Involucrado en algo: negación y estigma en la “guerra contra las drogas” de México

This article answers, empirically, the question once posed by Stan Cohen: “why the ‘reaction’ to the suffering and pain of others particularly the suffering and pain resulting from what we call ‘human rights violations’? so often does it take the form of denial, evasion, passivity, indifference, justification or collusion?”. Our context is the war on drugs in Mexico. Since 2006, this “war” has claimed the lives of around 240 000 Mexican citizens and has disappeared nearly 60 000. Perpetrators include organized crime gangs and state security forces. Violence is ubiquitous and widely known. Most people are at risk. Our study is based on qualitative interviews and focus groups with 68 “ordinary Mexicans” from five different cities with varying levels of violence. It studies the proximity of the participants to the victims and the psychological defense mechanisms they use to deal with the proximity of violence. We found that 62 of our participants knew, directly or indirectly, one or more people affected. We also found that the main justification or defense mechanism that people use to deal with violence is to assume that the victims “were involved in something” (drug trafficking or organized crime) and, therefore, “deserved what happened to them”. This echoes the dominant official discourses about violence. We argue that the discourse of engagement is a discourse of denial that plays three main roles in a highly violent society, in which practically no one is immune: to mask state violence, to stigmatize the victims, and to authorize the passivity of observers (bystanders). In this way we show how official denial and individual denial converge, coexist, reproduce and play a central role in perpetuating violence