A SUGGESTION TO OVERCOME THE RISKS OF ESSENTIALITY AND CONSTRUCTIONALITY IN IDENTITY DISCUSSIONS: THE INTERSECTIONALITY PERSPECTIVE

Year 2023, , 273 - 290, 28.10.2023

Nur Manolya Şen Çatalkaya

https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.1382539

Abstract

One of the main discussion topics that has gained an important place in the identity literature is the debate between the view that connects identity to the essence, accepting it as natural and given, and the constructed, variable and fluid view. While the essentialist approach risks treating identity and identity categories as solid, fixed and undifferentiated elements, it misses the differentiated experiences of subcategories. The constructivist approach, on the other hand, carries the risk of missing the impact of structures and preventing the creation of tools that will help to understand group and collective identities, with its emphasis on the impact of micro-level changes on the formation/change of identity. In this study, the possibilities offered by the intersectionality perspective, which has gained an important place in the literature in the last thirty years, will be discussed in order to overcome the risks of essentialist and constructivist approaches in identity literature. The intersectionality perspective is a perspective that takes into account multiple identities, as well as being an approach that focuses on context, power relations, inequalities, positionalities, analysis and praxis. It offers the opportunity to read and understand identities through the complexity of social life and relations. Additionally, it underlines connecting with social justice and taking action against inequalities.

Keywords

Identity, intersectionality perspective, essentialism, constructivism

KİMLİK TARTIŞMALARINDA ÖZCÜLÜĞÜN VE İNŞACILIĞIN RİSKLERİNİ AŞMAK İÇİN BİR ÖNERİ: KESİŞİMSELLİK PERSPEKTİFİ

Abstract

Kimlik literatüründe önemli bir yer edinmiş temel tartışma konularından birisi, kimliği öze bağlayan, doğal ve verili kabul eden görüş ile inşa edilen, değişken, akışkan olarak kabul eden görüş arasında sürdürülen tartışmalardır. Özcü görüş, kimliği ve kimlik kategorilerini katı, sabit ve farklılaşmayan unsurlar olarak değerlendirme riski taşırken alt kategorilerin farklılaşan deneyimlerini kaçırmaktadır. İnşacı görüş ise, mikro düzeyde yaşanan değişimlerin kimliğin oluşumu/değişimi üzerindeki etkiye yaptığı vurguyla yapıların etkisini kaçırma ve grup ile kolektif kimlikleri anlamaya yarayacak araçların ortaya konmasını engelleme riski taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kimlik literatüründe özcü ve inşacı perspektiflerin taşıdığı riskleri aşmak için, son otuz yılda literatürde önemli bir yer edinen kesişimsellik perspektifinin sunduğu imkanlar tartışmaya açılacaktır. Kesişimsellik perspektifi çoklu kimlikleri dikkate alan bir perspektif olduğu gibi, bağlama, güç ilişkilerine, eşitsizliklere, konumsallıklara, analiz ve praksise odaklanan bir yaklaşım olması sebebiyle kimlikleri, toplumsal hayatın ve ilişkilerin karmaşıklığı içinden okuma ve anlama imkânı sunmakta, eşitsizliklere karşın sosyal adaletle bağ kurmanın ve harekete geçmenin altını çizmektedir.

