1
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication
Yaprak Dökümü : Superordinated Men & Subordinated WomenIntroductionRoger Silverstone depicts the role of television in domestic
setting by “ Television is a domestic medium . It is watched at
home . Ignored at home . Discussed at home . Watched in Private
and with the members of family or friends . But it is part of
our domestic culture in other ways too ... ” ( Silverstone,
1994 ) . Here it is very obvious on how the television has a
significant effect on our daily life . He also adds “
Television is a medium of considerable power ... We need to
think about the television as a psychological , social and
cultural form …” ( Ibid, 1994 ) The power which is streamed
along way of the screen towards its audiance , has a profound
effect on designing our way of looking through the world ,
defining our perspective . Here the machine television is the
society's 'the-be all and end-all' of their domestic
environment . Mostly favoured products are called “ soap operas
”. Because “ [S]oap operas effect society through changing the
behavioural patterns of viewers ( Hmasaeed 2013: 333 ) ” So “
2
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication[V]iewers are influenced by the transmitted images and they
tend to accept the viewed behaviour as being to , or providing
a model for , their own behaviour ( Ibid 2013: 334 ) . ” In
Turkish Soap Operas' design of scenarios , at the case of
Yaprak Dökümü , are contributing to male superiority over women
among the Turkish community. By looking from the perspective of
radical feminism , broadcasting of the representation of
stereotypic characters lead everybody to think in what “ should
” be roles of gender roles among the community . Today's active
audience are affected from that media “ text ” . In that
patriarchic cultural setting,by taking model of communication
of Feminist media theory , The sender of this message is “ MEN
” . The message that they want to convey is “ Stereotype ” and
lastly the effect that they want to perpetuate is to “ SEXISM ”
. The message actually is a “ men’s ” power . The depiction of
masculanity are portraied and accepted the men as a power in
society and violent in physical manner . The way of gender
representation leads an assumptions about how men need to act
in society , how they give an attitude between each other , and
the way of treating women and children around them . In this
paper , I would like to explain how the system of patriarchy
3
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationworks in the Tv series of depicted along the way of male is
super-power ; the TV series called Yaprak Dökümü takes the
leading men “ Ali Rıza Bey ” as a center of family . It has
family institution considered as a place to be place for
oppressing women . At all cases actually , Gender Inequalities
pushes aside the women, as a human being and showed in a manner
of they are under control of their counter - gender and how
those react this discrimination . Yaprak Dökümü ( English: The
Fall of Leaves ) is Turkish television series which is standing
on the novel of the same name by Reşat Nuri Güntekin . The
series premiered on 13 September 2005 on Kanal D , and finalled
its fifth and final season on 29 December 2010 , including 174
episodes at overall . The cast is : Ali Rıza Tekin by Halil
Ergün ; Hayriye Tekin by Güven Hokna ; Fikret Tekin by Bennu
Yıldırımlar ; Leyla Tekin by Gökçe Bahadır ; Necla Tekin by
Fahriye Evcen ; Şevket Tekin by Caner Kurtaran ( IMDb, 2006) .
The scene have been shooted in Istanbul , Turkey , and it
gyrating around the fictional family caled Tekin , which their
arrival in Istanbul cut their family down, and alter them in a
way they never ever imagine . My argument in this paper is what
4
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationlies behind on the television on showing stertypical model behaviours of the
tradaditional man and women in the soap opeara of Yaprak Dökümü
Masculinities Masculanity has been started to be studied in the academia
during the social changes happened in 70s and by the influences
of feminist movement . They are actually making elaborations
and questioning of roles of men ( Campell, 2000 ; Hearn &
Morgan, 1990 ) . With the previous assumptions , the label of
“ male ” has been equivalented to the culturally defined
( normative ) reference to all experiences of human being .
However, “ men ” were not accepted in a way of explicit label .
So it was invisible among researches of social sciences .
( Conell, 1987 ; Kimmel, 1987 ) . Since the masculinity is
structured socially by the effect of space and time ,
researches argee on that it is more rational to put it forward
as “ Masculanities ” ( Campell, 2000 ; Connell, 1987 ; Kimmel,
1987) . “ hegemonic masculinity ” is the concept that
explaining how any society is constructing a dominant profile
of masculinity by ‘ referancing ’ the norms engulfing attitudes
and behaviours of masculinity . Beside , There is also other
forms of masculinities , existing like counter , marginalized
5
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationand subordinated masculinities ( Connell 1995 ) . Those types ,
as to say , are not fed from neither followed cultural ideals
nor institutional power .
