The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

genocide in guatemala 299
text and, over time, barely resembles the original. As one witness told the CEH,
“[People] don’t just remember the event as it was, under what circumstances, the
time and all that, but all the subjective interpretation,” a subjectivity infused with
fear (CEH 1999a:tomo IV:29).
On another level, memory has a collective dimension, transcending the individual
and reflecting the social. This broader dimension of memory provides its
own dynamic. “Collective memory is biased towards forgetting that which is negative,”
Halbwachs suggests (Marques, Paez, and Serra 1997:258), and painful or
shameful events are even more difficult to handle. The social dimension of memory
also shapes individual recollection. In formulating an account of what took
place that is shared with others, individuals tap their own recollections, based on
their observation of major events as well as exchanges with each other. These perceptions
of the past filter not only through their own experiences but also through
the social arena—the public and private discussion of these events and the ways
in which they are interpreted and understood by society as a whole.
In the case of Santa Maria Tzejá, what is this social context? It is a context that
those in power seek to define. “Everything that exists, no matter what its origin,”
Nietzsche writes, “is periodically reinterpreted by those in power in terms of fresh
intentions” (Nietzsche 1956:209). A Guatemalan military officer echoes Nietzsche
in a contemporary context: “[T]here is a historic truth in Guatemala, which is a
truth from the perspective of power and that is the one that we know and accept”
(Cifuentes 1998:89). One way of legitimizing the present is by denying the past or,
if faced with undeniable truths, by providing an interpretation capable of rationalizing
the terror that took place. Nonetheless, as Arendt (1968:259) puts it, facts
possess “a strength of [their] own: whatever those in power may contrive, they are
unable to discover or invent a viable substitute for [them].” This tension between
interpretation and reality is the terrain on which memory is constituted.
Social scientists face a particular challenge in doing research among populations
subjected to terror and fear. How is one to understand and interpret the recollections
people provide? More than usual, it is important, even decisive, to decipher
or decode the meanings in people’s stories, to sort out the public voice and the concealed,
unspoken thoughts. It is not as straightforward as simply counterposing
truth versus falsehood, but rather seeking to understand what is said and what is
not said. That which remains purposefully unspoken can indicate agency, defiance,
resistance, control, autonomy, contestation, and resilience. Silence, at times, is remarkably
eloquent. A social science researcher needs to locate the hidden voice,
the codes or the double meanings, the thoughts that reside “between the lines.”
Guatemala provides an unusually difficult, troubling challenge. The act of remembering,
let alone the act of retelling, is a highly charged, politicized event,
fraught with danger (see Manz 1999). Not surprisingly, fear leads people to provide
partial information, and often misinformation, until trust is established and it
becomes clear what, if any, consequences might befall the respondent. “It is as if
denial and a low profile would bring protection from a world that merited greater