Search

In this article, Turkish mothers’ perspectives on sibling relationships are described and analyzed on the basis of 15 qualitative interviews. It is surprising that sibling relationships have received little attention in cultural psychological or sociological research for decades, while other social relationships—such as parent–child relationships, (marital) partner relationships, peer relationships, or hierarchical relationships (e.g., superior–subordinate)—were often studied. The two main goals of the present study are first, to examine Turkish mothers’ ethnotheories of sibling relationships between their own offspring and second, to analyze these parental ethnotheories through the lenses of the cultural psychological and sociological concepts of collectivism/individualism and interdependent/independent self-concepts. The interview data for this empirical study was derived from a larger project which focuses on parental ethnotheories more broadly. Problem-centered interview method was used. Eleven of the interviews took place via a digital platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while four of the interviews were conducted face-to-face just before pandemic’s onset. The Turkish mothers interviewed were from Istanbul and Sinop, a small Turkish city on the coast of the Black Sea. The data was interpreted using the documentary method and relational hermeneutical analysis. The article examines and discusses three topics of sibling relationships, namely hierarchical/equal sibling roles based on birth order, solidarity/sharing, and conflict. We show that all of the mothers interviewed place a high value on connectedness between siblings. With regard to the hierarchical or egalitarian distribution of roles, some of the interviewees differ.

The psychological concept of attachment is constantly evolving. Approximately 70 years after attachment theory was first introduced by John Bowlby in the late 1940s, the notion of attachment is still in flux with continually changing ideas of what it means to be a good parent. One path along which attachment as a concept is moving from academia to everyday life is the philosophy of attachment parenting which was first established in the US by William and Martha Sears. Ideas about attachment theory and attachment parenting are frequently accompanied by critical comments on “Western” cultures. This critical perspective on modernity, individualism, and autonomy is portrayed in the first part of this article. The second part traces attachment as a concept transferred to Turkey. Rather than studying academic work on attachment in Turkey, this article focuses on popularized versions of attachment theory which gain ground as part of the parenting philosophy of attachment parenting. This article analyzes parents’ blogs, websites, self-help books, fieldwork protocols, and interviews with parenting trainers and parents themselves. It focuses on how popular scientific use of attachment parenting in Turkey is accompanied by discussions of cultural identity, cultural values, and belonging. The article shows that attachment theory and parenting are used in quite diverse ways to comment on Turkish (parenting) culture, ranging from anglophile readings to more conservative appropriations of attachment theory as Anatolian education. These forms of popularizing attachment theory challenge the sociological concept of psychologization.

Culture-inclusive psychologies, despite large theoretical and methodological differences, agree on the importance of culture for shaping mental phenomena, human behavior, and actions. How do these psychologists address gender? It is very common in psychology to frame gender as innate and determined by a male–female schema of reproduction. Do culture-inclusive psychologies depart from this schema and look into ways in which gender-related phenomena are culturally shaped? This article overviews two types of psychological texts. First, it examines classic psychological texts belonging to four selected schools of thought: cultural-historical psychology (Leont’ev, Luria, Vygotsky), critical psychology (Holzkamp, Holzkamp-Osterkamp), social constructionism (Mary and Kenneth Gergen), and action-oriented cultural psychology (Boesch, Straub). Second, it compares articles published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and Culture & Psychology. This overview reveals that differences in conceptualizing gender are significant, covering a spectrum ranging from naturalistic to constructionist frameworks.