Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalışması Olarak Feminist Etnografi: Bir Kuşağın Dövmeli [Deq’li] Kadınları

Öz

Bu çalışmada, kadınların tecrübeleri ile cinsiyetlendirilmiş gerçeklikler bilgisi arasında ‘hangi bağlantıların nasıl aranacağı’ üzerine teori ve pratik, tecrübe ve gerçeklik arasında feminist etnografik metodolojiyle bir tartışma yürütüyorum. Çalışma, Şanlıurfa’nın Hilvan İlçesine bağlı civar köylerde ikamet eden altmış yaş üstü on kadınla, geleneksel Deq (Dövme) hakkında nitel araştırma yöntemini benimsiyor ve derinlikli görüşmeye dayalı ucu açık sorular sorarak katılımcıların mikro-habitatlarında tecrübelerini bugüne taşıyorum: okuma-yazma bilmeyen ve Türkçe konuşamayan kadınları, (“egzotik olarak nesnelleşelebilirlik” ya da “kurbanlaştırıp mağdur öteki” görmek yerine) ‘bilen-özne’ olarak değerlendirip feminist tarih’e not düşürüyorum. Bedeni, biyolojik olduğu kadar kültürel ve politik olduğu kadar imaj bakımından nasıl yorumlandığını, yöredeki kadınlardan dinleyerek yazı’ya aktarıyorum; bu sayede sözün uçuculuğuna karşı, deq’li kadınları tarihe yerleştirmeyi amaçlıyorum. Yörede bir neslin üçüncü ve son kuşağında yer alan deq’li kadınların bedenlerindeki yazıtları, hangi saiklerle yaptıklarını alımlarken, çalışmayı oturttuğum çerçeve, ‘feminist etnografi’dir. Bu çalışma, kadınlara merkezi bir konum tayin ediyor ve özümsediği içgörü ise feminist bakış açısıyla şekilleniyor. Beden, ‘bir öz olarak sadece var olmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda işlevsel bir hakikatin olduğunu da gösterir’ kaidesince, çalışmanın ufku, ‘feminist bakış açısı’yla “tenin yollarında göçebelik etme”yle çerçeveleniyor. Bu bakış açısı, kadınların tecrübelerine duygusal ve bedensel pratikleriyle eşanlı, bağlamsal düşünülmesi gerektiğine ve kadınların kendi tecrübelerini yine kendilerinin dile getirmesine öncelik veriyor. Ataerkil güce meydan okuyan ve duygusal bir ilişki yaratan kadınlara özgü hikâye anlatımını, sözlü tarihin bir zenginliği olarak yorumluyorum. Buradan hareketle deq, ilksel anlamda kendi-için güzelleşme ve süsleme aracı, bedeni üzerinde tasarruf hakkı, baba otoritesine direniş, farklılık, bir dönemin genel kültürü, akranlarına özenme olarak yorumlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dövme/deq
• feminist etnografi
• anlatı
• beden
• sözlü tarih
• toplumsal bellek

Feminist Ethnography As A Study of Oral History: Tattooed [Deq] Women of a Generation

Öz

In this study, I conduct a discussion using a feminist ethnographic methodology on “what connections should be sought and how” between women’s experiences and gendered realities. The study adopts a qualitative research method involving ten women over the age of sixty living in villages near Hilvan District in Şanlıurfa and focuses on traditional Deq (Tattoo). Through open-ended questions based on in-depth interviews, I bring their past experiences into the present within their micro-habitats. Instead of viewing women who are illiterate and do not speak Turkish as “exotic objects” or “victimised others,” I consider them as “knowing subjects” and make a note in feminist history. I transfer how the body is interpreted not only biologically but also culturally, politically, and in terms of imagery by listening to the women of the region and documenting their narratives. Through this, I preserve the history of women with Deq, countering the fleeting nature of oral traditions. In exploring the motivations behind the inscriptions on the bodies of Deq-bearing women, who belong to the third and final generation of this tradition in the region, the framework of my study is grounded in ‘feminist ethnography’. This workplace places women at the centre and is shaped by insights derived from a feminist perspective. According to the principle that the body “does not merely exist as an essence, but also reveals a functional truth”, the scope of this study is framed by a ‘feminist perspective’, encompassing “nomadic journeys on the pathways of the skin”. This perspective prioritises the need to consider women’s experiences in tandem with their emotional and bodily practises within their specific contexts, emphasising that women should articulate their own experiences. I interpret the storytelling unique to women, which challenges patriarchal power and fosters emotional connections, as a rich resource of oral history. From this standpoint, Deq has been interpreted in its original sense as a means of self-beautification and adornment, claiming ownership over one’s body, resisting the father, expressing difference, a general cultural practise of a certain era, and emulating peers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tattoo/deq
