Beauty and Beautification in Refugees’ Lives and Their Implication for Refugee Policy

Stephanie Acker

Monash Summer School

July 3, 2024

Individuals displaced by an earthquake in Peru put effort into modifying their temporary homes by adding bright colours and decorative elements. Temporary shelters, Peru.

Photos: Elizabeth Wagemann, 2017

Summary

Note: This presentation was delivered by Stephanie Acker as a solo presenter at Monash Summer School. Limited documentation of the actual event is available; this summary is based on presentation slides without access to a script or recording.

The implicit reliance on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs within refugee policy categorises beauty and aesthetics as “non-essential” secondary needs, failing to reflect refugees’ lived realities. This teaching presentation challenged participants to examine the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” needs through interactive exercises, asking what “so-called non-essential” objects they would take if forcibly displaced and how refugee stories would change if beauty were assumed essential. Drawing from mixed-methods research including desk research, Dr. Devora Neumark’s research-creation, and community-driven dialogues led by Nizar ALayasa in West Bank refugee camps the presentation demonstrated that refugees worldwide consistently beautify and personalise their homes even in protracted displacement. Evidence from neuroaesthetics and refugee contexts showed that beautification reduces anxiety, fosters hope, provides agency, and strengthens social capital and cultural identity. The presentation called for transformation in humanitarian language and policy frameworks to recognise beauty as foundational rather than peripheral, urging a shift from measuring durable solutions exclusively towards evaluating holistic wellbeing, with refugees positioned as central drivers of policy decisions shaping their everyday lives.

Key Takeaways

Interactive exercises challenge assumptions about “essential” versus “non-essential” needs by asking participants to identify the one “so-called non-essential” object they would take if forcibly displaced and to reconsider refugee stories through the lens that beauty in the built environment is essential. These exercises reveal how deeply categorisations of needs as “basic” or “luxury” shape humanitarian responses, raising the critical question: who decided that beauty is non-essential?

With refugee numbers continuing to grow globally (37.6 million refugees, doubled in a decade) and durable solutions found for only 2-3% of refugees annually, integrating beauty into humanitarian response has significant potential to support physical and mental wellbeing and strengthen community resilience in contexts of protracted displacement.

Mixed-methods research indicates that acts of beautification help ground refugees in the present moment, reducing anxiety about the past and enabling them to imagine different futures. Beautification serves as a way to exert agency in situations where there is limited control over everyday life, helping refugees process their current situations and encouraging hope and reimagination of possibilities.

Beautification initiatives generate community-level benefits including promoting community resilience, building social capital through collective gardening and mural projects, upholding cultural identity and human rights, and creating spaces where residents express their right to a decent environment and pass values of home care to future generations.

Refugee policy needs fundamental transformation to integrate beauty as a central component of humanitarian efforts, position refugees as central drivers of policy solutions rather than passive beneficiaries, and shift focus from exclusively measuring durable solutions (return, resettlement, local integration) towards measuring holistic wellbeing including psychosocial health, agency, environmental satisfaction, and cultural expression.

Implications for Practitioners

Reframe categorisations of needs beyond Maslow’s hierarchy: Policymakers should reject the assumption that aesthetics, beauty, and personalisation are luxuries that can be deferred until after basic survival needs are met. Policy frameworks should recognise the role of beauty in the built environment in fostering safety, dignity, and psychosocial stability as integral to wellbeing rather than peripheral to it, moving beyond implicit reliance on Maslow’s outdated hierarchy.
Transform refugee policy language and narrative frameworks: Humanitarian agencies, donors, and implementing partners should transform the language used in refugee response frameworks by eliminating distinctions that frame aesthetics as “non-essential” while deconstructing victim narratives and framing refugees as creative and innovative agents who actively beautify and personalise their environments even in protracted displacement.
Position refugees as central decision-makers in design processes: Camp managers, shelter coordinators, and designers should position refugees as central drivers of decision-making, ensuring that residents have the autonomy and materials to modify and co-create their living environments. Participatory design processes should not be symbolic consultations but structured mechanisms that transfer meaningful aesthetic control to displaced communities.
Fund and support community-led beautification initiatives: Humanitarian actors should intentionally fund and support community-led beautification initiatives, including gardening, mural projects, craft practices, and shared public space improvements, as resilience-building interventions that reduce anxiety, restore agency, and strengthen social capital, rather than treating such efforts as informal or unauthorised activities.
Integrate holistic wellbeing indicators in success metrics: Policymakers and evaluators should shift success metrics away from an exclusive focus on durable solutions (return, resettlement, local integration) and instead incorporate holistic wellbeing indicators including psychosocial health, sense of agency, environmental satisfaction, community cohesion, and cultural expression that better reflect the lived realities of protracted displacement affecting 97-98% of refugees annually.