Department of Social Anthropology Author: Georgios Serntedakis
MSc Cultural and Social Anthropology Supervisor: Katerina Rozakou
2016
[EXPERIMENTS OF
SOLIDARITY]
Abstract
This thesis discusses the cases of social responses to the refugee crisis occurred the summer of 2015, in Greece. It focuses on solidarity initiatives in Athens and Lesvos. It also addresses the broader picture of the current solidarity movement that emerged during the Greek economic crisis, explaining how participants in these grassroots movements extend their activities further than covering the basic needs of the refugees, beginning to imagine other ways, than the dominant, of organising their lives. I explore their efforts to respond to the ongoing, population movement that occurred during the summer of 2015. I argue that the actions and practices adopted by the solidarians do not exclusively aim to help the newcomers but also contribute to put in action their ideas and imaginaries about society, social and political relations.
Keywords: Refugee Crisis, solidarity initiatives, social movements, gift giving, solidarity, collective action, borders, humanitarianism, volunteerism.
Contents
Introduction ... 4
Greece and Crisis ... 4
Humanitarianism ... 7
Solidarity ... 9
“Refugee Crisis” ... 12
Self-reflection ... 17
Methodology, Research Question and Operationalization ... 19
Research question and sub questions ... 21
Structure ... 21
Chapter 2 ... 22
Solidarity Initiative with the Refugees at Pedion of Areos ... 22
The initiative ... 24
Solidarity in actions ... 27
Beyond “need” ... 28
Alienation and the community ... 31
Chapter 2 ... 33
The Village of All Together ... 34
Kara Tepe camp ... 41
Aggalia – The Hug ... 45
The Port ... 49
CHAPTER 3 ... 53
The Other Human ... 53
Social Kitchen ... 57
Conclusion ... 66
Bibliography ... 69
Introduction
Greece and Crisis
The consequences of the economic crisis in Greece have been appalling and emanated from the austerity measures implemented from 2010 and onwards. It was that year that the first memorandum was singed between Greece and the so called “troika” (European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund), a loan agreement caused by the inability of Greece soaring its public dept. The memorandum was accompanied with streaked austerity measures that violently improvised the Greek society.
During the following years, thousands of people lost their jobs, saw their salaries and pensions reduced – sometimes even more than 50% - and the younger members of the society were, in the best case, precariously employed. The first memorandum is followed by a second one at 2012 affecting more this time the employees of the public sector. The austerity measures implemented had dramatic consequences on people’s lives, whose economic status changed in a very short period of time. During the year of 2012, according to the European Commission 19% of the population was living under conditions of extreme poverty while a 35% of the population was facing the same risks. The combination of unemployment, cuts on salaries and pensions, raised income taxes caused curtail on social citizenship rights, such as healthcare, water and electricity access, food and housing. As the crisis evolved further, Greeks couldn’t rely – for a decent living- either on their wages or the welfare state. (Sotiropoulos, Bourikos, 2014)
In this context, during the years of crisis, hundreds of solidarity groups, networks and initiatives emerge. These initiatives- networks cover a
variety of fields and needs, focusing thought mainly to the basic needs of people. Soup kitchens, solidarity kitchens, social clinics, anti-middleman networks, exchange and time banks, initiatives providing shelter and social schools are some of the networks that can someone trace even with an internet search. The reason for this “rise” can be traced at the withdrawal of the welfare state, described above. In addition to these, the economic crisis and the austerity measures affect the political sphere. The whole political scene is transformed and re-arranged, during these years, mainly because of the increasing distrust that people saw to politicians, political parties and in general to the “political”. This distrust is not only expressed with demonstrations, sit-ins, movement such as “the indignants” but also with a rise of the idea of “the social”. A “social” that expands, covers and “embraces diverse activities and forms of public sociality and delineates spheres of disinterestedness, solidarity and subversion to the state” (Rozakou 2016). In other words, the discredited sphere of politic is replaced from a discourse that gives precedence to all kinds of actions and activities that promote the social.
In the context of this research solidarity and volunteerism are approached as practices of disinterest offers, as aspect of what Sahlins define as “generalized reciprocity” (Sahlins 1974). However, the anthropological discussions about the gift and the gift-giving have as a basis and starting point Marcel’s Mauss book “The Gift”. In those terms, solidarity and volunteering can be seen as aspects of the discussion about the gift. In the anthropological literature, when it comes to subjects such as solidarity, charity and volunteerism, the idea of reciprocity, which stems from Marcel Mauss work, plays a crucial role. At The Gift, Mauss approaches gift-giving as a total, social phenomenon, which sums-up different aspects of the social life. A gift that in its connotations is perceived as
free but in practice it includes three obligatory phases that are consisted of give, accept, reciprocate (Mauss 1979). These ideas about gift giving and more specific, reciprocity, had influenced several anthropologists. Parry, reflecting upon debates about reciprocity, comments on the “ideologies of the pure gift”, claiming that concerns about the gift stem from the way western societies form their thought. However, phenomena such as the “pure gift” or the gifts that does not include reciprocity are discussed in the field of social sciences. Godelier, claims that the gift is excluded from the market sphere, as it enables imaginaries of solidarity and becomes a “vector of an utopia” (Godelier 1999). On the other hand, researchers as Bourdieu and Parry, seek to find what exists or is created behind the gift giving actions. For Bourdieu (2000), selfless actions does not exist and under that prism he explains one way offers as an attempt of gaining symbolic capital. Practices and ideas of “generosity” that overpass the exchanges code and do not include reciprocity are approached as tactics employed in order to maintain the symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1997). In addition, Godelier, emphasizes the unequal relations and the hierarchies produced by gift-giving actions (Godelier 1999). This research, even though is though-out focusing into gift-giving actions, does not implicate with the debates about the “pure gift” but focuses on the “ideologies of the gift” (Parry 1986). However, ideologies and ideas steaming from gift-giving actions are taken under consideration as actions that play a fundamental role on the formation of the ideas and actions of the researched initiatives.
Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism is another concept that has relevance to the theoretical dimensions of this research. Humanitarianism, as Tiktin (2014) claims, is something that it cannot be easily defined since it includes different stances, ideas and consepts which go through the personal, social and scientific sphere. In a more common definition humanitarianism is seen as an action of “doing good”, idea that is directly connected with the improvement of different aspects of human life (Tiktin 2014). Its contemporary formation, for some researchers is combined with the rise of capitalism (Haskell 1992, Tsing 2000) and it gives a lead to concepts of suffering and more specifically to “distant suffering” (Boltanski 1999). In this research, I am going to take into account studies about humanitarianism, conducted after 1980, a period of time where humanitarianism was formatted by NGOs as a political project (Tiktin 2014). This idea goes beyond theories that treat humanitarianism as a subfield of other studies (law, medicine, development) and consider it as a clear field or at least a clear object of study. In that terms, plenty of contemporary anthropologists entered debates concerning the usage of humanitarianism both as a term and as a field of study. Some researchers (Abramowitz & Panter-Brick 2015, Bourgois &Schinberg 2009), claimed that humanitarians and anthropologists should work together geared towards understand and relief. Whereas, others not only criticize humanitarianism but also propose that it should be abandoned or dismantled. The main idea that seems to motivate this criticism is that an analysis made with the analytical tools of humanitarianism often depoliticize or de-historicizing the events (Barnett &Weiss 2008, Calhoun 2008, Rieff 2002). Fassin (2011), using Plato’s cave allegory emphasizes on how anthropology should understand and approach
humanitarianism in order to be able to understand better the unintended and untraceable effects of a humanitarian intervention.
In the theoretical framework used in this research, humanitarianism is approached both as a discourse and practices introduced by various agents, NGOs and international organizations that operated in the island of Lesvos, in the summer of 2015, during the times of the refugee crisis. This discourse and practices entails these depoliticized characteristics mentioned above and an approach which understands humanitarian aid as the only possible response to a crisis. NGOs and other agents operating in the context described, putted in action an interpretation of humanitarianism that associates with the idea of “doing good”. For them, in his particular context, “doing good” is translated into actions that aim the relief of the newcomers on the island. Practices of aid and relief that were accomplished with the mediation of material goods (food, clothing) and services (health aid). However, as it is explained through the chapters of this thesis, these ideas and practices are strongly criticised by the members of the initiatives I followed, people who claim to do solidarity and be in solidarity with the refugees.
Solidarity
The notion of solidarity is ambiguous and can also be categorized as a concept for which there are almost as many definitions as theorists who analyze it. Commenting on this ambiguity Kurt Bayertz (1998) writes:
The phenomenon of solidarity lies like an erratic block of stone in the moral landscape of modernity. Its routine use is well-established, but nevertheless it remains something of a foreign body. Because of its range and importance it is immense, and at the same time unapproachable. The geologists in this landscape – the modern moral philosophers – have taken it for granted now and then, but on the whole they have simply found ways of getting round it: they were certainly unable to do anything to remove this block. However this has not prevented the concept of solidarity from being frequently and routinely employed politically. In fact its nebulous theoretical status has possibly even supported its popularity: indeed, the more nebulous its assumptions and implications, the more casually it appears to be used.
This is only one of a variety of definitions that one can find for the term “solidarity.” The definition by Bayertz stresses the nebulous status of the term and the slippery meaning that it can obtain. In the last few years, especially during the economic crisis in Greece, one can easily track a rise of the use of the term from different agents (Rakopoulos 2014) For instance, at the same period of time statements of EU officials and grassroots movements were both referring to solidarity as a way of dealing with the economic crisis and the ongoing situation in Greece, even though both of them framed the term with completely different meanings.
For the purposes of this research I am going to refer to some definitions and theories that frame the term “solidarity” and are closer to my insights, even though in the end I am going to justify and suggest a different approach of the term. Scholz, recognizing the complexity of the term, categorizes three main types of solidarity: the social, the civic and the political. These types are broad and sometimes overlap. Scholz decides to focus more on the third type of solidarity, which is approached as an element that mediates between the community and the individual, blending elements from both (Scholz 2008: 34). Political solidarity highlights the collective action and the group responsibility and arises in response to situations of injustice and oppression, as a conscious commitment that the individuals make when joining the struggle against the situations of injustice. However, according to her, motivations behind the actions of the individuals vary and differ from the sphere of politics, including feelings such as anger, hope, sympathy, fear, self-interest and others (Scholz: 51). Kolers has as a starting point in his analysis the individualistic stances that frame the idea of equality in the everyday life of people. Elaborating further this idea he suggests that political solidarity is more of a principle pointing out how people should treat each other and especially those who suffer (Kolers 2012). In his analysis, the idea of equality plays a central role and most of the times it is the basic motivation behind people’s actions. In addition, in his article Kolers argues about the distinctive characteristic of solidarity connecting it with collective action and undifferentiated group of people that act together based on their decisions. He emphasises the decision making process that leads to an outcome put in action by all of the members of the group, even if they have disagreed with it. Kavoulakos and Gritzas (2015), referring to the collective characteristics this decision making processes obtain and connecting them with the functions of the initiatives, comment on the
crafting procedure of cultural criticism. For them, these networks and initiatives adopt a cultural criticism that refers to the way that the life of people is formed and organised, the values and standards of the society and the social and economic situation. Through this criticism, an alternative discourse rises, placing humans and their needs at the centre of interest and profiling a different future. People thus seek another way of living at the present, changing the dominant paradigm (Kavoulakos, Gritzas: 2015).
As it is stated above, solidarity as a keyword is used by various agents and obtains different meanings according to the context in which it is used (Rakopoulos 2014). However, if analysed only from a discourse perspective, meanings become blurry and difficult to grasp. In this thesis, I will try to approach solidarity and define it as a set of practices and ideas that are put into action by the members of the initiatives I studied. I try to conceptualise solidarity by placing it within the practices and the material actions in which it is embedded. In addition to this, I try to locate the term in the everyday lives of my informants at a period of time where solidarity is not only seen as a material reality but also as a claim.
