This article investigates the expeNences of rural migrant women in an apartment district and a squatter (gecekondu) settlement in Ankara, Turkey. It demonstrates the significant role the housing environment plays in the lives of women, both by defining who they are and by shaping their daily lives through encouraging some behavior and discouraging others. Gecekondu housing is potentially a source of negative identity for those migrant women whose reference group is the modem established urbanites, whereas those migrant women who take the gecekondu community as their reference group tend to preserve a positive image of themselves. On the other hand, apartment housing enhances a feeling of achievement in its residents of village origin. Furthermore, gecekondu housing encourages intimate social relations and thereby social control, whereas apartment housing demands some formality in neighborly relations and provides privacy. As social agents, women use their environment actively, attempting to foster certain images of themselves, and communicafing those images to others as well as to themselves. This is particularly apparent in the case of modern gecekondu women who, by their outward appearances and demeanor, challenge the negative image attributed to gecekondu residents by the larger society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agnew, J. (1982). Home ownership and identity in capitalist society. In J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity (pp. 60-97). London: Croom Helm.
2.
Altman, I. , & Churchman, A. (Eds.) (1994). Women and the environment. New York: Plenum.
3.
Ayata, S. (1988). Kentsel orta sinif ailelerde statu yarismasi ve salon kullanimi [Competition for status and the use of "salon" in urban middle class families]. Toplum ve Bilim, 42, 5-25.
4.
Ayata, S. (1989). Toplumsal cevre olarak gecekondu ve apartman [Gecekondu housing and apartment housing as social environments]. Toplum ve Bilim, 46/47,101-127.
5.
Ayata, S. , & Ayata, A. (1993, October). Konut cevrelerinin sosyolojik boyutlari [Sociological dimensions of housing environments]. Ankara, Turkey: T. C. Prime Ministry, Housing Development Administration.
6.
Bauer, J. (1984). New models and traditional networks: Migrant women in Tehran. In J. T. Fawcett, S. Khoo, & P. C. Smith (Eds.), Women in the cities of Asia: Migration and urban adaptation (pp. 269-293). Boulder, CO: Westview.
7.
Bryce-Laporte, S. R. (1970). Urban relocation and family adaptation in Puerto Rico: A case study in urban ethnography. In W. Mangin (Ed.), Peasants in cities: Readings in the anthropology of urbanization (pp. 85-97). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Buttimer, A. (1980). Social space and the planning of residential areas. In A. Buttimer & D. Seamon (Eds.), The human experience of space and place (pp. 166-187). London: Croom Helm.
9.
Dandekar, H. C. (1994, June). Women and housing: The understated relationship to development. Paper presented at the International Conference on Gender, Urbanization, and Environment.
10.
Danielson, M. N. , & Keles, R. (1985). The politics of rapid urbanization: Govemment and growth in modem Turkey. New York: Holmes & Meier.
11.
Duncan, J. S. (1982). From container of women to status symbol: The impact of social structure on the meaning of the house. In J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity (pp. 36-59). London: Croom Helm.
12.
Duncan, J. S. , & Duncan, N. G. (1976). Social worlds, status passages, and environmental perspectives. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing (pp. 206-213). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
13.
Erdogan (Erman), T. (1981). Apartment housing versus gecekondu housing. Unpublished master's thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
14.
Erman, T. (1990). Gecekondus versus apartments. In H. Pamir, V. Imamoglu, & N. Teymur (Eds.), Culture, space, history(Vol. 2, pp. 348-357). Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University Press.
15.
Erman, T. (in press). The meaning of city living for rural migrant women and their role in migration: The case of Turkey. Women's Studies Intemational Forum.
16.
Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
17.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
18.
Hayward, G. D. (1977, April). An overview of psychological concepts of "home." In S. Weidemann & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Priorities for environmental design research (pp. 418-419). Oklahoma City: Environmental Design Research Association.
19.
Heper, M. (1978). Gecekondu policy in Turkey. Istanbul: Bogazici University Publications.
20.
Hirschon, R. (1985, January/February). The woman-environment relationship: Greek cultural values in an urban community. Ekistics, 310,15-21.
21.
Hunter, A. J. (1974). Symbolic communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Joseph, S. (1978). Women and the neighborhood street in Borj Hammoud, Lebanon. In L. Beck & N. Keddie (Eds.), Women in the Muslim world (pp. 541-557). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
23.
