DİJİTAL MEDYA AKTİVİZMİ: YENİ SINIFSAL İLİŞKİLERİN İMKAN VE SINIRLARI

Dijital kullanımların zamanla sınıfsal özellik ve farklılıkları düzleştirdiği iddia edilmektedir. Bu iddiadan hareketle, çalışmada dijital aktivizmin yeni sınıfsal ayrımlar üzerindeki etkilerinin araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Dijital araç ve platformların kullanım sürecinde ortaya çıkan hiyerarşik konumlanma, tabakalaşma biçimleri ve sınıfsal yapıya dair bir analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Geleneksel ve dijital bileşenlerin hiyerarşik konumlanma ve sınıfsal yapıdaki görünümlerinin karşılaştırılması örnek bir eylemle değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada, “İşgal Hareketi”ndeki tabakalaşma ve sınıfsal biçimlenmesi, Twitter’daki ifadelerle (hashtagler) ortaya çıkarılmıştır. İfadelerde gömülü mesaj ve diğer karakteristik özellikler içerik analiziyle kategorileştirilmiştir. Söz konusu ifadelerle ilgili tüm içerikler tweetreach, twitonomy ve hashtags.org sonuçlarıyla analiz edilmiştir. Politik istikrarsızlık, formel/informel ilişkilerde meşruiyet paradoksu, siyasi tutumlar ve ideolojik görünümlerle dijital kolektif eylemlerin geleneksel bileşenlerin üstüne oturduğu ve hiyerarşik konumlanmayla sınıfsal bir yapının ortaya çıktığı sonucuna varılmıştır

Activism in Digital Media: Opportunities and Limitations of New Class Relations

It is claimed that the digital usages have flattened the class features and differences over time. Based on this claim, the study aims to investigate the effects of digital activism on new class distinctions. An analysis of the hierachical positioning, stratification patterns and class structure resulting from the use of digital tools and platforms has been carried out. The comparison of traditional and digital components' hierarchical positioning and their appearance in class structure were evaluated by an example action. In the study, the stratification and classification of the "Occupation Movement" were revealed with the expressions (hashtags) on Twitter. Embedded messages are categorized by content analysis, and all content is analyzed with tweetreach, twitonomy and hashtags.org results.It is concluded that traditional components sit on digital ones and a class structure emerges with hierarchical positioning

PDF

___

Abdelselam, E. (2015). The Arab Spring: Its origins, evolution and consequences… four years on. Intellectual Discourse, 23(1), pp. 119-139.

Albu, O. & Flyverbom, M. (2016). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions and consequences. Business &Society, 58(2), pp.1-30

Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A. & Knüpfer, C. B. (2018). The democratic interface: Technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1655-1680, DOI: 10.1080/ 1369118X.2017.1348533

Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi. Ankara: Heretik Yayınları.

Castells, M. (2000). Informationalism, networks and the network society: A theoretical blue print. In The Rise of The Network Society (Second Edition). M. Castells (Ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Chadwick, A. (2017). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), pp.283-301.

Cope, P. K. & Martin, K. G. (2010). Emerging Spaces in Contemporary Society, New York: Palgrave Publisher.

Diefenbach, T. & John S. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32(11), pp.1515-1537.

Earl, J. et al. (2013). This protest will be tweeted. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), pp. 459-478, DOI: 10.1080/ 1369118X.2013.777756

Evans, A., Twomey, J. & Talan, S. (2011). Twitter as a publictool. Public Relations Journal, 5(1), USA: Public Relations Society of America.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H. & Kreps, G. L. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32(11), pp.1515-1537.

Grundberg, M. D. (2016). Digital media and the trans nationalization of protests. 07.01.2020 tarihinde https://umu.divaportal.org/smash/get/ diva2:895571/ FULLTEX T01.pdf adresinden indirilmiştir.

Hacker, K. L. & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2007). What is Digital Democracy?. In Digital Democracy. Issues of Theory And Pracitice. K. L. Hacker & J. A. G.

M. Van Dijk (Eds.), Tousand Oaks: Sage Publisher.

Hayduk, R. (2013). The anti-globalization movement an OWS. In Occupying Political Science, E. Welty et al. (Eds.), New York: Palgrave Publisher.

Jordan, T. (2001). Activism! directaction, hacktivism and the future of society. London: Reaktion Books

Kelly, S. M. (2020). People can’t stop using the see mojis during the pandemic. CNN Business, 11.05.2020 tarihinde https://edition.cnn. com/2020/05/11/ tech/emoji-covid-19/index.html adresinden indirilmiştir.

Kendall, D. (2017). Sociology in our times: The essentials (7th Ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Loader, B. D. & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), pp.757-769.

Lotan, G. et al. (2011). The Arab Spring ‘the revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions’. International Journal of Communication, Vol:5, pp.1375-1406.

Lubin, J. (2012). The ‘Occupy’ Movement: Emerging protest forms and contested urban spaces. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25(1), pp.184-197.

Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of socialclass: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings and behaviour. The British Jurnal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267-291.

McKenna, B. (2019) Creating conviviala fordances: A study of virtual World social movements. Information System Journal, 30(1), DOI: 10.1111/isj.12256

Michels, R. (1968). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchial tendencies of modern democracy (2nd Ed.). New York: The Crowell-Collier Publishing.

Mongiello, M. M. (2016). Powerless in movement: how social movements influence, and fail to influence, American politics and policy. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2481, 25.02.2020 tarihinde https://repo sitory.upenn.edu/ edissertations/2481 adresinden indirilmiştir.

Morozov, E. (2012). The net delusion: The dark side of internet freedom, New York: Public Affairs.

Noren, L. (2011). Occupy Wall Street demographics. 10.06.2020 tarihinde https://thesocietypag es.org/graphicsociology/2011/11/17/occupy-wall-streetdemographics/ adresinden indirilmiştir.

Occupy Wall Street (Twitter Grubu), (2018). Occupy Wall Street twitter grubu paylaşımı, 10.06.2020 tarihinde https://twitter.com/ OccupyWallSt/stat us/1065244054458380290 adresinden indirilmiştir.

Piranha, D. (Occupy Wall Street Aktivisti) (2017). Occupy Wall Street aktivistlerinin paylaşımları, 22.12.2019 tarihinde https://twitter.com /search?q=%23OccupyWallSt%20aim&src=typeahead_click

Reichertz, W. J. (2012). Purpose beyond 2012: The Wisconsin idea, occupy wall street and democracy’s future., Indiana: Xlibris Publishing

Sakallı, C. & Bahadıroğlu, D. (2018). Dijital iletişim: Yeni bir dile doğru. Turkish Studies: Information Technologies & Applied Sciences, 13(6), p.129-146.

Schradie, J. (2018). The digital activism gap: How class and costs shape online collective action. Social Problems, Vol:65, pp.51-74.

Severs, E. & Mattelaer, A. (2014). A crisis of democratic legitimacy? It’s about legitimation, stupid!. European Policy Brief No:21, 23.06.2020 tarihinde http://aei.pitt.edu/63549/1/EPB21-def.pdf adresinden indirilmiştir.

Sunar, L. (2018). Sosyal tabakalaşma: Kavramlar, kuramlar ve temel meseleler, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.

Thoms, B. (2012). Student perceptions of microbilogging: Integrating twitter with blogging to suppor tlearning an interaction. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, Vol:11, pp.179-197.

UNESCO. (2018). Tawakkol Karman: Non-violence is the commonde nominator of all my actions. 09.06.2020 tarihinde https://en.unesco.org/courier/januarymarch-2018/tawakkol-karman-non-violence-common-denominator-all-myactions adresinden indirilmiştir