Attitudes of Turkish Academics Regarding Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor

Abstract

Honor is an important concept that has a vital value in Turkey and affects many women’s lives and even causes death. It is of utmost importance to know and scientifically demonstrate the value judgments of the academics that lead and pioneer the society in our country where honor culture is adopted. Therefore, in Turkey, where thousands of women are exposed to violence every year, 877 academics participated in this descriptive study to determine the attitudes of academics toward violence against women in the name of honor. The data were collected using “The Scale for Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor (SAVWNH)” in the form of electronic questionnaires through email addresses of the academics working at different faculties of the university in the official website of the university in September 1 to October 1, 2015. In our study, academics’ “attitudes towards violence against women in the name of honor” were found low. That is, academics had negative attitudes toward the verbal or physical violence against women in the name of honor and opposed to the punishment of women for this reason. Nevertheless, the attitudes of those who were males; those who were not professors, associate professors, and assistant professors; those who were single; those who had lived in the district/village for a long time; those who had arranged marriages; those who used any kind of violence; and those who considered violence as a solution were found somewhat more conventional. These results showed that, for some academics, the traditional beliefs of the Turkish patriarchal society continued to be valid although they were included in university academic cultures. In fact, it is revealed here that social values, traditions, and customs are very effective and important on the formation of personality in socialization process.

Keywords

community violence violence exposure perceptions of domestic violence domestic violence cultural contexts

Introduction

Honor is an important concept that has a vital value in Turkey; it influences the lives of many women and may even cost them their lives (R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009). Although the lexical meaning of honor refers to commitment to the moral principles of a society and to the social values, honesty, and righteousness, in countries of culture of honor such as Turkey with a patriarchal and sexist social structure, it is occasionally perceived as sexual purity (Flood & Pease, 2009; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). The sexual purity of a woman may be damaged through behaviors such as extramarital affairs, rape, pregnancy after rape, refusing to marry the rapist, befriending a male without the family’s consent, divorce, elopement, coming home late and being intimate with males, and talking too long on the phone ( Honour Based Violence Awareness Network, 2013; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). Therefore, in countries that adopt an honor culture, women live for their honor; they have to defend it regardless of their age, status, and marital status. A woman must take care of her sexual purity to protect both her and her family’s honor (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). In honor cultures, males have a duty to stay strong and stern, to look out for the honor of the women around him and those who depend on him (e.g., his wife, sister, and mother), and to take action against any kind of threat toward honor, punishing whoever is responsible (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001).

In countries that adopt the notion of honor, violence against women in the name of honor is used as a tool that serves men in socially and sexually controlling women and dominating them (Araji & Carlson, 2001; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). If a woman cannot protect her own honor, both her and the family’s honor will be considered tainted. In such a case, by force of manhood, the honor that is considered damaged must be restructured, and the person who damaged her honor must be punished (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Therefore, a woman with a supposedly blemished honor is punished, both verbally and physically, according to the severity of the incident that caused her to “fall from grace” in the first place. For instance, a woman can be forced into a marriage and made to take a virginity test, a newly married woman who turns out not to be a virgin can be returned to her family, or a woman fleeing her husband can be returned to her husband by her own family, pushed to commit suicide, and even killed (Dilmaç, 2016; Kogacioglu, 2004; Kulczycki & Windle, 2011; Kulwicki, 2002; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013).

In Turkey, sayings such as “You live and you die for your honor” and “Leave in your bridal gown, only come back in your shroud” are precisely illustrative of the importance given to honor (İnci, 2013). Research shows that violence in the name of honor is a phenomenon that is observed all over the world, including Europe and America, but it is far more widespread in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean countries (Ali & Gavino, 2008; Araji & Carlson, 2001; Ceylan, Doğulu, & Akbaş, 2016; Kulczycki & Windle, 2011; Meetoo & Mirza, 2007; Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). Because, according to Abu-Lughod, honor control, especially in these societies, has a priority and power in the regulation of the social structure (Abu-Lughod, 2004).

Various studies conducted on university students in Turkey where honor culture is adopted show that the young and educated population may have positive attitudes toward honor and honor based violence (Gürsoy & Özkan, 2014; Kocadaş, 2016). On the contrary, it is stated that participants have attached importance to the sexual purity of women and disapproved of women’s engagement in premarital sexual intercourse (Gürsoy & Özkan, 2014)and furthermore, they approved violence against women (Bağlı & Özensel, 2011; Erenoğlu, 2008; Kardam, 2007) when it comes to honor. In addition to these, reports published by various institutions demonstrate that honor-based violence is a substantial problem in Turkey. In its “2007 Traditions and Honor Killings Report,” the Turkey Directorate of Human Rights stated that 1,148 people were killed in the name of honor between the years of 2003 and 2007 (Turkey Human Rights Presidency, 2007). Similarly, the General Directorate of Security reported that 322 murders were committed in the name of honor between the years of 2000 and 2005 (cited by R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009). According to the We Will Stop Femicide Platform data, between 2010 and 2015, 70 women were killed under the pretext of honor and tradition, 111 on suspicion of cheating, 40 due to jealousy, and 32 for wanting to break up with their partner (Ceylan et al., 2016; We Will Stop Woman Murder Platform, 2017). Most of these women were murdered by a first-degree relative (husband, father, son, brother) or a boyfriend, fiancé, or ex-boyfriend (R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009; Kardam, 2007). However, according to the United Nation’s (2010) report, approximately 5,000 people worldwide fall victim to murder due to honor (Honour Based Violence Awareness Network, 2013; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). However, it is estimated that these numbers are barely reflective of reality, and that there are many other murders left unrecorded (Honour Based Violence Awareness Network, 2013; Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001).

Based on this information, it would not be wrong to argue that violence against women in the name of honor and honor killings is a serious problem in Turkey. The cultural structure and gender discrimination are known to lie behind this (Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). Universities are, without a doubt, one of the fundamental dynamics of cultural change. Universities have the responsibility to enlighten society and humanity as a whole on various topics such as economy, health, politics, and culture, as well as to deliver solutions to problems (Erdem, 2013; Işık, 2008). Besides, universities should also lay the groundwork for social renewal, analyzing social change, and bringing together diverse cultures (Erçetin, 2001). In that sense, academics are a key dynamic in the role of changing and developing the social structure (Konakay et al., 2015). Academicians, often perceived as missionaries of life, are expected to illuminate the society surrounding them and become role models for the society at large (Ortaş, 2004). A close examination of related studies conducted across diverse segments of the society reveals that the discourse on violence against women is mostly shaped by conservative forces of the society. The traditional patriarchal structure and honor culture of the Turkish society underlie this paradox. It is therefore important that the stance of academicians, who are perceived as opinion leaders and the driving force behind social progress, on violence against women in the name of honor are properly understood and set out in a scientific manner. It is also assumed that the fact that the research topic is new to the study group will increase the importance of the research, and that the results from the study will provide us with new clues and fresh perspectives on violence against women to help us achieve progress on solving this deep-seated social malady.

Starting from these objectives, this study planned to analyze the attitudes of academics toward violence against women committed in the name of honor, and the factors that influence their attitudes.

Method

This descriptive study was conducted in 2015 on a sample group of academics at Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey. Karadeniz Technical University is situated in the north east of Turkey. The university is one of Turkey’s reputable educational institutions with 17 schools, four colleges, 12 vocational schools, seven institutions, one conservatoire, and a strong academic body of staff, along with around 61,000 students from all around Turkey and several other countries. The number of lecturers at Karadeniz Technical University is 2,299 (Karadeniz Technical University, 2015).

The data from the study were gathered using an electronic survey sent to the email addresses of academics (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, and research assistants) who could be found on the university’s official website between the dates September 1 and October 1, 2015 (30 days), and who were employed at the university’s various schools. The survey was designed so that each participant could only fill it out once. A total of 909 people participated in the electronic survey. Consent was obtained electronically from academics before they started the survey. The surveys that were filled out went through a pre-assessment, and 32 were excluded from the study due to completion patterns that might lead to errors in data sets and scales. A total of 877 (38%) individuals were assessed for the study. The electronic survey form generated by the researcher was composed of demographic characteristics (age, gender, home city, marital status, education status, title, etc.), and the “Scale for Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor (SAVWNH)” intended to determine attitudes toward violence against women in the name of honor.

Participants

The average age of the academicians is 34,52±10 with the number of females being 403 and males 474. Academics from various departments took part in the research, including the departments of Health Sciences (physicians, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, dentists, dietitians, and health managers), Social Sciences (psychological consultants, teachers, computer programmers, jurists, economists, accountants, public relations experts, philosophers, theologians), and Natural Sciences (physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, architects, forest engineers, map engineers, computer engineers, marine transportation and operation engineers, electrical and electronic engineers, civil engineers). The participants share a common language, religion, and ethnicity and are indigenous people of the region.

SAVWNH

The SAVWNH was developed by R. Işık and Sakallı-Uğurlu (2009). This scale consists of 14 items involving various subjects, such as determining attitudes about honor killings, the applicability of verbal or physical violence in the name of defending honor, the merit of honor killings, and punishment of women for the preservation of social order, along with verbal and physical violence against women in the name of honor. There were eight negative (Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14; negative attitude not supporting violence against women in the name of honor) and six positive (Items 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12; reverse direction—positive attitude supporting violence against women in the name of honor) items. Participants were asked to identify to what extent they agree with each item on a six-level Likert-type scale. On this scale, 1 referred to I strongly disagree, while 6 referred to I strongly agree. There was no midpoint on the scale, and it is one-dimensional. High scores obtained from the scale reflected the negative attitude toward violence against women in the name of honor (R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009). The credibility of the study was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient and was found to be .83.

Findings obtained in the study were evaluated on SPSS 21.0 Statistics package program. In data analysis, the normality distribution of the scale was surveyed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov), and parametric tests were performed as the scale scores had normal distribution (p > .05). While assessing the data from the study, a t test in cases of two groups, and one-way ANOVA in cases of more than two groups, was used in comparing quantitative data, alongside descriptive statistical methods (frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation), while the Bonferroni test was used in determining the group that caused variation. Results were assessed within a 95% confidence interval, and at a significance level of p < .05.

The principles of “informed consent,” “respect for autonomy,” and “privacy and protection of privacy” were fulfilled by informing academics about the purpose of the study, providing voluntary participation, and ensuring that data were kept confidential, respectively.

Results

The attitude level “in favor of violence against women in the name of honor” among the academics who participated in the study was found to be low, as 1.44 ± 0.60. That is, the study confirmed that the academics’ disposition toward violence against women in the name of honor was negative, and that their inclination toward violence was very low.

