Mothers’ ethnotheories of sibling relationships:A qualitative study in Turkey

Theory of social change and the key role of parental ethnotheories

The theory of social change and human development (Greenfield, 2009) aims to demonstrate how altering sociodemographic conditions transform learning environments in connection with cultural values and thereby developmental trajectories for children: In short, children develop self-concepts and cognitive styles that are adapted to their sociodemographic environment. Two German terms are used as core concepts: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. While Gemeinschaft is defined as a local community, Gesellschaft is described as an urban society (Tönnies, 1957/1957, as cited in Greenfield, 2009). Greenfield suggests that socio-cultural environments are dynamic, both in the industrialized and newly industrialized countries and that development can move in the direction of Gesellschaft (more common) or Gemeinschaft. In a Gemeinschaft, collectivism becomes a cultural value and parental ethnotheories emphasize interdependence in their children’s behavior. This leads to more interdependent care practices and results in more interdependent self-concepts (and in a different pattern of cognitive styles). On the contrary (prototypical contrast), in a Gesellschaft, individualism is of high value and parental ethnotheories stress independent behavior in children—resulting in more independent self-concepts.

In Greenfield’s theory parental ethnotheories—a concept that she adapts from the work of Keller (i.e., 2000, 2007)—play a key role because they are partly responsible for the learning environment of children. According to Keller’s studies, parental ethnotheories that emphasize interdependent cultural values, such as close physical contact and social over object interaction, are more frequently observed in small agriculture communities (Gemeinschaft). On the contrary, less physical closeness and fewer social interactions, but more object-centered interactions with children are common in independent parental ethnotheories in middle-class urban societies (Gesellschaft) (Keller, 2007). For instance, autonomy and cognitive competence are essentials in German society (Keller et al., 2005). Similarly, in a specific work on parental ethnotheories of mothers of Turkish descent in Germany, the following socialization goals were discovered: Intimate emotional connection within the family, the acquisition of language skills, both in Turkish and in German, general cognitive skills, which are necessary for a good educational qualification and professional successes as well as respect and obedience for (elderly) people (Demuth et al., 2015).

Parental ethnotheories are an important link between the surrounding socio-cultural environment and concrete parenting practices. Examining ethnotheories acknowledges that parents are not just an object of developing conditions but are rather actively involved in processes of reflecting on their everyday practices (albeit not in an academic manner). This is similar to what cultural psychologist Jerome Bruner defined as “folk psychology” in his book Acts of Meaning (1990): “All cultures have as one of their most powerful constitutive instruments a folk psychology, a set of more or less connected, more or less normative descriptions about how human beings ‘tick,’ what our own and other minds are like” (p. 35). For studying such folk psychological symbolic systems, Bruner suggest using interpretative and hermeneutic methods which emphasize their narrative character. In the tradition of these theories and studies, the present paper analyzes parents’ ethnotheories on sibling relationships.

Theory of family change

Kağıtçıbaşı’s work is similar to Greenfield’s theory but her theory based on dual axis, which is agency and interpersonal distance axes. While she uses the concepts of separateness and relatedness for the axis of interpersonal distance, autonomy and heteronomy concepts are used for the axis of agency. Separateness refers to high interpersonal distance in family settings and relatedness designates low interpersonal distance between family members. It has been discussed and shown many times that separateness and relatedness exist separately or coexist in families from various countries (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Georgas et al., 2006; Mayer et al., 2012). Like Greenfield and Keller, Kağıtçıbaşı puts parents’ perspective at the center of her work. Her longitudinal work showed that the profile of Turkish parents has changed dramatically over the last three decades as their socioeconomic situation evolved. Parents moved into urban centers and became more educated and more likely to be employed. This has, in turn, led to a shift in the relationship to their offspring and the value they attribute to their children (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). While the utilitarian value of children has significantly decreased, the psychological value of children has increased. Changes in the value of children in Turkey also revealed a new concept of self, the so-called autonomous-related self, which belongs to a family model of psychological interdependence that Kağıtçıbaşı (2007) and her colleagues (Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2015; Aycicegi-Dinn & Kagitcibasi, 2010) conceptualized as an addition to the other two concepts: (a) family model of (material and psychological) interdependence: heteronomous (dependent)-related self and (b) family model of independence: autonomous-separate self.

