Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile: Struggles for Remembrance, Legitimacy and Accountability 303125533X, 9783031255335

Table of contents :
Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile
Struggles for Remembrance, Legitimacy and Accountability
Copyright
Preface
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Figures
About the Author
Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
Organization of This Book
Brief Literature Review
Plural Memories, National Memories, and Cultural Traces of Memory
Commemorations and Performances of the Past
Social Movements: Memorial and Legal Activism
Research Questions and Scientific Relevance
A Brief Contextualization
Chile’s Path from Socialism to Dictatorship
Transition to Democracy
Post-transitional Era?
References
Chapter 2: Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Sociology of Memory: Memory, Representations, and Identities
Emblematization of Memory
The Porteurs de Mémoire: At the Intersection of the Sociology of Memory and Social Movements
Sociology of Social Movements: Political Process Theory
Discourse Analysis: Between Theory and Method
Methods
General Presentation
References
Chapter 3: The Year That Changed Everything (1998–2000)
1998 or the Judicial Saga That Imprisoned Pinochet for 503 Days
The Arrest of Pinochet in London: Some Historical Background
Meanwhile in Chile…
Mobilizations of Memory: Discursive Struggles Around the Person of Pinochet
Struggles around the Representation of Augusto Pinochet
Pinochet as a Dictator
Pinochet as a General
Fight Against Impunity
Opposition to Government Efforts
Safeguarding National Sovereignty: Efforts for the Repatriation of Pinochet
Mobilizations of Memory: Discursive Struggles Around the Issue of Justice and the Mesa
La Mesa: Some Historical Background
Stance of Organizations in Relation to the Mesa
Points of Convergence Between the AFEP, the AFDD, and the ANEXPP
Associations’ Space in the Media and Political Recognition
Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: Renewal of the Struggle and Pinochet’s Final Dance with Justice (2001–2008)
Historical Background
Impunity or the Myth of Justice
The Power of Judges
Presidential Pardon Project
Campaign for the Cancellation of the Amnesty Law and the Bachelet Effect
Recovery of Londres 38: An Event Apart
Pinochet’S Last Stand
Human Rights and Memory Organizations
Space Occupied by the Groups, Collaboration, and Opportunities
Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Disappointed Hopes and the Return of the Right (2009–2010)
Bachelet and Impunity
Impunity Under Piñera
Relations Between Organizations and the Piñera Administration
Indulto Bicentenario (Bicentennial Pardon) or the Continuation of the Prescription
Rossy Lama: Problems of Subjectivity
The Hearing with Piñera and the Exit of Hinzpeter
Public Space for Memory: The Case of the MMDH
The MMDH Under Bachelet
MMDH Under Piñera
Opportunity, Collaboration, and Space for Associations
Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Making Memory an Object of the Present and Human Rights an Object of Debate (2011–2013)
Impunity
The Judiciary and Impunity
The Closing of the Cordillera Prison and the Suicide of Mena
Commemorative Activities of September 11, 2013
Los Lienzos de la Memoria: The Banners of Memory
Space for Associations: Role and Project for Society
Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: Today and Tomorrow (2014–2018): A Question of Impunity
Introduction
Impunity and the Secrecy Surrounding the Valech Commission
Punta Peuco: Prison Benefits, Justice, and Prison Closure
Campaign for the Release and Granting of Prison Benefits
Justice and Impunity: Judicial Power and Prisoner Release
“Se cierra o no se cierra Punta Peuco”: Will the Prison Ever Be Closed?
Nunca Más, Biological Impunity, and Bachelet
References
Chapter 8: Politics of Memory and Political Disaffection: Between Collaboration, Distrust, and Disapproval
Solidarities, Opportunities, and Occupied Spaces
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Latin American Societies Current Challenges in Social Sciences

Joannie Jean

Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile Struggles for Remembrance, Legitimacy and Accountability

Latin American Societies Current Challenges in Social Sciences Series Editors Adrián Albala, Institute of Political Science (IPOL) University of Brasília Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil María José Álvarez Rivadulla, School of Social Sciences Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, Colombia Alejandro Natal, Seminar Inst., Civ. Soc. & Pub. Pol. El Colegio Mexiquense Zinacantepec, Estado de México, Mexico

This series aims at presenting to the international community original contributions by scholars working on Latin America. Such contributions will address the challenges that Latin American societies currently face as well as the ways they deal with these challenges. The series will be methodologically agnostic, that is: it welcomes case studies, small-N comparative studies or studies covering the whole region, as well as studies using qualitative or quantitative data (or a mix of both), as long as they are empirically rigorous and based on high-quality research. Besides exploring Latin American challenges, the series attempts to provide concepts, findings and theories that may shed light on other regions. The series will focus on five axes of challenges: 1) Social, Public and Environmental Policies The first set of challenges revolves around the agenda setting in public and social policies in Latin America. This may include several topics like: redistribution policies, social mobility, marginalization. Another key item to be included deals with sources and consequences of environmental change – especially human-related change. These consequences threaten not only Latin American’s material reproduction (e. g. by threatening water and food sources) but also deeply ingrained cultural practices and lifestyles. This section will, therefore, include proposals on environmental policies and matters. We welcome studies on a wide array of social, public and environmental policy making, implementation and effects. 2) Crime, Security and Violence The second set of challenges stem from the persistence of violence and insecurity among Latin Americans, which consistently rank crime and insecurity at the top of their biggest problems. Crime organizations – from youth gangs to drug cartels – have grown and became more professionalized, displacing state forces in considerable chunks of national territories and, in some cases, penetrating the political class through illegal campaign funding and bribes. To this we should add, in some countries of the region, the persistence of armed insurgents fighting against governmental forces and paramilitaries, therefore creating cross-fires that threaten the lives of civilians. We welcome studies on a wide array of security and violence related issues. 3) Collective Action A third theme has to do with how collective actors – social movements, civil society organizations, and quasi-organized groups – deal with issues that affect them. We welcome studies on a wide array of collective actors working on different issues, with different tactics, and diverse ideological stances. 4) Migrations Political, economic, and environmental crises, as well as promises of better opportunities in other lands, have encouraged Latin Americans to migrate within their national borders or beyond them. While during the 1970s Latin Americans often migrated to other regions, nowadays national crises encourage them to seek other destinations in more nearby countries. We welcome studies on a wide array of topics and diverse theoretical perspectives.

5) Political Inclusion and Quality of Democracy Dealing with social and ethnic minorities constitutes one of the most recurrent and unresolved challenges for the Latin American democracies. This topic includes the representation of the minorities, but includes also the study of the socio-political elites. We also welcome other studies on a wide array of issues regarding inclusion and quality of democracy in the region. Both solicited and unsolicited proposals will be considered for publication in the series.

Joannie Jean

Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile Struggles for Remembrance, Legitimacy and Accountability

Joannie Jean School of Sociology and Anthropology Studies University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON, Canada

ISSN 2730-5538     ISSN 2730-5546 (electronic) Latin American Societies ISBN 978-3-031-25533-5    ISBN 978-3-031-25534-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25534-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book is the result of my doctoral research. My fieldwork and the writing process took place before the explosion of social movements and unrest in Chile that led to the plebiscite. Which mean that the 2018–2022 period is unfortunately not covered but would be most likely to be covered in future investigations. The past and its representation in the public space have been a source of conflict since the end of the Pinochet regime. Spectral-like, these matters reappear in the present in many forms as organizations of memory and human rights struggle over the meaning and importance of the past, as well as the legitimacy that must be granted to actors mobilizing this past in the public arena. However, these struggles and conflicts occur in particular sociopolitical dynamics and engage a multitude of actors with different representations of the past. This state of affairs calls for a reformulation of the conceptualization of the role of collective actors in order to highlight these differences in the way of representing the past, certainly, but also in the analogous and opposite strategies of doing so. This book addresses the work of seven organizations of memory and human rights in Santiago, Chile, and the struggles in which they are engaged. From a multidisciplinary perspective, it undertakes, diachronically, the reconstruction of the main debates that have arisen around the themes of impunity, truth, and memory. Covering the period from 1998 to 2018, it begins with the detention of Augusto Pinochet in London and concludes with the end of the second term of the first woman president, Michelle Bachelet. The seven organizations studied range from family groups and survivors to sites of memory and consciousness. Through the discourses produced by these organizations, it examines particular historical periods by focusing on strong moments of these conjunctures in order to highlight the struggles of meaning and the conflicts of legitimacy relating to these times. In concrete terms, particular attention is paid to the analysis of the main themes of litigation, the way in which the actors are mobilized, their objectives, and how the past is

vii

viii

Preface

evoked in the public space. One of the purposes of this book is to highlight the conflictual relationship between organizations and post-dictatorship administrations. This dimension thus makes it possible to understand the uneasiness of the political representations that appear in the background of the public interventions of the porteurs de mémoire. Ottawa, ON, Canada

Joannie Jean

Acknowledgments

It took me five years to complete a monumental work of archiving, translation, and fieldwork that took me in multiple directions that I had not anticipated when I entered the doctoral program in sociology. It then took me two more years to transform it into a book. This dissertation and this book, however, were not a solitary endeavor. In fact, it would not have been possible without the support, help, and advice of many people. I must first thank my thesis supervisors, Dominique Masson (Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies, University of Ottawa) and Karine Vanthuyne (School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa). Over the last few years, I have found in them a moral support and a constant accompaniment as I navigated new theoretical and methodological fields. Their presence at my side has been invaluable in this adventure that was the doctorate. During the translation of the thesis, Michelle Landy (Department of Sociology and Criminology, Université de Moncton) allowed me to continue my research and supported this transformative work. I must also acknowledge the important financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the University of Ottawa, and the School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies. Their scholarships and grants not only allowed me to pursue my studies but also made possible a field trip and participation in numerous international conferences. As the first in my extended family to pursue a graduate degree, I could not have envisioned pursuing this degree without this support.

*** 

Over the past five years, exceptional people have accompanied and supported me. First of all, I would like to warmly thank Caroline, Geneviève BB, Matthew, Gilbert, Alexis, and Christian for their countless readings, rereadings, and advice during the writing and sending of various proposals. Without you, I would certainly have had a little less “sense.” A special thanks for their patience, listening, and support to Louise, Vanessa, Cindy, and Loan. I will always be grateful to my parents for ix

x

Acknowledgments

having supported me on a path that they did not understand and for having understood the pitfalls that stood in the way of this project. Above all, thank you for teaching me to follow my dreams and to be persistent enough to accomplish them. Finally, I want to thank my partner, Michael, and the kids, Xavier and Thane, for being patient and loving in the face of many late nights and weekend work sessions. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to all the others who are not named here because of lack of space, I have not forgotten you! I would like to conclude by expressing my solidarity with the groups that are still mobilizing today for memory and human rights in countries emerging from conflict. Your historic struggle for truth, justice, and memory continues to be a source of inspiration for me, and I hope to contribute to a broader understanding of Chilean memory struggles outside of South America.

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Organization of This Book������������������������������������������������������������������������    2 Brief Literature Review�����������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 Plural Memories, National Memories, and Cultural Traces of Memory ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    4 Commemorations and Performances of the Past ����������������������������������    5 Social Movements: Memorial and Legal Activism��������������������������������    6 Research Questions and Scientific Relevance�������������������������������������������    8 A Brief Contextualization��������������������������������������������������������������������������   10 Chile’s Path from Socialism to Dictatorship����������������������������������������������   10 Transition to Democracy����������������������������������������������������������������������������   11 Post-transitional Era? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16

2

 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework����������������������������������������������   21 Sociology of Memory: Memory, Representations, and Identities ������������   21 Emblematization of Memory ��������������������������������������������������������������������   25 The Porteurs de Mémoire: At the Intersection of the Sociology of Memory and Social Movements������������������������������������������������������������   26 Sociology of Social Movements: Political Process Theory ����������������������   30 Discourse Analysis: Between Theory and Method������������������������������������   34 Methods������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 General Presentation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44

3

 The Year That Changed Everything (1998–2000)��������������������������������   49 1998 or the Judicial Saga That Imprisoned Pinochet for 503 Days����������   49 The Arrest of Pinochet in London: Some Historical Background ��������   50 Meanwhile in Chile…����������������������������������������������������������������������������   52

xi

xii

Contents

Mobilizations of Memory: Discursive Struggles Around the Person of Pinochet ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 Struggles around the Representation of Augusto Pinochet��������������������   53 Fight Against Impunity��������������������������������������������������������������������������   56 Opposition to Government Efforts��������������������������������������������������������   59 Safeguarding National Sovereignty: Efforts for the Repatriation of Pinochet ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 Mobilizations of Memory: Discursive Struggles Around the Issue of Justice and the Mesa������������������������������������������������������������������������������   64 La Mesa: Some Historical Background ����������������������������������������������    65 Stance of Organizations in Relation to the Mesa��������������������������������    66 Points of Convergence Between the AFEP, the AFDD, and the ANEXPP����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   72 Associations’ Space in the Media and Political Recognition��������������������   73 Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   76 4

 Renewal of the Struggle and Pinochet’s Final Dance with Justice (2001–2008)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81 Historical Background ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   82 Impunity or the Myth of Justice����������������������������������������������������������������   84 The Power of Judges������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85 Presidential Pardon Project��������������������������������������������������������������������   86 Campaign for the Cancellation of the Amnesty Law and the Bachelet Effect��������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 Recovery of Londres 38: An Event Apart��������������������������������������������������   94 Pinochet’S Last Stand��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 Human Rights and Memory Organizations ������������������������������������������   98 Space Occupied by the Groups, Collaboration, and Opportunities ����������  100 Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  101 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  102

5

 Disappointed Hopes and the Return of the Right (2009–2010) ����������  105 Bachelet and Impunity ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 Impunity Under Piñera������������������������������������������������������������������������������  112 Relations Between Organizations and the Piñera Administration ��������  113 Rossy Lama: Problems of Subjectivity��������������������������������������������������  116 The Hearing with Piñera and the Exit of Hinzpeter������������������������������  117 Public Space for Memory: The Case of the MMDH ��������������������������������  120 The MMDH Under Bachelet ����������������������������������������������������������������  120 MMDH Under Piñera����������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 Opportunity, Collaboration, and Space for Associations ��������������������������  124 Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127

Contents

xiii

6

Making Memory an Object of the Present and Human Rights an Object of Debate (2011–2013)������������������������������������������������  131 Impunity����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  132 The Judiciary and Impunity ������������������������������������������������������������������  132 The Closing of the Cordillera Prison and the Suicide of Mena ������������  138 Commemorative Activities of September 11, 2013 ����������������������������������  142 Los Lienzos de la Memoria: The Banners of Memory��������������������������  144 Space for Associations: Role and Project for Society��������������������������������  145 Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  152 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  153

7

 Today and Tomorrow (2014–2018): A Question of Impunity��������������  157 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Impunity and the Secrecy Surrounding the Valech Commission��������������  158 Punta Peuco: Prison Benefits, Justice, and Prison Closure����������������������   166 Campaign for the Release and Granting of Prison Benefits������������������  166 Justice and Impunity: Judicial Power and Prisoner Release������������������  173 “Se cierra o no se cierra Punta Peuco”: Will the Prison Ever Be Closed?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  176 Nunca Más, Biological Impunity, and Bachelet����������������������������������������   177 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179

8

Politics of Memory and Political Disaffection: Between Collaboration, Distrust, and Disapproval����������������������������������������������  183 Solidarities, Opportunities, and Occupied Spaces ������������������������������������  190 Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  193 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  194

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  195

List of Figures

Fig. 8.1 Water basin in front of La Moneda. (http://www.londres38.cl/1937/ w3-­article-­97781.html) ��������������������������������������������������������������������  187 Fig. 8.2 Street performance Exterminados como ratones. (Photo by author)������������������������������������������������������������������������������  188 Fig. 8.3 La Segunda 24/7/1975. (Photo by author)����������������������������������������  189

xv

About the Author

Joannie Jean  completed a BA in History (2009), a DESS in post-secondary teaching (2010), an MA in Anthropology (2013), and a PhD in Sociology at the University of Ottawa in 2018. Her master’s thesis explored the relations between memory and representations of the past among the families of the detained-disappeared. Her interdisciplinary PhD research undertook the reconstruction of the main debates that arose around the question of impunity, truth, and memory in Chile. Based on the discourses produced by seven organizations located in Santiago and by formal and informal interviews, she examined particular historical conjunctures in order to highlight the struggles over the meaning taken by the difficult past within Chilean society while looking into the dynamics of contention at play. Her current work focuses on museums and their uses by different organizations to discuss the question of social movements, ethics, and memory. She is currently conducting her postdoctoral research at the Université de Moncton.

xvii

Abbreviations

AFDD AFEP ANEXPP CEMA IACHR IACHR ICC CPLT CODEPU DC DIBAM DINA FACH FASIC H.I.J.O.S. MMDH NM PCC PDD

Agrupacion de familiares de detenidos-desaparecidos  – Association of families of detained-disappeared Agrupación de familiares de ejecutados politicos – Association of families of political executions Agrupación nacional de ex presas y ex presos politicos  – National Association of Ex-Political Prisoners (later UNEXPP) Centro de madres de Chile – Center for Mothers of Chile Inter-American Court of Human Rights Inter-American Commission on Human Rights International Criminal Court Consejo por la Transparencia – Council for Transparency Corporación de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo – Corporation for the Promotion and Defense of the Rights of the People Partido Demócrata Cristiano  – Christian Democratic Party of Chile Dirección de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos – Directorate of Libraries, Archives and Museums Dirección de inteligencia nacional  – National Intelligence Agency Fuerza Aérea de Chile – Chilean Air Force Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas – Social Aid Foundation of the Christian Churches Hijos e Hijas por la Identitad y la Justicia, contra el Olvido y el Silencio  – Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice, Against Oblivion and Silence Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos – Museum of Memory and Human Rights Nueva Mayoría – New majority Partido comunista de Chile – Communist Party of Chile Partido por la Democracia – Party for Democracy xix

xx

PRSD

Abbreviations

Partido radical social democratico de Chile –- Radical Social Democratic Party of Chile PS Partido Socialista de Chile – Socialist Party of Chile PV Partido Ecologista Verde de Chile  – Green Ecologist Party of Chile RESLAC Red de sitios de memoria latinoamericanos y caribeños  – Network of Latin American and Caribbean Sites of Memory SERPAJ Servicio Paz y Justicia – Peace and Justice Service SML Servicio Médico Forense – Forensic Medical Service UDI Unión Demócrata Independiente  – Independent Democratic Union UNEXPP de Chile Unión de ex Presos Políticos de Chile - Union of ex political prisoners of Chile

Chapter 1

Introduction

The subject of the past and the way it is addressed in post-conflict countries are sources of contention. Like a ghost, it constantly reappears in the present through conflicts, organizations, cultural and artistic performances, or commemorative dates and practices. In Chile, the past continues to haunt the present as multiple organizations struggle over the meaning and significance of the past and the legitimacy to be given to the actors mobilizing the past in the public arena. This book will examine these struggles and conflicts arising from the emergence of differentiated representations of the past within particular socio-political dynamics. Furthermore, it will argue for a redefinition of the conceptualization of the role of collective actors. This book is the result of my doctoral research entitled Mobilisations de la mémoire: une étude diachronique des luttes de mémoire et de légitimité à Santiago, funded by the doctoral grant SSHRC (2015–2018). My research examined the work of seven organizations of memory and human rights diachronically and synchronically through five historical conjunctures articulated around key political events or ones that are anchored in the memory of Chile’s dictatorship. More specifically, the key political events begin from the detention of Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, an event that changed Chile’s political context, and end with the second mandate of President Michelle Bachelet in 2018. The seven organizations under study range from family groups and survivors to sites of memory and consciousness, based on an original theoretical framework influenced by literature on the sociology of memory, the sociology of social movements, and discourse analysis. My dissertation also drew on a diverse body of documents, notably national newspapers, written statements, and texts from the web platforms of the organizations under study. These documents were examined and analyzed to highlight the representations and dynamics that underline them. In concrete terms, particular attention was paid to the analysis of litigation, the ways in which the actors mobilize, their objectives, and how the past is evoked in public spaces. This research studied the body of documents collected in order to shed light on “who intervenes (the actors), how (the repertoires of action) and in which purpose (content of the claims)” (Passy and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Jean, Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25534-2_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Giugni 2005: 903). This technique makes it possible to trace the actors, their repertoire of actions, their representations of the past, the terminology they use, and the traces of their interactions with other organizations or opposing representations of the past. My doctoral research makes the argument that the current literature in the field of studies on memory does not sufficiently shed light on the role of memory actors and does not consider how the multiplication and diversity of social actors, movements, and organizations permanently problematize the past in a society, at the end of a process in which memory, an intermediate object, is only the instrument. The case of Chile, exemplary in this respect, because what is called “memory,” by which we understand all too often as the political management of the past and policies of memory, is not only the fact of porteurs de mémoire—which is the theoretical concept developed in my research instead of memory entrepreneurs—but also that of “carriers of experiences.” Lastly, one of the purposes of my research was to highlight the conflictual relationship between organizations and post-dictatorship administrations, discovering a form of rupture between the two groups or a “malaise” between organizations of memory and politics of the memory. Indeed, on the one hand, we can observe a hegemony of justice in discourse that opposes the one of reconciliation defended by diverse sectors in the Chilean society; on the other hand, that memory also becomes a social and political object that can be mobilized.

Organization of This Book The first chapter of this book is devoted to the introduction of the research problem, as well as to the theoretical and methodological frameworks in which this project is inserted. Second, I will focus on the historical context in which this project takes place by tracing the socio-political evolution of Chile from 1970 to 2018. In the third part, I will provide a conceptual and theoretical framework for this research. First, I will discuss the concept of memory. Then, I will address the Chilean case using the concept of emblematic memory and nodes of memory developed by Stern. This section will help explain the link I will make later between plural memories and memory work. Indeed, in a fourth step, this theoretical framework will consist of a definition of the actors at the heart of the struggles for meaning and the work of memory: the porteurs de mémoire or roughly translated memory bearers. In the fifth part, I will explain the theoretical and methodological contribution of the sociology of social movements: I will first evoke the process of the political model, then the discursive approach, which will guide my subsequent analyses. Finally, I will conclude with a methodological section that will highlight the target population for this study and the research and analysis methods that were employed. In the second part of this book, I will analyze the discourses produced by the organizations studied. Chapters 3–7 will examine particular historical periods by focusing on key moments in these conjunctures in order to highlight the struggles of meaning and conflicts of legitimacy relating to these eras. More specifically, they

Brief Literature Review

3

will examine the main topics of debate, the way organizations mobilize and elaborate their strategies. Particular attention will thus be paid to the question of the legitimacy of the actors and the past evoked. Finally, this book will conclude with a discussion of the political disaffection reflected in the conjunctures studied. This section will first discuss the relationships maintained over time between the organizations and the Chilean administrations with the aim of highlighting the unease of political representations reflected in the public interventions of the bearers of memory in Santiago. The section will end with an analysis of the space obtained, gained, and lost by the associations through the conjuncture.

Brief Literature Review There is an increasingly diverse literature on Chilean memory issues. For the purposes of this book, the literature review will focus on works dealing with the politics of memory. While I primarily focus on books and articles that study the case of Chile, I also include literature on Argentina, which often serves as a case study in the region. Theorized by Alexandra Baharona de Brito (Brito and Barahona 1997, 2010; Brito et al. 2001), the concept of politics of memory differs from works that have emerged from memory studies or those on transitional justice1 by highlighting “the dynamic evolution and changes in transitional politics and the emergence and replacement of dominant memory representations in the context of ongoing conflicts for justice and against impunity” (Lessa 2013): The ‘politics of memory’ refers to the various ways that political elites, social groups and institutions reinterpret the past and the breakdown of civility and propagate new interpretative narratives about the ‘what happened’ to legitimate a new political dispensation and develop a new vision of the future for the polity. [...]. The politics of memory represents a particularly intense kind of social memory-making, the key mark of which is to shift the boundaries, and patterns, of social and political inclusion and exclusion, thus marking new social and political continuities and discontinuities. (Brito and Barahona 2010: 360)

According to Collins, Hite, and Joignant (2013: 1-2), the concept of the politics of memory allows for a greater focus on the symbolic contents of certain policies while taking into consideration the broadening of claims made by memory collectives and proposes to go further than the transitional time frame that only studies violations committed during the dictatorship and then the transition (Collins, Hite, and Joignant, 2013: 1–2). This temporal and symbolic openness makes it possible to understand the existence of multiple representations, apprehensions, and uses of the past between different generations. It also accounts for ideological and partisan political influences in interpreting the past and highlights representations of the past  I am aware here that the concept of “transitional justice” is criticized. See the article by Sandrine Lefranc (2008). 1

4

1 Introduction

manufactured by a political elite with different agendas (Collins et al. 2013: 2). The politics of memory thus becomes a socio-political project that is not simply about remembering or memorializing the past, as it also carries with it a sense of urgency about the future (Bell 2011: 219).

 lural Memories, National Memories, and Cultural Traces P of Memory Authors using a conceptualization of memory as multiple and subjective draw on the groundbreaking work of Maurice Halbwachs. Nevertheless, in the Latin American context, several researchers have been inspired by the work of Argentine sociologist Elizabeth Jelin, who has theorized memory and its social markers in post-conflict nations (Jelin 1994, 2003, 2007; Jelin and Kaufman 2006). Steve Stern’s trilogy (2004, 2006, 2010) is in this vein. In the first volume, Stern explores how Chileans have difficulty defining the meaning to be attributed to the collective trauma they have experienced. This process is based on emblematic memories, and thus, these are not categorized by their content, but rather as a framework for selection and response to other representations (Stern, 2000). Lindsay Dubois (2000) had previously developed a similar argument by analyzing the situated nature of the different memories present in an Argentinean working-class group. Indeed, Dubois studies how the interplay of these multiple representations becomes locally unique experiences with particular meanings (DuBois 2000: 75). While the previous study is restricted to individuals and their representations, Lessie Jo Frazier extends hers to the interactions between the state’s use of the memory of violence and other representations and how this dynamic is at the very center of the constitution of the nation (Frazier 2007). The author questions the idea of a homogeneous national memory, while different representations of the past clash on a daily basis in different spheres. This is what Lechner and Güell (2006) emphasize when analyzing the social construction of Chilean memories. In fact, according to them, “the plurality of memories creates a battlefield in which struggles for meaning exist in order to delimit the materials on which to build the future” (Lechner and Güell 2006: 18–19). These confrontations consist of “irruptions of memory,2” while the past and its different representations are differently received according to the periods. Indeed, according to Alexander Wilde, from the Chilean case, memory goes through several seasons (Wilde 2013). These “seasons3”are furnished by the different political  Irruptions of memory are defined by Wilde (1999) as events that disrupt the flow of everyday life as the public arena is confronted with conflicting political memories based on moral and symbolic issues. 3  The first season (1990–1998) is characterized by the irruptions of memory into the public arena through moral and symbolic issues (Wilde 2013). The second (1998–2010), on the other hand, sees the public arena become a space for discussion about the past through truth commissions and a negotiation table (Wilde 2013). 2

Brief Literature Review

5

ruptures and irruptions of memory in the public space. Kristin Sorensen (2005: 1) also observes these points of rupture, while three periods of the recent Chilean past are represented in different ways depending on the medium (television, radio, documentaries, films, Internet, and newspapers). She insists in this article on the dynamism of the transfers between individuals and collective memories, while the media contribute to accelerate these exchanges to a point where, according to the author, we cannot distinguish our own representations from those that have passed through a media (Sorensen 2005: 10). Katrien Klep (2012), Macarena Gomez Barris (2009), Emilio Crenzel (2011), Diana Taylor (1997), and Michael Lazzara (2006) analyze this exchange using concrete examples. Klep traces the reactions, conflicts, and resistance to the reports of the Truth Commissions at the Villa Grimaldi memorial site (Santiago). Gómez-Barris, on the other hand, examines cultural productions that become repositories of Chilean memories and that, through their sociality, become places of exchange and transmission of certain representations of the past (Gomez Barris 2009: 11–12). Finally, Crenzel discusses the transformation of the Argentine Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report into a reference tool for collective memory that is taught to younger generations (Crenzel 2011: 1071). Indeed, the articulation of both the discourses of human rights collectives and those of the state creates a meta-narrative of the past that is, in general, consensual. The Argentine public space becomes, in Taylor (1997), a space for the performance of master narratives, while nationalism and gender are opposed over time in the context of violence against women and their relatives during the dictatorship. Lazzara (2006) does similar work as he examines how artists and survivors manage to represent the past while positioning their efforts within the socio-political context and social divisions of that period.

Commemorations and Performances of the Past Another theme in politics of memory research is commemorations and performances of the past. According to Hite (2012, 2005; Collins & Hite: 2013) and Druliolle (2011), the process of memorialization goes beyond simply acknowledging the past. Hite explores the tensions that exist between different efforts to mobilize the past in the public space from memorials, when over the course of their existence they can generate several reactions and thus create interest, rejection, or indifference (Hite 2005, 2012). In tracing the evolution of memorial politics, Hite manages to identify that the key issues now lie more “in representation and appropriation, temporality and visualization, and the design of memory,” with many conflicts occurring at the margins of the creation of these places (Hite 2005: 361–362, Collins et al. 2013). With the main initiatives being private, sites of memory become spaces for individual or collective commemorations, spaces for demands for justice or to (re)assert political identities (Hite and Collins 2013: 133). This is also emphasized by Vincent Druliolle (2011: 34-35), adding that these commemorative

6

1 Introduction

performances are no longer simply places of recollection, but are at the center of contemporary social issues and attempt to provoke reflection, even change. The way in which the past is memorialized, as these authors read it, thus becomes a tool for its performance in the public space. This dimension is most visible in Kaiser (2002), Taylor (2003), and Levey and Lessa (2015), as they all address the topic of escraches4 and the group H.I.J.O.S. (Hijos e Hijas por la Identitad y la Justicia, contra el Olvido y el Silencio- Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice, Against Forgetting and Silence). As festive demonstrations, the escraches described in these articles are types of public denunciation of impunity and a call for the recognition of the alleged criminals living in the surroundings. As Kaiser (2002: 511) points out, they also become a way of saying to society, “We won’t let you forget!” Taylor, on the other hand, emphasizes the power of escraches as a support for families as they bring the past into the present and denounce the lack of justice and the wrongs committed while providing an opportunity for families to transmit their representation of the past (2003: 153). According to Levey and Lessa (2015), escraches have evolved to become a means of showcasing shortcomings in the justice system while continuing to be a forum for reactivating collective memory in the public space.

Social Movements: Memorial and Legal Activism Finally, the politics of memory literature focuses on the different ways in which individuals use and consider the past that constantly erupts into the present. The politics of memory thus becomes a way to study social movements working for justice and truth (Hite in Hite and Ungar 2013: 343). Actors continue to invest the public space to negotiate how to transmit, represent, or evoke memory (Hite: 352–362), with memory continuing to haunt the present, as Susan Sontag (2004) argues, as its instrumentality addresses past and present issues (human rights violations, violence, injustice, and impunity). The production of collective memory is thus at the intersection of transitional justice and the politics of memory, while everyday practices allow, according to Kris Brown (2012: 446), to observe what local initiatives of memory work and the pursuit of justice are and in what ways they are embedded in broader hierarchical and political contexts. In Argentina, Ari Gandsman (2009a, b) studies the discourse of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo in relation to genetics and identity. Using two time periods, he first examines how their discourse centered around genetics, in order to reveal the identity of children who had been kidnapped during the dictatorship and then, with the work of time, how this discourse transformed into a questioning of individual identity and a reflection on Argentine identity. In 2013, Alice Verstraeten published a book about the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the evolution of their strategies

 Spanish slang from the verb “escraschar” meaning “to unveil” (Kaiser 2002: 499)

4

Brief Literature Review

7

of resistance. By reinventing forms of resistance, they bring their disappeared back to life by assuming their identity. In Margaret E.  Burchianti, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo become the site through which memory is transmitted (Burchianti 2004). Like Verstraeten and Gandsman, Burchianti examines the ways in which they use their identity as “mothers” to defend certain representations of the past and a common future project (Burchianti 2004: 135). While Vikki Bell and Mario Di Paolantonio similarly consider this link between the past and the contemporary project, they add, however, that these organizations use this forum to speak for their lost loved ones, but also create a spectral presence of these absent people (Bell and Di Paolantonio 2009: 152). In Chile, it is possible to follow the work of Gilberto C.  Aranda Bustamante (2004), who provides a historical study of the Vicaría de la Solidaridad association. Bustamente examines the Vicaría’s interactions with the socio-political arena from its inception, when it set out to restore the bonds of solidarity that had been damaged by the advent of the dictatorship (Aranda Bustamante 2004: 172). Adriana Espinoza Soto (2007), on the other hand, studied the H.I.J.O.S. group from the perspective of how the physical bodies of H.I.J.O.S. members become a vehicle of collective memory and the “ultimate site” of resistance and conflict, while they increasingly assume the role of memory keepers. Next, Juan René Maureira Moreno (2009), using the community of Paine and the memorial to the detainee-disappeared, explores how a city can recover, (re)interpret, and (re)transmit the past and collective memory after a democratic transition. Cath Collins’ work (Collins 2009, 2010a, b; Collins et al. 2013) also highlights the role of families of victims and survivors of the dictatorship, as a second wave of justice led to the indictment of more than 800 state officials. My previous work (Jean 2013, 2014) is situated in this line of thought, as I studied the different types of memories and representations of the past encountered within the AFDD (Agrupacion de familiares detenidos-desaparecidos— Association of families of detainees-dead) in Santiago. I examined the question of the active transmission of these representations to the following generations and the socio-political context in which it takes place. The poet Marjorie Agosín (1987) also dealt with the bonds of solidarity between families, giving an account of the Pinochet years and the development of a women’s activism around the grouping of families of detained disappeared (AFDD) and focusing more specifically on their artistic production of arpilleras. Garcia Castro (2002) is, in a way, the counterpart of Agosín, as she investigates the process of forced disappearance and maps the mobilization of relatives of the disappeared between 1973 and 2002. This research was previously undertaken by Elías Padilla Ballesteros (1995) and Hernán Vidal (1996) and historically situated the phenomenon of enforced disappearances. The multiplicity of representations of the past and their forms in the public space has become, as several of the aforementioned authors have previously pointed out, a source of conflict and struggle regarding the meaning and legitimacy of certain actors. This plurality and the mobilizations to which it has given rise have been extensively studied. Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered. Drawing on the recent work of Tahir (2015), I argue that by homogenizing the organizations involved in these struggles, many questions remain unanswered, for example, “[...]

8

1 Introduction

can we speak of a homogenous group? How do these actors interact? While the issue is linked to the state management of the dictatorial past, what is the weight of the relations with the government in place? How does this condition the discourse of the associations? Do they act in concert” (Tahir 2015: 14). Nadia Tahir (2015) thus approaches the topic in a different way. Indeed, by challenging the way organizations are studied as homogeneous groups, Tahir wishes to put into perspective the different similarities, nuances, and discontinuities that exist between them. Her major contribution lies in mapping the historical evolution of associations, particularly in the way victims, activists, and their claims are identified. Thus, throughout this book, I will argue that the current state of research on the politics of memory in Chile (and elsewhere) does not allow for an understanding of the role of the porteurs de mémoire5 as heterogeneous actors, i.e., with both common and different goals, similar and opposing strategies, and parallel similar and distinct representations of the past. Moreover, in the scientific literature on the subject, collective actors appear either as a thread in the authors’ presentations or as a singular object of study since they are at the center of contemporary memory politics. For this project, it will therefore be a matter of trying to better understand these actors, as well as the socio-political dynamics in which they evolve.

Research Questions and Scientific Relevance By focusing my analysis on actors and their mobilization of memory in the public arena, I wish to shed light on the different ways in which these actors come into conflict with respect to the meaning taken by the past and the socio-political dynamics in which these conflicts occur. In an effort to empirically, analytically, and theoretically address the gaps I identify in current research’s treatment of collective actors mobilized in the politics of memory; the following three questions will guide this project: 1. How do the differentiated representations of the past of various memory bearers fit into struggles for meaning and legitimacy in relation to the dominant representations existing within Chilean collective memory during the period 1998–2018? 2. As suggested by the literature (Stern 2010; Wilde 2013), Chile has experienced several “memorial seasons” that have influenced actors and their mobilizations of memory. What are the socio-political configurations and conflictual dynamics

 As I will explain later, I have developed the concept of “memory bearer” in order to make explicit the contribution of actors within organizations. These actors publicly defend certain representations of the dictatorship’s past. This public performance of memory can take artistic (visual arts, dance, theater, literature, etc.) and/or political forms (activism within political parties, human rights organizations, protests, etc.). 5

Research Questions and Scientific Relevance

9

that have contributed to changes in the representations of the past and the strategies of the memory bearers studied over the period 1998–2018? 3. How should the conceptualization of the role of collective actors and the very conception of them be redefined in order to better appreciate their importance in relation to the mobilizations and politics of memory? This book intends, firstly, to show how Chilean memory bearers find themselves at the center of struggles for meaning in relation to dominant representations of the past over the period 1998–2018. In the course of this book, we will first grasp the multiple ways in which the dictatorship is represented within the selected organizations and then the ways in which these representations are elaborated, mobilized, and transmitted in the public arena and how they are inscribed in struggles for meaning. By the same token, we will address the definition of legitimate ways of not only talking about the past but also the definition of who has the legitimacy to talk about it. We will therefore observe conflicting processes of memorialization, as well as see how these representations of the past are mobilized by organizations and their actors in a variety of contexts of struggle on the terrain of memory, such as during student demonstrations or in the promotion of particular school programs. Secondly, the socio-political configurations and conflictual dynamics6 that have contributed to changes in the way the past is represented and transmitted were taken into consideration and observed. I refer here to Norbert Elias’ definition (Elias 1993: 107) of the notion of “configuration,” which refers to the different “form[s] that relations between several persons or several groups of human beings take, [and] gives[] primary importance to the tensions that oppose them, to the relations they establish between themselves, to the distribution of forces in the interplay of their relations, to the balances and ruptures of equilibrium that are made, stabilized, and unmade in the course of their exchanges” (Lagroye et al. 2006: 120). I was aware first of all to the context in which these events take place, i.e., the institutional and political framework, but also to the interactions between the different associations and their mutual actions. Influenced by the context in which they emerged, we can trace the influence of this framework both in their representations of the past, their claims, their political proposals, their organizations, their modes of mobilization, and the intertextual and polyphonic traces scattered throughout their discourse (Moirand 2007: 64). Finally, this book proposes an alternative reading of the role of collective actors, allowing for a better understanding of their heterogeneity and centrality in memory mobilization movements and the politics of memory. More precisely, I propose an alternative theorization in order to suggest a more adequate and broader vision of the complexity of the role of actors and the different spheres of society they invest.

 The term conflict dynamics is borrowed here from Lagroye, François, and Sawicki, who use it to emphasize how mobilizations emerge from situations that are conflictual and the result of interactions between different opposing groups, governmental apparatuses, and organizations (Lagroye et al. 2006: 330). 6

10

1 Introduction

In conclusion, this study participates in an original way by contributing empirically, analytically, and theoretically to the studies of memory and social movements. It is an exploratory study, which is justified by the lack of attention given to the heterogeneity of representations and the role of memory bearers in the politics of memory, a situation that does not allow for the identification of variables that contribute to the development of real research hypotheses. My contribution will be firstly to document and analyze the struggles of meaning at the center of the mobilizations of memory bearers in Santiago. Secondly, this project will place the actors at the very center of the analysis of memory mobilizations and the politics of memory. All in all, this book proposes to study and analyze memory movements, not in relation to their relationship to human rights, but rather in relation to their relationship to memory, thus including groups with conflicting representations of the past and participating in struggles for meaning on the terrain of memory.

A Brief Contextualization In order to have a good understanding of the context in which the politics of memory in which collective actors participate in Chile are situated, it is necessary to understand the socio-historical context in which the country has evolved. In 1970, driven by a generalized left-wing movement in Latin America, the country elected a socialist coalition president. Following a US-backed coup d’état, Chile’s path to socialism was aborted on September 11, 1973. What followed was a long dictatorship (1973–1990) that was synonymous with human rights abuses for some members of the population. The work of many local, national, and international organizations and communities participated during this period to denounce both the rights violations and the maintenance of a dictatorship. Following a plebiscite in 1988, the nation began its transition to democracy. Since 1998, as Collins (2010a and 2010b) points out, Chile has entered a period of post-transitional justice as a new wave of demands against impunity for crimes committed during the dictatorship has gained momentum. This wave of demands has been supported by a revitalization of memory mobilization movements.

Chile’s Path from Socialism to Dictatorship After much debate in the 1970 elections, Allende won the presidency on September 4, 1970, generating both euphoria and disillusionment among the Chilean population, depending on political affiliation. At the head of a divided left-wing coalition, he enacted a major reform of the country in three acts: (1) an increase in workers’ wages, (2) the lowering of the unemployment rate, and (3) the implementation of an agrarian reform (Del Pozo 1994: 20–21). While the left initially took an aggressive stance, its plans were overshadowed by the setbacks of an economy struggling with

Transition to Democracy

11

inflation, strikes in the transportation sector, and the blocking of credits previously received from international institutions and the United States (Del Pozo 1994: 23–24). Having pledged to respect the “democratic freedoms” (Sarget 1994: 337) of the population when he became president, Allende was unable to defend himself against the illegal tactics used by his enemies who had both the funds and the means to act (Clouzet 1975: 57; Stern 2006: 26). Having to deal with the demands of the population, which consisted mainly of improved housing conditions, increased wages, land reform (Lira 2011: 108–110), economic constraints, and attacks from political enemies that the middle class had joined,7 Allende also faced divisions within his coalition party (Del Pozo 1994: 29). Early on September 11, 1973, the military bombed the Moneda (government palace). Following a final radio appeal to Chileans, Allende committed suicide rather than be taken by the military. The dictatorship that resulted from this attack must be understood as part of a generalized movement of repression of the left in Latin America. This repression in Chile was characterized by the use of specialized techniques such as the kidnapping of people considered to be the “internal enemy” of the nation or “subversive agents of communism” by teams in public places, on the street, or in homes, administrative denial of these kidnappings, systematic secret torture, and the erasure of all traces, thus plunging the population into a state of terror (Kornbluh 2003: 84–85). At the same time, the military junta justified this armed repression as the only solution to “purge the country of the evil that was eating away at it” (Goyer 2009: 254). For 17 years under Pinochet, a system of terror was maintained. In such a system, Chileans could not protest, question the regime, or step out of line,8 or else they or someone close to them would be “disappeared” (Dupuis 2009: 41).

Transition to Democracy The transition to democracy in Chile, researchers agree, is a special case that is a textbook case.9 In 1988, Pinochet decided, in the face of criticism of his government, to propose a plebiscite to the population asking them whether or not they wanted the military junta to remain in power (Beaucage and Hébert 2008: 144).

 As early as 1969, a secret plan supported by the CIA was put in place to prevent Allende’s election. When Allende was elected, the plan was to overthrow his government. It included five elements: political action to divide and weaken the socialist coalition, maintaining and expanding contacts with the Chilean military, support for non-Marxist political parties, and, finally, support and funding for several media outlets to speak out against the Allende government, both inside and outside Chile (Kornbluh 2003: 87). 8  The expression “stepping out of line” refers to the way in which certain individuals were targeted by the regime because they did not occupy the place that the authorities intended for them. 9  Notably Doran (2016), Corten (2003), Moulian (1997), Jean (2013), Angell (2003), and Stern (2004), to name a few 7

12

1 Introduction

After a “No” victory, the general left the presidency. However, this did not mean that he left politics. In fact, he began to directly influence the course of the transition with several measures in his favor, including the implementation of an amnesty law that protected all military personnel who had participated in human rights violations between 1973 and 1978. Pinochet’s key position as General-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Angell 2003: 67) also allowed him to maintain some leverage over public policy and to organize a major restructuring of the judiciary by placing partisan judges on the Supreme Court who would, among other things, block the passage of legislation to change the constitution (Bakiner 2010: 52, Collins 2009: 71–72 and Paley 2001: 99–100). This shaping of the transition to democracy by Pinochet made the transition all the more sensitive. Moreover, as Tomás Moulian points out in Chile Actual: Anatomía de un mito (Moulian 1997), the introduction of the neoliberal model by the dictatorship was achieved through the eradication of the left, the slow dissolution of the bonds of solidarity, and the dissolution of the state social safety net, resulting in a major change in the subjection of Chileans (Sisto 2001: 355). Seven years after the end of the dictatorship (1973–1990), Moulian notes that the instrument of social subjection became consumption, as the dictatorship succeeded in permanently breaking the bonds of solidarity between individuals. While criticizing Moulían’s arguments, Alan Angell (2003: 63-64) also observes this “shift in values towards a greater emphasis on individualism, an acceptance of inequality, and a reduction in the bonds of community that, despite their exaggeration, were stronger in the past.” This homogenizing perspective of Chilean society, however, does not allow us to see the bonds of solidarity that developed during the dictatorship itself and then again after. The Concertación de partidos por la Democracia,10 the new ruling party led by Patricio Aylwin, established a National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (known as the Rettig Commission) in 1991 (Frazier 2007: 198). The purpose of this commission was to investigate human rights violations committed in Chile’s recent past, to repair any psychological damage caused by the administrative denial of these abuses, and to promote “Nunca Más” (Never Again) (Grandin 2005: 2). The context in which the Commission’s work took place, however, greatly limited its results. Indeed, since the Commission’s primary goal was reconciliation and a move toward the future for the country (Frazier 2007: 190–191), the commissioners limited the cases that could be investigated. Specifically, only those cases that could be described as “serious,” i.e., cases of “disappearances, executions, and cases of torture leading to death,” were investigated (Loveman and Lira 2007: 62). The Commission was mainly criticized for these limitations. It was also deplored that it did not republish all of its findings, nor did it provide justice for the victims  In this book, I will use the term Concertación to refer to this coalition of parties. The coalition is composed of the following center-left political parties: Christian Democracy (Partido Demócrata Cristiano—DC), the Socialist Party of Chile (Partido socialista de Chile—PS), the Party for Democracy (Partido por la democracia—PPD), the Radical Social Democratic Party (Partido radical social democratico—PRSD), and the Green Party (Partido Ecologista Verde —PV) (Doran 2010a, 2010b: 9). 10

Post-transitional Era?

13

(Loveman and Lira 2007: 64). Indeed, given the amnesty embedded in the 1980 constitution, the commissioners could not legally prosecute those allegedly responsible (Loveman and Lira 2007: 64). For some groups, the transition meant the abandonment or slowing down of their activities. Indeed, as Barrientos points out, several organizations dedicated to the search for truth and denunciation of the dictatorship closed down, resulting in the loss of thousands of volunteers. In addition, others have seen their external funding disappear given the return to democracy, thus diminishing the impact and expansion of their movement (Barrientos 2015: 65). However, associations of families of victims (politically executed and detained-disappeared) and survivors, among them CODEPU (Corporación de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo  Corporation for the Promotion and Defense of the People), FASIC (Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas- Social Aid Foundation of the Christian Churches), and SERPAJ (Servicio Paz y Justicia - Peace and Justice Service), have continued their efforts to obtain truth and justice and restore community ties broken by the dictatorship (Barrientos 2015: 65–66).

Post-transitional Era? After the transition, the major turning point in Chilean memorial politics occurred in 1998. The arrest of Pinochet in London, following a Spanish international warrant, gave rise to new mobilizations. These would push the political field to react as organizations that had never before collaborated11 came together to collectively “express their suffering” related to rights violations under the dictatorship (Doran in Borgeaud-Garciandía et al. 2009: 133). This instigated several political and judicial decisions that brought the subject back to the forefront of the Chilean agenda, triggering a memorial boom. First, the appointment of new Supreme Court justices allowed for the opening and reopening of emblematic cases, where previously judicial initiatives had been blocked in the first instance due to the amnesty law (Collins 2009, 2010a, b, Collins et al. 2013, Angell 2003: 77). The combined efforts of associations of families of detainees-disappeared, human rights lawyers, and a judge who revised the limits of the 1980 amnesty law allowed relatives of victims to circumvent the law, making it possible to obtain convictions for cases of “enforced disappearance,” a crime that could not be amnestied (Collins 2009: 124). Indeed, the crime of “making disappear” is nowadays considered an imprescriptible crime by the Chilean justice system. Keeping the victims’ relatives in the dark creates a repetition of the crime over time, thus invalidating the amnesty law for these cases (Doran 2009: 132, Bravo López 2003: 112). This crime is now qualified as “aggravated kidnapping” (Angell

 For more information on the dynamics of the social movements of this era and these unusual collaborations, see Doran (2009 & 2016). 11

14

1 Introduction

2003: 77). The celebrations were short-lived, however, as some of the alleged criminals quickly confessed to their crimes and, because of their confession, fell back under the amnesty law and could no longer be convicted of enforced disappearances (Collins 2009: 125). Despite these setbacks, as Doran (2009: 132) points out, the reinterpretation of the amnesty law had “the major effect of making information about human rights violations publicly available.” The arrest of General Pinochet in 1998 in London also led to the emergence of a Mesa de Dialogo in Chile in August 1999 (Corten 2003: 14, Zalaquett 2000: 14 & Aguilar 2002: 417). The Mesa was composed of representatives from the government, religious and ethical institutions, the armed forces and police, lawyers specializing in human rights violations, psychologists, historians, and writers (Zalaquett 2000: 14 & Aguilar 2002: 417). One of the main objectives of this gathering of a diversity of actors from Chilean society around a table was to discuss issues that had remained unresolved since the end of the dictatorship (Aguilar 2002: 417), including the issue of the detainee-disappeared (Stern 2010: 239 & Corten 2003: 14). Many debates and controversies have surrounded both its creation and its work, the latter of which will be further explored in Chap. 4 of this book. It should nevertheless be mentioned that the intentions of the participants in the Mesa are sometimes opposed and compete with each other. Indeed, as Mario I. Aguilar (2002: 418), the Armed Forces participated, but did not want new investigations to be initiated, nor did they want the amnesty law to be re-evaluated, and at the same time they were opposed to the judicial proceedings against Pinochet. On the other hand, lawyers dedicated to cases related to human rights violations under the dictatorship defend the need to investigate and pursue their efforts toward justice (Aguilar 2002: 418). Finally, human rights and remembrance organizations, many of which refused to participate, feared that the Mesa would be another effort toward impunity and that the topics discussed would be severely limited, particularly by limiting the discussion to cases of forced disappearances (Stern 2010: 243 & Aguilar 2002: 420). As will be shown in Chap. 2, the Mesa is a missed opportunity as the military participates only to stop the judicial process, the government seeks to quell the discontent that emerged from the publicization of human rights violations under the dictatorship after Pinochet’s arrest, and historical memory associations reject any path that does not lead to justice and truth. Subsequently, the creation of a truth commission on cases of political imprisonment and torture (2004–2006) allowed the resurrection of the subject of human rights in the news and the highlighting of the places where these crimes occurred (Wilde 2013: 44–45). Initiated from the CODEPU organization in 2001, this initially nongovernmental undertaking set in motion a “nationwide investigation into torture in Chile” (Doran 2009: 134). The support of the population and of international organizations, notably the United Nations Committee against Torture, as Doran (2009: 134-135) points out, led the Lagos administration to launch a national commission of inquiry in September 2003: the National Ethical Commission against Torture (Comisión Nacional Ética contra la Tortura). This commission, nicknamed Valech after the bishop who chaired it, will be studied in greater depth in Chap. 5, but it is worth highlighting the main ramifications of the conclusions of the first

Post-transitional Era?