• feminist ethnography
• narration
• body
• oral history
• collective memory

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, D. (1995). A Natural History of the Senses. New York: Vintage Books. google scholar
2. Adams, T. E. & Holman Jones, S. (2011). Telling Stories: Reflexivity, Queer Theory, and Autoethnography. In Cultural Studies - CriticalMethodologies 11(2), 108-16). google scholar
3. Ahmed, S. (2017). Duyguların Kültürel Politikası (2 b.). (S. Komut, Çev.) İstanbul: Sel. google scholar
4. Allen, K. R. & Piercy, F. P. (2005). Feminist autoethnography. In: Sprenkle, D. H. and Piercy, F. P. (eds.) Research Methods in Family Therapy. (pp. 155-69). New York, NY: Guilford Press. google scholar
5. Alvarez, P. (2020). Indigenous (Re)inscription Transmission of Cultural Knowledge(s) through Tattoos as Resistance. S. T. KloB In TattooHistories TransculturalPerspectives on theNarratives, Practices, and Representations of Tattooing (s. 157-176). New York: Routletge. google scholar
6. Arendt, H. (1994). İnsanlık Durumu (B. S. Şener, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim google scholar
7. Assmann, J. (2015). Kültürel Bellek: Eski Yüksek Kültürlerde Yazı, Hatırlama ve Politik Kimlik (2 b.). (A. Tekin, Çev.) İstanbul: Ayrıntı. google scholar
8. Attkinson, M. (2002). Tattooed: The Sociogenesis of a Body Art. Toronto: University of Toronto. google scholar

9. Averett, P. (2009). The search for Wonder Woman: an autoethnography of feminist identity. Affilia 24(4), 360-8). google scholar
10. Azarak, L. U. (2022). Beden Anlatılar Deqler. P. D. Sürmeli içinde, Güzel Sanatlar Alanında Yeni Trendler (s. 222-243). İzmir: Duvar. google scholar
11. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Discourse in the Novel: The Dialogic Imagination . Austin: University of Texas Press. google scholar
12. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The Problem of Speech Genres. M. W. Vern. In Speech Genres, and Other Late Essays (pp. 60-101). Austin: Univerisity of Texas Press. google scholar
13. Bartleet, B. L. & Ellis, C. (2009) Making Autoethnography Sing/Making Music Personal. Samford Valley, QLD: Australian Academic Press. google scholar
14. Bauman, Z. (2020). Iskarta Hayatlar / Modernite ve Safraları. (O. Yener, Çev.) İstanbul: Tellekt. google scholar
15. Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. google scholar
16. Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. google scholar
17. Benhabib, Ş. (1999). Modernizm, Evrensellik ve Birey: Çağdaş Ahlak Felsefesine Katkılar. (M. Küçük, Çev.) İstanbul: Ayrıntı. google scholar
18. Bhaskaran, S. (2004). Made in India: Decolonizations, Queer Sexualities, Trans/national Projects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
19. Bir Akademik Disiplin Olarak Kadın Araştırmaları. (1996). S. Çakır, & N. Akgökçe içinde, Farklı Feminizmler Açısından Kadın Araştırmalarında Yöntem (B. Kümbetoğlu, Çev., (s. 15-34). İstanbul: Sel. google scholar
20. Bochner, A. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry 6(2), 266-72. google scholar
21. Bochner, A. (2001). Narratives’ virtues. Qualitative Inquiry 7(2), 131-57. google scholar
22. Bochner, A. (2003). An introduction to the arts and narrative research: art as inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 9(4), 506-14. google scholar
23. Bochner, A. & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative Autoethnography: Writing Lives and Telling Stories. New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
24. Boon, S. (2018). Introduction. S. Boon, L. Butler , & D. Jefferies. In Autoethnography and Feminist Theory at the Water’s Edge (pp. 1-9). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
25. Boylorn, R. M. (2013). Blackgirl blogs, auto/ethnography, and crunk feminism. Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies 9(2), 73-82. google scholar
