Introduction

The ongoing worsening of the political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela since 2014 has resulted in a massive displacement of Venezuelans to various countries in the region. Despite the lack of accurate official figures, this severe crisis has led to the departure of over 7 million people from the country, the equivalent of over 15% of the population (^{Response for Venezuelans [R4V], 2022}). Over 80% of Venezuelans settled in other Latin American countries (^{Selee, Bolter, Muñoz-Pogossian, & Hazán, 2019}), Peru being the second largest receiving country, surpassed only by Colombia.

There is an ongoing academic debate on whether Venezuelans should be considered refugees according to the definition set forth in the Cartagena Declaration, which has been incorporated by most Latin American countries into their national legislation (^{Freier, 2015}; ^{Freier, Berganza, & Blouin, 2021}). In 1984, this Declaration expanded the universal definition of refugee as a person (or group of people) fleeing their country in the face of a threat of generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order (^{Acosta, Blouin, & Freier, 2019}; ^{Blouin, Berganza, & Freier, 2020}). The Venezuelan exodus does not constitute voluntary economic migration, but rather what Alexander Betts would call “survival migration”, that is, a migration flow of people who leave their country of origin due to an existential threat for which they lack access to an internal remedy or resolution (^{Betts, 2013, p. 10}).

A migratory experience with the characteristics of the Venezuelan case impacts on the migrant population by affecting their mental health, causing pain and even physical injury. According to ^{Clay (2019)}, the crisis in Venezuela has caused feelings of sadness, fear, anger, anxiety, as well as symptoms of depression, which are increasingly common among the population. Along this line, a study by ^{Caroll, Luzes, Freier, and Bird (2020}) found high incidence of depression among those Venezuelan migrants who arrived at the border between Ecuador and Peru in April 2019: 19% among men, and 23% for women, compared to about 4% for a typical population.

Once in the country of destination, migrants face different challenges in terms of social integration, such as cultural shock, lack of support networks, job discrimination, mistreatment, xenophobia, and violence. Thus, the migration process impacts negatively on the psychosocial well- being of Venezuelans. At the same time, a forced migration experience can generate traumas that are in turn accentuated, through feelings such as the guilt migrants feel for leaving relatives and friends behind in Venezuela. It is important to note that the mental health of migrants can both improve and deteriorate throughout the different stages in the process of adaptation to the host country (^{Research Center of the University of the Pacific [CIUP, acronym in Spanish for Centro de Investigación de la Universidad del Pacífico], 2020}).

Various studies have described and explained the phenomenon of forced displacement of Venezuelan citizens across Latin America, as well as political reactions to this displacement (^{Aron Said & Castillo Jara, 2020}; ^{Gandini, Lozano, & Prieto, 2019}; ^{Mahlke, Parent, & Yamamoto, 2017}; ^{Freier & Castillo, 2020}). However, the emerging literature has not focused on the experiences of migrants themselves; and there is a gap in terms of those aspects pertaining to mental health, generally, and specifically the concept of suffering.

This paper seeks to complement the migration literature by exploring experiences of suffering within a group of displaced Venezuelans in Peru. It investigates the manifestations of suffering within different stages of their migration journey: their departure from Venezuela, their journey by land, and their arrival in Peru. For this purpose, various interviews and ethnographic work were carried out; this work involved accompanying a group of Venezuelan migrants from the time they left their country until they arrived in the city of Lima, capital of Peru. Our research highlights the emotions of Venezuelan migrants, in relation to the concept of suffering, as they go through different migratory stages.

Our article is structured as follows. First, we briefly describe our methodology, presenting the characteristics of our case study and outlining the characteristics of Venezuelan forced migration to Peru (up until 2020), as well as the policies that the country has adopted in response to Venezuelan arrivals. Next, we explain our theoretical framework, which focuses on the relationship between migration and the concept of suffering. Following this, based on our ethnographic work and interviews, we present the testimonies and experiences of Venezuelan migrants, and discuss them in relation to suffering. Finally, in the conclusions, we lay out our research’s contributions.

