Journal of Agrarian Change - 2020 - Kavak - Rethinking The Political Economy of Rural Struggles in Turkey Space - 2

Received: 22 May 2019 Revised: 8 June 2020 Accepted: 3 August 2020
DOI: 10.1111/joac.12389
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Rethinking the political economy of rural struggles

in Turkey: Space, structures, and altered agencies
Sinem Kavak
Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University

Center for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS),
Abstract
Lund, Sweden By focusing on recent water struggles in rural Turkey
against run-of-the-river hydropower plants (SHPs), the
Correspondence
Sinem Kavak, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund research delves into the societal and economic factors that
University Center for Sustainability Studies enable or inhibit the emergence of strong mobilizations
(LUCSUS), Biskopsgatan 5, Lund
through a comparison of four localities of the Eastern Black
223 62, Sweden.
Email: sinem.kavak@lucsus.lu.se Sea region. The main aim of the cross comparison is to
determine whether there is a relationship between the
forms of rural livelihood (and class position) and political
mobilization against SHP construction. The article offers a
multilayered relational framework to analyse rural
mobilizations. Through a comparative spatial analysis of
material and immaterial territories, I argue that the
spatio-economic transformation of the localities that
unevenly transform rural settings in terms of production
and consumption activities have an impact on the
patterns, discourses, and agency in contemporary “rural”
mobilizations. This is especially observable with regard to
upward mobility and the middle-classization processes
embedded in crop system and household accumulation
opportunities. The children of upwardly mobile farmers
who became city-based middle-class actors tend to present
an estheticized and carnivalesque framing in their resistance
strategies through the re-invention of traditions and culture,
whereas the lower-class peasants voice their grievances
based strictly on material concerns.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Agrarian Change published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
242 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joac J Agrar Change. 2021;21:242–262.

14710366, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12389 by Ku Leuven, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KAVAK 243
KEYWORDS
material/immaterial territories, middle-class activism, rural

mobilization, rural space, water struggles
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N A N D M ET H O D
The proliferation of mass mobilizations, which vary in terms of organization, discourse, impact, and objective as well
as in geographical-spatial scope, has become one of the key phenomena of today's world. The anti-dam movement
in the Narmada Valley, the “water wars” in Cochabamba, the Indignados movement against austerity measures in
Spain, and the Gezi resistance in Turkey are among many events that have rattled the world political scene. These
movements are incited by altered and expanded forms of capital accumulation within the neoliberal era through
reconfigured relationships within the society–environment–economy nexus. These are very complex movements,
essentially different from the dominant forms of activism in the pre-Washington Consensus era. On one hand, as
accurately identified by Akbulut, the grievances and discourses mobilized by such movements facilitate the
emergence of “a type of politics not only in their specific local contexts but also pertaining to challenges to state
power, processes of capital accumulation, and neoliberal re-structuring of political, economic, social
settings.” Moreover, they invoke diverse discourses, agencies, motivations, and engagements in economy–society–
environment relationships (Akbulut, 2014). A specific strain of these mobilizations involves those with a spatial focus
that can be viewed as rural mobilizations, with peasants as the main actors who fight against agrarian change, the
commercialization of production and rural space, the destruction of the environment, and local cultures
(Bebbington, 2007; Lucero, 2007).
This article is written based on curiosity about the relationship between the material and immaterial factors
contributing to peasant mobilizations. Since the end of the 1970s, particularly after the end of the Cold War, peasant
studies and social movements' theory have undergone significant change, especially with the growing influence of
cultural studies and postmodern theory (Scott, 1977). These paradigms have favoured the identity-based
explanations underlying social movements in general. Accounts of peasant mobilization are highly influenced by
these paradigms, which are basically grounding explanations for the motivations of mobilization either in terms of
ethnic, religious, gender, or cultural factors or ecological and spatial concerns. In particular, there are numerous
studies addressing Latin America where the new social movements (NSMs) theory originates (Bebbington, 2000;
Brass, 2012; Edelman, 2001; Mc Adam, Tarrow, & Tilly, 1997; Vaughan, 1999). NSM and subaltern studies argue that
agrarian mobilization and resistance to capitalism/colonialism have more to do with the ideology and experiences of
gender/ethnicity, region, ecology, or religion, and it is not possible to attribute such differences to the class position
of the subject (Melucci & Keane, 1989; Scott, 1977). The incompatibility of the two forms of thinking that undermine
the validity of the class-based theories creates the illusion that class does not exist in these resistances (Brass, 2000).
Contemporary mobilizations demonstrate complicated structures in terms of the composition of the people who
join the upheavals, discourses, and alliances they utilize and their modes of resistance. Especially with regard to the
mobilizations that take place in rural areas, the analysis becomes more complicated due to the uneven
transformations of the “ruralities” themselves. Petras (1997) states the following: “The expansion of peasant
movements in 1990s is related to internal transformation of peasantry- politically, culturally, and economically as
well as a dialectical resistance to the extension of neoliberalism and encroachment of imperialism” (p. 17). This article
aims at capturing these changes and reactions in their diversity, dynamism, and motion together with an intention to
contribute to the literature on “new peasantry” (Collier & Quaratiello, 2005; Ellis, 2000; Evans & Ilbery, 1993;
Kay, 2008; Petras, 2011; Scoones, 2009).
Within the framework of contemporary mobilizations in rural areas, categorization is exceptionally difficult.
Should we categorize recent movements in rural areas as agrarian mobilizations or ecological ones? Or, shall we
244 KAVAK
categorize them as eco-socialist or agro-ecologists? Do people mobilize only to protect nature, to protect lived space,
or because there has been a threat to their livelihoods? Or, do they mobilize to protect their cultural rights against
the cultural destruction posed by capitalism? Who are the primary agents of such mobilizations? Who supports a
mobilization; who is for it, and who is against it? Can the actors be defined as peasants? If so, to which subcategory
do they belong?
1.1 | Proliferation of river-type small hydropower plants and the struggle
With these questions in mind, I decided to focus on mobilizations against run-of-the-river hydropower plants (SHPs)
in Turkey as a case study. The main curiosity paving the way in designing this research stems from the
above-summarized vacuum in theory as well as the lack of accounts, particularly those elaborating on the class
dimensions of contemporary popular mobilizations.
The article takes the mobilization against small-scale run-of-the-river hydropower plants (SHPs) in Turkey as its
object of study and elaborates on the existence and absence of peasant mobilizations in the villages where SHPs are
being built. SHPs are a classic example of the commercialization of both rural space and water resources. They have
proliferated with a series of reforms aiming at privatizing energy production and the energy market in Turkey
(Işlar, 2012). Private companies are granted with the authority and incentives to produce energy. The
incentives—not only from the Turkish government but also backed by the World Bank and the European
Union—have furthered the proliferation of SHPs because they are regarded as clean sources of energy production
and more environmentally friendly than hydropower plants that require large reservoirs of water. SHPs operate on
different principles than dams. They do not require a reservoir to collect water from rivers. Instead, the water is sent
into large pipes and tunnels from riverbeds. The water is carried in a penstock until it is released from a height into a
powerhouse where electricity is produced. The basic principle is to divert the water from the riverbed and to carry it
until it reaches a suitable height to produce electricity. However, less environmentally invasive the process may
seem, diverting large amounts of river water may reduce flow, affect velocity, and disrupt habitat quality and lead to
problems in irrigation systems that adversely affect local economies and ecology.
The studied mobilizations are regarded as both rural and ecological movements. They are also understood as an
unprecedented wave of peasant mobilizations in Turkey pioneered by a group of courageous villagers, especially
elderly and brave rural women. Significant public awareness has been raised during the last decade on the issue, and
a myriad of academic work has been published (Erensu, 2011, 2013; Harris & Işlar, 2014; Işlar, 2012; Yavuz &
Şendeniz, 2013). As of April 2016, there are approximately 1,000 SHPs projects under different stages of
construction. The unmonitored proliferation of SHPs has incited a wave of mobilizations by local communities in
almost every region of Turkey.
Although it has been analysed from various perspectives, the relationship between the political economy of SHP
processes in terms of the commercialization, accumulation, labour, and class dimension of the mobilizations have not
been widely scrutinized. As stated above, these mobilizations are mostly regarded as ecological movements with
cultural undertones; however, the wider material structures contributing to the agency of the protestors have to a
large extent been ignored.
Apart from being an example of strong mobilizations that take place in rural areas, the anti-SHP mobilizations
share significant commonalities with similar mobilizations that include anti-dam struggles in Chile, India, or
Cochabamba (Assies, 2003; Bakker, 2007; Khagram, 2004; Olivera & Lewis, 2004). The methodological options to
analyse such mobilizations include a single-case analysis of one struggle, a broader analysis of multiple anti-SHP
struggles from a more macro perspective, and cross-country comparisons of water struggles. The general tendency
in the existing literature is to explain divergent patterns in mobilization (or lack of mobilization) by looking at certain
processes or variables pertinent either to material or immaterial realms. However, I sought the micro level to obtain
a through and in-depth analysis of the mobilizations and actors within the broader political economic perspective
KAVAK 245
TABLE 1 Two-by-two matrix of research cases
Stronger resistance Weaker resistance

