“…It is aesthetic, as icons, slogans, and figures that are very recognizable globally (the headscarf, the photos carried by the relatives, the "Never Again") are associated with the disappeared (Crenzel, 2012;Taylor, 2001). It is anthropological, as disappearance and the disappeared have attained the rank, if not of archetypes, then of privileged examples of bad death (Azevedo et al, 2020;Robin & Panizo, 2020), of how it must be processed, and of how mourning must be managed (Congram, 2016;Diéguez, 2013;Robledo Silvestre, 2017). And it is also a success with regards to the form adopted by the social response to such acts, a form that is unique in several ways, most notably the work itself involved in the social invention of a name to denote a phenomenon (enforced disappearance) and another for the figure that produces that phenomenon (disappeared), until then unnamed, and the political response, which pushed the relative of the victim into the public space as a type of collective actor that was at the time new (Fassin & Rechtman, 2009;Fassin 2015;Gatti, 2017), making kinship with the victims and the struggles for memory the basis of their legitimacy.…”