Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Dijital İletişim Mecralarında Dezavantajlı Türlerin Sesi Olmak: Hayvanseverlerin Siyasal Katılım Faaliyetleri Üzerinde Empati ve Grup Bilincinin Rolü

Year 2021, Issue: 56, 142 - 164, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.969478

Abstract

Siyasal katılım faaliyetleri söz konusu olduğunda geleneksel öğreti, grup menfaatlerinin ve kişisel çıkarların katılım davranışlarını motive ettiğini aktarmaktadır. İnsan-merkezci yaklaşımın eleştirilmeye başlamasıyla birlikte bu geleneksel anlayış değişikliğe uğramıştır. Günümüzde çevreci hareketler özgeci motivasyon kaynaklarıyla da katılım faaliyetleri gerçekleştirmektedir. Bu noktada sunulan araştırma siyasal katılım davranışlarını güdüleyen motivasyon kaynaklarının her zaman insan-merkezli olmadığını, ekolojik merkezli hassasiyetlerin de dikkate alınması gereken toplumsal bir talep olduğunu görünür kılmayı amaçlıyor. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 524 hayvansever üzerinden kesitsel olarak toplanan veriler Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile analiz edilmektedir. Ulaşılan sonuçlar empati duygusunun hayvanseverlerin dijital iletişim kanallarında gerçekleştirdiği siyasal katılım faaliyetlerini oldukça güçlü bir biçimde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Empati ve grup bilinci; hayvanseverlerin dijital mecrada gündem oluşturma, siyasal temsilcilerle etkileşime geçme, boykot-yürüyüş düzenleme ve yardım faaliyeti organize etme gibi aktif katılma davranışlarını güçlü bir biçimde etkilemektedir. Üstelik katılımcıların yarısından fazlası (n288) düzenli bir gelire sahip olmayan kişilerdir. Politika yapıcıların ve yönetim temsilcilerinin bu beklentileri göz önünde bulundurması faydalı olacaktır. Çünkü böylesine aktif katılım davranışı sergileyen ve yüksek empati duygusuna sahip kitleler, demokratik süreçlerin idealize edilmesinde toplum için önem arz etmektedir.

