Known for his deep thoughts and captivating storytelling, author Gündüz Vassaf gives an in-depth study of Caravaggio, one of the iconic figures of art history. Recounting his seven-year artistic journey with Caravaggio, Vassaf shows how his perspective on detail shifted throughout the process. The author also examines the effects of digitalization on literature and art. Gündüz Vassaf leads readers on a truly inspiring journey

Hande Aral Uluk: Hello, my name is Hande. I’d like to jump right into my first question. You often talk about wandering inside a culture, spending time there, and living in the moment. So, how do you decide when choosing the places you want to live?

Gündüz Vassaf: Which country I visit and where I stay usually happen by chance. But in recent years, there is something I enjoy that I call “slow tourism.” Instead of rushing around a place, I want to sit down and let the city revolve around me. I love settling in as if I were a local, talking to its people, and breathing in its atmosphere. After that, the story of getting lost in a new city of losing myself begins. The feeling of being lost is both a little scary and enjoyable, and you start challenging yourself. Questions like, “Will I be able to find my way without asking anyone, or will I be forced to ask someone?” start swirling in my mind. When I look at it, there’s a distinct joy in asking someone a question too, because you connect with people. Sometimes you follow someone who just stepped out of the bakery, wondering where they are going with that bread in their hand, what kind of place they live in, and a story emerges. Rather than choosing a city or a place, it is much nicer to chase after the coincidences and the things that wink at me wherever I am.

Sedat Erol: After reading The Painter’s Rebellion, I’d like to turn to Caravaggio through the lens of space and the church; there was a passage you described there. You say that Caravaggio, as a religious ecologist, cleanses the traces of the Vatican’s filth that pollute our souls by transforming them into paintings. Could we hear from you about the Caravaggio from your pen and his relationship with the church?

G.V: I’ve read what art historians have written about Caravaggio. They view him as a wretched, psychopathic man, yet also as a good, devout painter. As for why they see him as a devout painter, it’s because his work always centers on the church. He always painted saints, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus, but painting these subjects doesn’t mean he was devout the opposite could just as easily be true. Imagine you’re a photographer and they send you to a football game, but you hate football. You don’t have to love the sport to do your job; it’s simply your job. He, too, didn’t have the luxury of painting anything else. In the early 1600s, landscape painting and flower paintings were only just beginning, and those who wanted to make a living from painting were forced to work for the Vatican. Caravaggio doesn’t reflect the Vatican’s beliefs, and that’s when I started questioning him. Perhaps he was writing letters to the Vatican about his own beliefs, embarking on a dangerous journey.

He was essentially risking his life, yet he still decided to paint anyway. In the 1600s, the Inquisition was active, and those who fell out with the Vatican were beheaded or burned at the stake. During this period, Caravaggio created paintings that shocked the Vatican; when depicting religious figures, he avoided using religious symbols. While many paintings of Jesus from that era featured a halo, he did not use one. Whereas painters before him depicted the attire of the nobility, he portrayed the common people on the street.

To those who asked, “Why are there no angels?” he replied, “Show me an angel and I’ll paint one.” In other words, he began to fundamentally question the Vatican and he didn’t stop there. For example, one of the Mary figures he created among the poor turned out to be Rome’s most famous prostitute of that era. In reality, his head should have rolled immediately, but who was going to report him by saying, “You turned a prostitute into Mary”? If a cardinal said, “You did this,” he’d be asked, “How do you know that woman?” In short, he maintained a delicate balance and took risks. “Caravaggio made me a more patient person. As I followed him to different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply.”

“Caravaggio made me a more patient person. As I followed him to different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply.”

H.A.U: You embarked on a long journey with Caravaggio. You spent about seven years writing the book, shared so much time with him, and dedicated a lot of time to the church. Did Caravaggio change you during this process?

Caravaggio made me a more patient person. It kept me quite far from Istanbul and my family, but it was worth it. I stopped looking for new things, like “I’ll go here, I’ll see that.” As I followed Caravaggio through different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply. I had never really looked closely at his paintings before, but now I examine them in detail, as well as from a broader view. I pay attention to his characters, the models he used in his work; there’s simply no end to looking at paintings. Back then, I’d go to any museum out of cultural snobbery. You look at a few paintings, then you get bored, of course, you don’t understand a thing, and you just walk quickly past. Sometimes I felt embarrassed in front of the guards, wondering if they thought, “Does this guy not understand paintings? He’s just walking through so fast.” Because it’s as if they’ve crammed a shopping mall’s mass merchandise into museums. But you go to see one specific painting nothing else. Then, paintings become something completely different, and I learned that from Caravaggio.

H.A.U: Do you identify with Caravaggio, or do you feel a connection to him?

G.V: Unlike the painters of his era, Caravaggio didn’t dress in a bourgeois way. He had a black jacket, black pants, and a scarf, and he wore them until they were completely in tatters. Yet most painters were quite particular about their appearance. I didn’t care much about how I lived either. For instance, when I was a professor at Boğaziçi University, I had a lifestyle that wasn’t typical for an academic.

Back then, the university’s general secretary wrote for the Cumhuriyet Newspaper. I was both writing and reading it, and we’d chat occasionally. One day, the general secretary invited me to his office and said, “The police are uncomfortable with you, and that’s why they’ve been tailing you.” In those days, people in Türkiye being followed was quite normal. The police were bothered because they couldn’t reconcile my lifestyle with that of a university professor. Because I wasn’t just staying at home every single night. Since they were young guys who had never been to a university, the image of a professor in their minds must have been completely different. They complained because they couldn’t see me as fitting into a university, and Caravaggio was a bit like that too.

Umut Yiğit: In Caravaggio’s work, there’s a sense of action rather than mere depiction. He narrates an event, and to understand it, you don’t just look at the painting you have to step into the scene. That’s how you describe it, too. You also say palaces. Is the truth we call “reality” about crossing this bridge?

G.V: It’s hard to live in many worlds at once. To feel a sense of belonging to all of them without actually belonging to any, and to have that empathy. Building that empathy isn’t so easy. But when in London, instead of looking at a Londoner and asking, “How are they different from me?” it’s important to look and ask, “Who is this person?” By observing, trying to understand and internalize, we can overcome prejudices. It’s possible to do this. Dostoevsky does this very well in Crime and Punishment, his protagonist is a murderer. So, perhaps putting ourselves in the place of a tree branch, saying, “The wind is swaying me,” and trying to feel that, is what’s important. Then your own seriousness fades away, and you find yourself in a much more playful, joyful, and adventurous life. I’m both swaying at the end of a branch and I’m a rusty ship it becomes a whole different kind of fun.

U.Y: The real question is not ‘How am I any different from this?’ but simply Who is this person?

G.V: Even beyond the question of “Who is this?”, I am that person. I am not trying to be anyone, because what matters to me is that I am nobody. In other words, it’s about breaking free from my own conditions, my own circumstances. Because if we were together every single day, we’d start to resemble one another; we’d fall under each other’s influence. It would start to look like a uniform. You’ve been working in the same place for many years and there’s a team spirit, but bringing someone else into the team might not be a bad idea either.

“Human relationships are also an art, but we don’t dwell on it much. We either speak freely or get stuck in stereotypes.”

Sedat Erol: In your narratives, I sometimes thought of the narrator as you, but sometimes it was someone else. What kind of person was the narrator in your eyes? Who was the narrator telling the novel, experiencing the things there? For example, were you always the one sitting in the church?

G.V: I wanted it to be me, and at the same time, I didn’t want it to be me. Then you fall into a contradiction, asking both “who is it?” and “could this be possible?” That’s just the kind of person I am. I always tell myself I couldn’t have done that, but I did. The person sitting in the church was both me and the narrator, but I didn’t do everything that happened there. There were some things that crossed my mind, like the “Farting” story. I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to bother anyone, but it could have been a game. That’s how farting enters into literature it’s a literary reference. If it can happen in a church, it can happen anywhere. Human relationships are also an art, but we don’t dwell on it much. We either speak freely or get stuck in stereotypes.

H.A.U: In the novel, your character says, ‘Art doesn’t serve as a guide; it doesn’t try to change the world.’ So we tend to ascribe a lot of meaning to art. How do you view this?

G.V: Not lying, being sincere is just like human relationships, and doing that in different languages. A painter does it with their brush, a writer with words, a musician with music. In fact, the relationships we build with each other are all a work of art. Not hurting someone, loving, discussing our thoughts by listening to them. These are human relationships, but at the same time, art. We don’t dwell on this much. We speak freely or we get locked into patterns. We set patterns like these are things to be talked about with a teacher, a friend, a lover. Then human relationships cease to be art and become a uniform, a lie. If you have a mission, you are lying. Because life does not consist of a single mission. Even while you have that mission, your mind can wander to a different mission, you can question, and there is no end to this. Your art and mission must be within all these endless things. This is about not being able to belong to a place, an environment. It’s about being afraid to perform as required or about “what am I going to say.” Consistency is always expected, but the universe is not consistent. In physics, small consistencies are found, but everything is built on a great uncertainty. Dark matter, dark energy we don’t know ninety percent of these. In this case, how can what we know be consistent? You can see consistency under a small microscope, but there is no such thing; if there were, people wouldn’t change. The fifteen-year-old me and the forty-year-old me are not the same. I am not the same person, man, lover, and I am a completely different person.

Burak Avcı: Has the emergence of artificial intelligence changed our understanding of art? Can works produced by artificial intelligence possess any artistic qualities? What makes art art?

G.V: We’ve even started asking the question, ‘Should we call it art, or shouldn’t we?’ They held a Biennial in Romania, and the curator was artifi cial intelligence. In Japan, there’s a young woman who’s a painter; her paintings are selling and making money, and people have started calling this art. Many writers and illustrators have begun incorporating artificial intelligence into their own work. A blend of human and artifi cial intelligence is beginning to emerge.

B.A: Something is being produced, but is it possible to feel that taste and texture? The question of “where is art in this” comes to mind.

G.V: By inventing words in our speech, we have drifted away from a reality, from our purity. You know how cats perceive, feel, and talk to each other in a thousand different ways. We created an artificial world by imprisoning these in our words. Because those words are not my feelings, my thoughts; they are just an effort to express them. No word expresses it so well except for “yes” and “no,” and even they do not.

H.A.U: At the end of your book, we come across a QR code leading to a digital petition. How do you view these kinds of reflexes emerging from social media?

G.V: It’s a way of clearing one’s conscience, simply because it’s so easy. We sign something and say, “I’ve done my part.” At the same time, it raises awareness and opens new windows. People say, “This bothers us, let’s unite over it” there’s a yearning for unity. While ideologies, religions, and family used to bring us together, now campaigns do. This is an incredible thing; even if it just eases our conscience, it still makes us better. It strips us of our old affiliations and uniforms, inviting us toward universality. These people would never have come together so easily in the past.

S.E: A single action on social media can completely wipe out a person’s past. I was thinking about this in relation to Bruno how do you evaluate this current trend?

G.V: Bruno was in serious trouble back then. Because he was trying to unify religions, sharing knowledge about space, and claiming that other planets existed. That’s why he was a threat to the entire system. In a way, I idolize Bruno because he is one of the world’s few martyrs of thought. I’m even launching a campaign; I’ll submit a petition to the Pope. Yet, the very man I idolize is actually someone who viewed women as fifth-class citizens. Then I find myself questioning and lynching him, telling myself I shouldn’t idolize him. In truth, I am both idolizing and lynching him at the same time. When we decontextualize people from history and look only at their actions, they become untouchable, and the fact that they are human catches us by surprise. We even start gossiping about what they did. If we hadn’t idolized him in the first place, we wouldn’t have even taken his mistreatment of women seriously. Because so many systems are built exactly this way. “History is so frequently used to impose identities and create enemies that whoever controls the reins of history whoever possesses that knowledge drags you behind them.”

