SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2

The Reconstruction of Honour: A Phenomenological Analysis of Intergenerational Discursive Resistance in Şanlıurfa

Namusun Yeniden İnşası: Şanlıurfa’da Kuşaklar Arası Söylemsel Direnişin Fenomenolojik Analizi

Gıyasettin Yıldız(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5191-509X
Adile Alagöz(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0003-6954-5981
Pages
714–733
Publication Date
2026-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The younger generation’s re-signification of honour constitutes a form of discursive resistance and reappropriation that turns a repressive cultural code into a tool of critique.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the intergenerational semantic transformation of “honour/namus” among women in Şanlıurfa, Türkiye.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Adopting a phenomenological qualitative design, in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 women aged 18-87 through purposive sampling; the data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The younger generation’s re-signification of honour constitutes a form of discursive resistance and reappropriation that turns a repressive cultural code into a tool of critique.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ataerkil pazarlık · kuşaklar arası çatışma · namus

Abstract

This study examines the intergenerational semantic transformation of “honour/namus” among women in Şanlıurfa, Türkiye. While the literature has largely centred honour on the policing of women’s bodies and sexuality, the affective and ethical logics through which younger women reframe honour-trust, loyalty, betrayal, slander, and moral self-governance-remain under-analysed. Methods: Adopting a phenomenological qualitative design, in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 women aged 18-87 through purposive sampling; the data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis. Findings, older women define honour through the regulation of the body and sexuality, public visibility, veiling, and religious legitimation. Younger women, by contrast, detach honour from a patriarchal and body-centred frame and relocate it within a gender-neutral ethical register of justice, rights, merit, and conscience, grounded in an affective moral economy of trust and reputation. Structural factors such as education and media, alongside the “silent revolutionary” role of intermediate-generation mothers who refuse to transmit traditional codes, are central to this shift. The younger generation’s re-signification of honour constitutes a form of discursive resistance and reappropriation that turns a repressive cultural code into a tool of critique.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Şanlıurfa’da kadınlar arasında “namus” kavramının kuşaklar arası dönüşümünü analiz etmektedir. Namus literatürü çoğunlukla kavramı kadın bedeni ve cinselliği üzerinden ele alırken, genç kuşakta yükselen etik/adalet eksenli tanımların duygulanımsal (güven, sadakat, iftira, aldatma) mantıkla nasıl kurulduğu görece görünmez kalmaktadır. Fenomenolojik desene dayalı nitel araştırmada amaçlı örnekleme ile seçilen 18-87 yaş aralığında 22 kadınla derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmış; veriler Braun ve Clarke’ın refleksif tematik analiz yaklaşımıyla çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, yaşlı kuşak namusu beden ve cinselliğin denetimi, kamusal görünürlük, örtünme ve dinî meşruiyet üzerinden kurarken; genç kuşak namusu adalet, hak, liyakat ve vicdan gibi etik ilkelerle, ayrıca güven ve itibarın korunmasına ilişkin bir ahlaki ekonomi içinde yeniden tanımlamaktadır. Bu dönüşümde eğitim ve medya gibi yapısal dinamiklerin yanı sıra geleneksel kodları kızlarına aktarmayı bilinçli biçimde reddeden “ara kuşak” annelerin mikro düzeydeki “sessiz devrimci” rolü belirleyicidir. Sonuç, genç kadınların namusu yeniden adlandırma pratiği, baskıcı bir kültürel kodun eleştirel bir karşı söyleme dönüştürüldüğü söylemsel direniş ve yeniden sahiplenme olarak yorumlanmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, G., Alagöz, A. (2026). The Reconstruction of Honour: A Phenomenological Analysis of Intergenerational Discursive Resistance in Şanlıurfa. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 714–733. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1802863

