首页> 外文学位 >Accounting for the past: Memory, responsibility, and the political motivation requirement in the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission amnesty hearings.
【24h】

Accounting for the past: Memory, responsibility, and the political motivation requirement in the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission amnesty hearings.

机译:回顾过去:南非真相与和解委员会大赦听证会的记忆,责任和政治动机要求。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In this study, I ask how responsibility for human rights violations is construed in the Amnesty Committee hearings of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). I find that the amnesty hearing accounts mute rather than emphasize individual responsibility for political violence. The TRC had conceived of its hearings as a memory exercise that would generate a new culture of responsibility to counter the apartheid legacy of thoughtless submission to a morally corrupt authority. While transitions tend to pose difficulties for establishing responsibility for a previous regime's atrocities, the TRC had seemed positioned to do better. I argue that the commission's need to determine whether amnesty applicants' offenses had been politically motivated gave the accounts their distinctive and vexing shape.;I conduct a discourse analysis of amnesty hearing transcripts from three cases. To examine this question of how the participants' talk in the hearings was shaped by the need to establish political motivation, I interpret the intertextual relationship between the amnesty accounts, on the one hand, and the criteria for determining political motivation, laid out in the legislation that established the TRC, on the other. I then examine constructions of responsibility as they arise from the accounts.;Orienting to the political motivation requirement, perpetrators' initial statements to the committee operate as apologia, defenses of conduct, for their offenses. These explanations repeat apartheid-era justifications for violence. In the examination phase of the hearings and in its decisions, the Amnesty Committee counters some of these justifications but remains silent on others. Troublingly, the amnesty decisions construct political violence as action for which individuals bear less responsibility than they would for violence identified as non-political. The ethico-political dispositions that emerge from the amnesty hearings, then, provide an uncertain foundation for the emergence of a responsible society.;This project demonstrates how a rhetorical and discourse analytic approach can contribute conceptual and methodological clarity to memory studies: first, a rhetorical understanding of these accounts distinguishes between the intentions of a potential memory-maker---in this case, the TRC---and the discourse produced under its aegis. Second, the study emphasizes the value of grounding theories of memory in close, systematic studies of particular cases. This study also contributes to a rhetoric of political transition, showing how a specific constraint of a truth commission's situation dampened its discourse's transitional potential.
机译:在这项研究中,我想问南非真相与和解委员会(TRC)的特赦委员会听证会如何解释对侵犯人权的责任。我发现,大赦听证会无声无息,而不是强调个人对政治暴力的责任。真相与和解委员会将其听证会视为一种记忆活动,它将产生一种新的责任文化,以对抗种族隔离主义思想上无意识地屈从于道德腐败的权威。虽然过渡往往难以为上届政权的暴行确立责任,但真相与和解委员会似乎已经做好了更好的准备。我认为委员会需要确定大赦申请人的罪行是否出于政治动机,这使账目具有独特而令人不安的状态。我对来自三起案件的大赦听证笔录进行了话语分析。为了研究这个问题,即听证会上的演讲是如何建立政治动机的,我一方面解释了特赦帐户与确定政治动机的标准之间的互文关系,另一方面,建立了真相与和解委员会的立法。然后,我检查从账目中产生的责任建构。;针对政治动机的要求,施暴者向委员会的初次陈述是对他们的罪行的道歉,行为辩护。这些解释重复了种族隔离时代对暴力的辩护。大赦委员会在听证会的审查阶段及其决定中反对其中一些理由,但对其他理由保持沉默。令人不安的是,大赦决定将政治暴力视为一种行动,与那些被认定为非政治暴力相比,个人承担的责任少。大赦听证会上出现的民族政治倾向会为负责任的社会的出现提供不确定的基础。该项目说明了修辞和话语分析方法如何为记忆研究提供概念和方法上的清晰性:对这些陈述的修辞理解将潜在的存储器制造商(在本例中为TRC)的意图与在其支持下产生的话语区分开来。其次,这项研究强调了在特定案例的密切系统研究中,记忆基础理论的价值。这项研究还有助于政治转型,表明真相委员会情况的特定限制如何削弱其话语的过渡潜力。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lawrence, Susan.;

  • 作者单位

    Carnegie Mellon University.;

  • 授予单位 Carnegie Mellon University.;
  • 学科 Political Science Public Administration.;Sociology Criminology and Penology.;Language Rhetoric and Composition.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2005
  • 页码 294 p.
  • 总页数 294
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号