References

  • Barnett, G., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(2), 228-239.
  • Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39.
  • Can, A. [AmirCAN76147523]. (2020, 2 Eylül). Sağlık çalışanları olarak bir araya gelmeliyiz. Telegram grubumuzun linki aşağıda belirtilmiştir. Sayımız ne kadar çok olursa o kadar güçlü sesimiz çıkar. [Tweet]. Erişim adresi: https://twitter.com/AmirCAN76147523/status/1301130821902966784.
  • Cho, Y. C. (2009). The Politics of Suffering in the Public Sphere: The Body in Pain, Empathy, and Political Spectacles. University of Iowa.
  • Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion review, 8(2), 144-153.
  • Darwall, S. (1998). Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 89(2/3), 261-282.
  • Davis, M. H. (2018). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Routledge.
  • Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
  • Dong, W. (2012). Discourse right and participation: using application for hunting permits for foreigners at Dulan International Hunting Ground as a case study. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 7(1), 83-91.
  • Drengson, A., Devall, B., & Schroll, M. (2010). The deep ecology movement: Origins, development, and future prospects (toward a transpersonal ecosophy). International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30(1-2), 101-117.
  • Duncan, L. E., Garcia, R. L., & Teitelman, I. (2021). Assessing politicized gender identity: Validating the Feminist Consciousness Scale for men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-23.
  • Fromm, E. (1955). Sane society. New York: A Fawcett Premier Book.
  • Greenpeace Türkiye [Greenpeace_Med]. (2021, Mayıs 28). Açık denizlerde “Ölüm Duvarı” diye bilinen devasa balıkçılık ağları yunusları, vatozları, köpek balıklarını avlıyor. İnsan faaliyetlerine kapalı okyanus koruma alanları talep ediyoruz. İmza ver, gezegenimiz için birlikte tarih yazalım! http://okyanuslarikoru.org. [video ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/Greenpeace_Med/status/1398189668282343425
  • Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 30-47.
  • Güler, Ş. (2020a). Political participation and subjective well-being: individuals'e-participation activities on twitter in terms of life satisfaction. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(4), 354-372.
  • Hakim – Hayvan Hakları İzleme Komitesi [@hakim_komite]. (2020, Kasım 22). Hayvanların yaşadıkları zulmü önlemek için atılması gereken ilk adım Hayvan Hakları Yasası'nın çıkması, bu artık çok açık. Yasanın çıkması için daha ne olması gerekiyor? Biz bu soruyu daha kaç kere soracağız? Yeter artık! #YasaHemen. [resim ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/hakim_komite/status/1330576058177957888
  • Harvey, D. (2002). Sınıfsal yapı ve mekânsal farklılaşma kuramı. Ayten Alkan, Bülent Duru (Der. ve Çev.), 20. Yüzyıl Kenti, İmge Yayınevi, Ankara, 2002, s. 147-172.
  • Herrick, R., & Mendez, J. M. (2019). One Model Does Not Fit All: Group Consciousness and the Political Participation and Attitudes of American Indians. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1577-1592.
  • Humphreys, L. (2010). Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society, 12(5), 763-778.
  • Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American sociological review, 569-582.
  • Kapani, M. (2007). Politika bilimine giriş. Ankara: Bilgi Kitabevi.
  • Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
  • Kweon, S. H., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). A study on empathy, credibility, and political attitude in social media: Focused on the relationship between empathetic intention and the motivation of belonging on intended pro-social and political behavior. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 1(03), 26.
  • Lipps, T. (1903). Einfühlung, inner Nachanhmung, ung Organ-umpfindungen. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 2, 185-204.
  • Lipps, T. (1905). Das Wissen von frenden Ichen. Psychologische Untersuchungen, 4, 694-722.
  • Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, communication & society, 14(6), 757-769.
  • Ma, W. W., & Chan, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 51-58.
  • Masserman, J. H., Wechkin, S. & Terris, W. (1964) “Altruistic” behavior in rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Psychiatry 121:584–85.
  • McShane, K. (2007). Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: Why should we care?. Environmental Values, 169-185.
  • Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American journal of political science, 25(3), 494-511.
  • Morse, J. M., Anderson, G., Bottorff, J. L., Yonge, O., O'Brien, B., Solberg, S. M., & McIlveen, K. H. (1992). Exploring empathy: a conceptual fit for nursing practice?. Image: The journal of nursing scholarship, 24(4), 273-280.
  • Munro, L. (2012). The animal rights movement in theory and practice: A review of the sociological literature. Sociology Compass, 6(2), 166-181.
  • Paw Guards [@PawGuardsTr]. (2021, Haziran 3). Onlar için ses olmak zorundayız. Lütfen destek olun. Paylaşın paylaştırın. Saat tam 16.00’da aynı anda #hayvanhaklarıyasasıhemen [resim ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/PawGuardsTr/status/1400394671772344326
  • Preston, S. D., de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20.
  • Reniers, R. L., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of personality assessment, 93(1), 84-95.
  • Rice, G. E. (1964). Aiding behavior vs. fear in the albino rat. The Psychological Record, 14(2), 165-170.
  • Rice, G. E., & Gainer, P. (1962). " Altruism" in the albino rat. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology, 55(1), 123.
  • Samsunhaber, (2020, 19 Kasım). Vali Dağlı ayakları kesilen yavru köpek olayına el attı. Erişim adresi: https://www.samsunhaber.com/samsun-haber/vali-dagli-ayaklari-kesilen-yavru-kopek-olayina-el-atti-h61186.html.
  • Segesten, A. D., & Bossetta, M. (2017). A typology of political participation online: How citizens used Twitter to mobilize during the 2015 British general elections. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1625-1643.
  • Stern, J. A., Botdorf, M., Cassidy, J., & Riggins, T. (2019). Empathic responding and hippocampal volume in young children. Developmental Psychology, 55(9), 1908.
  • Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). Academic Press.
  • Thompson, R. A. (1987). Empathy and emotional understanding: The early development of empathy. Empathy and its development, 119-145.
  • Titchener, E. B. (1909). Elementary psychology of the thought processes. New York: Macmillan.
  • Titchener, E. B. (1915). A Beginner’s psychology. (E-kopya-2016). New York: The Macmillan Company.
  • Watanabe, S. & Ono, K. (1986). An experimental analysis of “empathic” response: Effects of pain reactions of pigeon upon other pigeon’s operant behavior. Behavioural Processes 13:269–77.
  • We Are Social, (2021a). Digital around the World. Erişim Adresi: https://wearesocial.com/digital-2021. Erişim Tarihi: 4.05.2021.
  • Weitzenfeld, A., & Joy, M. (2014). An overview of anthropocentrism, humanism, and speciesism in critical animal theory. Counterpoints, 448, 3-27.
  • Wind, E. (1963). Art and anarchy. London: Faber & Faber.
  • Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept a Word is needed. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(2), 314-321).