Generally, it was determined in Table 1 that negative attitudes toward violence expressed by choosing “I strongly disagree/I disagree” were given by 80.0% of academics to the statement “verbal violence can be inflicted on woman, if necessary, to defend honor”; by 99.9% of academics to the statement “a woman whose honor is tainted must be killed to preserve the honor of the family”; by 97.0% of academics to the statement “I believe honor killings can be functional as a social means of discipline”; by 80.0% of academics to the statement “I think that the punishment of women who act against social rules by society or their families is justified”; by 89.9% of academics to the statement “I believe there is merit in murders committed in the name of honor”; by 97.0% of academics to the statement “I am not against the killing of a woman to restore honor”; by 92.0% of academics to the statement “I believe women who are not able to defend their honor should be condemned, regardless of what they went through”; and by 87.0% of academics to the statement “I believe women who do not abide by social rules should be punished to preserve the social order.”

Table 1.

Attitudes of Academics Regarding Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor.

Attitude Scale Regarding Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor	I Strongly Disagree		I Disagree		I Somewhat Disagree		I Somewhat Agree		I Agree		I Strongly Agree
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Verbal violence can be inflicted on woman, if necessary, to defend honor	564	64	141	16	52	6	52	6	32	4	36	4
A woman whose honor is tainted must be killed to preserve the honor of the family	854	97	14	2	—	—	6	1	—	—	3	0
I believe honor killings can be functional as a social means of discipline	819	93	34	4	3	0	8	1	3	0	10	1
I condemn those who harm women in the name of honor^a	44	5	18	2	33	4	29	3	58	7	695	79
I think that the punishment of women who act against social rules by society or their families is justified	572	65	130	15	60	7	68	8	26	3	21	2
I would be disturbed at violence being inflicted on a woman by male relatives in the name of “honor”^a	43	5	10	1	24	3	19	2	87	10	694	79
I believe there is merit in murders committed in the name of honor	709	81	67	8	44	5	38	4	14	2	5	1
I am not against the killing of a woman to restore honor	829	95	14	2	4	0	4	0	6	1	20	2
I believe a woman should not be subjected to violence in the name of honor, regardless of what she has done^a	34	4	18	2	50	6	29	3	122	14	624	71
I am against inflicting violence on women in the name of “honor”^a	30	3	11	1	23	3	33	4	82	9	698	80
I get angry at relatives/families imposing punishments in relation to a woman’s honor^a	24	3	5	1	46	5	49	6	114	13	639	73
I am against the killing of women in the name of “honor”^a	14	2	2	0	4	0	9	1	43	5	805	92
I believe women who are not able to defend their honor should be condemned, regardless of what they went through	681	78	122	14	29	3	12	1	5	1	28	3
I believe women who do not abide by social rules should be punished to preserve the social order	696	79	72	8	46	5	32	4	14	2	17	2

Reverse direction items.

Similarly, it was determined that negative attitudes toward violence expressed by choosing “I strongly agree/I agree” were given by 86.0% of academics to the statement “I condemn those who harm women in the name of honor”; 89.0% of academics to the statement “I would be disturbed at violence being inflicted on a woman by male relatives in the name of honor”; 85.0% of academics to the statement “I believe a woman should not be subjected to violence in the name of honor, regardless of what she has done”; 89.0% of academics to the statement “I am against inflicting violence on women in the name of honor”; 86.0% of academics to the statement “I get angry at relatives/families imposing punishments in relation to a woman’s honor”; and 97.0% of academics to the statement “I am against the killing of women in the name of honor” (Table 1).

The difference between attitude score averages of academics who work as lecturers and research assistants have lived in a village/rural area for a long time, who are married, whose marriage was arranged, who have resorted to any kind of violence, and who see violence as a solution is statistically significant (respectively, t = 2.679; p = .008 < .05, t = −341; p = .000 < .05, F = 16.97; p = .000 < .05, t = 3.532; p = .000 < .05, t = −4.963; p = .003 < .05, t = 6.653; p = .000 < .05, t = 16.974; p = .000 < .05; Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparison of Score Average Scale Distribution of Attitudes Toward Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor According to Social-Demographic Characteristics of Academics.

Attitude Scale Regarding Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor
Social-Demographic Characteristics	n	%	M	SD	F / t	p
Age
Ages 20-29	366	41.7	1.396	0.521	2.075	.102
Ages 30-39	249	28.4	1.429	0.590
Age range of 40-49	165	18.8	1.517	0.770
Ages 50 and above	97	11.1	1.514	0.583
Gender
Female	403	46.0	1.382	0.554	2.679	.008
Male	474	54.0	1.490	0.635	2.679	.008
Position
Professor, associate professor, assistant professor	207	23.6	1.317	0.475	−3.414	.000
Lecturer, research assistant	670	76.4	1.479	0.631	−3.414	.000
Longest place of residence
Metropolitan	316	36	1.375	0.527	16.971	.000
City	473	53.9	1.421	0.572
Rural/village	88	10	1.783	0.854
Income status
Low income	22	2.5	1.623	0.748	1.102	.333
Middle income	781	89.1	1.438	0.594
High income	74	8.4	1.412	0.637
Family structure
Extended family	151	17.2	1.461	0.663	0.446	.656
Nuclear family	726	82.8	1.437	0.589	0.446	.656
Marital status
Married	487	55.5	1.505	0.679	3.532	.000
Single	390	44.5	1.361	0.478	3.532	.000
Marriage age
Ages 16-25	120	24.6	1.464	0.788	0.922	.399
Ages 26-35	345	70.8	1.528	0.643
Ages 36 and above	22	4.5	1.360	0.585
Form of marriage
Through meeting and mutual agreement	431	88.5	1.451	0.586	−4.963	.003
Through arranged marriage	56	11.5	1.918	1.090	−4.963	.003
Duration of marriage
1-9 years	211	43.3	1.479	0.706	1.811	.165
10-19 years	166	34.1	1.466	0.598
20 years and more	110	22.6	1.612	0.735
Have you ever used violence of any kind?
Yes	189	21.6	1.693	0.837	6.653	.000
No	688	78.4	1.372	0.498	6.653	.000
Have you ever been subjected to violence of any kind?
Yes, I have	247	28.2	1.502	0.603	1.887	.060
No, I haven’t	630	71.8	1.417	0.600	1.887	.060
Do you think resorting to violence is a solution?
Yes, sometimes	131	14.9	2.155	0.916	16.974	.000
No	746	85.1	1.315	0.417	16.974	.000

