FLÖRT UYGULAMALARINDAKİ İMAJLAR DÜNYASI: “KLİŞELERİN DİKTATÖRLÜĞÜ”NE KARŞI DOĞALLIK

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 1 - Visual Culture, 13 - 34, 27.06.2022

Gözde Cöbek

https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2022.1.1334

Cited By: 4

Abstract

“Kadınlar erkeklerde sosyoekonomik statüye, erkeklerse fiziksel güzelliğe bakar” miti, sürekli olarak tekrar tekrar yeniden üretilmektedir. İmajların üretimine odaklanan çevrimiçi flört literatürü, bu cinsiyetçi ve heteronormatif ikiliğin benlik sunumlarında nasıl baskın olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Heteroseksüel bireylerin flört uygulamalarını nasıl kullandıklarına bakan bu çalışma; güzellik-statü ikiliğinin bir ürünü olan bu profillerin nasıl algılandığına, imajların tüketimine odaklanarak literatürdeki boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlamaktadır. Video mülakat ve yeniden canlandırma tekniklerini kullanarak literatüre metodolojik bir katkı da sunmaktadır. Kullanıcıların kaydırma, eş seçme, pratiklerini inceleyen bu araştırma; güzellik-statü ikiliğinin nasıl klişeler diktatörlüğü yarattığını, buna karşın bireylerin nasıl doğallığı çekici bularak bu klişe imajlar bombardımanına duygulanımsal bir tepki verdiklerini göstermektedir. Bedenin salt kurumlar, yasalar ve normlar tarafından şekillendirilip denetlenmediğinin, aynı zamanda içinde bulunduğu durumlara, ortamlara nasıl cevap verdiğinin, direndiğinin altını çizmektedir. Makale, gelecek çalışmaları imajların bedenlere neler yapabildiklerine ve bedenlerin bu imajlara nasıl tepki verdiklerine odaklanarak güzellik-statü mitini ifşa etmek yerine onu sekteye uğratmaya, bozmaya davet etmektedir.

Keywords

çevrimiçi flört, Tinder, benlik sunumu, duygulanım, eş seçimi

THE WORLD OF IMAGES IN DATING APPS: “DICTATORSHIP OF CLICHÉS” VS. NATURALITY

Abstract

The myth “women prioritize socioeconomic status whereas men value physical beauty” is continuously reproduced. The heterosexual online dating literature that addresses image production highlights the dominance of this gendered and heteronormative binary in self-presentations. Examining how heterosexual individuals use dating apps, this study focuses on image consumption and how profiles as the products of this beauty-status binary are perceived. Using video interviews and reenactment techniques to analyze users’ practices of swiping, i.e., mate selection, this study also offers a novel research method to the literature. The findings demonstrate how the so-called binary creates a dictatorship of clichés and how individuals affectively, though partially, respond to this visual bombardment by feeling an attraction toward naturality. It underlines that bodies are not simply shaped and controlled by cultural institutions, norms, and laws but also respond to the situations and environments in which they find themselves. This paper invites future studies to focus on what images can do to bodies and how bodies respond to them and break the beauty-status myth rather than expose it. 

