A People In-Between: Examining Indicators of Collective Identity among Georgian Azeri-Turks

Abstract

Georgian Azeri-Turks are a people in-between—in between the nation-building policies of the Georgian and Azerbaijani states, caught in the crosshairs of either state’s official narratives concerning the historical boundaries of the ‘homeland’, and ‘in-between’ in a literal sense due to their concentration in the border region of Kvemo Kartli. This study examines the dynamics of identity formation among the Georgian Azeri-Turks of Kvemo Kartli and endeavours to answer the following question: Are individuals’ responses pertaining to both inter- and intra-group membership indicative of a collective identity? While many participants in this study share markers of a so-called ‘traditional’ Azerbaijani identity, most of the same individuals associate their pasts, presents, and futures with the territorial state of Georgia—not with Azerbaijan. Attachment to Georgian territories is a powerful component of a collective identity among survey participants that differentiates this identity from that which is officially propagated in neighbouring Azerbaijan.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on previous drafts of this article.

Notes

1 Minority groups’ percentage of the overall population of Georgia has fallen in recent years, however—from 16% in 2002 to 11% in 2014 (cf. GEOSTAT, 2002, 2016). For more on this issue, see Democracy & Freedom Watch (2016).

2 In this study, I use the term ‘Georgian Azeri-Turk’ to reflect current debates within the community in question regarding its collective namesake. The qualifier of ‘Georgian’ here makes explicit reference to the relationship between the people in question and the Georgian territorial state by virtue of citizenship and long-term residence. ‘Azeri’ here is used in reference to the socio-cultural, linguistic, and spiritual affinities between the collective in question and the titular people of Azerbaijan and distinguishes between them on bases of citizenship and residence. ‘Turk’ here is used as a distancing device that draws attention to the historical presence of Turkic tribes in the region and problematizes the arbitrary application of the label of ‘Azerbaijani’ to the group in question.

3 This viewpoint was expressed by Georgian Azeri-Turk high school students during an incident in Marneuli in May of 2017 and was subsequently rebuked by a Georgian history teacher. The teacher, who made derogatory remarks concerning students’ ancestry, was fired following the circulation of a video of the incident on social media. Azerbaijani- and Georgian-language articles covering the incident in local media outlets (including, for example, MarneuliFM, an internet and radio news outlet) were removed within a day or two of publication.

4 Email communication with Ms. Donora Rukhadze of Georgia’s Office of National Statistics (GEOSTAT), 17 January 2017.

5 Unpublished interview with Zaur Khalilov of Civic Integration Foundation, Tbilisi, September 2016. See also CIPDD (2006), Democracy & Freedom Watch (2018), and Storm (2016).

6 Unpublished interviews with: Huseyn Yusubov (Congress of Georgian Azerbaijanis) and Sabina Talibova (Public Union ‘Mtredi’), Alibala Askerov (‘Geyrat’ National Movement). Marneuli, September 2016.

7 Kvemo Kartli’s official rate of unemployment is lower than the national average (8.6% compared to 11.8% in 2016 as per GEOSTAT, n.d.), but these figures are misleading. The vast majority (90%) of the workforce of eastern Georgia is engaged in agriculture, of which 73% are engaged in subsistence agriculture and are considered ‘self-employed’ (cf. MRDI, 2016).

8 Unpublished interview with Leila Suleimanova of the Union of Azerbaijani Women of Georgia. Marneuli, February 2016. See also Peinhopf (2014).

9 Participants were given the choice to fill out either an Azerbaijani or Russian language survey. The author’s own skills in Azerbaijani and Russian were combined with those of native speakers to ensure quality translations of survey materials and data. Please note that, while students aged 17 years and older and teachers were the primary targets of this aspect of the study, a number of students between the ages of 14–16 returned questionnaires as well. Given that the students of this age group filled out the questionnaires at their own volition either at school or while attending classes at various cultural/educational centers in Kvemo Kartli, the inclusion of their questionnaires did not present an ethical obstacle for this study. The study complies with the guidelines set forth by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, or TENK (2009 and 2012). Please see the following guidelines for more information: Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) (2009). Ethical Principles of Research in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences and Proposals for Ethical Review. Available at: https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf; Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) (2012). Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland. Available at: https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf.

10 FW1 questionnaires consisted of 6 pages and 61 questions; FW2 questionnaires consisted of 6 pages and 54 questions.

11 The distribution of surveys in different districts, villages, and schools from one fieldwork period to the next helped to ensure that the same individual would not complete more than one survey. Additionally, individuals helping to distribute surveys were asked to distribute materials only to those who had not yet participated in the study.

12 FW1 respondents were asked, ‘Do you believe that the Georgian government cares about its Azeri[-Turkic] population? Why or why not?’, to which 66.5% said ‘Yes’, 18% said ‘No’, and 15.5% declined to answer. FW2 respondents were asked to use the 1–5 scale in response to the statement, ‘The Georgian government cares about its Azeri population’. Approximately 81% agreed, 4% disagreed, 8% were neutral, and 7% declined to respond.

13 The FW1 responses to the question, ‘Do you believe that your children could have a positive future in Georgia? Why or why not?’ go as follows: approximately 75% ‘Yes’, 11% ‘No’, and 13% unanswered. FW2 respondents used the Likert Scale to respond to the statement, ‘I believe that my children could have a good future in Georgia’, wherein 75% agreed, 8% disagreed, 7% were neutral, and around 10% decided not to answer.

14 Two historians from Tbilisi State University also expressed this viewpoint with the author in an unpublished interview Tbilisi in October of 2016.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Saastamoinen Foundation.