The Museum of Memory in Colombia:
Ethical implications of information practices in the search for true reconciliation.
The history of the civil war in Colombia is a long and complex one and involves violent actions from left and right wing guerrillas, as well as the government, military and police forces. This conflict, which has lasted for over 50 years, has touched the lives of generations of Colombians who after the signing of the 2016 peace deal are still struggling to make sense of the many years of unspeakable violence. In this essay I will explore the mission of the Colombian Historical Memory Museum (MMHC) and I question the ethics of its information practices under the latest director of the National Centre of Historical Memory, who allegedly, is a negationist of the civil war.
Through the passing of the law 1448 of 2011 the Colombian government created the National Centre of Historical Memory (CNMH) which was tasked with institutionalizing memory through the centralization of information. The centre has developed programs to recover and compile information from documents, archives, personal letters, legal complaints and oral testimonies recollected from victims of the conflict (Carreño Alvarado, 2021). This process led to the creation of a database with over 10.000 different document sources (Torres Ayala, 2019). The CNMH was also tasked with the creation of the Colombian Historical Memory Museum (MMHC) which has a mission to strengthen the collective memory regarding the events which took place during the recent history of Colombia’s war (Torres Ayala, 2019).
The role of institutions such as the MMHC go beyond memory preservation, national museums are institutions which have been used in the construction of national identity, they are active agents in the process of memory making (Anderson, 2020). They have also been used as a vehicle to represent social order and hierarchies. Museums reproduce symbolic domination structures through narratives and invisibilization of certain groups who are excluded from these national narratives due to gender, race or class, and as such they can be used as devices of control and reproduction of colonial order (Torres Ayala, 2020). As a national museum, the MMHC will be the place where the government’s official interpretation of the armed conflict will become institutionalized. Museums have evolved from this traditional role by incorporating different narratives and by making an effort to expose hidden and suppressed stories that also make part of the construction of nations. Memory museums appeared in the context of this profound change of the social function of museums.
Memory museums’ popularity has increased since the 1980’s as a response to recent traumatic events of violence, especially those of the Holocaust. This recent interest in preserving memory and the past has to do with five possible motivations described by Aleida Assmann: The breakdown of grand narratives, the postcolonial situation, the post traumatic situation after the holocaust and the two World Wars, the new digital revolution and the decline of the generations who witnessed those traumas (Assmann, 2006). Andreas Huyssen explains that these types of memory museums not only commemorate the past, they are also focused on the future by shaping directly or indirectly political activism through educational programs, documentaries and exhibitions (Huyssen, 2020). One of the objectives of the memory museum is to protect the collective memory of these events thus preventing the same type of violence from occurring again (Carreño Alvarado, 2019). In this sense, the objectives established by the MMHC echo those of other memory museums around the world: Preserving collective memory and preventing violence from happening again, as well as serving as a place for reconciliation.
The preservation and strengthening of collective memory is central to the mission of memory museums. Collective memory according to Aleida Assmann is not sufficient to describe the complexity of memories in which humans participate, collective memory encompasses the social, the cultural and the political as well. These definitions of memory overlap and intersect with each other and with the individual memories of each person. All memories are built up, developed and sustained in interaction with others. Assman distinguishes three types of memory which are understood as collective: Social memory for example family and generational memory. Political memory which is usually mediated by institutions from the top-down. And finally Cultural memory which is characterized by the cultural function of libraries, museums and archives. (Assmann, 2006). How can we recognize these different types of collective memory in a museum such as the MMHC? How can social, political and cultural memory be preserved in a government institution without the influence of the governing political party?
It becomes important to first problematize the notion of the preservation of collective memory and ask ourselves, what is the memory that is being institutionalized?. Andreas Huyssen explains that postdictatorship societies struggle to reach a consensus about their pasts. The question about what to remember is a heavily political one as victims, perpetrators and beneficiaries have conflicted views on such matters (Huyssen, 2020). These questions were heavily pondered during 2017 by Martha Nubia Bello who was the director of the museum at that time and who wrote the guidelines for the museological script of the MMHC. These guidelines covered the work made by the museum with victim’s groups, artists and academic figures during four years of research. Through these guidelines Bello confronted questions such as: How to narrate a 50 year war? From which viewpoints? What narrative techniques to use? What to tell in an explicit way? Which narrators to use? In what tone? What voice to use? (De Narvaez, 2020).
