DIGITAL HABITUS, HONOUR REGIMES AND MORPHOGENESIS: THE RESTRUCTURING OF INTERGENERATIONAL CLOTHING PRACTICES AMONG WOMEN IN ŞANLIURFA

Öz

This article employs qualitative research to examine how clothing practices across generations among women are being restructured in Şanlıurfa, a traditional-conservative city in Turkiye. It brings together the theories of Foucault, Bourdieu, and Archer within a theoretical framework centred on the concept of “digital habitus”. The analysis treats the conflict between the traditional habitus, shaped by local honour/shame regimes and horizontal surveillance mechanisms, and the digital habitus associated with digital platforms and algorithmic personalisation as a mechanism that may activate Archer's morphogenetic cycle. The findings from in-depth interviews with women of different ages suggest that this conflict is associated with both the reproduction (morphostasis) and transformation (morphogenesis) of norms, alongside new hybrid subjectivities, forms of digital capital, and lines of inequality. By analysing the effects of digitalisation on gender practices through a mechanism-based approach, the article connects debates in digital sociology, gender studies, and Middle Eastern cultural studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Clothing
• Digital Habitus
• Intergenerational Conflict
• Morphogenesis
• Şanlıurfa

Destekleyen Kurum

No funding was used to conduct the research.

DİJİTAL HABİTUS, ONUR REJİMLERİ VE MORFOGENEZ: ŞANLIURFA’DA KADINLARIN KUŞAKLARARASI GİYİM PRATİKLERİNİN YENİDEN YAPILANDIRILMASI

Öz

Bu makale, Türkiye’nin geleneksel-muhafazakâr bir şehri olan Şanlıurfa’da kadınların kuşaklararası giyim pratiklerinin nasıl yeniden yapılandırıldığını nitel bir araştırma ile incelemektedir. Çalışma, Foucault, Bourdieu ve Archer’ın kuramlarını “dijital habitus” kavramı çevresinde bir araya getiren bir teorik çerçeve kullanmaktadır. Araştırma, yerel onur/utanç rejimleri ve yatay gözetim mekanizmaları tarafından şekillendirilen geleneksel habitus ile dijital platformlar ve algoritmik kişiselleştirme tarafından üretilen dijital habitus arasındaki çatışmayı, Archer’ın morfogenetik döngüsünü harekete geçirebilecek temel bir mekanizma olarak ele almaktadır. Farklı kuşaklardan kadınlarla yapılan derinlemesine görüşmelerden elde edilen bulgular, bu çatışmanın hem normların yeniden üretimi (morfostaz) hem de dönüşümüyle (morfogenez) ilişkili olduğuna ve yeni melez öznellikler, dijital sermaye biçimleri ve eşitsizlik hatları ürettiğine işaret etmektedir. Çalışma, dijitalleşmenin toplumsal cinsiyet pratikleri üzerindeki etkilerini mekanizma-temelli bir yaklaşımla analiz ederek dijital sosyoloji, toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmaları ve Ortadoğu kültürel çalışmaları arasındaki tartışmaları birbirine bağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Giyim
• Dijital Habitus
• Kuşaklararası Çatışma
• Morfogenez
• Şanlıurfa

Destekleyen Kurum

Araştırmanın yürütülmesinde herhangi bir fon kullanılmamıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, M. F., Khan, N. R. M., Ibrahim, M. A., & Putit, L. (2023). Exploring the influence of social media influencers’ (SMIs) traits on consumer purchasing behavior for online products on the TikTok platform: The mediating effect of trustworthiness. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(11), 2046-2057. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i11/19605
2. Abeyasekera, A., & Marecek, J. (2019). Embodied shame and gendered demeanours in young women in Sri Lanka. Feminism & Psychology, 29(1), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518803976
3. Andreevskikh, O., & Muravyeva, M. (2020). Doing gender online: Digital spaces for identity politics. In D. Gritsenko, M. Wijermars, & M. Kopotev (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of digital Russia studies (pp. 205–219). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42855-6_12
4. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
5. Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
6. Archer, M. S. (2013). Structure, Culture and Agency. In T. Brock, M. Carrigan, & G. Scambler (Eds.), Structure, Culture and Agency: Selected Papers of Margaret Archer. Routledge.
7. Archer, M. S. (2014). Morphogenesis: Realism’s explanatory framework. In T. Brock, M. Carrigan, & G. Scambler (Eds.), Structure, culture and agency: Selected papers of Margaret Archer (pp. 1-35). Routledge.
8. Aryal, V. (2025). Foucault’s Disciplinary Society and Gender Dynamics: A Critical Appraisal. Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.3126/jps.v25i1.75775

