Evlilik Anlamına İlişkin Metaforik Bir İnceleme

Year 2019, Volume: 48 Issue: 1, 693 - 736, 21.04.2019

Nilüfer Özabacı , Serdar Körük , Ahmet Kara

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı evli, bekar, nişanlı ve
boşanmış bireylerin evliliğin anlamına ilişkin algılarının metafor analizi
yoluyla incelenmesidir. Araştırmada belirtilen sorulara yanıt aranmaya
çalışılmıştır; 1. Araştırma kapsamında evli, bekâr, nişanlı ve boşanmış
bireylerin evlilik anlamı kavramına ilişkin geliştirdikleri metaforlar
nelerdir?  2. Araştırma kapsamındaki
katılımcıların cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi ve medeni durum gibi demografik
özelliklerine göre evliliğin anlamına ilişkin geliştirdikleri metaforlar nasıl
farklılaşmaktadır? Araştırmanın çalışma grubu amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden
maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme tekniği ile belirlenmiştir. Çalışma grubu 110
kişiden oluşmaktadır. 110 bireyin 66’sı kadın 44’ü erkek olmak üzere 53 evli,
50’si bekâr, 5’i boşanmış, 2’si nişanlı/sözlü bireylerdir. Katılımcıların
evlilik olgusuna dair geliştirdikleri metaforları belirlemek amacıyla forma
“Evlilik …………… gibidir, çünkü…………….” cümlesi konularak katılımcılardan bu
cümleyi tamamlamaları istenmiştir. Veriler metafor analizi ile incelenmiştir.
110 katılımcının geliştirmiş olduğu 101 adet metaforun tanımlanmasından sonra metaforların
oluşturduğu 11 adet kavramsal kategorinin geliştirilmesi tamamlanmıştır. 11
kategori şu isimlerle sıralanmıştır; mutluluk, güven,  gerçekçilik, üretkenlik,  çaba-emek-mücadele, engellenmişlik-yoksunluk,
karşılıklılık-beklenti, 
birliktelik-dayanışma, bilinmezlik-belirsizlik, risk ve gelişim.

Keywords

Evlilik, Anlam, Metafor

A Metaphoric Examination of the Meaning of Marriage

Abstract

The aim of this study is
to investigate the meaning of the marriage concept for married, non-married,
engaged and divorced participants through metaphor analysis. The answers to the
following questions were sought in this research; 1. What are the metaphors
about the meaning of marriage developed by married, non-married, engaged and
divorced individuals? 2. How do the metaphors differ based on gender, education
level, and marital status of participants? The study group was determined by
the maximum variation sampling technique. In this study, the sample group
consisted of 110 participants including 44 men and 66 women. Participants were
divided into groups as 53 married, 50 single, and 5 divorced and 2 engaged
individuals. The data were collected in Turkish through sentence completion
exercises: “Marriage is like … because …”. An otherwise blank piece of paper
with this sentence completion exercise at the top of the page was given to all
the participants. The data were analyzed through metaphor analysis. According
to the findings, the sample group produced 101 different valid metaphors from
total of 110 people. These metaphors were grouped under 11 different conceptual
categories considering their common traits. The results indicated that the
participants described the meaning of marriage metaphorically as happiness,
confidence, realism, productivity, effort-labor-struggle,
frustration-deprivation, reciprocity-expectation, togetherness-solidarity,
uncertainty-ambiguity, risk and development.

