SOSYAL MEDYA ORTAMINDA TOPLUMSAL HAREKETLERİN ÇERÇEVELENMESİ: UNITECYPRUSNOW ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 213 - 230, 30.11.2021

Dilan Çiftçi , Filiz Soyer

https://doi.org/10.47107/inifedergi.889242

Cited By: 1

Öz

Toplumsal hareketler ve hareketlerin yeni medya ortamlarında yer alması sosyal bilimlerde son yıllarda artan bir ilgi odağı haline gelmiştir. Özellikle yeni medya ortamlarıyla birlikte başarıya ulaştığı kabul edilen devrimlerinde etkisiyle toplumsal hareketler geçen yıllar içerisinde büyük bir dönüşümle yeni toplumsal hareketler anlayışına doğru hızla ilerlemiştir. Toplumsal hareketlerin özellikle çatışan toplumlarda vatandaşlar ve aktivistler tarafından sıklıkla başvurulan ifade biçimi olduğu anlayışının kabulü ile bu çalışmada çatışan iki toplumlu Kıbrıs ele alınmıştır. Bu yolla çalışmanın amacını, son yıllarda artan bir ivme ile sesini duyuran ve büyüyen iki toplumlu UniteCyprusNow hareketinin toplumsal hareketler ve toplumsal hareket çerçevesinde ele alınması oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada, iki toplumlu UniteCyprusNow hareketinin resmi Instagram sayfası üzerinden ilk paylaşım yaptığı tarih 1 Haziran 2017’den 31 Aralık 2020 tarihine kadar yapmış olduğu toplam 261 paylaşıma yönelik içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Söz konusu analizde Benford ve Snow (2000)’in Collective Action Frames kavramsallaştırmasında yer alan kodlama cetveli dikkate alınarak 9 alt-kategoride paylaşımlar irdelenmiştir. Çalışmada öne çıkan bulgulara göre, iki toplumlu UniteCyprusNow hareketinin kendi ideolojilerini destekleyen şekilde paylaşımlarında barış, çözüm ve birleşme temaları öne çıkmıştır. Paylaşımlarında video, afiş, fotoğraf ve bildiri kullanımı dikkat çekerken diğer aktivist hareketlerle olan etkileşiminde hareketin ana çıkış amacı doğrultusundaki çözüme yönelik paylaşımlar olması kaydedilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplumsal Hareketler, çerçeveleme, toplumsal hareket çerçevesi, sosyal medya, UniteCyprusNow hareketi

