SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

Branded Companions and Pawed Prestige: An Analysis of Dog Purchasing Practices in Yozgat

Markalaşan Dostlar ve Patili Prestij: Yozgat’ta Köpek Satın Alma Pratikleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Esra Gedik(Bozok Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji Bölümü)0000-0003-3192-2107
Pages
13–28
Publication Date
2026-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️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 findings indicate that pet ownership is not solely an emotional decision; rather, it is deeply intertwined with consumption habits and social status.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines dog purchasing practices in Turkey within the framework of consumer culture and status symbols.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research employs a qualitative methodology and is based on in-depth interviews conducted with 25 participants in Yozgat.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that pet ownership is not solely an emotional decision; rather, it is deeply intertwined with consumption habits and social status.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cins Köpek · Tüketim Kültürü · Köpek Satın Alma

Abstract

This study examines dog purchasing practices in Turkey within the framework of consumer culture and status symbols. It aims to contribute to an understanding of how pet ownership processes are shaped by capitalist consumption dynamics. The study particularly focuses on the popularization of certain breeds, the influence of social media, and the preference for purchasing directly from breeders. The main objective is to explore how dogs are positioned not merely as pets, but also as markers of prestige and indicators of social status. The research employs a qualitative methodology and is based on in-depth interviews conducted with 25 participants in Yozgat. Participants’ narratives reveal that certain breeds are perceived as more prestigious, that dog ownership is closely linked to identity construction, and that social media platforms play a significant role in shaping these practices. The findings indicate that pet ownership is not solely an emotional decision; rather, it is deeply intertwined with consumption habits and social status. Furthermore, the lack of a widespread neutering culture in Turkey, along with indifference and limited awareness regarding stray animals, reinforces these status-oriented ownership practices.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de köpek satın alma pratiklerini tüketim kültürü ve statü sembolleri bağlamında incelemektedir. Çalışma, evcil hayvan sahiplenme süreçlerinin kapitalist tüketim dinamikleri içinde nasıl şekillendiğini anlamaya katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle belirli ırkların popülerleşmesi, sosyal medya etkisi ve üreticiden doğrudan alım tercihleri ele alınmaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, köpeklerin yalnızca evcil hayvan olarak olmanın ötesinde, aynı zamanda prestij unsuru ve sosyal statü göstergesi olarak nasıl konumlandığını anlamaktır. Çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak 25 kişi ile gerçekleştirilmiş ve derinlemesine görüşmeler yoluyla Yozgat’ta veri toplanmıştır. Katılımcıların ifadeleri, belirli ırkların daha prestijli görüldüğünü, köpek sahiplenmenin kimlik inşasıyla ilişkili olduğunu ve sosyal medya platformlarının bu süreci nasıl şekillendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, evcil hayvan sahiplenmenin duygusal bir karar olmadığını dahası tüketim alışkanlıkları ve toplumsal statü ile yakından bağlantılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye’de kısırlaştırma kültürünün yaygın olmaması ve sokak hayvanlarına olan ilgisizliğin (bilgi eksikliğinin), bu statü odaklı sahiplenme pratiklerini pekiştirdiği de belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gedik, E. (2026). Branded Companions and Pawed Prestige: An Analysis of Dog Purchasing Practices in Yozgat. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 13–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/1471646

