Introduction: Istanbul’s Cultural Tapestry
Istanbul is renowned not just for its historical structures and heritage sites but also serves as an intersection for a variety of cultures and religions. The city actively fosters the creation and rejuvenation of various festivals, fairs, and cultural events, enhancing its reputation as a global cultural hub. Additionally, there is a noticeable concentration of cultural activities in Istanbul (Alvarez & Yarcan, 2010).
Throughout its history, Istanbul has welcomed a multitude of cultural traditions, enabling individuals from diverse backgrounds to enrich and continuously reshape the city. This unique city, positioned in Europe and Asia, is not fully aligned with either European or Asian identities, neither exclusively Christian nor entirely Muslim, and is not defined by any single ethnic identity. Istanbul is a city of multiple faces, each reflecting a variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. It’s a place where different ways of life coexist, contributing to its vibrancy and making it a lively city around the clock. (Fisher-Onar, Pearce, & Keyman, 2018) Istanbul’s aspiration to evolve into a more creative and a more global city benefits greatly from its historical roots in multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, a legacy that continues to be a key feature in the present day (Alvarez & Yarcan, 2010).
Cultural Diversity: The Bread Model
“Multiculturalism” encompasses the presence of distinct cultural groups as well as the ideological perspective that addresses cultural disparities resulting from demographic diversity (Loue, 2022).
In accordance with Loue (2022), there are numerous definitions for the term ‘culture’, such as: “all those things that people have learned to do, believe, value, and enjoy. It is the totality of the ideals, beliefs, skills, tools, customs, and institutions into which members of society are born” or “an umbrella term that subsumes within it values, beliefs, customs, rituals, practices, and behaviors. In short, culture is a combination of the material and non-material components of human society that is as fluid as it is diverse”.
Loue (2011) argues that population variety can be conceptualized as bread, as opposed to a melting pot or salad bowl. The production of bread necessitates a variety of ingredients that must be carefully proportioned to attain a specific objective. Every ingredient imparts its characteristics to the final product, but undergoes a gradual change, acquiring the taste of the ingredient while yet maintaining its own properties. Undoubtedly, the whole cannot be attained without the contributions of its individual components, yet it surpasses and diverges from the mere aggregation of those parts. The procedure necessitates not only the identification of the constituent components and their characteristics but also a comprehension and assessment of their contribution to the overall entity.
The utilization of the bread analogy in relation to culture acknowledges that culture undergoes transformation over time at various levels, including the individual, group, societal, and interactional levels. The pace of change may differ at each level, and achieving a favorable outcome necessitates the implementation of suitable mechanisms for interaction and maintaining equilibrium among individuals, groups, and the broader society. The usage of bread as a metaphor is fitting due to its widespread presence in different cultures and its ability to provide sustenance. The bread model posits that we play dual roles as both the constituents and creators of the bread, resulting in a state of interdependence. This interdependence offers possibilities for reciprocal and mutual interactions in the collaborative formation of our surroundings (Loue, 2022).
In the end, as stated by Lin (2019), cultural diversity is a contentious and expansive concept that encompasses the coexistence of various forms of knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, customs, religions, languages, abilities and disabilities, genders, ethnicities, races, nationalities, sexual orientations, and other aspects of human existence. It could encompass individuals’ responses to this reality and their decisions on coexisting with this reality.
Culture and Human Psyche: Cross-Cultural Dynamics
In numerous societies, particularly those outside Europe and North America, relations have particular significance and meaning. In certain cultures, the significance of interpersonal compatibility and the happiness of family members is on par with one’s own happiness and satisfaction. Cross-cultural studies have demonstrated that culture influences the way individuals perceive and define themselves (Demirci, 2021).
According to Zeigler-Hill and Shackelford (2018), cross-cultural studies grapple with balancing the idea of a universal human psyche against the rich diversity of cultural practices and beliefs. While one perspective emphasizes the common psychological and cognitive traits shared by all humans, the other acknowledges the deep impact of cultural differences on human behavior and thought. This dichotomy is central to cross-cultural psychology, which seeks to understand the intricate interplay between culture and the human psyche. Therefore, many researchers have made an effort to categorize cultures using factors like subsistence means, family structures, and other significant dimensions such as size, wealth, and politics. However, these approaches only partially capture the complexity of cultural variations. The shift towards understanding cultural differences through values offers a more nuanced view, emphasizing how shared beliefs, symbols, and norms shape people’s behaviors.