It becomes important to first problematize the notion of the preservation of collective memory and ask ourselves, what is the memory that is being institutionalized?. Andreas Huyssen explains that postdictatorship societies struggle to reach a consensus about their pasts. The question about what to remember is a heavily political one as victims, perpetrators and beneficiaries have conflicted views on such matters (Huyssen, 2020). These questions were heavily pondered during 2017 by Martha Nubia Bello who was the director of the museum at that time and who wrote the guidelines for the museological script of the MMHC. These guidelines covered the work made by the museum with victim’s groups, artists and academic figures during four years of research. Through these guidelines Bello confronted questions such as: How to narrate a 50 year war? From which viewpoints? What narrative techniques to use? What to tell in an explicit way? Which narrators to use? In what tone? What voice to use? (De Narvaez, 2020).
These guidelines have been constantly challenged since 2018 by Dario Acevedo, a conservative historian, was made director of the CNMH by the recently elected extreme right conservative government. Acevedo has been known for holding a conservative view of the conflict, in an interview with the newspaper El Colombiano he expressed that “Despite the victims law stating that there was an armed conflict, that can’t become an official truth” (De Narvaez, 2020). One of the most controversial actions of the new director was the editing of the guide and program of the “Voices to transform Colombia” traveling exhibition, which took place in many cities around the country.
Since the MMHC will open its doors until 2022 and it will be based in Bogotá (Colombia’s capital), the museum has created traveling exhibitions to expand its reach into different regions and to further its mission to be part of the reconciliation in the whole country, especially in areas most affected by the conflict. These exhibitions have been presented in cities such as Medellin and Villavicencio during 2018 and 2019. When the exhibition was going to take place in the city of Cali in 2019 the director edited the visitor’s guide, as well as artistic pieces created by victims themselves. One of these changes was made to a mural created by the survivors of an exterminated left wing guerilla known as the Union Patriotica in figure 1. It can be seen how one of the main FARC guerilla leaders known as Tirofijo was edited out of the mural before the exhibition in Cali. The director also made changes to the exhibition’s guides; Of the seventeen pages that make up the document, five were directly edited by him, the changes are focused on erasing the conversation around the concept of “armed conflict” and the “no repetition” of the conflict, as well as erasing fundamental parts of the history of the conflict, such as mentions of the liberal and comunist guerillas that surged in the 1950’s as it can be seen in figure 2.
Fig 1.
N.a, 2019 [Mural] Pacifista. Accessed April 15, 2021, https://pacifista.tv/notas/tras-bambalinas-cambios-acevedo-museo-memoria-cnmh/
Fig 2.
N.a, 2020, [Comparative graphic] Pacifista. accessed April 15, 2021, https://pacifista.tv/notas/documentos-control-cambios-dario-acevedo-edicion-guias-sala/
In a separate incident in 2020, another art piece called SaNaciones (A word composed of the concepts of healing and nations) was edited by the director of the CNMH and the director of the MMHC. This piece focused on the memories and the healing process of eight indigenous groups, who have often been left out of any discussion about the armed conflict. In this case references made to the Spanish colonization and discussions of the armed conflict were suppressed from the piece which had already been completed by the curatorial team at the MMHC. These editions are a violation of the right of indigenous peoples to their memories of the conflict which are heavily attached to memories of centuries of colonization, as well as the destruction of their ancestral lands by the government, the army and national and multinational companies. This episode fractured the relationship between the MMHC and the leaders of several indigenous communities, who were re-victimized by having their voices suppressed. (Forero Rueda, 2021). In this case, the MMHC’s director argued that the museum was trying to show a neutral point of view of the conflict, however, museums aren’t neutral, as Stephanie Anderson explains “the national narratives communicated in art museums are never neutral. Often, they result in simplified understandings of history that produce binary notions of insiders/outsiders and promote visions of nationhood that silence and racialize certain individual and group identities” (Anderson, 2020).