Representing Disadvantaged Species in Digital Communication Media: The Role of Empathy and Group Consciousness on the Political Participation Activities of Animal Lovers

Year 2021, Issue: 56, 142 - 164, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.969478

Abstract

The traditional approach states that group interests and subjective interests motivate political participation behaviors when it comes to political participation activities. Since the anthropocentric paradigm began to be criticized, this traditional approach has begun to change. Today, environmental movements also carry out political participation activities with altruistic motivation sources. Therefore, this research aims to make it visible that the factors that motivate political participation behaviors are not always anthropocentric, but that ecological-centered sensitivities are also a social demand that should be taken into account. For this purpose, cross-sectional data collected from 524 animal lovers are analyzed with the Structural Equation Model (SEM). The results show that empathy strongly affects the political participation activities of animal lovers in digital communication channels. Empathy and group awareness increase animal lovers' active political participation behaviors such as setting the agenda on digital platforms, interacting with political representatives, organizing boycotts-walks, and organizing aid activities. Moreover, more than half of the research population (n288) were people without a regular income. Policymakers and management representatives should consider these demands. Because groups that exhibit such active participation behavior at the social level and have a high sense of empathy contribute to the idealization of democratic processes.

References

  • Barnett, G., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(2), 228-239.
  • Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39.
  • Can, A. [AmirCAN76147523]. (2020, 2 Eylül). Sağlık çalışanları olarak bir araya gelmeliyiz. Telegram grubumuzun linki aşağıda belirtilmiştir. Sayımız ne kadar çok olursa o kadar güçlü sesimiz çıkar. [Tweet]. Erişim adresi: https://twitter.com/AmirCAN76147523/status/1301130821902966784.
  • Cho, Y. C. (2009). The Politics of Suffering in the Public Sphere: The Body in Pain, Empathy, and Political Spectacles. University of Iowa.
  • Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion review, 8(2), 144-153.
  • Darwall, S. (1998). Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 89(2/3), 261-282.
  • Davis, M. H. (2018). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Routledge.
  • Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
  • Dong, W. (2012). Discourse right and participation: using application for hunting permits for foreigners at Dulan International Hunting Ground as a case study. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 7(1), 83-91.
  • Drengson, A., Devall, B., & Schroll, M. (2010). The deep ecology movement: Origins, development, and future prospects (toward a transpersonal ecosophy). International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30(1-2), 101-117.
  • Duncan, L. E., Garcia, R. L., & Teitelman, I. (2021). Assessing politicized gender identity: Validating the Feminist Consciousness Scale for men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-23.
  • Fromm, E. (1955). Sane society. New York: A Fawcett Premier Book.
  • Greenpeace Türkiye [Greenpeace_Med]. (2021, Mayıs 28). Açık denizlerde “Ölüm Duvarı” diye bilinen devasa balıkçılık ağları yunusları, vatozları, köpek balıklarını avlıyor. İnsan faaliyetlerine kapalı okyanus koruma alanları talep ediyoruz. İmza ver, gezegenimiz için birlikte tarih yazalım! http://okyanuslarikoru.org. [video ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/Greenpeace_Med/status/1398189668282343425
  • Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 30-47.
  • Güler, Ş. (2020a). Political participation and subjective well-being: individuals'e-participation activities on twitter in terms of life satisfaction. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(4), 354-372.
  • Hakim – Hayvan Hakları İzleme Komitesi [@hakim_komite]. (2020, Kasım 22). Hayvanların yaşadıkları zulmü önlemek için atılması gereken ilk adım Hayvan Hakları Yasası'nın çıkması, bu artık çok açık. Yasanın çıkması için daha ne olması gerekiyor? Biz bu soruyu daha kaç kere soracağız? Yeter artık! #YasaHemen. [resim ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/hakim_komite/status/1330576058177957888
  • Harvey, D. (2002). Sınıfsal yapı ve mekânsal farklılaşma kuramı. Ayten Alkan, Bülent Duru (Der. ve Çev.), 20. Yüzyıl Kenti, İmge Yayınevi, Ankara, 2002, s. 147-172.
  • Herrick, R., & Mendez, J. M. (2019). One Model Does Not Fit All: Group Consciousness and the Political Participation and Attitudes of American Indians. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1577-1592.