In his seminal work, Hofstede (1980) identified key dimensions that characterize cultures globally based on work-related values. These dimensions—power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and uncertainty avoidance—became foundational in cross-cultural research, with individualism and collectivism being particularly influential due to their explanatory power in cultural comparisons. Although Hofstede’s model accounted for a large portion of cultural variance, he later expanded it by adding long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede and Bond, 1988) and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Other researchers have proposed additional dimensions, such as cultural tightness-looseness and social axioms, to further explain cultural differences. Despite these expansions, there is a consensus that a relatively small number of dimensions can describe a significant amount of cross-cultural variation, though there is ongoing debate about which dimensions are most essential (Zeigler-Hill & Shackelford, 2018).
Family Dynamics: Beyond Individualism and Collectivism
In his influential work (1980), Hofstede analyzed a large international survey from the 1970s to identify key dimensions of culture across various societies. His findings highlighted a notable divide: Western societies, like the United States, were predominantly individualistic, while non-Western societies were more collectivistic (Zeigler-Hill & Shackelford, 2018). In Turkey, a strong social bond is present between a family and their relatives. Therefore, Turkish society is more aligned with collectivism when considering the dimensions of individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 2001).
Nevertheless, Kagitcibasi (2005) argues that Turkish society demonstrates a combination of collectivism and individualism, aiming to achieve a psychological interdependence model that emphasizes both autonomy and relatedness. Put simply; Turkey is experiencing an increasing inclination to harmonize personal independence with robust familial and communal bonds. This indicates a shift in societal and economic dynamics, moving away from exclusive reliance on either collective or individualistic models, and embracing a more integrated approach (Kagitcibasi, 2005).
Based on Kağıtçıbaşı’s more recent seminal research (2017), family change theory investigates the interrelationships among various socioeconomic factors and lifestyles, family structure and system, family dynamics and childrearing, and the formation of one’s sense of self. Additionally, it addresses socio-historical transformations and explores the emergence of diverse family structures within various environmental circumstances.
Kağıtçıbaşı (2017) proposes three distinct family models as prototypes that represent prevalent family patterns in various sociocultural circumstances. In order to comprehend the various family models, it is necessary to take into account their fundamental shared framework. This framework establishes a broad structure that places the family, family interaction, and socialization within their sociocultural environment, so connecting the individual and the family to their surroundings. The three distinct family models are: the model of interdependence, the model of independence, and the model of psychological or emotional interdependence.
The model of interdependence is a theoretical framework that represents the idealised family structure typically observed in rural and agrarian traditional civilizations. This model is characterized by strongly connected family relationships and is generally associated with patrilineal family structures. This represents the archetypal culture of relatedness (collectivism) found in both society and family structures, and is a widespread trend in numerous regions of the Majority World, despite certain differences. This prototype generally involves either family structures that are expanded in terms of their structure or family structures that are expanded in terms of their functions. It embodies the archetype of the “traditional family” (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
The model of independence represents the idealized and typical model for the family in Western, industrial, urban/suburban middle-class societies that value individuality and a culture of separateness (individualism). This model is widely recognized as the archetypal representation of the individualistic nuclear family in Western society. It has been both praised and criticized by social commentators, depending on their perspectives. This is the model of familial autonomy, which refers to the independence of a family from other families and the independence of its individual members from each other. It likely represents an ideal or concept rather than actuality, considering substantial evidence of significant interdependence in Western nations. However, the overall depiction starkly contrasts with the paradigm of dependency. There is very little similarity between these two typical models in terms of shared traits (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
Nevertheless, Western Europe exhibited individualistic familial and human connection patterns well in advance, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. In the Pacific Rim countries, collectivist characteristics persist with substantial economic progress and industrialization. However, in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, the cultural and socialization patterns remain largely unchanged despite the influence of modern industrial life. In South Korea, despite the modernization of societal structures, the fundamental principles of emotional connectedness and familial harmony continue to hold significant importance. The pursuit of a “harmonious family” is often seen as the first objective in life (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
Despite the decrease in material dependencies with socioeconomic progress, it is important to note that this does not necessarily lead to the formation or separation of families. Psychological or emotional needs may persist even if material dependencies on children diminish, due to the availability of alternative old-age security advantages. To clarify, the interconnectedness and strong familial ties persist in developed and metropolitan regions of the Majority World, where cultures emphasize the importance of relationships across generations and within close family units. However, it should be noted that the reliance on material resources has decreased among urban senior individuals, as they are now able to sustain themselves financially through means like old-age pensions. In fact, some of them may even be financially assisting their young-adult children (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