15

report submitted in 2004 (Valech I), and the report of the commission reopened between 2010 and 2011 during Michelle Bachelet’s first term (Valech II).12 Indeed, as Doran (2009: 135) points out, this report brought to light the complicity between the judiciary and the dictatorship while questioning the responsibility of civilians and senators for knowing about torture practices. This popular revival has had the effect of transforming the public management of the past in Chile, allowing, according to Doran (2009: 147), social movements to reappropriate the question of the past and reconciliation, which had been mainly political undertakings until now. Marques Peirera (2005a: 155) observes that this “top-down” transition with the military had “led to the marginalization of social movements.” In fact, using women’s movements, this researcher notes that this distance between the political poles of power and the social movements was detrimental to the latter, since they were unable to take their position as legitimate actors in the political space (Marques-Pereira 2005a: 155). This parallel between women’s struggles and struggles for memory and human rights is particularly relevant in a context where these struggles intersect and where actors have multiple points of adhesion. As politics values a convivencia or non-conflict (Doran 2009, 2010a; Marques-Pereira 2005a, b; Moulian 1997), the organizations that will be studied in this book have had to take positions in opposition to the memory policies and public management of the past of the ruling administrations. Beginning in 2003, as Alexander Wilde points out, there has been a resurgence of memorial sites (memorials, museums, commemorative plaques, statues, etc.) funded by the state, by organizations, or by communities (47). These events punctuate daily life and culminate first with the appointment to Defense in 2002 (Angell 2003: 75) by the Lagos administration and then the election of Michelle Bachelet (2006–2010, 2014–2018). The daughter of a military officer who was detained and tortured in the early days of the dictatorship, and then succumbed to a heart attack in 1974, Bachelet has made a significant contribution during her two terms in office to the development of the platform available within the public space, particularly in order to talk about the past, but also by addressing gender issues that had never before been addressed in this way in the political and public space.13 Bachelet, as early as 2005, presented herself as a politician out of the norms within the Concertación, while she would publicly oppose, among other things, the pardon granted to Manuel Contreras Donaire by Lagos, the proposal to abolish the amnesty law, and, finally, her speeches not opposing convivencia and justice to the same extent as her predecessors (Doran 2010b: 17, 2016, 106, 251–253). According to Doran (2010b: 18–19), moreover, the Bachelet effect lies precisely in the renewal of the way politics is done in Chile. Her clear stance in favor of justice combined with concrete judicial and political measures, certainly in relation to the past, but also in terms of equality and social justice, makes this presidency a real innovation (Doran 2010b: 18–19 & 21), although organizations are critical of it.

12 13

 https://www.indh.cl/destacados-2/comision-valech/  See Doran (2010a, b), Marques-Pereira (2005a, b), and Vera Gajardo (2008).

16

1 Introduction

Its greatest accomplishment, in my opinion, is not in government policies regarding memory, but rather in the creation and support of the Museum of Memory and Human Rights in Santiago. Opened shortly after the end of Bachelet’s first term in office, this museum stands out for what it has become. It has integrated the archives of the Vicaría de la Solidaridad into a documentation center that is open to the public. It also has a cultural center that offers a wide range of dance, theater, and music performances on topics related to memory and human rights; through its association with Chilean universities in competitions for graduate students (support for theses on the subject of human rights and memory), the museum has contributed, above all, since its opening, to bringing the subject back into the cultural and public landscape of Santiago, but it has also instigated the interest of many young Chileans, as evidenced by the diversity of projects received in the competitions.14 The revitalization of memory in recent Chilean news must thus be understood as the product of the mutual influences of several organizations, governmental institutions, and those of presidents Lagos (2000–2006) and Bachelet (2006–2010 & 2014 to present), making the context in which the associations operate particularly dynamic. The combined effect of Pinochet’s death on December 10, 2006, the establishment of institutional memorial policies, and the opening of public spaces for discussion has allowed many individuals and groups (formal and informal) to publicly share their representations of the past without fear of reprisal from the government or the military. This has also meant the appearance of differentiated narratives: some clearly position themselves against the Pinochet dictatorship, others declare that he saved the country from the communist danger, and others want the subject to disappear from the forefront so that we can move on.

References Agosín, Marjorie. 1987. Scraps of Life, Chilean Arpilleras. Chilean Women and the Pinochet Dictatorship. New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Aguilar, Mario I. 2002. The Disappeared and the Mesa De Diálogo in Chile 1999-2001: Searching for Those Who Never Grew Old. Bulletin of Latin American Research 21 (3): 413–424. Angell, Alan. 2003. The Pinochet factor in Chilean politics. In The Pinochet Case: Origins, progress and implications, ed. Madeleine Davis, 63–84. London: Institute of Latin American Studies. Aranda Bustamante, Gilberto. 2004. Vicaría de la Solidaridad: una experiencia sin fronteras. Chile: CESOC. Bakiner, Onur. 2010. From Denial to Reluctant Dialogue: The Chilean Military’s Confrontation with Human Rights (1990–2006). The International Journal of Transitional Justice 4: 47–66. Barrientos, Claudio. 2015. Memory Policies in Chile, 1973–2010. In The Struggles for Memorin in Latin America. The Recent History of Political Violence, ed. Emilio Crenzel and Eugenia Allier-Montaño, 53–70. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Beaucage, Pierre, and Martin Hébert. 2008. Images et langages de la violence en Amérique latine. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.

14

 http://www.museodelamemoria.cl/#

References

17

Bell, Vikki. 2011. Afterword – The Politics of ‘Memory’ in the Long Present of the Southern Cone. In The Memory of the State Terrorism in the Southern Cone. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, ed. Francesca Lessa and Vincent Druliolle, 209–222. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Bell, Vikki, and Mario Di Paolantonio. 2009. The Haunted Nomos: Activist-Artists and the Impossible Politics of Memory in Transitional Argentina. Cultural Politics 5 (2): 149–178. Bravo López, Francisco. 2003. The Pinochet Case in the Chilean Courts. In The Pinochet Case: Origins, Progress and Implications, ed. Madeleine Davis, 107–122. London: Institute of Latin American Studies. Brito, De, and Alexandra Barahona. 1997. Human Rights and Democratization in Latin America: Uruguay and Chile. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010. Transitional Justice and Memory: Exploring Perspectives. South European Society and Politics 15: 359–376. Brito, De, Alexandra Barahona, Carmen González Enríquez, and Paloma Aguilar. 2001. The Politics of Memory: Transitional Justice in Democratizing Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, Kris. 2012. ‘What It Was Like to Live Through a Day’: Transitional Justice and the Memory of the Everyday in a Divided Society. IJTJ 6 (3): 444–466. Burchianti, Margaret E. 2004. Building Bridges of Memory: The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Cultural Politics of Maternal Memories. History and Anthropology 15 (2): 133–150. Clouzet, Jean. 1975. La nouvelle chanson chilienne. Paris: Éditions Seghers. Collins, Cath. 2009. Prosecuting Pinochet: Late Accountability in Chile. GMU School of Policy, Government, & International Affairs Research Paper No. 5. ———. 2010a. Human Rights Trials in Chile during and after the ‘Pinochet Years’. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 4: 67–86. ———. 2010b. Post-Transitional Justice. Human Rights Trials in Chile and El Salvador. University Park: Penn State University Press. Collins and Hite. 2013. Memorials, Silences, and Reawakenings. in Collins, C, Hite, K. and A. Joignant. (ed.) The Politics of Memory in Chile: from Pinochet to Bachelet. (p.133–163), Boulder: First Forum Press. Collins, Cath, Katherine Hite, and Alfredo Joignant, eds. 2013. The Politics of Memory in Chile: From Pinochet to Bachelet. Boulder: First Forum Press. Corten, André. 2003. Une langue politique postpopuliste : l’épilogue de l’affaire Pinochet. Politique et Sociétés 22 (1): 3–25. Crenzel, Emilio. 2011. Between the Voices of the State and the Human Rights Movement: Never Again and the Memories of the Disappeared in Argentina. Journal of Social History 44: 1063–1076. Del Pozo, José. 1994. Le Chili de 1970 à 1990. De l’Unité Populaire à l’après Pinochet. Montréal: VLB Éditeur. Doran, Marie-Christine. 2009. Les dimensions politiques de la souffrance au Chili (1998–2007). Dans Penser le politique: La recréation des espaces et des formes du politique en Amérique latine, édité par Natacha Borgeaud-Garciandía, Bruno Lautier, Ricardo Peñafiel, et Ania Tizzianni, 129–148. Paris: Karthala. ———. 2010a. Les effets politiques de la lutte contre l'impunité au Chili: de la revitalisation de l'action collective à la démocratisation. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 17 (2): 103–126. ———. 2010b. Femmes et politique au Chili: dynamiques et impacts de l’accession au pouvoir de Michelle Bachelet. Recherches Féministes 23 (1): 9–27. ———. 2016. Le réveil démocratique du Chili. Une histoire politique de l’exigence de justice (1990–2016). Paris: Karthala. Druliolle, Vincent. 2011. Remembering and Its Places in Post-Dictatorship Argentina. In The Memory of the State Terrorism in the Southern Cone. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, ed. Francesca Lessa and Vincent Druliolle, 15–42. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. DuBois, Lindsay. 2000. Memories Out of Place: Dissonance and Silence in Historical Accounts of Working Class Argentines. Oral History 28 (1): 75–82.

18

1 Introduction

Dupuis, Daniel. 2009. ¿Dondé Están? Terreur et disparitions au Pérou (1980–2000). France: Le Passager Clandestin. Elias, Norbert. 1993. Qu'est-ce que la sociologie?, Paris-La Tour d’Aigues, Éditions de l’Aube. Espinoza Soto, Adriana. 2007. The Body as a Site of Resistance and Enactment of Collective Memories and Trauma: An Exploratory Study in Chile. PhD dissertation. UBC. Frazier, L.J. 2007. Salt in the Sand. Memory, Violence, and the Nation-State in Chile, 1890 to Present. Durham: Duke University Press. Gajardo, Antonieta Vera. 2008. Les discours de genre dans la campagne présidentielle de Michelle Bachelet: une critique féministe. Raisons Politiques 31 (3): 81–103. Gandsman, Ari. 2009a. “A prick of a needle can do no harm”: Compulsory extraction of blood in the search for the children of Argentina’s disappeared. Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 14 (1): 162–184. ———. 2009b. L’appel du sang: Arguments en faveur de la restitution des enfants de disparus en Argentine post-dictatoriale. Anthropologie et Sociétés 33 (1): 33–49. Garcia Castro, Antonia. 2002. La mort lente des disparus au Chili sous la négociation civils-­ militaires (1973–2001). Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Gomez Barris, M. 2009. Where Memory Dwells: Culture and State Violence in Chile. Berkeley and Los Angeles: UC Press Editions. Goyer, Renaud. 2009. Les différentes dimensions liées aux générations dans l’identité collective des Mères de la Place de Mai en Argentine. Dans Regards sur l’intergénérationnel, édité par Anne Quéniart, et Roch Hurtubise, 253–266. Paris: Presses de l’EHESS. Grandin, Greg. 2005. The Instruction of Great Catastrophe: Truth Commissions, National History, and State Formation in Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala. American Historical Review 110 (1): 46–67. Hite, Katherine. 2005. Breaking the Silence in Post-Authoritarian Chile. In Partisan Histories: The Past in Contemporary Global Politics, ed. Max Paul Friedman and Padraic Kenney, 55–73. New York: Palgrave. ———. 2012. Politics and the Art of Commemoration. Memorials to struggle in Latin America and Spain. London & New York: Routledge. Hite, Katherine, and Mark Ungar, eds. 2013. Sustaining Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century: Strategies from Latin America. Washington, DC & Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with John Hopkins University Press. Jean, Joannie. 2013. Mémoires et figures des disparus chiliens en période post-transitionnelle. Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa. ———. 2014. Représentations de soi et positionnement social chez les membres de l’association de familles de détenus-disparus à Santiago. Oral History Forum/Forum d’histoire orale 34, Édition spéciale: Droits humains et histoire orale. Jelin, Elizabeth. 1994. The politics of memory: The human rights movement and the construction of democracy in Argentina. Latin American Perspectives 21 (2): 38–58. ———. 2003. State repression and the labors of memory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 2007. Public Memorialization in Perspective: Truth, Justice and Memory of Past Repression in the Southern Cone of South America. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 1: 138–156. Jelin, Elizabeth, y Susana G. Kaufman, eds. 2006. Subjetividad y figuras de la memoria. Madrid y Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI de España Editores y Siglo XXI Editora Iberoamericana. Kaiser, Susana. 2002. Escraches: Demonstrations, communication and political memory in post-­ dictatorial Argentina. Media Culture Society 24: 499–516. Klep, K. 2012. Tracing collective memory: Chilean truth commissions and memorial sites. Memory Studies 5 (3): 259–269. Kornbluh, Peter. 2003. The Pinochet File. In A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. London: The New Press. Lagroye, Jacques, Bastien François, and Frédéric Sawicki. 2006. Sociologie politique. Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences.

References

19

Lazzara, Michael J. 2006. Polyphonic Memories: Pinochet’s Dictatorship in the Collective Imagination. A Contra Corriente 4 (1): 191–205. Lechner, Norbert, and Pedro Güell. 2006. Construcción social de las memorias en la transición chilena. In Subjetividad y figuras de la memoria, ed. Elizabeth Jelin and Susana Kaufman, 17–46. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. Lefranc, Sandrine. 2008. La justice transitionnelle n’est pas un concept. Mouvements 53 (1): 61–69. Lessa, Francesca. 2013. Memory and Transitional Justice in Argentina and Uruguay: Against Impunity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Levey, Cara, and Francesca Lessa. 2015. From Blanket Impunity to Judicial Opening(s): H.I.J.O.S and Memory Making in Post-Dictatorship Argentina (2005–2012). Latin American Perspectives 42 (3): 207–225. Lira, E. 2011. Chile: Dilemmas of Memory. In The Memory of State Terrorism in the Southern Cone, ed. F. Lessa and V. Druliolle. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Loveman, Brian, and Elizabeth Lira. 2007. Truth, Justice, Reconciliation, and Impunity as Historical Themes: Chile, 1814–2006. Radical History Review 97: 43–76. Marques-Pereira, Bérengère. 2005a. Le Chili: une démocratisation de qualité pour les femmes? Politique et Sociétés 24 (2–3): 147–169. ———. 2005b. Représentation et participation politique des femmes au Chili: une démocratisation de qualité? Cahiers du GELA-IS 5: 5–19. Maureira Moreno, Juan René. 2009. Enfrentar con la vida a la muerte. Historia y memorias de la violencia y el Terrorismo de Estado en Paine (1960–2008). Master’s thesis, Universidad de Chile. Moirand, Sophie. 2007. Les discours de la presse quotidienne. Observer, analyser comprendre. Paris: PUF. Moulian, Tomás. 1997. Chile actual: anatomía de un mito. Santiago: LOM. Padilla Ballesteros, Elias. 1995. La memoria y el olvido. Detenidos Desaparecidos en Chile. Santiago de Chile, Origenes, 137 pages. Paley, Julia. 2001. Marketing Democracy. Power and Social Movements in Post-Dictatorship Chile. Berkeley: University of California Press. Passy, Florence, and Marco Giugni. 2005. Récits, imaginaires collectifs et formes d'action protestataire. Une approche constructiviste de la contestation antiraciste. Revue Française de Science Politique 55 (5): 889–918. Sarget, Marie-Noëlle. 1994. Système politique et parti socialiste au Chili. Un essai d’analyse systémique. Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan. Sisto, Vicente. 2001. Chile Actual: Anatomia de un mito. Tomas Moulian (review). European Review of Labour and Research 7: 354. Sontag, Susan. 2004. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador. Sorensen, Kristin. 2005. Mediated Discourses of Chilean National Histories. Presented at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media in Transition, Cambridge, MA. Stern, Steve J. 2000. “De la memoria suelta a la memoria emblemática: hacia el recorder y el olvidar como proceso histórico (Chile, 1973-1998).” In Memoria para un nuevo siglo: Chile, miradas a la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Mario Garcés, Pedro Milos, Myriam Olguín, Julio Pinto, María Teresa Rojas, and Miguel Urrutia, eds. Santiago: LOM Ediciones 11–33. ———. 2004. Remembering Pinochet’s Chile: On the Eve of London 1998. Durham: Duke University Press. ———. 2006. Battling for Hearts and Minds: Memory Struggles in Pinochet’s Chile, 1973–1988. Durham: Duke University Press. ———. 2010. Reckoning with Pinochet: The Memory Question in Democratic Chile, 1989–2006. Duke University Press. Tahir, Nadia. 2015. Argentine. In Mémoires de la dictature. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Taylor, Diana. 1997. Disappearing Acts: Spectacles of Gender in Argentina’s “Dirty War”. Durham: Duke University Press.

