Democracy as a requirement of the digital age

A study conducted on British society concluded that digitalization, and social media in particular, brings family members closer together and thus strengthens family bonds. I couldn't help but ask myself: are we exaggerating the effects of social media? 

Then I told myself, let it be; what is the point of ignoring our own realities by looking at the results of a study conducted in a developed society? Every society has a different character, and therefore, the effects of digitalization and social media will vary accordingly. 

It is an expected outcome that social media would foster closeness between individuals and have a positive impact on family integrity in Western societies. Indeed, in the West, every person is first and foremost an individual. Individuality is prioritized in family relationships as well. Because they are welfare societies, every individual has economic security. Therefore, there is no need for family members to stay together or remain tightly knit throughout their lives. The advantages and disadvantages of this are a separate topic of discussion, but at the very least, the finding that digitalization—especially social media—strengthens bonds between family members in Western societies is interesting. It is unclear how much it brings family members closer or how much it ensures family integrity, but it is certain that it allows people to stay informed about one another. Thus, individuals at least remember they have a family by staying in touch, and they can feel like they belong somewhere. That is a good thing.

In our country, the situation is quite complicated. Almost half of the country still lives within feudal relationships. Even if nuclear families have become the norm in one part of the country, tribal traditions—and thus feudal relationships—continue with full force in the East and Southeast. We even see reflections of this in metropolises. People who migrate from Anatolia settle in large cities based on kinship or regional ties. For instance, it is observed that the demographic structure of certain neighborhoods in major cities like Istanbul and Ankara is formed according to these traditional relationships. 

Therefore, if a comprehensive study on the effects of social media were conducted here, very interesting results would emerge. For at most five percent of the population, social media might have a bond-strengthening effect. Indeed, in a very small segment of the population, every person is treated as an individual, their personal autonomy and freedom are respected, and they are granted a living space associated with fundamental human rights. I certainly do not think I am exaggerating when I say this; I am reporting what I observe. 

A significant portion of the population has not yet been able to emerge from feudal relationships or at least a traditional lifestyle. Whether they should emerge is a separate topic for debate. However, the dimensions of the traditional or the feudal can be discussed. The continuation of family traditions and their transmission from generation to generation is important for cultural integrity and sustainability. However, if this integrity functions in a way that denies the individual a living space and prevents their development, it turns into a problem. 

When this is the case, people, especially young people and children, see social media as a sanctuary and turn to it. As control increases, interest intensifies. Attempts are made to protect young people and children from the digital world through measures such as hiding smartphones and tablets, pulling the plug on computers, and turning off the internet. 

This is very wrong. Neither traditions nor family integrity can be protected by banning things. Authoritarian and repressive measures might work in the short term, but they are not a permanent solution. Moreover, one must keep up with the changing era. Digitalization has begun to establish its own lifestyle and culture. Therefore, the right approach is to adapt to the era and develop forms of interaction, relationships, and communication suitable for the new situation. 

While families keep children and young people away from the digital environment just so they do not drift away from them or so they stay within the space defined for them, they do not sufficiently consider the problems they will face or the obstacles they will encounter in the future precisely because of these bans. Or perhaps they do not even care about them growing up as healthy, competent individuals for the future.

The dynamics of the digital age are shaped around information. Let us not ignore this. The fundamental material of the period we have entered is information. This is possible through education and intellectual development. Authoritarian environments are not conducive to information-based intellectual development and education. The character of authoritarian structures conflicts with information sharing and intellectual development. Therefore, to keep up with the era, democratic structures must replace authoritarian ones. Adaptation to the digital age can only be achieved through the creation of an environment where information is freely produced, shared, and discussed. Otherwise, one will once again fall behind the times. 

Therefore, we must try to keep up with the era not through pressure, authoritarian approaches, or bans, but through a democratic attitude, tolerance, flexibility, and respect for freedoms and spaces of freedom. 

Even though authoritarian approaches are trying to steer today's world, the character of the era is democratic.