The autonomous-related self, though economically independent from the family, keeps the emotional and psychological relations alive. Psychological interdependence does not imply more love or affection but rather a more intertwined self-concept, less interpersonal distance and less privacy in the family than psychological independence (Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2015). With the introduction of the concept autonomous-related self, Kağıtçıbaşı argues that processes of socioeconomic change result in different “endpoints” in different cultures, for example in Turkey: “Increased affluence brings about less material dependence on the offspring, but continuing family culture of relatedness maintains psychological dependence. Therefore, this change does not imply a shift toward the Western family model of separation and independence as predicted by a general modernization perspective. Instead, a different pattern of family relations emerges that combines interdependence in the psychological realm with independence in the material realm.” (Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2015, p. 7) Whereas the self has developed into an autonomous-separate self in many European countries, Kağıtçıbaşı argues that in Turkey the autonomous-related self is the final step in the process of modernization (and thereby argues in the directions of “multiple modernities,” Eisenstadt, 2003). Greenfield’s theory, on the other hand, views the autonomous-related self as simply an intermediate form, and claims that it will eventually evolve into an autonomous-separate self.

Research questions and aims

The first goal is to describe Turkish mothers’ ethnotheories of sibling relationship between their own offspring and to interpretatively identify common ‘frameworks of orientation’ (Bohnsack et al., 2010, p. 110). The second goal of this study is to look at these parental ethnotheories through the lenses of the cultural psychological dichotomy of independence and interdependence: How are questions of independence and interdependence reflected in mothers’ ethnotheories?

Sample

The research was carried out in two different cities, Istanbul and Sinop. Sinop is a provincial town on the Black Sea coast with a population of approximately 207,000. Istanbul and Sinop include both urban and village-like/rural neighborhoods. We recruited interviewees from both type of neighborhoods. While participants in Istanbul were reached by a contact person in the city, participants in Sinop were reached via a primary school teacher, who posted the call for research participation in a chat group for parents. All the participants, who have contacted us, have been interviewed (N=21) in the scope of larger project. However, during the data analysis phase of the present paper, 6 mothers, who have an only child and who have not given elaborated answer to sibling related questions were excluded. An online appointment was conducted with each participant. All interviews were conducted with mothers: Although we directed our request to “parents” in a gender-neutral manner, only mothers came forward for interviews. This may have been due to fathers working long hours or mothers being less inhibited about talking to a female interviewer. We didn’t make an extra father quota, because we did not have any gender-specific research question in the present study. Demographic information, including level of education, socioeconomic status (SES), age, number, and age of children related to each participant can be found in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographics of participants.

Participant name	Age	Education	SES	Residence	Number of children	Age and gender of children
S.E.	28	Primary sc.	Low	Urban	3	9 (f), 7 (m), 9 months (m)
Y.V.	37	Primary sc.	Low	Urban	2	8 (f), 2 (f)
C.K.	32	Primary sc.	Low	Rural	3	12 (f), 9 (f), 6 (f)
M.A.	37	Primary sc.	Low	Urban	2	12 (m), 6 (f)
M.Y.	33	High sc.	Low	Urban	2	10 (m), 7 (m)
K.F.	32	High sc.	Mid.	Urban	2	14 (m), 11 (f)
C.N.	38	High sc.	Mid.	Urban	3	14 (f), 11 (m) 2,5 (f)
L.A.	38	Bachelor	High	Urban	1	7,5 (f)
H.L.	36	Bachelor	Mid.	Urban	2	8 (m), 10 (m)
C.S.	36	High sc.	Low	Urban	3	14 (m), 8 (m), 5 (m)
D.B.	30	Primary sc.	Low	Rural	3	9 (f), 6,5 (f), 3 (m)
F.Ü.	28	High sc.	Low	Rural	2	9 (m), 1 (f)
E.H.	34	Bachelor	Mid.	Urban	2	9 (m), 1.5 (m)
Ü.A.	29	Primary sc.	Low	Urban	2	2,5 (f), 4.5 (m)
Z.G.	37	Bachelor	Mid.	Urban	2	9 (f), 2.5 (m)

Interviews

In the scope of a larger project, half-structured, problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 1989) were used to explore parental ethnotheories. The mothers were asked to report about their everyday life with their kids in different parenting settings: in the contexts of feeding, sleeping, toilet training, disciplining, playing, sibling relationship, and separation. For the present paper, we have only examined those parts of the interviews in response to questions about sibling relationships.