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Acar, S., Bayraktar, Y., Kara, O., Kavasoğlu, M., Karaküçük, B., Orhan, M., & Tatlı, K. (2019). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması (SEGE-2017). T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. ISBN: 978-605-137-757-1.
  2. Antmen, D. (2025). Understanding women’s sense of powerlessness in the gender-unequal societal life: A mixed method social psychological research [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
  3. Aydın, F. (2003). Nâmûs/Nomos Cebrâil mi Tevrat mı? “Bed’ü’l-vahy” hadisindeki nâmûs kavramı üzerine. Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 8(15), 53-85.
  4. Bengtson, V. L. (2013). Families and faith: How religion is passed down across generations. Oxford University Press.
  5. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
  6. Berglund, K., Ahl, H., Pettersson, K., & Tillmar, M. (2023). Conceptualising feminist resistance in the postfeminist terrain. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 38(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2022-0217
  7. Birelma, A. A. (2022). The politics of discourse on gendered violence in Turkey, 1980-2005: From family disaster to honor killings [Doktora tezi, Pittsburgh Üniversitesi].
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
  11. Brontsema, R. (2004). A queer revolution: Reconceptualizing the debate over linguistic reclamation. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 17, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.25810/dky3-zq57
  12. Cetinkaya, H. (2025). Breaking free from ‘honour’: namûs, epistemic (in)justice, and the colonial politics of translation. European Journal of Women S Studies, 32(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068251326472
  13. Crook, Z. A. (2009). Honor, shame, and social status revisited. Journal of Biblical Literature, 128(3), 591-611.
  14. Cross, S. E., Uskul, A. K., Gerçek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., Alözkan, C., Günsoy, C., Ataca, B., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2014). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 232-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510323
  15. Delaney, C. L. (1991). The seed and the soil: Gender and cosmology in Turkish village society. University of California Press.
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
  17. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205
  18. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
  19. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
  20. Friedlmeier, M. (2006). Transmission of values within families in Romania [Doktora tezi, Konstanz Üniversitesi].
  21. Galinsky, A. D., Hugenberg, K., Groom, C., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2020-2029. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482943
  22. Glick, P., Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Akbaş, G., Orta, İ. M., & Ceylan: s. (2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. (Açık erişim elyazması). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Açık Arşiv.
  23. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü (HÜNEE) & Birleşmiş Milletler Nüfus Fonu (UNFPA) Türkiye. (2024). 2023 Türkiye Gençlik Araştırması: Gençlerde Cinsel Sağlık ve Üreme Sağlığı & Çocuk Yaşta, Erken ve Zorla Evlilikler (Nicel Bulgular). Ankara: HÜNEE & UNFPA Türkiye. https://turkiye.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/2024.
  24. Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking Black. Boston, MA: South End Press.
  25. Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu (KCDP). (2024). 2023 Yıllık Veri Raporu. https://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/3088/2023-yillik-veri-raporu
  26. Kalav, A. (2019). Sevgi, sadakat ve güven söylemlerinde namusun izini sürmek: Öztahakküm aracı olarak namus. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi, 2(2), 211-237. https://doi.org/10.33708/ktc.642796
  27. Kalav, A. (2012). Namus ve toplumsal cinsiyet. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 2(2), 151-163.
  28. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
  29. Katila, S., & Meriläinen: s. (2002). Metamorphosis: From “nice girls” to “bitches.” Gender, Work & Organization, 9(3), 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00160
  30. King, D. E. (2008). The personal is patrilineal: Namus as sovereignty. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 15(3), 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10702890802073266
  31. Koğacıoğlu, D. (2004). The tradition effect: Framing honor crimes in Turkey. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 15(2), 118-151. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-15-2-118
  32. Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022151
  33. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  34. Lorde, A. (1983). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In Sister outsider: Essays and speeches (pp. 110-114). Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
  35. Mardin, Ş. (2007). Religion, society and modernity in Turkey. Syracuse University Press.
  36. Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
  37. Özyeğin, G. (2015). New desires, new selves: Sex, love, and piety among Turkish youth. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  38. Parla, A. (2001). The “honor” of the state: Virginity examinations in Turkey. Feminist Studies, 27(1), 65-88.
  39. Pitt-Rivers, J. (1977). The fate of Shechem, or the politics of sex: Essays in the anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Akbaş, G. (2013). Namus kültürlerinde “namus” ve “namus adına kadına şiddet”: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 16(32), 76-91.
  41. Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783-791.
  42. Sev’er, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2001). Culture of honor, culture of change: A feminist analysis of honor killings in rural Turkey. Violence Against Women, 7(9), 964-998. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182866
  43. Sirman, N. (2006). Akrabalık, siyaset ve sevgi: Sömürge sonrası koşullarda namus-Türkiye örneği. In S. Mojab & N. Abdo (Eds.), Namus adına şiddet: Kuramsal ve siyasal yaklaşımlar: ss. 43-63. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  44. Tahincioğlu, A. N. Y. (2010). Namusun ve namus cinayetlerinin cinsiyet eşitsizlikleri bağlamında analizi. Kültür ve İletişim, 13(2), 131-158.
  45. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2024). Eğitim durumu (6+ yaş) - İllere göre okuryazarlık göstergeleri. [Veri tablosu]. Erişim tarihi: 20.08.2025 https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=OkumaYazmaDurumu&utm_source
  46. Uluç, G., & Karasu, M. A. (2015). Kente yerleşmiş aşiret üyelerinin kentlileşme eğilimleri üzerine bir çalışma: Şanlıurfa örneği. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(25), 201-232.
  47. Üskül, A. K., & Cross: s. E. (2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey? European Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 39-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1542903
  48. Vignoles, V. L., Kirchner-Häusler, A., Uskul, A. K., Cross: s. E., vd. (2024). Are Mediterranean societies “cultures of honor?”: Prevalence and implications of a cultural logic of honor across three world regions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241295500