The legitimate refugee life
To what extent do the residents of Za’atari refugee camp represent the legitimate refugee life? How is this challenged in everyday life?
Champs-Elysées Street in Za’atari Source: CNN.com
Harveen Singh 10661417 Master’s thesis
Political science – International relations Supervisor: Polly Pallister-Wilkins Second Reader: Nel Vandekerckhove 2015
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ... 4
2.0 Background ... 7
2.1 Definition and Statistics ... 7
2.2 Syrian Crisis ... 8
2.3 Za’atari Refugee Camp, Jordan ... 10
3.0 Literature Review ... 13
3.1 Humanitarianism ... 13
3.1.1 Who is a refugee? ... 14
3.2 Camp Spaces and Refugees ... 17
4.0 Theoretical Framework ... 20
4.1 Ordinary Exceptionalism ... 20
4.2 Aleatory Sovereignty ... 21
4.3 Burdened Agency ... 22
4.4 Camps ... 24
4.5 Representation of Refugees and Refugee Life ... 26
4.6 The legitimate refugee life ... 28
5.0 Methodology ... 31
6.0 Data Analysis ... 33
6.1 Legitimacy of refugee life in Za’atari ... 33
6.2 The mediatized version of the legitimate refugee life ... 36
6.3 Capitalizing on Despair? ... 39
6.4 Agency in Action: How is legitimacy challenged in everyday life? .... 43
6.5 Institutional Policy Changes and its effects ... 47
7.0 Conclusion ... 54
To what extent do the residents of Za’atari refugee camp represent the legitimate refugee life? How is this challenged in everyday life?
Abstract
Instead of focusing on how various actors govern and gain legitimacy among refugees and within camp spaces, this thesis considers the problem with legitimate refugee life. I examine how various actors define the right way to live life as a refugee without taking into account the constraints of refugee life. The aim of this thesis is to understand the concept of legitimate refugee life while uncovering how the reality of refugee life challenges this concept. Legitimacy and its variations, is used to describe a way in being and living a refugee life. Agency is essential for their livelihoods as refugees need to live in the now not in the realm of waiting to return to their homes. The objective of this thesis is to show that by challenging this concept of legitimate refugee life, refugees actually succeed in building the truest life for themselves even though this comes at a cost for them. This study focuses on a specific refugee camp called Za’atari in Jordan where almost all residents are Syrians. This paper will endeavor to create a more informative understanding of how ideas of agency, exceptionalism and legitimacy interact in a refugee’s life within camps.
1.0 Introduction
It is perceived that a world in which a person lives has two distinct and separate realities. The first reality is in the line of sight, this reality is captured by our daily lives, conducted ultimately under the protection and laws of a State. The second reality remains mostly invisible, albeit everyone knows of its existence. Parts of the world which are indeed separated by these mostly invisible spaces for the world’s undesirable population as Agier (2011) has coined this term. This term undesirables refers to the displaced, refugees and the rejected. This is an important concern for everyone as these undesirables live in the peripheries of our reality. The International community is continuously concerned about issues facing undesirables as they pose a threat to our first reality of structure and order. However, what is often falls through the cracks in the endless negotiations over the undesirables are arguably more successful ways to resolve the issue with effective help and solutions. Instead, the focus of endless conversations is defining who is responsible for these undersirables’ population and not only is the buck passed, but ultimately the focus becomes a
defense strategy on how a governed State (people who belong to the notion of the first reality) should handle undesirables if they come onto ordered territories of said State, and for how long does one State focus on such issues. Often one will be concerned of such issues when one is faced with the image of the undesirable in their vulnerable state, primarily on television screens, with stories of their mass suffering escaping war, or their failed attempts of seeking refuge in a safer country. Unfortunately, this merely shows a snapshot of life the life of a legitimate refugee. What intends to follow is to paint some sort of realistic picture. For example, there are many more issues people from what can be coined the desirable population, are ignorant of. The many facets of in isolation or a combination of political, economical and social structures that feed off the conditions of the displaced for their own benefit (Hyndman 2000, Agier 2011). Moreover, our own economical, political and social policies are also arguable
continue to contribute to the displacement of people. A refugee often does not leave their home by choice or desire, but due to some oppression have no option but are forced to migrate, namely if one would like for themselves and family to have a remote possibility of survival.
The purpose of this thesis is to add to an already existing knowledge base on refugee lives and the challenges they face. By studying the concept of a legitimate refugee life, This thesis will explain how this concept actually works in refugee’s everyday life and by doing so learn how this conception of a legitimate refugee life is challenged. Since there is no single definition of a legitimate refugee life, this thesis will interpret this concept in light of media, organizations such as non-governmental actors like NGOs and other major actors that endeavor to define or depict what a ‘true’ or ‘actual’ thus legitimate refugee and refugee life is. This study focuses on a specific refugee camp called Za’atari in Jordan where almost all residents are Syrians. These residents all have a similar story to tell; fleeing their homes under attack by rebels, militias and soldiers just to cross a border to ensure their safety and the safety of their families. By looking at the concept of legitimacy of refugee life, first this thesis will uncover characteristics of what a refugee life entails; living in constraint, weaknesses and threats, how refugees survive in reality, to limited strengths and opportunities and ultimately challenge the notion of what a refugee life should ideally look like. This research will endeavor to create a more informative understanding of how ideas of agency, exceptionalism and legitimacy interact in a refugee’s life within camps. The question this thesis aims to address is: ‘To what extent do the residents of Za’atari refugee camp represent the legitimate refugee life? How is this legitimacy challenged?’
It is important to be able to understand how refugees actually live their daily lives in order to enhance their quality of life without getting caught up by the representation of refugee life or how various outlets led one (desirables) to believe what constitutes as a legitimate refugee life. It is not possible to create a clear guideline on how a refugee should live out each moment of their lives whether in the camp or outside of camps. However often the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), various media and States certainly dictate what they expect from refugees and how they should lead their lives. Za’atari is chosen as the camp in enquiry because this camp carries unique characteristics of a refugee camp in terms of its structure and activities in comparison to the other Syrian refugee camps in and outside of Jordan (Kimmelman 2014). The Syrian crisis appears boundless, with little hope for resolution anytime soon, which makes the fate of the undesirables- Syrian population bleak. Knowledge on Za’atari camp or its residents is limited thus far in terms of media coverage and UNHCR official publications. This thesis acknowledges that the Syrian refugee crisis is a
complex and significant state of affairs, ongoing currently and thus the landscape is continuously changing. However, this thesis is the tip of an iceberg essentially, but notwithstanding factoring that it is interconnected with many issues. So for the purpose of not reinventing the wheel, but instead to have a very limited and narrow scope to support findings that may add merely a small piece to the large and complex body of literature of this topic, but never the less fruitful. Additionally, it is apparent that the Syrian crisis no longer makes headline news, thus knowledge of the current situation of Syrian refugees is important for all people to understand to realize how our desirable populations’ perceived ideas differ from the reality that is the
undesirable populations’ existence as it does not fit into wider political and media agenda of the desirable world.