The initial questions about sibling relationships were as follows: How is the sibling relationship between your children? What do you think about the sibling relationship between them? How does this relationship affect your parenting? Later on, follow-up prompt questions were specially asked depending on the unique interview flow of each participant to deepen the interviews and let the participant elaborate their narratives: Some questions were about conflict (For which reasons do they fight usually? What causes a crisis in general?); some questions about participants’ ideal sibling relationship ideas (Whether this relationship matches your expectation or your ideal sibling relationship? What kind of sibling relationship would you like to see between them? When you think prospectively, is it important for you that they remain in contact with each other in the future?); and some questions related to traditional sibling roles (What would you expect from older brother as a (Abi)? Are older brother (Abi) or younger brother (Kardeş) roles important to you? What are the roles of older brother and younger brother in family?). Demographic questions related to participants’ age, educational level, marital status, occupation, etc., were asked at the end of the interviews. All the interviews were conducted in Turkish and the duration of the interview was approximately 90 min.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, four face-to-face interviews were conducted in Turkey. Due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, however, our research team was no longer allowed to travel to Turkey for fieldwork and we therefore decided to conduct 11 interviews online. Most of the face-to-face interviews took place in participants’ homes, where a quiet room had been chosen for the interview. The participants were briefly informed about the researcher, research topic, and confidentiality of personal information. The audio recorder was introduced to them, and their written consent to having their voice recorded was obtained. In a couple of instances, the interviews were interrupted by their own children for a short period, during which the recordings were paused.

The video conferencing service Zoom, licensed by Ruhr University Bochum, was used as an online platform to collect online data. In total, 11 online interviews were conducted via Zoom. Using Zoom, audio and video recordings of the interviews were taken, but the video recording was deleted immediately after the interview, while only the audio data was saved to be transcribed. Although video calls are quite common and a well-established method of staying connected to family members in Turkey, some participants were talking to a stranger via an online platform for the first time. In these cases, several minutes of small talk for getting comfortable with the medium were allocated and not recorded. There were isolated internet connection problems or technical problems related to microphone or headphone use, but all of these could luckily be solved quickly. All of the participants were at their own home and were asked to find a quiet room to start the interview. Due to young age of some of their children, the interviews were interrupted for the sake of children’s needs. All participants received 100 TL as compensation. Consent forms and participation fee forms were signed, either handed to the interviewer or scanned, and sent digitally.

The audio recordings were transcribed completely in conformity with the guideline “talk in qualitative research” (Bohnsack et al., 2010). Based on the Turkish transcripts, the interviews were structured and relevant text passages were selected for analysis. We used the Turkish original material for the interpretation. Relevant interview passages were later translated into English by a professional translator for publication. Because the translation process itself requires interpretation, the excerpts of the interviews translated into English were once again included in the analysis, and in some cases changed in order to more accurately reflect the meaning of the original. Turkish originals are provided as supplemental material.

Interpretation methods

The interviews were interpreted using the documentary method to identify indications of background knowledge and fundamental assumptions in the narratives of the interviewed parents by focusing on communicative (explicit) and conjunctive (implicit) knowledge (Bohnsack et al., 2010). This method, which is also frequently used in the sociology of knowledge, is very well suited for the analysis of ethnotheories. It involves a two-step interpretative process, the first step, formulating interpretation, focusing on explicit, the second step, reflecting interpretation on implicit processes of meaning-making. Guiding the evaluation of tacit knowledge is the question “what implicit assumptions does the person hold to make the explicit statement meaningful?” These basic assumptions are listed for every interview. During the comparative analysis of the complete sample, so-called “orientation frameworks” are worked out which occur in many interviews albeit in nuanced form (Bohnsack et al., 2010). Sometimes, interviewees disagree and articulate opposing orientations on one topic. If this is the case, the orientation frame is represented as a spectrum with two poles. For the present study, three orientation frames were generated by two interpreters during the reflecting interpretation phase of analysis:

 • Birth Order and Hierarchical Sibling Roles: Ağabey (Abi) and Abla versus Egalitarian Roles

During comparative analysis, we looked for commonalities between participants and but also for differences or contrasts. The comparative style of the documentary method helped us to understand how the same topic is presented differently by different individuals.

As a method of cultural psychology in the narrower sense, we additionally applied relational hermeneutics developed by Straub (2015). This method was explicitly developed as an addition to the documentary method for qualitative research on cultural comparisons (Straub, 2015). Straub describes the interpretation as a process of progressive comparison. Accordingly, interpretations become richer and more differentiated when analysts draw not only on one but on multiple horizons of comparison. These can be internal comparisons between or within interviews of the same sample, comparative empirical data in the classical sense, but also the finished results of other studies, the personal experiences of the interpreters, or even fictional experiences. In this way, relational hermeneutics allows for a creative discovery of cultural diversity and prevents overly hasty labeling of cultural difference. In order to ensure scientific comprehensibility, it is essential that the applied comparison horizons are made explicit.