“Refugee Crisis”
A lot has been written, at least in the last months about the terms migrant, refugee and newcomer, since the outbreak of the “refugee crisis”. The term “refugee” is legally defined by the 1951 Geneva Convention. This document adopts a specific and rather narrow definition of the “refugee” as: “someone with a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion” (Geneva Convention 1951). This means that according to the above definition someone fleeing from an area that is under conditions of extreme poverty, for example, cannot be recognized as a refugee. Many of the people who arrived during the summer of 2015 to Europe match the criteria provided by the above definition, since they left warzones such as Syria. However, they do not do this journey on groups that are ethnically divided, meaning that people from a lot of different areas and nationalities, different backgrounds and motivations joined this massive population move. People crossed borders in mixed groups, often with people that did not match the criteria, since they hadn’t left officially
defined warzones, seeking ways of survival in European countries. During this summer characterized by the risen flow of people, the interest shifted from the numbers, the people, their stories and the conditions they faced before and after their arrival to a discussion about their status trying to define whether they are “migrants” or “refugees”. However, in my perception both terms are insufficient to describe the state and the status of these people. Both imply a situation of protection that is determined and given depending on the status that the newcomers have. Refugees, in these terms, are seen as “more deserving help” and “protection” since they “flee” a place that is officially described as a warzone and their lives are in direct danger. On the other hand, migrants are seen as people coming to Europe, not because of war or a disaster but just as people seeking a “better life” in economic terms. Migrants are often described as a threat since they are represented “flooding” in waves that are liken as something that cannot be stopped. In these terms the people coming in “waves” are people that should be less welcomed or not welcomed at all, since the motivations behind their movement are believed to be economical. An approach following these ideas can also easily justify the closure of the borders and the constructions of fences in order to keep “migrants” out of the countries while welcoming the “refugees”. Because of this kind of segregation, the term “refugee” is connected with a state of need and representations that typifies them as weak, unable people that have no agency. In addition to the above, the European Union has based its new policies, dealing with irregular migration, on that segregation between migrants and refugees.
This massive displacement of population that occurred during the summer of 2015 and is still going up to this day, transformed, overpassed and reshaped the European external and internal borders. As a response to
this situation, the European Union has adopted new policies that were founded on this distinction between migrants and refugees1. European Commission, launched during the summer the European Relocation Program, a program based on the distinction between migrants and refugees. During the registration process hold at Hotspots at the entry points, people with nationalities that have a recognition rate of international protection more than 75% are characterised as refugees and can seek asylum to other countries of the EU. The rest that does not fall into this category are characterised as migrants and for them it is prescribed, to “return” to their countries, or in other words to get deported. In this new framework in the making, “refugees” are welcomed, meaning that they are allowed to pass through borders and fences. On the other hand, people categorized as “migrants” are not entitled to papers that allow their movement to their chosen destinations something that makes them deportable aliens.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/irregular-migration-return-policy/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/2_hotspots_en.pdf 14 | P a g e
By the end of June, time that I went to the island of Lesvos, the so called “refugee crisis” was a normality especially for the citizens of the islands close to the Turkish shores. The numbers of the newcomers grew day by day. According to the Greek Police and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), by the end of June, almost a quarter of a million refugees have arrived in Europe, and from those more than half arrived in Greece, primarily at the islands of Lesvos, Chios, Kos and Samos. After the administrative procedures at the entrance points, the vast majority of them decide not to apply for asylum in Greece but to continue their journey to western and economically wealthier countries of Europe, such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and others. Practically, this meant that all of them first had to go to Athens seeking for a trafficker to help their way to Thessaloniki and from there to the borders with Macedonia. Under these circumstances, a small group of 30-50 newcomers camped at Pedion of Areos. The population of the camp grew gradually and a few days later more than 300 people were living there. Dealing with this complex situation throughout the thesis I decided to use only the terms “refugee” and “newcomer”. Both terms are used by volunteers that I followed on the ground. None of the words used follows the legal connotations or link to a legal status, but are used as native categories used by my informants and have a special meaning for them since they trigger their imaginary narrations that enable them to act in a certain way. Using the term refugee, the members of the initiatives followed, refer to foreigners that are because of their legal status excluded from the society, not only because of the short length of their stay but mainly, because of the deprivation of their basic needs from the Greek state. The members of the different initiatives do not claim to speak on the behalf of the refugees; however, some of them try to “give them a
voice”. I also use the term newcomer, even though it is not that popular amongst my informants, as an element that emphasizes the welcoming characteristic of these initiatives and also as a keyword that can be used as an alternative to the highly politically emphasized categories of “migrant” and “refugee” and the implications produced by that usage.
Self-reflection
At this point, it is useful to talk about my own positioning according to the context and the place where this research takes place. During this research I had the chance to return to Mytilene and, in that sense I would say, to continue a research that started at 2013-2014. However, this time my focus shifted to another subject, including more and different initiatives and my analysis deepened into different aspects concerning the ideas of solidarity, volunteerism, the reception of refugees and the different actors involved. Between, 2009-2014, as a student of the Department of Social Anthropology and History at the University of the Aegean, I had the chance to stay for more than 4 years in the island of Lesvos, place of my fieldwork. During these years I was involved as an activist to different solidarity networks and initiatives, such as the Village of All Together and others. This involvement didn’t only provide me with in- depth knowledge of the research field, before even going there, but also helped me form a circle of friends and informants, something really crucial for the progress of this research, since the time for fieldwork was limited. This research would have failed, in terms of collecting data using observation, if I wasn’t seen by the informants as a “local” or at least a familiar figure. However, this involvement forces me to self-reflect upon my positioning in the field and discuss weaknesses or hesitations triggered especially during the writing procedure.
From the start of the migrant and refugee “flows” at the island of Lesvos (2010) I was active in different initiatives, demonstrating solidarity to the newcomers. In the next years, I participated actively in initiatives and groups that materialized provided the newcomers with food, clothes and shelter. This involvement triggered my research interests first about the solidarity initiatives themselves, since it was a period of differentiations
and conflict based on the practices that should be adopted and secondarily about the ideas and practices that framed “solidarity”. The decision of researching something that is familiar to the researcher hides plenty of dangers for the research which in my opinion increase together with the level of involvement of the researcher.
In this case, the main problem steamed from my active participation in these initiatives, before my involvement as a researcher. During my research, as I mention above, I decided to gather my data mainly based on participant observation and active involvement at the field. However, having active presence in the field during such crucial times there had been plenty of times that I felt that my research was the least important thing I could do being there. In addition, this type of involvement caused me hesitations during the writing phase of this thesis. The hesitations pertained, first of all, the material that I decided to refer to, process that sometimes was emotionally devastating and secondarily my reflection upon the data presented and my interpretation. The idea of being critical to initiatives and the practices they used, in my analysis, made me often question myself about the things that I was writing and their usefulness in the future, since I deeply believe that academic knowledge should address people that do not participate in academia. In the writing process I tried to deal with these hesitations in a productive way, using extensive vignettes and presenting as much as I could from my ethnographic material.
