Claire Moon

Healing past violence: traumatic assumptions and therapeutic interventions in war and reconciliation

Since South Africas Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), a therapeutic moral order has become one of the dominant frameworks within which states attempt to deal with a legacy of violent conflict. As a consequence, the grammar of trauma, suffering, repression, denial, closure, truth-revelation, and catharsis has become almost axiomatic to postconflict state-building. The rise of the postconflict therapeutic framework is tied, ineluctably, to the global proliferation of amnesty agreements. This article examines the emergence and application of two therapeutic truisms that have gained political credence in postconflict contexts since the work of the TRC. The first of these is that war-torn societies are traumatized and require therapeutic management if conflict is to be ameliorated. The second, and related truism, is that one of the tasks of the postconflict state is to attend to the psychiatric health of its citizens and the nation as a whole. The article shows how, and to what effect, these truisms coalesce powerfully at the site of postconflict national reconciliation processes. It argues that the discourse of therapy provides a radically new mode of state legitimation. It is the language through which new state institutions, primarily truth commissions, attempt to acknowledge suffering, ameliorate trauma and simultaneously found political legitimacy. The article concludes by suggesting that, on a therapeutic understanding, postconflict processes of dealing with past violence justify nascent political orders on new grounds: not just because they can forcibly suppress conflict, or deliver justice and protect rights, but because they can cure people of the pathologies that are a potential cause of resurgent violence.

Narrating Political Reconciliation: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa

This article enquires into the narration of reconciliation in South Africa and its political implications. It scrutinizes the subjects, objects and material practices that flow from the reconciliation story. The investigation turns on two crucial assumptions: (a) that discourse is an ideological system of meaning that constitutes and naturalizes the subjects and objects of political life, and (b) that narrative is a special discursive form, the structural features of which have specific political effects that are not illuminated by a more general discourse analytic approach. A narrative perspective is important because the TRC explicitly undertook the task of telling a story about South Africa’s transition from past violence to future reconciliation, and argued that storytelling was fundamental to catharsis, healing, and reconciliation on an individual and a national level. Narrative theory renders more specifically applicable some of the general claims of political discourse analysis; while the insights of political discourse analysis highlight the political contexts and effects of governing narratives to which most narrative theory, on its own, is blind. The combination of these two theoretical premises furnishes a powerful approach to understanding the story about reconciliation told by the TRC, and its political implications.

‘Who’ll Pay Reparations on My Soul?’1 Compensation, Social Control and Social Suffering:

Contemporary debate about compensation for past wrongs turns on the assumption that state reparation benefits the victims of atrocity by acknowledging harm and ameliorating victim suffering. Indeed, much recent theoretical and practical work has concurred to establish reparation to victims of state crimes as a cornerstone of human rights. However, this article argues that reparation can also function to placate victim demands for criminal justice and to regulate the range of political and historical meanings with which the crimes of the past are endowed. This is most evident in transitional political contexts in which gestures of reparation are usually concomitant with the inauguration of new political orders, and formal investigations of past atrocity are conditioned by the balancing of the political demands of new and old regimes. This article argues that in such contexts, state reparation can work to control social suffering with the consequence that it sometimes intensifies rather than alleviates it. To evidence this claim, the article investigates the refusal of reparations by the victims towards whom it is addressed, with reference to Argentina’s Madres de Plaza de Mayo. This analysis of their refusal demonstrates how victim groups make important challenges to some of the core assumptions in the field, reveals internal inconsistencies within the analytical architecture of the scholarly and professional discourse, and indicates the ways in which reparations carry political, and not just palliative, significance.

What One Sees and How One Files Seeing: Human Rights Reporting, Representation and Action1

This article argues that the forms through which violence and atrocity are expressed – legal, statistical and testimonial – are important objects of analysis because credo is manifest in form, and an examination of form reveals something about the relationship between the ‘world view’ of human rights organizations and the ‘styles of thought’ that shape and inform their representations. The article considers what the discursive forms that seem indigenous to human rights and human rights advocacy both express (legalism, scientism) and repress (historicism), and discusses ways in which these forms of representation potentially facilitate and inhibit action.

Interpreters of the Dead: Forensic Knowledge, Human Remains and the Politics of the Past

Forensic anthropology makes particular professional claims – scientific, probative, humanitarian, historical, political and deterrent – which attempt to finalise interpretations of the past. However, I argue that these claims conceal a range of contests and conflicts around the social, political, legal and scientific significance of human remains. I look at the ways in which forensic work is embedded within a network of artefacts, actors and institutions that have different stakes in the interpretation of the past. I analyse conflicts over human remains by positing them as ‘boundary objects’ with agency, in which a number of communities are invested and show how forensic knowledge does not finalise, but interacts with social, political and historical interpretations of past violence in ways that are both conflicted and unpredictable.

The British Journal of Sociology in the 1990s: disintegration and disarray?

When I announced to a colleague that I had been tasked with surveying the British Journal of Sociology in the 1990s, he grunted ‘rather you than me’. It was with huge trepidation that I approached a decade that I had been led to believe represented a discipline in crisis. That apprehension was compounded enormously by the impossible task of having to select two articles that represented ‘the best’ of the BJS in that decade. A crescendo of complaints about sociology in the 1990s sustained the truism that the sociological enterprise was at that time in a severe state of disintegration and disarray. Horowitz stated this boldly: sociology had fallen into a ‘dismal abyss’ (Horowitz in Good 1994). Whilst some sociologists disagreed with this diagnosis, a significant number believed that there were serious problems with both the intellectual coherence and professional organization of the discipline. Some of the loudest complaints came from those defending paradigms that had long held the discipline captive, but were now under attack. Predictably, sociologists were divided over what divided sociology. It is worth reprising some of these complaints here.