Post-Modern Labyrinth for the Turkish Individual: Changing Demographics, Shrinking Space and Echo Chambers

The Dialectic of Confinement

The contemporary world bears the traces of a period in which traditional sociological structures have unraveled, leaving the individual to contend with a chronic sense of insecurity. Zygmunt Bauman labeled this period “liquid modernity,” describing the individual as deprived of fixed reference points and caught in a constant cycle of flow and change. In this new age, institutions that once provided the individual with support—such as the nation-state, the family, and the community—are each becoming more flexible and undergoing transformation, while identities and social bonds are faced with a continual necessity of redefinition. In the Turkish context in particular, this global condition of insecurity intertwines with a concrete anxiety about the future produced in recent years by high inflation, a housing crisis, and economic instability. This state of affairs distances the individual from the ideal of controlling the future, steering them instead toward an effort to maximize and fill the present moment and, consequently, toward a deep-seated habit of consumption.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the dynamics shaping social life in Türkiye have revealed a profound crisis not only through economic indicators but also across spatial, demographic, and digital dimensions. Everyday practices, household experiences, urbanization processes, and the use of digital media all point to a context in which individuals feel increasingly constrained, restricted, and “imprisoned.” This situation goes beyond a simple economic contraction and instead signifies a multilayered social transformation and crisis.

To understand this picture, it is crucial to consider the intersection of Bauman’s liquid modernity, Michel Foucault’s approach of “biopolitics,” and Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the “production of space.” While Bauman’s concept underscores that individuals are compelled to live amid constant uncertainty and precarity, Foucault’s biopolitics allows us to grasp the forms of control exercised by the state over populations and bodies. Lefebvre’s theory, in turn, reveals that these processes are constructed not only at the level of social relations but also through concrete spatial arrangements. At the intersection of these three theoretical frameworks, the experience of Turkish society can be read as a process of “confinement” in its economic, spatial, and digital dimensions. This analysis aims to lay bare the modern paradox whereby every attempt at escape may amount to a doorway to a new prison that the individual enters by their own consent.

Demographic Constraint

One of the most striking transformations in Turkish society is the marked slowdown in population growth and the radical changes in household structure. Data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) for 2024 provide concrete indicators of this transformation. Although the population growth rate has risen to 3.4 per thousand (‰), the structural changes behind this increase are noteworthy. In particular, the decline in fertility is a critical signal for Türkiye’s demographic future. The total fertility rate—defined as the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her reproductive lifetime—fell from 2.38 children in 2001 to 1.51 in 2023. This rate is well below the 2.10 level required for population replacement and is drawing Türkiye rapidly closer to the category of aging societies.

To read this demographic change solely as an indicator of crisis is to overlook the depth offered by Foucault’s biopolitical approach. According to Foucault, the modern state grounds its power on the bodies and lives of individuals, that is, on the health and reproduction of the population. However, the decline in fertility rates in Türkiye runs counter to traditional biopolitical strategies. In contexts where power has conventionally encouraged population growth, this decline points to a self-confinement—or confinement—strategy developed by individuals in response to the situation. Behind this confinement lie multiple, complex, and interwoven factors.

The first of these factors is undoubtedly economic: high inflation and anxiety about the future. Rising living costs and the difficulties in meeting basic needs such as housing, food, education, and health care make it nearly impossible to shoulder the economic requirements and obligations that come with having children. In an environment where inflation consumes all hope for the future, having a child has, quite naturally, become a luxury. This, in turn, encourages individuals to “escape” the financial and emotional burdens that come with forming a family. Yet this escape is less a freedom than a compulsion imposed by economic conditions and social pressures. While the individual may think they have shed the traditional burden imposed by family ties, they in fact become confined within the labyrinth of loneliness and social isolation.

