Laiklik Bağlamında Yaş, Cinsiyet, Siyasi Görüş ve Dindarlık Seviyesine Göre Gruplararası İlişkide Belirleyici Olan Bazı Değişkenlerdeki Farklılaşmalar

Öz

Bu çalışmada gruplar arası ilişkileri günümüz Türkiye'sinde oldukça tartışmalı bir konu olan laiklik bağlamında incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Toplam 625 üniversite öğrencisine yapılan uygulamalar sonucunda, yaş ile Temas arasında pozitif, İç-Grup Kimliği ile negatif yönde ilişki bulunmuştur. Kadınlar İç-Grup Kimliği ve Algılanan Tehdit'te erkeklere nazaran daha
yüksek çıkarken erkekler İç-Grup Baskısı, Temas, Dış-Grubun Genel Değerlendirmesi puanlarında daha yüksek puanlar almışlardır. Kendini Kemalist olarak tanımlayanlar, diğer gruplardan anlamlı derecede daha yüksek grup içi bağlılık göstermişler, daha fazla tehdit algılamışlar ve dış grubu daha az olumlu değerlendirmişlerdir. Demokratlar anlamlı derecede daha yüksek Temas puanı alırken, İslamcılar, daha yüksek Ayrımcılık algılamışlardır. Dindarlık seviyesinin, Temas, Algılanan Ayrımcılık, Gruplararası İletişime Açık Olma ve Dış-Grubun Genel Değerlendirmesi ile pozitif yönde; Algılanan Tehdit ile negatif yönde anlamlı ilişki içinde olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Laiklik
• Sosyal kimlik
• Algılanan Tehdit
• Algılanan Ayrımcılık
• Temas
• İç-Grup Baskısı

Differentiations on Some Determinant Variables of Intergroup Relation According to Age, Sex, Political Vie w and Religiosity in Context of Laicism

Öz

The aim of this study is to investigate the intergroup relations in the context of Laicitywhich isa controversialissue nowadaysin Turkey. Resulst of the data gathered from totally 625 university students showed a positive relationship between age and Contact and a negative relationship between age and In-Group Identity. Women had higher scores then men from In-Group Identity and Perceived Threat; men were higher on In-Group Pressure, Contact and Overall Evaluation of the Out-Group. Kemalistsshowedmore In-GroupIdentitythan the other political groups, perceived more Threat, and evaluated the out-group less positive. Democrats had significantly higher Contact scoreswhereasIslamistsperceived more Discrimination than the other groups. The level of the religiosity was found to be positively related with Contact, Perceived Discrimination, Openness to Intergroup Communication and Overall Evaluation of the Out-Group and negatively related with perceived threat

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Laicity
• Social identity
• Perceived threat
• Perceived discrimination
• Contact
• In-Group Pressure

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, G. (2010). Social Identity and Inter- group Relations: The case of Alevis and Sunnis in Amasya. Middle East Techni- cal University, Ankara: Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
2. Baysu, G. (2007). The Effects of Intergroup Perceptions and In-group Identifications on the Political Participation of the Sec- ond-Generation Turkish Migrants in the Netherlands. Middle East Technical Uni- versity, Ankara: Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
3. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
4. Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and in- tergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692–703.
5. Cingöz Ulu, B. (2008). Structure of Turkish national identity and attitudes towards ethno-cultural groups in Turkey. Unpub- lished PhD Dissertation, York University, Toronto.
6. Cuhadar, E. & Dayton, B. (2011). The so- cial psychology of identity and inter- group conflict: From theory to practice. International Studies Perspective, 12, 273-293.
7. Does, S., Derks, B., & Ellemers, N. (2011). Thou shalt not discriminate: How emp- hasizing moral ideals rather than obliga- tions increases Whites’ support for social equality.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 562–571.
8. Dursun, Ç. (2006). The struggle goes on: The discursive strategies of the Isla- mist press in Turkey. Journal of Con- temporary European Studies, 14(2), 161–182.

9. Falomir-Pichastor, J.M., Gabarot, F. & Mugny, G. (2009). Group motives in threatening contexts: When a loyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the inf- luence of an anti-discrimination ingro- up norm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 196–206.
10. Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Oz-Rojas, D. M., Invernizzi, F. & Mugny, G. (2004). Per- ceived in-group threat as a factor mod- erating the influence of in-group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psycholo- gy, 34, 135–153.
11. Greer, J.E. (1985). Viewing “the other side” in Northern Ireland: Openness and atti- tudes to religion among Catholic and Protestant adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(3), 275- 292.
12. Hall, N.R., Crisp, R.J., & Suen, M. (2009). Reducing implicit prejudice by blurring intergroup boundaries. Basic and Appli- ed Social Psychology, 31, 244-254.
13. Hall, D.L., Matz, D.C., and Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious rac- ism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 126–139.
14. Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup con- tact in social integration. “Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity” Working Paper 09-12.
15. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of Social Identity Theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156.
16. Hunsberger, B. & Jackson, L.M. (2005). Re- ligion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 807-826.
17. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Di- mensions of contact as predictors of in- tergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710.
18. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.
19. Livingstone, A., & Haslam, S.A. (2008). The importance of social identity content in a setting of chronic social conflict: Understanding intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. British Journal of So- cial Psychology, 47, 1–21.
20. Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1992). A col- lective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology bulletin, 18, 302-318.
21. Newcomb, T. (1965). Attitude development as a function of reference groups: The Bennington study. In H. Proshansky, & B. Seidenberg (Eds), Basic Studies in Social Psychology (pp. 215 230). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
22. Paker, K. O. (2005). Günlük Düşüncede Modernlik, Din ve Laiklik. Ankara: Vadi Yay.
23. Riek, B.M., Mania, E.W., & Gaertner, S.L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353.
24. Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How mi- nority group members perceive the dis- crimination that confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 826-838.
25. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies on intergroup relations. New York: Harper.
26. Smurda, J.D., Wittig, M.A. & Gokalp, G. (2006). Effects of threat to a valued so- cial identity on implicit self-esteem and discrimination. Group Processes Interg- roup Relations, 9, 181-197.
27. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, W. C. (1996). Intergroup Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
28. Stephan, W. G. & Stephan, C. W. (1996a). Predicting prejudice. International Jo- urnal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409-426.
29. Stephan, W. G & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination: The Claremont Sympo- sium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlba- um.
30. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
31. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An in- tegrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
32. Turam, B. (2008). Secularist activism ver- sus pious non-resistance. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(4), 475–494. van der Noll, J., Poppe, E. and Verkuyten, M. (2010). Political tolerance and prejudice: differential reactions toward Muslims in the Netherlands. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32,46–56. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. A multi- disciplinary approach. Sage: London.