Şiddetin Sosyal Mimarisi: Şanlıurfa'da Ataerkil Statüyü Koruma ve Yeniden Üretme Mekanizmaları

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin Şanlıurfa kentinin son derece ataerkil ve geleneksel bağlamında kadınlara yönelik aile içi şiddeti, hem kadınların hem de erkeklerin bakış açılarından incelemektedir. Sıralı keşifsel nitel bir desenle yürütülen çalışmanın ilk aşamasında, 21 katılımcının şiddet deneyimlerini ve bu deneyimlere yükledikleri anlamları derinlemesine anlamak için fenomenolojik bir yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise ortaya çıkan temaları ve deneyim kalıplarını analitik olarak işlemek için temellendirilmiş teori metodolojisi kullanılmış ve nihayetinde bu bağlamda şiddetin nasıl işlediğine dair kapsamlı bir kavramsal model geliştirilmiştir. Bulgular, aile içi şiddetin sadece rastgele bir eylem veya bireysel bir patoloji değil, “Ataerkil Statü Koruma ve Yeniden Üretim Mekanizması” olarak işleyen döngüsel bir sosyal mekanizma olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu süreç, erkek otoritesine, geçim sağlayıcı rolüne veya onura yönelik algılanan tehditler tarafından tetiklenir, katı bir cinsiyet rolü yapısı ve şiddetin normalleşmesi tarafından mümkün kılınır, rasyonalizasyon stratejileri (örneğin, kurbanı suçlama) yoluyla uygulanır ve ataerkil düzenin yeniden kurulması ve şiddet kültürünün nesiller arası aktarımıyla sonuçlanır. Model, feminist teoriler, sembolik etkileşimcilik ve Bourdieu'nun sembolik şiddet kavramıyla açıklanan, şiddetin cinsiyet ideolojilerinin ve iktidar ilişkilerinin derinlemesine yerleşmiş bir tezahürü olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aile İçi Şiddet
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Ataerkillik
• Gömülü Teori
• Şanlıurfa

The Social Architecture of Violence: Mechanisms of Patriarchal Status Protection and Reproduction in Şanlıurfa

Öz

The present study examines domestic violence against women in the highly patriarchal and traditional context of Şanlıurfa, Turkey, from the perspectives of both women and men. In the initial phase of the study, a sequential exploratory qualitative design was employed, with a phenomenological approach being utilised to facilitate a profound comprehension of the violence experiences of 21 participants and the meanings they ascribed to these experiences. In the second phase, grounded theory methodology was employed to analytically process the emerging themes and patterns of experience, thereby developing a comprehensive conceptual model of how violence operates in this context. The findings reveal that domestic violence is not merely a random act or an individual pathology, but rather a cyclical social mechanism that functions as a “Patriarchal Status Preservation and Reproduction Mechanism.” This process is initiated in response to perceived threats to male authority, the breadwinner role, or honour. It is facilitated by a rigid gender role structure and the normalisation of violence, and implemented through rationalisation strategies (e.g. victim blaming). The outcome of this process is the re-establishment of the patriarchal order and the intergenerational transmission of a culture of violence. The model demonstrates that violence is a deeply embedded manifestation of gender ideologies and power relations, explained through feminist theories, symbolic interactionism, and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Domestic Violence
• Gender
• Patriarchy
• Grounded Theory
• Şanlıurfa