“History is so frequently used to impose identities and create enemies that whoever controls the reins of history whoever possesses that knowledge drags you behind them.

S.E: Or we could say it’s a direct consequence of idolization, that’s how I feel.

G.V: It’s in Nâzım Hikmet’s poetry [one of Türkiye’s most renowned 20th-century poets]. He openly admits that sometimes he lies just to spare someone’s feelings, or for no reason at all. In other words, he does wrong, he lies, but he also admits to doing these things. Yet those who idolize Nâzım Hikmet forget that he said such things; they don’t want to hear it. For example, Aziz Nesin [a prominent Turkish satirist and author] also wanted to be famous, and there was a rivalry between him and Nâzım Hikmet. Within that rivalry, Aziz Nesin wanted to portray Nâzım Hikmet as a human being. He explained what he didn’t like about him, and as a result of what he wrote, he was expelled from the writers’ union. There’s no limit to where idolization can lead.

U.Y: You said that historical consciousness is no longer something I believe is necessary in our relationship with the system. Has history become an instrument of the system for you?

G.V: When you asked that question, I began to wonder if that was what I’d actually been thinking. Come to think of it, I’ve often said that history has spoken to me in recent years, but I can’t say the same about art. From cave paintings to the present day, there’s just so much out there. Throughout history, everyone has tailored a garment looking from today back to yesterday, based on the spirit of their time, their beliefs, and the tools at their disposal. History is so frequently used to assign identities and create enemies that whoever holds it, whoever knows it, drags you along. They all construct sentences like, “This is who we are.” It’s a disgrace. Whether those claims are true or not doesn’t matter at all. Who wrote them, when, and under what circumstances none of that matters anyway, since most of the information is incomplete.

They’re using history to brainwash people and manufacture a sense of belonging. I love reading history; the more I read, the more I think, “Wow, so that actually happened.” I like the idea that country names or the shapes of continents might change, or that women might have discovered all this. I get lost in the fairy tales of the past, and I love that, but the world that could be built tomorrow interests me even more. I’m far more interested in space exploration than in the French Revolution. Archaeological findings fascinate me because history changes so rapidly. For example, they discovered Göbeklitepe [the world’s oldest temple site, dating back 12,000 years], and history instantly shifted back by five thousand years. We started as hunter-gatherers, then transitioned to agriculture all of that is nonsense. So it’s a back-and-forth, but it all happened simultaneously, and yet we went on for centuries with those memorized facts.

H.A.U: While reading your work, one of the recurring themes that caught my attention is the question of belonging. At one point in the novel, you state that our protagonist must become rootless. You claim that migration and love possess this transformative power. Do you think we’ve managed to achieve this at the point we have reached today?

G.V: Let’s say a child is born. The father is Polish, the mother is Ecuadorian, and the child is born in France. Another child comes from a Turkish and Kurdish family but was born in Germany. They get married and have children. When you look at it, this renders all those identities meaningless. Our son has three identities: Turkish, American, and British. It was very easy to dissolve his sense of identity because, since he has three, he never had to choose between two. If he were stuck between two, he’d start questioning it, so I ask him, “Ziya, are you Turkish?” When I say, “Do Turks do this? British people don’t do that,” he just starts laughing. Identity is being questioned, yet culture is expanding. He eats Portuguese food and is familiar with Ecuadorian music. With migration, incredible connections are emerging. As university students study in other cities, new songs, tastes, and values emerge. It’s impossible for those people to vote for conservative, racist parties. They cannot be racist, because then they’d be racist against each other. For example, I’d realize that you are thirty percent Jewish, and you’d realize that I am twenty percent Muslim. What am I supposed to do attack your thirty percent? When the Roman Empire existed, there were countless groups like the Visigoths and Vandals coming from Asia. In the Roman Empire, men had pedicures, wore perfumes, and ruled Rome. The newcomers, however, brought a completely different Europe.

Now Africa is moving to France, and in France, perhaps thirty percent of the population will be African. In the U.S., Hispanics will be the majority by 2040. In short, a sense of belonging is fading, especially in big cities. Birth pangs and racism are perfectly natural in this transition. Suddenly, millions of people who don’t dress or speak like you have arrived and want a slice of the same pie. You shouldn’t view this as a threat. One day, while teaching at a university in Germany, I had a Turkish student who was an immigrant. Let’s call him Mehmet. I said, “Mehmet, you’re the Voltaire of the future,” and the whole class laughed. Mehmet asked, “What do I have to do with Voltaire? How is that even possible?” Now look: the scientists who developed the BioNTech vaccine in Germany are Turks, but twenty years ago, Turks were looked down upon there. So, a lot can change in a very short time.”

B.A: What kind of a world do you envision? In what kind of world should we be living?

G.V: If artificial intelligence goes well and doesn’t bring about the end of our species though it certainly carries that risk. Just recently, the British prime minister gathered business leaders in London because they, too, have started to get scared. If it goes well, no one will be forced to work; there won’t be any investment in workers or machinery because robots will do all the labor. There will be enough wealth to distribute to everyone, even to throw into the streets. There will still be the very rich, but the rest of us will be left to make art, work in agriculture, and tend to the land. My only fear there is the Metaverse. Because in that space, I can create as many avatars as I want and completely distance myself from the world, its problems, and cooperation. I can play games there as much as I want, my food is just a button’s press away, and maybe even the bathroom is in there. So there’s a danger similar to how the Opium Wars were used to numb China, but in my utopia, I hope artificial intelligence goes well so no one is forced to work. My friend, the poet Neşet Ergener, has a poem titled “When Will Poets Fall Silent?” In the poem’s final line, he says that when everyone becomes a poet, then we can all fall silent. Because as children, we are all poets, dancers, musicians, and painters. The first thing the organization of society and its differing expectations from people kill is the art within us. The artist, however, must confront these pressures; by not engaging with the real world, they become mere opportunists looking to cash in, and at that point, there is no art left anyway.

U.Y: Marketers and advertisers focusing on America often use the term “Generation Z.” It’s highly popular here as well, and there are researchers studying it. What are your thoughts on this generational label? Can such a label really be independent of time and place?

G.V: It’s just like how marketers are constantly rolling out new phones; they’ve started inventing generations at increasingly shorter intervals. Minds are being shaped to think, “I’m part of that generation, so I’ll consume accordingly,” or “Our generation dresses like this and acts like that.” Let’s say there’s Generation Zbut that generation also has mothers and fathers. The X, Y, Z, and Millennial generations are all coexisting. A generation doesn’t form in a vacuum; there are larger events driving its behavior global shifts, the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war, or even the availability of birth control pills. For instance, while some regimes permit abortion, others ban it. In reality, they are the ones dictating how we behave.

U.Y: Heroes are a thing of the past. You previously gave the example of the Gezi Park protests, noting that the movement had no single leader or hero. We’ve moved past the era of heroism into a different space. Yet, at the same time, there is a clear shift toward a different lifestyle and heightened individualism. With consumption now front and center, do you think influencers are taking the place of those traditional heroes? Is that the direction we are heading?

G.V: Today, influencer algorithms are far more dominant; they have created their own spokespeople and pop stars. These are a thousand times more powerful than any ideology or religion. But how far will this go? Only as far as we allow it until we say, “Stop.” Back then, everyone smoked; many still do, but then anti-smoking campaigns began. At first, no one took those advocates seriously. In America, doctors used to go on TV, light up a cigarette, and claim it was good for your health so the system was already lying back then. Now, a new sense of morality and a fierce backlash are emerging on social media. Perhaps we will see people saying, “I won’t use a smartphone anymore,” or restricting use to less than an hour a day will become the new trend. All of this is spreading rapidly, and it certainly has a frightening side to it.

H.A.U: I guess you’re closely following current events. Your novel’s character specifically mentions the privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo.

G.V: I don’t follow it; someone told me about it.

S.E: In fact, many people who are genuinely interested in these topics aren’t even aware of it. This just shows how incredibly open your information channels are to new developments.

G.V: I’d say I’m curious. In fact, that’s exactly why I’m going to Boston next week. Because otherwise, the flow of information really dries up. You go out on the street, constantly observing and talking to people, but how many homes can you actually enter, how many people can you really speak with? That’s why genuine information still comes from books. The Harvard Library is just a three-and-a-half-minute walk from where I stay. The new books are all there, and even if you just read half of a back cover, you can instantly see where modern thinking is heading. Plus, the university hosts public lectures by academics. World-renowned experts on incredibly diverse and lesser-known topics come, and you can just go, sit down, and ask them questions. So, of course, it’s impossible not to keep up.

G.V: I’d say I’m curious. In fact, that’s exactly why I’m going to Boston next week. Because otherwise, the flow of information really dries up. You go out on the street, constantly observing and talking to people, but how many homes can you actually enter, how many people can you really speak with? That’s why genuine information still comes from books. The Harvard Library is just a three-and-a-half-minute walk from where I stay. The new books are all there, and even if you just read half of a back cover, you can instantly see where modern thinking is heading. Plus, the university hosts public lectures by academics. World-renowned experts on incredibly diverse and lesser-known topics come, and you can just go, sit down, and ask them questions. So, of course, it’s impossible not to keep up.

U.Y: Economic prosperity used to come through reading and building cultural capital. First, you had to read, secure a solid profession, and build enough cultural grounding to achieve financial stability. Today, however, the focus has shifted entirely toward social capital. Do you have any advice on how to navigate this hift, or what steps we should take?

G.V: If it were me, I’d go. Seeking out new horizons and seeing things from a different perspective is always healthy. Personally, I wouldn’t go to China; it’s a totalitarian state and a country on the decline. On top of that, racism and nationalism are on the rise there. America, of course, is imperialist. China only deploys warships within its own waters, whereas America’s warships are everywhere. Yet, no matter how much people complain, everyone ultimately ends up going to America or Europe because those places remain open to new possibilities. This isn’t formal advice, but I wouldn’t stay here. Niyazi Berkes, Muzaffer Şerif, and Pertev Naili Boratav were all legendary professors at Ankara University’s Faculty of Language, History, and Geography. Muzaffer Şerif went on to become a global pioneer in social psychology, while Niyazi Berkes continued his work at McGill University in Canada. Wherever they went, they connected with students from Türkiye to Ecuador, and that was a true gain for the world. Go wherever you can do your finest work and where you can find happiness. Even here, you are making a real difference; you are putting in the work. You can see that you’re transforming your surroundings, but so many others give up for entirely valid reasons, given the lack of freedom of thought. You’ve built an exceptional team here, and who knows, perhaps you will all leave together as a team.

U.Y: I’d like to turn our focus to psychoanalysis an area we haven’t directly discussed yet, but whose influence I’ve strongly sensed throughout our conversation. Psychoanalysis draws heavily from literature and art. Since you are both a psychologist and a writer, has psychoanalysis shaped your own work and perspective?

G.V: I don’t know. As you know, my mother is a psychiatrist, so I’ve spent time in psychiatric hospitals. When my family went to conferences during the holidays, they’d take me along. I think that must have had an impact on me. Since I grew up behind the scenes of this profession, I tell myself it shouldn’t be like this. My mom had a saying that really stuck with me. She was describing the Ego, the Id, and the Superego. For example, if you ask me if there’s an Ego there, I’d say, “How should I know?” it’s like Caravaggio’s angels. But my mom still makes me say, “Yes, it’s there.” The Id is our natural power; it wants to do strong and natural things. The Superego, on the other hand, refers to the influence of the environment and the opportunities it offers. When I think about it this way, it makes perfect sense to me. However, I don’t think emotion and thought can be separate; they are parts of a whole.

Ece Nisa Güven: We have been discussing artificial intelligence and digitalization. In your view, what kind of potential do these technologies offer us, and what kinds of limitations do they impose upon us?

