Göçmenlerde veya Dezavantajlı Gruplarda Sosyal Umut ve Sosyal Umudun Belirleyicileri: Ahıska Türkleri Üzerine Bir Alan Çalışması

Yıl 2023, , 351 - 381, 15.03.2023

Şerafettin Keleş , Burcu Kaya

https://doi.org/10.56720/mevzu.1233155

Öz

Umut; olumlu beklentileri ifade etmek için kullanılmakta ve bireylerin öz-yeterlilik ve iyimserlik hali olarak ifade edilmektedir. Sosyal umut, bireylerin ait oldukları toplum ve grup içinde iyi ve anlamlı yaşam ve geleceğe dair sosyal hayaller ve kolektif vizyonlara dair beklentileri ve inancı ifade eder. Sosyal altsınıfların ve özellikle göçmen bireylerin geleceğe olan inanç ve umutlarını artırmada sosyal kaynaşma, sosyal sermaye ve ekonomik beklentiler önemli birer faktör durumundadır. Sosyal sermaye ve sosyal kaynaşma, etnik veya sınıfsal eşitsizliklerin azaltılması veya ortadan kaldırılmasında birer manivela görevi görebilmektedir. Çalışma, göçmenler ve diğer dezavantajlı grupların sosyal umutları ile sosyal sermayeleri, sosyal kaynaşmaları ve ekonomik beklentileri arasında ilişkiyi tespit etmeye çalışması nedeniyle nüfusunun %10’u kadar göçmen barındıran Türkiye açısından önemlidir. Çalışma bulguları; “Sosyal Sermaye (SS)” ile “Sosyal Umut (SU)” arasında pozitif yönde ve çok yüksek düzeyde (γ = 0,51; t = 6,30) ilintinin varlığını tespit etmiştir. Yine, “Sosyal Kaynaşma (SK)” ile “Sosyal Umut (SU)” arasında pozitif yönde ve çok yüksek düzeyde (γ = 0.86; t = 11,12) bir ilinti ve “Ekonomik Beklenti (EB)” ve “Sosyal Umut (SU)” arasında pozitif yönde ve çok yüksek düzeyde (γ = 0,84; t = 12,04) bir ilinti saptamıştır. Göçmenler veya dezavantajlı gruplar için sosyal umudun varlığı, toplum içinde daha iyi yaşam ve başarı vizyonlarına ulaşabilme fırsat ve imkânlarının varlığına işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal Umut, Sosyal Sermaye, Sosyal Kaynaşma, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli, Ahıska Türkleri

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok

Proje Numarası

Yok

Social Hope and Determinants of Social Hope in Immigrants or Disadvantaged Groups: A Field Study on Meskhetian Turks

Öz

Hope; It is used to express positive expectations and is expressed as individuals' self-efficacy and optimism. Social hope refers to individuals' expectations and belief in social dreams and collective visions for the good and meaningful life and future within the society and group to which they belong. Social cohesion, social capital and economic expectations are important factors in increasing the faith and hopes of the social lower classes and especially immigrant individuals for the future. Social capital and social cohesion can act as levers in reducing or eliminating ethnic or class inequalities. The study is important for Turkey, which has immigrants up to 10% of its population, as it tries to determine the relationship between the social hopes of immigrants and other disadvantaged groups and their social capital, social cohesion and economic expectations. Study findings; He found a positive and very high correlation (γ = 0.51; t = 6.30) between “Social Capital (SS)” and “Social Hope (SU)”. Again, there is a positive and very high correlation (γ = 0.86; t = 11.12) between “Social Cohesion (SK)” and “Social Hope (SU)”, and “Economic Expectation (EB)” and “Social Hope ( SU)” in the positive direction and at a very high level (γ = 0.84; t = 12.04). The existence of social hope for immigrants or disadvantaged groups indicates the existence of opportunities and possibilities to achieve visions of better life and success in society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Hope, Social Capital, Social Cohesion, Structural Equality Model, Meskhetian Turks