For this study, two dimensions of comparisons are central: First, all interviews were interpreted by the two authors together. While we both have a similar academic background (psychology), we come up with different observations and ideas regarding sibling relationships partly due to our different family situations. While one of us is a mother of three, the other researcher has two siblings and can draw on that experience. Furthermore, one of us grew up in Germany, the other in Turkey. Second, one of us has conducted a similar interview study on parental ethnotheories in Germany (Sieben, 2021). This German material plays an important role as a comparative horizon. In addition, some interview materials were also analyzed in an interpretation group consisting of doctoral students and a postdoctoral researcher from the field of cultural psychology and sociology. Thus, although the present study is not cross-cultural comparative in the sense that it uses a mixed sample from (at least) two different cultures, it is nonetheless cross-cultural comparative because of the interpreters’ applied comparative horizons. The comparison of cultures is inherent in the biographical and scientific point of view of the interpreters and is made usable at various points in the course of the analysis.

Birth order and hierarchical sibling roles: Ağabey (Abi) and abla versus egalitarian roles

Like most other social units, the family includes more or less strict hierarchies and social roles, which define who should obey whom in family or sibling contexts and who is supposed to take responsibility for which task. To get the first insight about societal and cultural meaning of sibling relationships in Turkey, we present the results on hierarchy and social roles in sibling relationships. That said, primogeniture, that is, birth order, is one of the basic principles coming to light in kinship relationships in Turkey (Sirman, 2014). Some of those interviewed articulate a very clear ideal of sibling roles: The later-born has to address the earlier-born in special terms meant to express respect. If the first-born is male, he is ağabey (abi); if female, she is abla. There is no special term to address younger sibling, just their names are sufficient. One of the interviewees, a 30-year-old mother of three daughters explains the strict rules of addressing the first-born daughter:

“Yes those [traditional sibling] roles are very important. For instance, mine look similar in terms of height only. Now when she calls her Leyla, I get angry; my partner does as well for instance. Abla! This is your abla! even when she is only 1 year older than you. The younger for instance cannot talk, if she does not say abla. That’s how it is.” (D.B.) (for participant information see Table 1)

Presumably, these expectations from both older and younger sibling, which create an ideal of obedience between siblings, play an important role for the family system, in particular in small-scale societies, Gemeinschaft (Greenfield, 2009), in which a strong division of labor on the societal level including professional childcare has not been established. Clear expectations and the division of labor in the family could be expected to support its internal structure and to help families to assign tasks to its members. Moreover, the parentification of older brothers and sisters definitely has an effect upon this ideal of obedience and hierarchy system between siblings. It is a common practice in many societies that older brothers or sisters are expected to care for the younger ones. There are a considerable number of anthropological or ethnographic studies on the topic of parentification of siblings (Alber et al., 2013; Lamorey, 1999 etc.). As the example below show, our interviews also include parentification of siblings:

“Well, older sister in any case, well… see I trust, I trust a 9-year-old child and go to do my other tasks. I mean… because I trust her. If I leave to the middle one, I don’t trust the middle one that much. Also her in any case. Look – for instance I make them clear the table, wash the dishes, give everyone a different task. Today you’ll make your bed, the other will clear the table. I direct them like this.” (D.B.)

Kağıtçıbaşı (2007) describes a similar pattern in her longitudinal studies and shows how children are also included in the labor system of the family. While parents are clearly primarily responsible for care in the family, other people in the family are involved in the caregiving process. One of the most common examples is the involvement of siblings in the caregiving process. Considering the Turkish cultural family structure, parents can expect children to make such contributions from an early age (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). In this context, it is not surprising that the hierarchical relationship between parents and children is also observed among siblings in cases of sibling parentification. This stratified hierarchical relationship between parent and child is transposed onto the relationship between siblings. In contrast to this hierarchical model, an ideal of an egalitarian sibling relationship is present in other interviews from our sample. Interestingly, parents who describe this model explicitly comment on historical change. Not all of them favor the “new” model, though. For example, a 37-year-old mother of a 12-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter compares her own childhood with today’s sibling relationships:

“I do not remember having fights between us siblings in the village. I have seen it with my children. We are eight siblings, and we did not fight with each other like this. I tell Berfin that here, this is your ağabey do not do that! (But) no! This new generation are doing fighting. Well… without hitting each other.” (M.A.)

