This study examines the negative discourse encountered by Georgians engaged in circular labor migration from Georgia to Turkey for tea harvesting. Using interviews with local residents, news articles and media comments targeting Georgians, the study reveals the challenges Georgians face during their workdays and the processes surrounding their labor and field observations are also presented. Data were analyzed concerning the conceptual framework of discrimination and the processes of myth production. Furthermore, the reactions of Georgians to the processes are discussed using strategies and tactics. Thus, this study aims to uncover and address the discrimination and myths surrounding Georgians’ experiences in the tea market, their coping strategies, and the perpetuation of discrimination.

In its examination of structural discrimination (2012, p. 7), this study introduces the concept of “delegitimization” (Delegitimization), drawing inspiration from BarTal’s (1989) work on extreme stereotypes and discriminations, and combines this concept with myths. Oren and Bar-Tal (2007) examine this concept using Israel and Palestine as an example, indicating the reference to the negative aspects of groups subjected to discrimination by society. This can also emerge as dehumanization, highlighting the group’s negative characteristics and traits, stigmatizing them with political labels, and emphasizing their differences from morally superior groups. Additionally, it can be achieved by equating the group’s characteristics with those of a different negative group. Exclusion and discrimination are explained by Bar-Tal (1989, pp. 172–173) using five different conceptualizations. The first conceptualization is dehumanization, which classifies a group as subhuman and animal-like. A dehumanized group is pushed to the margins, while the dominant group assumes the authority to domesticate them. The second conceptualization is outcasting, which occurs when a group violates crucial social standards. The third conceptualization is trait characterization, which reduces those subjected to discrimination to parasitic, unstable, and unreliable traits. The fourth conceptualization is the use of political labels to brand the group. This conceptualization is not limited to labeling the group as fascist or communist but also involves the politicization of an individual’s country identity if it differs from the dominant group. Religious differences can also directly push the group into a political realm. Lastly, group comparison is achieved by aligning the group with another group disliked by the dominant society.

This study examines the discrimination against Georgians involved in circular labor migration from Georgia to Turkey for tea farming work within the framework of the aforementioned concepts. It also focuses on how myths and discrimination are created. To support these claims, this study emphasizes a field experience that includes participatory observation of the daily lives of Georgians. The study consists of three sections: the discrimination against Georgians and the myths created as well as their relationship with power dynamics, the field experience of participatory observation conducted with Georgians that is analyzed based on discrimination and myths, and lastly the conclusion.

Methodology

In 2017, approximately 2,438,000 people entered through the Georgia border crossing, with around 222,000 monthly entering through land routes, since those who come for tea farming prefer not to use sea or air. Thus, 2,349,554 people entered by land. Notably, the months of May, June, July, and August experienced the highest influx. During the summer, 1,082,803 people entered Georgia. Since Georgia fell under the category of countries with a “hidden population,” the exact number of people arriving for tea harvesting is unknown. While this study does not aim to generalize discrimination against the group, its aim is to address discrimination and uncover the group. Thus, this study is designed within the framework of interpretive and critical social science and focuses on discrimination against Georgians. The participants in the qualitative interviews naturally vary since discrimination is multidimensional and involves multiple actors. For this purpose, 48 qualitative interviews were conducted, which included seven intermediaries, three cultural memory carriers aged 70, six employers (all of whom are local participants and currently employers), one dental assistant, two pharmacists, one key informant from the Rize Migration Administration, one key informant involved in smuggling and crime prevention from the public security branch, the president of Rize Chamber of Commerce, one security officer and office manager at the Sarp Border Crossing, one journalist, one Georgian citizen married in Turkey, one imam from the city of Batumi, twelve Georgian workers, three Turkish students studying in Georgia (from Rize, Urfa, and Adıyaman), and six different categories of tradesmen. The interviews were recorded, analyzed, and subjected to descriptive and discourse analysis. In addition, discourse analysis was conducted with a focus on the representation and perception of Georgians in the media.

