In Gayatri Spivak’s A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (1999), she writes that ‘the mainstream has never run clean…part of mainstream education involves learning to ignore this absolutely, with a sanctioned ignorance’ (2). Spivak’s concept describes how scholars of political theory and history foreclosed the counter-narratives of colonised populations, disavowing these narratives from the ‘real world’ and their significance in it. This serves to further reproduce the colonial structures which they ignore. In Selected Subaltern Studies (1988), Spivak describes how ‘sophisticated vocabulary’ was used to shield sanctioned ignorance, or cognitive failures, which displaced counter-narratives (7). She refers to Ranajit Guha’s account of elitist historiography of Indian nationalism which failed to acknowledge or interpret the contribution of Indian nationalism independently of the elite, and thus, was unable to explain popular nationalist campaigns in defiance to or absent of elite control. Importantly, Spivak is not trying to diagnose these scholars’ hidden beliefs, but rather reconstructing the script or legacy which their text may be read within. Lucy Mayblin argues that sanctioned ignorance does more than merely charge scholars with an omission, but rather that it gives agency to the omitter and collective academy (8). She describes this as a ‘purposeful silencing’ by institutions wherein the context is dismissed as irrelevant, and forms of analysis or ways of thinking are prevented from entering the debate. Spivak and Mayblin focus attention on literature, historiography, philosophy and cultural studies. In this paper, sanctioned ignorance is developed to consider how it is mobilised to disavow the narratives of people who are contained within the CCAC, in particular the narrative of their detention. This sanctioned ignorance is weaponised differently within the CCAC, first as the ignorance of the authorities when constructing the arbitrary and unlawful detention space. Linsey McGoey, writing outside the postcolonial and refugee context, describes strategic ignorance as a ‘productive asset’ which entails mobilising ‘unknowns in a situation in order to command resources, deny liability in the aftermath of disaster, and to exert expert control in the face of both foreseeable unpredictable outcomes’ (9). In the remainder, this paper refers to different ways in which detention is constituted in the CCAC by measures that seem to weaponise an unknown, or at the very least rely on an ignorance towards their potential impact. The authorities will suddenly change their plans or rules on entry and exit, food provision, or the dates of asylum interviews, ignoring the inevitable ramifications this has towards leaving the CCAC. They nonetheless happen within the contemporary context of increased containment of mobile people seeking to enter Europe, and the historical legacy of Europe exercising control over (formerly) colonised populations. In other aspects of life within the CCAC, people are left waiting for extensive periods—for interviews, for interpreters, for food, for medical support, and entering and exiting the camp. This is often attributed to a shortage of staff, resources, or funding (10). Glenda Garelli and Martina Tazzioli write that ‘governing by nongoverning is a powerful way of having control over people’s lives’ (3). They argue that freedom of movement is not only governed by ‘sheer blockage’, but also through mechanisms that suspend people’s relationship to time and space. Thus, whilst IHR’s report significantly addressed the physical ‘restriction’ to the CCAC and the material infrastructure, as will be addressed in the second section below, the deprivation of people’s freedom of movement is also constituted by the measures that create the ‘feeling’ of being in a prison or detained. Regardless of supposedly unintentional shortages which create waiting periods 3