The demographic decline cannot be explained by economic reasons alone. Another salient set of causes that emerges as we examine this condition of confinement is social factors. In Turkish society, especially the rising education levels of women, career ambitions, and changing gender roles have profoundly reshaped decisions about having children. As traditional roles of motherhood and family are questioned and reconfigured, women now pursue an individual identity and career beyond these roles. Marriage and having children have ceased to be mandatory social norms and have become personal choices. While this shows an effort by individuals to construct their lives and futures independently of traditional expectations, this very effort at self-creation also severs the postmodern individual from traditional social support networks and propels them into a process of isolation.

In recent years, issues such as the global climate crisis, environmental disasters, and the finitude of resources have likewise created deep anxiety about the future—particularly among younger generations who closely follow global developments. The possibility that future generations may live in a worse world can be, for many young people, a reason to forgo the idea of having children. This presents a multilayered picture that links demographic decline not only to local economic conditions but also to existential anxieties experienced on a global scale.

Understanding the multilayered nature of these demographic transformations in Türkiye becomes clearer when we look at the experiences of other countries grappling with similar issues. For example, Poland’s “Family 500+” program, launched in 2016, provided cash support for each child and achieved partial success in combating poverty and, in the short term, boosting fertility. This example shows that the impulse to “opt out” is directly tied to economic underpinnings and that easing financial burdens can be an effective strategy. By way of counterexamples, however, the experiences of Japan and South Korea demonstrate that the issue is not merely economic but has far deeper cultural and social dimensions. Despite spending billions of dollars and extending parental leave to raise fertility rates, these countries have not achieved lasting success. In particular, in South Korea, low marriage rates, high gender inequality, and career pressures stand out as key factors shaping women’s decisions about having children. Under the influence of feminist movements, low fertility has turned into a kind of instrument of social protest: by rejecting marriage and childbearing, women collectively push back against a social order shaped by patriarchal values. Japan, for its part, is notable not only for low fertility but also for the “hikikomori” phenomenon—the withdrawal of young people from social life altogether. These examples serve as evidence that demographic transformations in Türkiye likewise stem from similar, multilayered socio-economic and cultural factors, and that this “confinement” strategy is so deep-seated and complex that it cannot be easily reversed by conventional policies.

Spatial Closure

In parallel with changes in demographic structure, spatial experiences in Turkish society are also undergoing a profound transformation. Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the “social production of space” offers a strong framework for understanding this shift. According to Lefebvre, space is not a simple physical substrate but a dialectical product of social relations, power dynamics, and everyday life. In this context, the rise of 1+0 apartments (studio flats) and “tiny houses” as trends is not merely an architectural phenomenon; it is also a response to the pressures of economic instability and the housing crisis, and to the quest for individualization—yet one that confines the individual to a narrow space.

The spread of 1+0 apartments (studio flats) has emerged as a response to the economic imperatives of modern cities—soaring housing prices that have reached astronomical levels and high rents. These small units offer a reasonable answer to the changing lifestyles and budget constraints of students, single people, and those living alone. Although traditional sociological analyses read this spatial contraction as a symptom of crisis, in the light of Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity it can also be read as a state of confinement—or self-confinement. While people in Türkiye think they are finding financial relief by fleeing the economic burden created by ever-rising rents and housing prices that extinguish hopes of homeownership, they in fact become squeezed into a physically smaller, socially isolated space. This clearly reveals the paradoxical relationship among the physical, designed, and lived dimensions of space: in the very spaces where they imagine themselves to be emancipated, individuals are confined within the physical and psychological limits imposed by the economic conditions of modern life.

The most radical and ironic spatial manifestation of this condition of confinement is the “tiny house” movement. Aiming to escape the physical and financial burdens of conventional housing, this movement is more than a sheltering solution; it is the concretization of a minimalist and sustainable philosophy of life. In Türkiye, these small houses are becoming increasingly popular, with claims that they offer their owners freedom, mobility, and an opportunity to live in close contact with nature. Yet even if the underlying motivations of this lifestyle are masked by rhetoric about consuming less and adopting an environmentally friendly approach, it is in fact a form of resignation developed in the face of the economic uncertainty that has made owning a traditional home impossible. Although the tiny house movement appears to be a fully conscious and proactive strategy, it is, in reality, another step taken to escape the chaos of urban life and the stress produced by the culture of consumption—one that isolates the individual from social relations and the larger world. While small houses have become a symbol of a new way of life supposedly independent of financial burdens and focused on experiences and relationships, this escape at the same time erects a wall that severs the individual from the complex reality of social life and confines them to a small, controlled world of their own.