Social environments define the masculinity in specific but
consider gender in general as Connell, Hearn and Kimmel
targets. The masculinity progresses along way of a system of
exceptation of gender and biased ideas about what ‘ refers ’ to
a man . Sort of ideas and expectations prescribe and configure
representations and social practices of people in relation to
sort of other factors like age , race , social class and
sexuality . Variety of social factors have an intersecting
effect which has been theorized in the beginging of 90s .
Intersectional theory was being cultivated by feminist scholar
as a reciprocation to gender which have been seen as a limited
and mono - analytical category of analysis ( McCall, 2005 ) .
Under this theory , gender-related issues have gained more
complexity and multi - dimensional perspective rather than
having mono - dimensional and “ simple ” standing towards the
same issues ( Crenshaw, 1991 ) . While analysing Ali Rıza Bey
characters as hegemony center , we are required to find out
what intersects play a role on their masculinity . we need to
6
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationtake these conditions into acccount : For Ali Rıza Bey , he is
playing a father at more than fifty years old, with five
children – the four are women and the one is men. He is
retarded from district governorship . He is is head of tightly-
knit family . He is doing it with the dominant behaviours over
everyone in the family . This is actually the way of showing
traditional father figure . He is very keen on morals and
ethics of Turkish culture . Also , his position throughout his
district - governor career is also a another intersect for his
domination . Having that managial back - up lead him to reflect
the same to the house . However , there is also on going crisis
of masculinity between Ali Rıza Bey and his son Şevket . He is
the another male figure . He is the so - called nominee of the
father position of the family . The type of masculinity from
Ali Rıza Bey and from Şevket are different in one another .
Whereas Ali Rıza Bey is much like having a dominant effect on
the family with his age and life experiences , Şevket comes up
with different approach but lately changing to father .
Intersectional theory evaluates the way how those gendered
individuals setteled down by social factors mentioned above and
by other sources of agents . It has an affect social
7
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationrepresetation of masculinity in the society . In Turkey ,
traditionally - constructed masculinity is formed when those
stages have been accomplised successfully ; circumcision ,
military service , getting a job and marriage ( Selek, 2008 ;
Sancar, 2009 ; Özbay 2013 ). Most of the men accepts military
service and having job as an important step for “ growing into
manhood ( Selek,2008 ) ” . Successful accomplishment of all
these stages is shown by an alteration from the routines of
home . Ali Rıza Bey offers his chair to Fikret sit . At ethnic
domestic manner of Turkey , The one who is sitting at the chair
, that is positioned at the head of table , represents the
manner of governence . In Ali Rıza’s perspective, since his son
done all stages , then he become the ‘ evin erkeği ’ ( headman of
the house ) . So he has got to power to carry out what Ali Rıza
did for his family . Therefore, there is something more at the
infrastructure of that masculinity that intesifying the role of
men in that socio-culture. Also , Roles are shifting form one
to another since the power is materialized. In Yaprak Dökümü,
power is connoted and materialized by a head - chair of the
table . This apprenhension is a very - widespread in
tradational and morely conservative family structure.
8
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication
Hegemonic masculinity as a dominant ideologyVast individuals would agree on a fact that the masculinity
which has socially constructed masculinity seem very valuable
among than others . The value is throughly obtained on a base
of relationship to discourses of dominant ideology . In Turkish
discourse , the ideology is formed by taking all those external
factors and plus religion . Turkish Culture depends seriously
on pathriarchal structure that leads male dominance over
women . According to Gerda Lerner ( 1986 ) , male dominated
society is regarding on cultural transmision from very
beginning of privilage societies to agricultural societies .
Men saw childbirth as an advantage in order to control women.
Wife of Ali Rıza , Hayriye Tekin is a displayed mother
character having a four children – Şevket , Fikret , Leyla and
Necla . This perception itself led to acceptance of people as
property . Moreover , as time goes by , religion and religioun-
in-law made subjuction of women not completely acceptable , but
the acceptable only by option . Thus , religion here acts as a
tool for maintaining the hegemony of man in that societies .
Religions , as its related verses bring into view , are in
favour of depiction of heterosexual male character . Under the
shed of this religious ideology , hegemonic masculinity is
9
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationstructurulized by the practices of male - gender which
legitimizes pathriarchy and heterosexuality . It is clear to
say that these legitimized configurations guarantess dominant
place men and recessive place of women . Connell (1995) argues
hegemonic masculinity promotes an access to it for those
males . Thus , hegemonic masculinity serves itself as a
powerful tool which sustains and secures the social order .
