THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOUS ORDER AND SOCIAL CAPITAL WITH REGARDS TO TRUST AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT DIMENSIONS: THE CASE OF MARAŞ

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this article, the relationship between 'trust' and 'civic engagement' which are supposed to be the main indicators of social capital and religious order have been evaluated. While trust has been elaborated in terms of "social trust", "trust among religious orders" and "trust to non-İslamic groups", civic engagement has been analyzed with regards to the dimensions of formal and informal interactions and voluntary donations. For this aim, the findings of a field survey carried out in Kahramanmaraş by 400 people have been used. At the first level of analysis, religious order and at the second level the extent of religiosity of those orders has been taken as independent variable and the relationship with indicators of social capital has been explored. Keywords: Social Capital, Religous Order, Religiosity, Civic Engagement, Trust

Keywords

• -

GÜVEN VE SİVİL BAĞLILIK BOYUTUYLA SOSYAL SERMAYE ve MEZHEP: MARAŞ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

ÖZ Bu makalede, sosyal sermayenin temel bileşenleri olarak kabul edilen 'güven' ve 'sivil bağlılık' göstergelerinin mezhep ile ilişkisi değerlendirilmektedir. Güven genel olarak insanlara güven, mezhepler arası güven ve gayrı Müslimlere güven şeklinde ele alınırken, sivil bağlılık hem enformel ve formel etkileşim hem de gönüllü yardımlar boyutuyla incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla Kahramanmaraş ilinde 400 kişi ile yapılan saha araştırmasının verilerinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmanın ilk düzeyinde mezhep ikinci düzeyinde ise mezheplerin dindarlığı bağımsız değişken olarak kullanılmış ve sosyal sermaye göstergeleri ile ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal Sermaye, Mezhepler, Dindarlık, Sivil Bağlılık, Güven

Keywords

• Sosyal Sermaye, Mezhepler, Dindarlık, Sivil Bağlılık, Güven

References

1. Berger-Schmitt, R (2000). “Social Cohesion As an Aspect of the Quality of Societies: Concept and Measurement”. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) EuReporting Working Paper No.14. 2000.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital”. John G. Richardson (Der.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.
3. Chen, X. (2000), Both Glue and Lubricant: Transnational Ethnic Social Capital as a Source of Asia-Pacific Subregionalism, Policy Sciences, Vol. 33, No. 3 pp.269-287.
4. Coleman, J. (2003). Religious Social Capital: Its Nature, Social Location and Limits, Religion as Social Capital: Producing the Common Good içinde. C. E. Smidth (Der.), 2003. Texas: Baylor University Press. s: 33-47
5. Coleman, J. S.(1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
6. Coleman, J.S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” in American Journal of Sociology. 94:95-120.
7. Cote, S ve Healy, T. (2001) The Well-being of 'ations. The Rrole of Human and Social Capital.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
8. Çarkoğlu, A ve Toprak, B. (2006). Değişen Türkiye’de Din, Toplum ve Siyaset. Ankara: Tesev Yayınları, Aralık 2006. Erdoğan, Emre. (2006), Sosyal Sermaye, Güven ve Türk Gençliği, http://www.urbanhobbit.net/PDF/Sosyal%20Sermaye_emre%20erdogan.pdf,

9. Field, (2009). Sosyal Sermaye, Ankara: İletişim Yayınları
10. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
11. Fukuyama, F. (2001). “Social Capital, Civil Society and Development.” Third World Quarterly 22: 7-20.
12. Gittell, R. ve Vidal, A. 1998. Community Organizing. Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. London: Sage. 1998.
13. Gundelach, Peter ve Torpe, Lars (1996) ‘Voluntary associations; New types of associations and democracy’, Paper presented to the ECPR Joint sessions of Workshops, Oslo.
14. Inglehart, J; Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York, Cambridge University Press
15. Kawachi, I; Coutts, A; Pinto, P; Cave, B, Social Capital Indicators in UK, A Research project for the Commission for Racial Equality, Ben Cave Associates Ltd, Haziran 2007
16. Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2001) Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12): 2125-2143
17. Lewandowski, J. D. (2006). “Capitalising Sociability: Rethinking the Theory of Social Capital”, Assessing Social Capital: Concept, Policy and Practice. Rosalind Edwards, Jane Franklin ve Janet Holland (Der.) UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. 2006: 14-29
18. Nagy, G. 2009-08-08 "Social Capital and Religion" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 2010-07-08, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p307433_index.html
19. OECD. The Well-Being of 'ations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. OECD: Paris. 2001.
20. Portes, A ve Landolt, P. (1996) “The Downside of Social Capital”. The American Prospect (26) Mayıs-Haziran. S: 18-21, 94.
21. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Putnam, R. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” in Journal of Democracy. 6: 65-78.
23. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. 2001. Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/6/1825848.pdf
24. Smidth, C. E. (Der.). (2003). “Introduction”. Religion as Social Capital: Producing the Common Good. Texas: Baylor University Press. S: 1-19
25. Thompson, K. 1982. Emile Durkheim. London: Tavistock Publications.
26. Uslaner, E. M; Brown, M. Inequality, Trust and Political Engagement. Annual Meeting of American Political http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTECAREGTOPSOCDEV/Resources/Uslaner_Inequalit y_trust_political_engagement.pdf ağustos- 1 Eylül 2002. Boston.
27. Wilkinson, R. G. (1996). Unhealthy Societies:The Afflictions of Inequality.London: Routledge.