Needs irrigation for production (Inner Black Sea Region) başı (Erzurum
Bag Pehlivanlı (Erzurum
Province) Province)
Does not need irrigation for production (Coastal Black Sea Arhavi (Artvin Province) Borçka (Artvin Province)
region)
with an aim to re-study the actors, agency, and framing of the mobilizations. There is a need for a unitary approach,
which can bring together the transformation posed by the regime of accumulation, that is, neoliberalism,
historical-structural specificities, and representations as well as “culture”. This approach should address how agents
in these agrarian contexts relate to spaces of contention in material and immaterial terms from a multilayered
perspective. I thus argue that placing an emphasis on the space, construction, transformation, and conceptualization
of the space could provide an adequate and effective analytical tool.
1.2 | Method and case selection
The primary objective of this research is to identify the relationship between defining political economic features of
a locality and the political reactions against the effect disrupting the extant livelihood. For this purpose, I designed a
comparative qualitative study in localities that have experienced the same impetus and SHP construction, and I
analysed the differentiating patterns of politicization and agency in relation to different forms of peasant livelihoods.
Although SHP projects are dispersed around Turkey, a large number of projects are located in the Eastern Black
Sea region and its hinterland. More than 40% of SHP projects are being built in the Black Sea region, and exemplary
cases of persistent and strong mobilizations have arisen in this region. Therefore, the Eastern Black Sea was chosen
as the research site. The cases were selected after preliminary field work in the Eastern Black Sea region where I
visited various SHP projects and affected villages and attended meetings of local resistance groups. Thus, I became
acquainted with the major mobilizations and the socio-economic structures prevalent in the region.
To establish a cross comparison, four cases are chosen according to two main criteria:
• The need for irrigation for production;

• The strength of the resistance against the SHP construction.
According to these criteria, four cases of resistance against SHP construction are chosen as shown in the
Table 1.1
Two of the four cases of anti-SHP mobilization take place in non-irrigated contexts, and the other two take place
in irrigated contexts. The non-irrigated sites are located in the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey where the climate
is humid and rainfall is abundant, whereas the irrigated sites are located in the nation's arid hinterland. The main logic
behind the cross comparison is to determine whether there is a relationship between the rural livelihoods (mostly
defined in terms of production, marketing, place in the general economic system, and prior migration patterns) and
political mobilization against SHP construction combined with the other possible causes of unrest and contention.
Thus, this cross comparison is designed to assess the weights of different causes for opposition, contention, and
mobilization in a controlled manner. The cases are chosen according to geographical proximity to one another to
minimize the societal, cultural, and historical differences among them.
1
I use the district names of Arhavi and Borçka to refer the villages chosen for comparison to make it easier for readers. The villages in these provinces
where construction occurs are implied unless the town centers are explicitly mentioned. These include the Kavak village of Arhavi and the Aralık Village of
Borçka. However, Bagbaşı and Pehlivanlı are the names of villages in the Tortum district of Erzurum province.
246 KAVAK
The imminent relationship between the rural regions and the need for water for agricultural production is
taken as the basis for comparison because the anti-SHP resistance is presented as a rural resistance and as a
factor disturbing rural livelihoods and villages as lived spaces. The cases without resistance are integrated into
the research with an aim to single out the factors that trigger mobilization. They can be regarded as control
cases; hence, their weight in the overall analysis is lower than that of cases where the resistance is strong and
persistent because the “lack” itself can become meaningful when compared with the most similar case within
the logic of comparison. All SHP projects operate on the same structure: They divert water from the river
passing through the village, and the waterflow is severely affected by the plants. All SHPs have similar installed
electricity production capacities ranging from 10 to 14 megawatts. The data are collected through qualitative
fieldwork in the region.
1.3 | Non-irrigated cash crop-producing villages of Arhavi and Borçka
Arhavi is a fertile town in the coastal Black Sea region where tea and hazelnuts are grown, and agricultural
production does not require irrigation. The region is mountainous and steep. The construction of the SHP in Arhavi
began in 2012. The water is taken into tunnels from two different streams over approximately 5 km. The plant has a
10-MW installed capacity.
When it first began, locals from three villages mobilized against it; however, the resistance was easily co-opted
by the company through land purchases, employing locals in construction, or building a mosque. However, during
the spring of 2014, resistance was revived, taken up by villagers who had migrated to Istanbul or Ankara and
regularly spend their holidays in the village. The mobilization of 2014 continued on and off until 2017, mostly in the
form of legal struggles; however, in the end, in 2018, the SHP began producing energy.
Borçka is situated on mountain hills, approximately 60 km from Arhavi. The mountains are steep, and the roads
are curved. The region does not provide residents with large plains on which to settle. The rainfall is abundant;
villagers are cash crop farmers, and they cultivate tea and hazelnuts and engage in husbandry. Although the natural
water regime in Borçka has been seriously hindered due to a myriad of dam and SHP construction, the resistance
was sparked late compared with other cases. There are five SHP projects on the Klaskur stream, two of which are
important for this research and one of which had already been constructed and was actively working during the field
work. The plant has a 12.5 MW capacity. The second one is under construction as of 2019. There was contention
among the public but very weak resistance. A group of villagers under the leadership of the village governor sued the
company for ill-implementation of environmental impact assessment procedures; however, these attempts were not
taken up by the villagers.
1.4 | başı and Pehlivanlı

Arid villages of Bag
Bagbaşı and Pehlivanlı are neighbouring villages in Erzurum, situated in the same valley. They are only half a
kilometre apart from each other, and the livelihood is based on subsistence farming of fruits, vegetables, and grains.
There are two SHPs in the valley with 12- and 14-MW capacities. The construction spurred contention among the
başı, and the valley witnessed one of the most confrontational struggles between the peasants and
villagers of Bag
the state; however, this was not the case in Pehlivanlı. Pehlivanlı is situated towards the end of the valley where the
başı, the villagers of Pehlivanlı village remained
main regulator of the SHP is situated. Unlike in the mobilization in Bag
başı SHP.
silent if not supportive of the Bag
The attitudes of the people in these two villages are direct opposites of each other, and thus, further
analysis was required. The Pehlivanlı dwellers did not oppose the SHP whereas those just half a kilometre away
resisted and were beaten up or taken to prison in Ba
gbaşı. What made the villagers of Pehlivanlı unresponsive
to the SHP, which would also have affected their own village? Answering this question will be useful in
KAVAK 247
başı and that made the villagers of