Earlier in the interview, she had outlined an ideal perception of ağabey (abi), inspired by her own sibling experience in her childhood. Ağabey (abi) is portrayed as the sibling who should be respected by his younger sister. In her memory, this respectful relationship came along with the absence of fighting. Remarkably, when her children disagree or fight with each other, she warns only her daughter by reminding her that “he is your ağabey (abi).” That implies that she should obey him. However, the quote shows that she cannot realize her desire for a hierarchical and respectful relationship–her children fight. Thereby she describes how sibling relationships have changed, but she herself favors the “old” model.

The transformation of parents’ attitudes towards traditional sibling roles is also illustrated in the next quote. According to a 36-year-old mother, traditional sibling roles and hierarchy are no longer valid, and birth order does not actually matter. Instead, love and respect are key for the relationship. The mother of three sons (14, 8, and 5 years old, respectively) explains that:

“They should respect each other, that is actually enough for me. As long as there is love and respect, it does not matter for me that one is younger, the other is older. The older brother should also have love and respect for the younger.” (C.S.)

She goes on to criticize the traditional sibling roles, making it clear that the older brother’s role does not include the privilege of using physical force. Just like any other sibling, she expects him to consult his mother should his siblings tease him, or he to yell and show his anger:

“The younger to the older alike, that is what I always say […]. Sometimes they go too far to the degree of hitting each other. Sometimes I say, you are older, you do not have the luxury for hitting him. If you – if he provokes you too much, if he hurts you, you have to come and tell me. I will do whatever is necessary.” (C.S.)

Our interview material shows that some mothers stick to the hierarchical model, while others prefer an egalitarian sibling relationship, and others accept the change, although they favor the “old” model (such as; abla or abi, establishing a clear hierarchy between siblings or parentification of older siblings). The other half of the participants is ambivalent or critical about these roles. Some of the parents show an interesting shift in valuing the sibling relationship: First and foremost, physical confrontation, in particular as used by the older sibling to discipline the younger, is no longer seen as appropriate. Verbal conflict is seen as being superior, but many parents also describe that the verbal resolution of sibling conflict often involves them, the parents, as mediators. Instead of hierarchical respect, they call for love and mutual respect.

What remains somehow missing in the interview material is a critique of fixed social roles as an argument for egalitarian sibling relationships. We contrasted this with Germany, where parents strongly believe that children should not be restricted in their development by a given social role depending on birth order or gender (an idea which we assume is partly influenced by Alfred Adler’s work on siblings). Many German parents are critical of the idea that, for example, the older sibling should become responsible for the others or be the one who dominates the others. Rather, they would argue that social roles should fit to the personal characteristics of each child, independent from birth order. None of the Turkish interviewees mentions this ideal of equal chances in our sample. But rather, new forms of being related, namely love and verbal communication, are stressed as an argument for an egalitarian model of siblings.

Sibling solidarity and sharing as core values

Interviews in this study show a comprehensive view of different parents’ perspective on sibling-sibling solidarity and of their feelings and attitudes toward sibling care and sharing. Each mother defined the relationship ideals of sibling solidarity differently, but many aspects overlap. We present five different subthemes, namely empathy, material sharing, supporting each other, joint activities, and questions of room sharing.

Many mothers in our interviews spoke of the importance of a strong sense of empathy and the ability to commiserate with others as an ideal in the sibling relationship. For instance, a 32-year-old mother of a daughter and a son framed her description of how strong the emotional bond between her children is by highlighting how her children shared pain:

“When there is a situation, when someone is hurt, they run to each other. If one falls, the other one runs to pick [the other one] up. I mean they say ‘I don’t love her’, ‘I don’t want him’, ‘I want him to leave’. But if one gets hurt, the other one gets hurt as well.” (K.F.)

Another mother similarly describes the ambivalent nature of sibling relationships, which includes both conflict and strong empathy:

“If you see them fight, you would say they are not siblings, but if one of them gets hurt, they cry all together.” (C.K.)

