War, Denial and Nation-Building in Sri Lanka

Abstract

This series aims to bring together in one series scholars from around the world who are researching the dynamics of post-conflict transformation in societies emerging from communal conflict and collective violence. The series welcomes studies of particular transitional societies emerging from conflict, comparative work that is cross-national, and theoretical and conceptual contributions that focus on some of the key processes in post-conflict transformation. The series is purposely interdisciplinary and addresses the range of issues involved in compromise, reconciliation and societal healing. It focuses on interpersonal and institutional questions, and the connections between them.More information about this series at

Violence, co-optation, and postwar voting in Guatemala

“…I argue that communities with a previous history of political mobilization interpreted information about the war and the reasons behind the violence differently. Previous research points to how everyday social networks act as vectors of information during a conflict (Shesterinina, 2016) and influence the political reactions to past violence (Rydgren, 2007; Dorff, 2017). Communities that had been more exposed to this form of leftist mobilization before the war were more resilient to the co-optation strategies carried out by the government.…”

“…These strategies are sometimes successful. For example, in Sri Lanka and Spain, violence against civilians was denied, blamed on the opposite side, or interpreted as a necessary means to bring peace and national unity, with relative success (Seoighe, 2017;Palomares, 2004). In Argentina, state authorities managed to cover up the extent of the repression carried out during the dictatorship, and people only learned about it after its defeat in 1982 (Robben, 1995).…”

Sri Lanka’s Schmittian peace: sovereignty, enmity and illiberal order

“…73 In short, the regime 'controlled societal discourse through terror, intimidation of the media and targeted killings, leaving the state-sponsored media as the dominant source of information'. 74 Proponents of 'agonistic peace-building', which builds on the work of Chantal Mouffe, agree with Schmitt that liberal ideas too easily suppress antagonisms and seek a false, depoliticized consensus that is ultimately destabilising. 75 Instead, they argue for a 'dissensus' that recognises and embraces discord, and acknowledges non-liberal voices as valid participants in the political sphere.…”

“…On several occasions, local people prevented military survey teams from operating, fearing further land appropriations. 110 Using the work of James Scott, Perera argues that even during the conflict, everyday 'infrapolitics' produced spaces that were more diverse and more hybrid than the totalizing rhetorical mapping of political elites might suggest. Instead of clear boundaries and homogeneous spaces, everyday politics produces 'messy spaces', resistant to elite visions and the naturalisation of a binary division of territory.…”

Problematising Symbolic Reparation: ‘Complex Political Victims’, ‘Dead Body Politics’ and the Right to Remember

“…More problematically, though, ‘disciplining’ commemoration is naturally conducive to cynically silencing certain narratives under dubious legal guises – whether that is one of ‘victims’ rights’, ‘good relations’ or legislation purportedly designed to further post-conflict reconciliation. As Seoighe (2017: 2) persuasively argues on Tamil collective memory in post-war Sri Lanka, demanding that certain constituencies ‘compromise’ on their collective memory can become a way of eliding the complicity of others in past violence. In the Northern Ireland context, where the state refuses to acknowledge its role as an armed actor in the conflict (Hearty, 2017; Lawther, 2014), this naturally leads to questions over what ends commemorative ‘disciplining’ might be undertaken for.…”