So , it is actually performance of social authority . In the
Turkish setting , the masculine shows off different
performances for sustaining the autherity and the position of
rullership . According to Sancar , with the effect of post-
industrial era , dominant masculine has undergone a
configuration which then lead to “ male confliction ” . For
instance , blue-collar masculine image undergone a revision and
men find himself with the ‘ crises ’ while forming the new
image for masculinity . They directed themselves toward finding
out diffrent rulling strategies like nationalism , racism and
violance in order to protect masculine identity ( 2009; 122-
123).
Since those changes is progressing along way , with the
emplacement of post-industrial era , hegemonic masculity come
10
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationup with the changes in itself . During that continuum ,
military service comes first on questioning its hegemonic
status while constructing the masculinity . “ Up until today of
Turkey , the modernity has been shifted from the image of
military man – also known as ‘ Mehmetçik ’ – to businessman who
is globalizing for economic progress ” (Ibıd, 2009). The
reason of shifting is that, Özbay (2013) adds , convetable
masculinity from neoliberal economic system demands rapid and
strategic promotion opportunity , individualism and money -
oriented conceptualization but army does not satify the
expectations with strict dicipline and its hierarchy ( 189 -
190 ) .
Hegemonic masculity has also alternated in terms of physcal
properties and age of a men . Since the previous societies have
been settled down over the rullings of old men but now post -
industrialized societies now accepts the hegemony of ‘ fit ’
men who are techno-friendly , body – centred , self -
sufficient and working for long time . ( Özbay , 2013 : 190 -
191 ) . In other words , authority in family , in that new
era , is transfered from old men to working young men . Once
looking toward the hegemonity within socio - class axis , “
11
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationwhite-collared , careering , owner of house or car , or working
to own house and car , married with carrering women and on the
way of marriage ” men profile is both hegemonitez and idealized
. While considering all those , It is impossible to designate a
one type of hegemonic man in Turkey . Some features come into
prominence but some retrogades . This struggle is endlessly in
progress . For that reason , it is seemed more rational to
analyse that changing pattern of hegemonic masculinity with in
a narrowed sample – a television series.
Hegemonic men representation in Turkish Media DiscourseMacnamara (2006) asserts that masculinity studies not only
encompasses both behavioristic models of adult males and
socalization process – including different cultural and social
activities – of adolesscene males , but having a wide range
spectrum where media representations are opted into that
studies . Media texts have also an imporant role on defining
the certain masculinity profile in order to have an arbiter
position verbally and physically . As Schrock and Schwalbe
( 2009 ) suggets media images provide an symbolic language for
12
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationwhat behavioral practices lead to shaping a certain masculinity
model ( p.183 ) . Mass media tools are responsible for creating
a hegemonic masculine fantasies and become supportive of
these . So shaping of common male-attitudes in a society are
moulded by those fantastic male images . Also , Meral (2011)
emphasizes the way of media encodes the messages of hegemonic
males ’ hegemonity by means of how he should look , behave ,
dress and say , carry significant role for sustaing its
hegemonity .
Hegemonic masculinity has been studied ( Erdoğan , 2011 )
in media by investigating their appereances and build process
of it , in male magazines , movies, soap operas ,
advertiments , reports , sport - based discussion programs and
lastly Internet environment ; they found out that exhange in
masculinity figuration is time and space dependent. For
instance, in research exploration of turkish cinema, From 1990
to 2000, All those findings are surrounded around the idea of ‘
masculinity crisis ’ . ( Yüksel, 2013 ) . Once you analyze the
structure of Turkish soap opera’s setting structure , the
character profiles are formed within the man who has over
superiority against women characters within the pathriarcal
13
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationsystem representeters . Also , masculine hegemonity could be
beter explained by focusing on the power relations between
males via soap operas with high raitings .
The first hegemonic representations on turkish soap operas
in 1990 was Aynalı Tahir by leading actor Alişan. Hyper-
masculine model as Aynali Tahir reached an enormous audiance
and also he produces catchphrases aligned with masculinity in
Turkey. Afterly , male chacaters in the other soap operas like
Asmalı Konak , Deli Yürek and Ezel have ilustrated their
hegemony in different mannner. Their social statues, financial
conditions and educational leves intersect while defining their
masculinity but all are at the dominant place on bilateral
relations with the women. Moreover, being ‘ fearless ’, not
into violence prone but not hesitate to resort a force in case
and ‘ honest and brave ’ are their salient common features.
However , Yaprak Dökümü is remarkable in the case of setting a
hegemonc masculinity in a different way and power shifting
among the males. Since all powers have been going through with
the subject of women in, It is required to analyze the position
of women in that framework.