According to this, the attitudes scale score regarding violence against women in the name of honor for academics who have lived in a village and rural area longer than anywhere (1.783 ± 0.854) was found to be higher than the scores of academics who have lived in a city/metropolitan area longer than anywhere (1.421 ± 0.572); the attitudes scale score of male academics regarding violence against women in the name of honor (1.490 ± 0.63) was found to be higher than that of female academics (1.382 ± 0.55); the attitudes scale score of academics who were lecturers and research assistants regarding violence against women in the name of honor (1.479 ± 0.63) was found to be higher than those who are professors, associate professors, and assistant professors; the attitudes scale score of married academics regarding violence against women in the name of honor (1.505 ± 0.67) was higher than single academics (1.317 ± 0.47); the attitudes scale score of academics with arranged marriages regarding violence against women in the name of honor (1.918 ± 1.09) was found to be higher than those that were married after meeting and mutually agreeing (1.451 ± 0.58); the attitudes scale score of academics who have resorted to any type of violence, regarding violence against women in the name of honor (1.693 ± 0.83), was found to be higher than those that have not resorted to any type of violence (1.372 ± 0.49); the attitudes scale score of academics who see violence as a solution, regarding violence against women in the name of honor (2.155 ± 0.91), was found to be higher than those who do not see violence as a solution (1.315 ± 0.41; Table 2).

Discussion

Unfortunately, Turkey is one of the countries in the world where all types of violence continue to be inflicted on women in the name of honor, and where even honor killings are committed (T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policy General Directorate of Status of Women, 2015; Turkey Human Rights Presidency 2007 Honor Killings Report, 2008). Even though the general perception of Turkish society toward violence inflicted on women in the name of honor has been determined by former research (Sev’er & Yurdakul, 2001; T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policy General Directorate of Status of Women, 2015), there was no study informing on the attitudes of academics who guide society on this topic. Hence, why it was necessary to analyze the ways in which such a concept that has a considerable and adverse affect on women’s health and livelihood, and takes away their right to life, is perceived among academics. In that regard, the current literature on women’s studies will benefit from the scientific disclosure of attitudes and perceptions among academics with regard to pervasive social attitudes that negatively affect women’s lives and take away their right to a decent life.

Violence is a universal phenomenon that affects women from all walks of life regardless of their ethnicity, religion, culture, level of education, and social or economic status (World Health Organization [WHO], 2010). Although a plethora of reasons can be pinpointed for violence against women (such as gender roles and inequalities, power and control, patriarchy, social learning, psychological disorders, anger and hostility, alcohol and substance abuse), WHO finds strong links between poor education and the predisposition to exert violence on women (WHO, 2010). For instance, a study by Robert (2006) shows that although those who frequently resort to violence have a poor educational background (40% are high school dropouts or graduates), those with occasional urges to practice violence on women are mostly university graduates. Extensive research conducted in Turkey also reveals that poor education which is closely related to the socioeconomic level of a person affects attitudes and perceptions toward honor (Kardam, 2007, T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policy General Directorate of Status of Women, 2015). For instance, a study by Sev’er and Yurdakul (2001) demonstrates that as individuals on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic scale have much less in terms of material possessions, they are usually more inclined to protect their honor. Therefore, violence against women in lower social classes who “sully” their honor through their deeds is more prevalent. However, there are also other studies in Turkey that show that the educated population has positive attitudes toward honor and honor-related violence (Ceylan et al., 2016; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). For example, in Çalik, Demirbağ, Bulut, and Demirdağ’s (2017) study, it was demonstrated that academics have a negative attitude “towards honor,” and do not associate honor with a woman’s sexual behaviors. In our study, the academics’ levels of “attitude towards violence against women in the name of honor” were found to be low, that is negative. Accordingly, academics negatively responded to verbal or physical violence inflicted on women in the name of honor, and condemned the punishment of women in the name of honor. The positive attitudes of academics toward violence toward women in the name of honor can be attributed to the academic culture that fosters them as well as other variables (such as lifelong learning). This is because universities play a significant role in an individual’s attainment of what is “real, true, beneficial, good” in his or her individual and social life, behaviors, perceptions, and interpretations.

