June 2001

PK Muana

Posted Friday, June 15, 2001 by sjk
Date: 6/16/2001 09:52:03 -0500
From:

Subject: Bushpaths to Writing the History of RUF Violence All headers In return for ‘voyeurism largesse,’ historiographic narratives on the RUF violence have not only conveniently and single-mindedly privileged perceived subaltern/sub-urban processual components as THE CAUSES but also, all too often, codified the discourse on RUF violence in terms of a monophonic fictionalisation/cancellation/ mutation of narrative voices either engaged in or producing the anarchic ten year insurgency.

In a paper being prepared for the ATWS in Savannah (organised by our own Prof. Abdul Karim Bangura—AKB), I will be presenting a paper in which I will argue against this needless refraction of epistemological insights into the war and call for a polyphonic perspective of the maze of bushpaths of violence that will confront the disordered voices and identities. My central concern is that we can establish a certitude of footholds in these realms when the narratives of the violent, the raped, the mutilated, the dead, the missing,
the tortured are recorded and analysed. Magisterial monologues on insignificant sub-group actors are lavish fictionalisations that may be animating western perceptions of political violence in yet another obscure ‘failed/failing’ African state but certainly jamming the historiographic lens for the future. My major concern therefore: can we objectify political
violence by latching on to a few universals e.g. Pierre Bordieu’s notion of ‘habitus’ or Durkheimian dichotomies like good social scientists/liberal humanists? If strict historical objectivity is the very essence of dreams, then why should we not look at the fractured/disassembled wholeness of the narrative voices?

I’ll analyse my encounter with kamajoisia. In this multilayered analysis I will (after Geertz) attempt a ‘thick description’ that focuses on how a dramaturgical approach (after Goffman and Cicourel for instance) can help us understand how the subjective reproductions of narratives and identities are enhanced and manipulated in one breath. In encountering these narratives, we constantly negotiate and compromise the cold aloofness of interviewer/hearer for the often voluntary and convivial insertion into the narrator’s viewpoint. Will give more... ar bizi fors

Regards,

Pk