Kaynakça

• Bardin, L. (1977). L'analyse de Contenu [Content Analysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
• Benford, R. D., & Valadez, D. L. (1998). From blood on the grapes to poison on the grapes: strategic frame changes and resource mobilization in the farm workers’ movement. In Am. Sociol. Assoc. Conf., San Francisco.
• Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
• Berbrier, M. (1998). Half the Battle: Cultural Resonance, Framing Processes, and Ethnic Affectations in Contemporary White Separatist Rhetoric. Social problems, 45(4), 431-450.
• Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Free Press. Erişim Adresi: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-07730-000. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights: A Framing-based Account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(2), 173-201.
• Bilgin, N. (2014). Sosyal Bilimlerde İçerik Analizi Teknikler ve Örnek Çalışmalar. Ankara: Siyasal Yayım Dağıtım.
• Cammaerts, B. (2007). Activism and Media. B. Cammaerts & N. Carpentier (Editörler), Reclaiming the Media: Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles (s. 217-224) içinde. Bristol: Intellect.
• Cappella, J. N. & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press. Cardoso, G. & Neto, P. P. (2004). Mass Media Driven Mobilization and Online Protest: ICTs and the pro-East Timor Movement in Portugal. W. van de Donk, D. Rucht, B. Loader & P. Nixon (Editörler), Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements (s.147-163) içinde. London: Routledge.
• Carragee, K. M. & Roefs, W. (2004). The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 214-233.
• Castells, M. (2001). Space of Flows, Space of Places: Materials for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age. The City Reader, 572-582.
• Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118.
• Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
• D'angelo, P. (2002). News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870-888.
• Druckman, J. N. (2001). The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256.
• Druckman, J. N. & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729-745.
• Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review, 1, 671-686.
• Ellingson, S. (1995). Understanding the Dialectic of Discourse and Collective Action: Public Debate and Rioting in Antebellum Cincinnati. American Journal of Sociology, 101(1), 100-144.
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
• Evans, S. (1997). Born for Liberty- A History of Women in America. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.
• Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
• Gans, H. J. (2004). Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Gerhards, J. & Rucht, D. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 555-596.
• Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: University Press of New England.
• Hertog, J. K. & McLeod, D. M. (2001). A Multiperspectival Approach to Framing Analysis: A Field Guide. S. D. Rees, O. H. Gandy & Jr. A. E. Grant (Editörler), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World (s. 139-161) içinde. New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publisher.
• Iyengar, S. (1987). Television News and Citizens' Explanations of National Affairs. The American Political Science Review, 1, 815-831.
• Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Juris, J. S. (2005). The New Digital Media and Activist Networking Within Anti–corporate Globalization Movements. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597(1), 189-208.
• Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2004). New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1), 87-95.
• Kühberger, A. (1998). The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23-55.
• Lomicky, C. S. & Hogg, N. M. (2010). Computer-mediated Communication and Protest: An Examination of Social Movement Activities at Gallaudet, A University for the Deaf. Information, Communication & Society, 13(5), 674-695.
• Marullo, S. (1996). Frame Changes and Social Movement Contraction: US Peace Movement Framing after the Cold War. Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), 1-28.
• Matthes, J. (2009). What's in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the World's Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349-367.
• Meyer, D. S. & Tarrow, S. (1998). A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
• Miller, P. M. & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 517-522.
• Mooney, P. H. & Hunt, S. A. (1996). A Repertoire of Interpretations: Master Frames and Ideological Continuity in US Agrarian Mobilization. Sociological Quarterly, 37(1), 177-197.
• Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M. & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
• O’keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 30(1), 1-43.
• O'Keefe, D. J. & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-framed Loss-framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-analytic Review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623-644.
• Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation. S. D. Rees, O. H. Gandy & Jr. A. E. Grant (Editörler), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World, (s. 35-65) içinde. New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publisher.
• Potter, W. J., & Riddle, K. (2007). A Content Analysis of the Media Effects Literature. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(1), 90-104.
• Price, V., Tewksbury, D. & Powers, E. (1997). Switching Trains of Thought: The Impact of News Frames on Readers' Cognitive Responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-506.
• Reese, S. D. (2007). The Framing Project: A Bridging Nodel for Media Research Revisited. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 148-154. Rolfe, B. (2005). Building an Electronic Repertoire of Contention. Social Movement Studies, 4(1), 65-74.
• Ryan, C. (1991). Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing. Boston: South End Press.
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
• Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2-3), 297-316.
• Scheufele, D. A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
• Schudson, M. (1983). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self.
• Shah, D. V., Domke, D. & Wackman, D. B. (1996). To Thine Own Self Be True Values, Framing, and Voter Decision-making Strategies. Communication Research, 23(5), 509-560.
• Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M. & Zubric, J. (2004). The Interplay of News Frames on Cognitive Complexity. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 102-120.
• Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the Message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Sniderman, P. M. & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (editörler), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change (s. 133-65) içinde. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Tilly, C. (1979). Social Movements and National Politics. Michigan: Center for Research on Social Organization University of Michigan Publishing. Erişim Adresi: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/50971/197.pdf?sequence=1
• Van Laer, J. & Van Aelst, P. (2009). Cyber-protest and Civil Society: The Internet and Action Repertoires in Social Movements. Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (editörler), Handbook on Internet Crime (s. 230-254) içinde. Dewon: Willan Publishing.
• Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests against the World Bank. M. McCaughey & M. Ayers (editörler), Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice (s. 71–95) içinde. London: Routledge.
• Wojcieszak, M. (2009). Carrying Online Participation Offline—Mobilization by Radical Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties. Journal of Communication, 59(3), 564-586.