G.V: First of all, it makes writing incredibly easy. I can ask any question that comes to mind. I can find answers to things I used to put off, telling myself I’d look them up later. Because with a physical encyclopedia, I have to find it, pull it out, and look it up, and that takes me off on tangents. Now I just set the text aside, browse around, and that’s amazing. Of course, having such easy access to information also brings with it the speed of fast food. When I’m working in Harvard’s library, I go to get a book, but I come back with a topic that doesn’t interest me. If I have even a little curiosity, if I don’t have to go straight to the book I’m looking for, if I have time and think, “I’ll take a look at this one too”my world becomes so much richer. It feels like I’m discovering entirely new fields, and I slow down in my pursuit of other information. I’ve found myself in a dilemma with both. With AI, I find things faster; in the library, I find them slower. Because in the library, I don’t know if the book continues on the second floor. If asked which is better, perhaps slowing down is better. Because as I head up to the book on the second floor, questions swirl in my mind. Whereas when I jump from one to the next immediately, those questions don’t come to mind. That’s why I’m in favor of slowing down.

“With AI, I find things faster; in the library, I find them slower. Because in the library, I don’t know if the book continues on the second floor. If asked which is better, perhaps slowing down is better.”

B.A: One of the chapters that struck me the most while reading In “Prisoners of Ourselves: Totalitarianism in Everyday Life” was the section titled “Buttons.” There, you analyze optimization and machines, while also touching upon digital games. Has your perspective on digital games evolved over the last thirty-two years? Is it still possible to find a true sense of immersion that feeling of role-playing and atmosphere through gaming as a genuine form of human pleasure?

G.V: Digital games have begun to open up entirely new horizons worlds where history and fantasy seamlessly blend, and team-based games where players cooperate and learn from one another. In the early days of gaming, it was driven purely by competition, but now, games have slowed down a bit and become far richer. They have started to appeal more deeply to human emotion and identity. I believe the narrative culture rooted in Dungeons & Dragons has truly begun to reflect within these modern games.

U.Y: Boston, Istanbul, and Sedef Island are all places with a view of the sea. Is having a view of the sea or being in a city by the water a personal preference of yours?

G.V: Yes, it’s special because I truly need to be near the sea, and I want to see the horizon. My wife and I met in college; her room looked out onto the trees. My room, on the other hand, looked down on the city from a hilltop. I felt sorry for her, and it turns out she felt sorry for me, too because from her perspective, there was no nature. For example, I once wrote an entire book in a dark room with no windows, and I didn’t mind that at all, but you could still catch a glimpse of the Bosphorus from the living room. Just knowing that the sea is out there is deeply important to me.

The Journey of Art from Caravaggio to Artificial Intelligence with Gündüz Vassaf yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Artificial intelligence is more than just a technology; it acts as a new tool reshaping how humans perceive themselves and society. During this transformative process, how much do we truly understand AI, and what meanings do we attach to it? In this interview, where we examine not only AI’s functions but also its impact on us and seek answers to many compelling questions, Communication Scientist and Academic Ufuk Eriş responded to our inquiries.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Welcome, Professor Ufuk Eriş. Your recent contributions to the field of communication, particularly your research on artificial intelligence, have gained recognition. Could you share a bit about yourself?

Ufuk Eriş: It wouldn’t be entirely accurate to say recent times. Because when I suggested that topic for my PhD, it was 2002. I wasn’t born into a computer-equipped home. My first encounter was in 1996 at the Computer Research and Application Center. There, I had a chat via IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with someone living in America, and I never believed that the other person was a real human. Then years passed, and I saw how technology changed people’s perspectives and thinking patterns. In 2002, I wanted to address the topic of hacker culture in Türkiye for my doctorate proposal. At that time, there were very few hackers in Türkiye, and the only well-known one was Tamer Şahin. He was featured in newspapers as the “Pajama Hacker.” It was written that he hacked the Ottoman Bank, but back then, even if hackers existed, there weren’t many places to break into. That’s why we faced a lot of difficulties with the jury.

Finding someone related to this topic was quite difficult. There was a sociologist, someone from human resources, an industrial engineer, and a communicator. It was very hard to explain my problem to them. There are people called hackers, and when I said they could break into here, they would say, “So what if they do?” Our laws weren’t even prepared for this. When you connect remotely to someone’s computer, it is considered theft. In theft cases, you take a piece of property, and that property is no longer there, but if you copy it from a database, it remains there you’re just making a copy. I have also witnessed such a significant transformation in the law.

Deniz Benzer: When you announced your doctoral topic 20 years ago, the situation you experienced is happening today with artificial intelligence. With the same sense of unfamiliarity and excitement you felt when writing your doctoral thesis, what similarities or differences do you see between that and the excitement people have towards artificial intelligence today?

U.E: Every new technology excites thinkers or those pondering this issue. The reason is always our troubles. Looking at Karl Marx, he examined the society he lived in and said something wasn’t going well. He saw that people were unhappy, researched the cause, and proposed a method to analyze societies. But what is his concern? We are not very happy in life, and the environment isn’t happy either. Nowadays, people who write and talk about every new technology wonder if it could be a cure. I think, unlike the hacker discussion era, in the age of artificial intelligence, people are only interested in its sensational aspects. No one asks which of our problems it could solve. They only care about what more artificial intelligence can do. For example, if an A.I. can do ballet, why would someone who has nothing to do with ballet culture get excited? The sensational approach is misleading. I can say for sure that in no period of history have people been so hopeless about future generations and linked their hopes to something non-human. Think about it: they said Jesus would come, and he was human… They said future generations would do this, and they were human too… We always believed that our own kind would do something good in the future. Now, that belief is gone; we talk about what artificial intelligence will do in the future, how it will be. We tend to project solutions to our life problems onto technology, which reflects a techno-chauvinist attitude.

“First, we see the word ‘robot’ in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves.”

M.B.A: There’s also an effort to alienate artificial intelligence tools. Strange philosophical questions arise, such as whether AI could be smarter than humans as individuals, or whether it would be considered human if it were on par with a person.

U.E: At a time when the possibility of humans competing with artificial intelligence is being discussed, and while such advanced technologies are being produced, a world where news is still about men who kill their divorced wives should make us think: Should our real concerns be what artificial intelligence can do? This is the culture’s surrender to technology. In the past, culture dictated and limited the use of technology. We can give the example of the samurai sword. Not everyone can wield it, and when you do, you must adhere to certain ethical codes. One of our folk songs beautifully says: ‘The invention of the rifle ruined the virtue.’ Because to use a rifle, you don’t need years of samurai discipline and culture.

When you buy a rifle, just pulling the trigger is enough. Every profession has its own cultural codes, but such things are no longer in place. You don’t need education or an ethical code to pick up a pen. When you pay, you get your computer and use it as you wish.

M.B.A: Today, you don’t even need talent; you just prompt and can have anything drawn.

U.E: It seems like we don’t really know much about what we call artificial intelligence. There are the powerful and the powerless. What we talk about is like a utopia. I always say, “Utopias turn upside down and tell the stories of the problems we face today.” Let’s say you ask the housekeeper who comes to clean your house, “If you had the means, what kind of life would you imagine, what is your utopia?” Her answer would be, “I wish I had a husband who doesn’t drink, and that he wouldn’t hit my children, for example.” At that moment, you immediately understand her everyday worries about her life. Now, if you look at the utopian narratives about artificial intelligence and read them in reverse, and see what people expect from it, you’ll realize the real problems they face today. If someone is curious about whether artificial intelligence will do this or that, they have a problem in their daily life related to it. In the past, wars would start and end, but now we experience prolonged, low-intensity conflicts that never seem to end. People still die. We are in the digital age; today, the AI robot Sofia is granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. It won’t be given to you or me. So, the question that should be asked is, “Will artificial intelligence provide a solution to inequality among people?” When we evaluate the moral panics developed around robots, you also understand whose fear this is. First, we see the word “robot” in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves. The main issue is that those who manage these things whether under the image of a robot or not force certain people to work for much less pay, and they fear rebellion. The core motivation behind thoughts like a robot uprising or artificial intelligence turning humans into this or that is this fear.

M.B.A: There is always a current agenda regarding artificial intelligence. So, what are its cultural impacts?

U.E: Culture is no longer something naturally produced by people as it used to be. The term “degeneration”, which we refer to as cultural decay, comes from the fact that animals in Anatolia that have lost their reproductive ability are called “Yoz” (biggot). A degenerated culture loses its ability to renew and produce itself. So, what happens then? It’s like a diabetic person who can’t produce insulin and starts getting insulin

“Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class confl icts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.”

injections from outside. After a while, they become dependent and lose their ability to produce it themselves. Everyone used to sing folk songs, good or bad, or write poetry for the girl they loved. But now, as people start to import poetry and songs from outside, they begin to lose their ability to express themselves. The reason for this, according to the Frankfurt School, is the Culture Industry. Before the rise of the internet, this was all lost.

M.B.A: Today, habits have changed, consumption has accelerated, and production methods have evolved. What do you think about this?

U.E: Society has changed, and the social approach has changed. For example, Yusuf Atılgan’s work Aylak Adam (The Loiterer) entered a competition. At that time, there were very famous novelists like Yaşar Kemal on the jury. However, the work did not win the competition. As socialist writers, they said, ‘This bourgeoisie’s self-concern, they’re not talking about a problem or poverty.’ Today, almost everyone knows Yusuf Atılgan’s Aylak Adam. It became popular after the 1980s. Because now individuality begins to take shape, and, in a way, the individual becomes a customer. After Turgut Özal’s presidency, even our purchasing mindset changed. In the past, people would save money for a while to buy a television; they didn’t know the concept of installments. Now, people might wonder how they don’t know the concept of installments, because we quickly get used to the way we live, and it feels as if it’s been like this for a very long time.

M.B.A: Actually, with the rapid acceleration of consumption, we also lost the habit of saving cumulatively.

U.E: People now think there’s no need to accumulate things. They ask, “What’s the point of saving?” I used to download songs from the internet and listen to MP3 players. Now, my nephew tells me, “Why are you downloading these? They’re already in the cloud.” In the past, when you bought a car, it was considered a lifelong purchase, and people would give it a name. Now, it’s said that you need to change your car frequently. But this widens the gap between us and objects. People renting homes don’t even want to hammer in a nail because they don’t accept it. If you accept it, it’s hard to let go, so you end up buying something new right away. For example, you throw away every soda can you drink immediately, but you can’t easily throw away the last soda can you shared with a friend or a loved one. Someone has touched that can, and you can’t throw it away. But this situation is dangerous for the system; if you can’t throw it away, you won’t buy a new one. In short, while there are such problems in life, it’s important to see how artificial intelligence responds to them. We don’t see this in the market; people in daily life genuinely think that A.I. has a human-like intelligence.

D.B: Professor, actually, Alan Turing’s test is very important in this context. Could you tell us a little about it?

U.E: In the Turing test, a human participates, and on the other side, an artificial intelligence or robot is placed. The human asks the machine questions. If the responses make it seem like the machine is not artificial intelligence, then it passes the Turing test. But there is also John Searle’s Chinese Room example as a counterpoint. In that scenario, there is a closed room with only one window. Inside, there are some signs and instructions. You are told to look at whatever sign is shown through the window and find the corresponding instruction. Outside, a Chinese man is showing the Chinese Kanji words to the participant. The person inside the room, who does not know Chinese, finds and removes the sign that matches the question. Does the person inside the room who removes these signs know Chinese? No, they are just following instructions. Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class conflicts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.

D.B: After all, artificial intelligence provides us with information, and we try to measure how intelligent it is. What do you think is the level of intelligence of that artificial intelligence? Why do we consider it to be intelligence? Where does the information provided by artificial intelligence stand in the hierarchy of knowledge?