This thesis will begin with background information on general definitions and
statistics that will be used, important laws and regulations around refugees and within the Jordanian context, followed by some context into the Syrian crisis that led to the creation of Za’atari camp in Jordan. A discussion of the present literature surrounding this topic is addressed, to support the theoretical background section of this thesis. This thesis will then analyze findings using the theoretical background to support key arguments. To complete this thesis, is to conclude with important suggestions and recommendations for future research so that one can better understand what real characteristics are of a refugee life and not rely on one’s preconceived and often misguided conceptions of what, really does in fact constitute as the legitimate refugee life.
2.0 Background
2.1 Definition and Statistics
According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (UNHCR, 2015). International Refugee Law is made of the 1951 United Nations (UN) Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol, as well as implementing and enforcing the UN declaration of Human Rights (Hyndman, 2000). The Convention’s definition of refugee is the international standard and was characterized in 1951 which is geographically exclusive as protection is given under the Convention refugees whose flight was prompted by a pre-1951 event within Europe whereas the conflicts of the 21st century are mostly civil wars that occur outside of Europe, thus making the 1951 definition of refugee irrelevant (Hyndman, 2000). The UNHCR mandate has now ‘informally expanded this definition to include other “persons of concern,” this accommodates for the internally displaced people, repatriating refugees, and other migrants affected by persecution or violence’ (Hyndman, 2000:xxvvi). The overview of refugee rights is desolate, they are Stateless, without the right to reside or work anywhere. Many scholars have argued that refugees and displaced persons have been reduced to a biopolitical State (Agamben 1988, Arendt 1958, Malkki 2002, Minca 2015, Diken & Laustsen 2004). They are represented by a number, a statistic in the International community that is seen as burdensome, undesirable, and because they are people emerging from conflict, they are often seen as people who would bring conflict.
Since the convention, UNHCR has offered protection and assistance to tens of millions of refugees. According to UNHCR’s annual report, 2014 saw the total number of forcibly displaced persons rise to an estimate of 59.5 million, the highest it has ever been of 21.3million being refugees. It is important to note that refugee flows are more easily detectable in comparison to the tens of millions displaced internally as refugees only become refugees once a border is crossed which then can be registered.
In 2014 alone, 13.9 million people were displaced due to conflict or persecution, more than half of this number is women and children; much of this is due to the Syrian conflict hitting its fifth year (Groll, 2015). Previously, Afghanistan had been the world’s largest source of refugees, in 2014 Syrians became the world’s largest refugee population. Additionally, in 2014, 1.55 million Syrians fled the conflict-ridden
country to put perspective on this, today one out of every four refugees is Syrian (Groll, 2015). As of the 31st of May 2015, there are 3, 980,623 Syrian refugees registered with UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and North Africa (UNHCR, 2015). In June of 2014, the number was 2,771,122 and since it has
increased steadily with noticeable rises. Also in 2014, a recorded number of 126,800 refugees were able to return home the lowest number of returnees recorded in 30 years that means this refugee crisis is more likely to get worse before it can get better (Groll, 2015). Imagine this, if all the world’s refugee population combined, it could form the 24th largest country, one with the shared history of neglect and suffering (Groll, 2015), which is an unfathomable number of people in severe hardship.
The UNHCR, in their attempts to manage an undesirable population, have guidelines set up on how to do so. These guidelines does not always reflect the ways the camps are actually controlled in order to limit mobility after they have been set up.
The spaces within a camp are made up of a variety of areas that all have some role assigned to it. Certainly not an exhaustive list, but from waiting zones, transit centers to way stations that make up a double order of one managing life and the other of policing it to maintain order. ‘The security strategy of considering every refugee as a policing problem removed any hope of citizenship and reduced them to a stigmatized identity that was reinforced by every police act of rejection’ (Agier, 2011:27). This statement clearly shows how these undesirables are not even given a chance to develop a sense of personhood in these camp spaces under surveillance.
2.2 Syrian Crisis
The Arab Spring as it has been famously termed has turned into many seasons of war and bloodshed. This has serious implications for the population of affected Arab countries. After the successful collapses of totalitarian regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Egypt, this tension rose within Syria, effectively bringing people into the
streets for their revolution. Syrians demonstrated on the streets peacefully and their demands were not outrageous. They wanted changes in the government ranging from political to economic reform that would lead to equal opportunities, rights and democracy in Syria. The demonstrations quickly turned violent when opposing fractions of the government formed. This created a proliferation in more tension, as Syrian’s President Bashar al-Assad did not surrender any form of power and thus a civil war inevitably eventuated. ‘It is a war supported diplomatically, financially and militarily by regional and world powers. It has a sectarian element in it: Sunni vs. Shia and Alawi’ (Jabbar & Zaza, 2014). Assad has been accused of crimes against humanity for unleashing chemical attacks against his civilians and allowing ISIS and other groups to terrorize. However, it is reported recently, President Bashar al-Assad stating, ‘that Syria is against the killing of civilians anywhere in the world and expresses sympathy for the families of victims of recent terrorist attacks in France’ (Dearden, 2015). I have found this quite contradictory that Assad could make such a claim considering he is responsible for the ongoing five year conflict that has resulted in at least 215,000 lives including 20,000 children and displacing of at least half of its population, approximately 10 million people. Humanitarian efforts are not guaranteed in Syria, the European Union and its member States are the largest aid contributors, however these funds are evidently not reaching the people in Syria who need the most help (UNHCR, 2013). Syria’s situation within its own country keeps deteriorating as a result and of other factors, and there is no real hope for improvements any time soon.
The context of the Syrian crisis has weighed heavily onto neighboring countries like Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, which have previously been generously accommodating until now in hosting large influxes of refugees. More than 3 million refugees from the Syrian crisis live outside of the camps in neighboring countries (Norwegian Refugee Council, 2014). As this essay is focused on Jordan’s refugee camp, Za’atari, the scope of this thesis will look primarily on the Jordanian context. 80 per cent of refugees in Jordan reside outside of camps run by the UNHCR, this fact seems like a victory for refugees and their rights as a home of their own allows them more dignity than a tent or a container handed out to them. Prior to now the Jordanian government was lenient with Syrian refugees working in their informal economies while also receiving health and education services alongside aid agencies like the World Food Program (WFP), this consisted of handing out monies grants and food
vouchers (Fröhlich & Stevens, 2015). It has been quite a testament to the Jordanian people and government for handling this Syrian crisis as well as they had, of course benefiting also from the assistance of a whole range of humanitarian actors and allies in the International Community as they were already pushing bankruptcy before the crisis (Fishman, 2014). Nonetheless, Jordan has implemented many new restrictions onto refugees as they have strained their already dire resources supporting them within these last four years. Although there is a lot of opinion about how/why Jordan is suffering because of this influx of refugees, there has also been other more subtle voices like that of economist Yusuf Mansour who believes that Jordan is actually benefiting from the crisis but blaming all of their previous debt and trouble on the Syrian crisis in order to attract more aid (Syria:direct, 2014). Mansour talks about the $200 million Syrian investment in the period of 2012 to the first half of 2013 compared to only $3 million in 2011 and how the influx of prices of housing is actually benefiting Jordanian landlords, the money is going to Jordanians (Syria:direct, 2014). Even though this could very well be true Jordan is having genuine trouble hosting and providing services to the refugee community. To support this claim, it is evident that tensions are rising between the Jordanian host community and the Syrian refugees. However a criticism is that this can be due to nuanced rhetoric of the media and Jordanian government officials. The war has also contributed to Europe’s refugee crisis. With headlines of boatpeople flooding in, of 219,000 people who attempted to cross the Mediterranean, nearly half were Syrians (Groll, 2015). This European refugee crisis can be linked back to two major policy changes, which are now threatening the livelihoods of Syrian refugees outside of camps, which this thesis will discuss in the analysis section, on page 44.
2.3 Za’atari Refugee Camp, Jordan
The forced migration of Syrians into neighboring Jordan territory leads to the next focus of this paper; the management of the displaced Syrian population in the Za’atari refugee camp located in Jordan. UNHCR with the help of the Jordanian Government and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) manages Za’atari refugee camp. Za’atari refugee camp opened on the 28th of June 2012 in the north, Mafraq region. It has now turned from a temporary solution to a more permanent situation. Out of the total
number of Syrians living in Jordan, 20% of them are living in refugee camps, many of them live in the South and in Amman with the help from locals, friends and family.
According to official UNHCR figures (2015), Za’atari refugee camp currently holds 84,588 refugees. This sheer quantity makes this the second largest refugee camp in the world, following Da’daab. Za’atari refugee camp was set up within nine days, housing already 100 people (UNHCR, 2015). Most refugees are living in containers, which is a step up from the makeshift tents. Although the newcomers are still in tents, the majority is in slightly better conditions. In the history of Za’atari, the most refugees at any one time was recorded in April of 2013, with a substantial number of 202,993 persons of concern (UNHCR, 2015). Jordan as a whole however holds around 1,250,000 (figures from the Jordanian government) refugees which; includes Palestinians, Iraqis and now Syrians (Jamail, 2015) while UNHCR figures are conservatively lower at 900,000 refugees. These numbers matter when reaching donors and requesting aid.
Killian Kleinschmidt is a male German with 25 years experience who was UNHCR’s camp manager in Za’atari in early 2013 till the end of 2014 when he decided to leave his post. Even so, he remains a central actor in this thesis because many of the developments that took place in Za’atari took place under his watch. Kleinschmidt’s duty was to ensure everybody survives at Za’atari while restoring order to the chaos that is Za’atari (Würger, 2013). Before Kleinschmidt took control of Za’atari, it was more chaotic a place than it is now, with regular protests involving stones that affected the safety of the humanitarian workers as well as residents of Za’atari. This is not to say that there has not been any protests or stone throwing after Kleinschmidt took charge but the regularity of this protests increasingly declined as he managed to dissolve many situations by immersing himself into the everyday lives of the residents and he was also the person responsible for the implementation of the successful idea of the street leader system also referred to as the street Abu. Abu, is where communities of a certain area would pick a member to represent their interest and safety during meetings with local authorities and the humanitarian agencies. Kleinschmidt has been managing not only the camp but also the rapid urbanization that took place in the camp, he ultimately knew he had to get ahead of it in order to still have control over the camp space. Za’atari is more of an ‘informal city than a
camp, a sudden, do it yourself metropolis of roughly 85,000 with the emergence of neighborhoods, gentrification, a growing economy and under the circumstances, something approaching normalcy, though every refugee longs to return home. When the camp first opened up, the French military that gave a helping hand at that time dubbed the main street of the camp, Champs- Élysées. There is even a travel agency that will provide a pickup service at the airport, and pizza delivery, with an address system for the refugees that camp officials are scrambling to copy’ (Kimmelman, 2014). Nevertheless, it is important to note that as great as the urbanization has been to improve situations in Za’aatari camp, it is still a far cry from a real city like Amman in Jordan for example, as it is still squalid, dusty, more prone to crimes and remains an eyesore. Nonetheless, Za’atari has reached to a functioning city-like capacity far beyond what has been expected by humanitarian actors.
3.0 Literature Review
Refugees and refugee camps have existed for decades, now taking appearances of towns. There has been a myriad of literature in this field of study covering all aspects of refugee and camp life. From Agamben’s ideas of bare life which is a recurring theme in today’s literature, Foucault’s biopolitics, van Gennep’s liminality, burdened agency or the lack of agency, partial or fragmented sovereignty, State of exception and exclusion to the critique of humanitarian governance. This thesis will limit its focus on the concepts of humanitarianism followed by camp spaces and those who inhabit them, as is most central to this thesis.
3.1 Humanitarianism
Weizman (2011) in his book ‘The Least of All Possible Evils’ brought up a fascinating concept about humanitarianism, which he called the humanitarian present. This was inherently the notion that violence is intertwined with the humanitarian crisis. He uses case studies of which the focus was on Gaza to analyze the spatial and physical instruments, procedures, systems of monitoring (which is labeled moral technologies), for exercising humanitarian violence and governing the displaced, the enemy and the unwanted. When humanitarianism, human rights and international law are abused by the State, economic violence is calculated, managed and justified. Under this humanitarian present he talks about two concepts that is important to take into account for the purpose of this thesis. These concepts are the lesser of evil and the second, the principle of proportionality. These concepts are important as they shed light onto the Jordanian recent policy shift that has had a significant impact on refugee life, which will be addressed in the analysis section of this thesis. The first concept, the lesser of evil, connotes that the logic behind such violence is ‘the choice made justifies the pursuit of harmful actions that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable in the hope of averting even greater suffering’ (Weizman, 2011:6). The second, the principle of proportionality, refers to the legal categories employed in monitoring State violence. The principle of proportionality is essentially a balancing act and the ideal balance is justification for action even in situations where some rights contradict
others or when individual rights are outweighed by either public interests, administrative and economic policies (Weizman, 2011).