Keywords

Kimlik, kesişimsellik perspektifi, özcülük, inşacılık, sosyal eşitsizlik

References

• Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Anthias, F. (2002). Where do i belong? Narrating collective identity and translocational positionality. Ethnicities, 2(4), 491-514.
• Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis. Ethnicities, 0(0), 1-17. doi:10.1177/1468796812463547.
• Anthias, F. (2014). The intersections of class, gender, sexuality and 'race': the political economy of gendered violence. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 27(2), 153-171.
• Ardıç, A. (2022). Kesişimsellik: arka plan, tanım ve eleştiriler. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/The Journal of Social Sciences, 9(56), 484-501.
• Arun, Ö. (2016). Çağdaş Türkiye'de Yaşlılık ve Eşitsizlik. Mediterranean journal of humanities, 4(2), 29-48.
• Arun, Ö. (2021). "Demografi demokrasiyi belirleyecek bu ülkede." Özgür Arun ile Yeni Yüzyılda Yaşlanma Üzerine Söyleşi. Strata (6). (T. Ulusoy, Röportaj Yapan) Phoenix Yayınevi. Ankara.
• Azzarito, L. (2016). “Permission to speak”: A Postcolonial view on racialized bodies and PE in the current context of globalization. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(2), 141-150. doi:10.1080/02701367.2016.1166474.
• Bauman, Z. (2021). Kimlik (5. b.). (L. Ünsaldı, Dü., & M. Hazır, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayınları.
• Brekhus, W. H. (2020). The sociology of identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond "identity". Theory and Society, 29, 1-47.
• Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Calasanti, T. (2019). On the intersections of age, gender and sexualities in research on ageing. A. King, K. Almack, & R. L. Jones içinde, Intersections of ageing, gender and sexualities: multidisciplinary interntaional perspectives (s. 13-29). Bristol: Policy Press.
• Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Callero, P. L. (2003). The sociology of the self. Annual review of the sociology, 19, 115-133.
• Carastathis, A. (2013). Identity categories as potential coalitions. Signs, 38(4), 941–965.
• Cohen, A. P. (1985). Symbolic construction of community. New York: Routledge.
• Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity, formation, agency, and culture. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
• Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). . Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 138-167.
• Deschamps, J.-C., & Devos, T. (1998). Regarding the relationship between social identity and personal identity. S. Worchel, M. J. Francisco, D. Pa’ez, & J. C. Deschamps (Dü) içinde, Social identity: international perspectives (s. 1-12). London: Sage.
• Egeland, C., & Gressgård, R. (2007). The “will to empower”: managing the complexity of the others. NORA—Nordic Journal of Women's Studies, 15(4), 207-219.
• Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 53, 161–86.
• Elster, J. (2019). The reflexive voices of young people in Tottenham: youth-identity formation, reflexivity and negative representations. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/9665/ adresinden alındı.
• Fearon, J. D. (1999). What is identity (as we now use the word)? 03 2022 tarihinde stanford.edu: https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/What-is-Identity-as-we-now-use-the-word-.pdf adresinden alındı.
• Fehrenbacher, A. E., & Patel, D. (2020). Translating the theory of intersectionality into quantitative and mixed methods for empirical gender transformative research on health. Culture, health & sexuality, 22(1), 145-160. doi:10.1080/13691058.2019.1671494.
• Fortier, A.-M. (2000). Migrant belongings: memory, space, identities. Oxford: Berg.
• Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. H. L. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow içinde, Michel Foucault: beyond structualism and hermeneutics (2. b., s. 208-226). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Foucault, M. (2014). Bilginin Arkeolojisi. (V. Urhan, Çev.) İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Gleason, P. (1983). Identifying identity: a semantic history. The journal of American history, 69(4), 910-931.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
• Goffman, E. (2014). Damga. (Ş. Geniş, L. Ünsaldı, & S. Ağırnaslı, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
• Gressgård, R. (2008). Mind the gap: Intersectionality, complexity and ‘the event’. Theory and Science, 10(1), 1-29.
• Grosz, E. 1. (1984 [1985]). Criticism, feminism and the institution [interview with Gayatri Spivak]. Thesis Eleven, 10(11), 175-187.
• Hall, S. 1.–1. (1996). Introduction: who needs ‘identity’? S. Hall, & P. D. Gay (Dü) içinde, Questions of cultural identity (s. 1-17). London: Sage.
• Hill Collins, P. (1993). Toward a new vision: race, class and gender as categories of analysis and connection. Race, Sex and Class, 1(1), 25-45.
• Hill Collins, P. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. The Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 1-20. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142.
• Hill Collins, P., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hill Collins, P., & vd. (2021). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Contemporary Political Theory, 20, 690–725.
• Hopkins, P. (2019). Social geography I: Intersectionality. Progress in human geography, 43(5), 937-947.
• Jenkins, R. (2016). Sosyal Kimlik. (G. Bostancı, Çev.) İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
• Lindesmith, A. R., Strauss, A. L., & Denzin, N. K. (1999). Social Psychology (8 b.). London: Sage Publications.
• Maalouf, A. (2021). Ölümcül Kimlikler (55. b.). (A. Bora, Çev.) İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Malesevic, S. (2006). Identity as ideology. New York: Palgrave macmillan.
• McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800.
• Öğütle, V. S., & vd. (2021). Covid-19 sürecinde yalnız yaşayan yaşlı kadınların baş etme stratejileri: ilişkisel perspektiften nitel bir araştırma. Strata(6), 117-145.
• Özdemir, E. (2014). Kimlik. G. Atılgan, & E. A. Aytekin (Dü) içinde, Siyaset Bilimi (4. b., s. 201-213). İstanbul: Yordam kitap.
• Pompper, D. (2014). Social identities are intersectional. D. Pompper içinde, Practical and theoretical implications of successfully doing difference in organizations (International perspectives on equality, diversity and inclusion, Vol. 1) (s. 45-61). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Prasad, A. (2012). Beyond analytical dichotomies. Human Relations, 65(5), 567-595. doi:10.1177/0018726711432183.
• Riessman, C. K. (2003). Performing identities in illness narrative: masculinity and multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Research Copyright, 3(1), 5-33.
• Schwarz, K. C., & Williams, J. P. (2020). Introduction to the social construction of identity and authenticity. K. C. Schwarz, & J. P. Williams içinde, Studies on the Social Construction of Identity and Authenticity (s. 1-24). London: Routledge.
• Scott, S. (2015). Negotiating identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Severs, E., Celis, K., & Erzeel, S. (2016). Power, privilege and disadvantage: intersectionality theory and political representation. Politics, 36(4), 346-354.
• Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles(59), 301-311.
• Spivak, G. C. (2005). Scattered speculations on the subaltern and the popular. Postcolonial Studies, 8(4), 475-486.
• Swartz, D. (2015). Kültür ve İktidar Pierre Bourdieu'nün Sosyolojisi (3. b.). (E. Gen, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. Austin, & S. Worchel (Dü) içinde, The social psychology of intergroup relations (s. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
• Thoits, P. A. (2003). Personal agency in the accumulation of role-identities. P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, P. A. Thoits, & R. T. Serpe (Dü) içinde, Advances in identity theory and research (s. 179-194). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
• Tilly, C. (1995). Citizenship, identity and social history. International review of social history, 40(3), 1-17.
• Williams, R. (2000). Making identity matter. Durham: Sociologypress.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European journal of women's studies, 13(3), 193-209.
• Yuval-Davis, N., & Kaptani, E. (2009). Performing identities: participatory theatre among refugees. M. Wetherell (Dü.) içinde, Theorizing identities and social action (s. 56-74). London: Palgrave Macmillan.