UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Lugar De La Memoria: The

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Lugar de la Memoria: The Peruvian Debate on Memory, Violence and Representation A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Latin American Studies by Paloma Rodrigo Gonzales Committee in charge: Professor Nancy G. Postero, Chair Professor Christine Hunefeldt Professor Michael Monteon 2010 Copyright Paloma Rodrigo Gonzales, 2010 All rights reserved. The thesis of Paloma Rodrigo Gonzales is approved and it is acceptable in quality and form for publica- tion in microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2010 iii DEDICATION To my parents. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ............................................ iii Dedication .............................................. iv Table of Contents .......................................... v Acknowledgements ........................................ vi Abstract of the Thesis ....................................... vii Chapter 1. Historical Context .................................. 1 Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework .............................. 15 Chapter 3. The Negotiation: transforming a Museum into a “Place” ......... 36 Chapter 4. Outlining and Contextualizing the “Place” .................. 66 Chapter 5. Conclusions ...................................... 85 References .............................................. 97 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful to my advisor, Professor Nancy Postero for her dedicated guidance, constant support and encouraging interest. I also want to thank Professors Christine Hunefeldt and Michael Monteon´ for their thoughtful comments and sugges- tions. As everything I do, this was made with Jaime. vi ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Lugar de la Memoria: The Peruvian Debate on Memory, Violence and Representation by Paloma Rodrigo Gonzales Master of Arts in Latin American Studies University of California, San Diego, 2010 Professor Nancy G. Postero, Chair This study analyzes the public debate surrounding the creation of the Peruvian Lugar de la Memoria (Place of Memory) through notions of memory, violence and representation. I argue that the Peruvian Place of Memory has successfully been framed, through a carefully constructed discourse, as a memory project that claims to present, not an archeological, imposed, static final version of the past, but a plural, dynamic, inclusive account of a historical period of violence. This discursive achievement has al- lowed the project to advance in two fundamental ways. First, the Place of Memory has elicited political alliances that would have been impossible without a declared willing- ness to represent a plural vision of the past. Second, resonating with proposals that claim to represent national memory, the Place of Memory aims to reconstruct the past in order to legitimize a present national project. Working toward that connection between past and present, the project has managed to discursively connect manifestations of extreme violence to less visible, underlying and persistent forms of structural violence. Despite vii these valuable achievements, the Peruvian Place of Memory has one central limitation that results from not recognizing that the positions of who speaks and who is spoken of overlap with positions in the larger distribution of power. Overlooking the project’s, and its representatives’, position within power relations may revert the advances made through the discourse, finally turning the Place of Memory into a version of the past, imposed by dominant classes, that perpetuates the structure of power that the project repudiates. viii Chapter 1 Historical Context The proposal to create a museum of memory in Peru was approved by the Peru- vian government in early 2009. This project, which is now referred to as the “Place of Memory” (Lugar de la Memoria), can be located within the Peruvian post-war period that began in 2001, when former President Alberto Fujimori fled the country and the interim government created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR - Comision´ de la Verdad y Reconciliacion´ ). In this section I would like to review the events that led to the emergence and progressive growth of an internal war in Peru’s early 1980s. From the beginning of the conflict, theorists have tried to solve the puzzle of a violent conflict that coincided with other important historical events that presented some opportunities for social and political transformation. For instance, political violence in Peru started in the midst of the first democratic elections after over 10 years of military dictatorship. Also, it emerged at a time when the Left had managed to become a formal political force that by the early 80s could channel and unify, through institutionalized mechanisms, the demands of a num- ber of fragmented leftist organizations (Nelson 2002). The Maoist fraction, Sendero Lu- minoso (The Shining Path) and the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac´ Amaru (MRTA Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) were among these organizations. Moreover, the war was officially declared a year after the country had passed a new Constitution 1 2 in which all Peruvian men and women, regardless of cultural, socioeconomic and ed- ucational background, were required to vote. While indigenous men and women were enacting their newly acquired obligation as citizens, Sendero Luminoso (self-identified as the Peruvian Communist Party PCP) initiated a so-called “popular war”, destroying the ballots and boxes through which peasants of the small town of Chuschi in Ayacucho were to express their vote. From then on the country underwent a period of escalating violence that left approximately 69, 280 people dead (CVR 2003). In this introductory chapter I will also describe the process that followed the resignation of Alberto Fujimori, focusing on the creation and development of the CVR, an crucial antecedent to the Place of Memory project. 1.1 The Origins of Sendero Luminoso In Peru, it was not until the 1920s that alternative political organizations ques- tioned the traditional oligarchic order (Tanaka 1998:5). Until then, the oligarchic project of turning Peru into a civilized European nation had induced governments to privilege international investment and foreign immigration. These “modernizing” policies al- lowed the country to achieve certain economic growth based on the exportation of raw materials such as minerals, sugar, cotton and rubber. But, this growth benefited only a few and the concentration of economic power that defined the oligarchy reinforced the control of traditional elites over large sectors of the population, particularly in the Andean regions (Contreras and Cueto 2007). Around 1919 thought, the economic growth also brought with it the increase of public labor, the institutionalization of the Armed Forces, the development of a mining, agrarian and urban working class, and the appearance of intellectual groups and small scale commerce. The development of a middle class that was not incorporated to the Aristocratic Republic jeopardized the oligarchic enterprise and put the issue of exclusion on the table (Contreras, Cueto 2007). It was around that time, in the early 1920s that the Indigenistas (particularly influenced by Jose Carlos Mariategui’s´ ideas) initiated a crucial debate trying to include indigenous groups in the project of a modern nation. However, the first concrete transformation in distribution of power did not come 3 until 1968 with the military government of General Juan Francisco Velasco Alvarado. Velasco led a radical agrarian reform that would transform the configuration of Peru- vian society. After Velasco, land ownership was no longer synonym of political power (Flores Galindo 1988). But, in spite of the egalitarian promises of Velasco’s reforms, and of the reconfiguration of land distribution and ownership, “top-down”, traditional structures of power remained at work, and after the reform, society underwent a process of “cooperativization” in which local powers were replaced by the State apparatus. In the context of weakened traditional aristocracies and the State’s expansion, Ayacucho, a region located in the south-central Andes of Peru, organized one of the most unexpected social upraises of Peruvian 20th century (Degregori 1990). Carlos Ivan´ Degregori traces the emergence of Sendero Luminoso back to amassive protest that developed in 1969, during Velasco’s military government. Degregori argues that even when Ayacucho was by 1969 one of the poorest regions in the country, poverty and a colonial social structure do not account for the emergence of a powerful, violent, political movement as the one that emerged exclusively in that region. Then, why did Sendero Luminoso develop in the way it did specifically in Ayacucho? Degregori identifies edu- cation as a crucial element in the development of the organization. Ironically, in the late 1950s, impoverished local elites, affected by a national re- distribution of economic resources and economic flows, sought for new sources of power and demanded the re-inauguration of San Cristobal´ de Huamanga University (UH), that had been shut down after the War of the Pacific. Rather than reinforcing the privileged position that the elites in Ayacucho traditionally occupied, the UH transformed the allo- cation of power in the region (Degregori 1990). The UH triggered a process of national immigration to Ayacucho, which provided commercial opportunities for new sectors of society. What is more, professors at UH, who came from either Lima or other regions,

Load more