addressing the possible forces and motives that mobilized the people in Bag
Pehlivanlı unresponsive.
2 | S P A T I A L A N A L Y S I S OF RU R A L L I V E L I H O O D S
The research begins with a simple question: How does dependence on irrigation for agricultural production affect the
anti-SHP mobilizations in a rural setting? Although the correlation seemed straightforward, a comparative analysis of
four cases reveals that the relationship between water dependency and mobilization is more than straightforward, but,
rather, it is complex and layered if it is analysed from the wider perspective of the political economy and spatial
construction. However, the relationship between geographical space and society is not a straightforward one. Space
produces our subjectivities and us as well whereas we, as humans, produce the space by working, acting, and living in it
(Smith, 2010). That spatiality and society are mutually constitutive of a foundational tenet of critical geographies,
scholarship is a core idea grounded in Lefebvre's germinal work, The Production of Space (Halfacree, 2006;
Soja, 1989). The production of space, Smith (2010) reminds us, “implies the production of the meaning, concepts and
consciousness of space which are inseparably linked to its physical production” (p. 107).
Lefebvre found his conceptualization on a differentiation between three types of space: the perceived space of
materialized spatial practice (espace perçu), the conceived space of discursive representations of space (espace conçu),
and lived space (espace vécu) (Kuhlenbeck, 2010). Lived space is a nexus of espace conçu and espace perçu. It covers
the way in which people live in the space of empirically, measurable concrete spatial forms and how they perceive
it. It contains “simultaneities, perils as well as possibilities: the space of radical openness, the space of social struggle”
(Soja, 1996, p. 311).
The threefold construction of space offers us a means by which to capture the dynamic and multifaceted
transformation of rurality summarized above. Different yet related aspects are associated with this change. The first
is the change in the regime of accumulation. Alongside the neoliberalization of production as a mode of
accumulation, rural space has become the target in itself, which is often analysed under the concept of accumulation
by dispossession.
Harvey (2005) highlights the impacts of structural adjustment programmes and their derivatives, imposed on
vulnerable countries by international regulatory institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. The
commoditization and privatization of resources such as land and water for profit are among the principles imposed
by these institutions (pp. 150–156).
The issuing of new property rights on the commons and the privatization of resource use are part of the
neoliberal logic of capital accumulation. These functions inevitably transform perceived space. Ecological destruction
is a facet of spatial change together with livelihood transformations, altered by changes in production. Material
(perceived) transformations have an impact on the perceived transformations of space and how particular spaces are
reconstructed, imagined, and represented. The downturn of the traditional dominance of agricultural economy as an
outcome of the diminishing scale of agricultural production has resulted in a shift in the perception of rural space.
The conception of rural spaces is diverted from being landscapes of production to being landscapes of consumption,
which strengthens the importance of the conceived space.
It is crucial to note in this regard the research of the Brazilian critical geographer Bernardo Mançano
Fernandes on the conflicts between peasants and agribusiness, which has enabled him to develop a theory of con-
tested territories (Fernandes, 2008a, 2008b; Saquet & Sposito, 2009). He argues that social classes and relationships -
generate different territories and spaces that are reproduced under conditions of continual conflict; as a result, there
are spaces of domination and spaces of resistance (Fernandes, 2008a, 2008b). Territorial disputes are carried out in
all possible dimensions: economic, social, political, cultural, theoretical, and ideological (Fernandes, 2008a, 2008b). In
the case of rural areas, these disputes are embodied in the struggles between grassroots social movements and cor-
porate food regimes over what he calls material and immaterial territories (as cited in Saquet & Sposito, 2009).
Rosset and Martínez-Torres (2012) summarize Fernandes' theorization as follows:
248 KAVAK
Immaterial territory refers to the terrain of ideas, of theoretical constructs, of interpretive frameworks, and he
posits that there are no material territories that are not associated with immaterial territories. Therefore, the dispute
over real and tangible territories and the resources they contain necessarily goes hand in hand with the dispute over
immaterial territories or the space of ideology and ideas (Bezner Kerr, 2007; Fernandes, 2009). Contestation over
immaterial territories is characterized by the formulation and defence of concepts, theories, paradigms, and
explanations, all of which are used to convince others. In other words, the power to interpret and to determine the
definition and content of concepts is itself a territory in dispute. (p. 3).
Fernandes's dual conceptualization of material and immaterial territories coincides with Lefebvre's perceived
and conceived spaces, consecutively. Nevertheless, his emphasis on social classes and the relationships that generate
different territories and spaces reproduced under conditions of continual conflict is important. This vision may
integrate a class dimension to the analysis of the emergence of spaces, and, more importantly, the relationships of
these emergent spaces to broader political economic structures.
The manifold spatial construction and the manifested impacts on mobilization patterns become clear through a
step-by-step analysis of the four cases. I will follow the logic of Lefebvre—conceived space (espace conçu) versus
perceived space (espace perçu)—and Fernandes (material and immaterial territories) to be able to systematically
explain the different layers that contribute to the spatial construction and specific types of agency emerging in
particular types of spatiality.
To be able to grasp the uneven transformation of communities, I suggest that a multilayered relational analysis
of territories provides a plausible approach. I argue that a differentiation of the peasantry occurs at three layers in an
uneven manner and that this differentiation should be analysed at two levels. Figure 1 illustrates the scheme
summarizing the theorization that I propose to bring political economy back into the study of rural mobilizations by
closely focusing on material and immaterial territories. I propose a three-layer analysis as shown in Figure 1, the first
two layers to be analysed in terms of the territories' material construction, and the third layer to be analysed in terms
of their immaterial construction.
3 | L A Y E R I : TH E I M P A C T O F T H E C R O P SY S T E M : C O M M E R C I A L V E R S U S
SUBSISTENCE PRODUCTION
The first layer of differentiation is imminently related to the production activities in the locality. I prefer to specify
such activities in terms of a dominant crop regime and its transformation as a result of market forces. The primary
difference between irrigated and non-irrigated social settings is obviously the crop system and its evolution through
F I G U R E 1 Research scheme. This figure outlines the pillars of spatial construction pertaining to rural livelihoods
and the steps of analysis followed throughout the article
KAVAK 249
time driven by state policies and/or market dynamics. The crops and production patterns have evolved differently in
the rainy valleys of Artvin (Borçka and Arhavi) and in the arid villages of Erzurum. Abundant rainfall and climate
conditions have allowed the development of cash crop farming in Borçka and Arhavi. Tea and hazelnut production
başı and Pehlivanlı, agricultural production has continued
has proliferated under state protection, whereas in arid Bag
to be the main income source of the peasant households, and the subsistence production of fruits vegetables and
grains has persevered.
A divergent transformation of production in the villages has resulted in differential pressures on livelihoods,
and it has also affected the course of social transformation. For the two categories of villages under scrutiny,
the commodification of agricultural production appears as the main axis of differentiation. The peasant
households in the Bagbaşı and Pehlivanlı villages of Erzurum still base their livelihood on subsistence farming
supported by some degree of income diversification. They produce various fruits, vegetables, and grains due to
the river flowing down the valley and the microclimatic conditions enabled by the mountains that surround the
başı and Pehlivanlı. Farming
villages. Agriculture is the main source of income for most of the households in Bag
persists mainly for subsistence purposes, and the excess products are sold in the local market place. The
production of industrial crops is limited, and there is no sign of specialization on certain crops; however, some
district level projects are implemented by local chambers of agriculture to encourage horticulture. Industrial
crops occupy only 2% of production (Arıcı & Karakuzulu, 2012). An elderly woman states, “Everyone farms,
everyone. Even those who live in the city come; the village is full during the summer. In autumn, people take
their food (for winter) and leave.” Another interviewee recounts, “There are plenty of people who subsist only
by agriculture alongside those who work additional jobs. With 15 to 20 acres of land and a pension, a family
of 6 can make a living.”
However, the transformation of peasant agriculture in Arhavi and Borçka from subsistence production to cash
crop production is significant in terms of the transformation of the social structure, push factors, migration, and
subsequent urbanization. The dominant crop produced in the region is tea, which developed through state policies
under import substituting industrialization. The state not only guaranteed the purchase of the entire yield with
attractive prices, but it also very actively developed the infrastructure for transportation and processing facilities,
and it provided trade and tariff barriers. The production and industry are boosted under the state economic
enterprise, Çay-Kur (Beller-Hann & Hann, 2000; Pamuk, 2012). Tea fields cover the region, especially the rural areas,
to the extent that it can be regarded as monocrop farming. Tea is the major agricultural crop in Arhavi, whereas
hazelnuts are secondary. Both of these crops are industrial crops, which are also among the major export items of
Turkey. The predominance of cash crops in the villages of Arhavi and Borçka suggests a transition from subsistence
production to commercialized production.
The area cultivated for tea farming has sharply increased, and it reached a peak between 1985 and 1990; just
after 1990, it stabilized at approximately 70,000 ha. Tea production has reached a natural limit, area-wise
(FAOSTAT, 2016). This means that by 1990, the dominance of tea production had established itself in the region.
What is striking is the stark positive correlation between commercialization of production and population/migration
trends (as shown in Figure 2) in the region.
3.1 | Changing economic function of land in the non-irrigated context
Basically, a river-type small-scale SHP grants the usership right of the water that flows in the river basin to private
companies for a period of 49 years. The water is at the centre of commercialization; however, the land is also a
contentious area among the companies, the state, and the local people. Land is critical in two senses: first, for its
value as a means of production and, second, for its exchange value. Moreover, it has become a strategic tool for
locals to resist companies and simultaneously as a tool for companies to co-opt resistance. Such co-optation occurs
because the companies usually have to purchase land from the locals to build a construction site, regulator, and
250 KAVAK
F I G U R E 2 Population change in Arhavi and Borçka (village based) TurkStat, 2014. This chart presents the
outmigration data from Borçka and Arhavi due to the shift from subsistence production to cash-crop production
power plant. The effectiveness of a company's co-optation strategies and the peasants' resistance strategies vary
according to the economic function of land in that village.
In Bagbaşı and in Pehlivanlı, the land is the primary means of production for most households. The land remains
so due to the enduring subsistence farming and persistence of on-farm income as the primary source of household
başı, land selling was not considered an option. They have constantly stated that
income. For most villagers in Bag
land and water are the basis of their life and survival. However, only a few people from Pehlivanlı sold their land to
the company or rented land to the company.
Nevertheless, the early and widespread commercialization of agriculture in the tea-producing villages of the
Black Sea region has altered the share of on-farm income in household budgets. The villagers have migrated into
cities or town centres and moved into different occupational statuses even though their prospects for upward
mobility are limited. The transformation has rendered these villages into spaces of part-time farming under absentee
ownership due to the highly seasonal character of the production system. Independent of the differential modes of
integration into the city economy, the social and economic meaning of the land has been altered.
In critical locations, the landowners have managed to sell their land for five or six times its actual value. The
same is true for the villagers in Borçka. The field research showed that those who initially do not want to sell their
land to the company could actually manage to sell it for higher prices. Moreover, in Borçka, those who do not reside
in the village are especially eager to sell their land. A Borçka villager states, “Normally, an acre of land costs 16 to
17 thousand TL. For those who have resisted the company and have not sold their land, the price rose to
30 thousand TL. A villager resisted the expropriation of his land; the usual price was 100 thousand, but he got
250 thousand liras.” Similarly, an active member of the mobilization in Arhavi stated, “People sell their land. Some
sold the land for 250 to 300 thousand liras; that would actually be worth 40 to 50 thousand.”
Thus, what causes the difference in mobilization capacity against the SHP? The answer brings us to the second
level of differentiation, which is the viability of place.
4 | L A Y E R I I : R U R A L– U R B A N M I G R A T I O N : TH E V I A B I L I T Y OF P L A C E
AND DIFFERENTIATION
As explained in the previous section, traditional subsistence farming in Borçka and Arhavi has been transformed into
cash crop farming. The incentives and support promoting the tea economy have altered the social structure and
KAVAK 251
contributed to the emergence of a monocrop economy and a decline in the importance of the land as a means of
production. Nevertheless, despite the uniformity of the effect posed by the state-led developmental policy, the
impact on different localities has been far from uniform.
4.1 | Differentiation in tea producing villages
In his ethnographic work in the Eastern Black Sea, Hann (1990) navigates through two implications of equal
importance with regard to the uneven social consequences of the tea economy. The first is the differentiation
between the villages of the region, and the second is the differentiation in diversification and migration trajectories.
He anticipates an earlier household diversification and outmigration in the more densely populated coastal towns
due to the limited cultivable land that prevents the further expansion of tea farms. Tea cultivation leaves room for
continued cash cropping along with income diversification in the city. He then states that social positions will be
governed by non-agricultural activities and that urbanization will occur. Second, a decade later, in another work,
Beller-Hann and Hann (2000) state the following:
In other respects, however, the impact of the industry was less egalitarian. First it created new spatial
inequalities within Lazistan2 by conferring advantages upon localities close to the coast, where
communications were better and leaf yields higher. Yields declined significantly at higher altitudes,
and for some people tea was not an economic proposition at all. This was a reversal of the previous
pattern, in which the pastorally oriented settlements of the interior had held an economic advantage
over more densely populated areas closer to the coast (p. 51).
Hann's (1990) following prediction on the prospects of the tea producing villagers of the Black Sea region is cogent
and observable decades after his field research. He states the following:
As migration processes continue, some of those who leave the rural society, the children of the
prosperous tea farmers, will move into good trades or the white-collar professions, whilst others, such
as the children of the sharecroppers, will become unambiguously proletarian when they reach the
city. Thus, not only is the rural society internally divided but far from being marginal to the class
struggles of the wider society, it is continuing to contribute quite directly to their reproduction
(p. 75).
These two points carry significant importance in understanding both the tea economy of the non-irrigated villages of
the Eastern Black Sea region and the differentiation in societal structure that emerged in Borçka and Arhavi, a factor
that contributes to the different political responses to the SHP. Arhavi lies on the coast, whereas the Aralık village of
Borçka is situated in an inner and more remote area with a higher altitude. Hann's observations are beneficial for the
comparison of the two non-irrigated cases. Better connection to transport and processing opportunities, combined
with the possibility of harvesting a greater yield, enabled the households of Arhavi to benefit more from the tea
economy under protections than the highlanders of Borçka. The producers I interviewed in Arhavi, as well as the
officials in the Directorate of Agriculture, stated that they could pick tea bushes three or four times per year whereas
Borçka harvests less. Therefore, under the protection and promotion of the tea industry, the average household in
the village of Arhavi has benefited more compared with the village of Borçka. A comparative analysis of the
outmigration statistics has merits in demonstrating the divergence.
2
Lazistan is the Ottoman name of the south-eastern shore of the Black Sea habitated by the Laz population. The region corresponds to today's Eastern
Black Sea region of Turkey.
252 KAVAK
Figure 2 provides the population change in Arhavi and Borçka between 1965 and 2015. The figure shows the
impact of the tea economy on place viability and migration patterns. This depiction illustrates that rural Borçka used
to be more densely populated compared with rural Arhavi and that the population increased during the golden
period of the tea economy and sharply declined after 1975 whereas in Arhavi, the population steadily increased until
the 1980s and remained at approximately the same level until 1990, when it began to sharply decline.
Extensive outmigration occurred between 1990 and 2000 in Arhavi, whereas in Borçka, the population
constantly declined from 1975 to 2007. Finally, the village of Borçka became a small village inhabited by
approximately 300 people, which is less than the recent population of Arhavi. As the figure shows, the
transformation posed by the change in the production system from subsistence farming to commercial farming has
adversely affected both villages; however, the livelihood pressures were seemingly felt more severely in Borçka than
in Arhavi. The slight increase until 1975 can be attributed to an expansion in the tea fields; however, once the
maximum cultivable area was reached, the village economy could not be sustained, and the outmigration from the
village occurred.
The village livelihood seems more sustainable in Arhavi. Even though the land is also scarce and divided in
Arhavi, tea farming is more profitable in coastal regions because tea yields respond to the region's favourable climatic
conditions and better connection to the centre; thus, the villagers in Arhavi benefited more from the tea economy.
The outmigration is evident; however, if we take a step back and consider the broader picture, we also find striking
differentiation between urbanization and the outmigration patterns of the Arhavi and Borçka town centres. Figures 3
and 4 demonstrate the extent of this differentiation.
The trends are strikingly different. By the beginning of 1965, the Borçka district was a small town where most
of the people dwelled in the villages. The town centre hosted a population of approximately 5,000 people. After
1985, we find a sharp decline in both in the rural and total population figures. It is evident that the Borçka town
centre could not host out-migrants from the villages or evolve into a viable place offering household diversification
opportunities. Such an extent of outmigration from the town also implies that off-farm opportunities that would
enable pluriactivity were limited, and the livelihood pressures brought about by the change in the production system
forced an outmigration both from the village and the town.
Nevertheless, the population statistics of Arhavi demonstrate another pattern. In Figure 4, we observe that the
villages remained viable places until the mid-1980s. After 1985, the rural population began to decrease; however,
the urban population began to increase at the same rate. The gradual and long-term increase in the population of the
town centre signals a certain level of urbanization, opportunities for diversification, and a longer viability of rural
F I G U R E 3 Rural–urban population change in Borçka District (all villages vs. town centre) TurkStat, 2014. The
chart provides the data on outmigration from the villages of Borçka and population of Borçka town centre between
1965 and 2012 that was triggered by the commercialization of production
KAVAK 253
F I G U R E 4 Rural–urban population in Arhavi District (all villages vs. town centre) TurkStat, 2014. The chart
presents the outmigration levels from rural Arhavi and population increase in town centre, which is an indicator of
place viability
livelihoods. We can also argue that the people of Arhavi benefited more from the state-promoted tea economy and
that pluriactivity enabled more accumulation. My fieldwork revealed a differentiation in terms of upward mobility
and prospects. The migrants from Borçka are mostly employed in lower-income-generating jobs such as construction
work in big cities that they find through kinship ties. However, the interviewees in Arhavi who are active in
resistance dwell in big cities and work either as civil servants, entrepreneurs, or white-collar employees in Turkey's
big cities. A protagonist in Arhavi states that he has been living in Izmir for a long time, and he has a company there;
however, lately, he has returned to his village. Another couple has moved back to their village after running a
business in Southern Turkey. They have renovated an old traditional wooden house inherited from their
grandparents to preserve its authenticity and ornamented it with antiques and design pieces. The woman in the
couple states, “I am 52 years old, I did not know what SHP was. When we arrived, I was busy with the house, with
the restoration, etcetera, so that I did not feel the need to go into the resistance tent.” One interviewee's response
to a question on the villagers and the leading figures of the resistance in Arhavi provides insight into the question of
agency. He states, “We can tell that the villagers are struggling but, in fact, those who are actively in struggle are the
more educated, elite ones.”
Another consequence of the differentiation in upward mobility manifests itself in differential attitudes towards
the costs of legal struggle. In Arhavi, the costs of initiating a lawsuit or hiring a lawyer who specializes in
environmental law did not occupy an important place in the interviews even though there were consecutive lawsuits
against the company. However, in almost all the interviews in Borçka, costs were a major topic.
In the humid and rainy valleys of the Eastern Black Sea region, tea farming as a top-down developmental policy
resulted in major alteration of the village structure alongside differentiation in income diversification and place
viability. What this differentiation implies for today's mobilizations must be considered, a point to which I will return
after adding the research cases of the irrigated context to the discussion.
4.2 | Viability in arid villages
başı and Pehlivanlı villages, subsistence farming continued rather

In the arid valleys of Erzurum, which host the Bag
smoothly when the traditional social structures in the non-irrigated counterparts were toppling. Outmigration was
not a defining aspect of these villages. In contrast, there was a steady increase in the population until the 2000s
254 KAVAK
(Figure 5). After 2000, the population began to decline. The reasons for this decline can be traced to the neoliberal
restructuring of the post-2000 period. The outmigration was limited and circular; recently, it has gained a more
permanent character. Hence, given the high population levels and limited outmigration, I argue that Ba
gbaşı and
Pehlivanlı remained viable as their rural structures persevered and peasant households engaged in social
reproduction. Moreover, accumulation did not occur. The households remained peasant households, or the peasants
became workers, or both, which can be categorized as the “new peasantry”. It is also important to remember that the
başı's viability and the sustainability of the households.
construction of an SHP will destroy Bag
Thus, what leads to the silence in Pehlivanlı? The field research revealed two factors: employment opportunities
by the company and less of a threat to livelihood based on agricultural production. As several interviews confirm, the
başı than in Pehlivanlı. The interviewees stated that
ratio of irrigated land to be affected by the SHP is higher in Bag
11,000 ha of land would be adversely affected in Ba
gbaşı, whereas it was only 1,000 ha in Pehlivanlı. Most of the
arable land in Pehlivanlı is in the upper neighbourhoods, where they can irrigate their land from another stream.
Therefore, the peasants of Pehlivanlı would be affected less by the SHP compared with the peasants of Ba
gbaşı.
The company, realizing this difference in people's attitudes, decided to pay the villagers in Pehlivanlı to avoid a
stronger and more unified resistance and to continue construction of the SHP. Initially, they decided to construct the
başı, and they wanted to purchase land from some villagers. When they faced resistance, they
regulator in Bag
decided to construct the generator in the exit of Pehlivanlı. They purchased some land from the peasants at critical
points in the course of construction and offered employment to locals. A villager from Pehlivanlı recalls the following:
Our village, Pehlivanlı, did not support it. The stream flows down, and their land is on top of the hill:
this affects us. The major point is that they have young people. Young and unqualified people, lazy
people: they have hired these people and paid their salaries. What happened then? Somebody's
relative got a job there, so other people said that they earned their money; I cannot take the bread
out of his mouth. They used this argument a lot.
Socio-economic status in the village is low, and agriculture is the main economic activity. Formal employment
başı is stronger because the SHP was
opportunities are limited, and youth unemployment is high. The pressure in Bag
a direct threat to the villagers' livelihood; however, for Pehlivanlı, less land would be affected by the SHP, and hence,
the villagers made decisions that provided short-term benefits. Similar to the other anti-SHP struggles, the company
F I G U R E 5 Population change in Bagbaşı and Pehlivanlı villages. The chart demonstrates the endurance of
peasant households as an indicator of viability of rural livelihoods
KAVAK 255
used measures to buy the people, which included purchasing land for more than the market price or bribing key
figures. Menfaat means “interest” in the Turkish language. Menfaat is the most commonly used word by the villagers
of Bagbaşı and Pehlivanlı when they recall the SHP. Menfaat has pejorative connotations; however, in our case, it
goes beyond the pejorative sense and becomes a concept that motivates the direction of political behaviour. The
villagers of Pehlivanlı perceived the SHP as a way to earn some money to supplement their household income. The
connotations of ekmek are significant from this perspective. Ekmek means bread in Turkish. Another woman from
Pehlivanlı recalls “People said that many villagers will work in construction. Look, how many people will eat bread
(ekmek), so do not resist so that your sons can work here as well.”
It is important to address the motives of non-mobilization in Pehlivanlı to understand the strong
başı. Menfaat versus ekmek not only explains non-mobilization in Pehlivanlı, but it also
mobilization in Bag
başı. These are two neighbouring villages that have undergone the same
explains the mobilization in Bag
structural transformation and share the same culture, history, and politicization patterns. Livelihood formations
are similar in these two settings; thus, the livelihood pressures for the peasant households are similar. The same
livelihood pressures breed two directly opposite politicization patterns under the stimulus of the SHP, which
was felt and perceived in different fashions and to differential degrees. However, the emergence, patterns, and
discourses of mobilization are significantly different from the mobilizations (and non-mobilizations) in the
non-irrigated cases of Arhavi and Borçka.
Adding the subsistence farming villages of Erzurum into the equation allows us to perceive altered forms of
spatial transformation. Comparing production, viability, and the migration data of the research cases reveals three
categories of distinct spatial settlements. These spatial settlements can be summarized as follows:
• Arhavi became a viable place where profitable cash crop farming enabled accumulation and brought further
urbanization and upward mobility, that is, “middle classization”.
• Borçka became a non-viable place where cash crop farming resulted in outmigration and accumulation; thus,
upward mobility was limited.
başı remained viable places for subsistence farming and rural livelihoods; however, it had
• Pehlivanlı and Bag
limited accumulation and limited upper mobility.
Hence, the research cases were altered into distinct spatial settlements during the course of the last five
başı and Pehlivanlı,
decades. The change in the crop systems in Arhavi and Borçka took place before that in Bag
where the agricultural production has recently been under pressure. Uneven transformation engendered uneven
başı and Pehlivanlı have experienced increased dependence in
livelihood formations. The peasant households in Bag
on-farm income. The children of the prosperous tea farmers of Arhavi moved into the town centre and subsequently
to big cities; they worked in white-collar jobs while keeping one foot in the village. The less fortunate tea farmers of
Borçka have migrated to the metropolises; even though they continue their link with the village through circular
migration, their prospects in the cities have been less fortunate than their counterparts from the coastal and more
fertile Arhavi. As discussed above, the territorial settlements have evolved differently through the divergent changes
in crop systems, migration, and diversification. I argue that the divergent transformation of spaces has contributed to
the emergence of different subjects, with different agencies, priorities, and discourses.
The next section provides a comparison of the agency and patterns of mobilization with an aim of tracing the
link between the material and immaterial transformations of the territories. Considering that the SHP constructions
in these settlements constitute a novel form of commercialization with a negative impact on the territoriality, the
plurality of the reactions against the construction is important in understanding the link between the material and
immaterial transformations of particular territories. Anti-SHP struggles in the villages are fought on both
material—land and production—and immaterial fronts as the realm of traditions, cultures, symbols, and ideals.
However, the weights of the material and immaterial components in the composition of resistance vary significantly
according to the spatial categories to which they belong.
256 KAVAK
5 | LAYER III: DIFFERENTIATION OF AGENCY THROUGH ABSTRACTION

A N D RE I N V E N T I O N O F T R A D I T I O N
As Bebbington (2000) notes, migration does not necessarily mean non-viability, proletarianization, or complete
urbanization. It can also mean cultural or socio-political reproduction or the constitution of lifestyles. This very
statement brings us to the third layer of differentiation in the study of rural mobilizations, which is the differentiation
of agency. The comparison applies to the villages where the mobilization is strong and persistent. The differentiation
in agency in strong mobilizations (such as those in Arhavi and Ba
gbaşı) has roots in the uneven transformation of the
immaterial territories.
In Arhavi, the main actors of resistance are those who either live out of Arhavi, in metropoles such as Istanbul
and Ankara, or they own a home in the centre of the town of Arhavi. What unites them is their return migration to
the villages during the summer time and during short holidays. Most of the protagonists of the struggle are either
retired people who have moved back to their village after working in the cities or those who still work in the city with
formal employment opportunities, career plans, and consumption patterns that might be evaluated within the
başı and Pehlivanlı,
paradigms of middle class or more specifically the new middle class. In the irrigated villages of Bag
interest in and threats to livelihood become the major forces contributing to or impeding the resistance.
What is striking appears with regard to the discursive constructions around the river and water. SHPs are
an assault on locals' rights on the water flowing through their immediate environment. Undoubtedly, the
emphasis is on the river and the water in the context of discursive constructions. Nonetheless, the ways in
başı framed their claim on the water are fundamentally different.
which the locals in Arhavi and the locals in Bag
The locals in Arhavi exclusively referred to “the river” as an abstract entity and the space of childhood
başı referred to “the water” when they recalled their struggle against the
nostalgia. Their counterparts in Bag
SHP. The difference may seem subtle and go unnoticed. However, I argue that it signals a key difference in
people's approaches, which is observable in their mobilization strategies and their politicization. A river refers to
an abstract and personified entity, whereas water signifies a concrete entity that is crucial for farming and
livelihood, hence the interest.
This fundamental difference in the construction of the water discourse leads us through two interrelated
observations. The protestors in Arhavi struggle in both material and immaterial territories (perceived and conceived
başı struggle only in the perceived material realm. The abstraction and re-invention of
spaces), whereas those in Bag
traditions contribute to the strength of mobilization in the viable context of Arhavi, which is primarily appealing to
the urbanized and upwardly mobile activists of the coastal Black Sea region. The success of mobilization in Arhavi lies
in the ability of agents to link the anti-SHP struggle to their collective identity. The counter-force is interest, which
impeded the emergence of a strong mobilization in the other context of Borçka, who experienced limited
accumulation and upward-mobility chances in the cities. People wanted to sell their lands or become employed by
the SHP to supplement their household incomes.
In the viable but rural contexts of Ba
gbaşı and Pehlivanlı, abstraction was nearly absent. The interest drove the
başı where the threat to livelihood was serious; however, it simultaneously impeded the
mobilization in Bag
mobilization in Pehlivanlı where there was a very limited threat from the SHP to the inhabitants' livelihoods.
5.1 | Abstraction: Differentiation in discourses and symbols
The social movement literature offers a wide range of explanations and motives that inspire human behaviour and
thinking; these are based on elements such as identity concerns, exclusion, prior politicization, ecological motives,
and material motives. Alongside the motives, the organization's techniques, discourses of mobilization, framing, and
coalition building are widely studied. This section is written with the objective of bridging the material constructions
of space with immaterial constructions.
KAVAK 257
The fundamental outcome of this divergent transformation of the villages under scrutiny is a disparity in upward
mobility and class formation. Accumulation was facilitated; therefore, urbanization and a middle classization took
place in the fertile coastal towns of the Black Sea region. However, the prospects were limited for the peasants of
both Borçka and Erzurum as were their chances for upward mobility and middle classization. Comparatively
analysing the mobilization patterns of the research cases not only reveals the link between the material
transformation of the spaces and the mobilization patterns, but it also provides insights into the class base of con-
temporary mobilizations, particularly middle class versus lower class politicizations.
The concrete abstraction of spaces is a concept extensively theorized by Lefebvre. It corresponds in Fernandes'
theorization of territories to the immaterial territories. Although these conceptualizations have differences, both
basically refer to the terrain of ideas where a conflict over territories is fought. Fernandes asserts that territorial
disputes are carried out in every possible dimension, from the economic to the ideological, and immaterial territories
are “theoretical constructs, of interpretive frameworks”. Hence, a struggle over tangible territories and resources
accompanies the dispute over immaterial territories or the space of ideology and ideas (Bezner Kerr, 2007;
McMichael, 2010; Saquet & Sposito, 2009). Similarly, Lefebvre (1991) argues that abstract spaces are spaces of
contention, even though they are the constructions of capitalists. As he states,
Abstract space is not homogeneous; it simply has homogeneity as its goal, its “lens.” And, indeed, it renders
homogeneous […] Thus to look upon abstract space as homogeneous is to embrace a representation that takes the
effect for the cause, and the goal for the reason why that goal is pursued (p. 287). Abstract space is the space of
ideas, images and symbols reflected on a particular space. It is a means to render a place into a commodity to be
marketed. However, in the case of a SHP construction, which is a form of commodification, the abstract space also
becomes a battleground for the locals who fight against SHP constructions. Fernandes' insights on the defence of
immaterial territories provide a guide to the analysis of this contention. He adds that contestation over immaterial
territories is characterized by the formulation and defence of concepts, theories, paradigms, and explanations.
The analysis of the anti-SHP struggle of Arhavi enables us to grasp the relationship between the societal and
economic transformation of the localities, how the spaces are constructed through changes in the production and
regimes of accumulation, the socio-economic meaning of the land as well as the transformation of the people and
their agency in relation to particular spaces. Another significant aspect that is worthy of attention is how the
abstraction of space helps protestors, mostly those who live in the cities, to reimagine the villages from which they
came through symbols and authenticization. Moreover, collective mobilization contributes to the abstraction,
re-invention, and reconstruction of such spaces, and it is simultaneously strengthened by those strategies.
The case of the anti-SHP struggle in Arhavi provides a rich repertoire from which to analyse a struggle over
immaterial territories. Symbols and defence concepts were abundantly used during the struggle. Like the
personification of the river and making it an active part of the struggle through remembering, memory, culture, and
traditions appear as key elements in the construction of symbols and defence concepts. One example of this
phenomenon is the rediscovery of local-historical particularities and their intensive use in the discourse and
organization of the resistance to create a common attachment to the locality of origin together with a distinct
regional identity. I believe this process can be evaluated under the concept of the re-invention of tradition
(Hobsbawm & Ranger, 2012).
The rediscovery of local histories can be understood as a re-invention of tradition because the agents who
became urbanized and migrated to the big cities and became the middle classes are, as they say, cleaning the dust
off local traditions and symbols. This effort does not occur as a mere resistance strategy but as part of the identity
construction through which the protestors re-establish a link with their locality. Through this process, they are also
able to mobilize others from the locality as well as the broader public around the same cause.
As an example, the yellow scarf (sarı yazma) emerged as the iconic symbol of the anti-SHP resistance in the Loç
Valley, another site of strong struggle in the region. The yellow scarf, that is, the traditional cloth for the women of
the region, was first re-constructed as the symbol of resistance; thereafter, it was intensively used in flyers, banners,
and other propaganda material. A similar phenomenon is observable in the anti-SHP struggle of Arhavi. Urbanized
258 KAVAK
middle-class actors active in the resistance re-invented a symbol for their propaganda to emphasize a common
history, background, and attachment to a particular geography. The symbol found by the protestors of Arhavi was
the hawk (atmaca) because training hawks for hunting used to be an important cultural practice in Arhavi.
In time, the symbol of the hawk became widespread. Apart from the masks and the mascot of the resistance, it
began to constitute an identity not only for the protestors but also for the people of Arhavi. The name of the resistance
collective has changed to the Hawks of Arhavi, Arhavili Atmacalar, and social media pages, profile photos, and screen
savers are dominated by photos of hawks. The women of ADOKOP, the Arhavi platform for the protection of nature,
named themselves the Female Hawks (Kadın Atmacalar), and the image began to appear in national and local media.
There were no more than 10 women who struggled against the SHP. One member of the group is a journalist,
and another is a financial advisor, both of whom live in Istanbul. Some of the others live in the Arhavi town centre,
and some returned to their village after working in other cities. The hawk went beyond being simply a defence
symbol; it became an identity, especially for the urbanized middle classes in the region.
The symbol of the hawk appears as a pivot of reinvention of tradition and hence identity formation. It is
important to recognize that the abstraction and re-invention of tradition and the construction of local
micro-identities emerge in a particular fashion. What is even more striking is the staging of this very re-invented
identity in a carnivalesque manner, in an estheticized form of dissent (Tugal, 2015).
A similar tendency is observable in Borçka but in a very subtle and discrete manner. Because there is not a
strong, widespread, and well-established mobilization, only the traces of abstraction and re-invention of local identity
are observable among the few people who oppose the SHP. Aralık is a village inhabited by Turkish citizens of
Georgian origin. The Georgian name of the village is Klaskur. A leading figure of the resistance states, “We made a
referendum to change the name of our village back to Klaskur. When I tell this to some of the villagers, they ask ‘isn't
it already Klaskur, why do you care?’” This exchange demonstrates that nostalgia and the quest for local identity have
poor resonance among the greater public.
başı, a completely different pattern is observed. Like the direct and use-value-based approach to water
In Bag
framing of stream versus water, the abstract construction of space and the building of a resistance discourse on
local-cultural specificity did not occur. I did not identify any specific cultural or traditional reference or any framing,
any slogan, or any banner except for the one slapped onto a piece of wood in red paint that read, “No SHP.”
The resistance is limited to actual physical resistance by peasants sitting in front of a caterpillar and staging a
months-long sit-down strike in addition to the legal struggle in which they sued the company for the violation of
başı suffered
environmental impact assessment regulations. As explained in the previous section, the villagers of Bag
from imprisonment and systematic criminalization. The abstraction and re-invention of identity are not cases in the
subsistence farming villages where the rural livelihoods were not disrupted through commercialization.
5.2 | Coalition-building and organizational structure
başı emerges in the ways in

