Autor/es
Descripción
ver mas
Colaborador
Feierstein, Daniel
Zylberman, Lior
Materias
Spatial Coverage
Temporal Coverage
2006-2015
Idioma
spa
Extent
144 p.
Derechos
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Formato
application/pdf
Identificador
Cobertura
1001160
Buenos Aires (province)
2006-2015
Abstract
In 2006, a large-scale criminal process was launched in Argentina against the responsible and perpetrators of the systematic human rights violations committed by the state during the last military dictatorship (1976-1983). This instance was possible after the annulment of the laws of "Punto Final" (1986) and "Obediencia Debida" (1987) in 2003, and its subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court of the Nation in 2005. The trials have taken great relevance both nationally and internationally as they make up an exceptional case in which those responsible for crimes committed by the state are judged in the national legal context, by natural judges - not special - in the criminal law jurisdiction, without the intervention of international courts. Therefore, it is the state itself that judges the crimes it once committed.
This thesis analyzes the ways in which the newspapers Clarín, La Nación and Página 12 characterized the trials against those responsible for the genocide perpetrated in Argentina during the last military dictatorship, in the province of Buenos Aires in the period between 2006 and 2015. The characterization of the trials focuses on the analysis of three figures that emerged from the archive work: the crimes tried, the victims and the accused.
The linguistic perspective developed by Felipe Maillo Salgado was chosen in order to carry out the research. This perspective focuses on the analysis of stereotypes as discursive constructions that, based on their associated senses, configure certain worldviews. To this perspective, the foucaultian archaeological method was articulated as a heuristic tool to approach the documentary corpus as a file, as the law which marks the possibilities of the enunciation and that is not necessarily linked to the coherence of the enunciated. These theoretical choices allowed the emergence of the figures of the crimes, the victims and the accused, as well as that of their stereotypes that emerged from the major modes of characterizing each of one of these figures.
The investigation was carried out by a documentary corpus constituted by all the journalistic publications related to the coverage of the forty trials that took place in Buenos Aires during the period 2006-2015. Eleven cases were intentionally chosen and from the analysis of the second corpus of publications emerged the three fundamental analytical figures of the thesis: the crimes, the victims and the accused.
This thesis proposes that the trials that have taken place since 2006 against those responsible for the crimes committed during the last military dictatorship constitute a fundamental space to explain what happened during the genocidal experience and to narrate it, contributing to the ways in which society elaborate its consequences. In this sense, this thesis holds that the discourse that is constructed in the judicial scenario as well as the truth built legally in the veredicts, acquires a specific value of greater symbolic category with respect to other discourses. This is because it is a truth built and sustained by one of the powers of the state and because it constitutes the space in which responsibilities are pointed out and are collectively recognized.
The fundamental hypothesis of the thesis is based on the previous assumption: legal discourse has a specific weight with respect to other discourses for being a socially accepted state truth with the capacity to perform other social discourses once it has been pronounced, generating effects on to the ways of naming the facts judged and their intervening actors.
Finally, this thesis incorporates a variable of analysis arising from archival work based on a constitutive tension between the characterizations of crimes against humanity and genocide. This tension is present from the beginning of the research, runs through each of the analytical figures and is expressed from two modes of explanation: one that refers to facts and individual subjects and another that refers to planning and systematicity.
This thesis analyzes the ways in which the newspapers Clarín, La Nación and Página 12 characterized the trials against those responsible for the genocide perpetrated in Argentina during the last military dictatorship, in the province of Buenos Aires in the period between 2006 and 2015. The characterization of the trials focuses on the analysis of three figures that emerged from the archive work: the crimes tried, the victims and the accused.
The linguistic perspective developed by Felipe Maillo Salgado was chosen in order to carry out the research. This perspective focuses on the analysis of stereotypes as discursive constructions that, based on their associated senses, configure certain worldviews. To this perspective, the foucaultian archaeological method was articulated as a heuristic tool to approach the documentary corpus as a file, as the law which marks the possibilities of the enunciation and that is not necessarily linked to the coherence of the enunciated. These theoretical choices allowed the emergence of the figures of the crimes, the victims and the accused, as well as that of their stereotypes that emerged from the major modes of characterizing each of one of these figures.
The investigation was carried out by a documentary corpus constituted by all the journalistic publications related to the coverage of the forty trials that took place in Buenos Aires during the period 2006-2015. Eleven cases were intentionally chosen and from the analysis of the second corpus of publications emerged the three fundamental analytical figures of the thesis: the crimes, the victims and the accused.
This thesis proposes that the trials that have taken place since 2006 against those responsible for the crimes committed during the last military dictatorship constitute a fundamental space to explain what happened during the genocidal experience and to narrate it, contributing to the ways in which society elaborate its consequences. In this sense, this thesis holds that the discourse that is constructed in the judicial scenario as well as the truth built legally in the veredicts, acquires a specific value of greater symbolic category with respect to other discourses. This is because it is a truth built and sustained by one of the powers of the state and because it constitutes the space in which responsibilities are pointed out and are collectively recognized.
The fundamental hypothesis of the thesis is based on the previous assumption: legal discourse has a specific weight with respect to other discourses for being a socially accepted state truth with the capacity to perform other social discourses once it has been pronounced, generating effects on to the ways of naming the facts judged and their intervening actors.
Finally, this thesis incorporates a variable of analysis arising from archival work based on a constitutive tension between the characterizations of crimes against humanity and genocide. This tension is present from the beginning of the research, runs through each of the analytical figures and is expressed from two modes of explanation: one that refers to facts and individual subjects and another that refers to planning and systematicity.
Título obtenido
Magister de la Universidad de Buenos Aires en Investigación en Ciencias Sociales
Institución otorgante
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales