When the past meets the present: The role of memory sites in time of crisis in Chile

Abstract

In October 2019, massive social unrest broke out in Chile, triggering unprecedented violence and destruction unseen since the Pinochet dictatorship. The State responded with harsh repression, curfews, a state of emergency, and torture reminiscent of past violence. The Social Outbreak reopened old wounds in Chilean society that had never fully healed. Since the return of democracy in the 1990s, numerous sites of memory have been erected, created, or rescued from civil society organisations with the scope of preserving the memory of those brutally killed, tortured, or made disappear during the Pinochet dictatorship. During the 2019 social protests, several sites of memory played an active role, either by providing first aid to protesters or by documenting the crimes committed by the military and police in the streets. Other sites of memory actively engaged with the Constitutional Convention process that followed the social protests. The paper examines and compares the roles played by two renowned memory sites, Londres 38 and the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, during and after the Social Outbreak. It delves into the potential of memory sites as a tool for present-day activism. It analyses how Chile’s 2019 social uprising was a critical instance where memory sites played a significant role in supporting and promoting social change. The utilisation of memory sites as a tool for activism has successfully broken down the temporal barrier between the past and the present and raised awareness regarding the relevance of memory in comprehending contemporary social issues in Chile.

Keywords

Latin America memorialisation and human Rights memory activism memory in Chile memory politics sites of memory transitional justice

Introduction

In October 2019, a Social Outbreak known as Estallido Social broke out in Chile, giving rise to a wave of violence and protests in the streets, unseen since the time of the Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1990). For months, protesters filled the streets of Santiago and other cities to show their outright rejection of a socio-economic model that privatises social security and perpetuates huge inequality. The persistent demand of Chileans for significant change to living standards, access to quality health care, and education remained unheeded for 30 years. Since the return of democracy in the 1990s, the political elites have been unable and unwilling to reform the economic system imposed by the Pinochet dictatorship. Moreover, the neoliberal economic model is protected by the 1980 Constitution, which, despite being reformed many times, remains the most enduring legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship.

Sebastián Pinera’s right-wing government responded to the protests with exceptional use of force. His government immediately invoked draconian measures and strategies reminiscent of the past dictatorship to contain the demonstrations that attracted millions of Chileans. The military and the police inflicted immense trauma and suffering on protesters, failed to identify and isolate the violent groups, and committed massive human rights violations, as has been well documented by national and international agencies (Amnesty International, 2020; Defensoría Jurídica de la Universidad de Chile, 2020). The human rights violations of the Social Outbreak reopened the old wounds that had never fully healed in Chile (Universidad de Chile, 2019).

After a month of persistent protests, the government acknowledged the people’s claims for a new social contract and opened the process for a new Constitution. Despite the violence and suffering, the struggle of thousands of protestors obtained a significant result: the chance to rewrite the 1980 Constitution (Heiss Bendersky, 2021). The 2019 social protests, the ensuing violence, and the subsequent constitutional reform process represented critical moments in the nation’s social and political life. The protests threw Chilean society back to the violence of the dictatorship. The enactment of curfews, emergency laws, mass arrests, and the indiscriminate use of force from the military and police forces reminded Chilean society that the violent practices to suppress dissidents and demonstrators were still a legacy of the military dictatorship (Peñaloza Palma, 2019).

However, the Constitutional Conventional process that followed constituted an innovation in Chilean politics. For the first time in its history, Chileans, with a referendum, chose the process through which the New Charter would be re-drafted. The people opted for a Constitutional Convention, which was entirely formed by delegates directly elected by the population. In April 2021, Chileans elected 155 delegates to re-draft the Constitution. The Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Assembly equally composed of men and women. Moreover, a quota was devoted to the indigenous peoples. This new, fairer and more inclusive legal framework included the participation of those groups, such as women, minorities and Indigenous people, that have been systematically excluded from the decision-making process (Aniñir Manríquez and Candina Polomer, 2020).

Social sectors, including civil society organisations, trade unions, healthcare associations, and others, mobilised to support young people and students who were demonstrating in the streets of Santiago. During the social upheaval, various sites of memory¹ participated in this moment of social and political change. In this context, this article compares and analyses the actions undertaken by two well-known memory sites during significant social and political turmoil. In 2019, Londres 38 quickly came forward to support the social protests. Soon after the social protests, the Museum of Memory and Human Rights (MMHR) participated in the Constitutional Convention process alongside other civil society organisations. According to this article, the actions of the memory sites mentioned earlier can be explained by combining Transitional Justice with the emerging sub-field of Memory Activism, which is gaining more prominence within the field of Memory Studies.

Transitional justice is the process through which states and societies address the legacy of gross and systematic human rights violations to facilitate transitions from authoritarian regimes and conflicts to democracy and peace (Ferrara, 2020). The main mechanisms used to achieve these objectives include but are not limited to, truth commissions, trials, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. Memorialisation has been recognised as an integral part of Transitional Justice, and according to the Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice and Reparation, memory processes related to grave human rights violations and international humanitarian law make up the fifth pillar of transitional justice. This pillar is both independent and interrelated, as it supports the implementation of the other four pillars and plays a crucial role in helping societies break free from the cycle of hatred and conflict (UN Human Rights Council, 2020). For this reason, memory is increasingly regarded as a powerful tool to combat impunity and prevent the recurrence of mass atrocities (Lixinski, 2021; Reading, 2011). Scholars have extensively written on the role and significance of memory places and spaces (lieux de mémoire) in helping societies commemorate their past (Allier-Montaño, 2008; Nora, 1989; Ricoeur, 2004).

Beyond commemoration, sites of memory are places where people engage in public activities to express their shared knowledge of the past (Winter, 2009). These places are integral to a group’s sense of unity and individual identity (Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995). Places of memory have the power to evoke the past in the present and contribute to a nation’s collective memory (Allier-Montaño, 2008; Jelin and Langland, 2003). In Latin America, a great deal of scholarship has been dedicated to the role and uses of memory in the context of past dictatorships and the legacy of massive human rights violations, particularly in the Southern Cone (Allier-Montaño and Crenzel, 2016; Jelin, 2002; Richard, 2018; Stern, 2010; Villalón, 2017; Winn et al., 2014).