Finally, another major difference between the strong mobilizations in Arhavi and Bag
which the protestors form alliances and seek solidarity among the larger public. Not surprisingly, the protestors in
Arhavi could manage to establish broader alliances with different ecological organizations, foundations, and
başı found support from a political party.
associations, whereas the protestors in Bag
In Arhavi, the impact of the city-link of the protestors and the class position they attained in the city contributed
to the differentiation in organizational patterns. Primarily, the protestors became organized on grassroots resistance
platforms. The platform in Arhavi is called ADOKOP. In the Black Sea region, similar resistance platforms are
abundant. The most well known is the Platform of the Fraternity of Rivers, which is an ensemble of a myriad of local
resistance platforms, predominantly from the Black Sea region. According to some predominant figures of the
platform, the main premise of the Platform of the Fraternity of the Rivers is to be “above-politics”, and they strongly
object to involvement in party politics of any sort.
KAVAK
TABLE 2 Summary of research results
Layer I Crop Layer II Migration

Regime and viability Layer III Abstraction Mobilizing factor
Arhavi (non-irrigated & Cash crop Outmigration but Strong abstraction no threat to Abstraction (identity formation)
strong mobilization) production viable livelihood
(tea)
Borçka (non-irrigated & Cash crop Outmigration, Abstraction attempts but no Weak mobilization (co-opted by the company through land
weak mobilization) production non-viable response from the villagers purchases and temporary jobs)
(tea)
Bag
başı (Arid, strong Subsistence Viable No abstraction Interest (strong mobilization due to livelihood threat)
mobilization)
Pehlivanlı (Arid & weak Subsistence Viable No abstraction No livelihood threat, no mobilization (company ensured docility
mobilization) by providing jobs and land purchases)
259
260 KAVAK
The second one is the Black Sea in Revolt, a city-based organization of young activists of Black Sea origin, the
second and/or third generation of migrants from the Black Sea region. The platform supports local resistance by
organizing demonstrations, events, and protests in cities, mostly in Istanbul. They can be described as a mediator
between the local resistance and other ecologists in Turkey. They organize trips to construction sites and arrange
camps to make local cultures known and to revive local traditions. ADOKOP has links with both organizations.
Activists from both are active in the struggle in Arhavi.
In addition to the ecologist organizations, resistance in Arhavi has organic links with the townsmenship
organizations that are active in Istanbul and Ankara. The Association of Arhavilites in both cities, the Association of
Businessmen from Arhavi, and the Foundations of Arhavilites are integral components of the resistance. These
organizations arrange demonstrations and solidarity events in both Arhavi and the cities Ankara and Istanbul in
başı. The resistance in Ba
general. However, a completely different pattern is observable in Bag gbaşı does not have
any such links with ecological organizations, nor with their townsmen organizations in the cities. In fact, there is no
başı. The indifference of the political parties, especially the
quest for civil society solidarity among the villagers of Bag
ruling party, the AKP, is of people's concern. They insistently state that the government does not pay attention to
their demands. The new middle-class aspects of the active protestors have enabled broader alliances with
environmental organizations and other active groups.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N
The divergent transformations of the localities under scrutiny are outlined in Table 2. The material transformation of
the localities was triggered by differentiated commercialization patterns. Early commercialization of production in
the Black Sea region brought about an early disruption of livelihoods. However, the disruption does not occur in a
uniform manner. The villagers of the coastal and more fertile Arhavi benefited more from a state-supported tea
economy than the less fertile inner-lands of Borçka, which affected household accumulation and upward mobility
başı and Pehlivanlı have
trajectories in the cities. Nevertheless, to date, sustainable peasant livelihoods in Bag
survived through subsistence farming. The village continued to be a viable space; however, it was inhabited by
lower-class peasant households dependent on on-farm income as the major source of livelihood.
Hence, a class differentiation has emerged due to the commercialization of agriculture, which ultimately affects
politicization and mobilization patterns. The mobilization in Arhavi shows the characteristics of middle-class activism,
defined by broader alliances, intense social media use, the aestheticization of traditions, and new carnivalesque forms
of resistance (Tugal, 2015). In Arhavi, the resistance takes an environmental stance. The re-invention of tradition and
a longing for authenticity appeals to second- and third-generation city youth. Moreover, I also suggest that fights
over immaterial territories do not occur in a uniform manner. They are intrinsically linked with the uneven
transformation of the spaces and the class structures that were brought about by these uneven transformations.
Analysing the mobilization patterns in Ba
gbaşı and Arhavi in a comparative perspective facilitates this differentiation.
The major line of rupture in these two types of local struggle is in the utilization of immaterial territories. The
urbanized, upwardly mobile agency—possibly new middle class—in Arhavi manages to fight vigorously over the
başı, no type of abstraction, re-invention of tradition, or quest for a distinct local identity
immaterial territory; in Bag
is observable. The resistance is framed within the terms of interest and for the sustainability of the local economy
and household sustainability.
Although the mobilization emerges as a reaction to the same factor, the SHP, the course of the mobilization,
with its discourses and patterns and fight over material and immaterial territories demonstrate divergent modes, and
the roots of this divergence lie in the uneven transformation of the localities that bring about an uneven class
structure. It is the comparison that enables us to observe this very differentiation.
As elaborated, peasants are affected by changes in livelihood formations, global production, and accumulation
regimes as well as domestic socio-economic resettlements. Peasants respond to these changes in a dynamic, plural,
KAVAK 261
and uneven manner that resists easy categorization. Pluriactivity, circular migration, urbanization, and new rurality
are manifestations of broader historical-structural changes and the plurality of “peasant” agency. I argue that the
historical-structural transformation of the localities that place rural settings in different positions in terms of
production and consumption activities has an impact on the patterns, discourses, agency, and class in the
contemporary “rural” mobilizations. The effort to disentangle the complex matrix of threads between these
categories can facilitate our understanding of the complex forms of rural transformation and peasant mobilizations in
the neoliberal era. This vision is helpful in integrating a class dimension to the analysis of the emergence of spaces
and, more importantly, the relationships of these emergent spaces to broader political economic structures.
A distinction between localities, formal representations, and everyday lives is important in grasping the facets of
transformation and people's differentiated susceptibilities and efforts to make change meaningful. A multilayered
relational methodology is indispensable for such inquiry, and this methodology must aim at revealing the links among
everyday lives, historical structures, and global forces. A focus on everyday life in the context of globalization would
not only be incomplete but also deceptive if it were not relationally connected to the broader historical structures
and spatialities that emerge therefrom.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
I would like to thank Mine Eder, Benoit Bastard, Nicole Kerschen, Şevket Pamuk, Verda _Irtiş, Hakan Yılmaz, and Jean
François Pérouse for their invaluable contributions in this research. I would also like to thank editors of Journal of
Agrarian Change and three anonymous reviewers for their time, helpful comments, and suggestions.
ORCID
Sinem Kavak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-9438
RE FE R ENC E S
Akbulut, B. (2014). Neither poor nor rich but “malcontent”: An anotomy of contemporary environmentalisms. Siyasal Bilimler
Dergisi, 2(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.14782/SBD.201416298
Arıcı, F., & Karakuzulu, Z. (2012). Yükseltinin ekonomik faaliyetler üzerindeki etkisi: Bag başı ve Serdarlı örneg i
(Tortum-Erzurum). The Journal of International Social Research, 5(23), 33–44.
Assies, W. (2003). David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: Water Rights, Neoliberalism, and the Revival of Social Protest in
Bolivia. Latin American Perspectives, 30(3), 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X03030003003
Bakker, K. (2007). The ‘commons’ versus the ‘commodity’: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to
water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x
Bebbington, A. (2000). Reencountering development: Livelihood transitions and place transformations in the Andes. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 90(3), 495–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00206
Bebbington, A. (2007). Mineria, movimientos sociales y respuestas campesinas: Una ecologia politica de transformaciones
territoriales. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Beller-Hann, I., & Hann, C. (2000). Turkish Region: State, Market & Social Identities on the East Black Sea Coast. Oxford: Santa
Fe, N.M: School of American Research Press.
Bezner Kerr, R. (2007). The land is changing: Contested agricultural narratives in Northern Malawi. In P. McMichael (Ed.),
Contesting Development: Critical Struggles for Social Change (pp. 98–115). Florence: Routledge.
Brass, T. (2000). Peasants, populism and postmodernism: The return of the agrarian myth. In London. Portland, OR:
Routledge.
Brass, T. (2012). Moral economists, subalterns, new social movements and (re-) emergence of a (post-) modernized (middle)
peasant. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial (Mappings Series). Verso: Books.
Collier, G. A., & Quaratiello, E. L. (2005). Basta!: Land and the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas. Oakland, Calif: Food First Books.
Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30,
285–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.285
Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics,
51(2), 289–302.
Erensu, S. (2011). Problematizing green energy: Small hydro plant developments in Turkey. ESEE 2011 Conference, Istanbul,
14–18. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/31024000/esee2011_c36142_1_1307137792_1401_
2288.pdf
262 KAVAK
Erensu, S. (2013). Abundance and scarcity amidst the crisis of ‘modern water’: The changing water-energy nexus in Turkey.
In Contemporary water governance in the global South: Scarcity, marketization and participation (pp. 61–78). Taylor and
Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076361
Evans, N. J., & Ilbery, B. W. (1993). The pluriactivity, part-time farming, and farm diversification debate. Environment and
Planning A, 25(7), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1068/a250945
FAOSTAT. (2016). Crops production statistics page. Retrieved 9 July 2016, from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/
DesktopDefault.aspx? PageID=567#ancor
Fernandes, B. M. (2008a). Entrando nos territórios do Território. In Campesinato e Territórios em Disputa (pp. 273–302).
Express~ao Popular.
Fernandes, B. M. (2008b). Movimentos socioterritoriais no campo brasileiro: Contribuiç~ao para leitura geográfica dos movimentos
camponeses. In O Brasil, a América Latina eo mundo: Espacialidades contemporâneas (II) (pp. 385–404). Lamparina.
Fernandes, B. M. (2009). Sobre a tipologia de territórios. Territórios e Territorialidades: Teorias, Processos e Conflitos
(pp. 197–215). S~ao Paulo: Express~ao Popular.
Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural Space: Constructing a Three-fold Architecture. In Handbook of rural studies (pp. 44–62).
Hann, C. M. (1990). Second thoughts on smallholders: Tea production, the state, and social differentiation in the Rize region.
New Perspectives on Turkey, 4, 57–79. https://doi.org/10.15184/S0896634600000212
Harris, L. M., & Işlar, M. (2014). Neoliberalism, nature, and changing modalities of environmental governance in
contemporary Turkey. In Y. Atasoy (Ed.), Global Economic Crisis and the Politics of Diversity (pp. 52–78). https://doi.org/
10.1057/9781137293688_3
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (2012). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Işlar, M. (2012). Privatised hydropower development in Turkey: A case of water grabbing? Water Alternatives, 5, 376–391.
Kay, C. (2008). Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: A new rurality? Develop-
ment and Change, 39(6), 915–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x
Khagram, S. (2004). Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Water and Power. Cornell University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. 1st (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kuhlenbeck, B. (2010). Re-writing Spatiality: The Production of Space in the Pilbara Region in Western Australia. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Lucero, J. A. (2007). Indigenous political voice and the struggle for recognition in Ecuador and Bolivia. In A. Bebbington, A. Dani, A.
de Haan, & M. Walton (Eds.), Institutional Pathways to Equity: Addressing Inequality Traps. World Bank: Washington.
Mc Adam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (1997). Toward an integrated perspective on socail movements and revolution. In
Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMichael, P. (Ed.) (2010). Contesting development: Critical struggles for social change. Routledge.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present: Social movements and individual needs in Contemporary society. In P. Mier &
J. Keane (Eds.). London: Hutchinson Radius.
Olivera, O., & Lewis, T. (2004). Cochabamba!: Water War in Bolivia. South End Press.
Pamuk, Ş. (2012). Osmanlıdan Cumhuriyete Küreselleşme. _Iş Bankası Kültür Yayınları: _Iktisat Politikaları ve Büyüme.
Petras, J. (1997). Latin America: The resurgence of the left. New Left Review, 223, 17.
Petras, J. (2011). Social movements in Latin America: Neoliberalism and popular resistance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Saquet, M. A., & Sposito, E. S. (Eds.). (2009). Territórios e territorialidades: Teorias, processos e conflitos. Editora Express~ao Popular.
Rosset, P. M., & Martínez-Torres, M. E. (2012). Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory, and process.
Ecology and Society, 17(3).
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503
Scott, J. C. (1977). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
Smith, N. (2010). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. University of Georgia Press.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Madden: Blackwell Publishing.
Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: Reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso.
Tugal, C. (2015). Elusive revolt: The contradictory rise of middle-class politics. Thesis Eleven, 130(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0725513615602183
Vaughan, M. K. (1999). Cultural approaches to peasant politics in the Mexican revolution. The Hispanic American Historical
Review, 79(2), 269–307. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-79.2.269
Yavuz, Ş., & Şendeniz, Ö. (2013). HES direnişlerinde kadınların deneyimleri: Fındıklı örneg i. Fe Dergi, 1(5), 43–58.
How to cite this article: Kavak S. Rethinking the political economy of rural struggles in Turkey: Space,
structures, and altered agencies. J Agrar Change. 2021;21:242–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12389