When honor is threatened in honor cultures, violence may be inflicted on women who are seen as the source of threat, to resolve negative feelings such as shame, anger, and humiliation, and to restore the adverse effects created by such feelings (Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013; Yücel, 2013). Abu-Lughod (2004) argues that as honor regulates the social structure by determining the gender position of women and men, it is necessary for women not to go beyond the existing norms, that is, she must constantly remain “honorable.” For this reason, any movement of the woman is forbidden by the thought of shaking the existing patriarchal regime and masculine power (Lila Abu-Lughod, 1985, 1993). Ceylan et.al.’s (2016) study that analyzed violence against women through an experimental method demonstrated that compared with a finance-based conflict between spouses, an honor-based conflict made participants more likely to approve violence against women. Once again, according to the Kocadaş (2016) study, a large portion (23.9%) of the participants stated that they saw killing a human for honor as “permissible.” Similarly, research studies conducted in Turkey and in various parts of the world have shown that especially male participants excused a male’s reaction in the form of inflicting violence “by giving women’s behaviors that conflict with roles of honor as a pretext” (Bağlı & Özensel, 2011; Eisner & Ghuneim, 2013; Gürsoy & Özkan, 2014; Shaikh, Shaikh, Kamal, & Masood, 2010; Vandello, Cohen, Grandon, & Franiuk, 2009; Yücel, 2013). This approach reveals a commitment to tradition and the extent to which society is accustomed to the use of violence. Studies have shown that violence against women in the name of honor is responded to positively as it is seen that the person who inflicts violence is making an effort to defend his and his family’s honor, and that these individuals are approved by society. Our study determined that, contrary to the general attitude among society, academics share the belief that honor killings should not be seen as a social tool of discipline, that women who do not abide by the social rules should not be punished for the sake of preserving social order, that women should not be harmed due to honor, that male relatives should not inflict violence on women in the name of honor, that violence should not be inflicted on women in the name of honor regardless of their actions, that relatives/families should not impose punishments with regard to a woman’s honor, that murder committed in the name of honor cannot have any merit, and that women should not be killed in the name of honor. As demonstrated above, contrary to the results of other studies conducted with different sample groups, instead of this approach that is centered on gender, the results of our study show that academics do not identify with the association between honor and a woman’s sexual purity, with the idea of the family controlling a woman’s honor, or with the verbal or physical punishment of a woman due to her failure to preserve her own honor. We believe that the reason for this different result stems from the fact that the academic culture created by the college environment leads to changes in themselves and in the way they perceive other people, lending them the ability to have a wider perspective of the world and helping them to easily acknowledge the effects of their own behaviors on others. This is thought to be important concept in terms of academics who are role models for students, positively guiding attitudes toward violence against women in the name of honor, and also in terms of demonstrating that change of ideas is more important than change of laws when it comes to preventing incidents.

Research studies have shown that society’s understanding of honor and violence inflicted in the name of honor demonstrate differences based on social-demographic characteristics (Cooney, 2014; Öztürk & Demirdağ, 2013). Especially individuals of rural origin with strong tribal relations and lines of descent, who preserve their connection to their homeland even after having immigrated to the city, and live among a similar community, who are observed to have an important place in the lives of their families and communities, are determined to see honor as a major value, for which humans can be killed (Eisner & Ghuneim, 2013; Flood & Pease, 2009; Honour Based Violence Awareness Network, 2013). For example, rates of violence against women themselves vary with socioeconomic variables, and American and Australian studies find associations between economic and social disadvantage and higher risks of violence and crime in general and intimate partners (Nagel, Matsuo, McIntyre, & Morrison, 2005). This is in line with findings from studies on related topics such as wife-beating, which has repeatedly been found to be more prevalent among the less educated and traditional groups of Middle Eastern societies (Araji & Carlson, 2001; Haj-Yahia, 2005). The above-mentioned examples have revealed how important the phenomenon of honor is within the family structure in patriarchal cultures. The sore point that needs to be investigated here is the reaction given to demonstrate just how important honor is. In our study, the attitudes of academics toward violence inflicted on women in the name of honor, who are male, young research assistants, and lecturers; who are single; who have lived in a rural area and/or village for a long time; whose marriage was arranged; who have resorted to some kind of violence and see violence as a solution, is found to be closer to the traditional perception. These results may indicate that the traditional ideas of Turkish patriarchal society continue to be valid for some academics, even when individuals maintain their studies in a university environment, within the academic culture. In fact, this shows the effect and influence of social values, manners, and customs on the establishment of personality throughout the process of socialization. Especially in changing societies, social structures that resist change and try to preserve the old ways constitute the root of social problems. As in the example of violence against women, in Turkish society,

a man becomes “dishonorable” if he fails to control the sexuality of the woman or women under his responsibility. And a dishonorable man is a man who brings disgrace on both his own sexuality and the sexuality of the woman whom he was obliged to protect (Sirman, 2006, 43-45).

This approach is also observed in Abu-Lughod’s (1985, 1993) work on Egyptian Bedouins. Abu-Lughod (1985, 1993) points out the necessity of a woman to lead “modest, reasonable, modest, shy” life in the social gender hierarchy created by honor. Therefore, in the patriarchal structure, it is necessary for men to control the female sexuality.

Therefore, female sexuality in the patriarchal structure must be controlled by men. In our study, the attitudes scale score of male academics regarding violence against women in the name of honor was found to be higher than the score of female academics. According to a study by Caffaro, Ferraris, and Schmidt (2014), Turkish male participants in particular attributed less responsibility to the assailant, and they proposed less severe punishments than Turkish women. Similarly, studies conducted on different societies have shown that male participants demonstrate more positive attitudes toward verbal or physical violence against women in the name of honor (Ceylan et al., 2016; Eisner & Ghuneim, 2013; Gürsoy & Özkan, 2014; R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009; Yazıcı & İzgi Topalak, 2014).

Age and developmental processes and relations associated with age appear to be another factor shaping individuals’ attitudes toward violence against women. At the same time, among the youngest age groups, and males in particular, younger people have worse attitudes than their older counterparts (Aromäki, Haebich, & Lindman, 2002). In our study, the attitudes scale score point of young research assistants and lecturers and single academics regarding violence against women in the name of honor was found to be higher than the score of married lecturer academics. A study by Gürsoy et.al.’s (2016) shows that younger students possess stronger traditional beliefs with regard to premarital sexuality, virginity, and violence against women in the name of honor. Supporting our results, studies conducted in Turkey and in other countries have shown that young people have more traditional and harsher attitudes toward violence against women in the name of honor (Aromäki et al., 2002; Eisner & Ghuneim, 2013; Flood & Pease, 2009; R. Işık & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2009; Xenos & Smith, 2001). Based on these results, it is shown that young and single academics show traditional attitudes, and they are under the influence of social expectations and cultural conditioning, even though they do not internalize violent behavior.