26. Braidotti, R. (2017). Göçebe Özneler: Çağdaş Feminist Kuramda Bedenleşme ve Cinsiyet Farklılığı. (Ö. Karakaş, Çev.) İstanbul: Kolektif Kitap. google scholar
27. Braidotti, R. (2019). Kadın-Oluş: Cinsel Farkı Yeniden Düşünmek. (E. Durmuş, & M. Çelik, Çev.) İstanbul: Otonom. google scholar
28. Butler, J. (2014). Bela Bedenler. (C. Çakırlar, & Z. Talay, Çev.) İstanbul: Pinhan. google scholar
29. Butler, J. & Athanasiou, A. (2013). Dispossession: The Performative in the Political. Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar
30. Chamberlain, M., & Thompson, P. (1998). Genre and narrative in life stories. M. Chamberlain, & P. Thompson içinde, Narrative and Genre (pp. 1-23). London, New York: Routletge. google scholar
31. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as Method: Developing Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. google scholar
32. Chanter, T. (1995). Ethics of Eros, Irigaray’s Rewiriting of Philosophers. Londra: Routletge. google scholar
33. Chodorow, N. J. (2007). Duyguların Gücü: Psikanalizde, Cinsiyette ve Kültürde Kişisel Anlam. (J. Ö. Dirlikyapan, Çev.) İstanbul: Metis. google scholar
34. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. London: Sage Publications. google scholar
35. Collins, P. H. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where’s the power? Signs, 22(21), 375-81. google scholar
36. Coyner, S. (996). Bir Akademik Disiplin Olarak Kadın Araştırmaları. S. Çakır, & N. Akgökçe içinde, Farklı Feminizmler Açısından Kadın Araştırmalarında Yöntem (B. Kümbetoğlu, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel. google scholar
37. Deleuze, G. (2021). Fark ve Tekrar (2 b.). (B. Yalım, & E. Koyuncu, Çev.) İstanbul: Norgunk. google scholar
38. Demello, M. (2000). Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community. (4 b.). Durham: Duke University Press. google scholar
39. Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. London: Sage Publications. google scholar
40. Denzin, N. K. (2009). Qualitative Inquiry Fire: Toward a New Paradigm Dialogue. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. google scholar
41. Derrida, J. (2020). Yazı ve Fark. (P. B. Yalım, Çev.) İstanbul: Metis. google scholar
42. Draisma, D. (2018). Unutmanın Kitabı (2 b.). (D. Muradoğlu, Çev.) İstanbul: YKY. google scholar
43. Dworkin, A. (1976). Our Blood. Londra: The Women’s Press. google scholar
44. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic Interaction 14(1), 23-50. google scholar
45. Ellis, C. (1995). Final Negotiations: A Story of Love, Loss and Chronic Illness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. google scholar
46. Ellis, C. (1999). Heartful ethnography. Qualitative Health Research 9(5), 669-83. google scholar
47. Ellis, C. (2000). Creating criteria: an ethnographic short story. Qualitative Inquiry 6(2), 273-7. google scholar
48. Ellis, C. (2004) The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Teaching and Doing Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira. google scholar
49. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry 13(1), 3-29. google scholar
50. Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. google scholar
51. Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. (1996). Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira. google scholar
52. Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. (2000). ‘Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject’. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 733-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. google scholar
53. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1. (pp. 11-24). google scholar Ertan, C. (2017). Dövmeli Bedenler: Bir Beden Sosyolojisi Kitabı. Ankara: Phonetix. google scholar
54. Ettorre, E. (2010). Nuns, dykes, drugs and gendered bodies: an autoethnography of a lesbian feminist’s journey through ‘good time’ sociology. Sexualities 13(3). 295-315. google scholar
55. Ettorre, E. (2017). Autoethnography as Feminist Method Sensitising the feminist ‘I’. New York: Routletge. google scholar
56. Federici, S. (2012). Calıban ve Cadı: Kadınlar, Beden ve İlksel Birikim. (Ö. Karakaş, Çev.) İstanbul: Otonom. google scholar
57. Fırat, M. (2029). Kaybolan İzler: Güneydoğu’da Geleneksel Dövme ya da Deka ve Dak (2 b.). İstanbul: YKY. google scholar
58. Forber-Pratt, A. J. (2015). ‘You’re going to do what?’. Challenges of autoethnography in the academy. Qualitative Inquiry 21(9), 821-35. google scholar
59. Fircker, M. (2023), Epistemik Adaletsizlik: İktidar ve Bilmenin Etiği, (K. Gülen, Çev.) İstanbul: Fol Yayıları. google scholar
60. Giorgio, G. (2009). Traumatic truths and the gift of telling. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 149-67. google scholar
61. Gözel, Ö., (2012). Emmanuel ile Söyleşi: Öteki, Ütopya ve Adalet. (2012). Ö. Gözel, & Ö. Gözel (Dü.) içinde, Levinas (s. 61-75). İstanbul: Say. google scholar
62. Griffin, R. A. (2012) ‘I AM an angry black woman: black feminist autoethnography, voice, and resistance. Women’s Studies in Communication. 35(2), 138-57. google scholar
63. Halbwachs, M. (2016). Hafızanın Toplumsal Çerçeveleri. (B. Uçar, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik. google scholar
64. Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. google scholar
65. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemologies: what is “strong objectivity”? L. Alcoff, & E. Potter. In, Feminist Epistemologies (s. 49-82). London: Routletge. google scholar
66. Harding, S. (1996). Feminist yöntem diye bir şey var mı? S. Çakır, & Becla Akgökçe içinde, Farklı Feminizmler Açısından Kadın Araştırmalarında Yöntem (Z. Ayman, Çev.), (s. 34-48). Sel. google scholar
67. Harding, S. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: feminist stand- point theory revisited”: Whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs, 22(2), s. 382-91. google scholar
68. Hartsock, N. C. (1998). The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Oxford: Westview Press. google scholar
69. Head, B. (1981). Serowe: The Village of the Rain Wind Heinemann. London, Ibadan, and Nairobi: Heinemann. google scholar
70. Holman Jones, S. (2005). ‘Autoethnography: making the personal political’. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 763-91). 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, google scholar
71. Hooks, B. (1991). Theory as liberatory practice. Yale Journal ofLaw and Feminism 4(1), 1-12. google scholar
72. Hooks, B. (2016). Feminizm Herkes İçindir (4 b.). (E. Aydın, B. Kurt, Ş. Özgün, & A. Yıldırım, Çev.) İstanbul: bgst. google scholar
73. Hutter, V. (2020). “I Just Want It to Look Pretty”: Reproducing Heteronormative Gender Roles through Tattoo Reality TV: Miami Ink. S. T. KloB. In Tatto Histories: Transcultural Perspectives on the Narratives, Practices, and Representations of Tattong (pp. 33-48). New York: Routletge. google scholar
74. Iggers, G. G. (2011). Bilimsel Nesnellikten Postmodernizma: Yirminci Yüzyılda Tarihyazımı (4 b.). (G. Ç. Güven, Çev.) İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. google scholar
75. Jakobson, R., & Waugh, L. (1979). The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington: İndiana University Press. google scholar
76. Jewkes, Y. (2011). Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry 18(1), 63-75. google scholar
77. Joshi, S. (2007). Homo sutra: disrobing desire in the adult cinema. Journal of Creative Work 1(2), Scientific Journals. Available at www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1188.pdf (accessed July, 18). google scholar
78. Katz Rothman, B. (2007). Writing ourselves in sociology. Methodological Innovations Online 2, 1: 11-16. google scholar
79. King, N. (2000). Memory, Narrative: Identity Remembering the Self . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. google scholar
80. Kingston, M. H. (1999). The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Grilhood Among Ghosts. New York: Vintage İnternational. google scholar
81. KloB, S. T. (2020). Indelible Ink: An Introduction to the Histories, Narratives, and Practices of Tattooing. google scholar
82. S. T. KloB içinde, Tattoo Histories Transcultural Perspectives on the Narratives, Practices, and Representations of Tattooing (pp. 3-31). New York: Routletge. google scholar
83. Kosut, M. (2014). The Artification of Tattoo: Transformations within a Cultural Field. Cultural Sociology, 2(8), s. 142-158. google scholar
84. Kristeva, J. (2012). Kadın Dehası: Birinci Cilt Hannah Arendt. (N. Akalın, Dü., & Z. M. Oğur, Çev.) İstanbul: Pinhan. google scholar
