Search

Care and control are concepts frequently invoked within Camp Studies, often as a means of characterizing the varied logics of institutional camps. This article builds on recent geographical literature by going beyond care and control and proposing a renewed focus on the idea of custodianship within a range of historical and contemporary camp contexts, from colonial and totalitarian concentration camps to present-day refugee camps. The notion of the camp as a custodian institution, that is, a sovereign authority whose biopolitical interventions imply both the preservation and curtailment of life, provides an effective means of apprehending the complex nature of camp governance, particularly the shifting intensity of power relations between camp management and residents. We develop this conceptual discussion via existing literature on concentration camps, before grounding our analysis in the case study of Krnjača Asylum Centre, a refugee camp along the so-called Balkan Route in Serbia. Our empirical discussion of Krnjača indicates that the concept of custodianship can be useful in understanding seemingly distinct and even contradictory modes of camp governance as part of a single coherent regime of power, from the imposition and negotiation of everyday rules and regulations to the strict containment measures put into place during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]