Since the 1990s, the Chilean State has implemented and supported public memorials as part of its policy of symbolic reparations to the thousands of victims of the dictatorship (Aguilera, 2015; Aguilera et al., 2007). Most sites of memory have been created by the initiative and efforts of civil society and grassroots actors, including victims’ relatives of the disappeared and executed or former political prisoners (Aguilera et al., 2007; Piper Shafir and Hevia Jordán, 2012). While the demands for the construction of memorials have been mainly driven by non-state actors, many state agencies have increasingly contributed to and actively supported the realisation of memorialisation initiatives² (Cabeza Monteira et al., 2017; Gutiérrez Seguel, 2018).

One of the latest forms of memorialisation has been the struggle by civil society sectors and victims’ groups to recuperate former secret sites of torture, death, and disappearance to turn them into sites of memory (Ferrara, 2022; Kovras, 2017; Lopez, 2009). These memory activists have played a pivotal role in demanding state actors’ intervention to rescue, preserve and open these memory spaces to the public (Lopez, 2009). Some of these places are no longer only places of commemoration and remembrance but have become public spaces for civic engagement, capable of encouraging public participation and education about the country’s past (Brett et al., 2007). The engagement of civil society actors in political actions has inspired the latest scholarship to examine the role of memory as an instrument of political activism (Guglielmucci and López, 2019).

According to the present study, the current activism of some sites of memory in Chile shows the connection between transitional justice and memory activism. Whereas memorialisation as a form of reparation and state acknowledgement responds to transitional justice purposes and goals, the political engagement of memory sites with current social and political issues is regarded as a form of memory activism. In recent years, scholars have explored the connection between memory and activism (Berger et al., 2021; Gutman et al., 2023; Rigney, 2018). Gutman (2017b: 1) defined memory activism as ‘the strategic commemoration of contested pasts from civil society organisations to influence the public debate and narratives over the past’. Yet, according to Gutman, this backward-looking activism aims to challenge society’s prevailing understanding of the past in order to influence the understanding of current problems and shape future resolutions (Gutman, 2017a). In more recent work, Gutman and Wüstenberg (2022) define memory activists as actors who work for change in public memory because they believe in the transformative character of memory work. Rigney (2021) defines the nexus between memory and activism as the mutual interconnections between memory activism (contentious actions to promote specific memories), the memory of activism (acts of commemoration about earlier social movements) and memory in activism (the role of memory in new acts of contention).

The definitions mentioned above provide a useful framework for analysing the activism carried out by memory sites in Chile, which is the focus of this analysis. Rigney’s definition of ‘memory in activism’, which relates to the role of memory in contentious events, offers a constructive framework for this research. She claims that even though different forms of activism overlap, it is essential to keep the distinction between contentious actions that aim at changing memory and contentious actions that aim at changing society (Rigney, 2021).

The article explores how memory can be used for political actions and transformation. It questions the ongoing debates on this topic and examines how memory sites in Chile have been transformed into political spaces during times of crisis. The article illustrates how memory can bring about change and its possible effects. The article aims to address the following questions: How and why does a site of memory get involved in a contemporary social and political crisis? Can a memory site become a means of social and political transformation? Is there a continuity between the past and contemporary struggles? What does this imply in terms of its relationship with the past? By comparing the actions and behaviour of Londres 38 and the MMHR during the social uprising, this research discusses how memory sites can be leveraged as a means of activism in the present day and how the 2019 social uprising in Chile has served as a test case for the development of memory in contentious actions aimed at bringing about social change.

It is worth noting that many civil society organisations around the globe have made it their mission to turn memory into action. The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience is a global network comprising 350 organisations from over 60 countries. A key priority of the coalition is to support organisations that aim to use past events thoughtfully to drive positive change in the present. The MMHR, Londres 38, and seven other memory sites in Chile are among the coalition’s members (The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, n.d.).

Methods

The article employs a descriptive qualitative methodology based on a combination of fieldwork research data, including one-on-one interviews, non-participant observation, and secondary sources. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Santiago, Chile, between 2019 and 2022. The interviewees were purposefully selected and contacted by the researcher. They included the directors and staff members of several sites of memory, including Londres 38, Villa Grimaldi, José Domingo Cañas and the MMHR. The interviews were conducted for an hour and were transcribed afterwards. The memory sites discussed in this article were visited multiple times to better understand the narratives and types of memories they convey to the public. For further insight, guided visitors’ tours were attended at Londres 38 and the MMHR. These visits clarified the various activities and educational programmes each memory site offers.

The article also uses the method of comparative analysis to analyse the behaviour of Londres 38 and the MMHR during the Social Outbreak (Smelser, 2003). The two sites of memory have often been presented in the prior literature as two contrasting memory places with different ethos and pursuing different goals (Hite and Badilla, 2019; Lazzara, 2011). The MMHR is an official memory initiative built by the state and inaugurated in 2010. Londres 38, on the other hand, is born out of grassroots initiatives financed by the state but entirely run by civil society. It is a house located in the heart of Santiago that was once used as a torture centre and transformed into a memory site in 2008. The two memory sites were purposefully selected for comparison for the following reasons:

Both sites are well-known and frequently visited locations in Chilean memoryscape.

Although in very different ways, both memory sites engage Chilean society in various activities that enhance a critical reflection on the country’s past. Both sites pursue pedagogical and educational activities, including tours and visits for schools and colleges, cultural events, seminars, and talks.

Both sites of memory played an active role during the 2019 Social Outbreak and the subsequent political process.

This article examines how and to what extent these two memory sites have been involved in present-day social crises. Although the methods and scope of their actions differed, both memory sites aimed to participate in and support contemporary struggles to defend human rights in a democracy. By comparing Londres 38 and MMHR, it was found that they share a common goal of transforming memory sites into platforms for memory activism. This raises questions about the implications of memory sites engaging in current events when their traditional focus has been on commemorating the victims of past atrocities and preserving historical memory. The purpose of this article is to explore and reflect on these implications.

Public memorialisation in Chile

The Chilean government has been implementing public memorials since the 1990s as symbolic reparations to the victims of the dictatorship. Public memorialisation in Chile is founded on the recommendations of the Chilean Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), also known as the Rettig Commission, and its follow-up body, the National Corporation.³ A later Truth Commission established in 2003, the National Commission on Political Prison and Torture, equally recommended the implementation of symbolic reparations to remember and honour the victims recognised as such by this body.⁴ Even though the Rettig Report served as the foundation of the state’s public policy to provide symbolic reparations, most of the memorial projects were established years later (Ferrara, 2015). Memorialisation has been a constant source of tension between the state, civil society, and local communities during the long Chilean transition and post-transition phase (Stern, 2010). The political landscape of Chile underwent significant changes in the late 1990s, which included the arrest of Pinochet and the thirtieth anniversary of the coup. As a result, the state became more committed, both politically and financially, to providing symbolic reparations and memorials (Ferrara, 2015; Winn et al., 2014).