It should be noted that spatial confinement is not limited to the shrinking of homes; it is also related to the contraction of public spaces. The commodification of parks, squares, and shared spaces makes it harder for individuals to develop a collective public experience. Low-income groups pushed to the urban peripheries are excluded not only spatially but also from the social and political center. Moreover, the reality of earthquakes has made spatial confinement even more dramatic. The earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş in 2023 laid bare the lack of safety in Türkiye’s housing stock. In the post-earthquake reconstruction processes, state housing policies have failed to provide adequate assurance, particularly for low-income segments. Thus spatial confinement is being reproduced not only through the shrinking of living spaces, but also through insecurity and vulnerability.

Digital Echo Chambers

Another profound change that has unfolded in Türkiye alongside demographic and spatial transformations concerns the modes of existence of individuals in the digital realm. The algorithms of social media platforms create “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles” in which users are exposed only to content that supports their own views and beliefs. Traditional critical approaches regard this as an instrument of alienation that narrows the individual’s intellectual horizon and intensifies social polarization. Yet when we combine this analysis with the concepts of Foucault and Bauman, we can see that echo chambers are, in effect, digital prisons—a virtual sanctuary devised for individuals fleeing the precarious world of liquid modernity, but one that draws them into an even deeper confinement.

Echo chambers are a strategy for building a new “community” within a more controlled, self-affirming virtual collective by escaping the risky and fragile relationships of the physical world. The postmodern individual, striving to slip free of the bonds of the modern community and the family, takes refuge in this digital community. This digital escape also offers shelter from the frustration produced by economic problems. Although under the sway of social media algorithms, the individual, by constructing their own channels of communication and “single-person cells,” believes they can express themselves “freely” in these closed environments. As a reaction to the dissolution of traditional social ties described by Bauman, this offers a new form of belonging based on shared interests or ideologies—purged of the insecurities that physical contact brings. The pursuit of success, prosperity, or recognition that the individual cannot attain in the real world due to rising living costs turns into an economic escape in the virtual world. However, this perception of “liberation” is deceptive. Fleeing the real and demanding interactions of the physical world, the individual becomes confined to the monotonous and affirming loop of the digital world.

Digital culture also radically transforms the individual’s sense of identity and self. The digital self has emerged as a new mode of existence independent of the physical body—“selectable, modifiable, or discardable at will.” In this context, Foucault’s concept of biopolitics acquires a new dimension: whereas power traditionally governed the body and the population, in the digital age the focus of this control shifts to the “digital self.” Algorithms, advertising, and popular culture encourage the individual to craft an idealized presentation of identity, offering a so-called “freedom” while in fact subjecting them to a new network of biopower—that is, algorithmic control. Foucault’s “panopticon” thus takes on an updated meaning: rather than merely being surveilled, individuals voluntarily surrender their behavioral patterns to the algorithmic apparatus.

In Türkiye, this digital confinement is particularly pronounced among young people. The daily average time spent on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram approaches two hours, and this affects not only time use but also cultural production and forms of political participation. Algorithmic filters reduce the likelihood that individuals will encounter differing viewpoints, reinforcing social polarization. In this way, digital confinement becomes not merely a matter of individual choice but a form of closure that spreads across the social structure as a whole.

Conclusion: The Turkish Individual in the Post-Modern Labyrinth

Turkish society, through experiences of confinement across economic, spatial, and digital planes, is seeking direction within what is effectively a post-modern labyrinth. The actors of this labyrinth manifest in different forms. Individuals who, under economic precarity, are constantly searching for new exit routes and often contemplating the possibility of migration; communities that, due to spatial contraction, compress daily life into shrinking homes and limited public spaces; or young people who find belonging within the algorithmic communities offered by digital platforms—all represent different faces of this labyrinth.

