SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2

GAY MEN’S HOME-MAKING AS AFFECTIVE PRACTICE IN TURKEY: THE PURSUIT OF SAFETY AND COMFORT

Haktan URAL
Pages
349–373
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Yet this is an unfinished project and needs to be renegotiated to ensure gay men’s safety and comfort in their everyday lives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The geographies of home are discerned as having a particular significance in the lives of gay men.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The individual homes of lesbians and gay men are amenable to affirming non-heterosexual identities and subverting the cultural norms of heterosexual family life.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Yet this is an unfinished project and needs to be renegotiated to ensure gay men’s safety and comfort in their everyday lives.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:geographies of sexualities · gay · home

Özet

The geographies of home are discerned as having a particular significance in the lives of gay men. The individual homes of lesbians and gay men are amenable to affirming non-heterosexual identities and subverting the cultural norms of heterosexual family life. This study contributes to understanding this construction of lesbian/gay identity at home. Drawing on gay men’s everyday experiences within Turkey’s cultural context, I deal with home as a spatial domain laden with diverse meanings and affective registers. I suggest that Turkey’s cultural context structures gay men’s habitus and informs their knowledge of possible actions that are available to them. In this discursive terrain, they attribute specific meanings of safety and autonomy to their homes. However, these meaning-making practices should not be reduced to an experience of closeting, as gay men’s domestic life opens up a space of comfort for gay identities. Insofar as gay men can re-inscribe their homes as sites for the comfort of gay identities, these homes seamlessly become a performative domain. Within them, the men’s situated activities pave the way for creation and affirmation of gay identities, in both individual and collective ways. Therefore, I suggest that gay men’s affective dispositions (namely safety and comfort) arise out of their relations with people, objects and places, and lead to restructuring their habitus in a way so as to validate their gay identities in domestic life. Yet this is an unfinished project and needs to be renegotiated to ensure gay men’s safety and comfort in their everyday lives.

🔖

Cite This Article

URAL, H. (2022). GAY MEN’S HOME-MAKING AS AFFECTIVE PRACTICE IN TURKEY: THE PURSUIT OF SAFETY AND COMFORT. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 349–373. https://ajindex.com/articles/592577

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Acar, F., & Altunok, G. (2013). The ‘politics of intimate’ at the intersection of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism in contemporary Turkey. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2012.10.001
  2. Addison, M. (2017). Overcoming Arlie Hochschild’s concepts of the ‘real’ and ‘false’ self by drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Emotion, Space and Society, 23, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2017.01.003
  3. Ahlm, J. (2017). Respectable promiscuity: Digital cruising in an era of queer liberalism. Sexualities, 20(3), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716665783
  4. Ahmed, S. (2004). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
  5. Ataman, H. (2011). Less than citizens: The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender question in Turkey. Içinde R. Ö. Dönmez & P. Enneli (Ed.), Societal Peace and Ideal Citizenship for Turkey (ss. 125–158).
  6. Lexington. Bereket, T., & Adam, B. D. (2008). Navigating Islam and same-sex liaisons among men in Turkey. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802129428
  7. Beşpınar, F. U. (2014). Women and Gender. Içinde B. Shane & M. Herzog (Ed.), Turkey and the Politics of National Identity: Social, Economic and Cultural Transformation (ss. 118–144).
  8. IB Tauris. Binnie, J., & Skeggs, B. (2004). Cosmopolitan knowledge and the production and consumption of sexualized space: Manchester’s gay village. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00441.x
  9. Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006).
  10. Home. Routledge. Blunt, A., & Varley, A. (2004). Introduction: Geographies of Home. Cultural Geographies, 11, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474004eu289xx
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Polity Press.
  13. Brown, G. (2008). Ceramics, clothing and other bodies: affective geographies of homoerotic cruising encounters. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(8), 915–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802441457
  14. Brown, G., Browne, K., & Lim, J. (2007). Introduction, or why have a book on geographies of sexualities? Içinde K. Browne, J. Lim, & G. Brown (Ed.), Geographies of Sexualities: Theories, Practices, Politics (ss. 1–20).
  15. Ashgate. Burkitt, I. (2014). Emotions and Social Relations. Sage. Çarkoğlu, A., & Toprak, B. (2007).
  16. Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey. Cattan, N., & Vanolo, A. (2014). Gay and lesbian emotional geogr