Keywords

Marriage, Meaning, Metaphor

References

• Aktaş, Ö. (2011). Reasons of divorce and difficulties met following divorce (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Educational Sciences, İzmir, Turkey.
• Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. (2000). Toplumsal kültürün kurum kültürü ve insan kaynakları uygulamalan üzerine etkileri [The effects of social culture on corporate culture and human resources practices]. Ankara: Turkish Psychology Association.
• Baltacı, Ö. (2015). The evaluation of married individuals’ metaphorical perception towards the concepts “family” and “marriage” in terms of attachment styles. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 6(21), 223-243.
• Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
• Chatav, Y., & Whisman, M. A. (2009). Partner schemas and relationship functioning: A states of mind analysis. Behavior Therapy, 40(1), 50-56.
• Chiu, M. Y. L., & Zhou, R. D. H. (2013). Single mothers or women in single parenthood (WISP)? A report and reflection on the development of a brief marital metaphor questionnaire (MMQ-10). Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 23(3), 198-214. doi: 10.1080/02185385.2013.803934
• Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(2), 609–634. doi: 10.2307/2580494
• Collins, E. C., & Green, J. L. (1990). Metaphors: The construction of a perspective. Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 71-77. doi: 10.1080/00405849009543435
• Dunn, C. D. (2004). Cultural models and metaphors for marriage: An analysis of discourse at Japanese wedding receptions. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, 32(3), 348–373. doi: 10.1525/eth.2004.32.3.348
• Ersöz, A. G. (1999). Cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin beklenti, tutum, davranışlar ve eşler arası sorumluluk paylaşımı: Kamuda çalışan yönetici kadınlar örneği [Expectation, attitudes, behaviors and sharing of responsibilities among spouses: Example of executive women working in the public sector]. Ankara: Ministry of Culture and Tourism Press.
• Fortin, N. M. (2005). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries. oxford review of Economic Policy, 21(3), 416-438.
• Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Günay, G., & Bener, Ö. (2011). Perception of family life in frame of gender roles of women. Turkish Journal of Social Researches, 15(3), 157-171.
• Günay, G., & Bener, Ö. (2013). Attitudes of young adults towards marriage and family life. Karabük University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-16.
• Hamamci, Z. (2005). Dysfunctional relationship beliefs in marital conflict. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23(3), 245-261.
• Hovardaoğlu, S., & Binici-Azizoğlu, S. (1996). Marital comparison level index: Validity and reliability. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 11(38), 66-76.
• İmamoğlu, E.O. (1994). Değişim sürecinde aile; Evlilik ilişkileri bireysel gelişim ve demokratik değerler [Family in the process of change: Marriage relations, individual development and democratic values]. Ankara: Turkish Republic Prime Ministry Family Research Institution Publications.
• Karadağ, Ş. (2015). The role of inter family communication in marital adjustment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Selçuk University, Institute of Social Sciences, Konya, Turkey.
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2007). Metaforlar: Hayat, anlam ve dil (G. Y. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Paradigma.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in mind: Transformation through symbolic modelling. London: The Developing Company Press.
• McGinnis, S. L. (2003). Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: A model of marriage entry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 105–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00105.x
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Genişletilmiş bir kaynak kitap: Nitel veri analizi (Çev. Ed., S. Akbaba Altun ve A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Mischler III, J. J. (2013). Metaphor across time and conceptual space: The interface of embodiment and cultural models. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Morgan G. (1998). Yönetim ve örgüt teorilerinde metafor (Çev. G. Bulut). İstanbul: BZD Yayıncılık.
• Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor analysis in psychology - method, theory, and fields of application. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line journal], 1(2). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mosere.htm.
• Nazlı, S. (2014). Aile danışmanlığı [Family counseling] (11th ed.). Ankara: Anı.
• Neuman, W. L. & Robson, K. (2014). Basics Of Social Research. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
• Nichols, M. (2013). Aile terapisi [Family therapy](O. Gündüz, Çev.) İstanbul: Kaknüs Psikoloji
• Ng, M. L. (1992). Cultural factors in psychiatric rehabilitation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Mental Health, 21(4), 33-38.
• Özabacı, N., & Erkan, Z. (2014). Aile danışmanlığı. Kuram ve uygulamalara genel bir bakış [Family counseling. An overview of the theory and practice]. Ankara: Pegem.
• Piercy, F. P., McWey, L. M., Tice, S., James, E. J., Morris, M., & Arthur, K. (2005). It was the best of times, it was the worst of times: Doctoral students’ experiences of family therapy research training through alternative forms of data representation. Family Process, 44(3), 363–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00065.x
• Piercy, F., & Benson, K. (2005). Aesthetic forms of data representation in qualitative family therapy research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(1), 107–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01547.x
• Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and decisions at the family→ work interface. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1011-1039.
• Quinn, N. (1987). Culture and contradiction: The case of Americans reasoning about marriage. Ethos, 24(3), 391–425. doi: 10.1525/eth.1996.24.3.02a00010
• Quinn, N. (2005). How to reconstruct schemas people share, from what they say. In N. Quinn (Ed.), Finding culture in talk: A collection of methods (pp. 35–81). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rosenblatt, P. C., & Li, X. (2012). Researching Chinese cultural understandings of marriage via similes and metaphors on the world wide web. Marriage & Family Review, 48(2), 109–124. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2011.626551
• Saban, A. (2008). Metaphors about school. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 459-496.
• Saban, A. (2009). Prospective teachers’ mental images about the concept of student. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 7(2), 281-326.
• Saxton. L. (1982). Marriage. The nature of marriage, the individual, marriage, and the family. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
• Su, L. I. (2002). What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 589–613.
• Ümmet, D. (2017) A metaphoric examination of marriage perception of higher educated married persons. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 7(1), 205-235.
• Vefikuluçay, D., Zeyneloğlu, S., Eroğlu, K., & Taşkın, l. (2007). Perception of and views on gender roles of senior students enrolled at Kafkas University. Hacettepe University Journal of Nursing, 14(2), 26-38
• Whisman, M. A., & Delinsky, S. S. (2002). Marital satisfaction and an information-processing measure of partner-schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(5), 617-627.
• Yalçın, İ., & Hamamcı, Z. (2012). Evlilik öncesi psikolojik danışma [Pre-marital counseling]. Ankara: Anı.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Zaltman, G. (1996). Metaphorically speaking: New technique uses multidisciplinary ideas to improve qualitative research. Marketing Research Forum, 8(2), 13–20.
• Zaltman, G. (1997). Breaking out of the box: Meaning and means. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 12–14.
• Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think? Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Christensen & Olson.
• Zhou, D.H. (2012). Conceptualization and metaphor: Exploring the marital conceptualization of young college students. In Youth Research and Practice Centre of Hong Kong Baptist University (Ed.), Youth as they are: New imagination of social work. Hong Kong: Red Publish, (In Chinese).