3.1.1 Who is a refugee?
The UNHCR and the Refugee Law has definitions on who is a refugee however, this varies in practice across the world but one commonality of the definition is the crossing of an international border. When crossing an international border, a refugee gives up their claim to citizenship and entitlements in their own country for safety and protection from persecution based on the terms of international humanitarian agencies, the international law and host governments (Hyndman, 2000). These institutions, calling them the International refugee regime that are responsible for refugees and can decide at any time to suspend assistance or programs that have been facilitating refugees. The international refugee regime is a form of governmentality that operates through a series of security mechanisms. These security mechanisms are important to identify as they play a role in the everyday use of the camps by refugees as well as humanitarian agents. The focus of this paper is to analyze the legitimacy of refugee life and how this legitimacy is challenged. In light of this, it is imperative to first understand what mechanisms are in place in camps so a greater understanding how their legitimacy is then challenged.
These mechanisms are carried out through two central techniques, of production of a space in which the movement of refugees are both encouraged and controlled, and the production and calculation of refugees through statistics and indicators. These mechanisms are said to be another form of control exercised upon refugees (Bulley,2014). A taxonomy for these techniques are referred to as microphysics of power which fundamentally operate in the everyday practices that produce the desired behaviors in camps (Hyndman, 2000). This power is exercised through both coercive and disciplinary means (Hyndman 2000, Minca 2015). All camps are designed in a way to optimize control over its refugee population- those with such power implement management strategies to manage the refugees more efficiently. Bulley (2014) argues that these devices or mechanisms that ultimately control refugee mobility have extended spatially beyond their boundaries, even to the moment and place of displacement. What is interesting is that the production of the refugee population
actually happens prior to displaced peoples arrival at camps. The collection of information on the population needs to be secured beforehand using emergency indicators to generate crisis through these measurements (Bulley, 2014). The UNHCR have set up spaces for arrival, registration, screening, assembly, distribution, food preparation, sanitation, shelter and departure. Camps are divided into multiple spheres of administration, policing and humanitarianism which all work together in building this very complex space of ‘care and control’ (Malkki 2002, Hyndman 2000, Agier 2011, Minca 2015). These spaces are heavily regulated and updated constantly depending on the situation in the camps. Refugees are controlled and monitored through the management techniques used by the UNHCR (headcounts, statistics, biodata) while also being asked to participate and collaborate on camp operations within the same space of the camp (Hyndman, 2000). This is problematic commonly because they are conflicting ways of managing refugees. However as much as it makes sense that these two ways of operating camps are separate mechanisms, they are also mutually exclusive. Humanitarian governance focuses on governing these populations through calculation of categories, measuring birth rates, mortality rates and the fertility rates of the population. Headcounts is the tool used to take the census in camps, which is often seen as a process that is troubling (Hyndman, 2000). Take for example this quote from Hydnman (2000:xviii) ‘That one group of people with certain credentials, political status, and cultural capital could round up another group of people with far less political status and power exploded my sense of what humanitarian could mean’. This is indicative of merely one form of power and control that can easily be abused; it thus becomes quite a difficult situation to assess, and takes the form of the colonizer and the colonized. It is argued the only way to know if the operation is a success is to ensure that mortality rates fall and child nutrition rates rise, it is however not the aim to secure individual refugee lives (Bulley 2014, Hydnman 2000). The point of the camp generally is to secure and protect refugee lives so if the aim is focused on statistics alone, the results can only be devastating. An assessment of refugee needs and protection ought to be established, as opposed to the idea of refugees being treated as a suspicious population converted into numbers and figures. This is why these management techniques can also be used as tools of surveillance (Hydnman 2000, Agier 2011, Bulley 2014). Thus this means, surveillance is evident on refugees in order to control their lives.
Hyndman (2000) reminds us that humanitarian assistance is also largely political, where parts of the power relations are among governments, oppositions and non-State actors. Hyndman (2000) also talks about a shift in humanitarianism, from the movement of people out of their countries to maintaining their right to remain in their countries, which is called preventive protection. It is considered a spatialized strategy of assisting pre-refugees before they officially gain refugee status, within their countries. Additionally, it has been argued to be less a humanitarian practice and more towards a containment of forced migrants to avoid international legal obligations to would be-refugees (Hyndman, 2000:2). States in general prefer to keep refugees away from their borders as it burdens them, so the preventive protection strategy is favored. ‘Within the space of a few years, Europe had gone from an 85% acceptance rate for asylum seekers in the 90’s to an 85% rejection rate by the end of the 2000’s’ (Agier, 2011: openDemocracy). Undesirable populations appear as a threat to the West. Border crossings are prevented wherever possible and especially strong surveillance like Frontex is set out on the Western territories to ensure these territory border crossings are prevented. ‘States have inserted a discursive and geographical distance between themselves and those displaced by political conflict or widespread violence’ (Hyndman, 2000:173), the question posed, is this really the best course of action? As neoliberal policies continue to shape social and economic policies, Western States are even more inclined to ignore their obligations to protect the displaced and give refuge to them. Keeping them as far away from their borders appears to be their ideal goal. Interestingly, Westernized territories are content to give out handouts to countries neighboring conflict zones to house this undesirable population rather than let them onto their borders. Western countries finance the UNHCR to deal with this displacement problem on the grounds of poorer host States or in the country of conflict itself, camps do just that by providing a space to contain the problem without a long term solution and by removing the evidence of displaced from view (Hyndman 2000, Agier 2011). ‘It seems like nothing has really changed from the times of European colonialism in North Africa. We Europeans can use your space, we can profit from your markets, we can control your people and we can even unleash deadly violence upon you, but you may not come here; your place is there on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, in Africa. This is Europe: entry denied’ (Pallister-Wilkins, 2011). What results is a short-term and convenient solution that will ultimately ensure
that displaced peoples will remain an ineffaceable predicament if continuously treated this way.