Methodology, Research Question and Operationalization
Throughout the summer of 2015 I participated and observed several events, related to solidarity with refugees, including assemblies and discussions, in both Athens and Mytilene. The people that I encountered there were mainly activists, volunteers, solidarians2 and members of NGOs who were demonstrating their solidarity to the newcomers in Greece, mainly by covering their material needs. The time that I spent participating, observing and helping these initiatives gave me the opportunity not only to approach people with a key role but also to have access to data that could only be traced through a different type of involvement than observation. In a typical day, at the morning, I would set up tents at the Kara Tepe camp, a reception center settled by the Municipality of Lesvos primarily for Syrian refugees, later I would join some other informants during a distribution or help with the clothes and supplies and at the evening I would attend an assembly or just join some of them for a drink. This kind of active participation to the daily activities, combined with previous knowledge of the basic informants and the situation, helped me carry out the research. The basic advantage using this method, which actually made me part of the initiatives, was that I had the chance to be integrated in the everyday life of my informants. This enabled me to gather information not only about the activities and the practices used by them but also to form a relationship with them. This meant that during the day, I had the chance to talk to them not only about the daily practicalities but to have deeper informal conversations about a variety of issues that concerned me in terms of my research. The data collected using this method varies, from strong and memorable events or
2 The word solidarian is a translation of the Greek term “Allileggyos”. “Allileggyos” is a neologism of
the last years in the Greek language and it means; somebody that stands in solidarity with someone else or a cause. However, the term has narrower and politically specific connotations, used by and in order to describe anarchist and left- wing initiatives and actions.
19 | P a g e
moments to their insights into the political situation in Greece, ideas about the current situation and thoughts and representations about their actions.
I also tried to conduct interviews. This, however, was a source of deep frustration for me. My initial aim was to conduct interviews with people in both Athens and Mytilene; people with a variety of backgrounds and life routes. However, the reality of the fieldwork didn’t match my expectations. Before entering the field I wasn’t prepared for refusals or any kind of resistance and difficulties in terms of conducting interviews. My strategy was to find interviewees combining the “snow-ball” technique through approaching the activists in the field, especially during my fieldwork in Athens since I didn’t have any previous contact with them. Unfortunately, not many of them responded positively to my requests for an “official” interview. Most of them preferred to talk to me in informal settings, for example, sitting and chatting or asking my questions while in the field, whereas they were also hesitant on the use of a voice recorder. This led me to adopt a different approach, since I strongly felt that persistence on my initial methodology would have negative implications for my presence in the field. In practice, this meant that I had long in person conversations with my informants while being in the field; I asked the formulated questions but without recording any of the conversations; I wrote down their quotes and main arguments in my fieldwork notebook. Even though at the start I thought that this would have negative implications to my research, I believe that it actually helped me focus on the persons and get a more detailed and in depth knowledge of their lives, ideas and motivations.
Research question and sub questions
1) How do solidarity initiatives respond to the refugee crisis and what types of relations are constructed through their actions?
2) Which perceptions, ideas and narratives are produced through actions of solidarity?
3) How does the gift-giving practices relate to the visibility of the newcomers?
Structure
This paper is organized in 4 chapters (excluding the introduction), each contributes greatly to the understanding of the initiatives researched. The second chapter presents the self-organized initiative at Pedion of Areos in Athens and focuses into the structure and the practices of the initiative. The third chapter makes a resume of two of the initiatives operating in Lesvos Island, Village of All Together and The Hug. The forth chapter presents data and findings from the solidarity kitchen The Other Human. The final chapter contains some final remarks and summarizes the discussion made in this thesis.
Chapter 2
Solidarity Initiative with the Refugees at Pedion of Areos
Athens 20 July 2015
A concrete slab bathed by the sun. Cement and asphalt. Cement and asphalt and always sun. Athens looks like a deserted city. There are barely any people or cars in the streets. As I move towards Themistkleous street at Exarchia, people become less and less. The cafes at Exarchia Square are empty; the square itself is empty. A digital thermometer outside of a pharmacy reveals the temperature, forty degrees, that justifies the sweat over my cloths and the feeling of extreme heat. As I walk towards Tsamadou Street, everything changes. This picture and feeling of emptiness is replaced with a new one, radically different. Dozens of people move up and down the street, chat loudly and carry boxes and bags. All of them are members of the “Solidarity Initiative” to refugees who have camped at Pedion of Areos. This scene is going to be repeated every day for more than a month.
Pedion of Areos (Field of Ares) is one of the largest parks in Athens. Initially it was designed in 1934 in memory of the revolution of 1821 against the Ottoman Empire and it was restored at 2008, with the expectations of becoming a European standards park. However, in a short period of time this green lung in the center of Athens became a place to hide different categories of the Athenian population that are forced to live in the streets.
The main entrance to Pedion was characterized by one of my informants as “one of the clearest insights of the outcomes of the Greek crisis”.
Moving into the park he continued pointing out to me the syringes and the subtle bodies of the drug users who were sitting behind the trees, looking towards us with suspicion, respite, not only because of the extreme heat but also because of the widespread feeling of violence, once you step into the park.
During the following month the park was to become the place that the refugees found a shelter, the place that solidarians provided them with solidarity, in material terms and a hot topic for the media. It became the place where for more than a month, every day from early morning until late at night; dozens of people visited the newcomers expressing their political and practical- material solidarity. These were not only people who came from different parts of the city, but also people with different political backgrounds. Anarchists, foreign travelers passing through Athens, unemployed, disappointed SYRIZA activists3 , second generation immigrants, refugees who have been granted asylum in Greece and people who were just living in nearby neighborhoods. As soon as these people, noticed the presence of refugees there, communicating mainly through social media and phone calls, started to bring some first aid to the newcomers, such as water and food. This small action as a response to a situation of abandonment, from both the state and the local authorities would soon gave birth to something much bigger. It gradually led to a self-organized initiative which, for the following month, covered all the needs of the newcomers, providing them with food, clothes, sanitary articles and medical help.
3 SYRIZA, the Coalition of Radical Left, after winning the national elections of January 2015 and long
negotiations with the European Commission hold a referendum on 5th of July on the proposed by EU deal. After the prevail of NO, the government signed an agreement which for many was considered as disregard to the referendum result, causing a split to the party.
23 | P a g e
The initiative
At the 24th of June, the first assembly of the initiative took place in Tsamadou Immigrant Social Center (Steki)4. The aim of the assembly was to organize the solidarity expressed by single citizens during the first days of the refugees stay at Pedion. This assembly, as any other one that followed from that day until the relocation of the newcomers to Elaionas hospitality center under the administration of the state, was composed by people from clearly different backgrounds and political ideas. By the end of the discussion, the initiative was formed. It was named “Solidarity Initiative to the Refugees at Pedion of Areos”, and in the following days one more word was added in this title: the adjective “self-organized”. As one can clearly see, the name of the initiative is produced by its members’ “common places”. These are words that mean more or less the same thing for all of them, such as “solidarity” and “self-organization”. Self- organization is not only a word used in terms of the discourse adopted by the members of the initiative, in order to distinct their actions from other agents and organizations. It refers to an expressly way of organizing the initiative itself and the relations between the members of it. A basic characteristic in this concept is the way of organization. The solidarians are organizing their actions on their own, without having any association or communication with, local authorities, the state or non-profit organizations. In addition, this juncture of individuals in this fluid concept of the initiative creates egalitarian relationships between the
4 Immigrants Social Center started at 1997 from members of the Network of Social Support to
Migrants and Refugees. Later at 1999, they moved to Tsamadou Street, where other groups and initiatives joined the venture. Since then the Social Centre is a meeting point between locals and immigrants, a place where different activities (discussions, languages courses, collective cuisines) take place. The Centre runs on the availabilities of the different groups participating and the decisions are made collectively in the assembly.
24 | P a g e
participants, relationships that also reflect to the way these collective are organized.
During an interview one of my informants told me talking about the initiative:
It is formed (the initiative) in order to do something for these people. We are a heterogeneous formation from people that share some common ideas about some things. For example, all of us approach solidarity as a response to our needs and all of us understand the need of self-organization here and now. That is why we stick to these words and meanings.
Following these ideas produced by the meanings attached to these two words the initiative worked horizontally. All of the five teams that were formed during the open assembly did not have a coordinator or somebody to be in charge of the group. The group’s schedule was formed and announced by the members of the assembly during the assembly and the work load and the way each team functioned were decided collectively from each team’s participants. The teams created by the first assembly were five, distribution team, sorting and storing team, cleaning team, medical team and social media team. In addition, there was a coordination team created, formed by one member of each team, something that enabled the initiative to respond fast to urgent needs of the refugees. The meetings of this team were daily and open to anyone who wanted to participated and express an opinion.
The initiative’s goals were described at their first announcement written and approved during the assembly, in which they say:
These days, more than 250 people, of which forty families- mainly from Afghanistan and Syria- need all our solidarity against the “treatment” provided from the policies of the Greek State, the European Union and the militarized Frontex. During the first assembly of the self-organized
Solidarity initiative, work groups were created in order to cover the different needs of the refugees”.
When reading the above announcement, it is clear that the goals of the solidarians are “more than simply supplying the newcomers with food and clothes”. Their announcement does not focus on the specific material needs that are needed to be covered, it doesn’t even mention them. However, it focuses pointing out the responsible authorities that are to be blamed not only for the current situation of the people but the “treatment” as such starting from the reasons that the newcomers had to abandon their houses and their countries. In my analysis this idea of “something more”, plays a crucial role on understanding the motivations, the acts and the responses this initiative, or this kind of initiatives produce. On other teams and initiatives approached during my research, this idea of supplying and relief the refugees seemed to be central. The groups of people, in that case, were formed in the basis of this cause which came to an end once the stuff they had collected finish. However, in the case examined on this chapter, this doesn’t seem to be the norm. People, members of the initiative seem to seek something more than just gathering and distributing supplies to the refugees. This is why the usage of the word solidarity seems to play a central role to their actions. Solidarity for them, in terms of a discourse, refers to ideas and values of equality, collective action and participation. Ideas that are set into action, with the distribution of supplies, but do not stop there since for the initiative’s members the adoption of solidarity practices leads to imagining and forming “another society at the present”. This phrase can sum up not only the expectations of the participants but also the imaginaries produced by transferring these ideas into actions.
Solidarity in actions
Every morning people gather at Tsamadou Street at Exarchia, where is the base of the solidarity initiative. As soon as there is a considerable number of solidarians work starts. The van of the initiative comes and is quickly filled with fruits and tea for breakfast. Members of the distribution team board in the car and depart for the first distribution of the day. The rest of the solidarians that stay behind join the different activities of the initiative, such as clothes and supplies sorting, preparation of the meals for dinner or updating he daily needs on the announcement board. The ones that have not joined any activity sit outside of the Steki and chat about the situation, updating each other about the conditions at Pedion or in the islands. Soon, a car or a truck full of donations will appear and all of them will stand up and carry the stuff to the basement where another team will sort them out.
Once the distribution team arrives at Pedion they form smaller groups. Each of the groups includes an interpreter. All of the interpreters are immigrants that have been successfully granted asylum in Greece and they are active at Steki Metanastwn. Once Pedion is divided to sectors and each team agrees on the route that is going to follow for the distribution, the interpreters using megaphones ask people to remain at their tents. This is a practice that solidarians implement so it is easier for them to keep an order, make sure that all of the people received the goods provided by them and also to have the necessary time to speak with each one of the residents and get information about their status and additional needs. The communication between the solidarians and the newcomers is mediated by the interpreters because most of them do not speak English. However, I have observed that at the vast majority of the cases solidarians try to communicate directly with the people, beckoning with their hands or with just being the one to offer first food to people. Once the distribution is over the teams gather again close to the van and discuss about the distribution and the special needs of certain people, in order to inform the other teams, such as the doctors for example. The scene described above is repeated three times every day.
Beyond “need”
For the participants these actions are more than a distribution that takes place three times per day. All of them consider it as an action that goes much further than covering some material needs of the people. When I asked one of my research participants to explain to me what this “more” means, she responded:
We are not just giving food; we are in solidarity with them. We listen to their stories and tell them ours. We learn their names and in the end of the day we eat
Solidarity, as a discourse, as an action and a practice, plays a central role between the members of the initiative and plays a central role of the formation of the group. I spent a lot of days thinking about this discourse and the responses of the solidarians to the different questions that I made to them for solidarity and I always had a feeling when they were referring to it that there was an “other” that existed in their minds and words, meaning someone or something that was opposite to what they were doing. An “other” that solidarians wanted to avoid through the practices that implemented. A few discussions later it would be clear that this “other” is the concept of “philanthropy”. Dimitris5, 28 years old solidarian, told me during a conversation we had:
To be a volunteer for the refugees has a fundamental difference from being a volunteer for the companies or the bosses. To all of them that voluntarily help to different actions I would suggest that they should not leave themselves to get exploited by the organisations. It has to be mentioned that most of them are paid for their services from the state. Self-organization is a totally different thing from organised philanthropy. I say all these things, so that we don’t forget that for our reality, if there weren’t refugees, in their place for our actions there would be unemployment, working exploitation and social cannibalism.