Since 2003, there has been a tremendous increase in memory initiatives in Chile, described as a ‘memory boom’ (Jara, 2020). Hundreds of memorials have been constructed throughout the country, and some of the places where atrocities were committed have been declared national monuments, including the National Stadium of Santiago, Villa Grimaldi, Londres 38 and others (Garretón Kreft et al., 2011; Piper-Shafir and Hevia Jordán, 2012). Some of these places have been transformed into spaces of memory that host various cultural and educational activities, such as guided tours, exhibitions, book presentations, and seminars (INDH, 2018).

Scholarship has devoted increasing attention to the development, creation, materiality, spatiality, and narratives of places of memory in Chile (Aguilera, 2015, 2022; Lopez, 2009, 2011; Montenegro Martínez et al., 2015; Piper-Shafir and Fernández, 2011; Piper-Shafir et al., 2013). The latest scholarship is exploring the relationship between sites of memory with visitors and Chilean society (Águila Mussa et al., 2022; Droguett Fernández et al., 2018; Infante Batiste, 2015; Piper-Shafir et al., 2018; Rojas-Lizana, 2020, 2023). However, except for a few studies (Águila Mussa et al., 2022), little attention has been given to the role-played by memory sites, whether state-run or civil society-led, during contemporary political and social crises. This article aims to fill this research gap by investigating the role of memory sites in Chile during the 2019 Social Outbreak and its aftermath.

Londres 38, space of memories

Londres 38 was a torture centre used by the dictatorship between September 1973 and 1975. It was used to detain political opponents, primarily members of the Revolutionary Left Movement, the MIR (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria), and later members of the Socialist and Communist parties. Londres 38 is the only one of the four main clandestine centres of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DINA)⁵ in Santiago that was not destroyed and that has been preserved in its original form (Cabeza Monteira et al., 2017; Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y de las Artes, 2017), and it was the first place where the practice of disappearance started. It is estimated that over 2000 people were detained in Londres 38, and 98 people disappeared; most of these bodies have never been found (Cabeza Monteira et al., 2017).

The dictatorship often tried to erase evidence of its crimes by hiding or destroying places used for torture and interrogation. For example, the number of the house in Londres 38 was changed to 40 so it would not be recognised. In 1978, the building was donated to the O’Higginian Institute, an organisation associated with the Army, which preserved it until 2007 (Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y de las Artes, 2017).⁶ After a long struggle by the relatives of the disappeared and survivors of torture, the house was declared a National Monument in 2005. It was then transformed into a site of memory (Ochoa Sotomayor and Maillard Mansilla, 2011).

This location has a unique history of struggle and resistance. Over the years, different groups of family members, survivors, and friends have fought hard to reclaim the building and transform it into a memory site. Since 2003, activists have organised various events, such as protests and house occupations to achieve their goals. From 2005 to 2011, people held vigils every Thursday outside the building (Cabeza Monteira et al., 2017). Once the place was rescued, a participatory methodology led by civil society actors created this memory site. State agencies⁷ have collaborated with organised groups, academics, and other social actors to establish a space representing different societal sectors and their diverse views on the past (Ferrara, 2022; Londres 38). This memory site goes beyond the traditional commemorative space and includes multiple voices (Ochoa Sotomayor and Maillard Mansilla, 2011).

Today, Londres 38 is run by a combination of new-generation contracted professionals and older ‘militants of memory’ (Jara, 2016). Erika Henning, Director of Londres 38 and a survivor of the site, referred to herself as a ‘memory militant’, along with other activists who persistently strived to preserve the memory of the past in the present. Londres 38 has transformed into a ‘memory space’ that aims to visualise and provide a critical perspective by linking the political projects of the people detained there to the site’s materiality (Erika Henning, 2019, personal communication).⁸ Its objective is to narrate the stories of those who opposed the dictatorship and who, as a result, lost their lives for envisioning an alternative model of society (Ferrara, 2022).

The accounts of the political struggle and resistance of the people who were detained at Londres 38 have been systematically excluded from the social debate (Ferrara, 2022). However, Londres 38 offers an alternative narrative to the official one by providing stories beyond victimisation. It has become a public space that encourages visitors’ active participation to build collective awareness and commemorate those who lost their lives there. Londres 38 is more than just a symbolic reparation; it is a place that fosters a constant and never-ending dynamic (Lazzara, 2011; Ochoa Sotomayor, 2017; Richard, 2018). Londres 38 offers free ‘dialogued tours’ to social organisations, schools, universities, and visitors interested in learning more about its history and the experiences of those detained there, including their stories of struggle and resistance. The collective group that runs it also organises commemorative and educational events, which have transformed the place into a forum for the cultural exchange of experiences, reflections, and debate (Hite and Badilla, 2019).

The actions and role of Londres 38 during the social outbreak

During the October and November 2019 protests, Londres 38 started a series of activities to help and actively support the demonstrators. One of the first actions undertaken was to open the building to attend to the protesters who were injured during the demonstrations that were taking place in the centre of Santiago. In this way, the house, due to its strategic location in the heart of Santiago, became one of the first aid points in joint efforts with the Students’ Centre of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Chile (FECH) to assist protesters who were heavily injured by military forces and Carabineros⁹ in the context of the social mobilisation (Londres 38, 2019).

Thus, Londres 38 opened two rooms on the first floor to be used to offer medical aid and psychological support. A group of approximately ten students of the Federation of Students of the University of Chile (FECH) worked alongside health professionals. According to the records provided by the first aid team, between 23 October and 12 November, 241 people with injuries of varying severity were treated in Londres 38, 24 of which were children and adolescents. They recorded 80 cases of injuries caused by projectiles (including tear gas cartridges or pellets), 86 cases caused by chemical poisoning (including reactions to tear gas, pepper, water from a car cannon, and any type of reaction, whether respiratory, skin, and mucous membranes, eyes). Likewise, they treated ocular traumas due to blows, bruises, and sprains (Londres 38, 2019).¹⁰

Due to the strong repression and violence carried out by security forces against the demonstrators, various organisations and institutions organised themselves to provide free legal assistance to the victims who suffered serious injuries due to excessive use of force by State agents. Londres 38, along with first aid care, offered the space to the Legal Defender’s Office of the University of Chile volunteers, who recorded the cases of people who were attended in the building for physical injuries and collected the evidence, including photos. Likewise, they also provided legal assistance to the victims and proceeded to file legal complaints if the person decided. This team of volunteers, between 23 October and 4 November, filed 82 complaints for injuries before the Prosecutor’s Office (Londres 38, 2019).