9. Bannykh, G. (2021). Gender Digital Inequality: Conceptualization and Practices. In Digitalization and Gender (Dis)empowerment (pp. 167-181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71397-313
10. Batten, A. J., & Olson, K. (2021). Dress in Mediterranean antiquity: Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians. T&T Clark. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567684677
11. Bennett, T. (2007). Habitus clivé: aesthetics and politics in the work of pierre bourdieu. New Literary History, 38(1), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2007.0013
12. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511812507
13. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi (D. Fırat Şannan & A. G. Berkkurt, Çev.). Heretik. (Orijinal çalışma 1979’da yayımlandı).
14. Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17, 249–265.
15. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
16. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
17. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
18. Chen, J. (2021). Clothing and identity: Chinese rural students’ embodied transformations in the urban university. Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833211038613
19. Costa, E. (2021). Please ‘Like’ Me: Reconfiguring reputation and shame in Southeast Turkey. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 146(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.18452/24044
20. Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a Sea of Shame: Incorporating Emotion into Explanations of Institutional Reproduction and Change. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2012.0074
21. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
22. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
23. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
24. Eger, C. (2020). Equality and Gender at Work in Islam: The Case of the Berber Population of the High Atlas Mountains. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(2), 210–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.21
25. El Samra, A. S., Anastasakis, L., Albores, P., & Uren, V. (2019). Big data, big impact: How firms are using social media for innovation and better performance. International Conference on Advances in Business Management and Law (ICABML), 2(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.30585/icabml-cp.v2i1.180
26. Feldman, S. (2010). Shame and honour: The violence of gendered norms under conditions of global crisis. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2010.02.004
27. Finn, R. L. (2011). Surveillant staring: Race and the everyday surveillance of South Asian women after 9/11. Surveillance & Society, 8(4), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.24908/SS.V8I4.4179
28. Foucault, M. (1992). Hapishanenin doğuşu (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge. (Orijinal çalışma 1975’te yayımlandı).
29. Gambetti, R. (2020). Netnography, Digital Habitus, and Technocultural Capital. In The Routledge handbook of netnography (ss. 293-319). Routledge.
30. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.
31. Ghosh, A. (2021). Disciplinary power and practices of body politics: an evaluation of Dalit women in Bama’s Sangati and P. Sivakami’s The Grip of Change through Foucauldian discourse analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00866-y
32. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
33. Greenberg Raanan, M., & Avni, N. (2020). (Ad)dressing belonging in a contested space: Embodied spatial practices of Palestinian and Israeli women in Jerusalem. Political Geography, 76, 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.102090
34. Güzel, E. (2016). Digital Culture and The Actor of Competition in Online Social Networks: “Digital Habitus”. AJIT‐e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 7(24), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2016.2.004.X
35. Hällgren, C. (2018). Crowdsourcing identities: one way to think about young people’s making of identity in conditions proposed by contemporary, digital technologies?. ICERI2018 Proceedings, 6976-6983. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.1574
36. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
37. Harracá, M., Castelló, I., & Gawer, A. (2023). How Digital Platforms Organize Immaturity: A Sociosymbolic Framework of Platform Power. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3), 440–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.40
38. Helms, B. (2015). Honour and Shame in the Canadian Muslim Community: Developing Culturally Sensitive Counselling Interventions. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 49(3).
39. Honkatukia, P., & Keskinen, S. (2018). The social control of young women’s clothing and bodies: A perspective of differences on racialization and sexualization. Ethnicities, 18(1), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796817701773
40. Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 951-954. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301519
41. Imam, M., & Manimekalai, P. (2025). Emerging Technologies, Hidden Biases: Gender and the New Frontiers of Security. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.8120342
42. Kandiyoti, D. (1987). Emancipated but unliberated? Reflections on the Turkish case. Feminist Studies, 13(2), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177804
43. Karademir Hazır, I. K. (2017). Wearing class: A study on clothes, bodies and emotions in Turkey. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(2), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540516631152
44. Karizat, T., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., & Andalibi, N. (2021). Algorithmic folk theories of professional content creators on tiktok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-32.
45. Keen, C., & France, A. (2022). Capital gains in a digital society: Exploring how familial habitus shapes digital dispositions and outcomes in three families from Aotearoa, New Zealand. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4554-4571. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122228
46. Kwan, S., & Haltom, T. (2020). Gender and bodies. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0236
47. Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245-264). Sage.
48. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
49. Lusty, N. (2021). Fashion futures and critical fashion studies. Continuum, 35(6), 813-823. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2021.1993568
50. Ngwenyama, O., Rowe, F., Klein, S., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2024). The open prison of the Big Data revolution: False consciousness, Faustian bargains, and digital entrapment. Information Systems Research, 35(4), 2030–2058. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0588
51. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
52. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
53. Paudel, J. R. (2023). Female body’s in advertisements: a foucauldian analysis. Chaturbhujeshwar Acad. J., 1(1), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.3126/caj.v1i1.63136
54. Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., Addeo, F., & Delli Paoli, A. (2022). Converting digital capital in five key life realms. Italian Sociological Review, 12(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.13136/isr.v12i1.517
55. Ratner, C. (2000). Agency and culture. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00138
56. Ristić, D., & Kišjuhas, A. (2024). The concept of habitus in the research of digital divides and ınequalities. TEME. https://doi.org/10.22190/teme221221055r
57. Romele, A. (2023). Digital Habitus: A Critique of the Imaginaries of Artificial Intelligence. Routledge.
58. Romele, A., & Rodighiero, D. (2020). Digital habitus or personalization without personality. Humana.Mente, 13(37), 98–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950031
59. Sayan-Cengiz, F. (2014). Headscarf in the context of precarious work: a critical approach to the headscarf discussion in turkey. In Gender and the Organization (pp. 111-124). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04916-4_9
60. Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Sage.
61. Soltani, A., Johnston, L., & Longhurst, R. (2021). Fashioning hybrid Muslim women’s veiled embodied geographies in Hamilton, Aotearoa New Zealand: #hijabi spaces. Gender, Place & Culture, 29(3), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2021.1946487
62. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
63. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
64. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2022). Data analysis in qualitative research: Theorizing with abductive analysis. University of Chicago Press.
65. Williams, R. R. (2010). Space for God: Lived religion at work, home, and play. Sociology of Religion, 71(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq048
66. Yefanov, A. A. (2023). Structure of symbolic capital in the modern communication environment: Digital network progression. Digital Sociology, 6(2), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2023-6-2-51-57
67. Yıldız, G. (2023). Kültür, moda ve gündelik hayat: Mozaik bir kent olarak Urfa’da erkeklik kimliğin izini sürmek. Nobel Yayınevi.