BABALIK KÜLTÜRÜ VE KİMLİĞİ

Öz

Babalık her bireyin yaşamında aktör olarak gerekliliklerini yerine getirdiği bir kimlik veya karşı rol olarak yaşamın bir döneminde etkileşim içerisinde bulunduğu bir roldür. Erkek olarak bir bireyin topluma kendini ispatlamasının son aşaması olarak dayatılan bu kimliğin erkekler için önemi daha da artmaktadır. Son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalara da bakıldığında bu ilginin arttığı görülmektedir. Ancak yapılan çalışmalara bakıldığında babalık karşı rol bağlamında çalışılmakta, çocuğun gelişimi ve değişiminde babanın rolü üzerinden araştırmalar yapılmaktadır. Bir aktör olarak babanın gözünden bu kimliğe atfedilen anlamlara ilişkin çalışmalar yeterli değildir. Bireysel rollerin çeşitlenerek arttığı modern toplumlarda babalık rolünden beklentilerin artması erkeklerin babalık krizleri yaşamasına neden olmaktadır. Yaşanan bu krizlerin önüne geçilebilmesi için babalık çalışmalarına aktör olarak babaların gözünden yaklaşılması gereksinimi ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada araştırmacıların dikkatini çekmek ve yapılacak yeni çalışmalara yol göstermek amacıyla babalık kültürü kavramı ve kimlik teorisi açıklanmıştır. Babalığa ait toplumsal normlara atıfla kullanılan babalık kültürü kavramı ve bireyin benliğindeki içselleştirilmiş rol beklentileri olarak tanımlanan babalık kimliği ile babalık araştırmalarına daha geniş bir perspektiften bakılması amaçlanmıştır. Babalığa kimlik perspektifinden yaklaşım bu rolün icracısı olan erkeklerin gözünden babalığın anlaşılmasında literatüre katkı yapacağı değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Babalık,Babalık Kültürü,Babalık Kimliği,Kimlik Teorisi

The Culture And Ident i ty Of Fatherhood

Öz

Fatherhood is a role in which each individual interacts at some point in his life as an identity or an opposing role in which he fulfills his requirements as actor in his life. This identity, which is imposed as the final stage of an individual's self-testification as a man, is becoming more and more important for men. It is observed that this interest has increased in recent years. However, when we look at the studies, the role of father is studied and researches are carried out on the role of father in the development and change of the child. Studies on the meanings attributed to this identity from the eyes of the father as an actor are not enough. In modern societies where individual roles have increased and increased, expectations for fatherhood role cause men to experience fatherhood crises. In order to prevent these crises, the necessity of approaching the paternity studies as an actor from the eyes of the fathers emerges. In this study, the concept of fatherhood culture and identity theory is explained in order to draw the attention of the researchers and to guide the new studies. The concept of fatherhood culture, which is used with reference to the social norms of paternity and the paternity identity defined as the internalized role expectations in the individual's self, is aimed at looking at fatherhood research from a wider perspective. Approach to fatherhood from the perspective of identity approach It is evaluated that this role will contribute to the literature in understanding the paternity from the eyes o f the men who are the executor of this role.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fatherhood,Culture of Fatherhood,Identity of Fatherhood,Identity Theory

Kaynakça

1. Brenner, P., Serpe, R. ve Stryker, S. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and salience ı n ıdentity t heory: an empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77 ( 3 ) , 231 - 252.
2. Brenner, P . , Serpe, R . ve Stryker, S . (2018). Role - specific self - efficacy as precedent a n d product of the ıdentity model. Sociological Perspectives, 61 ( 1 ) , 57 - 80.
3. Burke, P. (1991). Ident ity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review , 56 ( 6 ) , 836 - 849.
4. Burke, P. ve Reitzes, D . (1991). An i dentit y theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly , 54 ( 3 ) , 239 - 251.
5. Burke, P. ve Stets, J. (1999). Trust a nd commi tment through self - verification. Social Psychology Quarterly , 62, 347 - 366.
6. Callero, P. ve Piliavin, J . (1983). Developing a commitment to blood donation: the ı mpact of one’s first experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 43 , 1 - 16.
7. Carter, M. (2013). Advancing ıdentity theory: exa mining the relationship between activated ıdentities and behavi or ın different social contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly , 76 ( 3 ) , 203 – 223.
8. Cast, A . (1998). Parent ıdentities and behavior: an ıdentity theory approach. Doctoral Dissertation , Washington Sta te University, Washington. Craig, L. (2006) , does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers ın ıntact families spend time with children . Gender A nd Society , 20 ( 2 ) , 259 - 281.