It is especially in rural areas that the patterns of patriarchal culture try to be maintained with more vigor than elsewhere. Furthermore, rural communities that tend to use religion to justify their cultural mind-set are more predisposed to upholding the concept of honor and the violence committed in its name (Sakallı-Uğurlu & Ulu, 2003). The attitudes scale score toward violence against women in the name of honor of academics who have lived in a rural area/village longer than anywhere else and who have had an arranged marriage was found to be higher than the score of academics who have lived in a city/metropolitan area longer than anywhere else. The results are attributed to the internalization of this reality (social learning theory) by scholars who have spent much of their lifetime in such an environment and to the fact that the values acquired during this process continue to play a key role in their future lives because domestic violence, like other behaviors, is a recurring act learned through experience and observation and passed down through generations (intergenerational transmission theory; Karğın, 2011). It is reported that those who witness violence as a child in their family household are more likely to get involved in acts of domestic violence (Akers, 2012; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; White & Widom, 2003). Therefore, the family environment where a person first learns to socialize and finds his identity emerges as a significant factor impacting on an individual’s behavior patterns. (Karğın, 2011; Şahin, Yetim, & Öyekçin, 2012). Furthermore, research studies that show that residing in a rural area endorses the maintenance of traditional gender roles as they are in the patriarchal system, and allows for the association of female sexual behaviors with honor, seem to support our study (Bağlı & Özensel, 2011; Eisner & Ghuneim, 2013; Haj-Yahia, 2005; Khawaja & Barazi, 2005; Kocadaş, 2016; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013; Tahincioğlu, 2010). Another reason for this may be the fact that the values of the patriarchal honor are internalized by women throughout the socialization process, and carried over to future generations by being reproduced during the course of raising a child. These values become widespread over time and legitimized as valid social norms to be naturally obeyed (Glick et al., 2016; Kardam, 2007).

However, it is also a well-known fact that arranged marriages are prevalent in rural communities where patriarchal modes of thought dominate the everyday life. (Batabyal, 2001). Research shows that arranged marriages, a by-product of male-dominated cultures that favor violence against women, are mostly unsatisfactory unions between couples who barely know each other, not having had the chance to better acquaint themselves with one another before marriage. The likelihood of women who get married through arranged marriages being victims of domestic violence is much higher than women who can choose who to marry showing how important it is for women to make up their own minds to escape domestic violence. Among factors that make women forced into a marriage by their parents helpless in the face of domestic violence are their lack of success to support mechanisms and the disdain with which divorce decisions are treated (Leading Creative Participants Association, 2009; Şahin et al., 2012; Vahip & Avşargil, 2006).

The aggressive drive that underlies the act of violence is a phenomenon that can be learned and imitated. This situation leads us to conclude that the concept of violence has a social dimension (Kocacık & Çağlayandereli, 2009). The attitudes scale point regarding violence inflicted on woman in the name of honor of academics in our study who have resorted to some type of violence and see violence as a solution was found to be high. The patriarchal mentality that accepts violence as a method of problem solving prefers to resolve several problems that can be resolved by talking and through dialogue by means of violence. This is because throughout their socialization process, they have been exposed to role models that resolved issues not through dialogue but through violence (Yücel, 2013). A meta-analysis of 118 studies suggests that children who witness interparental violence show more negative psychosocial outcomes than children who witness only other forms of interparental conflict or aggression (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). The Bağlı and Özensel (2011) and Öztürk and Demirdağ (2013) studies on prisoners who were found guilty of honor killing indicate that these prisoners embraced honor with its traditional content. As a matter of fact, these data explain the extensive nature of honor cases. Especially in societies where a woman-centered perception of honor is established, the causes of outnumbering femicide cases and of failure to prevent these may need to be investigated in this context.

Study Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the present findings are based on a cross-sectional survey. This means that there are important limits as to the extent to which the causal and temporal relationships between the dependent variable and the predictors can be determined. Second, the survey was based on a convenience sample rather than a random sample representative of academics in Turkey. This limits the extent to which the findings reported in this study can be generalized. Third, the findings show that academics tend to exhibit negative attitudes toward violence against women in the name of honor. However, these low averages might be due to the effects of social desirability. As this research study did not measure social desirability, it was not possible to investigate this particular influence. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future studies to include an analysis of this effect. Fourth, as there has not been any research conducted on a sample group of academics, and only a few studies were found to have been conducted with different sample groups on this topic using a scale, the results were compared mostly with research findings that include percentage data. Finally, one should note that the present study assesses academics’ attitudes rather than behavioral intentions or actual behaviors.