U.E: There is no zero point in IQ, which is referred to as intelligence, for example. In an IQ test, it measures how quickly a person can solve a problem or how quickly they can find the optimal timing and compatibility between purpose and means. The Frankfurt School calls this “subjective reason” or “instrumental reason.” It is a characteristic of human intellect but not the whole thing. Instrumental reason only looks at establishing a relationship between goals and means. There is also objective reason, which not only establishes the relationship between purpose and means but also questions the purpose itself.

Instrumental reason appears, for example, during Hitler’s era. When officers who inflicted various tortures on people were tried at the Nuremberg Trials, they said, “We only followed orders.” There was both means and purpose involved there. You did what was told, but isn’t the choice to do or not do it yours? Did you ever question its purpose? Currently, the most sought-after type of reason is instrumental reason, which can do what it is told very quickly and efficiently, but we do not elevate the reason that asks, “Why am I doing this?” In fact, questioning reason is what makes humans understand and interpret reality, and it helps us position ourselves accordingly.

D.B: So, should we define artificial intelligence as instrumental reason?

U.E: Of course. We constantly talk about artificial intelligence, which is a very sensational word for those who don’t know. In reality, there is a huge gap between the way artificial intelligence is described and its state in the laboratory. Every new technology can make us ask, “What is a human?” again and push us to take a step forward. Nietzsche also refers to the “Übermensch,” meaning a person who struggles with themselves. Like the phoenix, first burning and then rising anew from its ashes. Objective reason is only concerned with how fast and how many goals it can score in a game. But winning a rigged game is very difficult. The referee is biased and bribed. Since you don’t think about the game itself, you don’t notice these things, and when you fail, you blame yourself. Just as you think the problem is personal.

M.B.A: Actually, the data that artificial intelligence feeds on is a product of societal production. There is already a data algorithm that develops from what people produce. They seem to be getting their nourishment from an invisible source, as if drawn from nothingness.

U.E: Never. In fact, artificial intelligence largely feeds on garbage, on free data from the internet. This means that A.I. can think, but it can only do one task at a time. Then it can move on to another task. Because we now see life this way, we are losing the other side. Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess, but it can’t get up and bring a glass of water. Yes, maybe it would beat you at backgammon too, but when it wins, it’s happy, and when it loses, it’s sad. We are trying to get A.I. to solve the world’s problems. To end wars, to solve inequality, to prevent crimes. But the thing is, don’t fight, don’t hit. Why don’t you take responsibility yourself? While living with the idea that we can make it do everything, we lose our human side. Recently, they asked A.I. Sophia, “What do you think about the future of the world?”

So, humans are no longer confident about their intelligence. People are becoming increasingly anxious. We fear that artificial intelligence will take away what makes us who we are. That’s why we keep asking it, “Will it do this too?” To put it simply: you have a lover, and they are unique because of a distinguishing feature. If you take that feature away, they become just like everyone else. Even if that lover remains physically present, they are no longer truly theirs. The existence of that lover is gone. That’s why one of the fundamental questions technology poses to us is: “If they take away what makes us us, will we cease to be?” On the other hand, because we’re so curious about this, we constantly try to make it do the things we do. We keep trying to understand “What is the natura humana?” and instead of thinking of it as a tool that can solve our main problems, we sit and discuss its sensationalist aspects.

D.B: Today, when we look at the internet and artificial intelligence, do you think the realm of freedom has disappeared?

U.E: I think it mostly gets lost. But it will be what we make of it. For example, the last word used for social media is “brain rot,” meaning brain decay. Fifty years ago, they called the television “the idiot box.” It’s the same old story. They say, ‘Old wine in a new bottle.’ Basically, nothing changes. We used to call social media “the Fifth Power,” the fifth force after the Fourth Estate, which is the media. It was supposed to improve the quality of so-called democracy. But I think it still has the potential if we use it properly. We need to look at why people delegate tasks they themselves are responsible for to artificial intelligence. Why do people retreat from decisionmaking mechanisms? Because it’s believed that A.I. will make better decisions. Maybe even in investments, and perhaps in political choices in the future… Why? Because it chooses the more efficient and profitable option. But for humans, truth, efficiency, and profitability don’t always align. This is true even in the founding of our country. Atatürk and his comrades wouldn’t have relied on A.I. for their efforts. It’s not feasible. The shoes are worn out, and they have holes. There’s no food, no weapons. How many places have they been attacked from? Ignorance is present. Most of the educated have died. The army is exhausted. If it were up to A.I., accepting a mandate from America would have been the most logical, efficient, and profitable choice. But we didn’t choose that. To give a personal example, the person you love so much probably wouldn’t be recommended to you by A.I. Most likely, they are the person you shouldn’t be around. Let’s identify our true problems and avoid relying solely on artificial intelligence to solve them, risking failure. Instead, the new generation should ask, ‘How can we eliminate inequality among people? How can we undo the damage affecting our environment? How can I contribute to the benefits of others beyond myself?’

M.B.A: Thank you very much for coming and providing us with valuable information, sir.

U.E: Thank you very much, everyone. It was a pleasure for me too. Kasparov against IBM’s Deep Blue computer, 1996 ai & society

Artificial Intelligence: The Alienation of Society yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“By arguing that ‘the medium is an extension of the human body or mind,’ he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin.”

For those less familiar with his scholarly work or theoretical writings, Marshall McLuhan is often recognized by that famous photograph of him standing before a wall of television screens. In the public imagination, he remains a prominent media figure and one of the founding fathers of New Media theory. With the concept of the Global Village he introduced in the 1960s, he foresaw that the internet would become an infrastructure technology; at a time when everyone was focused on content, that is the message he pointed to the tools, or more accurately, the “medium.” Through his provocative ideas, television appearances, lectures, and presence in mainstream media, he elevated his fame far beyond the typical sphere of influence for an academic. He succeeded in reaching a wide audience; with his media critiques, cultural analyses, and distinctive aphorisms woven into his compelling style, he became a well-known figure. Thus, he is recognized as one of the most influential media theorists of his time and as one of the early science communicators, successfully opening up his ideas for public debate. Discussions on how mass media influences human senses and the balance between them continue to follow the path McLuhan pioneered. The media theories and analytical framework he established remain a powerful conceptual tool for studies aiming to interpret new media.

McLuhan is particularly remembered for concepts such as The Medium Is the Message and The Global Village; for this reason, he has faced harsh criticism from academic communities. However, the fact that the internet and social media have evolved into a fundamental communication technology worldwide, as he predicted, serves as proof of how accurate his predictions were. Moreover, McLuhan’s ideas were not limited to books; he reached out to the public through his unforgettable interview with one of the most popular magazines of his time, Playboy (1969). By distilling his media theories down to their simplest terms and illustrating them with examples relevant to everyone’s daily life, he used the very medium through which he communicated his ideas as a tool in the process. Indeed, by stating that “The medium is the extension of man”, he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin; he defi ned technology as a natural part of humanity’s process of enhancing its own capabilities. In this interview, he elaborated on one of his most memorable statements, “The medium is the message,” by saying, “Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,” and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life. Another medium through which McLuhan continued his efforts to popularize science was television. After his books made it onto the bestseller lists, McLuhan was featured in the episode titled The Medium is the Message from NBC’s documentary series Experiment in Television. Produced with an experimental approach, this episode visualizes McLuhan’s theories through colored lights, rapid editing, and a pop-art aesthetic. The documentary describes McLuhan as the “high priest of pop culture” and a “trendy intellectual.”

“‘Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,’ and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life.”

He employed the same strategy in his lectures, conveying his theories through examples that resonated with students’ lives. Rejecting traditional lecture formats, he used everyday details from advertising slogans to newspapers and from popular songs to street signs as examples. He analyzed Coca- Cola’s Things go better with Coke slogan and examined the poetic narrative of advertisements. In this way, he produced theoretical approaches using data gathered from everyday life, translating abstract analyses into understandable language. Through this, he brought academia’s closed discourse into everyday life in a way that the average person could comprehend. While explaining how even typography shapes human thought, he illustrated how every detail from the layout of newspaper pages and street posters to the arrangement of lines in store windows shapes perception. He emphasized that writing shapes the senses not only through its meaning but also through its form.

In his lectures, he effectively put on a stage performance; through humor, irony, and theatrical gestures, he aimed not only to have the audience listen but also to surprise them, make them think, and encourage them to question. From time to time, with unexpected phrases like “Today I’m not speaking to you, but to this microphone,” he conveyed the impact of the medium directly to those watching in that very moment. He described the massive live broadcast Our World in 1967, featuring twenty-four countries, as a communication miracle in which the world had transformed into a Global Village. He characterized The Beatles’ performance of All You Need Is Love as a collective rhythm in which millions of people could share the same emotion simultaneously. In this way, he defi ned a technological revolution as a process that resonates with the public’s senses. Similarly, in that unforgettable scene from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall where a character brings McLuhan into the, his intervention in the characters’ discussion with the line “you know nothing of my work” served as a way to infuse his theory into popular culture. In this way, he brought even an academic debate to the public using the language of humor and everyday life, thereby taking science communication beyond its traditional boundaries. One of his most remarkable works is the book The Medium Is the Massage. Like his other works, this book is based on his own theories, as he explains them.

Unlike standard theoretical texts, McLuhan crafted this book using collage aesthetics, typographic play, visuals, and short passages, thereby embodying the image that form is an integral part of content. He also collaborated on this book with Quentin Fiore, one of the most important graphic designers of his time, producing a visually appealing work that brought it recognition. While the word “Massage” in the book’s title, may appear to be a mistake, he explained that he chose to use “massage” instead of “message,” implying that communication tools stimulate and shape human senses like a massage. Thus, even the book’s title has become an example reflecting McLuhan’s theoretical horizon.

During the years when McLuhan was developing his theories, the prevailing perspective in communication studies was an approach that focused on the content of messages and drew on models of propaganda and attitude change. In contrast to this content-centered approach that took shape after World War II, McLuhan placed the medium at the center, opening a discussion of the transformative role of the medium’s carrier in human senses and social order, thereby distinguishing himself from his contemporaries. Structuralist and language-centered theorists generally found McLuhan’s emphasis on the determinism of media to be reductionist (oversimplifying a complicated issue by trying to explain it using only one single cause), prioritizing the analysis of symbolic orders and cultural codes. Sociological critiques, meanwhile, viewed his positioning of technology as the sole key to social change as incomplete, arguing that he overlooked the cultural context.

Despite all these ideological differences, McLuhan opened up a space for public discourse not only through his conceptual vision but also through the way he shared these concepts with society; he succeeded in popularizing his theory by establishing a broad repertoire of communication, ranging from television programs to radio interviews, and from magazine columns to theatrical performances on stage. He embraced television, the rising medium of the era, before his peers, going beyond merely describing its transformative impact to letting people experience it firsthand. This is because television, especially from the mid-1950s onward, took its place in homes and became the center of daily life.

“McLuhan’s concepts of ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium.”

Television transformed the social steering power that radio and cinema had maintained for many years by offering moving images, sounds, and live broadcast capabilities. With its diverse content ranging from news bulletins to entertainment programs, from series to sports broadcasts, it shaped the daily routines of the masses, transforming people’s agendas and even the way they perceive life. While bringing individuals together around a shared visual culture, it has reshaped the advertising industry from top to bottom, serving as a pillar for the spread of consumer culture on a mass scale. With this effect bringing family members together in front of the same screen in daily life and reorganizing the flow of life, it has also provided a powerful example to support McLuhan’s distinction between “hot” and “cool” media.

McLuhan’s concepts of “cool” and “hot” media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium. Examples of these include radio, cinema, and printed books. These media are defi ned as “hot” tools because they feature high resolution, dense data, and closed meanings. This is because these tools leave no room for the viewer to think, thereby creating a passive perceptual process. In contrast, “cool” tools are media that offer low resolution, incomplete data, and force the viewer to complete the meaning, thereby requiring active participation.