Noteworthy, the UNHCR controls all official refugee camps except for that of Palestinian make up. Palestinian refugee camps are under the management of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). No one refugee camp is exactly like another. All camps are unique even when they are organized and planned by the same agency using the same guidelines and manuals. ‘There are new experiences for the locality in which they are established’ (Agier, 2011:53), the implications is that one size does not fit all, no two camps can be treated the same because they are not the same, albeit having similar characteristics. Furthermore, camps are almost always established on previously abandoned or bare land and they are built rapidly and almost forced into their local environments. In this way camps can form in-between spaces based on this borrowed or leased land by the host State to the temporary jurisdiction of the International Community (Bulley,2014). Such a territory, however can be retracted at any time based on the will of the host State or the International Community, this insecurity takes the form of absence of camps on official maps. In addition, displaced people or refugees are thus a people in a constant state of uncertainty and fear.
3.2 Camp Spaces and Refugees
Camps are intrinsically more often than not problematic for refugees, who usually lack any form of autonomy, restriction on their mobility and freedom thus makes them dependent on aid. Agamben first coined the term bare life, which is the complete lack of autonomy of refugees. He has argued that refugees are reduced to this when in camps, with the loss of all rights except for the right to life. In addition Agamben describes camps as lawless places where individuals become the subject of bare life, a theory that can be expanded to all camps suggested by him. However, he misses the point that a camp is a space like any other where things happen, political things as well. Agamben’s biopolitical bare life fits with better with the concept of extermination and concentration camps. Although Agamben makes some important points that started an interesting and powerful debate about camps and refugee lives, Ramadan has argued that Agamben’s notion is flawed because he does not take into
account the concept of refugee agency (Ramadan, 2012). Agency is key here as everyone including refugees have agency. There are many different versions to agency and many different definitions that go with them. For now this thesis will use Giddens definition is a common definition in the academic and peer reviewed community, he suggests agency is about the capability of people to actually do things, the focus is on their actions instead of their intentions of why one is doing them (Giddens, 1984). Dunn and Cons’ definition of burdened agency however, is also highly regarded, perhaps a bit more fruitful and thus fits better within this thesis. In addition, it accounts for the constraints people face while trying to recreate normalcy in their lives (Dunn & Cons, 2014). Also, the relevant concept of burdened agency will be introduced, however addressed in more detail in the theory section of this thesis on page 23.
Agamben (1988) also talks about sovereign power as being both inside and outside the juridical order and he believes that the power of the sovereign is tied up with its ability to suspend law and order when necessary. This apparent exceptionalism that he talks about connotes the idea to be more like a state of exclusion, a space created by the sovereign for emergencies. Schmitt’s (1985) theory also has an important role to play in existing literature as his theory is related to the sovereign being the one who decides on the state of exception, which is a theory that applies to refugee camps. Nevertheless, there are differences between Agamben and Schmitt’s arguments relating to the power of the sovereign. Schmitt (1985) sees the sovereign as responsible for the suspension of the order in entirety while being outside the normal juridical order as he sees the sovereign as the constituting power (Huysmans, 2008). Schmitt’s exceptionalism is the state of emergency. The suspension or the absence of the law and order as Agamben (1988) would have, it is been highly criticized by scholars like Huysmans, Owens and Ramadan among others, who claim that with this absence leaves no space for resistance (ibid.). One does however know for a fact that within the space of a camp, there has been ample evidence of resistance from its inhabitants. Butler (2004:67) on the other hand, notes that camps are not simply in a state of exception but also a state of desubjectivation, meaning that ‘certain subjects undergo a suspension of their ontological status as subjects when states of emergency are invoked’. To Butler (2004) this is the real bare life, living neither in a community nor dead, thus outside the rule of law. However the exercise of sovereignty in the
camp is not just the suspension of law but sometimes in the form of partial sovereigns with overlapping but mutually exclusive sets of law. What is the most important to take to into account is that the camp is subjected to humanitarian law.
The inhabitants of a camp are seen as both vulnerable and undesirable, this dichotomy is evident through its mandate of care through control (Agier 2011, Ramadan 2012, Hydnman 2000, Peteet 1996). In a space of a camp, they can be categorized as a refugee, represented by a statistic, their vulnerability calculated in order to enable them to receive access to shelter, food and medicine. This would mean that they are not living outside the law, not a state of exception, as they would fall under the rule of humanitarian law, a form of law designed to control and manage them. The overview of refugee rights is bleak as mentioned previously. They are Stateless, without rights even though they exist under the juridical order of humanitarian law and international law. A refugee is not a citizen, they have no right to work or to free movement within a country, no access to property or land nor are they criminals awaiting trials or prisoners who are kept imprisoned. Sometimes however humanitarian agencies and host States tend to mix up these categories often forgetting whom they are actually dealing with. The reality of the world today is that camps exist in all forms and used in many ways; from vacation camps to prison camps. The very high probability of the future being planned in camp thinking is already taking place (Minca 2015, Gilroy 2004). If one continues on the current path, camps will not just be used to keep away displaced and vulnerable people but used to keep all undesirable populations contained, one can already see some evidence of the return of camps to European borders.
4.0 Theoretical Framework
4.1 Ordinary Exceptionalism
The concept of exceptionalism is very important to address as it builds the framework for this research. If a camp is viewed as a state of exception one can better understand the everyday life within these spaces and how constrained it actually is for its inhabitants. However in order to assess exceptionalism one needs to consider whether the subjects of the camp are outside of the juridical order, or just outside a particular conception of the juridical order; i.e. the liberal democratic one? The answer is no as the camp is actually under the juridical order of humanitarianism which this thesis will discuss in more depth in the next section.
A camp is created in an emergency situation hence justifying its exceptional character, it does not belong to the national sovereign although it is a loan from it, the rite of passage ways, entry and exit all symbolizes a different regime of governmentality. As Alsayyad and Roy (2006) argue that a camp is the space of exception because at the moment of emergency, it is designated as an extra-territorial space. ‘Here sovereignty exceeds national borders, extending the suspension of law to bodies outside the body politic. But extra territoriality is more than this’ as it can be created through the duplicity of sovereignty (Alsayyad & Roy, 2006:13). Camps can be seen as spatial technologies of government and thus revealing that it is not quite the exceptional space it has been made out to be; camps are governed by similar security tools used in advanced liberal societies (Bulley 2014, Hyndman 2000).