Keywords

online dating, dating apps, self-presentation, affect, mate selection

References

• Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion. (2. Basım). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Alam, S. S., Islam, Md. R., Mokhbul, Z. K. M. ve Makmor, N. B. (2018). Factors affecting intention to use online dating sites in Malaysia. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7 (4.28), 192-198.
• Albury, K., Burgess, J., Light, B., Race, K. ve Wilken, R. (2017). Data cultures of mobile dating and hook-up apps: Emerging issues for critical social science research. Big Data & Society, (July-December), 1-11.
• Almjeld, J. (2014). A rhetorician’s guide to love: Online dating profiles as remediated commonplace books. Computers and Composition, 32, 71-83.
• Arum, R., Roksa, J. ve Budig, M. J. (2008). The romance of college attendance: Higher education stratification and mate selection. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26, 107-121.
• Ash, J. (2009). Emerging spatialities of the screen: Video games and the reconfiguration of spatial awareness. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2105-2124.
• Bailliard, A. L. (2015). Video methodologies in research: Unlocking the complexities of occupation. Canadian Journal of Occupation Therapy, 82(1), 35-43.
• Baker, U. (2020). Kanaatlerden imajlara: Duygular sosyolojisine giriş (H. Abuşoğlu, Çev.). (2. Basım). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimisim. Durham ve Londra: Duke University Press.
• Birgün (16 Aralık 2019). Türkiye’de her 80 kişiden biri Tinder kullanıyor. Erişim: 15 Eylül 2020, https://www.birgun.net/haber/turkiye-de-her-80-kisiden-biri-tinder-kullaniyor-280213.
• Bivens, R. ve Hoque, A. S. (2018). Programming sex, gender, and sexuality: Infrastructural failures in the “feminist” dating app Bumble. Canadian Journal of Communication, 43, 441-459.
• Brooks, A. (7 Eylül 2021). 34 interesting & surprising online dating statistics in 2021. DatingAdvice.com. Erişim: 9 Eylül 2021, https://www.datingadvice.com/studies/iasods.
• Bryans, B. (2018). Texts so good that he can’t ignore: Sassy texting secrets for attracting high-quality men (and keeping the one you want). South Carolina: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Bryant, K. ve Sheldon, P. (2017). Cyber dating in the age of mobile apps: Understanding motives, attitudes, and characteristics of users. American Communication Journal, 19 (2), 1-15.
• Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 (1), 1-49.
• Casimiro, C. (2014). Portuguese online dating: Exploring gender differences in self-presentations. Revista Teknokultura, 11 (1), 117-141.
• Casimiro, C. (2015). Self-presentation in the Portuguese online dating scene: Does gender matter? I. Alev Degim, James Johnson ve Tao Fu (Der.), içinde, Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (s. 71-95). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
• Cazeaux, C. (2001). Introduction. Clive Cazeaux (Der.), içinde, The continental aesthetics reader (s. xiii-xvii). London ve New York: Routledge.
• Charitsis, V. (2016). Prosuming (the) self. Ephemera: Theory & politics in organization, 16 (3), 37-59.
• David, G. ve Cambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media + Society, (April-June), 1-11.
• Davis, E. M. ve Fingerman, K. L. (2016). Digital dating: Online profile content of older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 71 (6), 959-967.
• Debord, G. (2012). Gösteri toplumu (A. Ekmekçi ve O. Taşkent, Çev.). (4. Basım). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Duguay, S. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (3), 351-367.
• Duguay, S. (2019). You can’t use this app for that: Exploring off-label use through an investigation of Tinder. The Information Society, 1-13.
• Ekşisözlük (6 Ekim 2018). Kadınlar tipe mi paraya mı zekaya mı önem verir. Erişim: 7 Aralık 2021, https://eksisozluk.com/kadinlar-tipe-mi-paraya-mi-zekaya-mi-onem-verir--5807161.
• Ettin, E. (2014). Love at first site: Tips and tales for online dating success from a modern-day matchmaker. Texas: River Grove Books.
• Frohlick, S. ve Migliardi, P. (2011). Heterosexual profiling. Australian Feminist Studies, 26 (67), 73-88.
• Fuchs, C. (2013). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society, 23 (1), 97-123.
• Gewirtz-Meydan, A. ve Ayalon, L. (2018). Forever young: Visual representations of gender and age in online dating sites for older adults. Journal of Women & Aging, 30 (6), 484-502.
• Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe ve Paul Willis (Der.), içinde, Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79 (s. 117-128). Birmingham: Routledge.
• Han, B. (2018). Güzeli kurtarmak (K. Filiz, Çev.). İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları.
• Hess, A. ve Flores, C. (2018). Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media & Society, 1-18.
• Hoehn, L. (2015). You probably shouldn’t write that: Tips and tricks for creating online dating profile that doesn’t suck. Pennsylvania: Running Press.
• Illouz, E. (2019). The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Krüger, S. ve Spilde, A. C. (2018). Judging books by their covers – Tinder interface, usage, and sociocultural implications. Information, Communication & Society. Doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1572771.
• Latham, A. ve McCormack, D. (2009). Thinking with images in non-representational cities: Vignettes from Berlin. Area, 41, 252–62.
• Laurier, E. ve Philo, C. (2006). Cold shoulders and napkins handed: Gestures of responsibility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 193–208.