9. Crespi, I . ve Ruspini, E . (2015). Transition to fatherhood: new perspectives in the gl obal context of changing men’s i dentities . International Review of Sociology , 25 ( 3 ) , 353 - 358.
10. Daly, K. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: finding the models . Journal of Family Issues , 14 ( 4 ) , 525 - 527.
11. Doherty, W ., Kouneski, E . ve Erickson, M . (1998). Responsible fathering : an overview and conceptual framework . Journal Of Marriage And The Family , 60 ( 2 ) , 277 - 292.
12. Fox, B . (2001). The formative years: how parenthood creates gender . Canadian Review Of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie , 38 (4), 373 - 390.
13. Gaunt, R . ve Scott, J . (2014). Parents’ involvement i n c hildcare: do parental and work i dentities matter? , Psychology of Women Quarterly , 38 ( 4 ) , 475 - 489.
14. Hwang, E . (2012). Being a “good daddy”: exploring the stability of paternal ıdentity . Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa St ate University Ames, Iowa.
15. Lamb, M . (1986). The changing role of fathers . M. Lamb ( Ed. ), T he father's role: applied perspectives . (ss. 3 - 27) . New York: Wiley.
16. LaRossa, R . (1988). F atherhood and social change . Family Relations, 37 (4), 451 - 457.
17. Maurer, T . , Pleck, J . ve Rane, T . Methodological considerations i n measuring paternal ıdentity . Fathering , 1 , 117 – 129.
18. McCall, G. ve Simmons, J . (1978). Identities and i nteractions: an examination of human associations in everyday life . New York: The Free Press.
19. McLaughlin, K. ve Muldoon, O . (2014). Father identity, i nvolveme nt and work - family balance: an in - depth i nterview study . Journal Of Community And Applied Social Psychology , 24 ( 5 ) , 439 - 452.
20. Pasley, K . , Futris, T . ve Skinner, M . (2002). Effects of commitment and psychological centrality on fathering . Journal of Marriage and Family , 64 ( 1 ), 130 - 138.
21. Rane, T . ve McBride, B . (2000). Identity theory as a g uide to understanding fathers’ i nvolvement with their children . Journal Of Family Issues , 21 ( 3 ) , 347 - 366.
22. Roopnarine, J . (2015). Introduction: toward a pancultural understanding of constructions and meanings of fathering . J . Roopnarine ( Ed. ) , F athers across cultures: the ımportance, roles, and diverse practices of dads . (ss. 1 - 12). California : Praeger .
23. Sasaki, T . (2008). What i t means to be a good father: a test of identıty theory. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
24. Serpe, R . ve Stryker, S . (2011). The symbolic i nteractionist perspective and i dentity theory . S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx ve V . Vignoles, (Ed.), Handbook of ıdentity theory and research . (ss. 225 - 248 ). New York: Springer.
25. Singley, S. ve Hynes, K . (2005). Transitions to parenthood work - family policies, gende r, and the couple context . Gender and Society , 19 (3) , 376 - 397.
26. Stryker, S . (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version , CA : Benjamin Cummings.
27. Stryker, S . (1987). Identity theory: developments and extensions . Krysia Y . ve Terry H . (Ed.), Self and ıdentity: psychosocial perspectives . (ss. 89 - 103 ) . New York: Wiley .
28. Stryker, S . (2007). Identity theory and personality theory: mutual relevance . Journal O f Personality, 75 (6), 1083 - 1102.
29. Stryker, S . ve Burke, P . (2000). The past, present, and future of an i dentity theory . Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 ( 4 ), 284 - 297.
30. Stryker, S . ve Serpe, R . (2011). Commitment, i dentity salience, and role behavior: theory and research example . W . Ickes ve E . Knowles (Ed.) , Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior , (ss. 199 - 218). NY: Springer.
31. Şenol, D . ve Erdem, S . (2017). Türk toplumunda hegemonik erkekliğin inşa sında toplumsal süreçlerin rolü. TURAN - SAM Uluslararası Bilimsel Hakemli Dergisi , 33 (9), .297 - 298.
32. Zeybekoğlu, Ö . (2013). G ünümüzde erkeklerin gözünden babalık ve aile . Dok tora tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler E nstitüsü .
33. Wall, G. ve Arnold, S . (2007). How involved i s ınvolved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood . Gender A nd Society , 21 (4), 522 - 523.