Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCarpenter, Victoria
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-04T16:35:13Z
dc.date.available2014-02-04T16:35:13Z
dc.date.issued2012-04
dc.identifier.citationCarpenter, V. (2012), Nothing but the Truth, take two: fighting for the reader in the Tlatelolco 1968 discourse, paper delivered at the Society for Latin American Studies Conference, held at University of Sheffield, UK, April 2012en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/312195
dc.description.abstractThe hypothesis put forward in this project is that there are two mechanisms of creating a collective memory of the event: one is hegemonic (dominated by state discourses and, potentially, academic studies of the shooting), and the other is posthegemonic (dominated by literary and popular discourses). We also posit that neither mechanism produces or even aims to produce an accurate representation of the event; instead, the two systems control cognitive and affective domains in collective conscience. The present paper will compare the way the two mechanisms are used in the contemporary analyses of the Tlatelolco massacre. The two works in question are Roberto Blanco Moheno, Tlatelolco: historia de una infamia (1969), and Guillermo Balám, Tlatelolco: Reflexiones de un testigo (1969). I aim to determine whether the two authors, apparently representing the opposing camps in the Tlatelolco discourse, approach the representation of the massacre from two divergent perspectives or whether their texts are characterised by the unity of the mechanisms involved in creating a memory of the event in the collective conscience.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.slas.org.uk/en
dc.subjectTlatelolco 1968en
dc.subjectCollective memoryen
dc.subjectCollective conscienceen
dc.subjectRe-telling historyen
dc.subjectPopular discourseen
dc.subjectAcademic discourseen
dc.subjectMexican historyen
dc.subjectXX-century Mexicoen
dc.titleNothing but the Truth, take two: fighting for the reader in the Tlatelolco 1968 discourseen
dc.typeMeetings and Proceedingsen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-28T13:23:45Z
html.description.abstractThe hypothesis put forward in this project is that there are two mechanisms of creating a collective memory of the event: one is hegemonic (dominated by state discourses and, potentially, academic studies of the shooting), and the other is posthegemonic (dominated by literary and popular discourses). We also posit that neither mechanism produces or even aims to produce an accurate representation of the event; instead, the two systems control cognitive and affective domains in collective conscience. The present paper will compare the way the two mechanisms are used in the contemporary analyses of the Tlatelolco massacre. The two works in question are Roberto Blanco Moheno, Tlatelolco: historia de una infamia (1969), and Guillermo Balám, Tlatelolco: Reflexiones de un testigo (1969). I aim to determine whether the two authors, apparently representing the opposing camps in the Tlatelolco discourse, approach the representation of the massacre from two divergent perspectives or whether their texts are characterised by the unity of the mechanisms involved in creating a memory of the event in the collective conscience.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Nothing but the Truth - UDORA.pdf
Size:
122.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record