The Perceived Legitimacy of the Social Movement Emerging in the Context of the Istanbul Convention

Öz

This study qualitatively examines the perceived legitimacy of the social movement that emerged in opposition to Turkey's withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, from the perspectives of Generations X, Y, and Z. Using a combination of maximum variation and criterion sampling, six focus group interviews were conducted with 41 participants — selected to represent both positive and negative attitudes toward the movement across three generational cohorts. Data collected through semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with MAXQDA Analytics Pro software. Findings were evaluated across six dimensions: collective identity, collective action framing, performance legitimacy, “oversight and control”, social capital, and “dialogue and deliberation”. Results indicate that counter-legitimacy discourse was dominant across all three generations, reaching its highest level among Generation X, while legitimacy-affirming evaluations were notably stronger among Generation Z. Legitimacy perceptions were found to differ across generations not only in degree but also in the criteria applied: whereas Generation X questioned the movement primarily through concerns about external interference, transparency, and representation, Generation Z evaluated it through the justness of the injustice claim, action effectiveness, and the capacity to generate public pressure. These findings suggest that social movement legitimacy is not a purely normative construct but a dynamic process of social construction shaped by generationally distinct interpretive frameworks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social movements
• Legitimacy
• Istanbul Convention
• Generational differences

İstanbul Sözleşmesi Bağlamında Oluşan Toplumsal Hareketin Algılanan Meşruiyeti

Öz

Bu çalışma, İstanbul Sözleşmesi'nin iptali karşısında gelişen toplumsal hareketin algılanan meşruiyetini X, Y ve Z kuşaklarının perspektifinden nitel olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada; maksimum çeşitlilik ve ölçüt örneklemesi birlikte kullanılarak seçilen, toplumsal harekete karşı olumlu ve olumsuz tutum sergileyen 41 katılımcıyla altı odak grup görüşmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler MAXQDA Analytics Pro yazılımıyla tematik analiz yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular; kolektif kimlik, kolektif eylem çerçevesi, performans meşruluğu, denetim-kontrol, sosyal sermaye ve diyalog-müzakere olmak üzere altı boyutta değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, meşruiyet karşıtı söylemin üç kuşakta da baskın olmakla birlikte X kuşağında en yüksek düzeye ulaştığını; Z kuşağında ise toplumsal hareketin lehine değerlendirmelerin belirgin biçimde güçlendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Meşruiyet değerlendirmelerinin kuşaklara göre yalnızca düzey bakımından değil, ölçüt bakımından da farklılaştığı görülmektedir: X kuşağı hareketi ağırlıklı olarak dış müdahale, şeffaflık ve temsil sorunları üzerinden sorgularken; Z kuşağı adaletsizlik iddiasının haklılığı, eylem etkililiği ve kamusal baskı kapasitesi üzerinden değerlendirmektedir. Bu bulgular, toplumsal hareketin meşruiyetinin salt normatif değil, kuşaksal anlam çerçeveleriyle şekillenen dinamik bir toplumsal inşa süreci olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal hareketler
• İstanbul Sözleşmesi
• Kuşaklar arası farklılaşma.
• Meşruiyet

Kaynakça

1. Babbie, E. R. (2013). The practice of social research (13. bs.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
2. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. UK: Polity Press.
3. Çela, E. (2015). Social Media as a New Form of Public Sphere. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 4(1), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v4i1.p195-200
4. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3. bs.). SAGE Publications.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Eğiten Kitap.
6. Deephouse, D. L. ve Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin ve R. Suddaby (Haz.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism içinde (s. 49–77). Sage Publications.
7. Della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved? Participation, deliberation and social movements. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8. Edwards, B. ve Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042001010

9. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
10. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Çev.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
11. Jasper, J. M. (1998). The emotions of protest: Affective and reactive emotions in and around social movements. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 397–424.
12. McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of Black insurgency 1930–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. McCarthy, J. D. ve Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
14. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2. bs.). SAGE Publications.
16. Minkoff, D. C. (1994). From service provision to institutional advocacy: The shifting legitimacy of organizational forms. Social Forces, 72(4), 943–969. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580289
17. Muñoz, J. ve Anduiza, E. (2019). ‘If a fight starts, watch the crowd’: The effect of violence on popular support for social movements. Journal of Peace Research, 56, 485–498.
18. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4. bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
19. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
20. Snow, D. A. ve Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.
21. Stephan, M. J. ve Chenoweth, E. (2008). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. International Security, 33, 7–44.
22. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. G. Austin ve S. Worchel (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations içinde (s. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23. Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3. bs.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24. Thomas, E. F. ve Louis, W. R. (2013). When will collective action be effective? Violent and non-violent protests differentially influence perceptions of legitimacy and efficacy among sympathizers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510525
25. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. ve Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504