Fractured lives; or, What is happening in Iran right now?

Media and political responses to Europe’s recent ‘refugee crisis’ often portray refugees as either criminal invaders or vulnerable victims – in both cases, as inherently ‘other’. Refugees themselves perceive this dichotomy as damaging. As Mohammed S., who worked with the NGO Second Tree in Greece after fleeing Syria in 2016, told us, both views ‘are basically saying the same, but [one does it] in a nice way’, explaining that both contain ‘a reason to hate or look down on others’. In humanitarian settings, interactions based on the idea of refugees’ inherent vulnerability can foster forms of othering. Attitudes that view refugees only in terms of their perceived needs, or as embodying a kind of idealised or fetishised ‘refugeeness’, exist and can be difficult for refugees to challenge because of the inherent power dynamics: refugees rely on the services that humanitarian workers provide. 

 

Second Tree provides educational programs for adults and children in refugee camps and urban areas in Northern Greece. We use ‘newcomer’ as a term of inclusivity to bring focus to the present and future lives of refugees and asylum seekers as new citizens in Europe, rather than their recent past as victims of war or persecution. Our aim is to enable them to advocate for themselves and others through the development of the skills and knowledge essential to rebuilding their lives in Europe. While skill acquisition is a means towards this objective, the larger question we address every day is: what approaches foster a sense of community where newcomers know their voices are heard? 

 

The Refugees Are People (RAP) policy and training path is Second Tree’s attempt at answering this question in ways that uphold our key principle of rejecting otherness, and that support a shared sense of responsibility towards creating a community in which everyone has an equal voice. Our hope is for RAP to spark further conversation about approaches that make power more ‘porous’, and to help us rethink the dynamics of humanitarian work in settings of displacement and arrival. 

 

The need for RAP

 

The RAP approach was developed through a ground-up process that includes ongoing reflection and discussion with newcomers. This process emerged in Katsikas refugee camp in 2016, as we sought to meet the basic needs of people who had been left to wait indefinitely in one of the most under-resourced camps in Greece. When we arrived, Katsikas Camp was a sea of floorless tents on a bed of rock, next to cow fields on the outskirts of Katisikas village in Epirus. 

 

It was there that we witnessed how newcomers experience inequality and powerlessness – not only when major violations occur, but in everyday interactions that fall outside the scope of standard NGO safeguarding protocols. By interacting with people through a ‘refugee lens’, humanitarian workers were undermining the building of trust between themselves and the people they were trying to help. Their approach was often based on problematic assumptions about victimhood, reinforcing a hierarchy which sees newcomers as categorically ‘other’, inevitably reinforcing their marginalisation. 

 

RAP reflects our experiences working with people like Saida, a young Afghan woman now in Switzerland, who participated in our activities over a four-year period. ‘There I’m not a refugee, I’m a person’, she said of the classes at our Community Centre. ‘They made me forget that I’m a foreigner’. This statement is a reminder that newcomers do not necessarily view their own identity in terms of their ‘refugeeness’; in fact, identifying with the refugee label is often considered extremely negative, as if in opposition to being seen as fully human. 

 

Rather than focusing on the perceptions implied by the ‘refugee’ label, we approach the camp (or any shared space) as a community that functions best when there is a sense of collective responsibility and mutual trust shared between those who live and work there. Inadequate living conditions often exacerbate power imbalances and minimize people’s sense of agency. In such environments, suspicion, rather than trust, dominates interactions among newcomers, and between newcomers and humanitarian workers. Through RAP, we aim to develop a culture in which every person is seen both as a part of the general camp community and a unique individual, rather than as a representative of a subgroup (Syrian or Afghan, refugee or humanitarian worker, Muslim or Christian). Even when used with the intention to protect or support members of a specific group, these labels risk justifying cultural stereotypes and enabling patronising (all refugees are victims) or romanticising (all refugees are heroes) attitudes. In opposition to these forms of othering, our work is shaped through continuous reflection and practice of three core values: truly engage, be fair and build trust.

 

Agency as a matter of collective responsibility: Truly Engage

 

Through a scenario-based training and ongoing discussion of how these values are applied, we support staff in recognising and addressing attitudes that patronise or stereotype camp residents, or that romanticise their interactions. As we say in training, refugees have gone through difficult experiences, but they have not lost their humanity, and staff can expect to disagree, discuss, and joke with refugees as with anyone else, which often leads to an enriching exchange. 

 

The RAP approach maintains that refugees, while occupying a position of need, are also capable, active members of the community who can and should participate in shaping the environment they want to live in, even if temporarily. Central to this framework is the role of discussions, both between staff and with newcomers, which encourage disagreement in pursuit of the best shared outcome and are seen as a form of real, engaged participation. For example, when a lack of toilets (less than 20 for over 1,300 people) led camp residents to use the school tent as a toilet at night, we stopped lessons and held a series of conversations with residents. Initially our options seemed to be either continuing to clean the space ‘for refugees’ out of pity, or closing the school completely. Discussions opened up another possibility: we jointly decided to build a more permanent classroom structure and work collectively to develop several other spaces, with refugees taking active ownership of the camp. 

 

In five years of working in camps, we have seen that refugees overwhelmingly prefer this joint approach. As Ahmed S., a camp resident in 2016 explained to us in a recent conversation: ‘It felt like [the volunteers] were really trusting us, and so why shouldn’t we trust them… so we started to share also, and I felt like – like just a normal person.’

 

Agency through mutual trust: Be fair & Build trust

 

Discussions foster agency and a collective sense of responsibility, and also help develop and maintain a shared culture. Rules for participation in Second Tree classes, for example, are first reviewed with students, whose contributions shape them, and, once agreed upon, are expected to be upheld. Strict adherence by all is vital to maintaining fairness and building trust, and safeguards against perceptions of preferential treatment. As many refugees have experienced discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, sexuality, or religion, this can unsurprisingly be interpreted as a form of discrimination, therefore undermining trust. So if an aspect of the rules appears to stop working, we do not start making exceptions; we organise a discussion and collectively determine the necessary changes.

 

In training, new staff work through scenarios based on actual experiences in the camp. When emphasising, for example, that being on time is a rule for participation, we tell the story of Abdallah, who, arriving a few minutes late to class one day, found the door closed and asked if he could enter. We ask trainees to reflect on what they would do in this teacher’s position and consider possible responses. Eventually, we share what happened: the teacher refused to allow Abdallah in. He was upset and complained to Giovanni, whom he knew held a position of authority. Giovanni, aware that Abdallah was upset but not why, suggested they go to speak with the teacher, only to find the classroom door shut. Giovanni too, could not enter, and offered to come back at the end of the class. Abdallah, understanding that the rule applied to everyone, no longer felt aggrieved and said he did not need to talk to the teacher anymore.

 

We use this story as an example of what we mean by fairness, how by upholding the same standards for staff and newcomers, a culture of mutual trust can develop. In other words, we strive to create an environment in which it is clear that rules exist for the well-being of the entire community, and that within that space, everyone is responsible for upholding them or constructively challenging them. To that end, in bi-monthly feedback sessions, we ask our students: ‘how comfortable are you in disagreeing with us?’ What applies to our staff, applies to newcomers: it is engaging with disagreement that leads to transformation.