Conclusion

This study finds (or found) that academics participating in the research have strong opinions that disapprove “violence against women in the name of honor,” which is noteworthy at a time when violence against women is on the rise. Accordingly, academics oppose all forms of verbal and physical violence against women in the name of honor, including honor killings which may be attributed to the exposure of academics to national and international environments of intellectual exchanges and interactions, enabling them to adopt universal values of human dignity. That being said, their enlightened attitude can also be associated with aspirations of social desirability. However, the fact that academics do not have an approving attitude with regard to the especially women-centered concept of honor, and in connection with this, to violence in the name of honor, and considering that they are raising young people who will become the decision makers, health care professionals, educators, and managers of the future, it is thought that academics may try to change attitudes toward women by means of raising awareness among their students with regard to honor crimes and killings, and help them become role models to other groups in the society. The fact that more moderate results are obtained from studies conducted among university students in comparison with other segments of the society may reflect the efforts on the part of academics to enlighten their students on such social matters. In fact, the most important conclusion of this study is that academics do not see honor as an internalized value contrary to the individuals in society, and that therefore it is possible to ensure a social change via universities in relation to changing this value. However, it is seen that in the formation of the attitudes of academics with certain social-demographic characteristics (male, young, research assistants, teaching assistants, single, lived in a rural area and/or village for a long time, gone through an arranged marriage, resorted to any type of violence before, and sees violence as a solution), it is the family and the “honor” culture of society that plays a significant role, rather than the academic environment of a university. It is therefore possible to state that the family environment where a person first learns to socialize and finds his identity emerges as a significant factor impacting on his behavior patterns, from which can be inferred that individuals growing up in a society dominated by sexual stereotypes play a key role in maintaining practices that glorify violence against women and passing down the culture of female oppression through generations. However, it might be necessary to conduct more detailed studies on the value of “honor,” which is highly important to some individuals, and to achieve changes in the variables that constitute this value. At this point, the role of researchers is to ensure the generation of preventive efforts and endorse a change in state policies by exposing the sources that feed the value of “honor.” In any case, social change does not seem to be possible without doing away with such socially corrosive values.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the Karadeniz Technical University academic who recognized the importance of this research and responded to the survey presented in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Kıymet Yeşilçiçek Çalik, PhD, is a health services researcher and an assistant professor of the Faculty of Health Sciences Department of Nursing at Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey. Her research includes randomized clinical trials, survey research, and qualitative research. Her current research focuses on male factor in violence against women. She is interested in health policy, violence against women, shelters, child abuse, and sexual health. She has also worked as a nurse in Farabi Hospital General Surgery Service.

References

Abu-Lughod

(1985). Honor and sentiments of loss in Bedouin society. American Ethnologist, 12, 245-261.

Abu-Lughod

(1993). Writing women’s worlds Bedouin stories. London, England: University of California Press.

Abu-Lughod

(2004). Veiled sentiments ( Ertüzün

, Trans.). İstanbul, Turkey: Epsilion.

Akers

R. L.

(2012). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Taylor & Francis.

Ali

P. A.

Gavino

M. I. B.

(2008). Violence against women in Pakistan: A framework for analysis. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 58, 198-203.

Amnesty International. (2004, August). Turkey: Women confronting family violence. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/013/2004/en/

Araji

S. K.

Carlson

(2001). Family violence including crimes of honor in Jordan: Correlates and perceptions of seriousness. Violence Against Women, 7, 586-621.

Aromäki

A. S.

Haebich

Lindman

R. E.

(2002). Age as a modifier of sexually aggressive attitudes in men. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 419-423.

Bağlı

Özensel

(2011). Honor and honor killings in Turkey: A sociological research on the people who committed honor and honor killings. İstanbul, Turkey: Destek Publisher.

10.

Batabyal

A. A.

(2001). On the likelihood of finding the right partner in an arranged marriage. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 273-280.

11.

Caffaro

Ferraris

Schmidt

(2014). Gender differences in the perception of honour killing in individualist versus collectivistic cultures: Comparison between Italy and Turkey. Sex Roles, 71, 296-318.

12.

Çalik

K. Y.

Demirbağ

C. B.

Bulut

H. K.

Demirdağ

. (2017). Academician’s attitudes towards honor. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 274-280.

13.

Ceylan

Doğulu

Akbaş

(2016). Social representations about honor-based violence against women: A mixed methods study [Special issue]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 19, 50-60.

14.

Cooney

(2014). Death by family: Honor violence as punishment. Punishment & Society, 16, 406-427.

15.

Dilmaç

J. A.

(2016). Honor in everyday life in Turkish society: A barrier against deviance? Deviant Behavior, 37, 302-314.

16.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

Chen

Johnson

J. G.

(2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753.

17.

Eisner

Ghuneim

(2013). Honor killing attitudes amongst adolescents in Amman, Jordan. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 405-417.

18.

Erçetin

. (2001). We academics ready to create the future of higher education organization? Educational Management in Theory and Practice, 25, 75-86.

19.

Erdem

A. R.

(2013). Changing roles and missions of university in information society. Journal of Higher Education, 3, 109-120.

20.

Erenoğlu

(2008). The opinions of Gazi University students about custom—Honor killings (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University Institute of Medical Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.

21.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142.

22.

Glick

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Akbaş

Orta

İ. M.

Ceylan

(2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75, 543-554.

23.

Gürsoy

Özkan

H. A.

(2014). Turkish youth’s perception of sexuality / “honor” in relation to women. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 5, 149-159.

24.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2005). Can people’s patriarchal ideology predict their beliefs about wife abuse? The case of Jordanian men. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 545-567.

25.

Honour Based Violence Awareness Network. (2013, May). Honour based violence in the contemporary world. Retrieved from http://hbv-awareness.com/today/

26.

İnci

Ü. H

. (2013). A sociological analysis of honor killings reported by the mass media. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 2, 282-296.

27.

Işık

Sakallı-Uğurlu

(2009). The development of attitudes toward honor scale and attitudes toward violence against women for protecting honor scale with a student sample. Turkish Psychological Articles, 12(24), 16-24.

28.

Işık

. (2008). The effects of universities on urbanization in Turkey. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 10, 159-181.

29.

İzgi Topalak

Ş.