5 It needs to be stated that all the names used in this thesis are not the real names of informants. 28 | P a g e
It is obvious that the question here does not relate to what these movements and structures do but why and how they do it. The answer goes beyond labels, general analytical categories and assumptions, investigating the meanings that the subjects themselves give to words such as volunteerism and solidarity. Analysing the above quote is obvious that people that claim to be solidarians and approaching solidarity, also, as a practice, clearly distinct their actions from philanthropy. Solidarity, as I am going to explain below, is seen as a political stance that includes the ideas and practices of direct democracy, an idea of controversy between the activist-solidarian and the volunteer and finally as something that has independence from the state and its funding. However, the term solidarity appears in many and different initiatives. For instance, many NGOs and other foundations use solidarity to define their actions. It is argued that there is a fundamental difference between activists’ solidarity initiatives and the state-/philanthropic-/foundation funded projects, that have important practical implications. The first one refers to a strong element of social justice and reciprocity between the giver and the receiver, whereas the other has a strong philanthropist tendency.
Some of my interviewers were asked to explain how they understand the terms “solidarity” and “philanthropy” and how they relate to them. All of them referred to notions of reciprocity, equality, mutuality and sharing referring to “solidarity”. On the other hand, “philanthropy” was described as a one-way and top-down practice.
However, this dichotomy and opposition to the idea of philanthropy is central to the solidarians that participate, the actions of the initiative, in practice the things become more blurry. After spending days in the field I realized that even though the idea of solidarity as an action was central for the initiative, the actions didn’t include all the ideas that were seen as core ideas in a discourse level. For instance, the initiative even though it was always present at Pedion of Areos, didn’t operate from there. It was based and operated from a different location nearby, something that meant that even though in a discourse level of solidarity, the initiative worked for and with the refugees, in action the reality was different. Most of the daily activities, except the distributions, weren’t done at Pedion of Areos with the refugees. The cooking, stuff gathering, sorting, selection and the assemblies were done at Steki, without the participation of the actual
subjects that needed to be involved, the refugees. In addition to that, the distribution of food, clothes and others, was made in a similar way, without the involvement of the refugees staying at Pedion of Areos. Overall practices that refer to the way charities or volunteer groups act. However as explained at the previous section the members of the initiatives not only oppose to the ideas and the practices adopted by charities and NGOs but also will feel offended if something like that is mentioned. In my interpretation, this is a result of a combination of reasons. First of all, it is a result of their political ideologies. Being members of anarchist and far-left groups and parties, the members of the initiative oppose to any idea that refers to charity for ideological reasons. Secondly, because philanthropy and charity at the analytic schemas they use are linked with other forms of organization, referring to NGOs and other charities that have structure, funds and are or at least are thought to be professionalized. Third and most important to my interpretation is that by distinguishing their actions from these ideas and forming them in a way that is confronting with them, solidarians are able to base their actions to a word that has obtained positive connotations. Connotations that help them to lean on this term, full of positive meanings, and use it as a mean of forming relations that challenge the dominant way of relating, relations that for them will lead to the social transformation of the present society.
Alienation and the community
The closer I got to the members of the initiative, through my daily presence and participation in their actions, the more I became aware of the “bigger picture” that all of their actions seemed to refer to. The further I moved through discussions and my field notes, from general abstract ideas of contemporary politics and move into the everyday interactions of the members of the initiative, the more I became aware of their contest of the mainstream ways that people use to relate – or not- to each other and as their ideas about the crisis and their perceptions of how people should respond to it.
One of the main concerns of the solidarians is the idea of alienation. Alienation is perceived as an aspect of everyday life, especially in big cities as Athens. It is though as a condition, implemented by the mainstream way of living in contemporary societies. A condition –reality that makes people’s relations to be depersonalized turning, “even neighbors to strangers”. For the solidarians tis reality worsened during the economic crisis, “because everyone had to struggle every single day with major threats to his life standards and this forced people to close up to themselves”, Nikos pointed during a conversation.
A few days later, while cooking with the solidarity kitchen “The Other Human” (more in chapter 4) Kostas said among other things:
[..] Solidarity means to share everything, always with the ones that are in need, being at the same level with them. Not from “top to bottom”. Solidarity means that we live together, we get to know each other, and we break the alienation. So solidarity means together, not alone.
The members of the initiative share the same concerns and ideas with Kostas. The vast majority of them come from the lower social strata of the society and during the economic crisis used solidarity in order to deal with everyday problems or even to survive. For them, solidarity and sharing is seen as a way of dealing “in another way” with the outcomes of the
economic crisis and as a means of forming “a different kind of relationships” and producing new common ground between people that are totally strangers, through sharing and gift giving. An announcement written by an anarchist assembly was given to me during one of the open assemblies of the initiative. After describing the situation and noting the material needs of the newcomers, finishes with an exhortation: “Solidarity with the refugees’ struggle. To overcome alienation and plant the seed of solidarity and resistance”.
In order to understand how solidarians conceptualize the contrast between solidarity and alienation we need to focus at the importance of the gift-giving and the meanings that it is given by the solidarians. Alienation is approached as an experience of a social process, as a form of social reproduction that excludes and denies sociality. In contrast, the experience of solidarity is established through gift-giving actions. The value of the gift in this concept is not considered in any economical way but by the social bonds that it creates. The gift is seen an opposite of the materialistic culture that the “neoliberal rules” oblige. The gift- giving actions are perceived from the solidarians as a way of producing different types of relations among them. In their perceptions, these types of relation can be built out of the mainstream-hegemonic way that people use to relate to each other or interact with others during their everyday life.
Trying to conclude the discussion of the chapter, it can be claimed that the members of the initiative, not only respond to a humanitarian situation trying to serve and cover the material needs of the refugees. In fact this is only a basis that enables them to address bigger issues that stray from the materiality of people’s needs and even the refugees themselves. These actions of solidarity in fact enable the activists – solidarians to meet with each other, under this common cause, form relationships amongst them and the refugees, but most importantly allow them to actualize visions or imaginaries about the structure of the society, in the present terms.