For this mother of three daughters (12, 9, 6 yrs., respectively), like for many other participants in the study, sibling conflict is part of a “normal” sibling relationship. Moreover, she trusts that, in the end, her children’s empathy and solidarity will outweigh their quarrel with each other. In all examples above, siblings’ strong empathy, is described as a “shared physical pain.” Another example of shared emotions between siblings and relatedness between them is given by a 32-year-old mother of a daughter and a son. When the interviewer asked what kind of sibling relationship she would like to see between her children, she answered as follows:

“‘My dear brother’ ‘my dear sister’… (I want them to) look at each other with love like this. To touch each other with trembling hands, as if they were to hurt each other unintentionally. (I want that) they do not think of hurting (each other) and if they do, (I hope) they feel very sorry. I really wish they were very keen on each other.” (K.F.)

Here, she portrays the sibling relationship with a very strong ideal of mutual love. Moreover, her suggestion that they should “to touch each other with trembling hands,” links the ideal sibling relationship with images like the love in a romantic relationship. The affectionate relationship, which includes intentional and open expressions of feelings of closeness and care, is her ideal. Verbal statements like “I like/love you” or nonverbal behaviors that show reciprocal love seems vital to keep the commitment between siblings like a spousal relationship.

Beside sharing other siblings’ emotions, material sharing between siblings is also frequently mentioned during the interviews. Like in the following quotations, participants describe sharing sweets or pocket money:

“Let’s say there is only a single chocolate left at home; they would not eat it before splitting it. If the other one is not home, she would wait for him. When someone gives (one of them) pocket money, (like if) my daughter went to her grandmother’s, and she gave her money. That money would definitely be split in two.” (C.N.)

Furthermore, sharing experiences and daily routines in sibling settings are also given a prominent position in participants’ narratives. According to a 36-year-old mother of two sons (8 and 10 years.), “doing everything together” in terms of sharing moments, experiences, or interests is the essential for a ‘good’ sibling relationship.

“They do everything together. If they’ll go out, they go out together. If they’ll study, they study together. If they’ll watch TV, they watch together. I mean they normally do not do much separately, even with their friends. […] If my younger son has a friend over, Kaan joins them. If the elder’s friend visits, Oğuz joins them. That is, they are mostly together. Even though they sometimes fight, I mean after it lasts for five to 10 minutes, (and) they are together once again.” (H.L.)

The mother treats both sons equally; they get the same things and framed as they always have similar needs. Furthermore, they do the same things and always engage in the same or very similar activities. From her point of view, it seems that there is no need for a unique personal space for her children’s individualization and or her parental support towards their personification. Such nested self-identities that develop together within a high degree of relatedness, seems preferable to this Turkish mother than independent–separate self-identities developed separately. The reason behind that preference could be a parental aim of building a strong sibling relationship rather than strong independent individuals, and raising the children in a similar and common way might be much more comfortable and easier for parents. Individualization of each child might require more from parents, and it might cost a huge amount of time and energy.

Problematizations of being related are completely absent in this interview, and she does not view the similarities between these siblings as a risk factor, at all. This can be contrasted with ideals of parenting siblings individually. For example, in Germany, the idea is very present that each child’s individuality in comparison to his or her sibling(s) should be encouraged, and parents should help children find their unique identity. Therefore, parents often try to encourage their children to do different sports, to play different instruments, or to have their own group of friends.

Moreover, common playtime is also frequently mentioned in terms of sharing moments and activities in some narratives of the present study. Interestingly “playing together” is thus rendered as a core principle of sibling relationship. An example of siblings as team players can be seen in the following quotation, where the mother prepared the older son for the newborn baby:

“I was saying, my darling, look, you have a brother, he will be both a brother and a friend for you. You will be his elder brother (abi), you will teach him everything […]. Look, the baby will grow up, there will be a friend. We had some people missing in our play group we are filling those spots [she laughed]. That is now //I: playmate// yes new playmates, I said look, it is very beautiful to have a sibling. I mean, you can take him with you everywhere. You can play ball with him, you can play the games you’ve learned.” (S.E.)

The idea of cooperation, either as a play partner during childhood or a business partner during adulthood, is highly welcomed and dreamed of. Take the following quote from a 33-year-old mother of two sons:

I: “For example, when you think prospectively, is it important for you that they remain in contact with each other in the future?”

The above-mentioned quote conveys an idea of economic/utilitarian value of sibling. Besides that, siblings’ lifelong and continuous support of each other is portrayed as a major goal of sibling relationships. Years later, as adults, they may end up in different socioeconomic situations and are then expected to help each other. Various other examples of sibling support in the distant future were embedded in a couple of interviews. Most of them were in reference to the possibility of the parents’ passing away, like in this quote:

“I won’t be always with you, I say. Eventually I mean, either you will go somewhere or God forbid, but I will eventually die, my son. I say, that you are siblings, you need to get along well.” (C.S.)