Proje Numarası

Yok

Kaynakça

• Akpınar, E. (2016). Donetsk’ten Erzincan’a: Ahıska sürgünlerinin son göçü. TÜCAUM Uluslararası Coğrafya Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı (s. 13-40). içinde
• Asım, Ö. (1995). Atasözleri ve Deyimler Sözlüğü 2. İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi.
• Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2002). Social cohesion: Updating the state of the research (Cilt 62). Ottawa: CPRN.
• Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of hope. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Bordens, K., & Abbott, B. (2014). Ebook: Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. McGraw Hill.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. J. G. (Ed.) içinde, Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (s. 241-258). New York and London: Greenwood Press.
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic capital and social classes. Journal of classical sociology, 13(2), 292-302.
• Bowen, N., & Guo, S. (2011). Structural equation modeling. Oxford University Press.
• Breznitz, S. (1986). The effect of hope on coping with stress. In Dynamics of stress (s. 295-306). içinde Boston MA: Springer.
• Brown, G. (2013). The revolt of aspirations: Contesting neoliberal social hope. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(3), 419-430.
• Bruininks, P., & Malle, B. (2005). Distinguishing hope from optimism and related affective states. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 327–355. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9010-4.
• Bury, S., Wenzel, M., & Woodyatt, L. (2016). Giving hope a sporting chance: Hope as distinct from optimism when events are possible but not probable. Motivation and Emotion, 40(4), 588-601.
• Cole, J., & Durham, D. (2008). Figuring the future: Globalization and the temporalities of children and youth. School for Advanced Research on the.
• Dekker, K. (2007). Social capital, neighbourhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. A case study in The Hague and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 22(3), 355-379.
• Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban studies, 42(13), 2447-2470.
• Farran, C., Herth, K., & Popovich, J. (1995). Hope and hopelessness: Critical clinical constructs. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing. A Study of A Housing Community Harper, 27.
• Fine, B. (2000). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of the millennium. London: Routledge.
• Fox, J. (2002). Structural equation models. Appendix to an R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression.
• Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak tie. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
• Hage, G. (2003). Searching for hope in a shrinking society. Sidney: Pluto Press.
• Halfacree, K. (2004). A utopian imagination in migration's terra incognita? Acknowledging the non‐economic worlds of migration decision‐making. Population, Space and Place, 10(3), 239-253.
• Halpern, D. (1999). Social capital: The new golden goose. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
• Harris, J., & Todaro, M. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. The American economic review, 60(1), 126-142.
• Harvey, D. (1989). 1989: The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hasanoğlu, İ. (2016). Ahıska Türkleri: Bitmeyen Bir Göç Hikâyesi. Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 16(1), 1-20.
• Hope Cheong, P. (2006). Communication context, social cohesion and social capital building among Hispanic immigrant families. Community, work and family, 9(3), 367-387.
• Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Ottawa: Canadian policy research networks.
• Jung, P. (2021). Hope, Disillusion and Coincidence in Migratory Decisions by Senegalese Migrants in Brazil. Social Inclusion, 9(1), 268-277.
• Keskin, A., & Keleş, Ş. (2018). Formation of the social capital by its dimensions in rural areas of Erzurum province in Turkey. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL AND PLANT SCIENCES, 28(6).
• Kleist, N. (2016). Introduction: Studying hope and uncertainty in African migration. In Hope and uncertainty in contemporary African migration (s. 1-20). içinde Routledge.
• Kleist, N., & Thorsen, D. (2017). Hope and uncertainty in contemporary African migration. Taylor & Francis.
• Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
• Koppenberg, Z. (2012). Where do forced migrants stand in the migration and development debate. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 2(1), 77-90.
• Korner, I. (1970). Hope as a method of coping. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 34(2), 134.
• Krishna, A. (2000). Creating and harnessing social capital. Social capital: A multifaceted perspective, 71-93.
• Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• Mar, P. (2005). Unsettling potentialities: Topographies of hope in transnational migration. ournal of intercultural studies, 26(4), 361-378.
• Margalit, M., & Idan, O. (2004). Resilience and hope theory: An expanded paradigm for learning disabilities research. Thalamus, 22(1), 58-64.
• Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Hope: The power of wish and possibility. Theory and Psychology, 20(2), 251– 276. doi:10.1177/0959354309354393.
• Mohan, G., & Mohan, J. (2002). Placing social capital. Progress in human geography, 26(2), 191-210.
• Moreno, J., & Jennings, H. (1938). Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry, 342-374.
• Narotzky, S., & Besnier, N. (2014). Crisis, value, and hope: rethinking the economy: an introduction to supplement 9. Current anthropology, 55(9), 4-16.
• Nelissen, R. (1915). The motivational properties of hope in goal-striving. Cognition and Emotion. doi:doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1095165.
• Nietzsche, F. (2021). Human, all too human. Phoemixx Classics Ebooks.
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World development, 24(6), 073-1087.
• Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of social economics, 36(12), 1133-1152.
• Pine, F. (2014). Migration as hope: space, time, and imagining the future. Current Anthropology, 55(9), 95-104.
• Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18407- 18408.
• Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political science & politics, 28(4), 664-683.
• Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. (2006). On multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 130-141.
• Snyder, C. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological inquiry, 13(4), 249-275.
• Snyder, C., Feldman, D., Shorey, H., & Rand, K. (2002). Hopeful choices: A school counselor's guide to hope theory. Professional School Counseling, 5(5), 298.
• Staeheli, L., & Clarke, S. (2003). The new politics of citizenship: structuring participation by household, work, and identity. Urban Geography, 24(2), 103-126.
• Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L., & Ullman, J. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 b., s. 481-498). içinde Bostan: MA: pearson.
• Turner, J. (1990). Redescubrir el grupo social: una teoría de la categorización del yo. Ediciones Morata.
• Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and enviornmental sustainability. Environment and behavior, 34(1), 26-53.
• Vanecko, J. (1969). Community mobilization and institutional change: The influence of the community action program in large cities. Social Science Quarterly, 609-630.
• Weston, R., & Gore Jr, P. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The counseling psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
• Wickramasinghe, A., & Wimalaratana, W. (2016). International migration and migration theories. Social Affairs, 1(5), 15-32.
• Zetter, R. (2015). Protection in crisis: Forced migration and protection in a global era. Migration Policy Institute.