Chapter 2
It was already August when I took the ferry from Athens to go to Lesvos and I was aware about the situation concerning the refugee crisis, since the topic was number one at everyday news and also I had experienced for a month the reception of some newcomers in Athens. Knowing already the place and the situation and I knew that the port would be a barometer of the situation that prevailed over the island. Having seen plenty of times during my study years in Mytilene, the port packed with newcomers waiting for the ferry I thought that I was prepared for what I was about to see while the ferry was approaching the port. However, the reality was completely different; the port didn’t have its familiar setting. On my left as far as I could see there were small camping tents used as a shelter from the refugees, on my left and in front of me there was a huge crowd of people. Between us and them there were police officers who were shouting and trying to make space for the people disembarking the ferry and the refugees that couldn’t wait to embark. Moving further into the port heading for its exit I realized that the situation at the island wasn’t at all what I thought it would be. Next to the natatorium, inside the port, there were hundreds or maybe a few thousands of people queuing in order to get registered. Tents, garbage, shouts and people moving around were dominating the scene. Thousands of people, women, kids, men of all ages were waiting for their registration and the ferry. As I exited the port the same picture was dominating the waterfront areas of the city of Mytilene, tents and people lying at the streets and the grass of the parks waiting.
Fieldword notebook, August 2015
The Village of All Together
The “Village of All Together”, started at 2012 as a network of citizens and various NGOs in Lesvos, and most specifically in Mytilene. Their motivation and focus, was to “give a response to the consequences of the economic crisis and as a barrier that would ensure that the local population will not address to Golden Dawn’s6 only for Greeks -solidarity”.7
After a short period of time, the priorities of the network changed. It was that time that immigrants and refugees started to choose a different route to Europe, mainly because of the Evros Fence which was built in 2012. In this new route the border crossing was made through the Aegean Sea, from the Turkish shores to Lesvos mainly, as well as other islands. The people arriving almost every day in Lesvos and the city of Mytilene were often detained at in-humane conditions at the police station or even worse stayed in the streets and parks of the city waiting to get arrested (Trubeta 2015). After a few violent attacks made by Golden Dawn’s members, the “Village of All Together” requested from the municipality to use an abandoned summer camp (PIKPA), as an open8 hospitality center. PIKPA soon became a self-organized and self-managed space close to the city of Mytilene that accommodates up to today mainly people waiting to get
6 Golden Dawn, is a Neo-Nazi party, founded at 1980 but gained political power and entered the
Greek Parliament at 2012. It’s members express admiration of the former Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas of the 4th of August Regime (1936–1941).They also have made use of Nazi symbolism, and have praised figures of Nazi Germany.
7 http://lesvosvolunteers.com/about-us/
8 At 2012 the by that time government implements an “close hospitality” policy, which consisted of
First Reception and Detention Centers all over the country. When the venture of PIKPA camp started the participants, trying to contest the dominant discourse and narrations they used the word open in order to describe the type of hospitality they offered. The word open didn’t only contested
andreclaimed the idea of hospitality but also in the terms of practice demonstrated another way of reception, without fences, barbed wires and confinement.
34 | P a g e
registered, offering them “humane conditions of living”9. Over the years, the network passed through different stages regarding its aims, political orientation and positioning in different events and relations with the state authorities, with the outcome pointing to a direction of bureaucratization and institutionalization of both the initiative and PIKPA. However, it has to be noted that neither PIKPA nor Village of All Together have ever received any subsidies from the E.U. or the Greek state. This was the situation during my previous research- fieldwork that was conducted from 2012 to 2014, regarding the convergences and the deviations that occurred though years into the solidarity network.
However, this time when I arrived in Lesvos at August 2015, the island and the newcomers were in a situation that many described as a “humanitarian crisis”10. Thousands of refugees were packed in different locations in the city of Mytilene waiting for their registration or the ferries to Athens, while thousands of others were walking all over the island from their arriving points to Mytilene. The huge number of people arriving and staying at Mytilene had also a serious impact to solidarity initiatives, which in a very short period of time had to deal with a fundamentally new and unknown situation. This new situation didn’t only differ because of the numbers of people arriving every day but also because of the presence of plenty and different foreign NGOs and INGOs in the field. The bigger NGOs and INGOs gradually put themselves in charge of the management of the camp of Kara Tepe, places where local volunteers and members of the Village of All Together were present and organized activities. 9 http://lesvosvolunteers.com/about-us/ 10https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/11/greece-humanitarian-crisis-islands http://lesvosvolunteers.com/ 35 | P a g e
This new and rapidly transforming reality led the Village of All Together, from being a main actor when it came to refugees and Moria to become a secondary or tertiary initiative that was “putted aside by the big fishes” as Maria once told me.
This shift of roles and situations had an impact on the actions of the solidarity network. Major priority for them, now, was the as smooth as possible operation of PIKPA open hospitality center. PIKPA center thus changed its characteristics: from the start of the massive flow it was only hosting refugees in a vulnerable condition (people with disabilities, pregnant women, families with elderly or newborn children). The decisions about the function of PIKPA and the other activities of the “Village of All Together” were taken during the open assemblies that took place once a week.
During my fieldwork, I had the chance to participate in almost all the activities that the volunteers took up during the day, such as sorting clothes, food distribution and cooking (Chapter 3), tent building, assemblies and other. My daily presence in the field enabled me to spent time with new and old research participants. However, the initiative operates in these historical circumstances, from the discussions made and my observations, it can be assumed that dealing or coping with the situation is not the only thing that the solidarians have in mind. Two of the main concerns are the involvement of the refugees themselves in the daily life of PIKPA and also the demonstrations of the political dimensions they give to their actions. Discussions like that are common, but emphasized less in the daily life whereas they gain big importance and attention during the assemblies. The demonstration of their political disagreements is achieved through announcements shared with the local press and at the social media. The members of the initiative are critical
towards the policies European Union and the Greek Government are implementing in order to deal with the “refugee crisis”. They are against detention and deportation; they are demanding safe passages and humane conditions for the refugees during their registration. PIKPA, their venture, as they call it, is a demonstration of “another way of doing things”, against the hegemonic principals that frame the EU policies. As Sofia explained to me from its start PIKPA was a counter-paradigm to the policies of detention that were introduced by the government at 2012. It was that time, where for the first time detention centers were a big amount of detention centers were built all over the Greek region and even more presented as a solution and an act of hospitality. Initiatives all over the country and Village of All Together, particularly, tried to contest and reclaim the meaning of the word hospitality through open structures, such as PIKPA and solidarity networks.
