The Human Rights Paradox: Universality and Its Discontents

5. “Memoria, Verdad y Justicia”: The Terrain of Post-Dictatorship Social Reconstruction and the Struggle for Human Rights in Argentina

5 “Memoria, Verdad y Justicia” The Terrain of Post-Dictatorship Social Reconstruction and the Struggle for Human Rights in Argentina Noa Vaisman  125 Introduction In Argentina the collective cry “Memory, Truth, and Justice” (Memoria, Verdad y Justicia) has occupied a central place in public discourse. In the long aftermath of the military dictatorship (1976–83) and in the context of ongoing processes of social reconstruction, this demand has been heard in places as varied as courtrooms and street demonstrations to private conversations and public debates in the national media. At first glance the request seems simple enough: to learn the truth about what happened while the junta was in power, to construct a clear memory of the events, and to see that justice is carried out. Nevertheless, over the years these three terms have yielded a wide array of interpretations. What should be remembered? Who decides what is to be commemorated and how? What kind of justice should be carried out and in what context? Who must be tried and who should be absolved? How can the truth be discovered? And what kind of truth are the people willing to hear? All these questions reflect the complex nature of the three terms, and provide a lens through which to understand the varied social and political processes they have given rise to.1 In this chapter I focus on one term— truth—and explore its use and significance in some ethnographic detail. Through an examination of three events, I show that the meaning of this classic category within the human rights and transitional justice literatures shifts and transforms as a result of local forces and changing sociopolitical circumstances. Moreover, by exposing the tensions that exist between local notions of human rights and the universalizing force of human rights discourse , I consider the role of human agency in shaping human rights struggles and the desire for truth more specifically. My broader aim is to contribute to a nuanced and grounded analysis of human rights that embraces the paradoxical nature of the field that is always, as Stern and Straus point out in the introduction to this volume, local, political, and historical simultaneously. The three scenarios analyzed center on the work of the human rights organization H.I.J.O.S. (Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice against Oblivion and Silence [Hijos e Hijas por la Identidad y la Justicia contra el Olvido y el Silencio]). In examining the group’s particular interpretations of “truth,” I ask what that term and its application might tell about the long process of social reconstruction following mass human rights violations. I have chosen to focus on H.I.J.O.S. for a number of reasons: the group represents a new generation within the human rights camp in Argentina, and in that capacity it has offered new visions and targets for the local struggle for truth about the past and its consequences. Moreover, particularly between the late 1990s and early 2000s, this group had played an important role in shaping local demands for post-dictatorship justice and in propelling civil society into action. But their use of the term “truth” also enfolds many tensions and contradictions that exist both within the group and between the group and other social and political organizations. Exploring these tensions can contribute to a richer interpretation of the grounded nature of human rights in a particular local. Much like the package of measures discussed by transitional justice scholars and activists (Elster 2006; Hayer 2001; Hinton 2011; Shaw and Waldorf 2010; Teitel 2003), which include truth commissions, judicial prosecutions, commemorative projects, and reparations, the three terms—truth, justice, memory—develop through reciprocal processes. That is, all three terms evolve in relation to one another and are consequently hard to disentangle. Moreover , the exact direction and particular form that each term has taken is in 126 N o a Va i s m a n large part an outcome of complex social and historical processes, ongoing negotiations between human rights organizations and the state, and debates between different groups within civil society.2 Within transitional justice processes truth has occupied a special place. First, the creation and proliferation of truth (and reconciliation) commissions in many different parts of the world has established the institution as well as the term as key components in the transitional justice “toolkit” (Shaw and Waldorf 2010, 3). Second, academic works on truth commissions have pointed...