However, McLuhan places television in a very different category within cold media. He compares the viewer’s data flow in a “cool” participatory medium to a mosaic. To understand this method of data transmission, first understanding “what a mosaic is and why he equates television with it” is important.

In its most basic sense, a mosaic is a visual art form in which small, colorful pieces (stone, glass, ceramic, etc.) come together to form a whole. While each piece may not carry meaning on its own, when placed side by side, they create a large and meaningful composition. McLuhan uses this aesthetic structure to describe the modes of perception and thought in the media age. According to him, modern communication media -particularly television, advertisements, magazines, and later the internet- present information not in a sequential and linear manner, but in a fragmented, polyphonic, and simultaneous way. This requires the viewer to do more than just watch; it demands the ability to actively “fi ll in” the missing pieces. Social media feeds are one of the most prominent examples of this mosaic structure today. An Instagram Explore page or a TikTok feed creates a mosaic-like transmission experience where independent fragments are arranged randomly yet form a coherent whole in the user’s mind. Here, the mosaic is not merely an aesthetic element but is regarded as a new form of thinking, seeing, and constructing meaning in the media age.

McLuhan’s mosaic narrative form is directly intertwined with the concept of “cool media.” Just as a mosaic presents a fragmented and incomplete whole to be completed in the viewer’s mind, cold media also expects active participation from the viewer. Such media do not present everything “readymade” in high resolution; rather, they provoke perception, leave gaps, and make the viewer a part of the process. Mosaic structures such as newspaper layouts, advertising collages, or social media feeds do not transmit information directly; instead, they create chains of associations in the minds of their audiences. Thus mosaic aesthetics aligns closely with the fundamental characteristics of cool media. Low definition encourages high participation and, consequently, the production of multiple meanings. Television’s “two-dimensional mosaic” narrative, the constantly shifting content of social media, and postmodern designs constructed through collage techniques all establish a relationship in which the audience is not merely a consumer but also a producer of meaning. In this context, the mosaic structure can be understood as the visual and structural counterpart of McLuhan’s concept of cool media.

Within all these television programs and the institutional frameworks used to communicate with the masses, one of the most symbolic examples of McLuhan’s rise to international prominence was his feature in Time Magazine in 1969. Appearing in such a prestigious publication was an almost unimaginable sign of popularity for a communication theorist. The magazine described him with striking phrases like “the high priest of pop culture” and “the metaphysician of media,” emphasizing that he was a figure capable of speaking to the broader public’s search for meaning in a rapidly changing world of communication. He did not limit his influence to print and visual media; in connection with his work The Medium is the Massage, he recorded an audio album (LP) composed of music, sound, and fragmented narratives, thereby extending his theory into an auditory experience. McLuhan’s influence was not confi ned to North America; his ideas were widely discussed in intellectual circles across Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom and France, and are considered to have inspired the media theories of later thinkers such as Baudrillard.

Marshall McLuhan was not only one of the most influential media theorists of the 20th century but also a powerful science communicator who could convey his theories by bringing them directly into everyday life. His media theory opened a new paradigm in understanding communication by arguing that the medium is more powerful than the message; by viewing technology as a natural extension of humanity, he redefi ned the relationship between humans, the senses and technology. By appearing in popular media, he succeeded in bringing academic thought into the lives of ordinary people; through his conferences, television programs, magazine interviews, and stage performances, he transformed his theory into a spectacle, thereby making science accessible to the masses. McLuhan’s predictions have been largely validated by the rise of the internet, social media, and globalized communication networks, and the concept of the global village has become a reality in today’s world.

Despite all criticism, the analytical framework he developed regarding media remains a fundamental reference point in media studies. His legacy is an intellectual he approaches communication not merely as the transmission of information, but as a dynamic process that transforms human senses, modes of perception, and social structures.

In this regard, McLuhan is remembered as a theorist who continues to shed light on modern communication studies and whose ideas stand the test of time.

Marshall McLuhan: The Mastermind Behind the Media yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“In this realm of simulacra, the sole entity that maintains significance is Truman’s resilient mind. Christof is correct concerning one aspect: the external environment also presents numerous hazards. Indeed, the external world is not as secure as Seahaven; it is marked by chaos and uncertainty. According to Baudrillard, it is the “Desert of the Real.” Perhaps Christof’s confinement is not Seahaven itself but rather the comfortable living rooms of individuals who opt to change the channel instead of pursuing the truth and questioning their surroundings.”

“…good afternoon, good evening and good night!” 

The Truman Show, which opens with this line, chronicles the life of  Truman Burbank, a 30-year-old American man who has lived in a simulation since birth. This film, portraying Truman’s life broadcast live 24/7 to the world, symbolizes the loss of reality and privacy. No spontaneity or chance occurrences are allowed in Truman’s existence. Every aspect of his life is carefully orchestrated, including his encounters and conversations. His name combines “True” and “Man,” meaning “True-Man.” Interestingly, his last name, “Burbank,” is also the name of a media hub in California home to many Hollywood studios.

In a world filled with simulacra, Truman stands out as the only consciousness challenging the simulation’s limits. His name emphasizes his contradictory position within this simulated universe. In the fictional town of Seahaven where he resides, everyone is an actor devoid of true reality and emotion, merely reciting lines and performing roles to keep Truman confined within his artificial life. Despite his environment being fabricated, Truman’s feelings sadness, joy, longing, fear and his words are genuine. In Baudrillard’s view, the system relies on the innocence of the “True man” to maintain itself, mask its artificial nature, and convince viewers of a genuine truth. Humanity, adapting to its technological age, has become increasingly dependent on communication tools. The once pondered question “What is reality?” has faded into obscurity, replaced by the comfort of simulation. Baudrillard describes himself as a “theoretical terrorist,” believing that the only way to threaten the seamless machinery of modern simulation is through subversive ideas-taking meaning hostage and exposing the illusion of reality. Baudrillard’s main critique targets Disneyland, often seen as the embodiment of the American Dream. He argues that America is so fake, a literal concrete jungle, and lacking soul that it creates an entirely irrational fantasy world to keep people from questioning reality. Disneyland’s strange fictions aim to convince visitors that the outside gray city is real. When they leave this illusion and step back onto the streets, the real world seems even more authentic.

The clever tactic is to make visitors believe their gray; dull city is the real thing. Similar to how prisons make inmates feel that freedom has been lost – freedom they cannot see or reach but still know exists. People often desire what they’ve never experienced but deeply wished to. When even a faint hint of possibility arises in your mind’s deepest recesses, everything around you seems insignificant, insincere, and hollow. Disneyland was built to suppress and erase this feeling of longing. Similarly, in The Truman Show, Seahaven functions as a Disneyland created solely for Truman. Yet, Truman’s situation is much more tragic. Visitors to Disneyland see it as a simulation, and once they leave, they consider the real world as genuine. In contrast, Truman exists entirely within the simulation.

“Baudrillard argues that Truman’s world isn’t merely a lie or imitation. Imitation naturally recognizes reality’s existence and reminds us that it still exists. In this view, Truman’s life in Seahaven can be understood through Baudrillard’s ideas of simulation and simulacra.”

The primary illusion is that the outside world is real, but Disneyland aims to hide the fact that it is also a simulation. The world visitors believe to be real when they return is just as fictional as Truman’s. Baudrillard argues that Truman’s world isn’t merely a lie or imitation. Imitation naturally recognizes reality’s existence and reminds us that it still exists. In this view, Truman’s life in Seahaven can be understood through Baudrillard’s ideas of simulation and simulacra. He describes simulation as “the generation by models of a real without origin or reality,” meaning creating appearances of something that doesn’t exist, which displays all signs of reality but isn’t real itself.

A simulacrum is a copy without an original, made through this process. Acting as if there’s an original when none exists doesn’t imply Baudrillard seeks lost reality; instead, he states that reality has disappeared entirely.

Consequently, simulation gains its power from this absence, rooted in nihilism and nothingness. The question then arises: how does this hyperreal universe remain convincing? It does so through an invisible, absolute surveillance system that keeps subjects under control. Truman’s tragedy demonstrates this concept-the world around him has gone beyond mere falsehood, evolving into a hyperreal existence.

According to Baudrillard, America exists as a hyperreal universe, neither fully real nor merely a dream. This hyperreality is depicted in the film not only through dialogue but also via subtle background symbols and carefully crafted details. The initial hour feels like a continuous “Truman Show,” with viewers watching Truman on TV and their reactions reflecting our own. After this hour, the film shifts focus to “keeping Truman inside the box” and explores emerging moral dilemmas.

The practical embodiment of this theoretical framework in the film is best illustrated by director Christof’s approach. When Christof, who directs Truman, joins a live broadcast, the reporter thanks him, saying, “We all know how jealously you guard your privacy.” This contrasts sharply with Truman, whose entire life is constantly recorded through hidden cameras, showing how authority’s true power lies in invisibility. While Christof’s role closely resembles the central observer in Bentham’s Panopticon, Truman does not police his behavior, because he is unaware of the cameras watching him and does not feel the oppressive gaze.

Throughout the film, whenever Truman experiences anger or emotional crises, his wife Meryl doesn’t offer support; instead, she suggests, “You know, you really ought to throw out that mower. Get one of those new Elk Rotaries.” In our world, it’s very easy to become a consumer because solutions are often presented as products that require ongoing purchase, rather than through access to healthcare and therapy. Director Christof deliberately caused Truman to lose his father at sea to evoke fear of the ocean, thereby trying to stop Truman from traveling abroad.

In a scene, Truman sits alone on the beach, gazing at the sea, when a flashback shows his father disappearing during a storm at sea. It is unclear whether Truman genuinely remembers this event, but it can be seen as the message the director aimed to communicate to the audience.

When the flashback concludes, it begins to rain just enough to soak Truman. The cloud seems to follow him everywhere. However, this unusual sight doesn’t frighten Truman; instead, it boosts his confidence, helping him find the courage to escape. When he gets back home, he eagerly tells his wife about his plan to go to Fiji. This scene highlights how little the director understands Truman. The director believed the rain would trigger Truman to remember his father’s death and become scared, but Truman’s immediate thought was to cross the ocean and reach Fiji. By the end of the movie, despite all the obstacles in his way, Truman finds a boat and begins his journey alone.

He believes he can finally realize his dream of going to Fiji, but the director is resolute in preventing him. Truman reaches the end of the artificial sea where his boat has been sailing and crashes into the sky-like set. His face shows a mix of surprise and disappointment. At that moment, the director decides to speak to Truman directly for the first time. Truman cannot see him, but the director’s voice comes from the sky. This serves as proof that the director views himself as Truman’s creator. When the director tells Truman, “There’s no more truth out there than there is the world I created for you.” Truman’s shocked response is, “You never had a camera in my head.” This line explains why the flashbacks in the movie don’t always align with Truman’s decisions.

“The film’s true conclusion lies in the scene with the two security guards who cheer for Truman’s escape, only to ask, ‘What else is on?’ the moment the screen goes dark. This ending encapsulates the film’s central thesis, illustrating Baudrillard’s assertion that meaning implodes within an endless media flow where a war report and a commercial are consumed with identical detachment, and the audience remains thoroughly desensitized to reality.

Truman steps off the stage through the black door to seek reality, illustrating a poignant act of courage. Despite the fear and chaos that may await outside, he chooses to forge his own path. This moment highlights the tragic heroism in facing the unknown, as the world of simulation relies on the abandonment of such courage. The system endures only when individuals cease resistance, accept their predetermined roles without question, and survive solely through consumption.

We never see what happens to Truman afterward. He spends his entire life watched by cameras and desperately tries to escape that reality. If the film had shown his actions after he walked through the door, it wouldn’t have conveyed the profound experience of leaving the simulation.

What happens next is unique to Truman himself, making his story singular. The film’s true conclusion lies in the scene with the two security guards who cheer for Truman’s escape, only to ask, “What else is on?” the moment the screen goes dark. This ending encapsulates the film’s central thesis, illustrating Baudrillard’s assertion that meaning implodes within an endless media flow where a war report and a commercial are consumed with identical detachment, and the audience remains thoroughly desensitized to reality. Throughout the film, viewers are engaged with Truman’s life, curious about his fate, but once his life is no longer broadcast, he seems to vanish, as if he never existed. For the audience, the show simply becomes entertainment.

“You never had a camera in my head.” This line defines the limits of the simulation. While power can confine the body, simulate environments, and influence surroundings, it can never fully access the human mind’s privacy. Truman’s triumph wasn’t just about leaving that door; it was about the thirty years he spent under constant surveillance, during which he created a genuine sanctuary within his mind-a place even the creator of his world couldn’t invade.

In a world filled with simulacra, Truman’s unbreakable mind is the only thing that keeps meaning alive. Christof is correct about one thing: the outside world is also fraught with dangers. It’s true that the outside isn’t as safe as Seahaven; it’s chaotic and unpredictable. As Baudrillard describes, it’s the “Desert of the Real.” Maybe Christof’s prison isn’t Seahaven itself, but the cozy living rooms of those of us who prefer to change the channel rather than face the truth and question the world around us.

Just as Christof persuaded Truman that he was experiencing a natural flow of events instead of a world of illusions, the film persuades us of the same idea. While observing Truman’s artificial world, we, like visitors to Disneyland, are under the illusion that our own world is authentic.

Truman woke up and left. But what about us? We’re still on air…

“The Desert of Real” Welcome Truman yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“We stay in the flow to not miss anything, but we miss the flow of real life.”

One of the most historic universities, Oxford University, annually selects the word of the year by publicly voting on the most used words of that year. In the 2024 vote, which drew 37,000 participants, the word of the year was brain rot, meaning mental decay. So, what is this brain rot?

This concept describes the negative impact of social media, seen as a silent threat of the digital age, and depicts how our minds are decaying because of constant exposure to low-quality, shallow content presented in quick-to-consume formats. As a result of the revenue models of popular social platforms, an endless pool of content creates a “I must not miss out on anything” feeling in users. This feeling keeps us in a constant flow of content. At the same time, app notifications aim to arouse our curiosity.

We stay in the feed to avoid missing something, but in doing so, we miss the flow of real life. This emotional state also paves the way for the consumption frenzy to somewhat encroach on our minds. As our minds continue to consume, they become blurred, and our ability to focus gradually diminishes.

On social media platforms, short stories shared by content creators that depict personal experiences are becoming increasingly popular. Instead of guiding viewers toward any particular thought, this type of content presents pleasure-focused snippets that position viewers as passive recipients. Another major factor contributing to mental cloudiness is the growing variety of platforms and the unrestricted access to social media, which, despite being harmful to human health, remains free from regulation.

The unlimited access to digital platforms leads to an increase in user numbers, expands the influence of “brain rot,” and is becoming a more destructive, rapidly growing societal problem. Social media addiction becomes a more serious problem on a global scale. While millions of people using social media feel its effects, many scientific studies also show that social media increases the risk of depression. Additionally, according to a 2023 study called Victims of Social Media by the University of Michigan, it is believed that approximately 70% of Generation Z is addicted to social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok.

“Social platforms shape people’s shared opinions, determine their conscious or unconscious inferences, and even influence what they consider important and how they should behave, thereby controlling us.”

One of the main reasons for this situation is the platforms’ commercial interests. Because the revenue models of these platforms rely on user data, they depend heavily on active user participation. As a result, platforms constantly release updates to keep users engaged and feed off each other. Following TikTok’s popularization of the short-form video format, Instagram integrated the format into its own platform under the name “Reels.”

While being exposed to a rapid and continuous flow of information, social media platforms, which make it feel as if it is possible to be “every moment, everywhere, and in every period of history,” compress the 24-hour flow of time into short time periods, causing a compression of time and space.

From the invention of perfume to the uncharted forests of the Amazon, it creates an illusion that feeds on mental decay by presenting different historical periods and locations one after another in just a few seconds. This situation transforms our perception and causes us to disconnect from real life.

According to research conducted by We Are Social in April 2025, there are 5.81 billion social media accounts. This accounts for 70.7% of the world population. The average screen time is 2 hours 21 minutes. Additionally, the data from this research only covers social media users aged 18 and above. In Türkiye, this duration can extend up to 2 hours 48 minutes. As the statistics also show, social media platforms are increasingly consuming more of our time each day, accelerating our consumption habits.

Social platforms shape people’s shared opinions, determine their conscious or unconscious inferences, and even influence what they consider important and how they should behave, thereby controlling us.

One of the recent examples is the 2016 United States presidential election, where there were claims that Donald Trump manipulated the election through Facebook. These platforms surround us, draw us in, and even exploit our data access preferences to develop marketing strategies. In fact, these are the fundamental requirements for their existence. Day by day, even if we don’t physically decay, we are mentally deteriorating due to the social media content we are exposed to without realizing it. That’s why the concept of “Brain Rot” defines the year 2024.

Characteristics of Brain Rot

We have asked ChatGPT if the concept of “Brain Rot” were a person, what kind of person would it be, and what would it look like? The following paragraphs are the direct excerpts of its answers which are: I would feel sorry for this person because it seemed like they had been overwhelmed by the pace of the modern world and the digital flow, living with a constantly diminishing energy. They were distant from deep thinking, always consuming something but never truly satisfied. It looked like they were trying to find themselves, but they were getting more lost in reality day by day.

At the same time, I would feel a bit worried. Because this person had the potential to spread the same exhaustion and carelessness to the people around them. I felt like this person was stealing something from both their own life and those around them.

But perhaps what I would wonder most is: Can this person truly stop, take a breath, and try to listen to their own mental silence? Can Brain rot, with a little courage, fill that void? Or would this cycle of consumption become their lifestyle forever? Watching this person would be both tragic and thought-provoking.

From the Author’s Perspective I am aware of the irony that the technology we sometimes criticize is also criticizing us. Ultimately, we are being belittled by a technology we ourselves have developed. The questions that artificial intelligence is asking us, I now ask you as well. “Will this cycle of consumption continue to surround us with false happiness and keep rotting our brains until the end of our lives?”.

The Silent Threat of the Digial Age Brain Rot? yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Anthropologist and communication sciences researcher Professor Erkan Saka delves into the concept of techno-feudalism and the shift from a once-decentralized internet to a landscape dominated by a few major tech oligarchs. Exploring the structural transformation of digital platforms, algorithmic hegemony, and our increasing parallelism to “digital serfs,” Saka unpacks how Big Tech corporations control both internet infrastructure and user data without democratic oversight.

Elif Başlantı: Hello, Professor Saka. Welcome. We are very happy to have you here. Can we start by getting to know who you are?

Erkan Saka: Thank you for the warm welcome. First of all, I appreciate the invitation. I am a faculty member at Istanbul Bilgi University in the Department of New Media and Communication. I have been working on new communication technologies for many years. Overall, I am trying to do this within a field that can be considered media anthropology. And here we are today, that’s how we got here.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: We chose the topic for the special issue of the magazine we are publishing as “Techno- Feudalism”. First of all, could you tell us what Techno- Feudalism is and what we should understand when we hear about it?

E.S: I don’t study this literature directly, but roughly speaking, we can say that a number of large technology companies dominate internet usage in a feudal manner. We can’t talk about a complete monopoly, but it can also be called an oligopolistic market. Sometimes the names of seven tech companies are mentioned, sometimes even more. These companies control the infrastructure and content of the internet tools we use daily. Since there isn’t a democratic process involved, a new concept has emerged that particularly references the Middle Ages.

M.B.A: Reflecting on the 90s and 2000s, when people believed in rapid Internet progress and social democratization, thinking wars were over and to raise a quesiton: “How technological advances Given the conservative nature of techno-feudalism, how are technological advances currently able to bring feudalism back? What are we doing wrong?

E.S: It is Highlighted that the medieval concept mainly focuses on property relations. Currently, it’s hard to determine what is progressive or regressive. Surprisingly, there’s been an unexpected development: widespread disappointment across researchers, social scientists, the public, and internet users. Many were initially pessimistic, but a new communication tool still emerged, offering some benefits. It was claimed to ‘bring world peace’ and to aid democratization to varying degrees.

However, these hopes haven’t materialized today. Not only did they fail, but democratization also didn’t fully occur. The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals.

Initially controlled largely by the U.S., the internet’s influence was tied to American foreign policy. Now, large tech corporations feel no need to pursue democratization, as their dominance already gives them significant power. When combined with political influence, this resembles feudal sovereignty, where powerful entities can control content and exclude users at will.

M.B.A: Capitalism continuously creates monopolies and oligopolies, which are not new. History shows technological breakthroughs but today, a new discussion emerges: how did the Magnificent Seven become so wealthy? Why is the mode of production changing, and is capitalism ending? What’s different today?

E.S: Is it truly wrong to look back and evaluate? While there’s a pause before and after the internet era, similar situations likely occurred earlier. America’s golden age post-1950s was marked by technological dominance, with at least one rival, the Soviet Union, leading at times. However, within the Western world, America’s technological supremacy was clear. During that period, the system was more centralized and state-managed, yet certain brands held significant dominance. After the 1980s and 1990s, some brands gained prominence and products from the Far East entered the market. They have entered a new era, but the period preceding it was one of domination. While debates and issues like central-peripheral dynamics were discussed, today’s landscape features technology companies, which are better described as a feudal, fragmented structure rather than a unified dominion. The journey to this point traces back to the information revolution starting in the 1960s, in which industrial production gradually shifted toward information and data as the source of power. Baudrillard, whom you focus on, would likely be astounded by today’s reality if he saw it in the 1980s.

Back then, the media was less overwhelming, but information’s influence was steadily growing, a trend amplified by the internet, leading to a significant leap. Now, major tech giants are fundamentally data-driven; the transformation of information into data has become the core of power. This development partly stemmed from a lack of regulation without intervention; each company monopolized its domain. While varying in other countries, within the American system, this environment fostered such growth, with regulation only briefly considered during Democratic administrations before shifts in power. Ultimately, placing data at the center means that companies harnessing data now shape this new global order.

“The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals. Initially they were controlled largely by the U.S.”

M.B.A: We’ve observed similar patterns with Bitcoin and virtual currencies. When unknown enters the state realm, regulation follows. Yet, states seem to retreat regarding companies involved in techno-feudalism discussions, especially as Elon Musk consolidates power and possible sanctions are rolled back against Jeff Bezos. Could this signal a shift in the relationship between state and capital, moving away from states regulating and profiting from capital? How do you interpret this shift?

E.S: I believe it’s premature to draw such a conclusion because we still don’t fully grasp these relationships. What we do know is that the Silicon Valley myth was largely created by the American government. There’s no simple story of Stanford University was founded, leading to incredible startups, and then Silicon Valley was born. “When the U.S. fell behind the Soviet Union technologically, it responded with signifi cant investments that laid the foundation for these ventures.” The idea that “Libertarian rhetoric dominates Silicon Valley” is actually misleading, either self-deception or a false impression. Libertarians claim, “We don’t want government involvement,” yet many large companies, including Elon Musk’s, could not have amassed such power without government contracts. Therefore, the dynamics of reliance between these entities are complex. It’s not entirely accurate to say that Big Tech directly controls the U.S. government, as there are mutual interests involved. Snowden’s disclosures also demonstrated that these social media platforms provided extensive intelligence and shared data with the U.S. government. TikTok was the fi rst to challenge the American monopoly; when it achieved great success in the U.S., attempts were made to block or restrict it.

