International Conference Registering Political Violence: Technologies, Uses, and Effects

Transcription

1 International Conference Registering Political Violence: Technologies, Uses, and Effects January 2018 Museum of Memory and Human Rights Santiago, Chile Detail, artwork La Sábana by Nicolás Franco, Universidad Alberto Hurtado 1

2 Sponsored Organization 2

3 International Keynotes Professor Vikki Bell, Sociology, Head of the Department of Sociology at Goldsmiths College, United Kingdom. Conference title What do we do when we document the (violent) past? On inscriptions, critique and creativity Dra. Béatrice Fraenkel, Anthropologist, Director of Studies and Director of the Laboratory of Anthropology of Writing, School of Higher Studies in Social Sciences, France. Conference title: Actes et évènements d'écriture Call for papers and art works The research project Political Technologies of Memory: A Genealogy ( ) of the Devices of Registration, Denunciation, Compensation and Memory of Human Rights Violations by the Military Dictatorship in Chile, of Alberto Hurtado University, the Interdisciplinary Programme in Memory and Human Rights of the same university and the Museum of Memory and Human Rigths, invite the submission of papers and art works for its international conference Registering Political Violence: Technologies, Uses, and Effects. This international conference will analyse and critically assess different experiences of public and private registry and accounting for contemporary episodes of massive political violence. The conference will address cases of societies torn apart by experiences of war, armed conflicts, state repression, genocide, massacres and forced migration involving politically motivated gross human rights violations (execution, displacement, disappearance, imprisonment, torture, exile, exoneration, relegation, among others) from the particular perspective of the 3

4 registration and communication of these atrocities to society at large. In the contemporary world, such accounts have been produced by national and international courts, truth commissions, national and international human rights organisations, organisations of the victims' relatives, and memory sites and artefacts. In each circumstance, the registration of political violence has been conducted for a range of purposes at different socio-historical junctions: for assisting and denouncing state violence as it unfolds, as in the case of Chilean human rights organisations during the military dictatorship; in the aftermath of violence as part of mechanisms of recognition, reparation, rights restitution or political transition as in the more than 20 truth commissions in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leona, Timor and South Africa. Sometimes it arises centuries later in response to historical misdeeds inflicted by colonialism upon indigenous population, as with the 2015 report of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A wide range of registers are employed in these different scenarios; some emphasize testimonial accounts, others legal or forensic evidence, and yet others rely primarily on classifications and statistics. Why document misdeeds and abuses, especially after violence has ended? Why not simply leave them behind in the past? Why not just judge and punish and orient social efforts to strengthening democracy and citizenship? It has been argued that documenting what has happened and to whom in episodes of political violence is key for historical reckoning, societal information and reflection. Other aims that give rise to documentation endeavours are aspirations for the development of a culture of peace, the establishment of measures to prevent repetition as well as practices of denunciation and accountability thereafter. The right to justice (Norland, 2010) and the right to truth are also dependent on information availability. The cases of forced disappearance around the world give crude testimony to the 4

5 difficulty of answering such questions when perpetrators remain silent. Furthermore, recordkeeping has proved a key tool for confronting the perpetrators denials of their responsibility and involvement in that violent past. Indeed, systematic policies of political violence are characterised by a clandestine, illegal, and misguided way of proceeding and by obstructing access to the repressive agencies systems of registration and documentation. Documenting political violence is also a requisite for victims definition and qualification in non-legal processes, such as establishing reparation, rehabilitation and rights restitution policies and programmes. Records play a key role in the process of transforming these sinister and macabre events into meaningful survivors narratives. With all its limitations (Andrews, 2007; Haynor, 2001; Burr, 2002; Wilson, 2001; Henri, 2003) such was the case in the South African public hearings. Records were also fundamental in the recent Argentine and Chilean initiatives to create audio visual testimonial archives with survivors experience at former detention centres transformed into memory sites. Moreover, in many cases the registration of political violence allows affected societies to appreciate for the first time the depth and scale of the horror suffered by fellow citizens. Writers also underscore the importance of recordkeeping to ensure future generations the right to access to the information on these episodes of their society s history. The United Nations Human Right Commission established in 2005 that human rights archives and other sources of proof of these atrocities should be preserved in order to guarantee access to this information, which is part of each society s historical heritage. Thus, the documentation of political violence is a key dimension of accountability, truth, justice, post conflict social reconstruction, reparation, memory and history (Haynor, 2001; Wilson, 2007; Ketelaar, 1992). In addition, when societies are able to register political violence as it unfolds, and the organizations and teams in charge of this mission gain legitimacy among the national and international communities, registration may 5