85. Kutak, L. (2014). Tattoo Traditions ofNative North America: Ancient and Contemporary Expressions of Identity. Netherlands: LM Publishers. google scholar
86. Kyle, G. K., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004, 11 01). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachmen. Journal of Environmental Psychology (24), 439-454. google scholar
87. Levinas, E. (2012). Özgürlük ve Buyruk. Ö. Gözel, & Ö. Gözel (Dü.) içinde, Levinas (s. 281-295). İstanbul: Say. google scholar
88. Lincoln, K. (1973). Native American Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press. google scholar
89. Mackinlay, E. (2022). Writing Feminist Autoethnography: A Memo/ry to the Personal-Is-Political. T. E. Adams, S. Holman Jones, & C. Ellis. In, Handbook of Autoethnography (2 b.), (pp. 329-331). New York: Routletge. google scholar
90. Marias, J. (1970). Generations: A Historical Method . Tuscaloosa, AL: Alabama University Press. google scholar
91. Mies, M. (1996). Feminist Araştırmalar için Bir Metodolojiye Doğru. S. Çakır, & N. Akgökçe içinde, Farklı Feminizmler Açısından Kadın Araştırmalarında Yöntem (A. Durakbaşa, & A. İlyasoğlu, Çev., s. 48-64). İstanbul: Sel. google scholar
92. Mifflin, M. (1960). Bodies of Subversion: A Sicret History of Women and Tattoo. New York: Juno Books. google scholar
93. Milligan, M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction(21), s. 1-33. google scholar
94. Misztal, B. (2003). Theories of Social Remembering. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press. google scholar
95. Modelski, T. (1991). Feminism without Women: Culture & Criticism in a ‘Postfeminist’ Age. New York: Routledge. google scholar
96. Momaday, N. S. (1981). House Made of Dawn. Harper&Row: New York. google scholar
97. Neville-Jan, A. (2004). Selling your soul to the devil: an auto-ethnography of pain, pleasure and the quest for a child. Disability & Society 19(2), 113-27. google scholar
98. Neyzi, L. (2010). Oral History and Memory Studies in Turkey. C. Kerslake, K. Öktem, & P. Robins içinde, Turkey’s Engagement with Modernity: Conflict and Change in the Twentieth Century (s. Introduction). London: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
99. Neyzi, L. (2011). Giriş. L. Neyzi, & A. Berktay (Dü.) içinde, Kültür Tarihi Ve Bellek Çalışmaları: Nasıl Hatırlıyoruz? Türkiye’de Bellek Çalışmaları (s. 1-13). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar Nora, P. (2006). Hafıza Mekanları. (M. E. Özcan, Çev.) Ankara: Dost. google scholar
100. Oksanen, A., & Turtiainen, J. (2005). A Life Told İn Ink: Tattoo Narratives snd the Problem of the Self in Late Modern Society. Auto/Biography, 2(13), 111-130. google scholar
101. Olkowski, D. (2000). Body, Knowletge and Becoming-woman, Morfo-logic in Deleuze and İrigaray. I. Buchanan, & C. Colebrook. In Deleuze and Feminist Theory (pp. 186-109). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. google scholar
102. Öztürk, Ö. (2018). Folklor ve Mitoloji Sözlüğü. Ankara: Phonetix. google scholar
103. Passerini, L. (2007). Memory and Utopia:The Primacy of Intersubjectivity. London and New York: Routletge. google scholar
104. Perez, L. (2002). Writing on the Social Body: Dresses and Body Ornamentation in Contemporary Chicana Art. A. J. Aldama, & N. Quinonez. In Decolonial Voices: Chicana and Chicano Cultural Studies in the 21st Century. (pp. 30-63). Indiana: Indiana University Press. google scholar
105. Portelli, A. (1994). The Text and the Voice: Writing, Speaking, and Democracy in American Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
106. Portelli, A. (2003). Oral History As Genre. E. B. Thompson. In Narrative and Genre (pp. 23-45). New York: Routletge. google scholar
107. Purnell, D. (2017). There is No Home Like Place. S. L. Pensoneau-Conwa. In Doing Autoethnography. (pp. 155-163). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. google scholar
108. Ramazanoğlu, C., & Holland, J. (2002). Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage Publications. google scholar
109. Reed-Danahay, D. (1997a). Auto/ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social. Oxford: Berg. google scholar
110. Reed-Danahay, D. (1997b). ‘Introduction’. In Reed-Danahay, D. (ed.), Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social. (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Berg. google scholar
111. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
112. Reiter, R. R. (2012). Giriş. R. R. Reiter, & S. Özbudun (Dü.) içinde, Kadın Antropolojisi (B. Abiral, Çev.). İstanbul. google scholar
113. Richardson, L. (2003). Looking Jewish. Qualitative Inquiry 9(5), 815-21. google scholar
114. Ricoeur, P. (2016). Zaman ve Anlatı 2. (M. Rıfat, Çev.) İstanbul: YKY. google scholar
115. Ritchie, D. A. (2015). Doing Oral History. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
116. Rohrlich-Leavit, R., Sykes, B., & Weatherford, E. (2014). Aborjin Kadın: Eril ve Dişil Antropolojik Perspektifler. R. R. Reiter içinde, Kadın Antropolojisi (B. Abiral, Çev., (s. 121-136). Ankara: Sel. google scholar
117. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1980). Knowletge and Passion: Ilongot Nations of Self and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
118. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an Anthroplogy of Self and Feeling. R. A. Schweder, & R. A. Le Vine. In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion (pp. 137-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
119. Ruiz, A. (2001). The Spirit ofAcnient Egypt. New York: Algora Publishing . google scholar
120. Sarachild, K. (1975). ‘The power of history’. In Feminist Revolution. (pp.7-29). New York, NY: Random House. google scholar
121. Schiebinger, L. (2000). Intırduction. L. Schiebinger. In Feminism and the Body (pp. 1-25). New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
122. Schiva, V. (2018). Yeryüzü Demokrasisi: Adalet, Barış ve Sürdürülebilirlik (3 b.). (A. K. Saysel, E. Gen, & O. Günay, Çev.) İstanbul: bgst Yayınları. google scholar
123. Scott, J. W. (1992). Experience. J. Butler, & J. W. Scott. In Feminist Theorize the Political (s. 22-40). New York, London: Routletge. google scholar
124. Shomali, M. B. (2012). Storytelling: or, autoethnography in the academic industrial complex. Feminist Wire. 14(9), (pp. 4-7). google scholar
125. Smith, C. (2005). Epistemological intimacy: a move to autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 4(2), 68-76. google scholar
126. Smith, D. E. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. google scholar
127. Smith, D. E. (1990). Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. New York: Routletge. google scholar
128. Smith, D. E. (1999). Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. google scholar
129. Smith, D. E. (2005). Instutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. New York: Altamira Press. google scholar
130. Smith, D., & Susan Marie Turner. (2014). Introducing Institutional Ethnography. D. S. Turner. In Incorporating Texts into Institutional Ethnographies (pp. 3-17). Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press. google scholar
131. Smith, S., & Watson, J. (2001). Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnoseta Press. google scholar
132. Sparkes, A. (2003). Bodied, identities, selves: autoethnographic fragments and reflections. In Denison, J. and Markula, P. (eds.), Moving Writing: Crafting Writing in Sport Research. (pp. 51-76). New York, NY: Peter Lang. google scholar
133. Stacey, J. (1991) ‘Can there be a feminist ethnography?’. In Gluck, S. B. and Patai, D. (eds.) Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of OralHistory. (pp. 111-20). New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
134. Stanley, L. (1992) The Auto/Biographical. I: The Theory and Practice of Feminist Auto/ Biography. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. google scholar
135. Tezgeç, M. S. (2015). Kendini İfade Aracı Olarak Dövmeler: Nitel Bir Araştırma (YL Tezi). İstanbul. google scholar
136. Turgut, H. (2018). Feminist Bakış açısından Evlilik ve Kumalığa Dair Kadın anlatıları: Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalışması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mersin Üniversitesi. Mersin. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp google scholar
137. Turgut, B. H. (2022). Kadın Araştırmalarında Meta-Diyalojik Yöntem Arayışları: Bir Alan Deneyimi Olarak Otoetnografi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 111-140. google scholar
138. Wolcott, H. F. (2004) The ethnographic autobiography. Auto/Biography 12(2), 93-106. google scholar