Moreover, the legal team of Londres 38, as part of the Legal Defender’s Office of the University of Chile¹¹ carried out several activities to document the human rights violations that were taking place, including visiting detainees in police stations and hospitals, filing complaints for victims with serious injuries, and drafting reports for international organisations, among others. The Legal Team of Londres 38 had collected evidence of torture and abuses committed by police forces, interviewed victims of especially complex cases, drafted complaints, and presented Habeas Corpus writs cases against the Armed Forces and the Carabineros (Londres 38, 2019).

Memory as political activism

Londres 38 played an active role during the 2019 social protests, with the central tenet being the necessity to mobilise through political activism. The ‘militants’¹² of Londres 38 believe that the violations of human rights, which are still occuring in democracy, are a legacy of the past and a manifestation of the persistence of certain violent attitudes and practices that have remained unchanged from the past dictatorship (Maíra Máximo Nascimiento, 2022, Personal Communication).¹³ The violent repression of the protests, the curfews and the state of emergency that took place during the 2019 outbreak are all measures reminiscent of the practices used during the dictatorship.

Since 2010, Londres 38 started organising campaigns to denounce and raise awareness around contemporary human rights violations. The site played a significant role in condemning police brutality and discrimination against the Indigenous people of Chile, the Mapuche; Londres 38 also conducted a vocal campaign to denounce a case of a young person who disappeared in the south of Chile, José Huenante. It also denounced the police use of violence to suppress earlier students’ demonstrations as well as the use of torture in a democracy (Ferrara, 2022). Even though the actions of Londres 38 have changed through the years according to the political context, its main manifesto and declarations have defined the actions of Londres 38 as a site of memory and as a political organisation that purses political actions to make changes in the present (Guglielmucci and López, 2019).

Londres 38 works towards activism and social transformation and supports the actions of social sectors that mobilise for change in the present times. Therefore, Londres 38’s active participation and support of the 2019 social protests reflects its original ethos that uses memory as a means of political activism and political action necessary to change and transform the present (Maíra Máximo Nascimiento, 2022, Personal Communication). In an interview, Erika Henning told the author that the site departs from state memory as a commemoration towards memory as political activism by actively denouncing human rights violations (Erika Henning, 2019, personal communication).

In addition, supporting the social protests aligns with the memory site’s mission to communicate a particular historical narrative and an alternative memory of those who were tortured and killed by the dictatorship. Londres 38’s goal is to share the stories of those who lost their lives as political activists during the dictatorship. The aim is to provide an alternative narrative to the official one, which portrays political detainees as passive victims. Londres 38 hopes to shed light on the fact that these individuals fought bravely against the dictatorship and deserve to be remembered as such (Maíra Máximo Nascimiento, 2022, Personal Communication). Londres 38 activists believe that the best way to honour and commemorate victims of past violations is by providing support to current political activists who are fighting against an unjust system. This is similar to how the individuals who were killed, tortured and disappeared in the past fought for their political beliefs. Their legacy is carried on by supporting those who are advocating for justice today. Memory activists working in Londres 38 regard contemporary human rights violations as a manifestation of a persistent pattern of undemocratic behaviour from state agents that violently repress protests and criminalise social movements. Londres 38, through supporting mobilised sectors of civil society, contributes to making changes to what is still an incomplete democracy. In this way, the link between the past and the present human rights violations remains the central feature of the political activism of Londres 38.

The Museum of Memory and Human Rights (MMHR)

The MMHR was inaugurated in 2010 as one of the most important state projects in Latin America in the field of human rights and symbolic reparations (Violi, 2018). Since its opening, the MMHR has gained substantial respect and legitimacy within Chilean society and institutions (Hite and Badilla, 2019; Rojas-Lizana, 2020). The Museum has several goals, such as recovering the nation’s historical memory, honouring and commemorating the victims of past human rights violations, and encouraging society to reflect on ethics, solidarity, and the importance of building a culture of human rights.

The museum’s entrance welcomes visitors with a large map of the world featuring images of thirty Truth and Reconciliation Commissions established across the globe. A glass display exhibits the Reports of the Chilean Truth Commissions (TRCs), informing visitors that the permanent exhibition is based on the findings of such commissions. This is a starting point for visitors to embark on their journey through the museum. The content of the TRCs Report has been, over three decades, internalised and acknowledged by Chilean society and institutions (Ferrara, 2015). While there still exists resistance from certain conservative sectors that continue to contextualise the violence of the past, the core of that truth is today unquestioned in the public sphere. Sodaro (2017, 35) claims that the Museum was created to be more universal and neutral than the many Chilean memorials constructed on the sites of torture and detention. It was intended to be a site of reparation and education.

The former Museum’s Director, Francisco Estevez, claimed that the Museum not only recounts the tragedy of the violations that took place during the dictatorship but also dedicates an entire section (the whole second floor) to the stories of resistance and opposition carried out by the human rights defenders, the church, associations of victims’ families, trade unions and lawyers that tirelessly opposed the dictatorship. Therefore, when we talk about the past in Chile, the MMHR aims to recall these two dimensions: the horror of the violations and the dignity and resilience of those who fought against the dictatorship (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication).¹⁴The Museum is today the most visited memory site in Chile and, over the years since its opening, has gained much respect from most sectors of Chilean society (Rojas-Lizana, 2020). It has attracted many visitors since its inception, and it regularly organises many cultural and educational events, talks, seminars, music events and national and international conferences to stimulate public awareness and reflection (Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos, n.d.-a).