20

1 Introduction

———. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham: Duke University Press. Vidal, Hernan. 1996. Dar la vida por la vida: La agrupacion chilena de familiares de detenidos desaparecidos. Santiago: Mosquito Editores. Wilde, Alexander. 1999. Irruptions of Memory: Expressive Politics in Chile’s Transition to Democracy. Journal of Latin American Studies 31: 473–500. ———. 2013. A Season of Memory: Human Rights in Chile’s Long Transition. In The Politics of Memory in Chile: From Pinochet to Bachelet, ed. Cath Collins, Katherine Hite, and Alfredo Joignant, 31–60. Boulder: First Forum Press. Zalaquett, José. 2000. Mesa de Diálogo Sobre Derechos Humanos y el Proceso de Transición Política en Chile. Estudio Públicos 79: 5–30.

Chapter 2

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

It makes intuitive sense that people’s memories of traumatic events [...] will continue to affect the social fabric in some perhaps intangible, but nevertheless important ways. (Sorabiji 2006: 1)

Representations of the past are phenomena of a multidimensional nature. In order to understand how “bearers of memory” enter into struggles of meaning in relation to the dominant representations existing within the Chilean collective memory, this research intersects two fields of sociology: that of memory and that of social movements.

 ociology of Memory: Memory, Representations, S and Identities Memory is life, borne by living societies founded in its name. It remains open to the dialectic of remembering, and forgetting… History, on the other hand, is the reconstruction, always problematic and incomplete, of what is no longer. (Nora 1989: 8).

But what is “memory?” In the context of this project, the way Martin defines it appears to be particularly relevant because it highlights the way in which this concept is inserted into particular practices that are part of the more or less long-term objectives of groups using them (Martin 2000: 786–787). In fact, according to this author, “the word memory brings together all the practices of remembrance whose common objective is to revive the past, whether individual or collective, whether through narrative, monument or ritual” (Martin 2000: 786–787). This definition brings together several practices, places, and situations of remembering the past into a single research object. It is similar to that of other researchers who have studied the question. According to Kansteiner, collective memories emerge from historical representations that “are negotiated, specifically selected, and oriented by the present,” although he insists that they cannot be manipulated at will (Kansteiner 2002: 195). In other words, these “collective memories come from shared communications © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Jean, Battles for Memory and Justice in Chile, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25534-2_2

21

22

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

about the meaning of the past that are embedded in the lives of people who participate in the community life of the community” (Kansteiner 2002: 188). Lavabre shares this “affective” aspect of Kansteiner’s definition of memories. Indeed, she points out that this concept makes it possible to transcend various definitions and thus to better describe the phenomenon of the past as part of the present, whereas the concept of “history” is not sufficient to do so (Lavabre 1998: 48). The way in which this author apprehends the concept of memory is directly based on its differentiation from the concept of history, the latter having as its object the former (Lavabre 1998: 47–48). More precisely, “memory” thus “refers to all the forms of the presence of the past that ensure the identity of social groups and particularly of the nation. It is not, therefore, history in the sense that the latter tends toward the intelligibility of the past, nor is it, strictly speaking, remembrance: it is the general economy and administration of the past in the present” (Lavabre 1998: 47–48). Collective memory thus refers to a collective, and in some cases national, identity (Lavabre 1998: 49). Moreover, it contributes to the legitimization of a contemporary social order (Connerton 1989: 3; French 2012: 340). Memory thus apprehended has, moreover, its seasons, that is to say that at certain times we become more aware of our past experiences than at other times. It also fluctuates over time (Wilde 2013: 31). Social awareness of the past, then, changes through history and is tied to collective identities as well as a shared history (Wilde 2013: 31). Thus, if “the memory of a society cannot exist apart from those who make the memories” (Young 1993: XI), it goes without saying that a knowledge of the identity representations of the actors who remember the past is essential in order to understand how commemorations, memorials, and associations of victims and survivors are organized (Vinitzky-­ Seroussi 2009: 28). The pioneering author of the sociology of memory is Maurice Halbwachs. His two works, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (1925) and La mémoire collective (1949) helped to contribute to the cultural turn in the study of memory (Lustiger 2013: 908). This turn consists of a shift in focus regarding the apprehension of the past: attention shifts between the past as an object of historical analysis to understanding the ways in which that past is remembered (Lustiger 2013: 908; Assmann 1995). Inspired by the work of Bergson1 and, more specifically, his subjective apprehension of memory and the Durkheimian approach, Halbwachs defines memory “in the first place, as the processes by which minds work together and that their operations are not simply mediated by social arrangements but are in fact structured by them” (Olick et al. 2011: 31–32). Although several authors in the sociology of memory have been inspired by the Halbwachian approach, some points of his analysis are considered problematic or not sufficiently developed. First of all, the concept of “collective memory” is considered to have argumentative flaws. As Jelin points out, Halbwachs’ understanding  Bergson, according to Olick, Vinitzky, and Levy, contrasted the prior theory that memory was seen as a passive locus of retention with recollection as an active locus of engagement (Olick et al. 2011: 31). “Memory” is thus, for him, not the simple reproduction of the past, but rather must be characterized as “fluid” and “fluctuating” (Olick et al. 2011: 31). 1

Sociology of Memory: Memory, Representations, and Identities

23

of the concept presents it as an entity outside the world, that is, “separate from and above individuals” (Jelin 2003: 11). Moreover, this conceptualization, according to Bastide and underlined by Lavabre, comes from his mentor Durkheim who apprehended the existence of “a collective consciousness outside and superior to individuals” (Lavabre 1998: 54). This association with Durkheimism also led Halbwachs to insist on the social determination of individual memories which, from this point of view, would not seem to really exist, so much so that they are imprinted and determined by collective memories and the social frameworks of memory (Jelin 2003: 11–12; Kansteiner 2002: 181). Connerton suggests that collective memory is not simply formed by the interactions of individuals and groups with representations of the past. It is also influenced by the historical reconstruction of the past, that is, by the work of historians who, by selecting or discarding certain explanations or events, contribute to its modification (Connerton 1989: 14–15). This author also argues that the production of memory involves the “formation of foundational narratives that are carried and sustained by collective ritual performances” that then become imprinted on individual memories (Connerton 1989: 70–71). In other words, according to Connerton, societies physically embody these collective representations of the past through cultural performances (e.g., through national holidays or museums) that are transformed into traditions (Lustiger 2013: 910). In this way, the performance of memory and their work become part of collective cultural practices and embodied identities (Halilovich 2013: 56). Moreover, with this conceptualization of memory, Halbwachs evacuates the matter of transmission (Connerton 1989: 38). According to his work, Connerton considers that images of the past and knowledge of it are carried and transmitted by performances (Connerton 1989: 40). Candau adds to Connerton’s critique that while Halbwachs notes “[one] never remembers alone,” and thus that memory is socially oriented, the sociologist nonetheless erroneously concludes that memory is thus necessarily collectively shared (Candau 2005: 66). Indeed, according to Candau, Halbwachs should have distinguished “the initial action of remembering” (defined as idiosyncratic and particular to everyone) (Candau 2005: 69) from the transmission and collectivization of representations of the past. This differentiation in the experience and different representations of the same event is also supported by Leach (1980: 35–36). Candau (2005) proposes, moreover, a conceptualization of the memory of groups that includes the affect of the subjects, whereas the previously mentioned Halbwachian notion of “collective memory” is similar to a conciliation of representations of the past. In doing so, he emphasizes the “voluntary” character of the use or evocation of memory in the public space. He thus proposes the notion of “sociotransmitters” to demonstrate how the analysis of relations between individuals allows us to understand the processes of orientation of collective memories, that is, how they come to resemble each other to the point of producing a “shared representation of the past” that gains a dynamic of its own with respect to individual memories (Candau 2005: 76). The nuance to be observed between Halbwachian and Candau’s approach lies in the way individuals recall particular memories (Candau

24

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

2005: 75). Whereas Halbwachs’ approach implies that we look for these memories in a single social thought, Candau suggests instead that individual memories are composed from connections of “reciprocal and complementary images” (Candau 2005: 75): Such statements, explicitly affirming that forms of shared identity and memory exist within the group to which they belong, propagate and unify (focus) the beliefs in the sharing, as soon as they are sufficiently repeated. At the same time, they allow the emergence of a real sharing, that of the belief adopted by the members of the group. [In reality, it is much more the belief in this shared property that is transmitted – and therefore shared – than the property itself. (Candau 2005: 80)

This “illusion of sharing” is made, according to Candau, from the collective form of the “metamemory,” that is to say “the representation that each individual makes of his own memory, the knowledge that he has of it. And, on the other hand, what he says about it. It is a claimed, ostensive memory. More precisely, in its collective form, it is the shared claim of a memory that is supposed to be” (Candau 2005: 78–79). Through these characteristics, meta-memory becomes the revealer of collective and/or individual identity (Candau 2005: 79). The fact of believing or thinking that they share representations of the past contributes, according to this author, to the creation and maintenance of a collective identity, while individuals participate in the selection or rejection of certain elements (Candau 2005: 79). By sharing their representations of the past in this way, these groups affirm, at the same time, that they possess a “shared destiny” in which are deployed “practices of identity perpetuation which it is then up to posterity to seize” (Choron-Baix 2000: 358). This conceptualization of memory allowed me to understand to what extent and in what way the use or voluntary evocation of particular representations of the past by social movement organizations contributes to unifying their members and attracting other individuals into their midst while at the same time coming into conflict with divergent representations of the past. These different representations of the past can, in turn, be captured, according to this conceptualization, in the context of their transmission in collective ritual performances (such as the 9/11 and 10/12 marches), in places of memory, in school curricula, on social networks, etc. Finally, as De Seixas (in Déloye and Haroche 2004: 81) points out, in Halbwachs’ view, memory could not be understood as an “eruption of memory” or as causing surprises, since it must be understood from a reconstruction embedded in specific social frameworks (De Seixas 2004: 87). Thus, this conception of memory does not allow for the observation of memories that diverge or contradict those of the community, nor does it address the issues of power underlying the evocation or recollection of the past (Yong 2013: 71; Cole 2003). Elizabeth Jelin’s approach is thus complementary, as the sociologist emphasizes that “memories/memories must be understood as subjective processes rooted simultaneously in particular experiences and [collective] symbolic and material markers” (Jelin 2003: XV). She adds that representations of the past are contested, a source of conflict and memory struggles (Jelin 2003: XV), and that, ultimately, the meaning taken by memories of the past changes over time and must be understood as part of a particular social and political order (Jelin 2003: XV). This memorial social order among memory entrepreneurs

Emblematization of Memory

25

seems to be observable in Halbwachs as the apparent need for these communities of ideas “[to] remove from its memory everything that might separate individuals, drive groups apart [so that] in each epoch it reshuffles its memories in such a way as to bring them into line with the varying conditions of its equilibrium” (Halbwachs 1950: 206). Jelin adds that these transformations and manipulations of memories are constructed and fluctuate over time and are linked to lived experiences and individual and collective expectations (Jelin 2003: 4). By focusing attention on the agency of the various social agents (2003: 12), this author demonstrates the complexity of the study of this memory by referring to the “multiplicity of temporalities at play, the multiplicity of ‘meanings’ and the transformations and changes underway in the actors and the historical process” (Jelin 2003: 4). The meaning given here to representations of the past of state violence is constantly “transformed as they are rehabilitated and redeployed through various vehicles of memory, such as songs, poetry, novels, testimonies, theater, state documents, textbooks, historiography, biographies, and other cultural texts such as museums and monuments” (Kansteiner 2002: 182). These forgettings and returns to memory must fit into the agenda of certain groups struggling to put forward their own representations of the past and thereby a certain collective identity (Jelin 2003: 12; Pollak 1993). This conceptualization of memory led me to pay particular attention to the work of transforming, adapting, and narrating representations of the past carried out by both individuals and a diversity of governmental and nongovernmental organizations in a plurality of contexts. I closely examined how representations of the past are narrated in order to highlight contradictions and divergences, continuities, and ruptures in these narratives. At the same time, I studied the conflicts of meaning in the constitution, reappropriation, and adaptation of particular representations of the past while being attentive to the socio-political context of their evocation.

Emblematization of Memory Steve Stern is one of the most studied authors on Chile and its memory. His conceptualization of memory is particularly relevant to my own understanding of the memory situation in Chile. Indeed, the concept of “emblematic memory” that he develops in his trilogy allows us to see a reference “not to a single memory with a specific content, nor being a concrete or substantial ‘thing’, but rather a framework organizing meaning, memory selection and counter-memory” (Stern 2004: 105). According to this author, there are three reasons for this conceptualization of “emblematic” memories. First, it is described as such because it “claims to capture an essential truth about an experience in society” (Stern 2004: 113). It defines not what individuals have experienced, individually or in small groups, but rather what that experience would reveal about particular social circles, such as political parties, communities, social classes, or ethnic groups (Stern 2004: 113). Second, memory is emblematic, “because many people have come to share the idea that it represents truth” (Stern 2004: 113):

26

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework They not only find an anchor that organizes and enhances the meaning of personal knowledge and experiences that might otherwise float loosely. They also gain validation from events, relationships, and discourses in a public or semipublic domain—in the mass media or alternative informational bulletins; in street demonstrations, protests, and group meetings; in social celebrations, speeches, and controversies; or in truth reports, books, music, and cultural forums or performances. By finding a mirror or echo effect in a public cultural domain, one realizes that others have come to a similar understanding of collective memory, experience, and truth. (Stern 2004: 113)

The emblematization of memory appears here to be a tool for validating the way in which individuals and certain groups represent the past. In fact, according to Stern, the creation of an emblematic memory would emerge from a “process of reciprocal interaction between selective memory as emblem and as memory-tradition” (Stern 2004: 113). This concept allowed me to understand Chilean militant memories as plural, of course, but above all as the work of a concerted process of working on the representations of the past, aiming at the promotion of a “truth” and being inserted by the same fact in struggles for meaning and power.

 he Porteurs de Mémoire: At the Intersection of the Sociology T of Memory and Social Movements After traumatic or catastrophic events, the memory of the community and its identity are reconstructed on the basis of the disaster that created a rupture in the temporal framework of this group. This museification2 of societies, as defined by Cavalli (2004: 119–120), is constituted in the “aftermath” where individuals and societies seeing their world turned upside down concentrate their efforts on memory, which becomes “an object of conscious planning” in the “reconstruction of a threatened identity.” However, remembering the past in one way or another must also be understood as the extension of a political project into the present associated with a particular social and political identity (Young 1993: 743) or even “a shaping of historical material to suit ideological needs” (Boursier 2010: 227). The researcher’s attention must therefore be focused, according to Jelin, on how “recollection and forgetting, narratives and actions, silences and gestures, to the knowledge and information at stake, but also to the emotions, failures, voids, and ruptures” (Jelin 2003: 8). Like Young (1993), the past in Jelin (2003), Candau (2005), Halbwachs (1925, 1950), Kaiser (2005), Vinitzky-Seroussi (2009), Frazier (2007), and Cole (2003) is seen as possibly reactivated in the present for the purpose of fulfilling moral projects or even future socio-political projects or ideals. Defined in several ways, this “memory work” incorporates a certain agency in the use of memory, as well as a response to threats to a current cultural and personal identity (Jelin 2003: 5–9) while also taking into account state interference in the formation of a national founding narrative  The term “museification” of societies refers here to the process of reconstructing them on the basis of representations of what they were before the temporal rupture (Cavalli 2004: 119–120). 2

The Porteurs de Mémoire: At the Intersection of the Sociology of Memory and Social…

27

(Frazier 2007: 4). Indeed, as Frazier demonstrates using the case of Chile, “the process of ‘making memory’ as a form of political-social action has been central to the political realm since the military juntas” (Frazier 2007: 15). Since that time, it appears that public administrations have attempted to direct both social actors and their demands in order to meet their own political agendas (Frazier 2007: 15). This raises two interesting questions: who is narrating and what are the power issues behind this narrative (Lustiger 2013: 919–920)? And how do we gain access to these narratives of the past and move beyond these “foundational narratives” written by an elite group of memory entrepreneurs and, in the process, gain access to discordant memory representations (Keesing 1990: 298–299)? What appears to be most important in these uses of representations of the past by actors are their links with the actors who put them into action. As Lefranc et  al. (Lefranc et al. 2008: 16), as well as Jelin (2003: 33–34; 139) and Vinitzky-Seroussi (2009: 7), point out, a better definition of the social agents working for the promotion of certain representations of the past is necessary in order to understand what their motivations are and what resources they mobilize in this “memory work.” These “memory entrepreneurs” can be found first in a chapter published by Michael Pollak in a collective (Pollak 1993). In it, he describes the work of framing memory carried out by “professionalized actors, professionals in the history of this or that organization of which they are members, clubs and think tanks” (Pollak 1993: 30). This author developed this concept from Howard S.  Becker’s concept of moral entrepreneurs (1963). Pollak defines those dedicated to memory as consisting of “two categories: those who create the common references and those who ensure that they are respected. These entrepreneurs of memory are convinced that they have a sacred mission to accomplish and are inspired by an uncompromising ethic by establishing an equivalence between the memory they defend and the truth” (Pollak 1993: 30). This defended memory thus becomes the object of a conscious work of framing both its memorial and identity components (Pollak 1993: 33). The material they use comes precisely from history, which is interpreted and associated with different representations of the past in its political reconstruction (Pollak 1993: 34). And while Jelin in State Repression and the Labors of Memory also starts from the concept of “entrepreneur,” she particularly emphasizes that actors mobilize for memory while motivating other individuals to join their group and create memorial projects and/or find themselves instigating new memorial initiatives (Jelin 2003: 139). At the same time, she points out that this work of memory entrepreneurs causes them to clash within the various existing groups and associations (Jelin 2003: 26–27; 33). Each of these groups struggles for “social recognition and political legitimacy of (their) representations or narratives of the past” (Jelin 2003: 33–34). While Jelin (2003: 139) shies away from using the term entrepreneur as limited to profit-related entrepreneurial terminology, we cannot help but notice the points of convergence with Snow and Benford’s theory of frame perspective and the conceptualization of “memory entrepreneurs.”