14
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication
Women Representation, Family and HegemonyThe term of feminism is difficult to prescribe since it
involves variety of ideas and aspects. The common assumption on
feminism is that concerns, experiences, ideas of females as
much important as males ’. Equality in respectness and
seriousness are a must among all . All those feminist theorists
’ main purpose is to comprehend the origins and ongoing nature
of devaluation of women in society ( Steeves, 1987 ; Anderson,
1993 ; Hennessy , 1993 ) . Here , the concern is portroyal of
women in media . It is pointed out that position of women model
being oppressed in pathriarchal capitalism, reproduced and
sustained with the help of practice of pathriarchal ideology
through media . Those media studies have conducted to find out
the way of media reprsentation . So it can figure out the way
potrayals , in the media texts , can function imposing the
dominant ideology ( Grossberg & Treichler 1987 ; 270 - 280 ) .
The vast range of feminist media studies have found out
the female image is being depicted as a devoted homemakers
within the edge of , as Trierce ( 1999 ) and Wood ( 1994 ) says
, correct womenhood having the features of domesticity ,
piety , purity and submissiveness . In addition, at women
15
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationrepresentation , scholars also involved the system of family as
a manner of mythical representation , in media ( Lopate 1976 ;
Brundson 1983 ) . In Turkish media , the producers are favoring
to represent stable nuclear family or ‘ male - head’ of family
seeking to stabilize that family( e.g. Yaprak Dökümü ) .
Producers would prefer those kind of representations due to
the reasons ; either financial interest of a private television
channels’ system that must suppose a “ family audience ”
because of its domestic location ( Press 1991 ; 18 ) or there
is vast socio-political dealings about rise in divorce-rate and
the significance of family over capitalism ( Booth 1980 ) .
Nevertheless , The emergence of popular feminism points
toward changing of women-representation as well as pathriarchal
family structure in media . In the recent times , most of the
feminist scholars legitimatise the existance of feminist
dealings in many of popular space . Some few have an optimistic
approach to popular feminism since images and discourses in
media - texts are accessible to feminist remoulding . However ,
lots of scholar yet believe that those popular forms do not
literally cause a change in current social order which base on
discrimination in gender since , in order to involve in that
16
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationmain stream , feminism would be befitted to dominant ideology .
So that it leads to its absence of its ‘ radical potential ’
and become adhered to heavier conservative lineups ( Hollows
2000 ) . As a matter of fact , documentation of media
representations by many of scholars , is re-examining feminist
progression in the way of put them to function to substantiate
dominant pathriachal discourses and codes ( Hallstein , Shugart
& Waggoner 2001 ; Baehr, 1980 ; Vavrus 2002 ) . The
inconsistency at media representation with regards to
pathriarcal family structure and gender identity may be
sharpened its comprehension by implementing the theory of
hegemony with the rapport of communication and culture . The
dominant figure , as a father position , are always in the case
of dictation of his cultural norms and that norms are
stuructrued by the ethics. Ali Rıza is seeking to befit his
young daughters in his dominant ideology – Necla and Ceyda.
However, Fikret, his oldest daugter, is acting as backbone of
his father. She is trying to enforce the sanctions of his
father to her young sisters. Fikret is positioning at the
middle of conservative lineup . She is serving her attitude
along with what dominant hegemonic masculine ideology back - up
17
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication. Most probably the producers have thought that the name of
Fikret which is mostly denominated to males in Turkey . Thus ,
she acts under ‘drug’ influence of hegemony and very supporter
her father’s decissions.
Nevertheless, Necla and Ceyda are , with Hallian wording, the
codes of substentiation of dominant hegemonic masculinity .
Their contumacy to Ali Rıza’s moral and ethic enforcement does
not work on those women . The subordinated position of them is
allowed a space by the hegemonic system. For instance , both
have get married with the man of their choice Although their
father were not in favour of that man . The resullt of their
own choice have lead on being kicked out of the house . However
, since the final season approaching, the producers made the
father again a right person in terms of all his words
legitimized .
ConclusionIn this paper , I elaborated on the issue that how the position
of women and men are different from each other in media , with
effects of pathriarchal social structure . I have used Yaprak
Dökümü as a media spectacle for defining the role of men in the
Turkish family structure over women . The act of men have set
18
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communicationby considering the what hegemonic masculinity expect from a man
on structuring its masculinity . Ali Rıza Tekin has gained its
power from the social factors which intersects on its own
definition . As the times goes by , the definition hegemonic
masculinity have changed . The power in house manegement also
shifted from one man to another . The women has been
matterialized and oppresed in a way . The women is like birth-
giver only since the mother role is depicted in a way . The
eldest children Fikret is aligned with the rules of pathriarchy
from what her father is telling through . As a different from
that Necla and Leyla is like a voice coming out of repression
through out the series but at the end , they have again
positioned in a place on what their father has tell them his
truthts. This also shows the winner of masculinity crises is a
Ali Rıza Bey.
