“Kavanozu Açan” Erkeklerle “Kafasını Kullanabilen” Kadınlar: Erkek Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Erkeklik Müzakereleri

Year 2018, Issue: 9-10, 129 - 167, 15.08.2018

Meral Gezici Yalçın , Veysi Tanrıverdi

Abstract

Biz bu araştırmada erkekliği
anlamak için sosyal psikolojik ve sosyolojik yaklaşımları bir araya getiren
kuramsal bir çerçeve çizmeye çalıştık. Erkeklik olgusunu çözümlemek için
söylemsel psikoloji, sosyal kimlik kuramı, kendini-kategorileme kuramı ve
hegemonik erkeklik yaklaşımını sentezlemeyi hedefledik. Bu kuramsal çerçeveye
dayanarak erkeklerle üç odak grup görüşmesi gerçekleştirdik. Toplam 18 lisans
öğrencisi çalışmamıza katıldı. Odak grup görüşmelerinin tamamını deşifre
ettikten sonra tematik analiz ve söylem analizi tekniklerini kullanarak veriyi
analiz ettik. Alanyazında daha önce bulgulanan ve tartışılan erkeklik
temalarının katılımcılarımız tarafından farklı söylemlerle ortaya konulduğunu
gözlemledik. Erkekliğe yaklaşmak için oluşturduğumuz bütünleyici teorik
çerçeve, elde ettiğimiz görgül bulguları betimlememizi sağladı, diğer bir
anlatımla, erkeklerin erkekliği anlamlandırma ve bunu çeşitli söylemsel
stratejilerle ortaya koyma pratiklerini anlamlandırmamıza yol açtı. 

Keywords

Erkeklik(ler), erkek kimliği, kimlik müzakereleri, söylemler, tematik analiz

“Jar Oppening” Men and Women Who “Can Use Their Brains”: Male University Stutents Masculinity Negotiations

Abstract

In this research we established a
theoretical framework that brings together social psychological and
sociological approaches to understand masculinity. We aimed to synthesize
discursive psychology, social identity theory, self-categorization theory and
hegemonic masculinity approach to analyze the masculinity phenomenon. Based on
this theoretical framework, we conducted three focus group interviews with men.
A total of 18 undergraduate students participated in the research. After
transcribing the entire focus group interviews, we analyzed the data using
thematic analysis and discourse analysis techniques. We observed that the
topics of masculinity as found and discussed previously in the literature were
put forward by our participants in their different discourses. The
complementary theoretical framework we have put together to approach
masculinity allowed us to describe the empirical findings we have obtained. In
other words, we made sense of men's interpretation of masculinity and their
practice of putting it into various discursive strategies.

Keywords

Masculinities, masculine identity, identity negotiation, discourses, thematic analysis