Despite that, several scholars have criticised the stories recounted by the MMHR as being excessively depoliticised and decontextualised (Violi, 2018). This, Sodaro (2017) argues, makes the MMHR a beautiful container that transmits a neutral message of ‘Never Again’, without questioning or discussing the deep causes of the human rights violations in Chile. Violi (2018) argues that there is an inherent tension between the value frame of human rights on which the Museum is based and its temporal delimitation between the coup and the return of democracy. It gives the idea that the dictatorship was only a dark page in a liberal democratic history. The Museum stands in contrast to Londres 38, which constantly challenges the official narratives surrounding past violations and the state of Chilean democracy. The upcoming section examines the Museum’s actions during the 2019 social upheaval and suggests that they may signal a shift away from its traditionally neutral position in current political struggles.

The role and actions of the MMHR during the constitutional convention

In 2020, through a historical referendum, millions of Chileans voted overwhelmingly to scrap the country’s dictatorship-era Constitution and draw up a new one. When the Constitutional Assembly was formed, it was divided into committees and subcommittees, each working on separate themes. The working methods of the Committees included the participation of civil society organisations in its public hearings. These were held both in person and were streamed online. In this way, many groups and individuals had the chance to be heard before the Fundamental Human Rights Commission of the Convention to expose their ideas and present their proposals to be included in the final text of the new Charter.¹⁵

At the end of 2021, the MMHR, together with Villa Grimaldi Peace Park, the Human Rights Centre of the University of Chile and the Faculty of Law of the Bolivarian University, requested intervention before the Constitutional Convention. They submitted a written proposal called ‘The Right to Memory and the Duty to Remember’.

The proposal recommended including the ‘Duty to Remember’ and the ‘Right to Memory’ in the new Constitution. A comprehensive study was conducted to support the inclusion of these principles in the Constitution (Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos et al., 2021). The draft proposal analyses the legal and conceptual evolution of these principles according to International Law, including the evolving jurisprudence of the Inter-American Regional human rights bodies, the international jurisprudence of human rights bodies and national human rights cases recognising the Right to Historical Memory (Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos et al., 2021).

The Duty to Remember is linked with the right to truth, justice, and reparation. The Duty to Remember has developed as a corollary of the right to truth, and the two have been conceptually and normatively linked (IACHR, 2014). The right to the truth constitutes an obligation for States that have the duty to clarify the facts and the circumstances of what happened in the past as well as to establish the responsibility of the perpetrators in these acts (IACHR, 2014). The Duty to Remember constitutes, at the same time, a preventive measure, a guarantee of non-repetition and a form of reparation in cases of serious violations of human rights (IACHR, 2014). The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition have, on multiple occasions, stated that the State and its institutions have an obligation to guarantee the right to truth, memory and the duty to remember through actions that must be translated into public policies aimed at preserving memory from oblivion and denial (IACHR, 2014; UN Human Rights Council, 2012).

While the Duty to Remember is a state obligation under International Law, the Right to Memory is emerging as an individual right, legally recognised, which may be understood as the right to comprehend and process the past (Basaure et al., 2018; Cabrera Suarez, 2013). According to the proposal presented by the MMHR, the Right to Memory has been developing through the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights. On several occasions, the Inter-American Court affirmed that the States’ politics of memory could act as preventive measures against the repetition of atrocities by raising collective consciousness in the public space and preserving the memory of the victims (Cabrera Suarez, 2013). The article does not aim to discuss the development of the Right to Memory. Its main focus is the steps the Museum and other civil society organisations took to incorporate transitional justice principles and rights into the new Constitutional text.

In fact, the proposal of the Museum and other civil society actors in Chile is an important step, contributing to recognising the existence of an autonomous Right to Memory. The proposal drafted by the Museum was discussed by the Human Rights Committee and approved by the plenary of the Convention on May 11, 2022.¹⁶ The Constitutional Assembly’s approval marked the first time the Right to Memory was recognised in a Constitutional Text. It was included in the final draft of the Constitution in Art. 24, under the section ‘Fundamental Rights and Guarantees’. In the final debate on the Constitutional Convention, the Right to Memory was approved by 111 votes in favour, 16 abstentions, and 23 against:¹⁷

The State guarantees the Right to Memory and its relationship with the guarantees of non-repetition and the rights to truth, justice, and comprehensive reparation. It is the duty of the State to preserve memory and guarantee access to archives and documents in their different formats and contents. Memory and memorial sites are subject to special protection, and their preservation and sustainability are ensured.¹⁸

The former Director of the Museum argued that while the Right to Memory has not been formally acknowledged in the national constitution, it has been practised in Chile since the day of the coup in 1973. However, he says that including the right to memory in the new Constitution is important for several reasons (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication). The Right to Memory would guarantee open access to the archives, records, and files of the two official Truth Commissions. It would also ensure the preservation of sites of memory rescued by grassroots organisations and the continued search for the bodies of those who disappeared during the dictatorship. Recognising an autonomous right to memory would acknowledge every citizen’s right to remember and reflect on the past independently of the goodwill of future governments. Finally, the Right to Memory would enhance the role of the sites and spaces of memory and legitimise their function within Chilean society as public places for discussion, involvement, interaction, and activism (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication).

The final text of the Constitution was rejected in a second national referendum. However, a fundamental part of the proposal presented by the MMHR was included in the final text, together with the recognition of the right to truth, reparation, and non-repetition. Other sites of memory, including Villa Grimaldi, Londres 38 and José Domingo Cañas, appeared before the Convention to expose their views on the right to truth, justice and memory. The participation of sites of memory in the public hearings of the Convention denotes the persistent activism of the sites of memory in the struggle for truth and justice in a democracy.

From ‘never again’ to ‘more than ever’: Memory as engagement with the present

This article argues that the engagement of the MMHR, together with other civil society actors, with the Constitutional Assembly and the undertaking of a more political role, starts a process of innovation and reformation of its ethos and vision for the future. In so doing, the role of the Museum shifts from a place of memory and remembrance to one more engaged in political actions in order to participate in contemporary events of the nation’s social and political life.

The former Director of the Museum explained in an interview that engaging in a political process is necessary to connect past human rights violations to present-day struggles for human rights (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication). The Museum’s Manifesto has always been encapsulated by the iconic statement ‘Nunca más’ (Never again), symbolising the wish and hope that past atrocities will never recur. The museum’s new philosophy is evolving towards a new concept called ‘Más que Nunca’ (More than Ever), which embodies the pressing need to address present-day abuses and advocate for human rights that are frequently violated even in a democratic society. The former Director argued that this shift of vision implies that the Museum needs to participate in the struggles that characterise the present times. Adding the ‘More than Ever’ motto requires the participation and a more active role of the Museum to defend human rights in the present (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication).

This shift in perspective started in 2018 when the Museum management team started an internal reflection on the need to address the current human rights violations. Ferreira analysed the change in the programmatic line of the Museum’s exhibition, which started a process to embrace the ‘More than ever’ conceptual change (Ferreira, 2022). According to Ferreira, this new line of thought was inspired by the fact that human rights violations continue in the present and have not stopped with the end of the military dictatorship. Therefore, the memories of the past dictatorship enter into dialogue with the memory of the present democracy (Ferreira, 2022). Through virtual exhibitions, educational activities and cultural events every year, the museum chooses a theme to focus its activities on. Therefore, each year, the temporary exhibition was dedicated to the rights of the Indigenous people of Chile, the Mapuche, or to the rights of migrants and the racism that migrants suffer every day, or the discrimination against women and domestic violence. To that end, the Museum constantly changes and revisits the temporal exhibitions to provide other perspectives not initially included. The former Director argued that the Museum must look to the past but equally to the present struggles, connecting past abuses with the incomplete democracy of the present (Francisco Estévez, 2022, Personal Communication).

Although the MMHR had already begun transitioning towards a more involved approach in addressing present-day human rights violations, the Social Outbreak marked a significant turning point, as the MMHR began actively using past events to consciously effect change in the nation’s present and future. During the social crisis, the Museum hosted various activities that attracted many people. Some canvases displaying the injured eyes of the protestors were exhibited in the MMHH. Eight months after the Social Outbreak in Chile, the MMHH hosted an exhibition called ‘Signs and Traces of the Protests and Repression’ through the virtual platform #Acciones18 (Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos, n.d.-a). The Villa Grimaldi team initially developed the exhibition, which recorded and documented the events that occurred during the social uprising. #Acciones18 is an exhibition cycle of the MMHR that supports artists, collectives and groups who seek to highlight the right to social protest and make human rights violations committed during the social demonstrations visible through their work (Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos, n.d.-b).

Recent studies have analysed the visitor’s interaction with the Museum, both in person and through virtual social media platforms, in the context of the Social Outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic. A study analysed the response of the audience to one of the online programmes of the Museum called ‘Tune in with Memory’, which transmitted the original audio material of the day of the coup d’état in Chile. The study revealed that commentators reflected on the permanence of memory and its connection with the present. Moreover, the study showed that commentators exercised their right to memory through their recollections and/or direct testimonies and memories of the period of the dictatorship (Águila Mussa et al., 2022). In addition, the study finds that the Museum has different effects depending on the visitor’s status, whether belonging to the generation that lived the dictatorship or the new generations that were born in democracy. It has a healing effect on the first groups and inspires a sense of civic commitment in those born into democracy (Águila Mussa et al., 2022; Rojas-Lizana, 2020).

Human rights have always been a central focal point of the Museum’s actions. Yet, this analysis finds that the active engagement of the Museum with the Constitutional Assembly, the advocacy for the inclusion of the Right to Memory and the Duty to Remember in the new Constitution are political actions that go beyond the change in the museography related to the programmatic line of the ‘Más que Nunca’. These actions are shifting the museum’s role from being a site of reparation, remembrance and education to a place that repositioned itself to occupy a more active role in Chilean public life.

The Social Outbreak, the violence that ensued and the calls for a more equitable society seem to have accelerated a process of internal change in the Museum, which today is changing its horizons, connecting the current human rights violations with the past ones. This shift in perspective changes the role that memory can play in the present and shows that sites of memory engage in political and civic actions that go well beyond their role as sites of commemoration and remembrance of past atrocities.

Conclusion

The article discusses the actions undertaken by two of the most important sites of memory in Chile during moments of social and political crisis, such as the 2019 Social Outbreak and the process of Constitutional reform. Londres 38, a former torture centre and now a site of memory, has actively supported the social protests by offering direct assistance and support to the people injured by the Carabineros and the militaries during the demonstrations. Londres 38 also provided legal assistance to those wounded, collected evidence of the violations committed and filed legal complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office.

During the following Constitutional Convention process, the MMHR, together with Villa Grimaldi and other civil society organisations, joined a collective project and actively contributed to drafting a written proposal to advocate for the incorporation of the Duty to Remember and the Right to Memory within the new Constitutional text. The proposal was debated by the Constitutional Assembly and incorporated into the final text of the Constitution, which would have represented the first time the Right to Memory was explicitly included in a Constitutional text.

The article argues that the Social Outbreak in Chile represented a critical moment for both sites of memory to engage in political and civic actions to achieve social and political transformation in the present. Comparing the actions of these two memory sites shows that Londres 38’s behaviour was in line with its ethos and manifesto. Londres 38 has embraced the motto of memory as political action and defined itself as a memory site that aims to continue and support the current political battles.

However, the MMHR has started a transformation process in the last few years. It has gradually shifted its perspective, moving from a place commemorating the victims of the dictatorship and educating the public about the past to embracing a more engaged role in Chilean society. Although distinct from the activism of Londres 38, the actions of the MMHR are also a form of civic and public engagement. The Museum’s civic engagement aims to build a dialogue with society and to be part of a change process that supports the struggles for a more equal and just society. Despite the significant differences between Londres 38 and the MMHR, their comparison reveals a shared potential to turn memorial sites into platforms for activism. To this end, it is important to recognise a limitation of this study, which is that it only compares the actions of two memory sites. Other memory sites also played an active role during the Social Outbreak. José Domingo Cañas deployed human rights observers to document police and military forces’ violations during the demonstrations. Villa Grimaldi partnered with the MMHR to perform the actions detailed in this study.

Based on the case of Chile, the study draws two main conclusions about the role of sites of memory in times of social crisis. First, by directly engaging with present struggles to defend human rights, sites of memory occupy a new space as a means for political and social change. While sites of memory in post-conflict and post-authoritarian societies are mainly created as places of reparation and commemoration, the evolution of their role within Chilean society demonstrates that the sites of memory can play an active role in supporting political struggles that aim to make changes in the present. This development of memory sites’ ethos and philosophy over the years has contributed to a shift in the perspective attributed to the role of memorialisation, and it has introduced important innovations in understanding the possible use of memory as a tool of political change.