Kandiyoti, D. (1991) (Ed.). Women, Islam and the state. London: Macmillan.
24.
Karpat, K. (1976). The gecekondu: Rural migration and urbanization. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Keyder, C. (1987). Economic development and crisis: 1950-80. In I. C. Schick & A. Tonak (Eds.), Turkey in transition: New perspectives (pp. 293-308). New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
Kiray, M. (1979). Apartmanlasma ve modern orta tabakalar [Apartimentfzation and modern middle strata]. Cevre, 4, 78-78.
27.
Krupat, E. (1983, December). A place for place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(4), 343-344.
28.
Laumann, E. O. , & House, J. S. (1972). Living room styles and social attributes: The patterning of material artifacts in a modern urban community. In E. O. Laumann, P. M. Siegel, and R. W. Hodges (Eds.), The logic of social hierarchies (pp. 189-203). Chicago: Markham.
29.
Lobo, S. (1982). A house of my own: Social organization in the squatter settlements of Lima, Peru. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
30.
Moser, C. , & Peake, L. (Eds.) (1987). Women, human settlements and housing. London: Tavistock.
31.
Pader, E.-J. (1994). Sociospatial relations of change: Rural Mexican women in urban California. In I. Altman & A. Churchman (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 73-103). New York: Plenum.
32.
Patton, C. V. (Ed.) (1988). Spontaneous shelter: Intemational perspectives and prospects. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
Payne, G. K. (1977). Urban housing in the Third World. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
34.
Payne, G. K. (1982). Self-help housing: A critique of the gecekondus of Ankara. In P. M. Ward (Ed.), Self-help housing: A critique (pp. 117-139). London: Mansell.
35.
Peattie, Lisa R. (1970). The view from the barrio. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
Perlman, J. E. (1976). The myth of marginality: Urban poverty and politics in Rio de Janeiro. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Potter, J. J. (1993). The impact of change upon rural-urban migrants in Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 99-114.
38.
Pratt, G. (1982). The house as an expression of social worlds. In J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity (pp. 135-180). London: Croom Helm.
39.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.
40.
Proshansky, H. M. , Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Joumal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.
41.
Rapoport, A. (1982). Identity and environment: A cross-cultural perspective. In J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity (pp. 6-35). London: Croom Helm.
42.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
43.
Reed, P. (1974). Situated interaction: Normative and non-normative bases of social behavior in two urban residential settings. In A. Rapoport (Ed.), The meaning of the built environment (pp. 193-195). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
44.
Safa, H. (1964). From shanty town to public housing: A comparison of family structure in two urban neighborhoods in Puerto Rico. Caribbean Studies, 4(1), 3-12.
45.
Sastrosasmita, S. , & Amin, Nurul A.T.M. (1990). Housing needs of informal sector workers. Habitat Intemational, 14(4), 75-88.
46.
Segovia, O. M. (1994, June). The woman dweller: Use, behaviorand meanings in public space: A study of two poor barrios, Santiago, Chile. Paper presented at the International Conference on Gender, Urbanization and Environment, Nairobi, Kenya.
47.
Senyapili, T. (1977, Fall). Integration through mobility. METU Joumal of the Faculty of Architecture, 3(2), 237-252.
48.
Senyapili, T. (1982). Economic change and the gecekondu family. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Sex roles, family and community in Turkey (pp. 237-248). Bloomington, IN: University Turkish Studies 3.
49.
Sewell, G. H. (1964). Squaffer settlements in Turkey: Analysis of a social, political and economic problem. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Insfitute of Technology, Cambridge.
50.
Spradley, J. R (1980). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
51.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53.
Tognoli, J. (1980). Differences in women's and men's responses to domestic space. Sex Roles, 6, 833-842.
54.
Turner, J. F. (1967). Barriers and channels for housing development in modemizing countries. AlPJoumal, 33(3), 167-181.
55.
Turner, J. F. (1968). Housing priorities, settlement patterns, and urban development in modernizing countries. AlP Joumal, 354-363.
56.
Turner, J. F. , & Fichter, R. (Eds.). (1972). Freedom to build: Dwellercontrol of the housing process. New York: Macmillan.
