You are here

Home » Content

ETNİKLİK VE SOSYAL KAYNAŞMA İLİŞKİSİ: ADANA ÖRNEĞİ

ETNİKLİK VE SOSYAL KAYNAŞMA İLİŞKİSİ: ADANA ÖRNEĞİ

Journal Name:

  • Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
There are some evaluations spreading especially on the media that Kurdish ghettos have been forming, the Kurdish and Turkish nationalism have been rising, and in turn increases the tension between the ethnicities and the social dissolution issue has come out in the metropolitan cities particularly in Adana where intense migration occurred. Do we really have reason to worry about social cohesion? In this article, we throw light on social cohesion by exploring differences across ethnic groups in a variety of sensitive social linkages, including a sense of pride, belonging and citizenship, levels of interpersonal trust, the balance between liberal and socially conservative values, the extent of engagement in social interactions that bridge cultural divides. In the field survey conducted in Adana a visa- vis interview was made with participants and correlation analysis among variables was carried out. The noteworthy findings of the survey was that religion and religious values are the most significant factors building social cohesion and mutual trust among the ethnic groups
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Yoğun göç alarak büyüyen Adana İli gibi metropol çevrelerde Kürt gettolarının oluştuğu, Kürt-Türk milliyetçiliklerinin yükselerek etnik kimlikler arası gerilimin ortaya çıktığı ve sosyal ayrışmanın yaşandığı yönünde değerlendirmeler giderek yaygınlaşmaktadır. Gerçekten, sosyal kaynaşma tehlikede mi? Bu çalışmada, Adana ilinde Türk ve Kürt etnik kimliklerine göre sosyal kaynaşma değerlendirilmekte, sosyal kaynaşmanın; gurur duygusu, aidiyet ve vatandaşlık, güven, demokratik/sosyal değerler ve etnik kimlikler arası akrabalık-evlilik nitelikli köprü kurucu etkileşim boyutuyla tespiti amaçlanmıştır. Yapılan alan araştırmasında katılımcılarla anket formu üzerinden yüz yüze görüşme gerçekleştirilmiş, değişkenler arası bağıntı analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulgulardan dikkat çekici olanı; etnik kesimlerin sosyal kaynaşmasını ve karşılıklı güvenlerini sağlayan en önemli olgunun dini inanç ve değerler olduğudur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-etniklik-sosyal-kaynasma-iliskisi-adana-ornegi.pdf
  • 1
223-244
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. ALESINA, Alberto ve Eliana FERRARA (2002), “Who Trusts Others?” Journal
of Public Economics, 85(2): 207-234.
2. BEAUVAIS, Caroline, Jane JENSON (2002), “Social Cohesion: Updating the
State of the Research”, CPRN Discussion Paper, n: F/22. 2002.http//www.cprn.org/doc.cfm ?doc=167&1=en (10.12.2009)
3. BERNARD, Paul (1999), “Social Cohesion: A Critique”, CPRN Discussion Paper
No : F/09, Aralık 1999. http//www.cprn.org/doc.cfm ?doc=311&=en(12.12.2009)
4. CHAN, Joseph; Ho-Pong TO ve Elaine CHAN (2006), “Reconsidering Social
Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research,” Social Indicators Research, 75, s: 273.
5. ÇUHADAR, Esra (2009), “Karşılaştırmalı Barış Süreçleri Açısından Kürt Açılımı:
6. Olasılıklar, Açmazlar, İyimserlikler”. Birikim. Kasım 2009. s: 11-19.
7. DAHL, Robert A. (1971), Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition, New Haven
and London, Yale University Press.
8. DAHL, Robert A. (1961). Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.
9. DAHRENDORF, Ralf (1995), Report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in
a Free Society, London.
10. DENISE, Nancy (2005), The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in
Iraq, Turkey and Iraq. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
11. DUMAN, Betül ve Osman ALACAHAN (2010), “Sosyal Kaynaşma” Süleyman
Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. C.15,S.1 s:103-128.
12. DUMAN, Betül ve Osman ALACAHAN (2011), “Sosyal Sermaye/Güven
Boyutunda Etniklik”, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,2011 10(1), 181-208.
13. GÜNDÜZ, Mustafa ve Ferhan GÜNDÜZ (2007), Yurttaşlık Bilinci. Ankara. AnıYayıncılık.
14. HEPER, Metin (2008), Devlet ve Kürtler (Çev: Kadriye Göksel). Ankara: DoğanKitap.
15. HOŞGÖR, Ayşe G.ve Jeroen SMITS (2002), “Intermarriage Between Turks and
Kurds in Contemporary Turkey: Inter-ethnic Relations in an Urbanizing
16. Environment”, European Sociological Review, v: 18, i: 4, s: 417-432,2002.
17. HUNTINGTON, Samuel (2004), “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s
18. National Identity”. New York: Simon and Schuster. Information
19. Management, The University of Brighton. http://www.it.bton.ac.uk/research/seake/intro.html. (Erişim Tarihi 1/10/2010)
20. GREEN, Andy., Germ JANMAAT ve Christine HAN (2009,) Regimes of Social
Cohesion, Published by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in
Knowledge Economies and Societies at: http://www.llakes.org.uk.
(Erişim Tarihi 05.06.2010).
21. JENSON, Jane (1998), Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian
Research, Canadian Policy Research Networks, CPRN Study, n° F/03.
1998: 15–17.
22. KAPLAN, Robert (1994), “Coming Anarchy” Atlantic Montly. Şubat 1994: 44-76.
23. KİRİŞÇİ, Kemal; Gareth. M. WINROW (1997), The Kurdish Question and
Turkey. An Example of a Trans-State Ethnic Conflict. London: Frank Cross
24. KİRİŞÇİ, Kemal (2007), “The Kurdish Question and Turkey: Future Challanges
and Prospects for a Solution”, ISPI Working Paper. Aralık 2007, v: 24.
25. MILLER, Eugene (1971), “David Easton’s Political Theory”. Political Science
Reviewer, 1, Sonbahar, 1971, s: 184-235.
26. http://www.mmisi.org/pr/01_01/miller.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 18.12.2010).
27. PUTNAM, Robert. D. (1993), Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28. PUTNAM, Robert D. (2007), “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the
Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.”
Scandinavian Political Studies. 30(2): 137-174, November.
29. SOMER, Murat (2005), “Defensive vs. Liberal Nationalist Perspectives on
Diversity and the Kurdish Conflict”, New Perspectives on Turkey, no.
32 (2005): 73-91.
30. http://portal.ku.edu.tr/~musomer/Somer,%20NPT%20Final.pdf (Erişim
Tarihi: 13.09.2010)
31. SMITS, Jeroen (2010), “Ethnic Intermarriage and Social Cohesion. What Can We
Learn From Yugoslavia?”, Social Indicators Research, v: 96, n: 3, s:
417-432, Mayıs 2010.
32. SONG, M. (2009), “Is Intermarriage a Good Indicator of Integration?” Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, V:35/2, Şubat 2009
33. YAVUZ, Hakan (2001), “Five Stages of the Construction of Kurdish Nationalism
in Turkey”. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. V: 7. N: 3 (Sonbahar 2001). s: 1-24

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com