  • Humphreys, L. (2010). Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society, 12(5), 763-778.
  • Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American sociological review, 569-582.
  • Kapani, M. (2007). Politika bilimine giriş. Ankara: Bilgi Kitabevi.
  • Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
  • Kweon, S. H., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). A study on empathy, credibility, and political attitude in social media: Focused on the relationship between empathetic intention and the motivation of belonging on intended pro-social and political behavior. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 1(03), 26.
  • Lipps, T. (1903). Einfühlung, inner Nachanhmung, ung Organ-umpfindungen. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 2, 185-204.
  • Lipps, T. (1905). Das Wissen von frenden Ichen. Psychologische Untersuchungen, 4, 694-722.
  • Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, communication & society, 14(6), 757-769.
  • Ma, W. W., & Chan, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 51-58.
  • Masserman, J. H., Wechkin, S. & Terris, W. (1964) “Altruistic” behavior in rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Psychiatry 121:584–85.
  • McShane, K. (2007). Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: Why should we care?. Environmental Values, 169-185.
  • Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American journal of political science, 25(3), 494-511.
  • Morse, J. M., Anderson, G., Bottorff, J. L., Yonge, O., O'Brien, B., Solberg, S. M., & McIlveen, K. H. (1992). Exploring empathy: a conceptual fit for nursing practice?. Image: The journal of nursing scholarship, 24(4), 273-280.
  • Munro, L. (2012). The animal rights movement in theory and practice: A review of the sociological literature. Sociology Compass, 6(2), 166-181.
  • Paw Guards [@PawGuardsTr]. (2021, Haziran 3). Onlar için ses olmak zorundayız. Lütfen destek olun. Paylaşın paylaştırın. Saat tam 16.00’da aynı anda #hayvanhaklarıyasasıhemen [resim ekli] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/PawGuardsTr/status/1400394671772344326
  • Preston, S. D., de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20.
  • Reniers, R. L., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of personality assessment, 93(1), 84-95.
  • Rice, G. E. (1964). Aiding behavior vs. fear in the albino rat. The Psychological Record, 14(2), 165-170.
  • Rice, G. E., & Gainer, P. (1962). " Altruism" in the albino rat. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology, 55(1), 123.
  • Samsunhaber, (2020, 19 Kasım). Vali Dağlı ayakları kesilen yavru köpek olayına el attı. Erişim adresi: https://www.samsunhaber.com/samsun-haber/vali-dagli-ayaklari-kesilen-yavru-kopek-olayina-el-atti-h61186.html.
  • Segesten, A. D., & Bossetta, M. (2017). A typology of political participation online: How citizens used Twitter to mobilize during the 2015 British general elections. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1625-1643.
  • Stern, J. A., Botdorf, M., Cassidy, J., & Riggins, T. (2019). Empathic responding and hippocampal volume in young children. Developmental Psychology, 55(9), 1908.
  • Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). Academic Press.
  • Thompson, R. A. (1987). Empathy and emotional understanding: The early development of empathy. Empathy and its development, 119-145.
  • Titchener, E. B. (1909). Elementary psychology of the thought processes. New York: Macmillan.
  • Titchener, E. B. (1915). A Beginner’s psychology. (E-kopya-2016). New York: The Macmillan Company.
  • Watanabe, S. & Ono, K. (1986). An experimental analysis of “empathic” response: Effects of pain reactions of pigeon upon other pigeon’s operant behavior. Behavioural Processes 13:269–77.
  • We Are Social, (2021a). Digital around the World. Erişim Adresi: https://wearesocial.com/digital-2021. Erişim Tarihi: 4.05.2021.
  • Weitzenfeld, A., & Joy, M. (2014). An overview of anthropocentrism, humanism, and speciesism in critical animal theory. Counterpoints, 448, 3-27.
  • Wind, E. (1963). Art and anarchy. London: Faber & Faber.
  • Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept a Word is needed. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(2), 314-321).
There are 49 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Şakir Güler 0000-0002-7365-6639

Publication Date December 31, 2021
Submission Date July 10, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Issue: 56

Cite

APA Güler, Ş. (2021). Dijital İletişim Mecralarında Dezavantajlı Türlerin Sesi Olmak: Hayvanseverlerin Siyasal Katılım Faaliyetleri Üzerinde Empati ve Grup Bilincinin Rolü. İletişim Kuram Ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2021(56), 142-164. https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.969478