5,681
edits
Difference between revisions of "Hemṣehricilik (Turkey)"
no edit summary
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
|style="font-size:1.1em;"| In Turkey, ''hemșehricilik'' is a practice of preferential treatment of people of the same origins by doing favours to those ‘near and dear’. ''Hemșehri'' refers to people who come from the same location (composed of ‘''hem''’, same or alike, and ‘''șehir''’, city). ''Hemșehrilik'' indicates the state of being ''hemșehri'' with someone else, while with the derivational affix of ‘''ci''’, the expression refers to an occupation or a practice established from this state. ''Hemșehricilik'' denotes the basic notion of belonging in Turkey. | |style="font-size:1.1em;"| In Turkey, ''hemșehricilik'' is a practice of preferential treatment of people of the same origins by doing favours to those ‘near and dear’. ''Hemșehri'' refers to people who come from the same location (composed of ‘''hem''’, same or alike, and ‘''șehir''’, city). ''Hemșehrilik'' indicates the state of being ''hemșehri'' with someone else, while with the derivational affix of ‘''ci''’, the expression refers to an occupation or a practice established from this state. ''Hemșehricilik'' denotes the basic notion of belonging in Turkey. | ||
|} | |} | ||
''Hemșehricilik'' is similar to a number of practices from other parts of the world that rely on collective identity formed through a consideration of a geographical location. For example, the Kazakh practice of [[Rushyldyq]] is defined as a ‘strong feeling of sub-ethnic identity with and loyalty to one’s ''ru''’, a group sharing a territory and united by actual or fictive kinship. In southern Tajikistan, the village identities resemble ''hemșehricilik'' in forming a collective identity based on prioritising a central geographical origin to form useful social networks (Boboyorov 2013: 126; see also [[:Category:Traps of identity|Traps of identity | ''Hemșehricilik'' is similar to a number of practices from other parts of the world that rely on collective identity formed through a consideration of a geographical location. For example, the Kazakh practice of [[Rushyldyq]] is defined as a ‘strong feeling of sub-ethnic identity with and loyalty to one’s ''ru''’, a group sharing a territory and united by actual or fictive kinship. In southern Tajikistan, the village identities resemble ''hemșehricilik'' in forming a collective identity based on prioritising a central geographical origin to form useful social networks (Boboyorov 2013: 126; see also [[:Category:Traps of identity|Traps of identity]] and [[:Category: Lock-in effect]]). In Russia, people of the same origins are called [[zemlyaki]], in South Korea a similar phenomenon is known as [[yongo]]. Concepts referring to shared origins, such as the locality or region, are common worldwide. Practices of giving preferential treatment to a person of the same origins may differ significantly in spread and public perception. In Turkey, the name of the practice is widely used and commonly acceptable, which suggests that the practice is particularly significant. | ||
Relations formed between people of the same geographical origins [[Group identity and the ambivalence of norms|can stem from a shared experience, common past, or collective identities associated with it]]. ''Hemșehricilik'' gained weight with the industrialisation in Turkey in 1950s, which ignited migration from countryside to the cities (Terzi 2014: 141). In this period of rapid social change, migrants to urban areas held onto their rural roots and thus slowed it down somewhat or adapted to their needs. As rural and urban life continued to transform, the dynamics of social networks have altered as well. ''Hemșehricilik'' practices have spread by migration inside or outside Turkey. Although the practice is representative of mobility, it also points to the persistent power of identity and belonging. | Relations formed between people of the same geographical origins [[Group identity and the ambivalence of norms|can stem from a shared experience, common past, or collective identities associated with it]]. ''Hemșehricilik'' gained weight with the industrialisation in Turkey in 1950s, which ignited migration from countryside to the cities (Terzi 2014: 141). In this period of rapid social change, migrants to urban areas held onto their rural roots and thus slowed it down somewhat or adapted to their needs. As rural and urban life continued to transform, the dynamics of social networks have altered as well. ''Hemșehricilik'' practices have spread by migration inside or outside Turkey. Although the practice is representative of mobility, it also points to the persistent power of identity and belonging. | ||