Introduction

According to Stephen Levinson, “from classical times to the present, the centrality of spatial thinking in human cognition has been fundamentally presupposed” (1998, p. 16). Yet, as this author has also noted, how we think about space is affected by culturally specific patterns of thought.

Spatialized thinking is strongly evident in the contemporary discourse and praxis of child protection in settings of humanitarian emergency. This is a field of endeavor that strives to “prevent and respond to violence, exploitation and abuse against children” (UNICEF 2006). In recent years, a plethora of space-based strategies have been developed to ensure the relative safety of young people at risk of harm as a result of armed conflict and natural disaster. “Child-friendly/safe spaces,” “children as zones of peace,” “protective environment” are just some of the terms coined by practitioners in recent years. Each implies a direct, causal relationship between the circumscription of space and the better protection of the young.

The spatialized approach to child protection is predicated upon assumptions about the separability of children from the wider environment, not only physically, but in cognitive and emotional terms as well. This in itself reveals the dominance of a mode of thought that has been evident within Europe and North America since at least the nineteenth century, growing stronger ever since. The important question here is whether a spatialized approach to child protection, which is informed by such thinking, is effective across the diverse settings where humanitarian organizations operate. This chapter is a modest contribution toward answering such a question, drawing upon research conducted in a single location: the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). Its aim is to illustrate the challenges to the spatialized approach in this setting, paying attention to the specific additional motivations for international and UN agencies working there. While the findings from the oPt may be highly specific, it is hoped that the line of enquiry pursued in this chapter may prove helpful for examination of child protection practice in other locations.

The chapter begins by offering a tentative genealogy of thinking about enclosure and separability as it has evolved within humanitarianism generally and child protection more specifically. The intention in this is to explicate the historical and cultural contingency of the spatialized thinking that informs much of the current work undertaken by child protection professionals.

2