“They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world.”

M.B.A: I think the closing events are still on the agenda.

E.S: Yes, I believe the ownership structure has also shifted. In U.S.A, interference in the algorithm implies a change in the entire American foreign policy. When issues arise, they claim, “Then we will intervene.” This situation has made their mutual relationship more apparent. It’s important to highlight that this is not a one-sided scenario. The U.S. government also gains significantly from these companies. When they previously advocated for internet freedom as a foreign policy issue, it was actually a form of PR aimed at countries targeted by the American government. Looking back now, this is much clearer. Additionally, it’s worth noting that last year, Big Tech was the group that lobbied the most in Washington and spent the most on lobbying. Now, these tech companies are investing even more money there than traditional capital. As I mentioned, there is a mutual relationship between them.

E.B: Since the last U.S. election, discussions on algorithmic hegemony have grown. If a Techno-Feudal system becomes fully integrated, will algorithms cause social change by limiting freedom and choices?

E.S: If the current course remains unchanged, the worst-case scenario depicted here may come true. Fortunately, people are inherently creative and always find ways to resist.

Things rarely unfold exactly as planned because, if they did, we might live in a world where our freedom is stripped away, and algorithms dominate decision-making. In fact, we already live in part in that world, where algorithmic systems influence our daily lives, yet many vulnerabilities remain. These vulnerabilities give us some room to maneuver.

If Big Tech or Elon Musk controlled everything, they would eagerly create a dystopian future, but cracks inevitably appear. History shows that leaving Big Tech unchecked often results in harmful outcomes, although most companies are not inherently malicious. They simply view the world from their own perspective. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, for example, are focused on their own interests and rarely care about democratization worldwide. The era of Google’s “Don’t be evil” slogan is over. Without such ethical concerns, they feel no obligation to consider individual users. Consequently, it falls on us to protect ourselves.

Additionally, Big Tech’s insensitivity and ineptitude regarding social issues highlight the need for interventions at every level off civil society, initiatives, and governments. Without these efforts, as you mentioned, a dystopian future could emerge, eroding human freedom.

M.B.A: The narrative is harsh, suggesting, “You will techno-feudalize and become serfs.” Could today’s dystopia be self-created? Using social media, liking, and effort might also reinforce algorithmic hegemony.

E.S: I’m uncertain if it’s worth delving too deeply into conspiracy theories. Should we really be pulled further into such worlds? However, sometimes inducing fear can be effective in reaching those who are afraid. It’s unclear whether this is intentional or accidental. For instance, constant criticism of a group can cause people to fear them, and this fear might even lead to that group’s rise to power. I have examples in mind, but I won’t specify them. A similar pattern could exist here, but based on observations, most criticisms seem well-meaning; they aim to prevent the dystopia we’re discussing. Nonetheless, how we critique these issues matters; overly harsh portrayals might be unhelpful. Gramsci’s theories may shed more light on how hegemony is produced, especially since social media doesn’t enter our lives through bullying. It spreads quickly because it’s useful or appears so to us. Despite warnings about data privacy, people continue to use it. This is also worth considering.

E.B: Professor, based on your explanation, I see that consumers have little say and are controlled. Technofeudalism mimics feudalism through digital serfdom. What does digital serfdom mean, and how are we becoming serfs again?

E.S: The techno-feudal analogy is accurate, but I prefer not to be too harsh on the serfdom aspect. We haven’t fully become serfs yet, but the current trend suggests we are heading that way. Historically, serfs were basically the laborers of feudal lords, more like semi-slaves, since most of the land belonged to these lords. Today, a similar situation persists: the platforms we use are not truly ours, and even the content we consume may not legally belong to us. This creates a confusing scenario. Everything you produce is controlled by the platform; if it shuts down or claims to have lost your data, you have little recourse.

This bears a serious resemblance to feudalism. The key difference is that you can now leave the platform, unlike medieval serfs, who had no such option. They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world. Only the elite seems capable of complete detachment from the system. If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing. These platforms help us stay socially connected, but there’s no life-or-death stakes involved. Communication can continue through WhatsApp groups. While platforms haven’t completely boxed us in, it’s still difficult to break those bonds. Sometimes, switching to alternative platforms provides a welcome change. Moving your activity elsewhere is like choosing a different feudal lord, a chance that didn’t exist before and wasn’t easy to find.

M.B.A: The discussion now includes the potential takeover of internet infrastructure technology. For instance, people might say, “I’ll order from Yemeksepeti” without knowing the restaurant. Similarly, taxi stands are replaced by apps, closing traditional stands. It seems we are increasingly creating our own consent for actions.

E.S: You’re right, but as I mentioned, we’re facing a very challenging period. While contemplating how to escape this cycle of Tech-Feudalism, it’s helpful to consider broader perspectives. For instance, why do I use Uber now? I turn to Uber because taxi stands aren’t closing, yet they aren’t functioning properly, and we understand why. There are also local social issues at play. These problems are often exploited by Big Tech feudal lords they sometimes create problems deliberately and then offer solutions, or they simply build their systems atop existing issues. For example, what if children weren’t so captivated by tablets? During my childhood, I could play outside freely. The city provided space for all of us. Today, urbanization has pushed us into digital spaces. To foster real change, social policies that extend beyond the digital sphere are necessary, requiring efforts that go beyond individual action. For example, many local governments worldwide have imposed restrictions on Airbnb. The resulting issues, like increased rent and housing shortages, serve as useful indicators. I believe these local or governmental restrictions offer meaningful signals about how to intervene effectively in the system.

“If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing.”

Umut Yiğit: Professor, in a previous interview with Nurdoğan Rigel, she said, “Social media platforms are invading our private space. This space is becoming both public and private.” From an anthropological and sociological view, how do you describe this transformation? Is private space becoming public? Is the nature of publicness changing, or is our daily public life transforming?

E.S: Let me respond as a true liberal: everything occurs simultaneously. We need a new conceptual framework. While the idea of the public sphere was initially evolving in this direction, the advent of algorithms made organic dissemination of content impossible. Platform-based advertising and business models also enforce this. Most platforms operate this way. Organic content is rarely shared; users must actively oppose the algorithm.

As a result, the originally freer concept of the public sphere has greatly diminished, especially due to Twitter and similar apps. Initially, Twitter was seen as a kind of public space, but over time, we began to reflect more of our private lives. New platforms and initiatives have emerged in this context. Platforms do not explicitly instruct users, but users adapt to the division of roles. Twitter (X) has a distinct structure, while Instagram is assigned a different role. TikTok used to show less of insider views. This necessitates case-by-case analysis and reconsideration of what constitutes publicness. Overall, both the public and private spheres have undergone significant transformation.

Some personal data that we previously regarded as private now appears less so. Clearly, we must reexamine ethical issues using empirical evidence. Since the situation differs across platforms, we cannot directly apply public-space debates to this context. This understanding has become evident.

U.Y: I think a new conceptual framework is needed for the answer.

E.S: Yes, definitely.

Deniz Benzer: We discussed macro-level and structural elements. Based on your anthropology background, what is the micro-level equivalent of these events? What is the relationship between structure and microscale? Does an individual have a unique tactical space, and does it narrow or expand over time?

E.S: Overall, I believe this area has become more limited. Theories by thinkers like Michel de Certeau are relevant here. While some resistance remains, it’s now much harder due to the shift of control to algorithms after the bypassing of the chronological flow. Our ability to challenge the system has thus decreased.

However, people still find ways to bypass censorship or content restrictions imposed by Big Tech through various formats, sometimes even migrating collectively. Although these collective efforts aren’t always successful, we still have the power to decide as a community, for instance, choosing to switch from WhatsApp to Signal. Individual actions rarely achieve results, but once a critical mass is reached, we can compel the system to change certain digital habits.

Recent attempts, like migrating from Twitter to Bluesky or Mastodon, have largely failed, with many returning to X. I personally returned because of the Gulf War situation, but generally, we seek sensation, spreading rumors rather than clear information. We accept chaos in exchange for constant flow. For example, the rise and fall of BeReal show our reluctance to show our natural selves; we prefer filters and poses.

We must ask ourselves the purpose behind our actions. I think we should gather on Mastodon instead of X, but participation remains low. Mastodon has functioned as an alternative for eight years, successful in ways other options haven’t been. Still, we need to understand why we’re not more involved. If we act collectively, we could send a strong message to tech giants. It’s important to view this from multiple angles, acknowledging individual self-criticism but also recognizing that some issues require broader structural regulation.

U.Y: Initially, Instagram only shared posts. As posts became more aesthetic, the “story” format was introduced. Recently, a new feature called Instant was launched, going live immediately after a photo is taken. The system constantly produces new versions to keep content creation lively amid continuous staging. From an anthropological view, how is value formed here?

Erving Goffman

E.S: Erving Goffman described this as the theatrical nature of everyday life years ago. We have always been wearing masks in our daily interactions, even before the internet. Depending on our relationships, we take on different roles, for example, with parents, students, children, or lovers. There’s always an effort to perform and present ourselves attractively. Being authentic can sometimes feel like a bold statement, but in reality, there’s no true ‘natural’ state. We shape ourselves based on the situation at any given moment. Sometimes we aim for internal consistency; other times, we can’t. So, what we see on Instagram isn’t unusual to me; it’s just our way of presenting ourselves publicly.

In this respect, Instagram exemplifies capitalism, constantly generating new commodities with the latest being the “Instant” tool. Certainly, given its vast platform, it can easily incorporate features it finds appealing from other platforms. Currently, people consume content that gives rise to new media types or metas. When users engage with these, Instagram also updates their profiles accordingly. However, humans have diverse perspectives on life. Sometimes, we want to appear natural; other times, we craft a more fictional persona. The reasons behind this variability are complex. As a media theorist, I prefer not to delve into ontological or philosophical debates. From my observations, we tend to mirror the media itself. While media can enhance certain traits we already possess, most behaviors still feel very human. There has also been discussion about “influencers”, who now often seem very artificial. It appears Instagram aims for a more natural look, despite our ongoing posing. Still, “Instant” will also be aestheticized and experimental new meta… That’s the nature of this game.

Sedat Erol: Professor, a study shows that only 20% of the social media content are the ones we ourselves choose, while 80% are ads and promoted posts created by algorithms. We think we’re following our choices, but that’s not true. If we see this feed illusion as Tech- Feudalism, how would you interpret it?

E.S: Currently, I haven’t identified a single concept to fully describe this situation. If I had, I might be famous already. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: Tech-Feudalism might not have developed this way; it might have followed a different path. Initially, it was quite different, with a higher chance for organic content and your own content to be noticed and spread. Over time, they devised a new business model, reducing organic growth to the levels you mentioned. Although they could have adopted another revenue stream, they effectively integrated advertising, thereby generating significant profits. Usually, when a system is thriving, people don’t question it or seek improvements for users. It continues until it fails. Currently, with no better options available, we look to Instagram and Twitter. But we know most content isn’t from the accounts we follow. TikTok, on the other hand, has been more successful with personalized content, which explains its rapid rise. Although Meta and Google know us well, they didn’t see the need for personalized content until now. Personally, I find TikTok highly effective because everything aligns with my interests. Other platforms could do the same, but their different business models prevent them from doing so. TikTok is changing now, with more ads appearing, and the content flow may shift. Platforms constantly experiment, and without strong alternatives, they manipulate us, sometimes forcing behaviors.

On YouTube, for instance, to get views, you must run ads; otherwise, watching is nearly impossible. Organic growth takes years to develop. It wasn’t always like this; it evolved over the past 4-5 years. In a few years, platforms may adopt new models that could improve content fl ow. A large user uprising could encourage a shift in system design. For example, AI tools are entirely subscription-based, with paid options pushed immediately. Social networks might evolve in different directions later, but for now, their current operation suits their business interests. We’re compelled to accept this reality.