6 help to undermine the perpetrators power and may affect violence itself, its uses, its mechanisms, its targets, its intensity and scope. Yet, it is also important to identify and reflect upon the limitations of the processes and practices of political violence documentation. It has been argued that, as in any knowledge-making process, documentation may render narratives, subjectivities, and experiences more visible than others, even excluding certain cases due to the limitations of an operationalized definition that often falls short in representing the complexity of the events of reference. Other commentators have stressed that the documentation of political violence not necessarily provides a thorough account of the causes and effects of such violence, and this may well hinder social learning. The organizational, political, moral, economic, and legal constraints that impinge on the different devices that demand political violence recordkeeping practices (truth commissions, trials, etc.) is another area of concern. A number of important questions emerge from this particular prism of political violence registration and recordkeeping practices and processes. They include the following: Who is capable of providing a relevant account? What are the characteristics of an accomplished account? How is an account constructed when relevant evidence is missing and disinformation circulates? Which knowledge and expertise should be used to register? Which repertoire, taxonomies and nomenclatures do registration processes produce and with what consequences? How should victims be described? What are the silent and blind spots of these reports? What are the technologies and infrastructures that sustain these processes and how do they both inform and shape what has been recorded? How do political violence recordkeeping practices reveal and manage the organizational, political, moral, economic and legal constraints that impinge on this type of work? 6

7 How does the technology of political violence registration limit or facilitate others (legal, reparatory, testimonial, forensic, and historical)? Which truth do registration produce? This conference aims to generate discussion on these and other pressing questions related to the overall theme. Registration will be approached as both a practice and an outcome (Halliday 1964). In particular, registration of political violence will be conceived socio-historically, politically, and technologically, not as mere bureaucratic manoeuvres but frequently as cognitive artefacts (Fraenkel, 2008) that orient cognition and action in those who submit themselves to the documents. Proposals for papers may address but are not limited to the following general topics: Accounting for political violence and repertoires of terror Accounting for political violence and human rights archives Accounting for political violence and victims Accounting for political violence and denunciation Political violence, vulnerability and resistance Truth recovery and registration of political violence Registration of political violence, knowledge, technologies and expertise Technologies of truth and evidence making Purposes, limitations and effects of accounting for political violence Political violence, registration and research (judicial, academic, policy oriented) Political violence, registration and social policies Accounting for political violence and victims identification, qualification and reparation Accounting for political violence, memory and memorialization Accounting for political violence and the arts The conference will be organized around panel discussions of 120 minutes duration. Each presentation is expected to be no more than 20 minutes long. 7

8 In addition, artists, activists, university academics, and designers are encouraged to submit short audio-visual material, digital work or Internet projects related to the central issues posed by the conference. Authors will receive confirmation of receipt of their proposals. All eligible abstracts will be blind reviewed by members of the Conference Academic Committee. We welcome proposals in Spanish and English. Submission guidelines Please upload your submission to Papers proposals should include: - Author(s) profile: name, address, affiliation, field of study, research interest, regional area of concern. - A 300-word paper proposal (including title and 4 keywords). Artworks exhibitions should include - Author(s) profile: name, address, affiliation, field of study, research interest, regional area of concern. - Artwork title, image or trailer, technical profile, and a 150 word presentation (1100 characters) Dates and deadlines Deadline for paper abstracts submission: 10 th October Deadline for audio/visual work submission: 10 th October Notification of proposal acceptance for the conference programme: 20 th October Publication of the programme in the website 30th November

9 Conference Venue Museum of Memory and Human Rights The Museum of Memory and Human Rights is an institution that strives to give greater visibility to human rights violations committed by the state of Chile from 1973 to More Info: Contact: 501 Matucana, Santiago, Chile. Quinta Normal Metro Station Telephone: Location: 9

10 Further information and contact This website will provide conference information and updates You may write to for further information. Academic committee Elizabeth Lira K. Dean Psychology Faculty, Universidad Alberto Hurtado. María Luisa Ortiz, Director Documentation Centre, Museum of Memory and Human Rights. Oriana Bernasconi, Sociology Department, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, principal researcher, Political Technologies of Memory. Fredy Mora Gámez, Department of Thematic Studies (TEMA), Universidad de Linkoping, Sweden. Anne Pérotin-Dumon, Dr. in Letters and in History, Head of Conservation of the Heritage of the National Archives of France. Ana María Risco, Academic Art Department, Universidad Alberto Hurtado. Sandra Accatino, Director Master in Image Studies. Art Department, Universidad Alberto Hurtado. 10

11 References Andrews, M. (2007). "Pero si no he acabado... tengo más que contar": las limitaciones de las narraciones estructuradas de los testimonios públicos. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología,(4), Buur, L (2001). Monumental Historical Memory: Managing Truth in the Everyday Work of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In Posel, D. y Simpson, G. (eds). Commissioning the Past: understanding South Africa s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (pp ) Witwatersand University Press. Haynor, P. (2001) Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State Terror and Atrocity. London, Routledge. Henri, Y. (2003). Reconciling Reconciliation: A Personal and Public Journey of Testifying Before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in Gready, P. (ed.), Political Transition: Politics and Cultures (pp ). London, Pluto Press. Ketelaar, E. (1992). The European Community and Its Archives. The American Archivist: 55 (1), Fraenkel, B. (2008). Comment tenir un registre? Language and Societe, 2(124), Norland, J. (2010). Human Rights and Archives: Lessons from the Heiner Affair (Master of Arts thesis). Canadá: University of Manitoba and University of Winnipeg. Wilson, R. (2001). The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Legitimising the Post- Apartheid State. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 11