Introduction
The studio element of the research is examining specific aspects of a small sample of Middle Eastern refugee camps. I will compare two Palestinian refugee camps, (originating from the 1947 forced displacement by Israel) as distinctive built environments and their human negotiation, through the frame of Edward Soja’s (et al) Thirdspace theory.
Thirdspace is constructed from the spatial trialectics established by Henri Lefebvre of spatiality–historicality–sociality. Hegemonic historicality and sociality have dominated the cultural narrative. To this dialectic, the Thirdspace theory has added spatiality, in part to allow ‘space’ to negotiate (an)other perspective(s). Thirdspace is a transcendental concept that is constantly expanding to include ‘an-Other’, thus enabling the contestation and re-negotiation of boundaries and cultural identity.
‘…I define Thirdspace as an-Other way of understanding and acting to change the spatiality of human life, a distinct mode of critical spatial awareness that is appropriate to the new scope and significance being brought about in the rebalanced trialectics of spatiality–historicality–sociality.’
To briefly overview Soja’s theory. Firstspace is Perceived space; it is the natural geography and built environment. This materialised, ‘physical’, socially produced, empirically measurable space is a construct that can be directly sensed. Secondspace is the Conceived space, influenced by how people are socialised, for instance: history, religion, education, gender, social standing…etc., their inherent cultural and value systems and the location in the timeline of human evolution and their experience of that. This is a space that is constructed in mental or cognitive forms together with experience; a phenomenological concept. Thirdspace is a product of the first two plus a contextual spatial framework, a place of hybridity and negotiation between those with a different Secondspace origin.
Soja’s Thirdspace is a comprehensive theory which can be broadly or specifically interpreted. For the purposes of this research, a specific aspect which identifies the ‘The Postcolonial Critique’, with its de-constructionist approach to hegemonic historiography will be the focus for investigation. This critique is linked with the work of many key 20th century thinkers who converge on the theory from postcolonial and postmodern perspectives: for example, Edward Said [1935-2003], Gayatri Spivak [b. 1942, India], Homi K. Bhabha [b. 1949, India] and Jacques Derrida [1930-2004].
Homi K Bhabha’s, The Location of Culture proposes ‘all forms of culture are continually in a process of hybridity,’ that, ‘displaces the histories that constitute it, and sets up new structures of authority, new political initiatives… The process of cultural hybridity gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognizable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation.’
If there is a graphic that gets close to depicting my interpretation of the Thirdspace theory, it is the Flammarion engraving. (fig.1)
Figure 1.
The Flammarion engraving is normally cited as the depiction of man’s quest for knowledge of the universe. The caption reads "A missionary of the Middle Ages tells that he had found the point where the sky and the Earth touch…" Reading the engraving with the Thirdspace theory overlay; Firstspace is the depiction of the empirical world, the landscape. Secondspace is the missionary, his conceived space by virtue of his status as a missionary, implying his religion, education, gender and his place in time (middle ages). Thirdspace in this reading is the space behind the curtain of the First and Second. It is independent of them and would be common to anyone (or collective) with a different First or Second space heritage. It is a space outside the Empirical, evidence based world, or the Formal, logical, rules based world with the internal coherence of a proven system. It would be a common space, partly empirical, formal, cultural, philosophical and expanding as required to accommodate (an)other, because we can’t know or ever will know the extent of everything, therefore this is a space of inclusivity and neutrality and hence negotiation.
Studio research
This research is to be qualitative and comparative. It uses as its case studies, two refugee camps, Al Jalazun located near Ramallah in the West Bbank of Palestine and Al-Azraq located near Amman in Jordan.
Initially to compare the evolution of the physical and socio-political conditions of their built environment and how this contributes to their specific human negotiation. This through the spatiality aspect of the Thirdspace theory and its effect on cultural identity.
I visited Camp 1, Jalazone (Al Jalazun), located 7 kilometers north of Ramallah in Palestine in Jan 2018.
I will visit Camp 2 in Jordan early in 2019.
To give the camps’ existence context; After the 1947-48 war and clearance in Palestine, known as Operation Matateh (Broom) to the Israelis, and the Nakba (Catastrophe) to the Arabs, around 650,000 Palestinians from every walk of life, became refugees. There are now approximately 1.4 million registered Palestinian refugees.
There is historical disagreement as to the cause of the existence of these refugees. One theory is that they were forced out of Palestine as part of an ethnic cleansing by the then newly formed Israeli state, and the other, that they fled of their own will because of fear and self-generated propaganda.
These refugees have been seeking to realise their ‘right to return’ to their homes and land since that time.
After the 6-day war in 1967, the Naksa (Setback), all the Palestinians in the west Bank and Gaza Strip; the remaining Palestinian land post-1947, came under Israeli military occupation and by extension military law and have been ever since.
The Israeli government refuse to take responsibility for the refugee problem or recognise their right of return. The decision to return any of the property to its pre-48 or 67 owners is a function directly linked to the outcome of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict and is the essence of the conflict.
Israel addresses the right of return as a threat to its existence i.e. the non-recognition of the Israeli state by what would be an overwhelming influx of the Arab population and (according to the official Israeli rhetoric), the desire for its destruction. Since 1947, all the Israeli governments have held the line that the ‘demographic danger’ presented by having refugees living amongst them as the reason for this refusal. The application of the UN resolutions and/or Geneva human rights conventions are therefore rejected on this basis.
In any case the return of Palestinian refugees would not be that simple. Over the 70 years since, Israelis have populated and cultivated these vacated lands and homes. To the younger Israeli generations, it is where they were born, it is the only land they know and to them, it is their homeland. So the question of return is compounded as these lands and villages have been either occupied or destroyed since 1947 and have generally become recognised as part of Israel.
Initially the refugees set up large camps close to major Arab towns, usually near their pre-war homes. But because of the lack of resources and burden on services of these municipalities, they could not cope and an outside solution was sought.
UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency in the Near East) was set up in Dec 1949 to address the living conditions of these refugees, whose situation began to emerge as more long-term than initially thought or hoped. UNRWA’s initial brief was to address the sanitation and educational needs of these camps populations.
UNRWA’s presence and work does not detract from the right to return. This right was officially recognised in 1948 by UN resolution 194. The resolution also established that aid should be provided to refugees to facilitate their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation.
These rights have been reaffirmed in many UN resolutions since 1948, based on the right to return, as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions regarding the protection of civilian populations in time of war.
Refugee camps are designed to be temporary. They are basic architectural and social constructs of refuge for displaced people in transit.
For nearly the past 70 years, since the aftermath of 1948, refugees have lived in 58 recognized (UNRWA) Palestine refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem with 10 more established after the 6-day war in 1967.
The condition of the camps is kept by their inhabitants to ensure camp status and therefore maintain the ‘right of return’ to their homes and land, pre 1948 and 67.
Because of this the camps walk a fine line. They are sites of the ongoing tension created by their existence and symbolism; as a permanent settlement or a temporary transitional space, and the implications for each group by which of these titles is recognised.
The architectural existence of the camps, it’s evolving expression and consciousness create a presence to and from their beginning, the Nakba.
The memory of the catastrophe is expressed by the camps’ physical appearance; random DIY construction, exposed sewage systems, intermittent water and electrical services and the lack of any urban and social planning. Despite this, any attempts to improve the living conditions within the camps would be considered an attempt to interfere with their memory. The expression of this timeline, by virtue of the effort to keep the camps in their original (as much as possible) physical condition, maintain the refugee existence as a permanently temporary way of life. Generations, at this stage, have lived and are living in a place they don’t consider home.
The Israelis are aware of this too. Improving the quality of life within the camps is and has been used as a political weapon. The refugees do as little as possible to adjust the physical condition of the camps and maintain the timeline, at the same time require decent living conditions. To address this, various NGO’s and UN agencies have sought to improve basic amenities and safety. But as demolition is a pretext for any real improvement, these agencies unwittingly aid the aim of Israel, by the physical demolition of memory. By erasing memory, they are erasing responsibility, and we are back to the two theories for the existence of refugees, but now without any evidence and the weight of right on the side of might.
The two sides share a common memory but from opposing Secondspace viewpoints and implications. The irony being that both sides wish for the ultimate destruction of the camps, but for different reasons; In the Palestenian narrative it would be on the pretext of their return to their homes and in the Israeli narrative it would be the cessation of claim to the land that their citizens now occupy and the Palestinians changing their status from refugees to permanently settled.
Overlaying and employing Thirdspace theory on this situation is the aim of the thesis.
Broadly;
The Firstspace element would be the historical common homeland (and its contestation), the empirical space that is Palestine/Israel. For the purposes of this thesis this contestation is focused on the sites of retreat, the refugee camps or permanent settlements.
The Secondspace element(s) are the competing Israeli and Palestinian narratives based essentially on religious heritage. However, there is a lot of common ground between Islam and Judaism. Both have Abrahamic heritage and share many principals.
The Thirdspace element is envisaged as an intervention through art practice. This would be to examine if there is space for negotiation or discourse, within the common Firstspace and Secondspace narratives, on a cultural level or examine if it already exists.
Specifically;
The studio work will use various aspects of architecture to interrogate the camp environment through Thirdspace theory. The research will document, discuss and represent architectural/built environment anomalies in layout, structure, materials, perimeter, territorial claim, human negotiation, expression etc., predicated by their location, through artistic practice and supported by academic research.
Using the built environment /architecture as the lens and means of investigation; the research will be examined and tested through a visual art practice, supported by contextual materials, theoretical underpinning will test if culture may evolve and be remade, within a post-colonial, post- modern, Thirdspace context.
Initially this took the form of testing through maps and plans (location, site and plot), from smaller to larger scale.
To unpack Thirdspace through the cartographical metaphor and how it relates to my studio work needs to briefly examine the history and purpose of maps.
‘A map is a graphic representation or scale model of spatial concepts.’
In the Smithsonian article ‘From Ptolemy to GPS, the Brief History of Maps’ the article begins with some examples of people following GPS instructions in their car without observing where they were actually going and ending up in places they never intended.
The author further examines the evolution and purpose of maps. Positing that with early maps (700-500 BC) ‘..accuracy wasn’t a great concern of early map-drawers. Maps were..a way of declaring one’s fiefdom.’ Maps at this stage were not for navigation but to help the map-holder grasp an idea of the world, orientated to the viewer rather than the viewer orientated to the world.
Historically, Christian maps (Mappa Mundi) were not geographically accurate. Their agenda was to show the extent, influence and power of their doctrine, designed to be more a guidance of how to live and get to heaven.
During the Renaissance maps became more accurate, used to geographically locate and navigate for specific agendas; military and commerce being the primary purpose. As fledging empires sent ships to discover new lands, trade and sources of wealth, these enterprises needed accurate navigational maps.
Historically and to the present, maps were and are used to support agendas and propaganda. They are reductive, as information not relevant to their purpose have been left out. Maps are measures of the truth, what is left out speaks of its agenda as much as what is included. Historically maps are abstractions of the empirical world, for specific purposes, a means to affirm a particular goal, identity or philosophy.
A perfectly accurate map does not exist because maps are fundamentally abstractions with a particular agenda and perspective. They are a Secondspace construct. The only perfectly accurate map it is the thing itself; Firstspace, and then it is not a map.
We all have an internal Secondspace map (existential and ontological), a hierarchy of values, used as an insight of meaning and guidance of how to live and move in the world. It can be scaled up or down depending on if we speak about an individual or a collective but loses detail in the process.
All these maps, including the GPS, orientate the world to the subject, Pure Thirdspace includes everything, the entirety of creation, it doesn’t have a map and isn’t orientated to any individual or collective Secondspace.
Thirdspace is about orientating the subject to the world and the unknown, (an)Other.
The Flammarion engraving is also a map. There is the familiar, comfortable landscape in which we can remain, and go nowhere. Or like the missionary venture into the unknown, a place of abstraction and ambiguity, but also a place of neutrality; common to all. It is a place that isn’t coded, that we don’t have access to physically and have to figure out how to navigate without a map or a system orientated to our particular view.
As stated, I am using as case studies two refugee camps; Al Jalazun in the Occupied Territory of the West Bank in Palestine and Al-Azraq in Jordan.
The research will be qualitative and comparative from a postcolonial, postmodern perspective. The camp in the West Bank occupies a space in direct contact with the Israelis. A collective with a competing Secondspace agenda, that can be argued as colonial. The camp in Jordan does not have this immediate Secondspace opposition.
Primarily the work in studio to date has been an attempt to uncover a relevant vernacular, without the pressure of producing finished pieces.
I have created maps that attempt to obliterate a specific agenda by removing reference to scale, location, orientation and demise in the spirit of Thirdspace (fig. 2,3,4).