ABSTRACT
Introduction Current architectural and urban discourse on refugee camps has been profoundly influenced by theoretical and analytical concepts borrowed from thinkers outside the discipline. The extraordinary interest expressed by architects in the work of anthropologists or philosophers such as Agamben (‘state of exception’), who describes camps as ‘space[s] in which the normal order is de facto suspended’ (Agamben 1995), is indicative of a growing recognition of the complex links between politics, violence and the built environment. The politicisation of the discourse is accompanied by increasing self-awareness of the complicity between architects, planners and military strategists. Eyal Weizman’s notion of ‘design by destruction’ exposes the use of colonial planning practices and contemporary urban warfare, which could be observed during the destruction of Jenin, Rafah or Nahr el-Bared. The debate is indicative of a deep professional crisis. The just critique of the naive unreflecting architect-builder has led to a deep resignation and pessimism with regard to the possible roles of architects and planners vis-à-vis refugee camps. Many architects feel that the only ‘constructive’ mode is giving up on the traditional tools of the discipline, becoming theoreticians, writers, researchers or activists. The cynicism (towards their own profession) with which many politically aware architects and planners began to observe the space of refugee camps has led to a dangerous condition of passive reflection, in which the current reality is accepted as a fait accompli and conceiving alternative visions is no longer possible.
