Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016    Tam Metin (PDF)

Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Zeynep Zehra Sadıkoğlu

Bu araştırmanın amacı düşünümsel bilimselleşme, estetik düşünüm ve sağlığın değişen kapsamı gibi süreç ve etkilerle, çağdaş risklere dair artan farkındalığın annelik deneyimine ve çocuğu tehdit eden risklere yönelik algılarına etkisini betimlemektir. Araştırma fenomenolojik araştırma modeli ile desenlenmiştir. Çalışma grubu yüksek eğitimli orta ve orta üstü sosyoekonomik statüye (SES) sahip 0-6 yaş aralığında çocuğa sahip 12, 7-12 yaş aralığında çocuğa sahip 12, 13-18 yaş aralığında çocuğa sahip 12 katılımcı, toplamda 36 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler kategorik içerik analizi tekniği ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre uzman değerlendirmelerinde öne çıkan hamilelik ve doğumun doğru yönetimi, anne-çocuk ilişkisinde güvenli bağlanmanın ve etkili bir iletişimin sağlanması ile ilişkili çocuğa dönük faydalar, annelerin bu faydaları elde edememenin taşıdığı risklere yönelik algılarını yoğunlaştırmaktadır. Ayrıca aynı değerlendirmelerde katkı maddeli ürünlerin tüketimi ve uygunsuz bir sosyal çevre ile ilişkilendirilen risklere çekilen dikkat, orta-orta üstü SES grubundaki annelerin habituslarının önemli bir bileşeni olan ve çocuklarının yaşamlarını kontrol etmeyi annelerin bir görevi olarak kabul eden risk bilinçli annelik anlayışına katkıda bulunmaktadır. Anneler ise kendileri açısından sonuç ve/ veya bedellerine bakmaksızın çocuğa yönelik çok küçük veya çok az anlaşılmış olsa dahi tüm riskleri azaltan davranış ve tutumları kucaklamakta ve hem çocuğun gelişimini destekleme hem de onun refahını/iyiliğini tehdit eden mevcut ve potansiyel tehlikelere karşı koruma sorumluluğunu yüklenmektedir.

DOI :10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016    Tam Metin (PDF)

Risk-Conscious Motherhood: The Impact of Experts’ Risk Discourses on Mothering Experience

Zeynep Zehra Sadıkoğlu

This research aims to describe the effects of the changes in the nature of contemporary risks and the increased risk perception due to processes such as reflexive scientification, aesthetic reflexivity, and the changing scope of health on the mothering experiences of well-educated Turkish women in the middle and upper socioeconomic status groups. The research was designed using a phenomenological research model. The study group was conducted with a total of 36 participant mothers, of whose children, 12 are between the ages of 0-6, 12 are between the ages of 7-12, and 12 are between the ages of 13-18. The data were analyzed using categorical content analysis. According to the research findings, the benefits for children associated with correctly managing pregnancy and birth, reducing or managing possible risks, and ensuring safe attachment and effective communication in the mother-child relationship stand out in experts’ evaluations and intensify mothers’ perceptions of the risks associated with not obtaining these benefits. In addition to these, these same evaluations paid attention to how the risks connected to consuming additive products and having an unsuitable social environment contribute to the understanding of risk-conscious motherhood, an important component of the habitus of well-educated mothers in the middle-upper socioeconomic status groups. Accordingly, mothers accept controlling their children’s lives as their own duty regardless of their consequences and costs. They embrace behaviors and attitudes that reduce risks and take responsibility for both supporting their children’s development and protecting them against existing/potential dangers that threaten their well-being.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Contemporary risks differ from the risks and dangers of the past in regard to their inability to be restricted spatially or to calculate their long-term effects. This difference has made expertise systems important in defining the risks and determining the measures to be taken against risks. At the same time, the decreased opportunity to give precise information about them has led to their being handled within different risk scenarios. This change brought along an emphasis on avoiding danger to replace the probability factor based on risk-taking by using the knowledge-of-loss option. Developed in line with these changes, risk-conscious motherhood acknowledges that children are at risk from the womb and takes into consideration the worst-case scenario as probable rather than possible. Also, the fact that mothers’ responsibility of protecting their children makes ignoring these risks impossible even if mothers have little firsthand experience about the risks. Thus, risk-conscious motherhood includes preventing and managing all kinds of risks, being prudent, and controlling the future of the child as much as possible.