E.B: Is it possible that what you’re describing could serve as a solution for creating a decentralized internet?

Erkan Saka: Achieving this might be partially possible. Since it hasn’t been attempted yet, the exact risks are unknown. For now, we should monitor how decentralized networks develop and function. I’m cautious because, when blockchain first appeared, it was seen as a nearly unbreakable tool against media censorship. While the immutability of content can be beneficial, it also raises concerns about disinformation. If false information is stored there, it’s impossible to modify or halt its dissemination. Once identified, such issues challenge the idea that blockchain didn’t work either, as it may cause unintended consequences. Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: “How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?’’ We also need to consider this. Currently, social media content is quite poor, and decentralized networks do not guarantee democratization. So, what’s our next step? It’s important to reflect on these questions, but we should still explore these alternatives. The issue is that users today face a few challenges. For instance, techno-feudal lords offers such engaging content that we rarely feel the need to experiment. However, when we do try, we will better understand its potential.

“Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: ‘How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?”’

M.B.A: Today, debates on techno-feudalism divide, with some saying, “This too shall pass,” and others claiming it’s just platform capitalism, not true techno-feudalism. As a media theorist and sociologist, where do you stand on this issue?

E.S: I don’t believe our situation is as dystopian as it might seem. The concept of platform capitalism, I see, doesn’t suggest greater freedom or equal competition. We’re not equally involved in it. Our ability to influence capitalist dynamics is limited. At first, large monopolies regulate and oversee the system. That’s why we’re still in a transitional phase. For example, the impact of artificial intelligence remains uncertain; its transformative potential could shake up the current order. Google, which primarily earns through search, might not fall overnight but could gradually lose importance if it fails to develop new revenue streams. Its dominance as a search engine might diminish. Compared to old feudal lords, tech-oligarchs also operate within quite fragile structures.

“During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as ‘swing states.’ These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters.”

E.B: Professor, you mentioned search engine mechanisms. Our data is stored digitally, and our behaviors are commodified. Do these practices deepen surveillance capitalism? How does this exchange ecosystem shape individual political and ideological consent?

E.S: Data analysis and the use of personal data are highly advanced today. Humans are complex; at sub-human or super-human levels, vast amounts of data about us are collected and can be directed. This is already utilized in the commercial sector to stimulate consumption. The internet ordering systems and digital transformation are particularly advanced. My hope is that humans are not entirely stable; we change frequently, and so these mathematical models work to some degree. However, human behavior patterns start to evolve, requiring ongoing analysis. This creates a continuous data chase. Nonetheless, existing data remains valuable. For example, the Cambridge Analytica case, though not very effective overall, appears to have influenced voter behavior during critical moments.

M.B.A: Could you explain a bit more about Cambridge Analytica?

E.S: During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as “swing states.” These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters. At that time, Trump nearly won all of these swing states, and the Democrats could have won, too. This illustrates how subtle factors can influence human behavior and lead to specific outcomes. Today’s data is valuable for this purpose, giving those in power influential tools. However, it’s not always effective because people don’t always follow consistent patterns. If they did, sociology and anthropology wouldn’t be needed. Humans can act unexpectedly, which offers hope, but we also follow observable behaviors. That makes data crucial and widely use of data may can shape many of our consumption habits, though we do have some room to escape. In politics, this is even more evident. For instance, when I buy something for personal use, I tend to follow straightforward recommendations. But in political decisions, I don’t always do that, leaving some space for autonomy.

Murat Uluk: When Mansur Yavaş was first elected, he created an alternative to Yemeksepeti, saying, “Restaurants can find a place here, with no commission.” Can municipalities develop apps to break major app monopolies and store data locally?

E.S: The concept of “commons” shared resources relates more to collective situations. For instance, platforms like Facebook could be nationalized gradually. If Mark Zuckerberg finds they aren’t profitable, he might give up, allowing these platforms to become foundations. Many internet services follow this model; Wikipedia is a prime example. It’s the largest data repository, run by a foundation, which could attract advertising but chooses to rely on donations. The internet’s core pillars include organizations like Archive.org and foundation-based models. Although not yet applied directly to social media, these models could be adapted. Such projects are costly and require involvement from local governments or civil initiatives.

Crucially, we should apply lessons learned about the purpose of this service and how its algorithm should reflect that. Transparency in algorithms is vital, especially for public work, as it enables collective input. If an algorithm produces negative outcomes, citizens can support improvements. This approach has proven effective in various cases, though some initiatives, like the Ankara application, didn’t continue. Successful implementation requires good logistics. I believe much of this will become a public activity again. For example, municipal Wi-Fi services were once a form of public service, were later restricted, and could be reintroduced. Governments are increasingly concerned with digital and data sovereignty, leading to more user-supported public efforts. While China and Russia have established their own systems, with genuine goodwill and focus on the user, such models can succeed. Nothing is impossible.

M.U: Professor, considering your experience with FriendFeed and MySpace, how did the ideas you had back then shape your expectations for today?

E.S: There was definitely more hope. Now, I view the internet’s state more critically. In fact, internet users themselves can be problematic. FriendFeed could have thrived independently; those who didn’t maintain it are actually us. There’s a Turkish site where many content pieces are uploaded. I believe this site could have become as popular as Reddit globally. However, the owners acted so greedily and disregarded the users that they initially made good money, but then ruined the platform. I think that site is no longer viable and will gradually fade away. They declared, “Sovereignty must be entirely ours, and there shouldn’t even be moderators. Let’s make money first, then consider other things.” Their greed caused them to lose their standing as a trusted source. I observe similar patterns in the independent media environments I engage with. Friends who receive funding quickly leave us. We actually have talented people, supportive environments, and user potential. Most of the time, we lose because we’re too opportunistic. When faced with this, the Techno-Feudals approach us and

S.E: Professor, about 4-5 months ago, you appeared as a guest on a podcast where your insights on artificial intelligence and academia truly stood out to me. I would like to hear your overall thoughts on how artificial intelligence relates to education.

E.S: It’s been approximately 5-6 years since the emergence of productive artificial intelligence. In my view, this represents the most notable technological shift since the rise of the internet. Although social media, the metaverse, and mobility haven’t directly influenced our curriculum, artificial intelligence has. This creates a serious challenge. For the first time, we need to ask questions like, “How will we handle exams or homework?” Previously, we might have said, “They just copy from Wikipedia,” which was a minor concern. Now, even plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin are ineffective. This technology also directly challenges teachers. We need to reconsider how we deliver education. While students go through their own learning processes, the academic landscape is more impacted because peers work is now easier to access. There’s also an epistemic issue at play. How do we acquire knowledge today? Previously, we complained that “People aren’t reading,” yet some reading still occurred. Now, many rely on a single platform: asking an A.I., which often provides an answer accepted as the final truth. Historically, we would consult Wikipedia or other sources and synthesize information. This over-reliance on A.I. answers raises a serious epistemic crisis, as convenience grows and people stop verifying sources, accepting single answers as truth. This erodes the multi-step process of gathering information, which was educational in itself, prompting questions like “Where should I look?” and “What should I do?” The future is uncertain, but it’s said to engender mental laziness. While this may be partly true, users know that A.I. responses aren’t always sufficient. We adapt by rephrasing prompts to better achieve our goals. I don’t want to present a wholly negative view; even with A.I., we understand that the results are not always adequate on their own, leading us to refine our questions for better answers.

We are still activating our minds, but we’re at a different stage now. It seems we’ve entered a period of transformation. From an academic standpoint, producing writing is now very easy, which can be problematic. Those who criticize this don’t fully understand how the academic process works. Most academics can usually tell if a text was produced by A.I. because academic writing involves a process. Ultimately, more content is being generated. The key question then becomes, “How will your work stand out in this growing pool?” When conducting a literature review with tools like Google, an algorithm runs in the background. Based on your search criteria, your work is either highlighted or overlooked. For instance, I asked A.I. tools such as Elicit, Consensus, and Google Academic Labs, which focus on my main research area, to find my publications. One tool showed my work, while the others did not, and we don’t know how they select results. The question now is, “Whose publications are highlighted?” Could this introduce a new form of data colonialism? We’re still early in these debates. Additionally, there’s concern about what data A.I. is trained on and what information it processes. I’m indirectly involved in a TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) project to develop a Turkish Large Language Model (LLM). I’m monitoring how local knowledge is incorporated, as existing global models have limited Turkish data. How will Türkiye’s data be integrated into these models? Countries are developing their own language models, but the quality and content inclusion during construction are crucial.

Academic input could be valuable here, though the process remains complex. There’s also a sectoral aspect: industry believes that sector-specific texts will boost personalized learning, a view I share. It’s beneficial if students want to learn a language or other skills, that’s very positive. We used to struggle with this, often unable to solve certain problems. Perhaps A.I. can clarify these matters for us more effectively. However, questions remain about how it will explain and to whom. This is another concern. I believe we are going through the greatest test since the internet’s arrival. That’s my perspective.

M.B.A: Is it necessary to create initiatives against AI, Techno-Feudalism, and digital companies, individually or collectively? Should we, like Luddites, reject AI altogether? How should we position ourselves within this process? Or should we accept our fate and wait for universal income? What are your thoughts?

Erkan Saka: Earning that income is challenging for us, which is why waiting isn’t an option. Although it would be ideal to wait and enjoy a comfortable retirement, we need to actively support all initiatives and open-source projects within our capacity. Standing behind everyone and making an effort is important. We should also contribute to Wikipedia, which is very strict against A.I. generated content. They employ A.I. bots for editing, but all content is verified by human editors and moderators, which is impressive.

Currently, Wikipedia and its sister projects represent some of the most human-produced content, making them important examples in opposition to AI-generated material. Supporting these efforts is crucial. As a community, we can’t stay disconnected; only a small minority can completely avoid digital life, which most of us depend on to sustain ourselves. Resistance from within is possible, such as reviewing our consumption patterns to reduce intake. Some issues, such as the sector’s concept of “multitasking,” are macro-level and beyond individual control. We need to understand what true “multitasking” actually involves and when it’s appropriate. I love “multitasking” and I believe that I do it very well. However, many people just open multiple screens, thinking it’s effective. It’s important to deconstruct concepts like productivity and ask what real efficiency and results truly mean. We should reassess these ideas for ourselves. I believe in these concepts and strive to improve my efficiency, but beyond sector-imposed language and advertising, we need to find what’s beneficial for us and our environment. This requires internal effort, and sharing ideas and experiences collectively is vital.

“Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are definitely valuable.”

With over ten new A.I. tools emerging daily, sharing our insights helps us avoid wasting time. Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are defi nitely valuable.

I have a story related to this about 15 years ago, I was walking in Berlin after an event when I saw a group of 15-20 people protesting against Big Tech’s use of our personal data. I initially thought, “What impact can this small group have?” and felt a bit sad. Now, however, the European Union is known for its strict personal data regulations, controlling a vast market with significant influence. The system they’ve put in place is effective, maybe not perfect, but it exists. Reflecting on this, I realize those small efforts and initiatives led to meaningful outcomes. I still believe that a sphere of influence can be established. Today, X is sometimes used to seek justice, showing that these platforms aren’t empty spaces. Still, our work to establish reliable sources must continue, including creating digital archives and mastering control over information and data. That’s why I focus on my website for my main content. While I share on social media to increase interaction, it’s not my primary communication channel. Engagement often offers no real benefits and can even work against us. Sometimes, it’s better to remain unseen.

M.B.A: Thank you very much for participating then.

Erkan Saka: Thank you very much. I am honored.

The Illusion of Daily Life: “The Era of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ is Over” yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.