28

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Indeed, starting from Goffman,3 Benford and Snow justify the resumption of the concept of “framework” with the aim of getting back in touch with the “imageries,” the “representations,” the “feelings,” and the “identity dynamisms” which had been abandoned during the passage toward the theory of the mobilization of resources (Cefaï 2001: 54). Treated unsatisfactorily according to Benford and Snow, the subject of “meaning work”—“the struggle to produce the mobilization of ideas and meanings—must return to the center of researchers’ concerns” (Benford and Snow 2000: 613). In this approach, social movement organizations and other actors engage in both the work of producing and maintaining cultural frameworks in their collective actions (Snow et al. 1986: 466; Benford and Snow 2000: 613). By this very fact, the act of “framing” is an active process that implies the agency and struggle of the actors involved (Benford and Snow 2000: 614). This theory, the frame theory, while allowing for the identification of how the beliefs and perceptions of members of collective actions transform and evolve (Mathieu 2002: 86), would not allow for the identification of many of the angles of my project. Firstly, the issue of frame alignment appears problematic in that it is presented as a process of frame homogenization among individuals who previously held “disparate” beliefs and values, thereby rigidifying the evolution of social mobilizations (Mathieu: 86–87). This is indeed problematic, since in this research I suggest the existence of a multi-dimensionality of representations existing both within different social organizations and also among the individuals composing them. Jasper adds that the frameworks appear to be “fixed” and “immobile” objects that do not allow us to understand the evolution of the actors/activists, nor that of the entourage that does not adhere to the frameworks put forward (Jasper 2001: 151). This rigidity is similarly underlined by Cefaï, who deplores the lack of sensitivity “to the indexicality and complexity of situations,” while denouncing the omission of the multiple nature of the “orders of rationality and legitimacy in which the members of social movements orient themselves, interpret and act” (Cefaï 2007: 470–471). Secondly, the most frequently voiced criticisms concern the question of “work” and “framing.” Indeed, according to Steinberg, the framing perspective lacks precision in defining the processes by which movements transform frames. Moreover, it would reify the work of signification while assuming the existence of a certain elite within social movements that would be responsible for framing activities, thus maintaining “an epistemological blur around reality and its representations” (Steinberg 1999: 738). This criticism is echoed by Cefaï, who believes that the approach focuses too much attention on the elite of social movement entrepreneurs who amplify social discontent, define the contours of social problems and their solutions, and ultimately promulgate mobilization among a targeted population through particular values and discourses (Cefaï 2007: 474). By limiting the identity  Goffman was the first to define, in Les cadres de l’expérience (1974), the “frameworks” which consist of the organizing principles of experience that allow individuals to identify, make sense of, and adjust to the different situations they encounter in the course of their daily existence (Mathieu 2002: 85). 3

The Porteurs de Mémoire: At the Intersection of the Sociology of Memory and Social…

29

of leaders to that of “entrepreneur” linked to the market, this theory evacuates the various other identities that are invested by these individuals according to the circumstances (Cefaï 2007: 476–478). This last characteristic accentuates the link between the theory of resource mobilization and that of the executive perspective. Both approaches conceptualize public arenas as entities reduced to the concept of a market where social movement organizations must compete for resources (Cefaï 2007: 476). By focusing the analysis on the strategies developed to co-opt members and new resources, this perspective also neglects the issue of the discourse developed by the organizations (Steinberg 1999: 742). Since the “frame perspective” does not allow us to highlight all the elements of our analysis, I will follow Cefaï’s suggestions by focusing our gaze “on the multiplicity of practical activities of conversation, deliberation or controversy, polemic or trial” while abandoning the use of the concept of “entrepreneur” for the actors in order to get out of the market discourse and better highlight the existence of several types of identities among members of social movements (Cefaï 2007: 476). I will use the term “memory carriers” instead, which was conceptualized from Steve Stern’s term “memory nodes.” This historian uses this term in reference to “sites of humanity, sites in time, and physical or geographic sites” (Stern 2004: 121). I will focus on the former, the “sites of humanity,” which I will call “carriers of memory” because they carry certain causes at arm’s length while adding the concept of “nodes of memory” to it: The specific social groups, networks, and leaders who are sufficiently motivated to organize and insist on memory constitute troublesome “knots” on the social body. They interrupt a more unthinking and habitual life, they demand that people construct bridges between their personal imaginary and loose personal experiences on the one hand, and a more collective and emblematic imaginary on the other. […] They force charged issues of memory and forgetfulness into a public domain. They make claims or cause problems that heighten attention and consciousness, thereby unsettling reflexive everyday habits and euphemisms that foster numbing. (Stern 2004: 120)

As Michael J. Lazzara notes, the use of the concept of “nodes of memory” not only highlights the work of memory promotion but also captures the opening of spaces for discussion and debate about the past (Lazzara 2006: 195). This is, as Lazzara contrasts, a dimension that is absent from Jelin’s and, by extension, conceptualization of the memory entrepreneur, as the memory that is promulgated by them is presented as an “irrefutable truth.” This is not to suggest that memory-­bearers do not defend certain representations of the past, but rather that those who belong to the post-dictatorship generation are more likely to negotiate, interpret, and debate the representations to be put forward by the groups of which they are a part. This concept will also shed light not only on their use of memory but also on the ways in which they oppose institutional measures of memory management, resource allocation, and how they fit into political structures that constrain and limit them.

30

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This makes it even more important to examine the interactions between “agents, narratives, and their moral projects4” in order to not only understand the different representations of the past that are present but also to understand why these differences are important and what goes into the telling of particular historical narratives (Cole 2003: 98–101; Frazier 2007: 25). This memory culture, the emphasis and value placed on memory by these actors, is a response to rapid and drastic changes in societies. Individuals/groups find a sense of belonging to this community based on the meaning taken by shared representations of the past (Jelin 2003: 1–2): Past is gone, what is left open is the future – “What can change about the past is its meaning, which is subject to reinterpretations, anchored in intentions and expectations towards the future. That meaning of the past is dynamic and is conveyed by social agents engaged in confrontations with opposite interpretations, other meanings, or against oblivion and silence. Actors and activists “use” the past, bringing their understandings and interpretations about it into the public sphere of debate. Their intention is to establish/convince/ transmit their narrative, so that others will accept it. (Jelin 2003: 26)

The strategies for transmitting and sharing these memory representations in the public space differ, with the past becoming a tool through which identity and memory characteristics are transferred, mainly through the narration of the past (Jelin 2003: 55; Traverso 2010), which will, in distinct ways, attract or repel public attention (Frazier 2007: 52). The memory presented here has a socio-political power and value, allowing for the legitimization of a current social order (Kaiser 2005: 6). However, this memory is as much about what is remembered as it is about what is forgotten or denied (Halilovich 2013: 81). Thus, we return again to the question of who controls and transmits this “official” past (Halilovich 2013: 81). In order to develop my thinking on this topic, in the next section I will elaborate on the theoretical framework of the political process model that will shed light on the political environment and its influence on contesting activities, because like Halilovich, I feel it is important to consider the context in which these representations of the past are narrated and performed, as these have “many audiences and many purposes” (Halilovich 2013: 56).

Sociology of Social Movements: Political Process Theory While in the preceding pages I have focused on the concept of memory and its theoretical implications, it is also worthwhile to consider the political question that underlies memory in this study. The political process model, as a theory, makes it possible to highlight the political environment and its influence on the protest activities of social movements while insisting on the necessity of a favorable political context for the latter to carry out their actions, even if they have previously amassed the resources essential to the launching of their protest approach (Mathieu 2002: 78).  By focusing on this dimension, Cole highlights how the interactions between agents, narratives, and their context produce “memory” (Cole 2003). 4

Sociology of Social Movements: Political Process Theory

31

Two authors have particularly contributed to the theory of this model: Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow. First, we will study Tilly and his conceptualization of the “polity” and its different components. Second, I will focus on the structure of political opportunities as analyzed by Tarrow. In order to better describe how and in what context collective action develops, Tilly orientates his approach from the “polity” which consists of “the collective actions taken by members and the government.5” The collective action described in this section is understood as the coming together of individuals to coordinate their efforts to achieve particular goals or interests (Tilly 1978: 8; Tilly and Tarrow 2007: 5). Collective action does not necessarily imply a conflict or relationship with government. However, the collective actions involved in this study will have this political dimension through their interactions with government agents, whether directly or by engaging in activities related to government jurisdictions (Tilly and Tarrow 2007: 5). This combination of collective action, the political field, and conflict is referred to by Tilly as contentious politics (Tilly and Tarrow 2007: 4–5). Within the population, two groups enter into a different relationship with the government: the members of the polity and the challengers (Tilly 1978: 52). The members of the polity (political parties, lobbies, etc.) have legitimacy of access to political resources and occupy a strategic position through their more routine relations with the government. Challengers, on the other hand, typically social movement organizations, do not have routine access to political resources controlled by the organ of power (Tilly 1978: 52). The mobilization of challengers is aimed at obtaining a legitimate place in the polity for themselves and for the interests they represent (Tilly 1978: 117). What is interesting here is the dynamic between the challengers, the members of the polity, and the government. Challengers attempt to assert their interests over other groups (whether other challengers or members of the polity) (Tilly 1978: 125). The interests defended or enacted by social movements, i.e., challengers, can be of several types: from the promotion of values to the demand for specific public policies or the redistribution of goods to decision-making positions, to name a few (Tilly 1978: 61–62). McKeen describes the political interests of new social groups as being “formed by the outcome of their decisions or positions on public policy in public policy debates that take place among a limited group of actors or organizations ranging from powerful members of the state to more marginal actors” (McKeen 2004: 27). What proves problematic for the analyst, however, is the multiplicity in the definition of the different interests defended in a given movement. According to Tilly, it is practically impossible to have a single description of the interests of a movement, because the movement brings together a plurality of organizations that do not define the interests defended in the name of the movement in the same way (Tilly 1978: 61). Moreover, individuals will sometimes respond in contradictory ways, will not respond at all, or will not even have an articulated definition of their interests themselves (Tilly 1978: 61). A single

 Government is described by Tilly as “an organization controlling the means of coercion within the population” (Tilly 1978: 52). 5

32

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

description would also fail to reveal the existence of several defended interests within the groups concerned (Tilly 1978: 62). In order to study the interests defended, we must therefore, suggests Tilly, concentrate on the discourses and practices of these same groups and their actors (Tilly 1978: 62). This is the approach I will use to describe the mobilization of social movements in Santiago. Indeed, the latter try to put forward their own interests (their representations of the past, the right vocabulary to talk about it, through projects of places of memory, school programs, etc.). However, being outside the political and decision-making spheres, these groups do not succeed in making themselves heard, but find other spheres to mobilize more people for their cause. How then do they try to defend their interests? By using the resources in their possession, organizations try to influence the government (Tilly 1978: 125). The mobilization of these challengers can thus be observed in the “process by which groups gain control of the resources necessary for action” (Tilly 1978: 7). This action is, however, confined within a circumscribed repertoire, that is, their actions are limited by their acceptability, by the daily routine of the population, by its internal organization, by its experience of previous collective actions, and by the existence or absence of a repressive system in the society in which the population evolves (Tilly 1978: 156). Moreover, the successes and failures of the various types of action will condition their future adoption (Tilly 1978: 158). Tarrow’s approach is in the same vein as Tilly’s. In fact, by concentrating on the needs of the population, Tarrow’s approach is not limited to the needs of the population. Indeed, by focusing on the notion of “struggle,” he understands social movements as bodies that use the potential for “struggle” among its current and future members to gain support and leverage over political elites and opponents, all with the aim of achieving a particular societal change (Tarrow 1989: 3). Given the political dimension of collective action, this author directs attention to the conditions under which actors engage in actions, i.e., that there are a set of constraints and opportunities that encourage or discourage this type of behavior and/or direct them toward certain more acceptable forms (Tarrow 1989: 32). These constraints and opportunities form the basis of the four main factors of the opportunity structure: “the openness of political institutions to groups on the margins of the polity,” “the stability or instability of political alignments,” the “presence or absence of allies with power to influence,” and “existing political conflicts within and/or among elites” (Tarrow 1989: 34–35). The combination of different factors allows groups to take advantage of the vulnerability of the system and thus deploy their mobilization strategically (Tarrow 1989: 36). Opportunities, varying in and through time, create cycles of protest in which the expansion of opportunities for a number of groups allows for a better reception of demands that would not have been well received previously (Tarrow 1989: 49). The political opportunity structure model is thus open to influences not only within a particular society but also outside it. However, there are criticisms of this approach. In the following, we will see some changes to this theory. According to Alvarez, Dagnino, and Escobar, political culture should be understood as “the realm of practices and institutions, carved out

Sociology of Social Movements: Political Process Theory

33

of social reality and what, historically, comes to be considered ‘political’ in the proper sense” (Alvarez et al. 1998: 8): We must view politics as more than just a set of specific activities (voting, campaigning, lobbying) that occur in clearly delimited institutional spaces such as parliaments and parties; it must also be seen to encompass power struggles enacted in a wide range of spaces culturally defined as private, social, economic, cultural, and so on. Power, in turn, should not be understood as “blocs of institutional structures, with pre-established, fixed tasks (to dominate, to manipulate), or as mechanism for imposing order from the top downwards, but rather as a social relation diffused through all spaces. (Alvarez et al. 1998: 10–11)

Politics cannot therefore be considered simply as “particular activities,” but must rather be apprehended, among other things, from its relation with the concept of “power,” as suggested by the preceding quotation. Social transformations would thus belong to the conjugation of the two concepts, hence the need for an “extreme sociability” of the social agents forming collective action organizations who constantly strive to build new alliances or to extend their network of contacts (“net”) (Neveu 2000: 57), as well as to try to express their grievances publicly (Fillieule and Péchu 2000: 99). Second, by linking the concepts of “politics” and “power,” political process model theorists posit, according to Armstrong and Bernstein (2008: 74–75), that forms of domination are organized from a single source of power and that, as such, the political-economic framework is paramount in determining social structures and culture is second. However, the way in which the theory is applied does not allow us to observe the dynamism of the perceptions, anticipations, and strategies of the actors involved, since the analysis focuses instead on “stability and order” (Mathieu 2002: 82). Finally, as Ancelovici points out, this theory fails to take into account “the potential effects of a non-political or non-state opportunity structure” (Ancelovici 2009: 61). This author thus insists on the existence of a multiplicity of opportunity structures, which may or may not be political (Ancelovici 2009: 61). Considering these criticisms, I will use the proposals of Armstrong and Bernstein (2008), adopted by Ancelovici and Rousseau (2009), who suggest that societies are composed of “multiple institutional spaces that are potentially at odds with each other” (Ancelovici and Rousseau 2009: 8–9). This way of understanding political space leaves room for the state, which certainly has a particular power, while recognizing that “other institutions offer classification systems, organizing principles, and cultural and material resources that can be used by social movements in formulating and advancing their claims” (Ancelovici and Rousseau 2009: 8–9), such as global organizations (the WHO, UNESCO, or the International Criminal Court). Thus, the government is not defined as the only organ of domination, nor the ultimate adversary. As Ancelovici furthermore points out: Decentering the relationship to the state allows us to think about how different systems of authority, public and private, national and supranational, articulate with each other and fuel conflicts while offering actors new avenues for action. It also allows us to think about how multi-organizational fields are formed and transformed according to the institutions that support or repress them. (Ancelovici and Rousseau 2009: 9)

34

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

I will thus focus on social movements and the individuals involved in them as being both inside and outside the state, i.e., associations are not necessarily marginal to the state, and their relationship with it is not simply linked to logics of pressure to obtain resources (Armstrong and Bernstein 2008). The state and institutions are therefore not seen as closed units, but rather as dynamic sites of power and change (Ancelovici and Rousseau 2009: 10).

