ABSTRACT
In contexts of post-conflict transition, memory sites such as museums and memorials have the dual role of symbolising redress and serving as pedagogical spaces aimed at non-recurrence. Through field interviews with individuals working with state-sponsored memory sites in Colombia, I explore how memory agents navigate these dual roles. Findings suggest that the pedagogical role of memory sites is a source of dispute framed by interactions among individuals. Debates over pedagogy illustrate broader tensions over the institutionalisation of memories in state spaces and their potential contribution to transitional justice. This article contributes empirical insight into the interactional aspects of memory work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The Law 1448 of 2011 explicitly outlines the state’s duty of memory, understood as the duty to guarantee that society will reconstruct memory with the goal of contributing to truth. The Law further states that state institutions should not promote an official history or official truth (“Ley Citation1448 de Citation2011” Citation2011).
2 The three memory sites I discuss in this article share these and other defining features with museums, including the fact that they are not for profit, permanent, accessible sites that research, collect, and interpret tangible and intangible heritage (International Council of Museums Citation2022). However, I use the term ‘memory site,’ rather than ‘memory museum’ because it mirrors more accurately the research sites’ own description and definition. Specifically, one of these sites (the Centre for Memory, Peace, and Reconciliation) does not title itself a museum.
3 My data analysis process departs from the grounded theory approach that Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (Citation2013) describe in that I sought to sustain a conversation between empirical data and previous literature throughout every step of the research process.
4 All names are pseudonyms.