcheewit, T. (2018). Big data, predictive analytics and machine learning. IEEE Conference Proceedings, 1–6.
  58. Orwell, G. (2019). 1984 (C. Üster, Çev.). Can Yayınları.
  59. Özcan, K. (2014). Yönetsel kontrol ve örgütsel düzen: Michel Foucault ve Zygmunt Bauman ekseninde bir tartışma. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 47(2), 45–67.
  60. Özdemir, M. (2020). Foucault sosyolojisinde iktidarın serüveni: Pastoral iktidar, disiplinci iktidar, biyo-iktidar. Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi, 4(1), 109–133.
  61. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
  62. Preston, L. M. (1987). Freedom and bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 773–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111224
  63. Prey, R. (2018). Nothing personal: Algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media, Culture & Society, 40(7), 1086–1100.
  64. Rachamadugu, S. K., and Thota, S. K. (2025). Enhancing CCTV surveillance with blockchain and AI integration. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (IRJMETS, 7) (6), 7.
  65. Rosa, F., and Antonino, V. (2025). Humanism, dehumanization, integral human development: An overview of boundaries and capabilities of human-centered artificial intelligence in business and organizations. In Humanism and artificial intelligence (pp. 3–28). Springer.
  66. Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & Van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127–142.
  67. Sahakyan, H., Gevorgyan, A., and Malkjyan, A. (2025). From disciplinary societies to algorithmic control: Rethinking Foucault’s human subject in the digital age. Philosophies, 10(4), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies10040073
  68. Sean, H., and Joshua, G. (2007). The surveillance studies reader. McGraw-Hill Education.
  69. Semple, J. (1992). Foucault and Bentham: A defence of panopticism. Utilitas, 4(1), 105–120.
  70. Sreekumar, T. T., & Balakrishnan, S. (2025). Digital governmentality and the algorithmic state: ai surveillance in comparative perspective. Journal of Literary and Cultural Inquiry (ISSN: 2349-8064), 12(1), 17–31.
  71. Srnicek, N. (2017). The challenges of platform capitalism: Understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture, 23(4), 254-257.
  72. Stovpets, O., Borinshtein, Y., Babenko, I. Y., Kozobrodova, D., Madi, H., and Honcharova, O. (2023). Digital technologies and human rights: Challenges and opportunities. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(72), 17–30.
  73. Taşkaya, M., & Talay, Ö. (2019). Dijital gözetimin pazarlama amaçlı aracıları: “Çerezler” ve çerez kullanımında “açık rıza”. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 356-376.
  74. Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.
  75. Thatcher, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), 990-1006.
  76. Wallace, J. H. (2022). Surveillance capitalism, the commodification of personal behavioral data, and how it factors into our response. Journal of Ethics & Technology, 2(1), 11–30.
  77. Weber, M. (1995). Bürokratik teşkilatlanmanın esasları (İ. Sezal, Çev.). Ekin Yayınları.
  78. Werbin, K. C., & Shade, L. R. (2025). Revisiting governmentality: Collapsing information silos and emerging biopolitical economies of circulation. Canadian Journal of Communication, 50(4), 762–776.
  79. Wheatley, M. C. (2024). Ethics of surveillance technologies: Balancing privacy and security in a digital age. Premier Journal of Data Science, 1, 100001.
  80. Wolin, S. (2004). Politics and vision: Continuity and innovation in Western political thought (Expanded ed.). Princeton University Press.
  81. Wong, W. H. (2023). We, the data: Human rights in the digital age. MIT Press.
  82. Yassein, M. B., Shatnawi, F., Rawashdeh, S., and Mardin, W. (2019). Blockchain technology: Characteristics, security and privacy issues and solutions. 2019 IEEE/ACS 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications(AICCSA) (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA47632.2019.9035216
  83. Yitmen, I., Alizadehsalehi, S., Akiner, M. E., & Akiner, I. (2023). Integration of digital twins, blockchain and ai in metaverse: Enabling technologies and challenges. In Cognitive Digital Twins for Smart Lifecycle Management of Built Environment and Infrastructure (pp. 39–64). CRC Press.
  84. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
  85. Zuboff, S. (2016). The secrets of surveillance capitalism. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5.
  86. Zuboff, S. (2019a). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 10–29.
  87. Zuboff, S. (2019b). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.
  88. Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203–213). Routledge.
  89. Zuurmond, A. (1998). From bureaucracy to infocracy: Are democratic institutions lagging? In T. J. A. B. Bekke and K. Perry (Eds.), Public administration in an information age: A handbook (Vol. 6, pp. 259–273). IOS Press.