No camp is the same, in its power structures, organization or administration. This concept of exception fits in well when in some camps; the abuse or domination of power by a certain groups over its population usually goes unnoticed as they are the ones in charge. These cases of exceptional domination start to mark the everyday life in the camp. ‘The refugee camps are not ones of ‘non-right’, but rather zones of exceptional rights and power, where everything seems possible for those in control’ (Agier, 2011:82). Conversely, sometimes this state of exception works in the benefit for refugees, like when the local populations surrounding the camps envy the refugees
because of the humanitarian efforts that have been carried out for the refugees while most of the locals do not have many of the facilities that are set up in camps. This could be beneficial, yes but then it turns problematic for the refugees as local tensions grow and is directed towards them. This state of exceptionalism has turned into ordinary exceptionalism as it has been normalized into everyday situations in camp life. It is the very exceptional nature of the camp that the refugees encounter on a daily basis that has become the ordinary texture of their existence (Agier, 2011). Badiou (2007) has a similar concept called the normal situation which means that however uncomfortable and unpleasant, everyday life becomes relatively stable and predictable as refugees are faced with them everyday thus familiarizing themselves. Take for example, for many Palestinian refugees who have spent the majority of their lives in camps and for some all of their life, they do not know it as exceptionalism- and nor could they as they have not experienced something different to compare, this is just their ordinary fate and life within the camp.
4.2 Aleatory Sovereignty
This thesis is essentially trying to address refugee life and in order to do so, it is important now to understand the way these camp spaces are ruled and the kind of problems they pose for refugees. Camps are under the rule of fragmented humanitarian law and are subjected by International law. What comes next, will discuss what constitutes as sovereignty and is applied within camps. When dealing with the notion of camp life and the understanding of what happens within camp life, it is also important to understand the power structures that come to define them. Moreover, the need to consider the variety of problems these power structures present to the refugees and how the refugees cope with such power structures to maintain, as much normalcy as they can possibly attain is important to take into account. This is where Dunn and Cons (2014) concept of aleatory sovereignty comes into play to better understand. Aleatory sovereignty refers to the rule by chance, as camps are characterized by multiple modes of power and conflicting claims to sovereign control (Dunn & Cons, 2014). Looking at the power structures of camps through this lens will allow one to see how camps are the product of humanitarian governance. This allows one to look at camp inhabitants not just as passive aid recipients but individuals with agency who make choices in complex conditions while also understanding that the
outcome of humanitarian governance that is unpredictable. At a glance one can see that humanitarian governance shows sovereignty as somewhat in danger and in constant fluctuation. Camps can be better described as spaces in which a range of more or less autonomous sovereignties compete, overlap and combine with one another; resulting in a volatile sovereign power (Dun & Cons, 2014).
Dunn and Cons (2014) use Agamben’s (1988) analysis as useful tools of analysis but also points out the ways that Agamben’s analysis fails to grasp the whole picture as Agamben cannot account for the fact that the sovereign fails to control and provide effectively in these sensitive spaces such as camps. In a camp setting there are often multiple actors playing sovereign than necessary and these attempts are aimed as a form of control of their populations. The result of this is commonly the less favorable outcomes of less control and more unpredictable states of chaos, which is the direct result of the conflicting projects of sovereignty. Camps can be seen as Agamben (1988) says the suspension of law has selectively applied, however it is not marked by the single sovereign decision to include or suspend, it actually involves overlapping decisions by multiple partial sovereigns in an attempt to establish order and control. Dunn and Cons (2014) are calling these spaces sensitive space instead of spaces of exception because of the multiple forms of power abound, compete and overlap when trying to govern. Albeit with Dunn and Cons’ very in depth analysis of sensitive spaces and aleatory sovereignty warrants merit, conversely there is some resonance with the term exception but in the form of ordinary exceptionalism. In order to understand the everyday real lives of the people inhabiting these spaces, it is important to separate theoretical abstraction from lived experiences (Dunn & Cons, 2014), which is appreciatively complex.
4.3 Burdened Agency
‘It is in camps that collective action taken by refugees and forced migrants acquire their political meaning, when the occupants of the camps intervene on the terrain that is allocated them, to demand social rights attaching to their present condition’ (Agier, 2011:17).
As Dunn and Cons (2014), argue that people in sensitive spaces (spaces such a camps with aleatory sovereignty) ’do not passively accept being disciplined by sovereign power most of the time as it has been suggested by the notion of bare life’; rather it is more of a burdened agency that they possess. Often the choices they have to make in order to survive are seen as transgressions because they are usually against the law that governs them and are usually between bad to worse choices (Dunn & Cons, 2014, Meyers 2011). Meyers (2011:263) calls this coerced free agency; ‘between amalgams of rational choice and no other choice.’ As refugees have very limited rights politically, socially and even economically, they are only able to gain rights when they oppose the order by violating laws, although the protection obtained comes at a terrible cost (Arendt 1973, Dunn & Cons, 2014). This burdened agency that they possess is highly structured. This means that however hard, unpredictable, complicated, uncomfortable everyday life in camps might be, they become relatively stable because the exceptionalism encountered turns into an ordinary exceptionalism that helps them strategize for their needs. Burdened agency better represents refugees who are not biopolitical subjects of bare life, rather subjects who are struggling to create normal lives in a chaotic place.
Furthermore, the overlapping structures of power that I mentioned before actively creates channels where agency can be exercised on the part of the refugee, the complexity of these conflicting structures allows for resistance, speech or even participation. ‘The concept of burdened agency thus allows for a view of the subject that is much more morally complex than the notions of bare life’ (Dunn &Cons, 2014:101). This burdened agency is problematic to the ability of the sovereign or sovereigns to rule as it can make them uncertain of their power and appear as weak and subjected to their subjects. Important to take into account that sometimes ‘acting within the constraints of burdened agency is transgressive because it entails criminality’ (Dunn & Cons, 2014:100). These transgressions that include petty theft, prostitution, drug trafficking, smuggling of goods that are otherwise unavailable or illegal or even violating bureaucratic rules, is a result of refugees’ taking charge and ownership over their lives. These transgressions can be seen as necessary for daily life.
4.4 Camps
‘Arguments about what a camp is are also arguments about how to be a refugee’ (Feldman, 2014:8). This is why it is important for me to talk about camp theory as it plays a direct role in shaping the concept of legitimate refugee life. Humanitarian actors understand that the space of a camp is multifaceted- not just where refugees live. The camp shapes refugee life on multiple spaces; a humanitarian space, emotional space and as a political space; seen in many Palestinian camps. Are camps really better than nothing? Is something better than nothing? Without camps, will refugees disappear, becoming exiles without a collective voice? Agier, Feldman and Hyndman echo this ‘protection problem’. ‘Each camp is born as a local or national “solution”, but is also part of a global mechanism’ (Agier, 2011:65). These spaces of encampment are becoming the go to response of governments who are not prepared to allow entry to what are assumed as these displaced problematic bodies. Camps are meant to be designed as a tool of protection for the displaced; their sole existence is on the basis of providing for the survival for those in need (Bulley 2014, Ramadan 2012, Agier 2011, Hyndman 2000). Paradoxically, camps are places where certain rights are suspended including freedom of movement, the right to work and the right to an independent life.