Yazıcı

. (2014). Music and art teacher candidates’ attitudes directed to violence against women in the name of honor (KTU sample). International Peer-Reviewed Journal of Humanities and Academic Science, 3(8), 17-29.

30.

Karadeniz Technical University. (January, 2015). Available from http://www.ktu.edu.tr/

31.

Kardam

(2007). The dynamics of honor killings in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Publication of Association of Population Sciences, NP, UNDP, UNFPA.

32.

Karğın

(2011). Peer reporting of unethical police behavior. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

33.

Khawaja

Barazi

(2005). Prevalence of wife beating in Jordanian refugee camps: Reports by men and women. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, 840-841.

34.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339-352.

35.

Kocacık

Çağlayandereli

(2009). Domestic violence towards women: Denizli case study. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6(2), 25-43.

36.

Kocadaş

(2016). Honor and violence evaluations of young people from sociological point of view. Sosyolojik Düşün, 1(2), 27-39.

37.

Kogacioglu

(2004). The tradition effect: Framing honor crimes in Turkey. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 15, 119-151.

38.

Konakay

Akdemir

Ergen

(2015). Investigation of the charisma and intellectuality effect in determining a leadership model in the light of university students’ interaction with their academicians and parents. Journal of Business Research-Türk, 7, 205-235.

39.

Kulczycki

Windle

(2011). Honor killings in the Middle East and North Africa: A systematic review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 17, 1442-1464.

40.

Kulwicki

A. D.

(2002). The practice of honor crimes a glimpse of domestic violence in the Arab world. Mental Health Nursing, 23, 77-87.

41.

Leading Creative Participants (LİYAKAT) Association. (2009). 4 women (for women) project women’s violence project report (Strengthening the Capacity of Local and National Civil Society Organizations Grant Scheme TR2009 / 0136.02-02 / 121). Violence Against Women. Retrieved from 4womenproject.org/tr/turkce/2015-01-07-08-37-44/liyakat-dernegi.html

42.

Leung

A. K. Y.

Cohen

(2011). Within-and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507-526.

43.

Meetoo

Mirza

H. S.

(2007). “There is nothing “honourable” about honour killings”: Gender, violence and the limits of multiculturalism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 30, 187-200.

44.

Nagel

Matsuo

McIntyre

K. P.

Morrison

(2005). Attitudes toward victims of rape effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 725-737.

45.

Ortaş

. (2004). Who is the lecturer or the scientist. Pivolka, 3, 11-16.

46.

Öztürk

Demirdağ

A. G. M. A

. (2013). The ones who restored his honor with blood: A sociological research on the prisoners convicted of honor issue in Mardin jail house. Journal of Social Policy Studies, 7, 117-135.

47.

Roberts

(2006). Building bridges between the healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood, and domestic violence movements: Issues, concerns, and recommendations. Couples and Marriage Series Brief, 7, 1-11.

48.

Rodriguez Mosquera

Manstead

Fischer

. (2002). Honor in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 16-36.

49.

Şahin

E. M.

Yetim

Öyekçin

D. G.

(2012). Rate of intimate partner violence against women and attitudes of women towards violence in Edirne Turkey. Cumhuriyet Medical Journal, 34, 23-32.

50.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Akbaş

(2013). “Honor” and “honor violence against women” in honor cultures: Social psychological explanations. Turkish Psychology Articles, 16, 76-91.

51.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Ulu

(2003). Attitudes towards violence against women in marriage: The effects of ambivalance sexism, age, education and income levels. Turkish Psychology Articles, 6(11), 53-63.

52.

Sev’er

Yurdakul

(2001). Culture of honor, culture of change: A feminist analysis of honor killings in rural Turkey. Violence Against Women, 7, 964-998.

53.

Shaikh

M. A.

Shaikh

I. A.

Kamal

Masood

(2010). Attitudes about honour killing among men and women-perspective from Islamabad. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 22(3), 38-41.

54.

Sirman

(2006). Kinship, politics and love: The example of honor-Turkey in post-colonial terms. Violence in honor: Theoretical and political approaches (2nd ed.). Istanbul, Turkey: Bilgi University Publications.

55.

Tahincioğlu

A. N. Y.

(2010). The analysis of honor and honor killing in the context of sexualine qualities. Culture & Communication, 13(2),131-158.

56.

T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policy General Directorate of Status of Women. (2015, December). Research on domestic violence against women in Turkey Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from https://kadininstatusu.aile.gov.tr/uygulamalar/kadina-yonelik-aile-ici-siddet-arastirmasi

57.

Turkey Human Rights Presidency 2007 Honor Killings Report. (2008, August). Retrieved from www.tihek.gov.tr/www/files/tore_namus_cinayetleri_raporu_06_08_2008.pdf

58.

United Nations. (2010, May). Impunity for domestic violence, “honour killings” cannot continue. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33971&Cr=violence+against+women&Cr1#.UKpKmrukGM4

59.

Vahip

Avşargil

Ö. D.

(2006). Domestic violence and female patients. Journal of Turkish Psychiatry, 17, 107-114.

60.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997-1010.

61.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

Grandon

Franiuk

(2009). Stand by your man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 81-104.

62.

We Will Stop Woman Murder Platform. (2017, January). Available from https://www.kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/

63.

White

H. R.

Widom

C. S.

(2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 332-345.

64.

World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, London: World Health Organization, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Retrieved from www.who.int/violence…prevention/…/violence/978924156…

65.

Xenos

Smith

(2001). Perceptions of rape and sexual assault among Australian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1103-1119.

66.

Yücel

C. A. N.

(2013). Gendered bases of violence against woman: Niğde case. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 5(1), 203-206.