Kaynakça

1. Afrouz, R., Crisp, B., and Taket, A. (2021). Understandings and perceptions of domestic violence among newly arrived Afghan women in Australia. Violence Against Women, 27(14), 2511-2529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220985937
2. Ağyel, M., and Türk, R. (2024). Investigating attitudes toward early marriage and the prevalence of domestic violence among women married as children and adults. Yaşam Boyu Hemşirelik Dergisi, 1(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.29228/llnursing.71205
3. Aksöz, F., ve Arslan, B. (2023). Toplumsal cinsiyet sarmalında Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde kadın olmak: Şanlıurfa ilindeki kadınların toplumsal tükenmişlik düzeyleri. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(3), 1520-1545. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1297267
4. Alkan, Ö., Serçemeli, C., and Özmen, K. (2022). Verbal and psychological violence against women in Turkey and its determinants. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0275950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950
5. Allen, K. (2022). Feminist theory, method, and praxis: Toward a critical consciousness for family and close relationship scholars. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(3), 899-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211065779
6. Alves, M. J., Manita, C., Caldas, I., Fernández-Martínez, E., da Silva, A. G., and Magalhães, T. (2019). Evolution and analysis of cultural and cognitive factors related with domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(3), 621-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516645570
7. Ashokkumar, A., and Swann, W. B., Jr. (2022). Restoring honor by slapping or disowning the daughter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(6), 823-836. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221079106
8. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.

9. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
10. Başar, F., and Demirci, N. (2018). Domestic violence against women in Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 34(3), 660-665. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.343.15139
11. Batista, V., Barreto, M., Gomes, N., Prado, E., Padoin, S., Godoy, F., and Marcon, S. (2023). Unveiling family relationships based on the context of domestic violence: A grounded theory. Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da Usp, 57. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220x-reeusp-2023-0009en
12. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59
13. Bourdieu, P. (1995). Pratik nedenler. (H. Tufan, Çev.). Kesit Yayıncılık.
14. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford University Press.
15. Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. J. (2003). Düşünümsel bir antropoloji için cevaplar. (N. Ökten, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları.
16. Chesney‐Lind, M., and Chagnon, N. (2016). Criminology, gender, and race. Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 311-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116633749
17. Cihangir, S. (2012). Gender specific honor codes and cultural change. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212463453
18. Ciocan, C. (2024). Violence and the limits of experience. Human Studies, 48, 197- 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-024-09753-2
19. Cochran, J. C., Jones, S., Jones, A. M., and Sellers, C. S. (2016). Does criminal propensity moderate the effects of social learning theory variables on intimate partner violence? Deviant Behavior, 37(9), 965-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060793
20. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
21. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
22. Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
23. Cunningham, M. (2008). Influences of gender ideology and housework allocation on women’s employment over the life course. Social Science Research, 37(1), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.01.003
24. Çalık, K. (2017). Attitudes of Turkish academics regarding violence against women in the name of honor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3232-3254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517739288
25. Çeğin, G. and Özpolat, G. (2016). Tabiyet ve Simgesel Şiddet Kavramları Üzerinden Foucault ve Bourdieu’yü Birlikte Okumak. Praksis. 683-695.
26. Dhungel, S., Dhungel, P., Dhital, S., and Stock, C. (2017). Is economic dependence on the husband a risk factor for intimate partner violence against female factory workers in Nepal? BMC Women's Health, 17(1), Article 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0441-8
27. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.
28. Doğan, R. (2014). The dynamics of honor killings and the perpetrators’ experiences. Homicide Studies, 20(1), 53-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767914563389
29. Döker, G. and Koçer, M. (2024). Perception of television content in the context of violence against women by women victims: A phenomenological research. Erciyes Akademi, 38(4), 766-789. https://doi.org/10.48070/erciyesakademi.1545128
30. Dugan, M. (2022). Ahlaki olgunluk bağlamında kadına yönelik şiddet: Nitel bir araştırma. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.21798/kadem.2022.122
31. Ellsberg, M., Ovince, J., Murphy, M., Blackwell, A., Reddy, D., Stennes, J., and Contreras, M. (2020). No safe place: Prevalence and correlates of violence against conflict-affected women and girls in South Sudan. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0237965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237965
32. Eralp, A., and Gökmen, Ş. (2022). The impact of poverty on partner violence against women under regional effects: The case of Turkey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(5-6), 4906-4924. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221119515
33. Ersoy, O., and Yıldız, H. (2011). Reproductive health problems and depression levels of women living in sanctuary houses as a result of husband violence. Health Care for Women International, 32(9), 795-810. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2011.565528
34. Ferguson, M. (2016). Vulnerability by marriage: Okin's radical feminist critique of structural gender inequality. Hypatia, 31(3), 687-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12263
35. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
36. Grembi, V., Rosso, A., and Barili, E. (2024). Domestic violence perception and gender stereotypes. Journal of Population Economics, 37(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-024-00986-0
37. Gül, P., and Schuster, I. (2020). Judgments of marital rape as a function of honor culture, masculine reputation threat, and observer gender: A cross‐cultural comparison between turkey, germany, and the uk. Aggressive Behavior, 46(4), 341-353. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21893
38. Hamzaoğlu, M. (2024). Honor killings in traditional societies: revisiting the case of Türkiye after İstanbul convention withdrawal. Lectio Socialis, 8(2), 73-98. https://doi.org/10.47478/lectio.1454452
39. Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
40. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
41. Keyvanlo, S., and Mikaili, N. (2023). The effectiveness of integration of emotion regulation therapy and compassion therapy on the mental well-being of women with domestic violence experience. PWJ, 4(1), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.pwj.4.1.8
42. Latané, B., and Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
43. Mannell, J., Lowe, H., Brown, L., Mukerji, R., Devakumar, D., Gram, L., Jansen, H., Minckas, N., Osrin, D., Prost, A., Shannon, G. and Vyas, S. (2022). Risk factors for violence against women in high-prevalence settings: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 7, e007704. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007704
44. Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364741
45. Ökten, Ş. (2009). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve iktidar: Güneydoğu anadolu bölgesi’nin toplumsal cinsiyet düzeni. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(8), 302-312.
46. Ökten, Ş. (2010). İktidarın sosyolojik kimliği: Aşiretlerde iktidarın bicimi ve kaynakları. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(2), 182-215. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sosars/issue/11402/136137.
47. Pérez-Gatica, S. (2024). Is violence a limit phenomenon? A critical approach from the perspective of transcendental phenomenology and public health studies. Human Studies, 48, 215- 231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-024-09750-5
48. Potter, J. (2006). Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059562
49. Rees, N., Hawkes, C., Williams, L., Williams, J., and O’Meara, P. (2023). Emergency medical systemic frustration of aggression and violence in conflict encounters: An evolved grounded theory. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.24.23293095
50. Ross, C., Smith, J., Washington, J., Oppong, A., Maphula, A., and Ingersoll, K. (2025). “Most men think they should have some sort of power and control over women”: South African women’s perspectives on violence against women in the community. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2025.2495745
51. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23(4), 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g
52. Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S., and Garcia-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399, 803-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7
53. Sarıaslan, K. (2023). Empowering housewives in Southeast Turkey: Gender, state and development. I.B. Tauris. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780755646517
54. Sev’er, A., and Yurdakul, G. (2001). Culture of honor, culture of change. Violence Against Women, 7(9), 964-998. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182866
55. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., and Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 640-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x
56. Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670. https://doi.org/10.2307/208919
57. Şen, S., and Bolsoy, N. (2017). Violence against women: Prevalence and risk factors in Turkish sample. BMC Women's Health, 17(1), Article 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0454-3
58. Vandello, J. A. and Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 997-1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997
59. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
60. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
61. Wirtz, A., Perrin, N., Desgroppes, A., Phipps, V., Abdi, A., Ross, B., Kaburu, F., Kajue, I., Kutto, E., Taniguchi, E. and Glass, N. (2018). Lifetime prevalence, correlates and health consequences of gender-based violence victimisation and perpetration among men and women in Somalia. BMJ Global Health, 3(4), e000773. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000773
62. Yıldız, G. (2019). Geleneksel bağlamda erkeklerin dönüşen kadınlık algısı-Şanlıurfa ili örneği. Toplum ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, (3), 1-29.
63. Yıldız, G. (2023). Kültür, moda ve gündelik hayat: mozaik bir kent olarak urfa'da erkeklik kimliğin izini sürmek. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
64. Yuan, W., Kadetz, P. I., Shen, X., and Hesketh, T. (2024). Women's experience of domestic violence: A qualitative study in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Family Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-024-00789-7