These incidents have caused concern between the public as well as human rights organizations and victims’ organizations, if these stories can be edited by a director, history can be completely edited to favour the government’s vision of what happened. One of the strongest stances of the government is the denial of the army as violence perpetrators. Assmann explains that it’s easy to remember the guilt of others but it’s difficult to remember one’s own guilt, this only becomes possible under considerable external pressure (Assmann, 2006). This difficulty to accept the guilt of the army is augmented by the administrative structure of the CNMH which is attached to the ministry of social prosperity and is part of the executive branch of the public power, which is led by the president of the country. The administrative direction of the centre is concerning as well, as it’s led by a general director and a directive council, which is made up of two victim’s representatives, one representative of the defense ministry and four other people appointed directly by the president (Torres Ayala, 2020). It’s clear how the power structures of the CNMH have shaped the information practices of the museum, making it possible to edit and censor history as the current government wishes.
To conclude, the CNMH and the MMHC grapple with many ethical questions, such as the role of memory in the construction of the nation after a decades long conflict, and how memory can be used to heal, rebuild and trace a path towards reconciliation. Another ethical question is the governing structure of the MMHC, if the museum isn’t independent of the current government, it will continue only replicating the government’s official view of the conflict, and this can further victimize the people whose stories are the most important to the construction of memory. Daniela Torres Ayala explains that it is necessary for the museum to have institutional, organizational and financial autonomy, so that they can be independent from changes in government. (Torres Ayala, 2020).
I believe that a memory museum dedicated to the memory of the conflict is absolutely necessary to the reconciliation process, only an independent museum will be able to showcase different narratives from all the actors of the conflict including both victims and perpetrators. It’s important to keep victims in the front and center of the efforts to develop this museum. Nevertheless, the conflict in Colombia is far from over, and this museum might be a way to pretend that the war is in the past while ignoring the current acts of violence happening against social leaders, indigenous communities and the general population of which approximately 8 million (Red Nacional de Información, 2016) are victims of the war.
I believe that a memory museum dedicated to the memory of the conflict is absolutely necessary to the reconciliation process, only an independent museum will be able to showcase different narratives from all the actors of the conflict including both victims and perpetrators. It’s important to keep victims in the front and center of the efforts to develop this museum. Nevertheless, the conflict in Colombia is far from over, and this museum might be a way to pretend that the war is in the past while ignoring the current acts of violence happening against social leaders, indigenous communities and the general population of which approximately 8 million (Red Nacional de Información, 2016) are victims of the war.
References
Assmann J. (2011) Communicative and Cultural Memory. In: Meusburger P., Heffernan M., Wunder E. (eds) Cultural Memories. Knowledge and Space (Klaus Tschira Symposia), vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8945-8_2
Anderson, S. (2020) “Unsettling National Narratives and Multiplying Voices: The Art Museum as Renewed Space for Social Advocacy and Decolonization – a Canadian Case Study.” Museum Management and Curatorship 35.5: 488–531. https://journals-scholarsportal-info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/details/09647775/v35i0005/488_unnamvadaccs.xml
Carreño Alvarado, G. C. (2021). La función de los archivos en la construcción de una memoria histórica que luche por evitar los crímenes de lesa humanidad, la violación a los derechos humanos y las xenofobias: Una visión comparativa de experiencias en el marco internacional: Archivo Histórico De La Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México. http://hdl.handle.net/1992/49543
De Narvaez, S. (2020, March 3). Tras bambalinas: así cambió el Museo de Memoria en las manos de Acevedo. ¡PACIFISTA! https://pacifista.tv/notas/tras-bambalinas-cambios-acevedo-museo-memoria-cnmh/.
Forero Rueda, S. (2021, March 9). ‘SaNaciones’, la otra exposición que habría sido censurada en el Centro Nacional de Memoria . El Espectador.
Huyssen, A. (2019). The Metamorphosis of the Museal. In Women mobilizing memory (pp. 47–64). essay, Columbia University Press.
Torres Ayala, D. (2019). Museo de Memoria Histórica de Colombia (2012-2019) ¿Un lugar para el diálogo memorial?. Historia Y MEMORIA, (20), 135-168. https://doi.org/10.19053/20275137.n20.2020.9549
Velázquez Marroni, C. «El museo memorial: un nuevo espécimen entre los museos de historia.» Revista Intervención Vol. 2, n° 3 (2011): 11-23.
Red Nacional de Información, (2016) https://web.archive.org/web/20160708143808/http://rni.unidadvictimas.gov.co/RUV accessed on April 20, 2021.