Additionally, refugee camps are far more than basic shelters for emergency situations; the situation is a lot more complicated than that. There are many overlapping power structures in camps, which often contradict each other. Moreover, these power structures can cause a lot of complications and confusion for the refugee community within these spaces. This also creates some debate on the legitimacy of refugee life as there are so many overlapping power structures to take into account and this means conflicting perceptions of the legitimate refugee life. This is why it is important to understand the camp space as a social structure, a space where agency can be created and recreated on a daily basis. Brun (2001) has conducted fascinating work on the relationship people have with spaces in the setting of camps. Within her research she talks about the two ways of looking at space, first is the essentialist notion that everyone has a right to a place, which their identity and culture is linked to (Brun, 2001). This is not at all shocking as one of the ways a person identifies ourselves is related to the space or place they originate from, identity and location are definitely
connected. Displaced populations lose this very intrinsic connection to their identities when they are forced out of their location and this in itself is very problematic. This is problematic, perhaps because not only are refugees displaced and in a timeless nomadic situation, any tangible qualities left for positive empowerment is diminished. In Brun’s (2001) research the second conception of space is one separate from identity as space can be created and recreated through the people that inhabit them, terming it reterritorialization. For those in camps, this essentially means that they are able to implement new spatial strategies to create a sense of personhood and give function and meaning to such spaces. As many who live in camps still hold on to or are haunted by memories of their past, reterriotorialization allows them to continue with their present rather than rotting away as passive victims. Camp space is produced out of relations between people and even organizations and in turn keeps reproducing these relations and these spaces are simultaneously constructed (Ramadan, 2012).
The camp is about the spatialized control and confinement of the potentially problematic bodies, seen as holding centers, prisons, and waiting rooms of the future. The camp is the best space to control a large number of bodies, administering the necessary conditions for life, which loosely translates to the bare minimum in order to stay alive. Camps are meant to be spaces of security for the refugee community, especially designed to protect the most vulnerable fractions of society. Moreover, camps are not very different spaces than that of prisons; they have the same surveillance quality but lacking the disciplinary function.
Camps are places where someone decides who gets what, for how long they get it and what is necessary for protection (Agier 2011, Hyndman 2000). Camps are meant to be temporary shelters, spatially defined to exist for a limited period (Diken & Laustsen, 2004). Rather they become permanent fixtures, existing for decades and will probably continue to exist well into the future. There is a term called humane deterrence which essentially means that the UNHCR is careful not to make camp spaces too attractive so as to deter potential refugees (Hyndman, 2000). Furthermore, the existence of camps can cause a lot of tension among the host populations and governments. Although camps are meant as temporary makeshift spaces, an organic social structure and living space is built quickly. This is only natural as camps are living spaces for thousands of refugees. Agier (2002) argues that camps are a crippled form of the
urban city as some key dimensions of the city is witnessed in the camp. However Malkki (2002) argues against Agier, claiming that urban citizenship cannot be related to the refugee camp as she sees the camp as a biopolitical space that is very different from the urban city life.
4.5 Representation of Refugees and Refugee Life
The representation of refugees and refugee lives are very important to the understanding of what constitutes a legitimate refugee life. As the images one sees on television screens or elsewhere in the media plays a crucial role in determining how one constructs their reality (Wright 2002, van Dijk 2003). Today people live in a digital era where a photograph is more important than communication through language because a photograph has more authority; a photograph does tell a thousand words (Moeller, 1999). Refugees are quite popular in the world today, photographs of them are easily found in the media, so it is safe to say most people have an idea of what a refugee is or looks like. ‘The visual representation of refugees plays an essential, yet neglected, role in forming the stereotype of “the refugee”’ (Wright, 2002:53). Wright (2002:54) argues that many of the photographs that one sees of refugees conform to pre-established patterns like of religious rhetoric that has played a central role in the development of Western visual representation; i.e. of Christian painting portraying forced migration, ‘The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, The Flight into Egypt, to Exodus’. This Christian iconography has been produced and reproduced in shaping viewers’ subconscious. The most reproduced picture is of the refugee mother and child with resonance to the image of ‘Madonna and Child’ (Malkki 1995, Wright 2002). Of course one also has to take into account which media outlet, publication or author framed the message as their readership or viewership is the end goal. Consequently, this brings up questions about the social function of refugees; they are either part of the problem or tools to raise funds for public response (Wright, 2002). In most of these images, it has been argued that there is a sense of looking for images that conform to preconceptions; stereotypical and predictability (Khosravinik 2010, Wright 2002).
The world produces these conceptions based on images of refugees on the evening news and what the viewer is left with is the human emotion to sympathize with them.
This is called compassion fatigue when one gets so much human suffering thrown in their faces, one becomes numb, having used up all our anger and pity (Lodge, 1996). Nonetheless, this sympathy turns quickly into condemnation when these images are used to tell us a different story of the so-called passive refugee acting out his agency and causing problems for their generous humanitarian hosts. This victim has been distanced from our reality, making one believe their revealed forms “of the ‘unthinkable’, ‘intolerable’ and ‘unutterable’: extreme figures of speech- sometimes ‘scandalous’, sometimes terrible- which provokes a shock effect and thus confirm, by an emotional presentation, the exceptional character of their unexpected incursion into our images of the world” (Agier, 2011:197). These conceptions are cause for the exceptional treatment of refugees and other displaced individuals. Emotions usually go hand in hand with actions meaning that when one is subjected to these victimized images, one tends to miss the whole story and context of what is actually going on. “The moral gesture may seek to be reparatory, but it constructs victims who keep the appearance of absolute victims, without name or voice; such victims must know how to conform to their victim image, to receive money without ‘wasting’ or ‘misappropriating’ it, without using this support for other purposes than those conceived by the world of donors (individuals, organizations or donor countries) – in other words, without disorder” (Agier, 2011:198). Captions and texts still play a role in subliminal messaging in a much more explicit manner. Most buzzwords or popular terms such as ‘floods, enormous rise, huge numbers, uncontrolled, burden, unlimited and mass’ for example are all too familiar as it is always being used when talking about the displaced and even in terms of migration. Processes of victimization, humanization (normal situations with normal actions), individualization, extensivisation (accounting an event in an extensive and detailed manner) are all strategies employed to create the dichotomy of us versus them (Khosravinik 2010, Hyndman 2000).