• Light, B., Burgess, J. ve Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20 (3), 881-900.
• Lindsay, M. (2015). Performative acts of gender in online dating: An auto-ethnography comparing sites. I. Alev Degim, James Johnson ve Tao Fu (Der.), içinde, Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (s. 242-261). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
• Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia (L. Wirth ve E. Shils, Çev.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
• Markowitz, D. M., Hancock, J. T. Ve Tong, S. T. (2018). Interpersonal dynamics in online dating: Profiles, matching, and discovery. Zizi Papacharissi (Der.), içinde, A networked self and love (s. 50-62). New York: Routledge.
• Massumi, B. (2015). Navigating movements. İçinde, Politics of affect (s. 1-46). Cambridge ve Malden: Polity Press.
• McClintock, E. A. (2014). Beauty and status: The illusion of exchange in partner selection? American Sociological Review, 79 (4), 575-604.
• McGloin, R. ve Denes, A. (2018). Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society, 20 (3), 919-936.
• McWilliams, S. ve Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35 (3), 411-436.
• Mirzoeff, N. (2016). How to see the world: An introduction to images, from self-portraits to selfies, maps to movies, and more. New York: Basic Books.
• Morris, J. W. ve Murray, S. (Der.) (2018). Appified: Culture in the age of apps. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
• Newett, L., Churchill, B., & Robards, B. (2017). Forming connections in the digital era: Tinder, a new tool in young Australian intimate life. Journal of Sociology, 1-16.
• Nolan, A., Paatsch, L. ve Scull, J. (2018). Video-based methodologies: the affordances of different viewpoints in understanding teachers’ tacit knowledge of practice that supports young children’s oral language. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41 (5), 536-547.
• Nurdan, G. (2011). Vitrinde yaşamak: 1980’lerin kültürel iklimi. (6. basım). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Oyer, P. (2014). Everything I ever needed to know about economics I learned from online dating. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
• Öztürk, S. (Yazar ve yönetmen). (21 Mayıs 2020). Takılma. (Birinci bölüm). [Belgesel serisi]. E. Arcak ve S. Öztürk (Yapımcılar), içinde, Dijital Flörtleşme. İstanbul: Ancyra Documentary & Film Production. Paasonen, S., Light, B. ve Jarrett, K. (2019). The dick pic: Harassment, curation, and desire. Social Media + Society, (April-June), 1-10.
• Peters, S. ve Salzsieder, H. (2018). What makes you swipe right?: Gender similarity in interpersonal attraction in a simulated online dating context. Journal of Psychological Research, 23 (4), 320-329.
• Pink, S. (2008). Mobilising visual ethnography: Making routes, making place and making images. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9 (3). Erişim: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1166/2575. Pink, S. (2011). Sensory digital photography: Re-thinking ‘moving’ and the image. Visual Studies, 26 (1), 4-13.
• Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, singapore, Washington DC: Sage.
• Pink, S. ve Mackley, K. L. (2014). Reenactment methodologies for everyday life research: art therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29 (2), 146–154.
• Pmilat (22 Mayıs 2014). Mark Fisher: The slow cancellation of the future [Video]. YouTube. Erişim: 29 Eylül 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgkLICTskQ&ab_channel=pmilat.
• Pozsar, M. H., Dumitrescu, A. I., Piticas, D. ve Constantinescu, S. (2018). Dating apps in the lives of young Romanian women. A preliminary study. Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11, 216-238.
• Ranzini, G. ve Lutz, C. (2017). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communication, 5 (1), 80-101.
• Ritzer, G. (2014). Prosumption: Evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? Journal of Consumer Culture, 14 (1), 3-24.
• Ritzer, G. ve Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10 (1), 13-36.
• Shaw, F. (2016). “Bitch I Said Hi”: The Bye Felipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society, (October-December), 1-10.
• Shortel, T. (2019). Social types (Simmel). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. DOI: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss320.pub2.
• Simmel, G. (2020). Bireysellik ve kültür (T. Birkan, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Statista Research Department (1 Haziran 2021). Most popular dating apps worldwide as of May 2021, by number of monthly downloads. Statista. Erişim: 9 Ağustos 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200234/most-popular-dating-apps-worldwide-by-number-of-downloads/.
• Su, X. ve Hu, H. (2019). Gender-specific preference in online dating. EPJ Data Science, 8, 12.
• Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L. ve Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67-78.
• Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture, and Society, 31 (1), 41-58.
• Vuzharov, M. (2019). UX & fomo. Looking for love or looking for options? Digital Age in Semiotics & Communication, 11, 74-79.
• Webb, A. (2013). Data, a love story: How I cracked the online dating code and met my match. New York: Penguin.
• Whitty, M. T. (2015). Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Security Journal, 28(4), 443-455.
• Zerach, G. (2016). Pathological narcissism, cyberbullying victimization and offending among homosexual and heterosexual participants in online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 292-299.
• Zijderveld, A. C. (2010). Klişelerin diktatörlüğü (K. Canatan, Çev.). İstanbul: Açılım Kitap.