Identity and Social Othering: A Case Study on Youth in Turkey

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 118 - 127, 31.12.2020

Mehmet Birekul

Abstract

Multidimensional and original structure of identity, which prompts researchers to maintain interdisciplinary studies, have made this concept one of the most complicated and problematic issues in social sciences literature. Even though it is identified as features, characteristics, and indications regarding 'human as a social being' and it is based on some components such as common language, culture, geography and history; identity is a special historical condition of the contact with the ‘other’. From this point of view, as an existential fact unique to communities, identity develops with an interaction by referring to counterpart, i.e. ‘other’. At this point, it is understandable that ‘othering’ becomes one of the methods that help to construct the identity.
In Turkish society, examining ‘other’ brings some reflexes on the process of creating identities mentioned above. Especially, either receiving someone’s existence completely or ignoring him slightly in communication process demonstrates radical biases of identity. From this point forth, current study focuses on young people, who are the dynamic groups of society, and tries to discover their attitudes towards ideas, ideologies, or beliefs in terms identity crisis. As the main discussion point, it is assumed that psychological othering process among young people is likely to become social othering among the members of society. In order to explore this assumption, a qualitative research that samples young people in Konya city was conducted. Unstructured one-by-one interviews were applied to young people in order to get in-depth information regarding the issue. Data was analysed under some themes that would appoint the aims, scopes and the problems of the study. As the main findings of the research, it can be asserted that although othering process in individual basis may not cause serious problems among young people, transforming otherization to social milieu and excluding groups in a social background would pose some problems among young people.

Keywords

Identity, Social Othering, Youth

References

• Aktay Y., Kızılkaya A., Osmanoğlu E., Dilek K., & Yurdakul S. (2010). Türkiye’de Ortak Bir Kimlik Olarak Ötekilik, Ankara: Eğitim-Bir-Sen Yayınları
• Andreouli, E. (2010). “Identity, Positioning and Self-Other Relations”. Papers on Social Representations, 19, pp. 14.1-14.13.
• Assmann, J. (1995). Collective Memory and Cultural Identity, Translated by John Czaplicka, New German Critique, 65, pp. 125-133.
• Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods a Vocabulary of Research Concepts. London: Sage.
• Cigoli, V. & Scabini, E. (2006) The Family Identity: Ties, Symbols, and Transitions. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Cohen, A. P. (2000). The Symbolic Construction of Identity. London: Routledge.
• Dağı, Z. (2002). Kimlik, Milliyetçilik ve Dış Politika Rusya’nın Dönüşümü. İstanbul: Boyut Kitapları.
• Galvin, K. M. (2006) Diversity’s Impact on Definig Family: Disourse-Dependence and Identity. IN The Family Communication Sourcebook, Eds: Lynn H. Turner & Richard West, London: Sage Publication, pp. 3-20.
• Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Lawler, S. (2008). Identity: Sociological Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Lewis, M. & Brooks-Gunn, L. (1979). “Toward a Theory of Social Cognition: The Development of Self”. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 4, 1-20.
• McRae, M. B. & Short, E. L. (2010). Racial and Cultural Dynamics in Group and Organizational Life. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• Murdock, E. (2016). Multiculturalism, Identity and Difference: Experiences of Culture Contact. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nahya, Z. N. (2011). İmgeler ve Ötekileştirme: Cadılar, Yerliler, Avrupalılar. Atılım Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1 (1), ss. 27-38.
• Selçuk, S. S. (2012). “Postmodern Dönemde Farklılığın Kutsanması ve Toplumun Parçacıllaştırılması: ‘Öteki” ve “Ötekileştirme’”. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi , 15 (2), 78-99.
• Silverman, D. (2015). Introducing qualitative research. IN Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, D. Silverman (Edt.), London: Sage, pp. 3-14.
• Stets, J. & Burke, P.J., (2000). “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 (3), pp. 224-237.
• Türkbağ, A. U. (2003). “Kimlik, Hukuk ve Adalet Sorunu”. Doğu Batı, 23, ss. 203-218.
• Yanık, C. (2013). “Etnisite, Kimlik ve Milliyetçilik Kavramlarının Sosyolojik Analizi”. Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 20, 225-238.
• Yardım, M. (2015). “Hate Speech against Muslim Women: The Example of French and Belgian Francophone Media”. American International Journal of Social Science, 4 (5), pp. 115-127.