Events such as humanitarian crises are usually framed as emergencies and during emergencies; practices that would at another time seem excessive become normalized or acceptable when the stakes are so high (Pallister-Wilkins, 2015). When the media with the helping hand of government and humanitarian officials frame the influx of refugees or asylum seekers as emergency situations, it then ‘demands a response that moves us beyond politics and into the realm of exception, where such questions
around what should be done, who should do it, or should anything be done at all, cannot be asked’ (Pallister-Wilkins, 2015). What is striking is that most humanitarian emergencies are played into endless emergencies but are actually not an emergency. It is not an emergency because it was not sudden or exceptional, when the war just started in Syria, it was expected it would result in mass numbers leaving Syria for neighboring countries.
4.6 The legitimate refugee life
How does one lead a legitimate refugee life? Is there such a thing as a legitimate refugee life? Is the camp the necessary space for a legitimate refugee life? The main problem with the concept of a legitimate refugee life is that there are many different actors defining the right way to live as a refugee. Humanitarian agencies, host governments and the International Community all have different prescribed roles to refugees and refugee camps. However in reality, refugee lives are much more complex than prescribed notions. These various actors use many different perspectives to defend the ‘right way of living as a refugee’, whether it is an image of a victim in need of protection and assistance or a political symbol with resistance. There seems to be no final arbiter to decide on which way is the legitimate way to live a refugee life. This discussion has been an ongoing debate however it is important to take into account that it usually takes place without the refugees present (Feldman, 2014). These different arguments about the legitimacy of refugee life are consequential as they have the power to shape the contours of people’s lives and relationships while also influencing the allocation of resources (Feldman, 2014). Legitimacy in the context of humanitarianism is a concept that is temporary, provisional and often subject to multiple sovereigns. As the presence of humanitarianism shows some kind of failure of States, societies and infrastructure hence legitimacy is hard to acquire in these situations. “For humanitarian actors legitimate refugee life is often defined in the seemingly contradictory nexus of the apolitical victim and the improving subject” (Feldman, 2014:2). This improving subject image is a transformation towards resettlement and autonomy. Refugees are almost always excluded in any local political, social and legal integration. Their two options are usually passive submission to the humanitarian governance or active resistance in their everyday life. As Agier (2011) reminds the reader that the passive
refugee image is the norm, the active refugee that seeks out illegal channels which is a scandalous hypothesis and should not be encouraged. Even many humanitarian workers have voiced out their concerns about these troubling refugees and their choice of the illegitimate life.
The camp is an important space as it is always associated with the refugee. The camp is where refugees live in masses hence the camp must be the place for a legitimate refugee life. Camps are seen as not just the stage for the expressions of claims about legitimate refugee lives but are centrally important in making and shaping those lives (Ramadan, 2012). To many people the image of the camp has been normalized when shown by the media, albeit the fact that camp experience somehow still remains in the realm of the unspeakable (Minca, 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to note that most refugees live outside of camps, in towns and cities amongst local populations. It is also not required by any host nation or humanitarian agency that a refugee have to reside within a camp in order to be a refugee. In the case of Palestinian refugees, this is their concern. If they move out of refugee camps, will their plight still be heard? Palestinians have been refugees for over 50 years, some even being born in camps, they only know this ordinary exceptionalism way of life. Here a politics of suffering exists, Palestinian refugees seek to give meaning to their victim cause and justice for their plight. ‘Once you leave the camp, you lose your 1948 rights of return, the three leading families of the Balata camp decided to stay in the camp so as to remain refugees’ (Agier, 2011:77). The Palestinian refugees that have become naturalized citizens of other States are resented by Palestinian refugee communities because their communities feel like they have slowed down their cause (Peteet, 1996). Their social and political organization in the camps has led to the foundation of their identity. The camp now plays the role in legitimizing politically the demand for the Sahrawi State (Agier 2011, Peteet, 1996). According to States and International Law, there is a clear definition and categorization of refugees and what it means to be one. Does it mean that this is also the legitimate way to live a refugee life? For our perception and the perception of the International community, the legal codification and the fact that they are living in mass groups in camps are seen as legitimate. However, scholars cannot give you a real finite description of a definition of a legitimate refugee life. Living in camps can be very challenging emotionally; and this complex landscape of emotions takes place before resettlement or return, it happens when living as refugees seeking
improvements to everyday life (Feldman, 2014). This life that they lead within camps is a full life that includes doing things that may not conform to the rules of the host sovereign or humanitarian regimes. This emotional side of refugee life does not necessarily reject claims of legitimate refugee life but it does challenge them.
5.0 Methodology
This thesis poses the question: To what extent do the residents of Za’atari refugee camp represent the legitimate refugee life? How is this challenged in everyday life? In order to answer this question this thesis is compromised of a qualitative approach, with mixed methods. This mixed methods approach include content analysis using triangulation of media sources, secondary sources and audiovisual sources. The empirical data of this paper consists of news items, UNHCR reports, UNHCR official website, UNHCR’s official mini series and journal articles. To examine the aforementioned material, content analysis is used to understand how various actors determine or define legitimacy over refugee life, examples of agency on the part of refugees and importantly information about Za’atari refugee camp. Being present in Za’atari camp was not a viable option, instead critically reviewing and evaluating news stories, journal articles and audiovisual content gave this thesis a variety of data to analyze. The aim of this thesis is to give accounts of everyday life in Za’atari that challenges the concept of legitimate refugee life to show how this concept is flawed when examining daily life within camps.
Content analysis refers to a general set of techniques used to analyze and understand content material such as texts and audiovisual material (Meyer 2015, Bernard 2006). Content analysis was the method used to obtain all the evidence and data used in this thesis to support the key arguments.‘Content analysis does not have to be complicated to be effective’ (Bernard, 2006: 507). This is the approach this thesis used, using content from all mediums, which will now be discusses according to their relevance. Secondary sources are important because it helps build a deeper understanding about how theories are implemented and discussed in reference to refugees and refugee lives within camp spaces. It also helped to analyze the policy changes implemented by the Jordanian government and the WFP. Official UNHCR reports and website also was used to provide for effective data in order to understand the laws, definitions, data collected surrounding the legitimate refugee life. As Bernard (2006: 509) mentioned, ‘content analysis is easily applied to film’, which is the same approach this thesis used. One source of data and evidence came from the mini series of the UNHCR official Youtube page, a series called A day in the Life: Za’atari made in 2013, it looked at 6
