Silence, Voices, and “the Camp”: Perspectives on and from Southern Africa’s Exile Histories

Camp methodologies: The “how” of studying camps

“…Conversely, people imprisoned in camps may not be able to leave and face a unique set of risks to life and liberty when researching and publishing (see Boochani, 2018). All of this shapes who and what scholars are “able to hear” in camps (Williams, 2012, p. 75) and the risks and ethical questions with which they may grapple in conducting research (see Holzer, 2015; Ramadan, 2009; Vermylen, 2016).…”

“…Where informal camps are not served by state or officially sanctioned aid infrastructures, Jordan and Moser (2020) highlight the methodological challenges and opportunities of volunteering with grassroots organisations while conducting research. Another strain of methodological reflection focuses on questions of “voice” and highlighting refugee perspectives, including historical ethnographic work on which “voices” shape the dominant narratives about camps (Williams, 2012). Crucially, a number of recent publications foreground the viewpoints of people with lived experience of encampment themselves (Boochani, 2018; Calais Writers, 2017), and engage creative methods such as participatory photography (Grayson, 2017; Oh, 2012), refugee‐created video (de Hasque, 2019), literature (Mbonimpa, 2020), and poetry (Qasmiyeh, 2021) to study and “write” camps.…”

Closing camps

“…How camps are closed may in fact impact their memorialization and can play role in national memory and nation building (McConnachie, 2018). For example, Williams (2012) contrasts the story told by the apartheid state of the destruction of a refugee camp in Namibia formed during freedom struggles in Southern Africa, with the ongoing official Namibian commemorations of the camp’s violent destruction. Both state narratives differ from the ways in which many former residents remember the camp, yet their voices are not included in official commemorations (Williams, 2012).…”

“…For example, Williams (2012) contrasts the story told by the apartheid state of the destruction of a refugee camp in Namibia formed during freedom struggles in Southern Africa, with the ongoing official Namibian commemorations of the camp’s violent destruction. Both state narratives differ from the ways in which many former residents remember the camp, yet their voices are not included in official commemorations (Williams, 2012). Lecadet and de Hasque (2019) link the current increase in the memorialization of former camps in Europe with the resurgence and proliferation of contemporary camps and with contemporary camp closure strategies, noting that the existence of memorials can be a challenge to and a critique of contemporary policies of encampment: ‘ Cette politique de la mémoire est aussi une politique du present ’ – this politics of memory is also a politics of the present (2019: 29).…”

“…The context, conditions and outcomes of camp closures vary greatly: there are fundamental differences between violent closure on the part of the authorities or a camp’s gradual dissolution or transformation. Camp closures are sometimes framed as a resolution to the problem of displacement or to poor camp conditions (therefore ending a situation of ‘emergency’); however, other times they merely consist of an attempt to displace ‘the refugee problem’ due to political pressure, donor fatigue, geopolitical considerations or supposed security concerns (Abreek-Zubiedat and Nitzan-Shiftan, 2018; Gabiam, 2012; Loescher et al, 2007; Sanyal, 2017; Williams, 2012). The prospect of camp closure may also be used as a tool to manage refugee behaviour (e.g.…”