Last but not least, pathriarchy is a a male-dominated , trans
historical and global. Families are considered to be place for
oppressing women. Soap operas is used in that way for showing
the pathriarchy. Producers who joins with the pathriarchy to
longetimate the domination of a man , prefering these formats
under the effects of those production companies .
19
Mahmut UçanMedia & Communication
ReferencesAnderson , M.(1993) Thinking about Women: Sociological
Perspectives on Sex and Gender,
Macmillan, New York.
Brunsdon, C. (1983) ‘Crossroads: notes on soap opera’, in
Regarding Television, ed.
20
Mahmut UçanMedia & CommunicationE. A. Kaplan, University Publications of America, Frederick,
MD, pp. 76–83.
Booth, J. (1980) Watching the family , Women’s Studies International
Quarterly, vol. 3,
pp. 15–27.
Campbell, H. (2000). The glass phallus: Pub(lic) masculinity
and drinking in rural
New Zealand, Rural Sociology, 65, 562–582.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power society, the person, and sexual
politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality,
identity politics, and
violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–
1299.
Erdoğan, İ. (Ed.). (2011). Medyada hegemonik erkek(lik) ve temsileri
İstanbul: Kalkedon.
21
Mahmut UçanMedia & CommunicationGrossberg, L. & Treichler, P. (1987) ‘Intersections of power:
criticism, television,
gender’, Communication, vol. 9, pp. 273–287.
Hearn, J., & Morgan, D. (1990). Men, masculinities and social theory.
London, UK:
Routledge.
Hennesy, R. (1993) Materialist Feminism and the Politics of
Discourse, Routledge, New York
and London.
Hmasaeed, N. H. (2010). The Turkish Soap Opera Noor between
Commercial Message and Educational Mesaage and Its Impact on
Kurdish Women Viewers. Journal of Zankoy Suluimani , part 43,
333-350.
Hollows, J. (2000) Feminism, Femininity and Popular Culture,
Manchester University Press,
Manchester and New York.
Kimmel, M. (1987). Changing men: New Directions in research on men and
masculinity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kimmel, S., & Mahalik J. (2004). Measuring masculine body ideal
distress:
22
Mahmut UçanMedia & CommunicationDevelopment of a measure. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 1–
10.
Lopate, C. (1976) Daytime television: you’ll never want to
leave home, Feminist Studies, vol.3,no. 3/4, pp. 69–82.
Macnamara, J. R. (2006). Media and male identity: The making and
remaking of men. New
York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Meral, P. S. (2011). Erkek hegemonyasının (yeniden) üretimi:
Dergi reklamlarında
hegemonik erkekliğin temsili. İçinde İ. Erdoğan (Ed.), Medyada
hegemonik erkek(lik)
ve temsil (ss. 297-324). İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs,
30, 1771–1801.
Özbay, C. (2010). Neoliberalizm ve erkekliğin halleri. İçinde
A. Öztürk (Ed.), Yeni sol, yeni
sağ (ss.101-132). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
Özbay, C. (2013). Türkiye’de hegemonik erkekliği aramak. Doğu
Batı, 63, 185-204.
23
Mahmut UçanMedia & CommunicationPress, A. (1991) Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and
Generation in the American
Television Experience, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Sancar, S. (2009). İmkannsız iktidar: Ailede, piyasada ve sokakta erkekler
stanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Schrock, D. ve Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and
manhood acts. Annual Review of.
Sociology, 35, 277–95.
Selek, P. (2008). Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak. İstanbul: İletişim
Yayınları.
Shugart, H. , Waggoner, C. E. & HALLSTEIN, D. (2001) Mediating
third-wave feminism: appropriation as postmodern media
practice, Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 194–210.
Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. Routledge.
Steeves, L. (1987) Feminist theories and media studies. Critical
Studies in Mass Communication,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 95–135.
24
Mahmut UçanMedia & CommunicationTreice, M. (1999) ‘The practical true woman: reconciling women
and work in popular
Mail - order magazines, 1900–1920’, Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, vol. 16, no. 1,
pp. 42–62.
Yüksel, E. (2013). Babalar ve oğullar: 2000’ler Türkiye
sinemasında erkeklik krizi. SineCine
Sinema Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 41-67.
Wood, J. (1994) Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and
Culture, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont.
Vavrus, M. (2002) Domestication patriarchy: hegemonic
masculinity and television’s Mr. Mom,
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 352–375.
Top Related