These experiences of confinement produce not only individual but also political consequences. Economic insecurity distances individuals from politics; the struggle to make ends meet takes precedence over democratic participation. Spatial compression brings with it the political exclusion of those living on the urban peripheries. Digital closures, meanwhile, polarize political debate and weaken the quality of democratic representation.

Bleak though this picture may be, it is not without exits. This post-modern labyrinth can be seen not only as a zone of crisis but also as a starting point for a new social imaginary. Steps that could flex the labyrinth’s walls and reverse individuals’ strategies of self-confinement require multidimensional and comprehensive policies.

For example, expanding the scope of social housing projects, regulating rents, providing childcare and caregiving support to increase women’s labor-force participation, and creating employment opportunities for young people would constitute measures that ease individuals’ fundamental sense of economic insecurity. Halting the commodification of public spaces, expanding shared spaces, and facilitating access to urban services for groups pushed beyond the city center would also reduce spatial constriction. In addition, the expansion of digital literacy programs and the implementation of algorithmic transparency policies would encourage individuals to recognize echo chambers and develop informed digital practices. Moreover, strengthening local governments and encouraging the active participation of young people in political processes may contribute to the reconstruction of democratic representation.

In conclusion, the post-modern labyrinth that Turkish society is experiencing is a paradox: devised in response to the insecurity felt by the individual and, in particular, to the pressures created by high inflation and economic conditions, yet one that drags the individual into an even deeper state of confinement. In this labyrinth, every attempt at escape becomes the doorway to a new prison that the individual enters of their own accord. However, if the forms of confinement are correctly read and addressed with appropriate policies, this labyrinth can cease to be a dead end and become the groundwork for a new social contract.

