Extension of the call for Dossier "Ambiguous memories: processes and narratives of destabilization of recognition and preservation policies"
In this dossier we propose to bring together ethnographies that analyze the ambiguities of the memorialist processes and narratives that operate during the construction of policies of social recognition and cultural preservation of historical events, especially those related to collective experiences seen as sensitive, violent or critical. In particular, we want to understand the actors, strategies, discourses, controversies and mechanisms that produce new meanings around the past-present-future axis that make explicit the tensions between the logics of human rights, local dynamics and cultural commodification.
Since the 1980s, a global rearrangement has raised concerns about the ways in which societies deal with the memories of sensitive, violent and critical events, such as those related to the Holocaust, Latin American dictatorships, truth and reconciliation commissions in post-apartheid Africa, racism and xenophobia, among others. In this context, cultural preservation practices and discourses became widespread that sought to communicate and publicly acknowledge the various painful experiences. Processes which, by mobilizing both material and linguistic aspects, led to the normativity of memorialist narratives (Sarlo, 2007; Jelin, 2012; Wieviorka, 2013; Huyssen, 2014; Ledoux, 2016; Butler; Spivak, 2009; Butler; Athanasiou, 2013).
Since then, the contradictory effects of these initiatives to produce and preserve collective memories have multiplied in the public arena. This is because they inevitably operate with discursive registers of truth, authenticity and tradition, which are often called into question by other value systems. In addition, the intersections between the logics of human rights, local government policies and all kinds of cultural commodification have promoted collective experiences that are difficult to define. Thus, we even risk saying that not only have memory policies been ambiguous, unsubmissive and contested: the fragmented meanings of our times themselves don't seem to sit very well in grand narratives and totalizing interpretations (Rosaldo, 1993; Yúdice, 2013; Castro, 2014; Guimarães, 2016; Berliner, 2018; Marques, 2020; Guimarães, Castro, 2023).
Based on these premises, we then pose some questions: with the profusion of historical sites, cultural heritage, testimonies, biographies, historical films and other ways of communicating painful collective experiences, are we moving towards a broad recognition of human diversity? Or are we encouraging entertainment and the accommodation of conflicts? And, depending on the political context, wouldn't it even be appropriate to forget certain events and experiences?
In the midst of the variety of experiences and the multiplication of agents and channels for promoting narratives, it is up to us to observe the phenomena closely, confirming anthropology's contribution to the study of political dynamics and the plasticity of human creations. We therefore encourage the submission of ethnographic articles dedicated to understanding memorialist processes and narratives that aim to overcome limits to action and/or highlight cracks in representation. We would like to receive articles on the following axes of phenomena:
1) The dynamics and procedures that develop in a multi-scalar way between social movements, public administrators and private agents during the processes of formation, consolidation and management of collective memories;
2) The operations and selections of memorialist narratives which, by valuing certain social and cultural attributes as "authentic or traditional", place liminal, non-indexed, ambiguous or undesirable experiences on the margins;
3) The intricate negotiations within the collectivities around their public representation, what meanings and meanings are produced, how they evaluate their demands for recognition and reparation and build provisional discursive consensus.
With this scope of investigation, we seek a broad understanding of the processes faced by different collectivities as they assert their presence in the public space. The aim is to highlight the tensions and ambiguities that permeate processes of recognition and preservation of experiences and destabilize memory policies.
Bibliographic references
BERLINER, David. 2018. Perdre sa culture. Bruxelles: Zone Sensibles.
BUTLER, Judith; SPIVAK, Gayatri. 2009. ¿Quién le canta al estado-nación? Lenguaje, política, pertenencia. Buenos Aires:Paidós.
BUTLER, Judith; ATHANASIOU, Athena. 2013. Dispossession. The performative in the political. Cambridge: Polity.
CASTRO, João Paulo Macedo e. 2014. Ritos da memória: trajetórias e experiências sobre a ditadura militar. Mana, 20(1): 7-38.
GUIMARÃES, Roberta Sampaio. 2016. Patrimônios e conflitos de um afoxé na reurbanização da região portuária carioca. Mana, 22: 311-340.
GUIMARÃES, Roberta Sampaio; CASTRO, João Paulo Macedo e. 2023. A gestão empresarial das memórias sensíveis: poderes, sentidos e práticas em torno do Cais do Valongo no Rio de Janeiro. Tempo Social, 35(2): 63-82.
HUYSSEN, Andreas. 2014. Culturas do passado-presente. Modernismos, artes visuais, políticas da memória. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto.
JELIN, Elizabeth. 2012 (2002). Los trabajos de la memoria. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
LEDOUX, Sébastien. 2016. Le devoir de mémoire. Une formule et son histoire. Paris, CNRS.
MARQUES, Roberto. 2020. Problemas de patrimônio como problemas de gênero: disjunções entre feminismo e cultura popular na Festa de Santo Antônio em Barbalha (CE). Interseções, 22 (3).
ROSALDO, Renato. 1993 (1989). Culture & Truth. The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.
SARLO, Beatriz. 2007 (2005). Tempo passado. Cultura da memória e guinada subjetiva. São Paulo; Minas Gerais: Cia das Letras; Ed. UFMG.
WIEVIORKA, Annette. 2013 (1998). L’Ère du témoin. Paris: Plon.
YÚDICE, George. 2013. A conveniência da cultura. Usos da cultura na era global. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Considering the evaluation criteria imposed on scientific journals, 50% of the articles may be selected from doctoral students; the other articles must be authored by at least one doctor. All the articles will be submitted to a blind review by external referees, in line with the journal's policy. In order to take account of the diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches to the different empirical fields and issues to be debated, articles will preferably be accepted from the fields of Anthropology and Social Sciences, observing the parameters of exogeny in relation to UFF.
Organizers: Roberta Sampaio Guimarães (UFRJ/Brazil); Roberto Marques (UECE/Brazil); João Paulo Macedo e Castro (UNIRIO/Brazil).
Extended deadline: December 5, 2024.
NOTE: As we have more than one open call, it is mandatory to indicate in the 'Comments to editors' field that the submission is for the Dossier "Ambiguous memories: processes and narratives of destabilization of recognition and preservation policies".
Contributions can be sent until December 5, 2024 via the journal's electronic system: https://periodicos.uff.br/antropolitica/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions
