Autor/es
Descripción
ver mas
Colaborador
Feierstein, Daniel E.
Spatial Coverage
Temporal Coverage
2006-2019
Idioma
spa
Extent
367 p.
Derechos
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Formato
application/pdf
Identificador
Cobertura
ARG
2006-2019
Abstract
More than 43 years after the beginning of the last military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983), its interpretation continues to be a fundamental axis of political debates and a recurring theme in the productions of Social Sciences. This is because the ways of interpreting the past, define ourselves in the present time, as historical subjects, who are constituted in the "here and now" from a journey and a determined trajectory.
Here lies the central concern of this thesis: which are these ways of understanding the past and where do they place us, those of us who produce and reproduce them? To what extent do these ways of narrating the genocidal process allow us to build a line of community continuity between that previous past to the annihilation and this present?
To address these questions, the thesis focuses on the analysis of the narrative models about de past that are presented in the judicial judgments between 2006 and 2019. The analysis is located in the judicial territory, since we understand that it is one of the privileged areas for the construction of meanings about genocide. In this framework it is proposed that law not only plays a negative or repressive role in sustaining the hegemony of the dominant bloc, but also plays a positive role due to its symbolic efficacy (García Villegas, 2015): it produces and reproduces the meanings that explain the world, collaborates in the determination of socially accepted and rejected behaviors and, in addition, has the capacity to sanction those who fail to comply with them. But also, because in the Argentine case, the courts have been one of the main places chosen by the human rights movement for the construction of memory since the end of the military dictatorship.
This research is based on a set of questions about the meanings that are constructed in the judicial judgments regarding the genocidal process, the relationship between these particular meanings with the main meanings that circulated in Argentine society as of 1983, and the possible articulations between the ways of explaining the genocidal process and the meanings of the present social organization. These questions are linked with the central concern regarding the possible contributions of the judicial process in the process of appropriation or alienation of the experience of annihilation and of what has been annihilated.
To identify these dialogues, the structure of meaning category has been constructed, which has been defined as a set of representations that are in relation to a given time and territory, and that in the development of these interactions build a certain explanatory model that gives meaning to the present through the conceptions about the past (and vice versa) and that are knotted in the social frames of memory (Halbwachs, 2004) of the hegemonic common sense of his time.
Here lies the central concern of this thesis: which are these ways of understanding the past and where do they place us, those of us who produce and reproduce them? To what extent do these ways of narrating the genocidal process allow us to build a line of community continuity between that previous past to the annihilation and this present?
To address these questions, the thesis focuses on the analysis of the narrative models about de past that are presented in the judicial judgments between 2006 and 2019. The analysis is located in the judicial territory, since we understand that it is one of the privileged areas for the construction of meanings about genocide. In this framework it is proposed that law not only plays a negative or repressive role in sustaining the hegemony of the dominant bloc, but also plays a positive role due to its symbolic efficacy (García Villegas, 2015): it produces and reproduces the meanings that explain the world, collaborates in the determination of socially accepted and rejected behaviors and, in addition, has the capacity to sanction those who fail to comply with them. But also, because in the Argentine case, the courts have been one of the main places chosen by the human rights movement for the construction of memory since the end of the military dictatorship.
This research is based on a set of questions about the meanings that are constructed in the judicial judgments regarding the genocidal process, the relationship between these particular meanings with the main meanings that circulated in Argentine society as of 1983, and the possible articulations between the ways of explaining the genocidal process and the meanings of the present social organization. These questions are linked with the central concern regarding the possible contributions of the judicial process in the process of appropriation or alienation of the experience of annihilation and of what has been annihilated.
To identify these dialogues, the structure of meaning category has been constructed, which has been defined as a set of representations that are in relation to a given time and territory, and that in the development of these interactions build a certain explanatory model that gives meaning to the present through the conceptions about the past (and vice versa) and that are knotted in the social frames of memory (Halbwachs, 2004) of the hegemonic common sense of his time.
Título obtenido
Doctora de la Universidad de Buenos Aires en Ciencias Sociales
Institución otorgante
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales