This dissertation is an analysis of the transitional processes from mass violence to post-genocide in present day Rwanda. One way that communities aim to sustain peace post-conflict is through the construction of permanent memorials and rituals aimed at creating a collective memory that can be drawn upon for years to come. However, much of what we know about collective memory after mass violence is how it operates on national levels. Analyzing how local initiatives operate differently according to their orientation to memorialization and reconciliation can illuminate how memorials matter in the lives of survivors of violence. Additionally, focusing on the local can shed light on how survivors interact in varied ways with memorials, and in turn, how memorials shape their understanding of national unity and citizenship.
This dissertation research focuses on these local dynamics by interviewing survivors in three different locations in post-genocide Rwanda (N= 70) who work at, live by or attend memorials on a daily basis. The central point of interest in this research is the narratives that emerge from engagement with memorial sites, rather than an analysis of the sites themselves. By examining how survivors understand how memorials and reconciliation programs in present day Rwanda draw upon and shape memories of the genocide, scholars can begin to understand how local politics and processes of collective memory interact with national ones.
By analyzing the local narratives of those who engage with memorials on a daily basis, scholars will begin to understand the specific dynamics of those memorials that aid or hinder survivor?s experience of (or participation in) reconciliation. I hypothesize that various sites of remembrance will operate differently depending on their orientation towards memorialization vs. reconciliation. Within each category, I additionally expect that narratives will differ based on two central dimensions: the framing of, and intended audience for, the physical memorial/reconciliation program and characteristics of participants, such as age, class, gender, geography and education. This study has the potential to articulate the complicated process of reconciliation after mass trauma. By mapping out the trajectory of those survivors who found memorials or specific reconciliatory programs central in their recovery from trauma, we can then apply these findings to other cases of mass trauma. These cases could range from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to mass violence such as in Darfur.
During the tenure of this award, I conducted over 70 interviews with Rwandan genocide survivors who live by or work at memorials commemorating the violence that occurred in 1994. On April 7, 1994 after the assassination of Rwanda’s president, a well organized genocidal campaign begin, ultimately claiming the lives of up to one million people in a little over three months. The genocide was organized, and spurred by hate speech broadcasted on the radio, road blockages that prevented victims from leaving the country, and false "safety zones" that in actuality were sites of mass killings. The aftermath of such intimate, intense violence included destroyed infrastructure, genocidal rape survivors infected with HIV, over one million orphans and a traumatized population. In efforts to reconcile the nation, Rwanda has developed a number of national memorials equipped with reconciliation, education and/or commemoration programs in order to understand past violence and prevent future destruction. Interviews with genocide survivors who utilize memorial spaces provided insight into the services and uses of memorials for those who engaged with them on a daily basis, as well as the challenges memorials face in commemorating a difficult past. Many of the functions served by memorials have not been systematically addressed previously, including: financial (assistance with HIV medicine, job training, legal services to regain property lost in the genocide), psychological (individual counseling, group counseling or sensitivity training for communities with high PTSD rates) and social networking (places to meet other survivors, discuss school opportunities or become involved in commemoration activities) services for survivors. Social networking proved to be important function to survivors as a way to connect with others in a similar situation, exchange information on resources or discuss communal disagreements about commemorative rituals or processes. While the services provided to survivors were widely utilized by participants, memorials struggled with some fundamental challenges. Some of the challenges in commemorating a difficult past involved the painful and delicate situation of remembering the prevalence of gender-based violence during the genocide. The still-prevalent culture of shame and secrecy within Rwanda and other nations around sexual violence and rape contributed to difficulties in communicating information and needs around these issues. Memorials tried to commemorate this violence though guided tours, the archiving of hate propaganda and survivor testimony, and the sharing of evidence, such as the weapons used to torture women and children. Memorial and commemoration staff also found it difficult to provide accurate and meaningful information and testimony without traumatizing an already sensitive population. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were common among survivors and their children, and participants worked to find a balance of providing testimony during commemorations without causing harm to the general public. This issue was highly contentious among participants. For example, some participants felt that even if testimonies caused trauma for listeners, they were important to share as they illuminated the truth of what occurred during the genocide. Others however, felt that testimonies of survival that caused this type of trauma in the audience were a public health concern as people had to be taken to hospitals to care for their trauma and sometimes the hospitals and staff were unable to accommodate large groups of traumatized individuals. These disagreements on trauma and ultimately censorship in order to reduce trauma were prominent among survivors and government staff in both rural and urban locations. These findings have broader impacts in terms of understanding commemoration dynamics as the memorialization of the genocide continues in Rwanda and elsewhere. For example, as countries like Sudan or Bosnia develop memorial rituals and sites in order to commemorate genocidal violence, issues of trauma and how to balance truth telling with public health may develop, as well as how to best commemorate gender based violence and rape, especially in a context of shame and secrecy still prevalent among rape survivors worldwide. Additionally, the ways in which memorials offer resources (from reconciliation programs to survivors services) and how those services shape narratives about the importance of memory is of use to other countries seeking to create a narrative or value in remembrance practices and norms.