Discourse Analysis: Between Theory and Method If the previous sections elaborated our theoretical perspective for approaching the politics of memory and its actors, this one link both theory and method. The discursive approach is described by Snow (2001: 39) as part of a major shift within the cultural current in social movement studies. In fact, according to this author, the contribution of discourse and narrative analysis to the sociology of social movements has made it possible to integrate a structure that includes a cultural and interpretative dimension while emphasizing the narrative dimension of “imaginary actions and past experiences” that are inserted into an event-based plot (Snow 2001: 39). In fact, the mobilizing power of narratives would be greater the closer they come to what really happened, thus having a wider scope than the frames (Snow 2001: 40). The contribution of “discourses” to theory will thus allow me to better explain the mobilizing forces at work in social movements. It would also contribute to the need to broaden the concept of “politics” which has been too narrow until now (McKeen 2004: 6). This approach will also allow me to understand the struggles of meaning that occur in the construction and elaboration of discourses about the past while emphasizing the desire to shape public policy and thereby influence the way in which change is achieved (McKeen 2004: 6). In this section, the central concepts of discourse analysis will be theorized in order to clarify their contributions to this project. Firstly, the concept of discourse that will be used will highlight its relationship with language and texts. I will thus follow the approaches of Fairclough (2003), Maingueneau (1991), and Steinberg (1999), whereas the latter focus their attention on both texts and the social order structuring language. This understanding is different from the one developed by Foucault, which I will not use. Indeed, here, discourse will refer to the following definition: “Discourses are embodied and enacted in a variety of texts, although they exist beyond the individual texts that compose them. Texts can thus be considered a discursive ‘unit’ and a material manifestation of discourse. Texts may take a variety of forms, including written texts, spoken words, pictures, symbols, artifacts, and so forth” (Phillips and Hardy 2002: 4). Thus, based on Todorov (1984: 60–61), Steinberg considers that it is necessary to apprehend in two stages the interaction between the social world and the language that can be observed by discourse analysis: “The analysis is thus both social and semiotic: social in that meaning is a function of the social interactions between people and the contexts in which these take place; and semiotic in that the languages

Discourse Analysis: Between Theory and Method

35

themselves that people use and that are available to them to express their senses of the world limit of what can be expressed and understood” (Steinberg 1999: 744). Masson (1997) seems to share the same definition of the function of language, which becomes, in this approach, a social mode of action that acts (with certain limitations) on the possibility of “creating meaning” and “recreating meaning.” The limits placed on what “can be said” are also limits on “what can be done” by the social agents engaged in the social struggle” (Masson 1997: 69). Masson’s approach allows us to understand language as a mediation of social reality. From this point of view, language becomes a tool for the construction of meaning that is far from neutral (Masson 1997: 66–67): The mundane, day to day, repetitive practice of language participates in the constant making and remaking of social reality. Linguistic practices play an important role in organizing and sustaining social structure. Language then becomes a site and stake in a struggle that aims to unmake and alter the symbolic constructions that embed, enact, and reproduce dominant power relations. (Masson 1997: 67)

Secondly, the adoption of a discursive approach is made necessary by the object of this research, the representations of the past being at the center of it. My approach to the concept of “representation” comes from Stuart Hall (1977). According to him, the process of representation “means using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent, the world meaningfully, to other people,” i.e., the way in which the world is represented becomes “part of the process by which ‘meaning’ is constructed and then exchanged between members of the same culture” (Hall 1977: 1). Within the framework of this project, whose methodology focuses on the analysis of texts that make up the discourses, my analysis will be guided, among other things, by certain vocabulary keys and themes around which the struggles, conflicts, and arguments of the actors crystallize. The use of certain words in favor of others (e.g., using the term “dictatorship” instead of “military government”) or the use of certain expressions instead of others (notably that of “human rights violations” rather than using more precise words6 such as “torture” or “murders”) will thus be considered significant. Thirdly, discursive practices, as analyzed here, must be understood from the point of view of social agents, that is to say, from the way “one speaks of” and from “where” one speaks (Masson 1997: 67). As Phillips and Hardy (2002: 5) point out, discourse analysis must also place these texts in their historical contexts of production, i.e., the actors’ discourses are developed in certain circumstances and, by the same token, act on the political domain and on social processes and are inserted into broader power relations (Masson 1997: 67–68). The social agents producing and performing these discourses are in fact not totally free, as they operate within particular social frameworks (Fairclough 2003: 22). Florence Passy and Marco Giugni (2005) consider the different sources of influence and constraints in the discourses produced by social agents. According to them, it is important to consider the place of institutions, which are certainly constraining, but which are also “the vehicle of  Interview Belgica Castro- 27/03/2012

6

36

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

collective narratives and cultural repertoires” (Passy and Giugni 2005: 892–893). These authors reveal, in fact, an incessant interaction between actors and institutions that is cemented in cultural schemas that are constantly “(re)interpreted and put into narrative by the actors” (Passy and Giugni 2005: 892). By mobilizing these narratives and collective imaginaries, a set of discursive opportunities is made available to the actors, giving their actions and claims an aura of legitimacy and, by the same token, a certain visibility in the public arena (Passy and Giugni 2005: 893). However, this visibility and legitimacy are differentiated according to the identities and representations mobilized by these same actors (Passy and Giugni 2005: 895). The approach of these two authors does not, however, allow us to arrive at a precise definition of what is narrative. They also describe a process that is particularly constraining for the actors, who appear to have to act within particularly circumscribed limits, namely, those of the established narratives and imaginaries concerning “the nation” (Passy and Giugni 2005). Since the Chilean situation is different from the one studied by Passy and Giugni, since the Chilean actors are precisely taking position in struggles of meaning whose object is the “established” narrative of the past (the official history), the approach that is adopted for this book is inspired by the works of Cefaï (2007), Steinberg (1999), Frazier (2007), and Korteweg and Yurdakul (2014). The narratives that will be referred to in this work consist of “situated acts,” that is, they are performed speech acts that are woven with arguments and imbued with symbols that resonate with a caught audience, whose judgment is required (Cefaï 2007: 489–490). The shaping of the contents of these narratives belongs to a particular dynamic, as organizations wish to “set the scene” by identifying the actors, their cause, and their opponents and even the culprits or those responsible (Cefaï 2007: 491). The staging of narratives thus belongs to the repertoire of organizations’ strategies to publicize their causes and claims in a terminological and emotional register borrowing from differentiated representations of the past. Indeed, as Steinberg’s work (1999) points out, the vocabulary used becomes a site of struggle as the organizations use the same words and expressions. According to Steinberg, the issue at stake in the struggle is the definition of these terms, which have different meanings in different organizations. These differences give way, according to Cefaï, to “misunderstanding, equivocation, creativity and resistance or to games of misappropriation and blurring of genres” (Cefaï 2007: 498–499). Public storytelling, in this case of the past, also involves an appeal to the emotions of the audiences targeted by the communications. By appealing to several types of emotions (e.g., indignation, guilt or anger, to name but a few), organizations mobilize and even channel collective emotions into normative practices of “having to be” and “having to do” in which they operate (Cefaï 2007: 521). The different ways in which this past is staged are part of a larger context of struggles and conflicts over the meaning and importance given to the past, as well as the legitimacy given to the actors involved in these oppositions. The main issue at stake here is the control and composition of national metanarratives that the organizations’ narratives encounter. The focus of this research is not directly on these national narratives, but rather on the ways in which representations of the

General Presentation

37

associations’ past in Santiago conflict with them. For the purposes of this research, the apprehension of metanarratives will be theorized from Frazier (2007) and Korteweg and Yurdakul (2014). For these authors, it appears necessary to understand this national narrative as both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Specifically, the national narrative is singular while not having been constructed in a singular way, but is made up of several nuances, rearticulations, and transformations that evolve over time (Korteweg and Yurdakul 2014: 4–5 and 7; Frazier 2007: 3). Narratives about the national past thus become a space of struggle as organizations attempt, first, to reclaim the past in order to put forward their own projects and, second, to participate in the telling of the past. In conclusion, I believe that the use of the concepts presented in this section allow me to achieve the objectives I have set for myself in this project. More precisely, it will be a question of understanding the “memory bearers” as actors acting in a particular socio-historical framework in the midst of which struggles for meaning are at work, both within the organizations of which they are members and with competing groups. Thus, through these theorizations, I highlight the different ways in which the difficult past is represented by different associations in Santiago, as well as the intertextual traces of the relationships between those associations that feel invested with a mission of transmission and the institutions more officially responsible for the transmission of the “national past.” Finally, I examine the strategies for the narration of the representations of the past by the actors, as well as those aimed at obtaining more legitimacy and visibility in the public arena.

Methods In order to answer our research questions, this research sought information from many sources. The research methods selected allowed me to understand the different ways in which memory bearers engage in struggles of meaning (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) in relation to dominant representations of the past and what are the conflicting configurations and dynamics surrounding the evolution of different strategies of memory bearers in Santiago, Chile. The answers to these questions allow us to redefine the role of the actors in order to appreciate the importance of their contribution to the mobilization and politics of memory. The methodology of this book consists of exploratory qualitative research with Chilean porteurs de mémoire in Santiago.

General Presentation While the state, through the creation of a National Truth and Reconciliation Commission, aimed to push the country to move on, as Tuong-Vi Nguyen points out, “alternative narratives about the past are not muzzled by this negotiated politics

38

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

of memory, which leaves the door wide open for social and collective action” (Nguyen 2009: 30). It is the dynamism of this background of Chilean history that proves to be the one of this research work. Briefly discussed at the end of the historical section, the memorial renewal was the starting point of my analysis. Indeed, as some studies mention,7 upon the return of democracy, the human rights movement in Chile found itself without funding, associations were dismantled, or their members dispersed after the dictatorship (Wright 2014: 59). As a result, these associations lost some influence and visibility in the public arena. Although they lost some momentum, the organizations continued their efforts by denouncing impunity, demanding truth and justice, and fighting against dominant representations of the past from the state, effectively repositioning attention on the victims and experiences of repression (Bickford 2002: 11). As memory mobilization movements were reinvigorated by the arrest of Pinochet in 1998, the arrival of new actors (Bachelet, MMDH, London 38, Villa Grimaldi, Paine Memorial), and political and judicial initiatives (appointment of judges, reopening of disappearance cases, creation of truth commissions dealing with cases of torture, etc.) (Doran 2010, 2016), I have thus focused my attention on the period 1998–2018.8 The choice of 1998 is justified by Stern (2010) and Wilde (2013) who consider this date as the beginning of a new memorial season in Chile, in rupture with the previous ones. The research was conducted mainly in Santiago, the national capital. The choice of this place was not without reason. Indeed, this city seems to me to be the ideal choice. First of all, it is an important place in terms of memory of the Chilean dictatorship. There are many sites of memory such as the Museum of Memory and Human Rights (MMDH), London 38, Villa Grimaldi, and the General Cemetery. It is also a city marked by great activity in the cultural and political scenes, as there are several places that artistically publicize representations of the dictatorship’s past. Previously studied as associations of victims of an authoritarian state (Jelin, Hite, Ros, Brown, and Verstraeten, to name but a few), the present study will propose a different approach to these associations by understanding them as bearers of memory, i.e., defending certain representations of the past and entering into struggles for meaning in relation to the dominant representations of collective memory. Indeed, the associations chosen were chosen because of their relationship with the central concept of this project, i.e., they are active in memory processes. The chosen associations allow (1) to offer a perspective on differentiated narratives of the past, (2) to highlight differentiated and similar mobilizations about this past within the associations and in the public arena, and (3) to observe the conflictual configurations and dynamics influencing them. There are many associations working on memory and human rights in Santiago. From the different works that have been done so far in Chile and from my own  Such as Wright (2014) and Bickford (2002) to name a few.  While the literature review for this research focuses on this period, I will be attentive to the historical evolution of these groups given its importance in the contemporary development of their interests and the ways in which they mobilize today. 7 8

General Presentation

39

experience in the field as part of my master’s research, 17 associations have emerged from a first state of the question. For the purposes of this work, I chose seven associations, focusing on those with memory as their main claim and focus. I have privileged the choice of associations with different size budgets (MMDH, Villa Grimaldi, ANEXPP, and London 38). Moreover, I have taken care to have associations that have emerged at different times, i.e., some being more established, with a certain weight and social credibility (AFDD, ANEXPP, and AFEP), and others being younger, with differentiated access and powers (MMDH, Villa Grimaldi, Estadio Nacional, and Londres 38), and, finally, at least one organization had to have a salvific memory in order to highlight the adversary representations of the past (Fundación Presidente Augusto Pinochet- Fundación Pinochet). The following is a list of the selected associations, along with a short description of each: 1. The Agrupacion de familiares de detenidos-desaparecidos (Association of Families of Disappeared Detainees -AFDD) is an association that was created by families of “detained disappeared” in 1975.9 Today, the members of the AFDD continue their efforts by requesting information about the death of their loved ones and the location of their bodies. The group’s second focus is bringing to justice those responsible for human rights violations committed during the dictatorship. This interest in justice and human rights is reflected in the association’s mobilization around causes other than state violence. Its main cause, however, remains related to the “disappeared” of the dictatorship. 2. The Agrupación de familiares de ejecutados politicos (AFEP) was created in 1976. Composed of relatives of those executed for political reasons, this association focuses on denouncing impunity while demanding the recovery of the bodies of some victims that have not been returned to their families. Unlike its counterpart, the AFDD, this organization seems to have consistently claimed the status of activists or political commitment of the victims of the regime. Little studied in comparison to the AFDD, this association continues to struggle today and to associate itself with initiatives from London 38 and the AFDD, among others.10 3. In the early days of the dictatorship, the Londres 3811 building was seized from the Socialist Party and turned into a detention and torture center. Located in the heart of Santiago, it was occupied by the DINA (Dirección de inteligencia nacional—National Intelligence Agency) until 1978, when it was turned over to the O’Higgins Institute, an institute of geographers and historians who denied the building’s past. It was only after rumors of the Institute’s move that it became part of the claims of two groups. Since its transformation into a museum by the state and the creation of a working group between 2008 and 2011, London 38  www.desaparecidos.orf/fedefam  http://afepchile.cl/ 11  Londres 38 comes from the address of the building. It is indeed located at 38 London Street. It was a former socialist communal headquarters. 9

10

40

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

appears to have become a place of social struggle in connection with the past and especially well anchored in the present. Thus, by insisting certainly on the militant character of those who died, but above all by placing the events in episodes of social struggles with the aim of improving society, the management of the memory site succeeds in reaching mainly the young Chilean generation wishing to engage in a process of social change. As Klep (2013) points out, the collectives behind the reappropriation of London 38 were able to put forward their own vision in the development of the memorial site. Indeed, rather than having reconciliatory aims, this new place of memory should preferably lead visitors to question the circumstances that led to the torture, forced disappearance, and execution of Chilean civilians in order to place the past in the contemporary debates surrounding political demands, repression, and the social movements engaged against it (2013: 115). London 38’s positioning in both the present and the past is all the more interesting for this project. 4. The Museum of Memory and Human Rights (MMDH) is an initiative of the Bachelet government that opened its doors in January 2010. The MMDH is a center dedicated to making visible the events of the dictatorship and the human rights violations committed by the state during the Pinochet era.12 The permanent exhibition is dedicated to recent history (1965 to today) and archival, artistic, and cultural traces of that era. The MMDH also has a documentation center located in the basement where it is possible to consult part of the archives of the Vicaría de la Solidaridad, as well as books, research, videos, or testimonies. Finally, in the cultural center attached to it, the MMDH has a mandate to present plays or dance pieces whose content evokes the past, questions it, or tries to present different perspectives on it. 5. Villa Grimaldi—Parque por la paz was inaugurated in March 1997.13 The site’s mission is to promote and enhance human rights. By recalling issues of justice and past rights violations, the site addresses the nation’s recent history in an educational manner. Like London 38 and the MMDH, but on the outskirts of Santiago, Villa Grimaldi fulfills several functions (place of mourning, activism, or even transmission), which qualifies it as a site of consciousness where memory is mobilized in different ways. Its geographical location and the struggles of meaning that led to its creation, and then the way the association is organized today, make this place even more interesting as it is more generally studied as a place of memory and not as an association—an actor in its own right. 6. Agrupación nacional de ex presas y ex presos politicos (National Association of Ex-Political Prisoners—ANEXPP and later UNEXPP) was formed from a group of ex-prisoners from the National Stadium, London 38, and other clandestine centers, while Pinochet was indicted in London. It had a relatively turbulent start due to financial problems,14 and it took several years before the association

 http://www.museodelamemoria.cl/el-museo/sobre-el-museo/  http://villagrimaldi.cl/historia/recuperacion-de-villa-grimaldi/ 14  https://franciscochelin.wordpress.com (Interview with the association’s president) 12 13

General Presentation

41

gained more space. Ironically, it was not until the term of Sebastián Piñera (2010–2014) that the group received the necessary funds to establish an office. It is now actively working to create a museum of the memory of political detention within the National Stadium.15 7. Finally, the Fundación Pinochet offers a salvific memory of the same era, since Pinochet is considered a national hero and the rights violations a necessary evil. This association was particularly active in the media from its creation in 1995–2013, on the fortieth anniversary of the coup. Since then, it has been less present on social networks than some of the aforementioned groups but is active on an ad hoc basis and follows the Chilean memorial calendar. For example, it publicly displays its positions during the celebrations of September 11 (coup d’état), December 10 (date of the dictator’s death), or during particular events such as the public screening of the documentary Pinochet, I love you, or public demonstrations promoting the erection of a statue or a street in Pinochet’s name. Despite a 5-month field trip, I was unable to make contact with this group. Indeed, as I understood it during the research project, the fact that I am a Canadian researcher gives rise to a negative prejudice toward me, my nationality being associated by them with being a person who would necessarily be inclined to support a dissident memory. I thus focused my analysis on their discursive production through the various public platforms on which they are active (such as Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and websites). The seven associations selected, although not representing the whole of the memory movements in Santiago, consist of all the major associative players in the politics of memory and are well established in the Chilean community. Frequently mentioned in the literature (with the exception of the Fundación Pinochet), these associations are nevertheless considered in the literature as a block of victims’ associations, some of which get more visibility than others (notably the AFDD). Although they make up the main memorial landscape, there are nuances and major differences in their ways of representing the past. Moreover, their access to politics and the public arena, as well as to resources, is highly differentiated, making it even more relevant to observe each of them in their specificity and then in their interactions. The focus of this book is on the politics of memory involving organizational actors (i.e., the representations themselves, the struggles, the actions) rather than on places of memory and social media, which will not be theorized as such. Places of memory (in the broadest sense, such as monuments, museums, plays, choreographies, photo exhibits, etc.) and social media (YouTube videos, Facebook pages, official organization pages, newspapers, etc.) are of interest to this research insofar as they carry these representations, as well as textual traces of memory struggles in the public arena. It is thus one of the ways to observe organizations, their representations, and how these representations are constructed and co-constructed in certain contexts of responses, rebuffs, and appeals. 15

 http://www.estadionacionalmemorianacional.cl/proyectos/

42

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

For the purposes of this research and in order to limit the volume of documents that have been analyzed and collated, I have limited myself to those directed toward a broad audience. In concrete terms, this meant limiting the documentary analysis to documents offering representations of the past addressed to an audience outside the associations and sufficiently rich to be analyzed textually and dialogically. Moreover, the documents to be analyzed were selected on the basis of predetermined events and conjunctures. These were chosen firstly because they focus on the politics of memory and secondly because they are particularly rich in terms of conflictual configurations and dynamics. By analyzing the documents that offer the richest representations that were produced around the four events and in the conjunctures that follow, I will be able to highlight the involvement of associations in the politics of memory in Santiago. Here are the selected conjunctures with the predetermined strong moments: 1 . 1998–2000: Arrest of Pinochet, Dialogue Table 2. 2001–2008: Judicial renewal, death of Pinochet, fight against impunity, and election of Bachelet 3. 2009–2011: Opening of the MMDH, fight against impunity, and election of Piñera 4. 2012–2013: 40 years of the coup: legacy and institutional report, closing of the Cordillera prison complex 5. 2014–2017: Political inscription of memory in the present, struggle for the closure of the Punta Peuco prison complex, struggle against impunity, and the granting of prison benefits. In concrete terms, the documentary analysis is influenced by my understanding of discourse as a tool that is far from neutral. While the battleground of the associations studied is the meaning taken by the past reactivated in the present via the politics of memory and the public management of the past, newspapers proved to be a privileged source to highlight these struggles. Indeed, newspapers have been an ideal place to continue the work of identifying sources of contention. As Roger Fowler (2013: 12–14) points out, the news and the stories it reports are far from neutral. Journalists look for major disputes that are worth reporting. The operation of choosing and leaving out certain topics represents well the economic dimension of newspapers that must determine their value and relevance in terms of sales and shock factor (Fowler 2013: 13 & 20). One way of choosing what will make the news is thus related to the intended audience of these texts. From this consideration, the choice of the main sources of texts (newspaper articles, editorials, and letters published within them) was carefully considered. The newspaper El Siglo was the first selected for obvious reasons. This weekly newspaper was inaugurated in early 1940 by the PCC16 (Uribe in Carmona, 1997). This newspaper, although marginal in Chile, has historical links with the organizations under study, first through the role it played in the dissemination of Salvador

16

 PCC: Partido comunista de Chile – Chilean Communist Party

General Presentation

43

Allende’s17 ideas and political platform and then through the position of the PCC in opposition to the government. Indeed, when democracy returned, the PCC, which was not part of the new ruling coalition,18 did not support a candidate belonging to the Concertación until 2013 (Montes, El País, 5/27/2013). The PCC’s oppositional political position explains the tone used in the editorials (especially its support for the words and denunciations coming from the organizations) and the prominent place given to the struggles against impunity and for memory. In contrast, the newspaper La Nación was chosen for its wide circulation and the diversity of opinions presented in its pages. The state owns 69% of the shares of this newspaper.19 Through this newspaper, I gained access to editorials and articles aimed at a wider circulation and having, in fact, a more nuanced statement20 (Segovia, El Mostrador, 12/10/2016). The analysis of the articles and editorials was therefore based on these theoretical and pragmatic considerations. Inspired by the work of Ellingson (1995), this book considers that there is a direct link between the production of discourse and the struggles for meaning at the center of collective action. This author’s approach also suggested that I pay attention to the ways in which the discursive strategies of the organizations studied were influenced and shaped by competing discourses (Ellingson 1995: 105). The discursive strategies discussed within this book refer to Blandine Pennec’s conceptualization of discourse, that is, discourse is understood as an action taken in order to “convince of the truth of a given proposition” (Pennec 2005: 101). The study of the newspapers was a content analysis. This type of analysis, as defined by Phillips and Hardy (2002: 9), should not be seen as a mechanical analysis, but rather as an interpretive form of studying texts in order to link them to a larger discursive context. Several methods of analysis were used to answer the central questions of this project. Firstly, the documents used were analyzed to account for the representations and dynamics present. Inspired by the method used by Passy and Giugni (2005),21 this work studied the corpus of documents collected in order to highlight “who intervenes (the actors), how (the repertoires of action) and for what purpose (content of the claims)” (Passy and Giugni 2005: 903). This technique thus allowed me to trace who the actors are, what their repertoires of action are, how they represent the past, what representations of the past they use, what terminology they use, and what traces of interactions they have with other organizations or opposing

 A brief overview of the newspaper’s covers for the period 1965–1973 demonstrates this link between the ideals defended by Salvador Allende’s Unidad Popular and those presented by the editorial line of the El Siglo. 18  This was not the case until 2008, when the left-wing coalition Juntos Podemos, of which the PCC is a member, joined the Concertación for the 2010 presidential elections (Montes, El País, 27/5/2013). 19  At least until 2013 when they were sold to private interests (Segovia, El Mostrador, 12/10/2016) 20  This was despite criticism from Sebastián Piñera in 2009 regarding the newspaper’s editorial line, which was too close to the ideas and sympathies of the Concertación (Segovia, El Mostrador, 12/10/2016). 21  They themselves were inspired by the event analysis technique developed by Rucht et al. (1998). 17

44

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

r­epresentations of the past.22 This content analysis was conducted in two phases. First, it allowed me to organize the information genealogically according to the associations in order to place the events and conjunctures on a timeline.23 In the second phase, the documents were codified using NVivo in order to identify the main themes and categories that would allow me to better target the questions to be addressed during the interviews (Wanlin 2007: 248–249).

References Alvarez, Sonia E., Evalina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar, eds. 1998. Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures. Boulder: Westview Press. Ancelovici, Marcos. 2009. Esquisse d’une théorie de la contestation. Bourdieu et le modèle du processus politique. Sociologie et Sociétés 41 (2): 39–61. Ancelovici, Marcos, and Stéphanie Rousseau. 2009. Présentation: les mouvements sociaux et la complexité institutionnelle. Sociologie et Sociétés 41 (2): 5–14. Armstrong, Elizabeth, and Mary Bernstein. 2008. Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi-­ institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements. Sociological Theory 26: 74–99. Assmann, Jan. 1995. Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique 65: 125–133. Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press. Benford, Robert D., and David A.  Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639. Bickford, L. “Preserving Memory: the Past and Human Rights Movements in Chile”, in Peeler, John A., Richard S. Hillman, and Elsa, Cardozo de Da Silva. Democracy and Human Rights in Latin America. Westport: Praeger, 2002. Boursier, Jean-Yves. 2010. La fabrique du passé. Construction de la mémoire sociale: pratiques, politiques et enjeux. Nice: Ovadia. Candau, Joël. 2005. Anthropologie de la mémoire. Paris: Armand Colin. Cavalli, Alessandro. 2004. La mémoire comme projet: les mémoires des communautés après une catastrophe. Dans Maurice Halbwachs: espaces, mémoires et psychologie collective, édité par Yves Déloye, et Claudine Haroche, 115–124. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne Cefaï, Daniel. 2001. Les cadres de l’action collective: définitions et problèmes. Dans Les formes de l'action collective. Mobilisations dans des arènes publiques, édité par Daniel Cefaï, et Danny Trom, 51–97. Paris: Éditions de l'école des Hautes études en sciences sociales. ———. 2007. Pourquoi se mobilise-t-on? Les théories de l’action collective. Paris: La découverte. Choron-Baix, Catherine. 2000. Transmettre et perpétuer aujourd’hui. Ethnologie Française 30 (3): 357–360. Cole, Jennifer. 2003. Narratives and Moral Projects: generational memories of the Malagasy 1947 Rebellion. Ethos 3 (1): 95–126. Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Déloye, Yves, and Claudine Haroche. 2004. Maurice Halbwachs: espaces, mémoires et psychologie collective. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Doran, Marie-Christine. 2010. Femmes et politique au Chili: dynamiques et impacts de l'accession au pouvoir de Michelle Bachelet. Recherches féministes 23 (1): 9–27.

 My first field showed that the use of certain terms was privileged in the way of approaching the violence committed during the dictatorship or the very concept of the dictatorship (Jean 2013). 23  This timeline will be coded to identify what belongs to the associations themselves, as well as a more general framework. 22

References

45

———. 2016. Le réveil démocratique du Chili. Une histoire politique de l’exigence de justice (1990–2016). Paris: Éditions Karthala. Ellingson, Stephen. 1995. Understanding the Dialectic of Discourse and Collective Action: Public Debate and Riotingin Antebellum Cincinnati. American Journal of Sociology 101 (1): 100–144. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourses. In Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Fillieule, Olivier, and Cécile Péchu. 2000. Lutter ensemble. Les théories de l’action collective. Paris: L’Harmattan. Frazier, Lessie J. 2007. Salt in the Sand. In Memory, Violence, and the Nation-State in Chile, 1890 to Present. Durham: Duke University Press. French, Brigittine M. 2012. The Semiotics of Collective Memories. Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (1): 337–353. Fowler, Roger. 2013. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press, Routledge, USA. Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of the Experience. New York: Harper Colophon. Halbwachs, Maurice. 1968 [1950]. La mémoire collective. 2. éd. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. ———. 1994 [1925]. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Albin Michel. Halilovich, Hariz. 2013. Places of Pain: Forced Displacement, Popular Memory, and Trans-local Identities in Bosnian War-torn Communities. New York: Berghahn Books. Hall, Stuart. 1977. The Work of Representation. In Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall, 13–74. London: Sage. Jasper, James. 2001. L’art de la protestation collective. Dans Les formes de l'action collective. Mobilisations dans des arènes publiques, édité par Daniel Cefaï, et Danny Trom, 135–159. Paris: Éditions de l'école des Hautes études en sciences sociales. Jean, Joannie. 2013. Mémoires et figures des disparus chiliens en période post-transitionnelle. Master’s thesis, Ottawa, 164 pages. ———. 2018. Mobilisations de la mémoire: une étude diachronique des luttes de mémoire, de légitimité et contre l'impunité à Santiago, Chili (1998–2018), Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Jelin, Elizabeth. 2003. State repression and the labors of memory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kaiser, Susana. 2005. Postmemories of Terror, A New Generation Copes with the Legacy of the “Dirty War”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kansteiner, Wulf. 2002. Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective memory studies. History and Theory 41 (2): 179–197. Keesing, R.M. 1990. Colonial History as Contested Ground: The Bell Massacre in the Solomons. History and Anthropology 4 (2): 279–301. Klep, Katrien. 2013. “Transitional Justice and Local Memory: Commemoration and Social Action in Londres 38, Espacio de Memorias.” In Brants, C. H., A. M. Hol, Dina. Siegel, and C. H. (Chrisje H.) Brants. Transitional Justice: Images and Memories. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate. Korteweg Anna C., and Gökçe Yurdakul (equal co-authors). 2014. The Headscarf Debates: Conflicts of National Belonging. Stanford: Stanford University Pressn.d.. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso. Lavabre, Marie-Claire. 1998. Halbwachs et la sociologie de la mémoire. Raison présente 128: 47–56. Lazzara, Michael J. 2006. Polyphonic Memories: Pinochet’s Dictatorship in the Collective Imagination. A Contra Corriente 4 (1): 191–205. Leach, Edmund R. 1980. L’Unité de l’homme et autres essais. Paris: Gallimard. Lefranc, Sandrine, Lilian Mathieu, and Johanna Eve Siméant. 2008. Les victimes écrivent leur Histoire: Introduction. Raisons Politiques 30 (2): 5–20. Lustiger, T.H. 2013. Memory Redux. Current Sociology 5–6 (61): 906–927.

46

2  Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Maingueneau, Dominique. 1991. Du discours à l'interdiscours. Dans L'analyse du discours. Introduction aux lectures de l’archive, 152–168. Paris: Hachette. Martin, Jean-Clément. 2000. Histoire, mémoire et oubli pour un autre régime d’historicité. Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, no 47–4: 783–804. Masson, Dominique. 1997. Language, Power and Politics: Revisiting the Symbolic Challenge of Movements. In Organizing Dissent, ed. William K.  Caroll, 2nd ed., 57–75. Vancouver: UBC Press. Mathieu, Lilian. 2002. Rapport aux politiques, dimensions cognitives et perspectives pragmatiques dans l’analyse des mouvements sociaux. Revue française de science politique 52 (1): 75–100. McKeen, Wendy. 2004. “Introduction” and “Chapter 2: Understanding How the Interests of New Political Actors Are Shaped: Discourse, Agency and ‘Policy Community’”. In Money in their Own Name. The Feminist Voice in Poverty Debate in Canada 1970–1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Montes, Rocío. 2013, May 27. Chile’s Communists Make Comeback with Support for Michelle Bachelet. El País. https://elpais.com/elpais/2013/05/27/inenglish/1369679388_234605.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018. Neveu, Érik. 2000. Sociologie des mouvements sociaux. Paris: Éditions la découverte. Nguyen, Tuong-Vi. 2009. La transmission intergénérationnelle de la mémoire chilienne du passé récent répressif de Santiago à Montréal. Thèse de maîtrise, Université de Montréal. Nora, Pierre. 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations (Berkeley, Calif.) 26 (26): 7–24. Olick, Jefferey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy. 2011. The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Passy, Florence, and Marco Giugni. 2005. Récits, imaginaires collectifs et formes d’action protestataire. Une approche constructiviste de la contestation antiraciste. Revue française de science politique 55 (5): 889–918. Pennec, Blandine. 2005. Stratégies discursives implicites et manipulation. Dans Parole et pouvoir 2: Enjeux politiques et identitaires, édité par Martine Schuwer, 101–117. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Phillips, Nelson, and Cynthia Hardy. 2002. What is Discourse Analysis? In Discourse Analysis. Investigating Processes of Social Construction, 1–17. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pollak, Michaël. 1993. Mémoire, oubli, silence. Dans Une identité blessée. Études de sociologie et d’histoire, édité par Michaël Pollak, 15–38. Paris: Métailié. Rucht, Dieter, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhelm Neidhardt, eds. 1998. Acts of Dissent. Berlin: Sigma. Segovia, Macarena. 2016, Oct 12. El cierre del diario La Nación pesa entre los peores ‘negocios’ del Gobierno de Piñera. El Mostrador. https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2016/10/12/el-­ cierre-­del-­diario-­la-­nacion-­pesa-­entre-­los-­peores-­negocios-­del-­gobierno-­de-­pinera/. Accessed 14 Oct 2018. Seixas, J. A. de. 2004. Le > chez Halbwachs. Réflexions sur les rapports entre mémoire collective et histoire. Éditions de la Sorbonne. Snow, David. 2001. Analyse De Cadres Et Mouvements Sociaux. Dans Les formes de l'action collective. Mobilisations dans des arènes publiques, édité par Daniel Cefaï, et Danny Trom, 27–49. Paris : Éditions de l'école des Hautes études en sciences sociales. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–481. Sorabji, C. 2006. Managing memories in post-war Sarajevo: individuals, bad memories, and new wars. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12(1), 1–18. Steinberg, Marc W. 1999. The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. The American Journal of Sociology 105 (3): 736–780. Stern, Steve J. 2004. Remembering Pinochet’s Chile: On the Eve of London 1998. Durham: Duke University Press.

References

47

Stern, Steve J. 2010. Reckoning with Pinochet: The Memory Question in Democratic Chile, 1989–2006. Duke University Press, 527. Tarrow, Sidney G. 1989. Struggle, Politics and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movement and Cycles of Protest. Ithaca: Center for International Studies, Cornell University. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious Politics. London: Paradigm Publishers. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1984. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogic Principle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Traverso, Enzo. 2010. L’histoire comme champs de bataille. Interpréter les violences du XXe siècle. Paris: Éditions La Découverte. Uribe, Hernán. 1997. Prensa y periodismo politico en los años 1960–1970. In Mori resta noticia: los periodistas relatan la historia de sus compañeros asesinados y/o desaparecidos, ed. Ernesto Carmona. Santiago: Colectivo de la Escuela de Periodismo de la Universidad ARCIS. http:// www.archivochile.com/Medios_de_Comunicacion/html/text_gen/comutextgen0003.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2018. Vinitzky-Seroussi, Vered. 2009. Yitzhak Rabin’s Assassination and the Dilemmas of Memory. Albany: State University of New York Press. Wanlin, Philippe. 2007. L’analyse de contenu comme méthode d’analyse qualitative d’entretiens: une comparaison entre les traitements manuels et l’utilisation de logiciels. Recherche qualitatives Hors-série, no. 3: 243–272. Wilde, Alexander. 2013.