Extended Summary

The study claims that hazelnut production in Giresun is mainly possible through capitalism’s production of space, which could be grasped by examining not merely how the hazelnut production process is “reflected” on the space as the geography of hazelnuts as a passive and physically spatial approach, but how the space is “produced” with hazelnut labour. To make this mutual production process between hazelnut and space visible, the study will focus on the “permanent” and “temporary” spaces of the hazelnut production process. In this respect, it is crucial to reveal that the power holders are not the mere actors in the production of the space, but the worker produces and reproduces the space, by using and appropriating it with labour. After discussing the labour geography studies and the concept of spatial fix, the article elaborates on the agency of the worker in the production of space. Considering the scarcity of visual sociology studies, the methodology of the study will be discussed in a separate section to illustrate how photography can be used in a sociological study. The findings section will discuss the production of temporary and permanent spaces in relation to hazelnut production through photographs. The photographs are taken to answer the research question.

The geography of labour is defined as “the effort to see the economic geography of capitalism through the eyes of labour by understanding how workers shape space” (Herod, 1997), by emphasizing the active role of workers in this production and transformation. Although capital and the state control space and its production in the labour process, only workers can own space through their use (see Chaudhary, 2020; Herod, 2001 in Strauss, 2020), who are hazelnut labourers (petty producers, seasonal workers, workers working in hazelnut factories and workshops and haymakers) in the stages of production other than harvest (separating the hazelnut shell, laying, drying, crushing, roasting, processing).

In the context of labour geographies, the study refers to and elaborates on three spatial actors namely labour, capital and state. These three actors produce their “spatial fix”, which sometimes contradict each other for their own interests (Chaudhary, 2020). In the mainstream labour studies, while the workplace is generally considered as a physical container, a given environment, an unchanging architectural plan and building where the work takes place, it is often overlooked that the space is in fact a social production with its relationality in the process. “Labour space” is the space shaped and produced by labour and production process in the context of the agency of the worker and the interaction of capital and state (Chaudhary, 2020; Herod, 1997; Lier, 2007). Harvey (1981) states that the unlimited circulation of capital in new geographies is a necessity to overcome its inherent crises with the spatial fix and organization and to survive, and therefore capital has to expand to new geographies. Herod (1997; 2003), referring to and offering a critique to Lefebvre, has discussed the centrality of production of space for the reproduction of capital and capitalist relations. The production of space is significant not only for the accumulation and movement of capital, but also for the reproduction and survival strategies of workers but who are also active in this process. The “space with labour” in the labour geographies is almost essential and immanent to labour (see Castree, 2007; Herod, 2003). The state plays a role in the social organization of space, especially for reproduction, and the physical and social infrastructure.

The study would illustrate the flexibility of hazelnut spaces in the context of the needs of capital and workers, and the controversial role of the state in the production of space. Workers can collectively decide to stay close to where they work, and collectivize and appropriate the space for their social production, which is intertwined with production relations (Chaudhary, 2020). The labour geography literature focusing on the worker as an actor in the production of space does not discuss the occupation of public space. Although this study is not based on such an occupation and squatting, it would be appropriate to address this concept and related discussions that enable flexibility and temporality. The passive role of the state at this point appears as the legalization of the “temporary occupation” of the public space, which is defined as the meeting place of seasonal agricultural workers, in favour of capital. This production of space, which enables the production of hazelnuts, which are petty producers, is a form of use that is not based on an official permission and regulation of the state. The petty producer’s occupation of urban space to dry the hazelnuts at the same period every year depends on this flexibility and temporality of the spatial organization. They collectively decide to temporarily settle in a place close to where they work and organize, by collectivizing and appropriating the space. The seasonal agricultural workers set up their tents in the place determined by the Governorship and stay in the warehouses as the temporary spaces of the hazelnut labour force. The hazelnut greengrocers, considered as the permanent spatial continuation of temporary spaces in the hazelnut production process, are the suppliers who buy hazelnuts from the producer and sell them to exporters. The coastal sidewalk of Giresun turns into a hazelnut -production- space where the small producer occupies in order to dry, sort and sell the hazelnuts during the hazelnut harvest. Thus, the conceived space is transformed for the hazelnut labour process vis-à-vis the lived space that challenges the stability of the workplace.