Method

This study applies the phenomenological design, a qualitative research method. In line with the research subject and purpose, the study group contains 36 Turkish mothers in the middle and upper socioeconomic status groups, of whose children 12 are between the ages of 0-6, 12 are between the ages of 7-12, and 12 are between the ages of 13-18. The data obtained from the semi-structured in-depth interviews have been analyzed using categorical content analysis. Concerning the validity of the research, interviews were conducted one at a time. In regard to the reliability of the research, the created categories were associated logically and consistently.

Findings and Discussion

Pregnancy and childbirth stand out as the processes shaped in line with experts’ risk discourses where mothers’ risk perceptions are the most intense. The fact that experts reveal more scientific and predictable risk arguments through different screening and blood tests increases mothers’ risk perceptions toward pregnancy and childbirth. However, when addressing children’s psychological and cognitive development, mothers’ risk consciousness has gained attention. Any factor that puts secure attachment at risk and requires mothers to perceive and interpret their children’s emotional signs and to respond to them in a timely and appropriate manner is connected to possible psychological problems. However, mothers’ inability to communicate well with their children as they get older has begun to be considered as a risk factor. For good communication, mothers’ sensitivity to their children’s development, correctly understanding their needs, positioning themself appropriately toward their children,and empathizing are considered to be qualities that mothers should have. Thus, mothers’ being attributed with the responsibility of protecting and supporting children’s cognitive and psychological health has expanded the ethical framework health represents for mothers. Other issues in which mothers have high risk consciousness relate to the use of modern additives/carcinogenic substances and of technology. In the face of these risks, the suggestions from experts who adopt an alternative medical approach are found more valuable in terms of being scientific as well as representing greater health. Therefore, increased risk perception stands out as a phenomenon of being disenchanted with science in the reflexive scientification process. Also, mothers prefer to control children’s use of technology and the content they access to the extent conditions allow due to reasons such as spending quality time together, the desire to establish a secure attachment, and distracting their children to limit decreases in academic performance. Meanwhile, social environment also begins to be perceived as risky when children reach school age. People outside the immediate social environment are seen as a threat, and mothers get anxious about how to protect their children from other people. In this context, news in the media on harassment and abuse raise awareness, causing mothers to consider other people as dangerous. However, bullying from peers is also perceived as a threat to their safety. For this reason, mothers are cautious when deciding about which school to enroll their children in. They find criteria such as school’s social environment and parent profiles to be significant. Therefore, choosing a school is a result of not only academic risks and gains but also more subjective evaluations that structure mothers’ habitus (i.e., aesthetic reflexivity). In addition, mothers worry about their adolescent child’s friends who lack appropriate behaviors and values. Therefore, mothers’ habitus also seem to be effective in the formation of different concerns and certain risk perceptions. In a context where the objective risk parameters indicated by the scientific risk arguments and the subjective risk parameters brought along by lifestyle and habits, mothers’ being attributed with the responsibility of planning, controlling, and managing their children’s lives to affect increases in mothers’ risk consciousness.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Adam, B., & Van Loon, J. (2005). Introduction: Repositioning risk; the challenge for social theory. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 1-33). Sage. google scholar
  • Afflerback, S., Carter, S. K., Koontz Anthony, A., & Grauerholz, L. (2013). Infant-feeding consumerism in the age of intensive mothering and risk society. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 387-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540513485271 google scholar
  • Arendell, T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1192-1207. google scholar
  • Aydemir, H. ve Uyar Hazar, H. (2014). Düşük riskli, riskli, yüksek riskli gebelik ve ebenin rolü. Gümüşhane University Journal of Health Sciences, 3(2), 815-833. google scholar
  • Badinter, E. (2017). Kadınlık mı? Annelik mi? (A. Ekmekçi, çev.). İletişim Yayinlari. google scholar
  • Bauman, Z. (2018). Akışkan modernite (S. O. Çavuş, çev.). Can Yayınları. google scholar
  • Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1996). Life as a planning project. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 139-154). Sage. google scholar
  • Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2005). Health and responsibility: From social change to technological change and vice versa. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 122-136). Sage. google scholar
  • Beck, U. (1992). From industrial society to the risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological environment. Theory, Culture & Society, 9, 97-123. google scholar
  • Beck, U. (2005). Risk society revisited: Theory, politics and research programmes. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 211-230). Sage. google scholar
  • Beck, U. (2011). Risk toplumu: Başka bir modernliğe doğru (B. Doğan, çev.). İthaki Yayınları. google scholar
  • Beck, U. ve Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2012). Aşkın normal kaosu (N. Ermiş, çev.). İmge Kitapevi. google scholar
  • Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Schocken Books. google scholar
  • Bristow, J. (2014). Who cares for children? The problem of intergenerational contact. In E. Lee, J. Bristow, C. Faircloth, & J. Macvarish (Eds.), Parenting culture studies (pp. 102-129). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Castaneda, C (2005). Child organ stealing stories: Risk, rumour and reproductive technologies. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 236-155). Sage. google scholar
  • Castells, M. (2008). Ağ toplumununyükselişi- enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür (C. 1.). Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psyhoanalysis and the sociology of gender. University of California Press. google scholar
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. Sage. google scholar
  • Dean, M. (2000). Risk, calculable and incalculable. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 131-159). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Douglas, M. (1994). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. Routledge. google scholar
  • Esgin, A. (2008). Anthony Giddens sosyolojisi. Anı Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Faircloth, C. (2014). The problem of “attachment”: The “detached” parent.” In E. Lee, J. Bristow, C. Faircloth, & J. Macvarish (Eds.), Parenting culture studies (pp. 147-165). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Furedi, F. (2013). Paranoyak anne-babalık: Uzmanları dikkate almamak çocuğunuz için en iyi olabilir. İz Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Furedi, F. (2017). Korku kültürü: Risk almanın riskleri. Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Garfinkel, H. (2014). Etnometodolojide araştırmalar (Ü. Tatlıcan, çev.). Heretik Yayınları. google scholar
  • Giddens, A. (2014). Modernite ve bireysel kimlik: Geç modern çağda benlik ve toplum. Say Yayınları. google scholar
  • Giddens, A. (2018). Modernliğin sonuçları (E. Kuşdil, çev.). Ayrıntı. google scholar
  • Gökler, R. (2009). Okullarda akran zorbalığı. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 511-537. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/download/565/436/ google scholar
  • Güneş, A. (2019). Ergenlik döneminde 100 temel kural. Timaş Yayınları. google scholar
  • Güngör, A. (2019). Çocuklarda antibiyotik kullanımı ile ilgili ebeveynlerin tutum ve davranışlarının değerlendirilmesi. Türkiye Çocuk Hastalıkları Dergisi, 3, 203-207. google scholar
  • Handel, H. (1979). Normative expectations and the emergence of meaning as solutions to problems: Convergence of structural and interactionist views. American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 855-881. google scholar
  • Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Hunter, I. (1993). Subjectivity and government. Economy and Society, 22(1), 123-34. google scholar
  • Irwin, A., Allan, S., & Welsh, I. (2005). Nuclear risks: Three problematics. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 78-105). Sage. google scholar
  • Irwin, S. (2017). Parenting teenagers as they grow up: Values, practices and young people’s pathways beyond school in England. The Sociological Review, 66(1), 241-256. https://doi. org/10.1177/0038026117691718 google scholar
  • İşmen Gazioğlu, A. E. (2019). Hayatın ilk çeyreği: 0-18yaş gelişimi. T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. google scholar
  • Jordan, B., Redley, M., & James, S. (1994). Putting the family first. UCL Press. google scholar
  • Kalaycıoğlu, S., Çelik, K., Çelen, Ü. ve Türkyılmaz, S. (2010). Temsili bir örneklemde SES ölçüm aracı geliştirilmesi: Ankara kent merkezi örneği. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 183-220. google scholar
  • Kanieski, M. A. (2010a). Securing attachment: The shifting medicalisation of attachment and attachment disorders. Health, Risk & Society, 12(4), 335-344. google scholar
  • Kanieski, M.A. (2010b). Best be the ties that bind: The medicalization of mother love. http://blogs. kent.ac.uk/parentingculturestudies/files/2010/12/Sem-1-kanieski-paper.pdf google scholar
  • Kümbetoğlu, B. (2017). Sosyolojide ve antropolojide niteliksel yöntem ve araştırma. Bağlam Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Lash, S. (1993). Reflexive modernization: The aesthetic dimension. Theory, Culture & Society, 10, 1-23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327693010001001 google scholar
  • Lee, E. (2014a). Introduction. In E. Lee, J. Bristow, C. Faircloth, & J. Macvarish (Eds.), Parenting culture studies (pp. 1-25). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Lee, E. (2014b). Experts and parenting culture. In E. Lee, J. Bristow, C. Faircloth, & J. Macvarish (Eds.), Parenting culture studies (pp. 51-76). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Levy, D. (1937). Primary affect hunger. American Journal of Psychiatry, 94, 643-652. google scholar