References

1. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2020). Yaşlı Nüfus İstatistik Bülteni. https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/89041/yasli_nufus_istatistik_bulteni.pdf
2. Anadolu Ajansı (AA). (2018). Türkiye Nüfusunun 2040’ta 100 Milyonu Geçmesi Beklenmektedir. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gunun-basliklari/turkiye-nufusunun-2040da-100-milyonu-gecmesi-beklenmektedir/1069265
3. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.
4. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Polity Press.
5. Barut Tugtekin, E. (2021). Sosyal Ağlarda Sanal Kimlik Kullanımının İncelenmesi. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354758391_Sosyal_Aglarda_Sanal_Kimlik_Kullaniminin_Incelenmesi
6. Beyttürk İnşaat. (2024). 1+1 Daire Yatırımı Neden Akıllı Bir Tercihtir?. https://www.beytturkinsaat.com.tr/1-1-daire-yatirimi-neden-akilli-bir-tercihtir
7. (2025, Nisan). 2024’te Doğan Bebek Sayısı Açıklandı. Hürriyet. https://bigpara.hurriyet.com.tr/haberler/genel-haberler/2024te-dogan-bebek-sayisi-aciklandi_ID1611634/
8. Bloomberg HT. (2025, Şubat 6). 2024’te Nüfus Artış Hızı Binde 3,4 Oldu. https://www.bloomberght.com/2024-te-nufus-artis-hizi-binde-3-4-oldu-3740986
9. (2025, Şubat 6). Türkiye’nin 2024 Nüfus Verileri Açıklandı: Kaç Kişi Olduk?. https://www.capital.com.tr/haberler/tum-haberler/turkiyenin-2024-nufus-verileri-aciklandi-kac-kisi-olduk
10. (2025, Şubat 6). Türkiye’nin Nüfusu 85 Milyon 664 Bin 944’e Çıktı. https://www.diken.com.tr/turkiyenin-nufusu-85-milyon-664-bin-944e-cikti/
11. Ekonomi Gazetesi. (2025, Temmuz 5). Yaşlı Nüfus Politikalarına İhtiyaç Var. https://www.ekonomigazetesi.com/ekonomi/yasli-nufus-politikalarina-ihtiyac-var-53399
12. (2025, Ağustos 17). 1+0 Daireler 8 Yıl Aradan Sonra Yeniden Gündemde. https://www.ertv.com.tr/1-0-daireler-8-yil-aradan-sonra-yeniden-gundemde-yeni-duzenlemenin-detaylari-aciklandi/21604/
13. (2025). Yalnız Yaşamın Yükselişi: Türkiye’de Tek Kişilik Hane Halklarının Profili. https://www.fikriyat.com/galeri/yasam/yalniz-yasamin-yukselisi-turkiyede-tek-kisilik-hane-halklarinin-profili/5
14. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. Pantheon Books.
15. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Palgrave Macmillan.
16. (2021). Tiny House Nedir?. https://www.hanehouse.com/tiny-house-nedir/
17. Hürriyet. (2021). Sosyal Medyada Gündem Oldu: 1+0 Daire 2500 TL. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/sosyal-medyada-gundem-oldu-1-0-daire-2-500-tl-41897007
18. Journal of Social. (2023). Dijital Kültürün Gündelik Yaşama Etkileri ve Kuşaklar Arası…. https://journalofsocial.com/files/josasjournal/7ed463b1-7934-48bb-9445-38961bc4cf90.pdf
19. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
20. OCO House. (2025, Şubat 22). Tiny House: Avrupa için Sürdürülebilir Yaşam Çözümü. https://www.ocohouse.com/tr/genel-tr/tiny-house-avrupa-icin-surdurulebilir-yasam-cozumu/
21. (2023). OECD family database. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/
22. (2021). Toplumsal Değişimin Bir Göstergesi Olarak Gençlerin Evliliğe Yönelik Tutumları. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351233310_Toplumsal_Degisimin_Bir_Gostergesi_Olarak_Genclerin_Evlilige_Yonelik_Tutumları
23. (2025, Temmuz 14). Türkiye’de 2024 Yılında 2 Milyondan Fazla Kişi İller Arası Göç Etti. https://www.sde.org.tr/haber/turkiye-de-2024-yilinda-2-milyondan-fazla-kisi-iller-arasi-goc-etti-haberi-59233
24. Sözcü. (2021, Kasım 15). Yıllar Sonra Geri Dönen Evlerin Fiyatı. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/yillar-sonra-geri-donen-evlerin-fiyati-800-bin-liradan-basliyor-p213770
25. (2023). Social media usage in Turkey – statistics & facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com
26. TÜİK. (2025a). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları, 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayal%C4%B1-N%C3%BCfus-Kay%C4%B1t-Sistemi-Sonu%C3%A7lar%C4%B1-2024-53783&dil=1
27. TÜİK. (2025b). İstatistiklerle Aile, 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Aile-2024-53898
28. TÜİK. (2025c). Uluslararası Göç İstatistikleri, 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Uluslararasi-Goc-Istatistikleri-2024-54083
29. (2022). State of world population 2022: Seeing the unseen – The case for action in the neglected crisis of unintended pregnancy. United Nations Population Fund. https://www.unfpa.org
30. World Bank. (2023). World development indicators. World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org
31. Yaşlı Hakları Derneği. (2025, Şubat). Türkiye’de 2024 Nüfusu Açıklandı. https://yaslihaklaridernegi.org/tr/blog/turkiyede-2024-nufusu-aciklandi-ulkenin-onunde-yaslilik-sinavi-var/
32. Yoon, S. Y. (2016). Low fertility in South Korea: Causes, consequences, and policy responses. Asian Population Studies, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2016.1160202
33. Ujita, H. (2020). Hikikomori: Social withdrawal in Japanese youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00334-2
34. Żuk, P., & Żuk, P. (2020). Nation, family and reproduction: The Polish political discourse on reproductive rights. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(6), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1703843