{"title":"作为一项前沿技术的受害者官方记录:冲突后哥伦比亚的知识和可见性","authors":"Fredy Mora-Gámez","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Following the regulations dictated by the Law of Victims in 2012, representatives of the Colombian government have engaged in the task of registering and compensating victims of human rights perpetrations as a result of war violence. These registration procedures, mostly processing the applications of people on the move inside the national territory, are consolidated in the Official Record of Victims (RUV). The RUV enjoys international visibility as an exemplar project of post-conflict reparation and technological success of state bureaucracy. This success, however, relies upon overlooked material practices of inscription and assessment involved in processing the statements of millions of applicants. Whereas the RUV enacts boundaries of rights restitution as a state project, ethnographic excerpts about its inscription practices, assessment procedures, and data production rubrics complicate the broadly promoted success of post-conflict reparation. As other bordering technologies, the RUV demarcates boundaries of inclusion and exclusion by enacting visible forms of identification of which Internal Displacement is a predominant part. In this process, the forms and assessment practices prioritize applicants’ narrations that are consistent with the official version of the armed conflict while also making invisible divergent accounts that contest it.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"344 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The official record of victims as a bordering technology: knowledge and (in)visibilities in post-conflict Colombia\",\"authors\":\"Fredy Mora-Gámez\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Following the regulations dictated by the Law of Victims in 2012, representatives of the Colombian government have engaged in the task of registering and compensating victims of human rights perpetrations as a result of war violence. These registration procedures, mostly processing the applications of people on the move inside the national territory, are consolidated in the Official Record of Victims (RUV). The RUV enjoys international visibility as an exemplar project of post-conflict reparation and technological success of state bureaucracy. This success, however, relies upon overlooked material practices of inscription and assessment involved in processing the statements of millions of applicants. Whereas the RUV enacts boundaries of rights restitution as a state project, ethnographic excerpts about its inscription practices, assessment procedures, and data production rubrics complicate the broadly promoted success of post-conflict reparation. As other bordering technologies, the RUV demarcates boundaries of inclusion and exclusion by enacting visible forms of identification of which Internal Displacement is a predominant part. In this process, the forms and assessment practices prioritize applicants’ narrations that are consistent with the official version of the armed conflict while also making invisible divergent accounts that contest it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science As Culture\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"344 - 362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science As Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2221278","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The official record of victims as a bordering technology: knowledge and (in)visibilities in post-conflict Colombia
ABSTRACT Following the regulations dictated by the Law of Victims in 2012, representatives of the Colombian government have engaged in the task of registering and compensating victims of human rights perpetrations as a result of war violence. These registration procedures, mostly processing the applications of people on the move inside the national territory, are consolidated in the Official Record of Victims (RUV). The RUV enjoys international visibility as an exemplar project of post-conflict reparation and technological success of state bureaucracy. This success, however, relies upon overlooked material practices of inscription and assessment involved in processing the statements of millions of applicants. Whereas the RUV enacts boundaries of rights restitution as a state project, ethnographic excerpts about its inscription practices, assessment procedures, and data production rubrics complicate the broadly promoted success of post-conflict reparation. As other bordering technologies, the RUV demarcates boundaries of inclusion and exclusion by enacting visible forms of identification of which Internal Displacement is a predominant part. In this process, the forms and assessment practices prioritize applicants’ narrations that are consistent with the official version of the armed conflict while also making invisible divergent accounts that contest it.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.