Conclusion

This study highlights the discrimination and myths endured by Georgians who engaged in labor mobility for tea farming in Turkey. While these challenges are specific to Georgians, they reflect broader processes experienced by migrants and indigenous populations as “others.” When Georgians and other groups are included in the labor process, they are dehumanized, pushed to the edges of society, reduced to a single identity, labeled with political tags, and all opposition actions are justified using group comparisons. This underlying process results in the ethnicization of labor through Georgians. The ethnicization of labor also facilitates the process of capturing the surplus value. Therefore, intermediaries, employers, factories, shopkeepers, and the entire process from the Sarp border gate to the tea gardens controlled Georgian labor. This process is related to the neoliberal policies implemented in both Georgia and Turkey. However, in Georgia, Turkish and Muslim groups are ethnically classified and included in the labor markets as cheap labor using specific forms of discrimination and myths. The reason why Georgians are excluded from the tea labor market is due to discrimination and myths, which are also related to demographic transformation, neoliberal policies, and historical background in Georgia and Turkey. Kurds, who can participate in hazelnut harvesting, cannot be included in the tea labor market. Aside from the ethnicization and feminization of seasonal agricultural labor among Kurds in Turkey, the tea region’s exclusionary view of Kurds prevents them from entering this market. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the tea region handled its labor needs from within its region. This labor was mostly in the form of family labor. Additionally, according to the local population, Kurdish workers were transported from prospective eastern provinces such as Ardahan, Kars, and Erzurum. However, since tea picking requires expertise, Kurds used their labor in activities like transportation, working at collection points, and factories rather than tea picking. It is possible to adapt the discrimination and myths generated against Georgians to the production of local seasonal agricultural labor.

Despite facing discrimination, Georgians have developed tactics to resist and negotiate these adverse conditions, myths, and labor exploitation. By mobilizing through their network adopting certain behaviors, and engaging in sharecropping activities, they strive to improve their working conditions and economic situation. Most Georgian workers are part of this principle. If Georgians perceive that their labor is being exploited, marginalized, or subjected to injustice, the information is quickly passed through their networks. Consequently, they engage in activities to increase the weight, such as checking the scales and recording the weight at tea collection points, including the woody sections by cutting the tea deeper, adding grass, soil, and stones in the tea bag, and soaking the tea bag in the stream if there is no supervisor at the garden. They also demonstrate their daily resistance by deliberately damaging the tea plants while walking, and due to the nature of their daily work, they can demand separate wages for transportation, collection, and sales activities, which were initially priced separately. In response to discrimination, Georgians express their names as Turkish–Muslim names to show their affiliation with Muslim communities coming from Georgia. Some even hide tattoos having the shape of a cross and conceal their necklaces. These tactics are not only directed to intermediaries but also to employers. They include tactics such as compelling their employer to buy them cigarettes, quitting their jobs, slowing down their work pace, and even claiming to be sick and unable to work. In some cases, these tactics are directed at shopkeepers. They can obtain little items without paying if they have no option and believe they are being overcharged for a product simply because they are Georgian. When confronted by the police, some Georgians, due to the lack of adequate documentation, pretend not to know Turkish despite being fluent in it, and sometimes they pretend to be locals based on their Turkish language skills. In addition to evading all these forms of discrimination and myths, they engage in sharecropping activities to improve their economic income.

Georgians that participate in labor mobility for tea farming from Georgia to Turkey have experienced various forms of discrimination in their target regions. This discrimination is replicated under certain conditions, as detailed in the section above concerning their daily life. Despite this, Georgians have developed tactics against this discrimination and myths, engaging in negotiation and redefining work tactics and strategies. We hope that the processes and structures examined in this study will help in understanding other groups in a different labor market. Thus, understanding these processes is crucial to comprehend the dynamics in labor markets and capitalism, and the ever-changing positions of various groups within the local and national labor markets.