Venezuelan migration and politics in Peru

According to ^{Paez and Vivas Peñalver (2017}), there have been three important phases in recent Venezuelan emigration: “looking for new opportunities” (2000-2012) (p. 13), “growing hopelessness” (2012-2014) (p. 16) and “migration of despair” (2015-present) (p. 22). The authors explain that most Venezuelan migrants who left the country during the first phase were high- or middle-income citizens who chose to move to the United States or southern Europe. During this phase, relatively wealthy and educated professionals migrated, bringing investment, entrepreneurship, and specialized skills to host countries. The increasing erosion of Venezuela’s economic and political system brought about the second phase of Venezuelan mobilization, with a less homogeneous flow in terms of socioeconomic status. Although many still fled to the United States and Europe, during this second phase, more and more Venezuelans moved to countries in the region, such as Colombia, Panama, and other countries in the Southern Cone.

The current phase of mobilization, termed “migration of despair,” began in the first half of 2015. ^{Paez and Vivas Peñalver (2017}) point out that these migrants flee in response to the growing humanitarian crisis characterized by shortages of food and medication, inflation, and a sharp increase in violence and political repression. In general, these migrants are poorer and less educated than those of the previous phases; they leave the country with little regard for the safety, stability, or even viability of their destination countries, and tend to have fewer resources when leaving the country.

This change in the profile of Venezuelan migrants is evident in the periodic reports published by the International Organization for Migration (IOM, or OIM for its Spanish acronym) on the Peruvian case. The data from the October 2017 document reveals that, at that time, the majority of the Venezuelan population in Peru was male, young and single; 81.8% of those surveyed were between 18 and 35 years old, 62.6% were men, and 75.9% were single (^{OIM, 2017}). Contrastingly, the data published in February 2020, just before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, shows a distinctly different population: the majority were female migrants (55%) traveling with children; 45% of the people interviewed stated that they cared for at least one minor in their group (^{OIM, 2020}). Thus, while the original profile was that of young, single people seeking opportunities in Peru, profiles changed towards women and children seeking family reunification.

The phenomenon of Venezuelan migration in Peru has become increasingly relevant due to the exponential growth of said population in the country. It is estimated that in 2015 there were 3 768 Venezuelans in Peru, yet by the end of 2020 their numbers had already exceeded the one million mark (R4V, 2021). Furthermore, the majority of Venezuelans entered the country in 2018 (76.8%), mainly in the February to October period; while only 19.6% entered in 2017, 2.7% in 2016, and 1% in the 2011 to 2015 period (^{Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, 2019}).

The steep increase of Venezuelan nationals brought about the creation of different regularization mechanisms. The Temporary Stay Permit (PTP, acronym in Spanish for Permiso Temporal de Permanencia) was enacted on January 3rd, 2017 and ceased to be issued on December 31st, 2018. It was amended four times, and the first three amendments, extended both the deadlines for obtaining the permit and for applying for it. The termination of the PTP was due the country’s change of government; the new president took a more securitist approach to migration, implementing restrictive measures such as requiring a passport to enter the country, and later, a so-called humanitarian visa (^{Aron Said & Castillo Jara, 2020}).

As for the PTP, while only 37 671 permits were issued in 2017, this number rose to 162 450 in 2018; that is an increase of 331% in the span of one year (^{Superintendencia Nacional de Migraciones, 2018}). In terms of refugees and asylum seekers, the increase in the Venezuelan migratory flow led to Peru becoming the country with the most asylum applications of said nationality -followed by Brazil and the United States (^{Alto Comisionado de Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados, 2019})- with close to 1 500 000 applications by the end of 2020 (R4V, 2021).

Theoretical framework: the suffering of migrants

The concept of suffering has been used and progressively enriched by disciplines such as sociology (^{Bauman, 1994}) and anthropology (^{Kleinman & Kleinman, 1997}; ^{Sayad, 2004}). The term is complex as it includes both personal experiences and diverse social processes that are often difficult to describe (^{Wilkinson, 2005}).

When speaking of suffering and migration in sociological terms, Zygmunt ^{Bauman (1994}, ¹⁹⁹⁵) conceptualizes the term in the sociopolitical field. The concept of suffering proposed by Bauman can be understood in two ways: (1) the relationships between human beings, in which there is a clearly identifiable perpetrator who causes suffering to another individual (relational suffering), and (2) particular life conditions derived from the social, economic or cultural environment that cause suffering (structural suffering) (^{Jacobsen & Marshman, 2008}). Structural suffering is in constant dynamic interaction with the ruling elite, that is, with those who exercise power over a certain group or individual. Hence, it is understood that government actions (such as the making of laws and public policies) can increase the suffering of people.

