Humanitarian actors struggle to protect refugees from the violence of war, but critics argue that they often succeed in nothing more than segregating the displaced and turning their hardships into global public spectacles. This article narrows and refines these criticisms of contemporary humanitarian action by examining humanitarian spectacles at a local level in an ethnography of the Buduburam Refugee Camp, a predominantly Liberian refugee camp in Ghana, West Africa. It is clear from this vantage point that disenfranchisement and bureaucratic intransigence deeply constrained camp life. But the public spectacles we examine also highlight the unexpected persistence of civic life and the depth of social connections between camp residents themselves; between refugees and humanitarians; and between refugees and their hosts. By making the homogeneous, distant concept of humanitarian spectacle into a heterogeneous concept with local dimensions, we are able to capture more of the experiences of people who live in unsettled contexts. This argument contributes to research on refugees and humanitarianism by drawing attention to the interconnected social world of the refugee camp. It also contributes to research on public spectacles by casting these spectacles as neither a pure expression of distance nor empowerment, but rather an easily sullied form of civic life.

Refugee resettlement is a solution to provide safety and security to individuals left vulnerable from displacement. However, some refugees who intermarry with non-refugees are barred from resettling with their intact family unit. This article utilizes an in-depth ethnographic analysis of the everyday life of refugees in mixed nationality marriages living in Nepal to argue that the right to family unity is denied to some refugees. Refugees in mixed-nationality marriages must choose between divorcing a loving and stable partner to resettle in a third country and remaining encamped in Nepal, where opportunities for safety, security, and advancement are severely limited. This analysis indicates that “resettlement divorces” became a way that mixed-marriage refugee couples managed to navigate the offer of resettlement for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and the ways that resettlement structured their everyday lives. Implications exist for interrogating which families are granted the right to “unity,” patterns of refugee resettlement, and the resettlement outcomes of single refugee mothers.

Refugees often imagine resettlement to the USA to be a solution to their problems, but the process of resettlement is full of social, cultural and economic hurdles. Through an ethnographic analysis of a resettlement agency, this research shows that refugee employment specialists consistently track refugees into low-wage and contingent work even when refugees have strong language skills, experience in professional work, and advanced degrees. Bureaucratic reporting structures and quota requirements create pressures on refugee employment specialists to place refugees in jobs quickly which hinders them from working towards meaningful economic self-sufficiency. The denial of refugee autonomy in pursuit of work and economic freedoms is a human rights violation facilitated by a government failure to protect them from third-party exploitation. This article argues that the chronic underemployment of refugees exemplifies a common, but understudied type of economic rights violation.