KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Economy Culture and Society / 2022 / Sayı: 66

Digital Transnational Dissidence and State Control: A Conceptual Reflection on the Practice and Limits of Digital Transnationalism

Hüsrev TABAK
Cenk BEYAZ
Sayfa
203–219
Yayın Tarihi
2023-01-16
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Particularly with reference to the latter, the paper deliberates on the limits of digital transnationalism against state control.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The historical practice of citizen participation in politics was confined to elections, yet in the digital era, increasing digitalisation in everyday life has opened windows of opportunities for alternative civilian participation in the political processes, oppositionary activities being foremost among them.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Nevertheless, governments, as well, make use of digital space in taking part in transnational practices in both shaping domestic and international public opinion and challenging overseas or domestic dissident digital transnationalism with an aim to increase its control over the narrative of its politics.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Particularly with reference to the latter, the paper deliberates on the limits of digital transnationalism against state control.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:digital transnationalism · transnational dissidence · state control

Abstract

The historical practice of citizen participation in politics was confined to elections, yet in the digital era, increasing digitalisation in everyday life has opened windows of opportunities for alternative civilian participation in the political processes, oppositionary activities being foremost among them. Individual or collective opposition parties thus today also confidently carry out political activities against governmental politics through cyber and digital spaces, and thanks to digital advances, oppositionary political participation can no longer be confined to national borders. Hence, in forms of digital transnationalism and transnational dissidence, irrespective of the connection of the articulator to the target country, people around the world criticise governmental politics and shape public perceptions in one country from abroad. Nevertheless, governments, as well, make use of digital space in taking part in transnational practices in both shaping domestic and international public opinion and challenging overseas or domestic dissident digital transnationalism with an aim to increase its control over the narrative of its politics. This paper elaborates on this paradoxical relationship – the nexus of digital transnationalism, transnational opposition and state control. The paper examines how and why cyberspace turns into a domain for transnational political opposition and, in a related way, examines state endeavours to regulate and govern digital areas as a means of overseeing the digital transnationalism of (trans)local and transnational dissidence groups. Particularly with reference to the latter, the paper deliberates on the limits of digital transnationalism against state control.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TABAK, H., BEYAZ, C. (2023). Digital Transnational Dissidence and State Control: A Conceptual Reflection on the Practice and Limits of Digital Transnationalism. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Sayı: 66, 203–219. https://ajindex.com/articles/876910

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

  1. Al-Rawi, A., & S. Fahmy (2018). Social media use in the diaspora: the case of Syrians in Italy. Diaspora and media in europe migration, identity, and integration. K. H. Karim, & A. Al-Rawi (Eds.), (pp. 71-96).
  2. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar Alinejad D., & S. Ponzanesi (2020). Migrancy and digital mediations of emotion. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 23(5):621 - 638. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1367877920933649. google scholar Andersson, K. B. (2019). Digital diasporas: an overview of the research areas of migration and new media through a narrative literatüre review. Human Technology. 15(2): 142 - 180. google scholar Archibugi, D., & D. Held (1995). Cosmopolitan democracy, an agenda for a new world order. Oxford: Polity Press. google scholar Baer, H (2016). Redoing feminism: digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism. Feminist Media Studies. 16(1): 17-34. google scholar Barrow, C. W. (2005). The return of the state: globalization, state theory, and the new imperialism. New Political Science. 27(2): 123-145. google scholar Basch et al., (1994). Nations unbound- transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Publishers. google scholar Bauman, Z (2007). Liquid times: living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. google scholar Bayne, S. & J. Ross (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses: a critique. Digital difference. R. Land, &S. Bayne (Eds.) Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense, pp. 159-169. google scholar Bayne, S., &J. Ross (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition. Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE). 20. google scholar Beck, U., & E. Grande (2010). Varieties of second modernity: the cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and research. The British Journal of Sociology. 61(3): 409-443. google scholar Beck, U., & N. Sznaider (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology. 57(1): 1-23. google scholar Beck, U. (2008). Mobility and the cosmopolitan perspective. In Tracing Mobilities: towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Canzler et al. (Eds.), (pp. 25-36).
  3. Hampshire, USA: Ashgate Press. google scholar Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity. The British Journal of Sociology. 51(1): 79-105. google scholar Be