Journal of Agrarian Change - 2020 - Kavak - Rethinking The Political Economy of Rural Struggles in Turkey Space - 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Agrarian Change - 2020 - Kavak - Rethinking The Political Economy of Rural Struggles in Turkey Space - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 22 May 2019 Revised: 8 June 2020 Accepted: 3 August 2020

Rethinking the political economy of rural struggles

Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University

242 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joac J Agrar Change. 2021;21:242–262.

material/immaterial territories, middle-class activism, rural

1.1 | Proliferation of river-type small hydropower plants and the struggle

TABLE 1 Two-by-two matrix of research cases

Stronger resistance Weaker resistance

1.2 | Method and case selection

• The need for irrigation for production;

1.3 | Non-irrigated cash crop-producing villages of Arhavi and Borçka

1.4 | başı and Pehlivanlı

başı and that made the villagers of

3.1 | Changing economic function of land in the non-irrigated context

4.1 | Differentiation in tea producing villages

4.2 | Viability in arid villages

başı and Pehlivanlı villages, subsistence farming continued rather

5 | LAYER III: DIFFERENTIATION OF AGENCY THROUGH ABSTRACTION

5.1 | Abstraction: Differentiation in discourses and symbols

5.2 | Coalition-building and organizational structure

başı emerges in the ways in

TABLE 2 Summary of research results

Layer I Crop Layer II Migration

You might also like