Here, siblings’ social support is seen as a replacement for parents’ social support in the future. Parents view the potential for long-lasting future relationships and mutual social/emotional/material support in adulthood as important advantages of an ideal sibling relationship.

All the mothers in our interview study therefore strongly supported close relationships based on empathy and solidarity, and most of the mothers did not reflect on issues of privacy, individuality, or separation. A few of those interviewed, however, did mention the need for individualization of children. To illustrate, the mother of 9-year-old daughter and 2.5-year-old son mentions her daughter’s need for privacy:

“She does not let anyone in her room, so I try not to let her younger brother into her room. […] I ask ‘would you give it (to her baby brother), my dear (annecim)?’ […] She chooses herself. She said: ‘I can give these to my brother now’ and then gave. If we say that they (the toys) are not proper for you anymore, please give them (to younger brother), she does the opposite […] I try to do so […] so that she does not get jealous.” (Z.G.)

In this case, it is possible to say that the mother protects the daughter’s private space, and we see how individuality is connected with the material circumstances, namely a separate room. Her comment about sharing toys provides another good example of her individualistic interventions. She explains how she asks her daughter kindly to give her toys to her younger brother and let her decide by herself. By doing so, she explains, she prevents her daughter from becoming jealous. The same mother also justified her daughter’s need for personal space with two concrete reasons, academic development and gender difference between siblings. She argues:

P: “Yes, she has her own room, her fourth-grade exams will also start. (She needs) at least a desk, and (she should) have her own organization and study undisturbed, because the younger boy never leaves her alone.”

It is interesting to note that this mother seems to feel a need to justify why she believes each child should have their own room. German parents, on the other hand, whose children share rooms, often feel they must explain why their children cannot have separate rooms. So she comes up with these two concrete reasons, school achievement and gender. Therefore, although she argues for separate rooms, she still implicitly refers to the ideal of sharing. The conflict between sharing and separation is more clearly addressed in the following quote, again about room sharing:

“She is your sibling, you have to share this home. Okay, this is your room. The stuff is yours, but she will grow up tomorrow and come to your room. You two have to share. Separate rooms for you two is not possible, because we don’t have the means. Even if we did, I don’t want [you to grow up in separate rooms] (.) because I want you both grow up in one room. For example, we were seven siblings. They [her own parents] would lay two beds, three beds side-by-side, we would sleep at the same spot. We slept cuddled up together, and it was very beautiful. When I remember it now, it makes me very happy. It was very beautiful.” (Y.V.)

This mother is longing for the closeness she experienced in her childhood, even as she acknowledges that her living conditions now are quite different from those of her childhood (see for the concept “longing for interdependence,” (Sieben, 2021)). Clearly, having two children and sharing an apartment with a separate children’s room is quite different from sleeping in a room with six siblings. Rather than fully accepting that things have changed, however, she actively tries to foster a similar sense of closeness in the sibling relationship of her own children. Therefore, she argues that, even if she had two children’s rooms, she would want her daughters to share a room to experience this closeness. This differs from the widespread idea in Germany that a room of one’s own (if available) is advantageous for children.

To sum up, mothers in our sample strongly emphasize the closeness between their children. They appreciate it very much if their children love each other (and show it), support each other emotionally and materially (and hope this holds true even at a later point, when the parents have passed away), and focus strongly on aspects of sharing and sameness. Hardly any of the mothers feels obliged to individualize their children by separating them in terms of activities, friends, or rooms. The final quote in this chapter nicely illustrates how mothers actively deal with a changing society and negotiate their ideal of closeness in relationships even in a time when their living spaces might allow for a greater degree of separation.

Conflict as a “natural” part of sibling relationship

Sibling conflicts are mentioned in almost all interviews. Our detailed analysis of the interview data revealed a spectrum of perspectives on what mothers think about sibling conflict. While some mothers like to see that their children are experiencing conflicts from time to time, other mothers try their best to prevent any conflict between siblings. A 36-year-old mother of two boys (8 & 10 yrs.) declares that:

“I actually like that they sometimes fight. Actually, it doesn’t seem to me that it is a big problem. I even like (the fact) that; after they fight, they connect with each other with a tighter bond, and I like it//I: the state of reconciliation after the crisis seems to strengthen their relations//yes, yes, that bond seems to be getting stronger.” (H.L.)