Gender, ethnicity, nationality, and socioeconomic status are factors that can cause suffering for individuals and groups (^{Farmer, 1997}). As Farmer argued, any distinguishing characteristic, whether social or biological, can serve as a pretext for discrimination and thus cause suffering. In the context of migration, this is fundamental, given that societies have many differences in their ways of socializing -way of dressing, language, accent, religion, etc.- which can therefore serve as triggers for discrimination.

On the other hand, Abdelmalek Sayad developed the concept of suffering within the anthropology of migration. In his book The double absence: From the illusions of the emigrant to the sufferings of the immigrant (2004), the author posited that to understand the migratory experience of individuals, migration must be analyzed both from the logic of the emigration society and from immigration society. ^{Sayad (2004)} states that the condition of being a non-national places the migrant in a position of immediate subordination vis-à-vis nationals, and therefore of inequality. Suffering must be understood as a feeling that is the consequence of different aspects of the migratory experience: discrimination, culture shock, detachment from what is one’s own, among others.

A number of recently published studies relate social suffering and migration in the aforementioned terms. ^{Parella, Petroff, Speroni, and Piqueras (2019}) focus on return migration and developed a conceptual approach to the analysis of suffering in returning migrants using the VIA model, composed of the analytical axes of vulnerability, uncertainty and support. On the other hand, scholars have investigated social suffering within the context of migratory deportations; for example, ^{Radiziwinowiczówna (2019}) and ^{Montes (2019)}, analyze the case of Mexican nationals from different perspectives, based on interviews with deportees. The first study emphasizes individual suffering within the context of unauthorized deportations, whereas the second focuses on the family level and seeks to expose the suffering that materializes in whole groups.

To our best knowledge, this is the first study in the Peruvian context, and specifically on Venezuelan forced displacement, that link the aforementioned concepts. The research of ^{Caroll et al. (2020)} is important in that they study the mental health of Venezuelan migrants in Peru; based on a validated psychological approach, the results show the negative impact that the migratory journey has on the mental health of Venezuelan nationals. Studies have also highlighted the heightened vulnerability and integration challenges of the Venezuelan population in Peru (^{Blouin & Freier, 2019}).

Based on the above, our research is imperative because it seeks to demonstrate migrants’ suffering throughout the three different stages of their journey: departure, travel and arrival. On the one hand, this approach attempts to expand the concept of suffering in migration studies, and on the other, it aims to demonstrate the vulnerability experienced by this population, highlighting the importance of national policies that take into account the mental health of migrants and refugees.

Methodology

Our analysis is based on a collaborative effort that included ethnographic fieldwork and semi- structured interviews carried out with Venezuelan migrants during 2018. This study is made up of three research phases with distinct characteristics that allowed for a broader understanding of the phenomenon at hand. Our empirical material was analyzed to identify patterns of behavior and shared experiences, as well as differential aspects at the various stages of the journey. This research used an inductive approach to investigate the experiences of our interviewees throughout the migratory process, based on open questions made during the field work. However, the concept of suffering was not directly addressed or even suggested in these interviews, rather the stories related to the topic arose spontaneously on part of participants. Based on the patterns found in their answers, the theoretical concept of suffering was chosen, given that it encompasses both individual and collective dimensions. This inductive approach was crucial to achieve unbiased results.

The first research phase was carried out in May. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 Venezuelans in Tumbes, a border region between Ecuador and Peru, and Tacna, near the Peru-Chile border. The main objective of these interviews was to understand the lived experiences of Venezuelan migrants throughout their journey.

In the second research phase, the ethnographic work relied on participant observation as a qualitative method to understanding the behavior, beliefs, and values of this social group, by means of immersion in their community (^{Ritchie, Lewis, McNaughton Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013}). The work here consisted of accompanying a group of six Venezuelan migrants from San Antonio de Táchira, a Venezuelan city on the border with Colombia, to the city of Lima, capital of Peru. The journey took place between May 26th and June 7th of 2018. During the fieldwork carried out, semi-structured interviews were conducted with more than 20 other migrants to achieve a deeper understanding of the experiences, emotions and the challenges faced by this population during the journey from Venezuela into Peru.

Finally, our third research phase consisted of semi-structured interviews carried out in Lima between June and September of 2018. In this iteration, 20 Venezuelan migrants already established in Lima were interviewed; they were asked about their experiences related to issues such as social inclusion, insertion in the labor field, discrimination, feelings of nostalgia, among others.