Second, memory sites’ activism during contemporary political crises breaks down the barrier between the past and present. The actions of memory sites in Chile are driven by the belief that current human rights violations in Chile are connected to past abuses and result from an incomplete transition to democracy. The Chilean case challenges once again the temporal limits of a transition and emphasises the importance of memory in understanding the present.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Anita Ferrara

Notes

Author biography

Anita Ferrara is an assistant professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway. Her main areas of research lie in the field of Transitional Justice and Human Rights. She conducts interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research that combines Transitional Justice with Memory Studies, Archival Studies, Dispute Resolution, and Peace Building. She established the Transitional Justice and Peace Building Research Cluster (TJPR) at the School of Law, University of Galway. She has previously worked with United Nations Agencies and NGOs in Africa and Latin America.

References

Águila Mussa

Rojas-Lizana

Uribe

(2022) Estudio de audiencias durante la pandemia y el estallido social chileno: efectos de la conmemoración virtual del 11 de septiembre del Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos. Clepsidra. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios sobre Memoria 9(18): 10–27.

Aguilera

(2015) Memories and silences of a segregated city: monuments and political violence in Santiago, Chile, 1970–1991. Memory Studies 8(1): 102–114.

Aguilera

(2022) Memories of state terrorism in Chile: dark ruins at Villa Grimaldi. Space and Culture 25(2): 322–326.

Aguilera

Cook

Dávila

(2007) Memoriales de derechos humanos en Chile: homenajes a las víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos entre 1973 y 1990. Santiago de Chile, Chile: FLACSO.

Allier-Montaño

(2008) Places of memory: is the concept applicable to the analysis of memorial struggles? The case of Uruguay and its recent past. Cuadernos del CLAEH 4: 87–109.

Allier-Montaño

Crenzel

(2016) The Struggle for Memory in Latin America: Recent History and Political Violence. Cham: Springer.

Amnesty International (2020) Chile: eyes on Chile: police violence and command responsibility during the period of social unrest. AMR 22/3133/2020. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr22/3133/2020/en/

Aniñir Manríquez

Candina Polomer

(2020) Estallido social: elementos para una genealogía de las violencias. Meridional. Revista Chilena de Estudios Latinoamericanos 14: 241–246.

Assmann

Czaplicka

(1995) Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique 65: 125–133.

10.

Basaure

Estévez

Allende

, et al. (2018) ¿ Fue (in) evitable el golpe? derechos humanos: memoria, museo y contexto. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Cuarto Propio.

11.

Berger

Scalmer

Wicke

(2021) Remembering Social Movements. London: Routledge.

12.

Brett

Bickford

Ševčenko

, et al. (2007) Memorialization and Democracy: State Policy and Civic Action. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.

13.

Cabeza Monteira

Cárdenas Hernández

Lawner Steiman

, et al. (2017) Patrimonio de la memoria de los Derechos Humanos en Chile. Sitios de Memoria protegidos como Monumentos Nacionales 1996/2006. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio De Educacion, Dibam, CMN.

14.

Cabrera Suarez

(2013) El derecho a la memoria y su protección jurídica: avance de investigación. Pensamiento jurídico 36: 173–178.

15.

Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y de las Artes (2017) 20 años de luchas y resistencia por la recuperación de sitios de memoria. Santiago, Chile: CNCA.

16.

Defensoría Jurídica de la Universidad de Chile (2020) Informe de la Defensoría sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Chile en el contexto de las movilizaciones sociales de 2019. Santiago, Chile: Defensoría Jurídica de la Universidad de Chile.

17.

Droguett Fernández

López González

Shafir Piper

(2018) Recordar la dictadura chilena visitando lugares de memoria. Psicologia & Sociedade 30: 1–10.

18.

Ferrara

(2015) Assessing the Long-term Impact of Truth Commissions: The Chilean Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Historical Perspective. London; New York: Routledge.

19.

Ferrara

(2020) Restoring the national Convivencia through transitional justice: the Chilean case. In: Maria

Moscati

Marian

Roberts

(eds) Comparative Dispute Resolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 466–478.

20.

Ferrara

(2022) Bottom-up and thought-provoking sites of memory. In: Mina Rauschenbach

Stephan

Parmentier

(ed.) Localising Memory in Transitional Justice The Dynamics and Informal Practices of Memorialisation after Mass Violence and Dictatorship. New York: Routledge, pp.107–127.

21.

Ferreira

CEC

(2022) El ‘Más que nunca’ y las memorias de la democracia: caracterización de una experiencia de línea programática en el Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos de Santiago de Chile. Aletheia 12(24): e124.

22.

Garretón Kreft

González Le Saux

Lauzán

(2011) Políticas Públicas de Verdad y Memoria en 7 países de América Latina (Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Paraguay, Perú y Uruguay). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Centro de Derechos Humanos Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile.

23.

Guglielmucci

López

(2019) Restituir lo político: los lugares de memoria en Argentina, Chile y Colombia. Kamchatka. Revista de análisis cultural 13: 31–57.

24.

Gutiérrez Seguel

(2018) Las políticas de protección patrimonial de Sitios de Memoria en Chile, 1996-2018. Aproximaciones desde un campo en construcción. Persona y Sociedad 32(1): 63–97.

25.

Gutman

(2017a) Looking backward to the future: counter-memory as oppositional knowledge-production in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Current Sociology 65(1): 54–72.

26.

Gutman

(2017b) Memory Activism: Reimagining the past for the Future in Israel-palestine. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

27.

Gutman

Wüstenberg

(2022) Challenging the meaning of the past from below: a typology for comparative research on memory activists. Memory Studies 15(5): 1070–1086.

28.

Gutman

Wüstenberg

Dekel

, et al. (2023) The Routledge Handbook of Memory Activism. London; New York: Routledge.

29.

Heiss Bendersky

(2021) Revuelta social y proceso constituyente en Chile. Revista de Ciencias Sociales Ambos Mundos 2(21): 69–78.

30.

Hite

Badilla

(2019) Memorializing in movement: Chilean sites of memory as spaces of activism and imagination. A Contracorriente: una revista de estudios latinoamericanos 16(3): 1–16.

31.

IACHR (2014) The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152. Available at: https://oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Right-to-Truth-en.pdf

32.

INDH (2018) Sitios de memoria y su contribución a la no repetición. Informe Anual, Situación de los Derechos Humanos en Chile. Santiago, Chile: INDH .

33.

Infante Batiste

(2015) Memory Performances at a Memorial Heritage Site: The Case of the Guided Tours at the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, Chile. London: UCL, Institute of Archeology.