Hence, the intricate nature of contextual and familial transformations resulting from socioeconomic progress in the Majority World, characterized by cultures emphasizing interpersonal connections, introduces a third family/human model –the model of psychological or emotional interdependence. This third model is a template that represents families in the Majority World who are experiencing changes in their socioeconomic status and have cultures that emphasize relationships (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
This model has distinct features, however it shares certain qualities with the other two archetypal models. The defining characteristic of the prototype of complete interdependence is the interdependence between family members and individuals in both material and emotional aspects. The prototype of independence is characterized by autonomy in both familial and individual domains, encompassing both material and emotional aspects. The third model demonstrates interconnectedness in the emotional domain at both the family and individual levels, while exhibiting independence in the material domain at both levels. Therefore, in Turkey, the importance of familial connections appears to remain strong despite the rise of urbanization and industrialization (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
The notion of psychological and emotional interdependence is commonly observed in the more advanced and metropolitan regions of the Majority World, characterized by cultures that emphasize interconnectedness and collective values. Therefore, in this context, there exists a simultaneous occurrence of social and economic transformation, although cultural elements remain unchanged, as previously mentioned. Due to the enduring nature of the relational culture, the family in this particular pattern expands into other families (kin) in intricate ways. These familial connections can arise on both sides (with the kin of either spouse), due to the diminishing significance of patrilineal descent and the resulting elevation of women’s status, decreasing childbearing rates, and less demand for sons. Nevertheless, the nature of the activities that are shared would vary in this scenario compared to the joint production or consumption of agricultural goods, as observed in the case of the functionally extended family under the family model of complete interdependence (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
Due to the enduring psychological and emotional connections across generations, young adults allocate their psychological and emotional resources to both their old parents and their children, even when it is not necessary for their financial well-being. Material investments, or wealth flows, mostly target children who incur higher costs in this developed/urban setting. As the expenses associated with raising children increase and their potential economic contributions decrease, their psychological importance becomes more prominent. This is due to the fact that from an economic standpoint, it is not rational to have children. Therefore, the psychological fulfillment that comes from having children becomes a more significant factor in the decision to have them (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
It should be emphasized that “emotional” does not imply liking or loving. In other words, there is no assertion that the family members in the family model of psychological/emotional interdependence have a greater fondness for each other compared to those in other models. The variations across the models primarily pertain to the self–other connections, self-boundaries, or identities rather than emotions themselves. This is the reason why the term “psychological” is used alongside “emotional,” as opposed to “material.” The concept of closeness between individuals is included in the family model of interdependence. However, unlike the interdependence model which relies on material interdependence, this model is based on nonmaterial interdependence, specifically psychological and emotional interdependence (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
The model of psychological/emotional interdependence is defined by socialization principles that prioritize both family/group loyalty and individual attachments. Additionally, childrearing in this model involves a balance between autonomy and parental control. The self that emerges as a result is known as the autonomous–related self (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2017).
In line with the aforementioned, Santos, Varnum, and Grossmann (2017) conducted a study analyzing 51 years of data on individualistic practices and values in 77 nations, which encompassed the United States, the United Kingdom, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Bangladesh. The findings of Santos, Varnum, and Grossmann (2017) indicated that there is actually an increase in individualism in the majority of the countries that were examined. Although there have been significant changes towards increased individualism globally, there are still substantial cultural distinctions. Furthermore, cultural variations are mostly associated with alterations in socioeconomic progress and, to a lesser degree, with changes in the prevalence of pathogens, frequency of disasters, and climatic stress (Santos, Varnum, & Grossmann, 2017).
To gain a more practical insight into the cultural diversity of Istanbul, you may read the following article (interview report): An Interview with a Multicultural Receptionist: Exploring Diversity, Art, and Cuisine
References
Alvarez, M. D., & Yarcan, K. (2010). Istanbul as a world city: a cultural perspective. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011067646
Demirci, B. (2021). Family Harmony and Flourishing in Turkey: The Roles of Interdependent Happiness and Harmony in Life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(3), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00437-7
Fisher-Onar, N., Pearce, S. C., & Keyman, E. F. (2018). Istanbul: Living with Difference in a Global City. Rutgers University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. SAGE.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition. McGraw Hill Professional.
Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2005). Autonomy and Relatedness in Cultural Context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959
Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2017). Family, Self, and Human Development Across Cultures. Psychology Press.
Lin, C. (2019). Understanding Cultural Diversity and Diverse Identities. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69902-8_37-1
Loue, S. (2011, November 17). Bread for the body, bread for the mind: The need for active culture. Power of Diversity Lecture Series. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Loue, S. (2022). Diversity, Cultural Humility, and the Helping Professions. Springer Nature.
Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E. W., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Global Increases in Individualism. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617700622
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences. SAGE.