This mother assumes that bonding can be the result of conflict and thereby frames conflict as a way to approach someone. This is an interesting take on attachment—given that attachment theory (Bowlby, 1958) itself focuses on secure, peaceful relationships, and warm, close physical contact as the basis of relationships. In the original attachment theory as well as in its popularized form as “attachment parenting,” conflict is usually seen as negative. Also, psychological research on siblings often frames conflict as a counterpoint to positive characteristics of the relationship such as warmth (e.g. Stormshak et al., 1996).

The interviewee above could potentially be drawing on another facet of popular discourse: Siblings are said to have a positive effect on social skills, such as constructive problem-solving, generosity with one’s possessions, fairness, and patience. It is also said that siblings and sibling conflict can benefit moral development, because siblings learn, on the one hand, to see things from the perspective of others and, on the other hand, to negotiate for their own perspective. Psychologists have studied the presumed relationship between social competence and being a sibling in depth, with mixed and complicated results (Kitzmann et al., 2002; Downey et al., 2015). This interviewee, however, is hardly aware of this “social competence discourse”, which is by itself a striking result given that, at least in Germany, this is a very common way to talk about the benefits of siblings. There is an important difference between the social competence discourse and the discourse on sibling closeness: The first sees sibling closeness as a means to an end, for the skills thus acquired can be useful in other relationships, potentially lifelong. This is also the dominant perspective of psychological research on siblings which focuses on how sibling relationships might be helpful for future relationships (Gass et al., 2007). The second sees sibling closeness as an end in itself. Similar to the first, the next participant, for example, a 29-year-old mother of two children (2.5 (girl) & 4.5 (boy) yrs.), sees the conflict between her children also not as a means to an end (i.e., social competence) but simply as a sign of emotional intimacy:

“I like it even when they fight with each other [laughed shortly and interviewer laughed back]. They are fighting, then I say couple of words like ‘don't do that’ or ‘don’t hit each other.’ Then they quit fighting on their own […]. I adore them. I adore their sibling relationship, and it is impossible to ask for more. I like it even when they fight. They are siblings. They will fight as much as they care about each other. They love each other very much. (Can you ask for) more than that? No!” (Ü.A.)

These participants describe conflict as a natural part of sibling relationships. Conflicts are thus welcome, and they assume that there will be long-term trust and reconciliation. Sooner or later, peace will come. It can be said that “sibling may fight” is common sense in Turkish culture. In other words, the ideal sibling relationship is framed as a conflictual, but long-lasting emotional bond. Some Turkish proverbs about siblings make the framework a bit clearer for us:

• Your sibling will first stab you and then hug you. (Kardeş kardeşi bıçaklamış, dönmüş yine kucaklamış)

All these proverbs have a similar core meaning: even if one of the siblings does harm to the other, the other does not give up on the sibling, and should rest assured that future good deeds will make them forget the other’s transgressions. This traditional/cultural knowledge helps understand why some Turkish parents tolerate and accept conflict in sibling relationships.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are the mothers who think that siblings should not quarrel or experience conflict. A 37-year-old mother of two daughters (8 & 2 yrs.) explains her fear of a grudge between her daughters:

“For example, what scares me, that older sister holds a grudge against the younger one, or vice versa. That shouldn’t cause a gap (emotional) between sisters by getting bigger and bigger over time. (It) should not separate them (from) each other. That’s why I’m very afraid of it. I’m afraid that it may appear (this gap). For that reason, I try to explain everything as much as I can […]. As I told, I am very afraid that the two sisters will be on bad terms with each other, they will treat each other badly, hold a grudge.” (Y.V.)

This mother’s repetition of her fear (“I am very afraid”) stresses how worried she is that her children’s relationship might fracture or that they might carry a grudge against each other. It is remarkable how negative her attitude about sibling conflict is. She thinks that sisters should never dislike each other. Moreover, she thinks that she herself as a parent is able to prevent conflicts by explaining things and is responsible for creating a lifelong bond. Another mother whom we quoted above also rejects conflict in strong terms: She said that her children should not even think about hurting each other, and that, if they did so unintentionally, they should feel sorry.

To sum up, the mothers interviewed differ greatly in their assessment of conflict, but they agree that a close relationship is quite important. While some even welcome conflict as a form of closeness, others consider it a normal part of a sibling relationship, and still others reject it because they fear it will impede a positive relationship. It is striking that none of those interviewed describes the conflict between siblings as a process of detachment, which may even be welcomed in terms of the child’s increasing independence.