34.

Jara

(2016) Children and the Afterlife of State Violence. Cham: Springer.

35.

Jara

(2020) Remembering perpetrators through documentary film in post-dictatorial Chile. Continuum 34(2): 226–240.

36.

Jelin

(2002) Los trabajos de la memoria. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores, Social Science Research Council.

37.

Jelin

Langland

(2003) Introducción. Las marcas territoriales como nexo entre pasado y presente. Monumentos, memoriales y marcas territoriales 5: 1–18.

38.

Kovras

(2017) Grassroots Activism and the Evolution of Transitional Justice: The Families of the Disappeared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Lazzara

(2011) Dos propuestas de conmemoración pública: Londres 38 y el Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos (Santiago de Chile). A Contracorriente: una revista de estudios latinoamericanos 8(3): 55–90.

40.

Lixinski

(2021) Legalized Identities: Cultural Heritage Law and the Shaping of Transitional Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Londres 38 (2019) Informe sobre las graves violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas por agentes del estado en el contexto de las movilizaciones sociales. Londres 38 EdM. Available at: www.londres38.cl

42.

Lopez

(2009) De centros de detención a lugares de memoria. Archivo Londres 38. Available at: http://archivodigital.londres38.cl/index.php/de-centros-de-detencion-a-lugares-de-memoria

43.

López

(2011) Derechos Humanos, patrimonio y memoria. Museos de la memoria y sitios de conciencia. In Ximena

Ramírez

Scantlebury

(eds) Derechos Humanos, pedagogía de la memoria y políticas culturales. Santiago: Editorial Lom, pp. 127–138.

44.

Montenegro Martínez

Piper Shafir

Fernández Droguett

, et al. (2015) Experiencia y materialidad en lugares de memoria colectiva en Chile. Universitas Psychologica 14: 1723–1734.

45.

Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos (n.d.-a) Available at: https://mmdh.cl/.

46.

Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos (n.d.-b) Available at: https://mmdh.cl/conectados

47.

Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos, Universidad de Chile, Villa Grimaldi, et al. (2021) El Derecho a la Memoria y el Deber de Recordar. http://villagrimaldi.cl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Derecho-a-la-memoria-y-deber-de-recordar.pdf

48.

Nora

(1989) Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations 26(1): 7–24.

49.

Ochoa Sotomayor

(2017) Identities and memories at Londres 38, Paine, and Chacabuco (Chile). Revista Colombiana de Sociología 40: 27–43.

50.

Ochoa Sotomayor

Maillard Mansilla

(2011) La persistencia de la memoria: Londres 38, espacio de memorias en construcción. Londres 38, espacio de memorias. Available at: http://archivodigital.londres38.cl/index.php/la-persistencia-de-la-memoria-londres-38-un-espacio-de-memorias-en-construccion

51.

Peñaloza Palma

(2019) Derechos Humanos. El Pasado que no Pasa. Chile Desperto. Lecturas desde la Historia del estallido social de octubre. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile.

52.

Piper-Shafir

Fernández

(2011) Lugares de memoria: Usos, identidades y políticas en el Chile de hoy. Memorias, Historia y Derechos Humanos. Cuaderno de Trabajo 1: 31–45.

53.

Piper-Shafir

Hevia Jordán

(2012) Espacio y recuerdo: archipiélago de memorias en Santiago de Chile. Santiago, Chile: Ocho Libros Editores.

54.

Piper-Shafir

Fernández-Droguett

Íñiguez-Rueda

(2013) Psicología social de la memoria: espacios y políticas del recuerdo. Psykhe (Santiago) 22(2): 19–31.

55.

Piper-Shafir

Montenegro

Fernández

, et al. (2018) Memory sites: visiting experiences in Santiago de Chile. Memory Studies 11(4): 455–468.

56.

Reading

(2011) Identity, memory and cosmopolitanism: the otherness of the past and a right to memory? European Journal of Cultural Studies 14(4): 379–394.

57.

Richard

(2018) Latencias y sobresaltos de la memoria inconclusa: Chile 1990-2015. Santiago, Chile: Eduvim.

58.

Ricoeur

(2004) Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Rigney

(2021) Afterword: the multiple entanglements of memory and activism In: Berger

Wicke

(eds) Remembering Social Movements: Memory and Activism. London: Routledge, pp. 299–304.

60.

Rigney

(2018) Remembering hope: Transnational activism beyond the traumatic. Memory Studies 11(3): 368–380.

61.

Rojas-Lizana

(2020) The visitor’s gaze in the Museum of Memory and Human Rights in Chile. In: Hubbell

Akagawa

Rojas-Lizana

, et al. (eds) Places of Traumatic Memory: A Global Context. Cham: Springer, pp. 83–106.

62.

Rojas-Lizana

(2023) Memory discourses in visitor books of travelling exhibits in Southern Chile. Memory Studies 17(4): 871–886.

63.

Smelser

(2003) On comparative analysis, interdisciplinarity and internationalization in sociology. International Sociology 18(4): 643–657.

64.

Sodaro

(2017) Exhibiting Atrocity: Memorial Museums and the Politics of past Violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

65.

Stern

(2010) Reckoning with Pinochet: The Memory Question in Democratic Chile, 1989–2006. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.

66.

The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (n.d.) Available at: www.sitesofconscience.org.

67.

UN Human Rights Council (2012) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. A/HRC/21/46. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-46_en.pdf

68.

UN Human Rights Council (2020) Memorialization processes in the context of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. A/HRC/45/45. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc4545-memorialization-processes-context-serious-violations-human

69.

Universidad de Chile (2019) Chile Despertó. Lecturas desde la Historia del estallido social de octubre. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile.

70.

Villalón

(2017) Memory, Truth, and Justice in Contemporary Latin America. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

71.

Violi

(2018) State agency and the definition of historical events: the case of the Museo de la Memoria Y Los Derechos Humanos in Santiago, Chile. In: Bevernage

Wouters

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945. Cham: Springer, pp. 415–430.

72.

Winn

Stern

Lorenz

, et al. (2014) No Hay Mañana Sin Ayer: Batallas Por La Memoria Histórica En El Cono Sur. Santiago, Chile: LOM ediciones.

73.

Winter

(2009) Historians and sites of memory. In: Boyer

Wertsch

(eds) Memory in Mind and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 252.