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Abidin, C. (2016). Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online? Social Media + Society, 2(2), 1-17.
  2. Abidin, C. (2017). Internet celebrity: Understanding fame online. Emerald Publishing. Agamben, G. (2004). The open: Man and animal. Stanford University Press.
  3. Akbulut, O. & Çobanoğlu, N. (2020). Türk hukukunda hayvanların korunmasına ilişkin yasal mevzuat ve bu mevzuata göre hayvanların hukuki durumları. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (36), 1-37.
  4. Arluke, A. & Sanders, C. R. (2022). Regarding animals: Human-animal relations in modern society. Temple University Press. Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. London, England: Sage Publications.
  5. Bek, N. (2025). Sosyal belediyecilik anlayışı bağlamında sokak hayvanları ve güncel tartışmalar. İdealkent, 17(47),290-311. doi:10.31198/idealkent.1619003
  6. Boitani, L. & Ciucci, P. (1995). Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethology Ecology ve Evolution, 7(1), 49-72.
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press. Charles, N. & Davies, C. A. (2008). My family and other animals: Pets as kin. Sociological Research Online, 13(5), 1-14.
  8. Cole, M. & Stewart, K. (2014). Our children and other animals: The cultural construction of human-animal relations in childhood. Routledge.
  9. Collard, R.-C., & Dempsey, J. (2013). Life for sale? The politics of lively commodities. Environment and Planning A, 45(11), 2682–2699.
  10. Çetin, E. (2017). Tüketim toplumunda evcil hayvanların sahiplenilmesi: Sosyolojik bir analiz. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20(2), 89-107.
  11. DeLeeuw, J. L. (2010). Animal shelter dogs: Factors predicting adoption versus euthanasia (Doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology).
  12. Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.
  13. Duffy, B. E. & Hund, E. (2015). “Having it all” on social media: Entrepreneurial femininity and self-branding among fashion bloggers. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-11.
  14. Erten, Ö., Öztürk, Y., & Yılmaz, O. (2019). Türkiye’de pet hayvan sahiplerinin sosyo-demografik yapıları ve pet hayvancılığına bakışları; Alanya-Mardin örneği. MAE Vet Fak Derg, 4(2), 76-83.
  15. Evans, A. & Riley, S. (2013). Consumer culture, identity and well-being: The search for the 'good life' and the 'body perfect'. Psychology Press.
  16. Featherstone, M. (2007). Consumer culture and postmodernism. SAGE Publications. Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and modern cultures: A sociology of human-animal relations in modernity. Sage.
  17. Franklin, A. (2006). Becoming human: The cultural construction of human-animal relations. Routledge. Fudge, E. (2002). Animal. Reaktion Books.
  18. Fudge, E. (2008). Pets. Routledge. Ghirlanda, S., Acerbi, A., Herzog, H., & Serpell, J. A. (2013). Fashion vs. function in cultural evolution: The case of dog breed popularity.
  19. Plos One, 8(9), e74770. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Gompper, M. E. (2014). Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press.
  20. Greenebaum, J. (2004). It’s a dog’s life: Elevating status from pet to “fur baby” at yappy hour. Society ve Animals, 12(2), 117-135.
  21. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
  22. Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: Why it's so hard to think straight about animals. Harper Perennial.
  23. Herzog, H. (2011). The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 236-239.
  24. Irvine, L. (2004). If you tame me: Understanding our connection with animals. Temple University Press. Irvine, L. (2009). Filling the ark: Animal welfare in disasters. Temple University Press.
  25. Kalof, L. (2007). Looking at animals in human history. Reaktion Books.
  26. Karataş, A. (2025). Hayvan hakları bağlamında sokak hayvanları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (49), 326-354.
  27. Katz, J. (2003). The new work of dogs: Tending to life, love, and family. Random House.
  28. Kim, W. H., Min, K. D., Cho, S. I., ve Cho, S. (2020). The relationship between dog-related factors and owners' attitudes toward pets: An exploratory cross-sectional study in Korea. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 493.
  29. Marwick, A. E. (2015). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.
  30. Marwick, A. & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139-158. Mason, J. (1998). An unnatural order: The roots of our destruction of nature. Lantern Books.
  31. Melson, G. F. (1998). The role of companion animals in human development. Companion Animals in Human Health,219-236.
  32. Menor-Campos, D. J. (2024). Ethical concerns about fashionable dog breeding. Animals, 14(5), 756. Nast, H. J. (2006). Critical pet studies? Antipode, 38(5), 894-906.
  33. Nibert, D. (2013). Animal oppression and human violence: Domesecration, capitalism, and global conflict. Columbia University Press.
  34. Özcan, M., Ekiz, B., Ozturk, N., & Berk, H. O. S. (2019). Factors affecting Turkish dog owners’ breed choices, and their associations with socio-demographic and dog-related variables. Anthrozoös, 32(5), 647-664.
  35. Özden, A. T. (2022). Evcil hayvan sahipliği ve sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışı/Pet ownership and sustainable consumption behavior. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 6(2), 425-449.
  36. Pal, S. K. (2001). Population ecology of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriologica, 46(1), 69-78.
  37. Rault, J. L. (2015). Pets in the digital age: Live, robot, or virtual?. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2, 144975.
  38. Serpell, J. A. (1996). In the company of animals: A study of human-animal relationships. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Shir‐Vertesh, D. (2012). “Flexible personhood”: Loving animals as family members in Israel. American anthropologist, 114(3), 420-432.
  40. Siriwat, P., & Nijman, V. (2018). Illegal pet trade on social media as an emerging impediment to the conservation of Asian otters species. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, 11(4), 469-475.
  41. Sümer, G. (2024). Kentsel alanlardaki sahipsiz köpekler sorunu ve çözüm uygulamaları. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(17), 34-49.
  42. Tandoğan, O. (2022). Kentleşme bağlamında sokak hayvanlarının değişen statüsü. Kent Akademisi, 15(4), 1884-1905.doi:10.35674/kent.1109822
  43. Vänskä, A. (2016). ‘Cause I wuv you!’ Pet dog fashion and emotional consumption. Ephemera: Theory ve Politics in Organization, 16(4), 75-97.
  44. Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. Dover Publications. (Orijinal çalışma 1899 tarihlidir). Weil, K. (2012). Thinking animals: Why animal studies now?. Columbia University Press.
  45. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? (Vol. 8). U of Minnesota Press. Zukin, S. & Maguire, J. S. (2004). Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 173-197.