References

• Akça, E. B., & Tönel, E. (2011). Erkek(lik) çalışmalarına teorik bir çerçeve: Feminist çalışmalardan hegemonik erkekliğe. İ. Erdoğan (Ed.), Medyada hegemonik erkek(lik) ve temsil içinde (s. 11-39). İstanbul: Kalkedon.
• Alcock, J., & Sadava, S. (2014). An introduction to social psychology: Global perspectives. London: Sage.
• Altınay, A. G. (2013). ‘Askerlik yapmayana adam denmez’: Zorunlu askerlik, erkeklik ve vatandaşlık. N. Y. Sünbüloğlu (Ed.), Erkek millet asker millet: Türkiye’de militarizm, milliyetçilik, erkek(lik)ler içinde. Ankara: İletişim.
• Arık, E. (2013). Türkiye'de psikoloji bölümleri kontenjanları. Erişim tarihi 14 Mayıs 2018, htpp://www.enginarik.com
• Atay, T. (2004). “Erkeklik” en çok erkeği ezer! Toplum ve Bilim, 101, 11-30.
• Barutçu, A. (2013). Türkiye’de erkeklik inşasının bedensel ve toplumsal aşamaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kadın Çalışmaları ABD. Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi.
• Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 453-467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4
• Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 487-508. doi:10.1002/ejsp.551
• Bolak-Boratav, H., Okman-Fişek, G. ve Eslen-Ziya, H. (2017). Erkekliğin Türkiye halleri. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Bozok, M., (2009), Feminizmin erkekler cephesindeki yankısı: Erkekler ve erkeklikler üzerine eleştirel incelemeler. Cogito, 58, 269-284.
• Braidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 1-19. doi:10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.1.s
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context (3rd Ed.). In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 395-408). Ny: Guilford.
• Brym, R. J. (1998). New society: Sociology for the 21st century. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.
• Caballo, V. E., Salazar, I. C., Irurtia, M. J., Arias, B., Hofmann, S. G., & CISO-A Research Team. (2014). Differences in social between men and women across 18 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 35-40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.013
• Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(5), 551-604.
• Connell, R. W. (2014). The sociology of gender in Southern perspective. Current Sociology Monograph, 62 (4), 550-567. doi:10.1177/0011392114524510
• Connell, R. W. 1998. Masculinities and globalization. Men and Masculinities, 1(1), 3-23.
• Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Connell, R. W., & Messeschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639
• Cornwall, A., & Lindisfarne, N. (Eds.) (1994). Dislocating masculinities: Comparative ethnographies. London: Routledge.
• Deaux, K. (2006). To be an immigrant. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369
• Demez, G. (2005). Kabadayıdan sanal delikanlıya değişen erkek imgesi. İstanbul: Babil.
• Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 3-29). LA: Sage.
• Duckitt, J. (2010). Historical overview. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 29-45). LA: Sage.
• Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (vol 2, pp. 458-476). London: Sage.
• Edley, N. (2017). Men and masculinity: The basics. New York: Routledge.
• Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Men in perspective: Practice, power and identity. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall. Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 947-982. doi:10.1037/a0027930
• Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, 14, 341–352. doi:10.1177/ 1468794113481790
• Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (2000). The relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 71-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez-Mosquera, P. M., van Vianen, A. E., & Manstead, A. S. (2004). Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 87-94. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.87
• Glick, P., Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Akbaş, G., Orta, İ. M., & Ceylan, S. (2016). Why do women endorse honour beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75(11-12), 543-554. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5
• Gutmann, M. C. (1996). The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico city. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 18 (3), 219-229. doi:10.1002/1098-2337
• Hayes, N. (2010). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analyzing data. Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Helgeson, V. S. (2012). The psychology of gender (4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Ishii-Kuntz, M. (2003). Balancing fatherhood and work: Emergence of diverse masculinities in contemporary Japan. In J. E. Roberson & N. Suzuki (Eds.), Men and masculinities in contemporary Japan. London: Routledge Curzon.
• Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55-64. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7.
• Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, (vol. 2, pp. 313-343). London: Sage.
• Kandiyoti, D. (1997). Cariyeler, bacılar, yurttaşlar: Kimlikler ve toplumsal dönüşümler. İstanbul: Metis.
• Kessler, S. J., Ashenden, D. J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Ockers and disco-maniacs: Sex, gender and secondary schooling. Sydney: Inner City Education Centre.
• Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: The Free Press.
• Kimmel, M. (Ed.) (1987). Changing men: New directions in the study of men and masculinity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• McLean, C. P., & Anderson, E. R. (2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 496-505. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.05.003
• Morris, K. L. (2013). Differentiating between objectification and animalization: Associations between women, objects, and animals. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. htpp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4831
• Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Westview, Boulder, CO, USA.
• Onaran, O., Büker, S. ve Bir, A. A. (1998). Eskişehir'de erkek rol ve tutumlarına ilişkin alan araştırması. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi İletişim Bilimleri Fakültesi.
• Onur, H. ve Koyuncu, B. (2004). “Hegemonik” erkekliğin görünmeyen yüzü: Sosyalizasyon sürecinde erkeklik oluşumları ve krizleri üzerine düşünceler. Toplum ve Bilim, 101, 31-49.
• Osterman, L. L., & Brown, R. P. (2011). Culture of honor and violence against the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (12), 1611-1623. doi:10.1177/0146167211418529.
• Özbay, C. (2013). Türkiye’de hegemonik erkekliği aramak. Doğu Batı, 63, 185-204.
• Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 70–78. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70
• Peace, B., & Pringle, K. (Eds.) (2001). A man’s world? Changing men’s practices in a globalized world. London: Zed Books.
• Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discource and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage.
• Puente, S., & Cohen, D. (2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 449-460. doi:10.1177/0146167202250912
• Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Akbaş, G. (2013). Namus kültürlerinde “namus” ve “namus adına kadına şiddet”: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 16(32), 76-91.
• Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.
• Selek, P. (2008). Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak. Ankara: İletişim.
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Şimşek, A. ve Alaslan, F. (2014). Milliyetçi tarihten milli tarihe, çatışmacı eğitimden barışçı eğitime doğru Türkiye’de tarih ders kitapları. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, 40. Erişim tarihi 14 Mayıs, http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/382696
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.) (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Üskül, A. K., Cross, S. E., Sunbay, Z., Gercek-Swing, B., & Ataca, B. (2012). Honor bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (7), 1131-1151. doi:10.1177/0022022111422258
• Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 997-1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997.
• Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and Psychology, 9(3), 335-356. doi:10.1177/0959353599009003012
• Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpratative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9(3), 431-56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42888205
• Yaman Efe, Ş., & Ayaz, S. (2010). Domestic violence against women and women's opinions related to domestic violence. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 11(1), 23-29.