  • Lupton, D. (1999). Risk: Key ideas. Routledge. google scholar
  • Lupton, D. (2003). Medicine as culture, illness, disease and body in western societies. Sage. google scholar
  • Macvarish, J. (2016). Neuroparenting: The expert invasion of family life. Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass. google scholar
  • Meyer, A. (2007). The moral rhetoric of childhood. Childhood, 14(1), 85-104. https://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0907568207072532 google scholar
  • Miller, T. (2010). Annelik duygusu, mitler ve deneyimler (A. Bora, çev.). İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Mustafaoğlu, R., Zirek, E., Yasacı, Z., & Özdinçler, A. R. (2018). The negative effects of digital technology usage on children’s development and health. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 5(2), 1-21. google scholar
  • Navarro, Z. (2006). In search of cultural interpretation of power. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 11-22. google scholar
  • Nicolaescu, C. (2010). Bourdieu - Habitus, symbolic violence, the gift: “you give me /i give you” principle. Euromentor Journal, 1(3), 1-10. google scholar
  • Prior, L., Glasner, P., & McNally, R. (2005). Genotechnology: Three challenges to risk legitimation. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 105-122). Sage. google scholar
  • Rothman, B. K. (2007). Laboring now: Current cultural constructions of pregnancy, birth and mothering. In W. Simonds, B. K. Rothman, & B. M. Norman (Eds.), Laboring on (pp. 29-97). Routledge. google scholar
  • Schutz, A. (2018). Fenomenoloji ve toplumsal ilişkiler (A. Akan ve S. Kesikoğlu, çev.). Heretik google scholar
  • Stearney, L. M. (1994). Feminism, ecofeminism, and the maternal archetype: Motherhood as a feminine universal. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 145-159. https://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01463379409369923 google scholar
  • Szerszynski, B (1996). On knowing what to do: Environmentalism and the modern problematic. B. Szerszynski, S. Lash, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 104-137). Sage. google scholar
  • Teke, S. G. (2014). Dönüşen anneliğe yönelik netnografik bir analiz: Bloger anneler. Millî Folklor, 26(103), 32-48. google scholar
  • Thurer, S. (1994). The myths of motherhood: How culture reinvents the good mother. Penguin Books. google scholar
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2019). İstatistiklerle kadın. https://tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri. do?id=33732 google scholar
  • Turner, B.S. (2017). Tıbbi güç ve toplumsal bilgi. Sentez Yayınları. google scholar
  • Van Loon, J. (2005). Virtual risks in an age of cybernetic reproduction. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond critical issues for social theory (pp. 165-183). Sage. google scholar
  • Waggoner, M. (2017). The zero trimester: Pre-pregnancy care and the politics of reproductive risk. University of California Press. google scholar
  • Wall, G. (2004). Is your child’s brain potential maximized? Mothering in an age of new brain research. Atlantis, 28(2), 41-50. google scholar
  • Wall, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33, 253-263. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Sadıkoğlu, Z.Z. (2019). Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 0(0), -. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


AMA

Sadıkoğlu Z Z. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2019;0(0):-. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


ABNT

Sadıkoğlu, Z.Z. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 0, p. -, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Sadıkoğlu, Zeynep Zehra,. 2019. “Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 0, no. 0: -. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


Chicago: Humanities Style

Sadıkoğlu, Zeynep Zehra,. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 0, no. 0 (Jul. 2021): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


Harvard: Australian Style

Sadıkoğlu, ZZ 2019, 'Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. -, viewed 25 Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Sadıkoğlu, Z.Z. (2019) ‘Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 0(0), pp. -. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016 (25 Jul. 2021).


MLA

Sadıkoğlu, Zeynep Zehra,. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 0, 2019, pp. -. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


Vancouver

Sadıkoğlu ZZ. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 25 Jul. 2021 [cited 25 Jul. 2021];0(0):-. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016


ISNAD

Sadıkoğlu, ZeynepZehra. Risk Bilinçli Annelik: Uzman Risk Söylemlerinin Annelik Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisi”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 0/0 (Jul. 2021): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2021.41.1.0016



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim14.01.2021
Kabul05.05.2021
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma31.05.2021

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.