One degree of separation. An exploratory and anthropological approach to rethink post-conflict and reconciliation in Colombia

While studies on conflict still occupy most of the interest of the Colombian academia, the researchers’ discourse on post-conflict is becoming more notorious. Academically speaking, a consensus on whether Colombia is or is not in a post-conflict stage has not been reached. On the contrary, the position of the current Government is very clear on the matter and recognized, in 2011, the existence of an armed conflict in the country which represents a huge contrast with the government of Álvaro Uribe who during eight years exhorted several times the denial of the conflict in Colombia. On the other side, 88% of the Colombian population still thinks that the country is in a state of conflict (CNC, slide 11) while only 11% thinks it is instead post-conflict. Even more interesting is the discovery that the higher the income level is the higher the percentage of people who think that there is still an armed conflict in the country (id.) Furthermore, the work of some scholars on post-conflict (Rettberg; Guerra & Plata) suggests the need to promote a cultural transformation in order to provide for a better transition. Inspired by this idea both from an academic as much as from a personal perspective, this research attempts to shed light into to what extent has conflict impacted a small group of middle to high income Colombian adults between 27 and 34 years old. Taking into account that the country is currently undergoing a transitional justice (TJ) process this exploratory research is meant to open the floor to rethink post-conflict and the possibilities of reconciliation. Although TJ processes are often said to shape an umbrella covering not only the people who were directly involved in the conflict, but also all the civil society as an indirect beneficiary of this process, in cases where TJ is not the result of a political transition towards a democracy, this research argues that the general population is often left out as an spectator of the process or is given little attention, despite the fact that most of the success of a transitional justice process in terms of reconciliation depends on the general society (“Entrevista Alejandro Éder”). When revising the bibliography on transitional justice and particularly the material related to truth-seeking and historic memory, it is evident that little attention is given to the impact of conflict in the segment of the population that is not normally considered a victim. Also within the academic sphere there is little research regarding the impact of conflict in different segments of society other than the direct victims. However, long lasting conflicts bring about cultural changes in society which are translated in the adoption of attitudes, values and behaviours developed to survive. This is what some anthropologists have called culture of war or conflict. Aside from the discussion on whether conflict is embedded in culture or not (Sluka 24), it is true that cultural changes caused by spread long standing violence might shape the society in a way that would make it difficult for it to overcome conflict if sociocultural aspects are not tackled. In this sense if civil population is not addressed adequately, reconciliation can become difficult and the cycle of violence might continue. As suggested by Sluka “understanding the cultural context is essential to understanding any specific instance or example of social conflict” (25). Understanding conflict as the product of specific types of social relations (id. 24) and thus turning to the lower levels of social structure provides a bottom-up perspective towards the subject. This perspective allows to understand and identify in which places of social life conflict is located and reproduced. As noted by Nordstrom & Martin “violence is not a socioculturally fragmented phenomenon that occurs ‘outside’ the arena of everyday life for those affected. (…) if we are to understand peace and conflict it is to the people themselves, to the social dynamics and cultural phenomena that inform them, that we must turn” (13-14). Acknowledging the voice of those who are not involved or affected by conflict will open the door for learning about different perspectives that the population might have about it. This is particularly important in contexts where there is not sufficient information on one or more actors. The lack of this sort of information might create a gap in history, politics and the understanding of conflict and the role of its actors. It might also prevent from thinking about post-conflict from a different perspective. Furthermore, as mentioned by Margold “[t]error and fear, made cultural, saturate a social group’s vision and distort its capacities to act” (64). Although this might be a psychological repercussion resulting from conflict, it can also be a symptom of the penetration of conflict within the culture. It might apply to any level of the social structure of a society that has experienced conflict for several years disregarding the level of exposure to war. Notwithstanding, Guerra & Plata mention the need that the Colombian society has to carry out actions focused on promoting cultural changes towards a culture of peace (89). Within this frame, there is still another voice that should be listened to in Colombia: that of the population that does not fit under the definition of victim given under Law 1448 of 2011 (also known as Law of Victims). The consequences of three decades of conflict in Colombia are not just political or economic. They are also social and cultural and as outlined above conflict transforms the lives and culture within a society, undermines trust and breaks the social tissue. Evidence of this can be found in the narratives of direct victims of conflict in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Peru and Colombia (Beah; Rubio; Londoño et al; Theidon) to name only a few. When conflict is chronic, its effects expand to segments of society which commonly are not seen as direct victims of it. In fact, the title of this thesis evidences how close is the target of this research to the victims of the conflict and calls for stronger attention on the topic. In an attempt to bring to public light the impact of long lasting conflicts in the general population, and the importance of addressing another segment of the population, this exploratory research will address the issue through the examination of the Colombian case, which has recently experienced a process of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) and has developed an advanced legal framework focusing on the victims. This gap has been approached by Madariaga (2006) who in a research carried out in Urabá (northwest of Bogotá) explored the influence of the paramilitary on daily life practices, the response to paramilitary law by the local population, the impact of the paramilitary presence in emotions and the significant ethical changes in the population after a decade of paramilitary presence. This ethnography was carried out with women that despite living in an area considered as one of the most difficult of the country did not identify with the category of 'victim'. Among her conclusions, Madariaga writes: Language, affective relations, and moral judgements are probably the spheres where the impact of the conditions of violence and the type of authority ruling the context are more visible (93) To stimulate the thinking on this regard, this research proposes a similar perspective. It is instead focused in a completely opposite target to the one covered by Madariaga.