In those terms, the usage of PIKPA by solidarians didn’t only responded to specific needs that newcomers had by that time, but also was a political act made in the framework of solidarity. For the majority of the members of the initiative, at least with the formation it had by the summer of 2015, solidarity had a clear meaning which went hand to hand with specific political connotations. Ideas of equality, collective decision making through open assemblies active participation and involvement of the refugees in the daily life of the initiative, were dominant and played fundamental role on the formation and the actions carried out by the initiative. For my informants these elements are the ones that are crucial to what they are doing because for them is what distinguishes their actions from the other organizations that operate at the island.
“We are doing solidarity and this means all together, we and the refugees together and equal.”
Maria used the above words during an informal conversation in order to define what solidarity is for her when I asked her to describe it. But is not only her who uses these or similar words in order to describe the actions of the initiative. In my interpretation, the core of the ideas and practices of the initiative members steam from the word together which is also part of its name. Together, is a key word in order to understand deeper the aims and motivations of the members of such initiatives. Together, is not only a word that frames the way the members of the group act in the field but also concentrate ideas and beliefs of how contemporary societies should work. Equality, sharing, horizontality, collegiality and participation seem to be some of the words that the word together enables through its use. In addition, together in order to be affective and serve the ideas of solidarity should not be limited to the members of the initiative, it has to involve and the people that benefit from it, in our case the refugees.
As it is mentioned above, the members of the Village of All Together have as a high priority to involve the refugees to their actions and more specifically to the daily life of PIKPA. During the summer the idea of an agreement between the residents and the solidarians was proposed and adopted by the assembly, even though the final agreement presented a few assemblies later was rejected. The reason of its rejection was the strict way it was formed, reminding an actual legal agreement. In this text, named PIKPA Contract, were described basic rules on the way PIKPA camp should run, rights and obligations the people staying there have. The main concern of the members of the assembly was this strict form of the document and the idea of obligation that prevail it. For the initiative members, solidarity and solidarian relations is not something that can be imposed but rather something that it is “built through common
understanding of our common needs and sharing of this place”, as Sofia commented during the assembly. The majority of the participants this was a common ground. Through the discussion carried out at the same assembly and personal talks with the participants, it is assumed that for them their actions aimed to the formation of equal relations with the refugees. In their perceptions, relations of equality could not be forced with rules and regulations but evolve in time and more specifically explaining to the residents of PIPKA who there are and what they are doing there. A few days later this approach was putted in action while I was at PIKPA camp. The start was made by Petros, an anarchist who is living in Europe and came to Lesvos just for a short period of time in order to help. Participation, also for him played a fundamental role as a key role that distinguished what they were doing from other organizations that were active at the island.
“When I first went there (PIKPA), I was astonished for what the locals have done for the refugees, how clean it was and how humane, especially when compared with Moria camp. However, sometimes I felt like there were two different categories, the refugees that were staying there and the volunteers and solidarians that were running the place. I totally understood the reasons that the situation was like that but after the discussion at the assembly I wanted this to change. So I started a football game with the small kids that were staying there, after a while their families were there too, watching and having fun. A bit later some trucks fool of supplies came, so I had to help, the kids and
their families without asking anything just came and helped.”
Having the chance to be present at PIKPA that day and the following I can claim that seemed to be a turning point not only for the refugees but also for the solidarians and volunteers. A point that a common ground was created, a “we-all together” that was formed in action, with solidarians and refugees working all together, carrying and shorting the supplies. This small step was followed by other too, soon enough an open assembly together with the residents of PIKPA took place. Trying to sum up, it can be clearly stated that such networks and initiatives (chapter 1) work on the base on horizontality, sharing and collective decision making. These elements enable their members not only to form egalitarian relationships among them and the refugees, but also enable imaginaries about “another way” of organizing their lives.
Kara Tepe camp
Today is my second day in Mytilene. At 6.30 am my phone rings. It is Maria, a volunteer of the Village of All Together, asking me if I wanted to join and help them at Kara Tepe, where they are building tents provided by an NGO named Shelter Box. I have never been to this camp before but it is easy to notice it when you pass by, by the amount of tents and people close to the road. A few meters close to the entrance, a body line starts from people waiting for their registration. The line leads at the main part of the camp which is totally full of tents and people. People crowd into any piece of shade they can find, legs splayed over the pavement, arms over their faces, hot and exhausted waiting. Volunteers and members of NGOs are everywhere, walking up and down and trying to deal with the workload of the day. I meet Maria who starts to explain me the situation. “The left part is under the supervision of UNHCR. The right part, in which we are going to work today, is under IRC”. We walk towards the right part which accommodates mainly people from Syria. The condition there is really bad, refugees use taps on the ground to wash their clothes. They charge their phones by siphoning electricity from the mains. The toilets, no more that 5-6, are made of cheap aluminum that shines in the sun. People are defecating in the open. The stinking garbage is everywhere. “There is no time to deal with that right now”. Maria comments, “We need to put the tents before the sun becomes unbearable”.
Fieldwork notebook, August 2015
Kara Tepe (Black Hill) is an area, four kilometers from the town of Mytilene. Facing the dramatic increase in arrivals in May 2015, the mayor of Mytilene allotted a plot of land at Kara Tepe to the Port
Authorities in order to host refugees. When I conducted my fieldwork in the summer of 2015, the Port Authorities had left the management of camp, and thus Kara Tepe functioned under no official authority. Only a few NGOs and INGOs operated there at the time, as well as the Village of All Together. Building tents and placing people into them was one of the main activities of the volunteers of the Village at Kara Tepe, however, they always had their eyes open for people that needed medical attend or transfer to PIKPA facilities. Especially during my research, there were only a few volunteers active at Kara Tepe camp. They used to arrive every day between 7-8 at the morning and leave around 14:00- 15:00, when the situation was becoming unbearable because of the sun and the extreme heat.
Every day, after the departure from Kara Tepe they would gather at a café or a tavern at the city centre. There, they would not only discuss about the day, the things that went wrong or right and schedule the following one but they would also talk about their experiences, their lives and get to know more one another. I was able to participate almost in every one of these gatherings and there were two things that stroked my interest from the discussions. The first one was their constant mention and concern on the need of involvement of the refugees themselves to their activities. Every day once we arrived at Kara Tepe people used to gather around us, at start because they thought we had supplies to distribute to them. Once the volunteers announced that they don’t have any, most of them lost interest and left, whereas the members of the team continued informing them about their presence and asking for their help. With the people who joined them or even on their own, the volunteers started to build the tents. Soon enough new refugees appeared and asked how they could get a place at the tent once it was built. All of them were advised to find Maria