In preparation for interviews, we developed a document with open-ended guiding questions. It should be noted that the development of the semi-structured interviews was not rigid and allowed for slight variations depending on the experiences that each migrant recounted. For example, in some cases the interviewees placed great emphasis on the nostalgia of leaving their relatives, especially the younger ones, while others focused mainly on the episodes of xenophobia they experienced in Peru. With prior authorization from the participants, the interviews were recorded and later transcribed.

Further, we kept a research diary during the ethnographic work, in which the main experiences and perceptions of the participants throughout the stages of their trip were documented. The interviews carried out during the journey were not recorded, but key points were written down. The criteria for following such a methodology was that, since these interviews were conducted in the context of traveling, they could be done in a semi-formal, conversational setting.

The verbal or written consent of the participants was obtained for all three research experiences. All the names shown in the empirical analysis section were changed, so as to protect the identity of the interviewees.

Empyrical analysis: suffering in venezuelan migration

Based on the collected testimonies, we analyzed the suffering of Venezuelan migrants in the context of departure, during their journey, and in the context of arrival. This experience included traveling by bus all the way from Venezuela and passing through Colombia and Ecuador to arrive in Peru. The journey involved passing six border controls, traveling more than 3 000 kilometers, queuing for hours, and even walking at times.

Closing remarks

Venezuelan emigration represents an important challenge for Latin American governments, putting to test the liberalization of their immigration and refugee laws of the last two decades (^{Acosta Arcarazo & Freier, 2015}; ^{Cantor, Freier, & Gaucci, 2015}). Given that Peru is a main destination for Venezuelan migrants, studies exist on the country’s migration policies, and on the socioeconomic integration of Venezuelans. However, we still lack literature that focuses on the experiences of Venezuelan migrants themselves. In an effort to contribute to the literature on Venezuelan displacement in the region, this article explored the experience of Venezuelan migrants along their journey and upon arrival in Peru, by means of interviews and ethnographic work, through the lens of the concept of suffering.

To understand the migration experience and the role of suffering, it is necessary to conceptualize the different stages that migrants go through, and the feelings that these can arise in them. Our research shows that while there are some constant reasons for suffering, such as missing one’s family and feeling guilty for leaving them behind in Venezuela, the reasons for and types of suffering do tend to be different at each stage of the migratory journey. The concept of social suffering contributes to a more thorough understanding of the migratory experience, to the extent that it sees the migrants individually, but also positions her in relation to society. Social suffering is a key concept in this sense, and its analysis must consider the psycho-social impact that different phenomena have on people (^{Parella et al., 2019}). According to this conceptualization, the term suffering gains importance when understood as a consequence of the relationships between people.

Within the context of departure, it was possible to observe that the main source of suffering was the uncertainty and guilt of undertaking a difficult journey while family and friends were left behind in a country that had collapsed both socially and economically. Uncertainty arose and manifested itself in different ways, depending on the context of departure. Such a sense of uncertainty also arose as migrants continued traveling, not knowing how they would be received in the destination country.

Finally, disappointment prevailed among migrants in the context of arrival and settlement, as they were forced to accept jobs perceived as humiliating, and became victims of discriminatory acts. Socio-economic and cultural inclusion was a constant challenge as they tried to settle in Peru. As can be seen, the migration process consists of different stages and is not merely the departure of migrants from their destination country.

In the case study of Peru, the vulnerability of migrants has worsened over time, particularly in the context of COVID-19. Despite the recent introduction of the CPP (Carné de Permiso Temporal de Permanencia) recently introduced, there is no sustainable migrant regularization mechanism available to Venezuelans in Peru; in fact, entry requirements like the humanitarian visa involve requirements difficult to fulfill for most. This, in addition to the impact of border closures due to COVID-19, has resulted in greater irregularity in the entry of Venezuelans into the country, and further increased their vulnerability (^{CIUP, 2020}).

Our research shows the importance of considering the psycho-social aspects of migration, and encourages the use of social suffering as a core concept in the study of migratory experiences, especially in the case of the increasing vulnerability of Venezuelan migrants. At the same time, our findings underline the vital importance for States to treat mental health as a priority in their agendas for the integration of Venezuelan migrants and refugees, and to implement public policies with a psycho-social approach.

Translation: Fernando Llanas.