Paper short abstract:

Norms of care are legally enforced during famine in South Sudan through chiefs’ hunger courts. The hunger courts enforce norms of care through public shaming. However, this reduces communities’ ability to include memories of famine in their futures, and detracts from an anti-famine politics.

Paper long abstract:

The last half-century has brought new experiences of famine to parts of Africa. Ongoing wars and climate change threaten to further increase those who are confronted by famine. A small but rich literature has highlighted the centrality of social networks and caring among communities who survive through famine. However, there has been a neglect of attention to how these caring norms are socially, and sometimes also legally, enforced. This paper discusses the widespread use of hunger courts in famine-prone regions of South Sudan. Hunger courts are chiefs’ courts that redistribute food to the hungriest during times of acute food insecurity. Therefore, they legally enforce solidarity and certain norms of care for the most vulnerable. The hunger courts’ main sanction to enforce these norms of care is to publicly shame those who have not provided for their families. However, the caring norms enforced by these courts have proved rigid despite the changing causes and characteristics of acute hunger. In this context, this shame also reduces the social space to remember famine and mourn for those who died during times of famine. This impacts family and community histories, and burial practices, and makes futures where past famines are almost invisible in shared and communal memory. This detracts from people's and communities' abilities to develop an active anti-famine politics. The paper is based on ethnographic and qualitative research in South Sudan since 2010.