Search results

The article presents a study about collective memories of the Internal Armed Conflict (IAC) in Peru (1980-2000) from the perspective of a group of health-care professionals providing services in the region that was most affected by political violence. A brief historical analysis of the IAC is presented. A qualitative design with 15 interviews based on Grounded Theory is used for analyzing the discourse of the participants, and accounting for collective memories of the conflict and the scares that the experience and memory of violence have left in the population and the health-care providers. The analysis focuses on four interrelated axes: (1) collective memories of conflict and its social and psychological consequences; (2) costs and benefits of narrating versus the costs of absence of narrating; (3) recovering memories as a way to overcome psychosocial trauma; and (4) direct experience, personal meanings and effects of exposure to victims' stories on the health-care providers. Results suggest a scenario of unrelenting psychosocial effects and possible re-traumatization, both in those directly affected and, in the health-care professionals treating them. In addition, central to the participants' discourse is the importance of acknowledging and claiming the right to construct the memory of the violent period as an act of justice, restoration, mental-health recovery, and strengthening of the social fabric. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

The article presents a study about collective memories of the Internal Armed Conflict (IAC) in Peru (1980-2000) from the perspective of a group of health-care professionals providing services in the region that was most affected by political violence. A brief historical analysis of the IAC is presented. A qualitative design with 15 interviews based on Grounded Theory is used for analyzing the discourse of the participants, and accounting for collective memories of the conflict and the scares that the experience and memory of violence have left in the population and the health-care providers. The analysis focuses on four interrelated axes: (1) collective memories of conflict and its social and psychological consequences; (2) costs and benefits of narrating versus the costs of absence of narrating; (3) recovering memories as a way to overcome psychosocial trauma; and (4) direct experience, personal meanings and effects of exposure to victims' stories on the health-care providers. Results suggest a scenario of unrelenting psychosocial effects and possible re-traumatization, both in those directly affected and, in the health-care professionals treating them. In addition, central to the participants' discourse is the importance of acknowledging and claiming the right to construct the memory of the violent period as an act of justice, restoration, mental-health recovery, and strengthening of the social fabric.

This article analyzes the association between knowledge of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), evaluation of TRC's achievements, experience of victimization, attitudes toward remembering and forgetting past political violence, perceptions of socioemotional climate (SEC), belief in forgiveness and attitudes toward violence in Peru based on a study conducted in three Peruvian cities with different rates of victimization due to political violence during 1980–2000 (n = 1200). Results showed that a positive attitude toward remembering the past of political violence was predominant and related to a positive evaluation of TRC's achievements. Attitude toward remembering also has an ambivalent collective effect increasing both positive and negative SECs, and it is less accepted by victims of political violence. On the other hand, attitude toward forgetting is less accepted by participants, and it also has an ambivalent effect by increasing positive and negative SECs. Attitude toward forgetting has more societal costs, since it is related to attitudes toward violence and decreased knowledge and a positive evaluation of TRC. In general, findings suggest that remembering traumatic events has an emotional cost, but also it is shown that remembering seems to be more beneficial for society in the long‐term than forgetting.

Este estudio busca analizar las relaciones entre los componentes de la identidad nacional, la ideología política, en sus manifestaciones autoritaria y de dominancia social, y las expresiones del bienestar subjetivo y social en muestras de 5 países de América Latina. Para tal fin, se desarrolló un estudio por encuestas en Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Perú (n=1039). Los resultados evidencian relaciones significativas entre las expresiones ideológicas con algunas dimensiones de la identidad. La ideología autoritaria se relaciona positivamente con los componentes identitarios, mientras que la ideología de dominancia social lo hace en menor medida y de manera inversa. Las relaciones entre los componentes de la identidad y el bienestar presentan un asociación positiva, y estas relaciones son más intensas en el caso del bienestar social que en el caso del bienestar subjetivo aunque cierta heterogeneidad por país también es observada. Se intentó proponer un modelo general de las relaciones entre las variables derivadas de los tres constructos pero esta no alcanzó buenos niveles de ajuste, lo que se explicaría por la heterogeneidad de los resultados obtenidos por país. ; This study seeks to analyze the relationships among the components of national identity, political ideology, in its authoritarian and social dominance manifestations and expressions of subjective and social well-being in samples from 5 countries of Latin America. To accomplish this aim, a survey research was conducted in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru (n = 1039). Results show significant relationships between ideological expressions with some dimensions of identity. The authoritarian ideology is positively related to the identity components, whereas the social dominance ideology is inversely related to them. Relations among the components of identity and well-being have a positive association, and these relationships are more intense in the case of social well-being than in the case of subjective well-being. Nevertheless, some heterogeneity in these relations is observed by comparing countries. A general model of the relations among variables derived from three constructs was proposed, but this did not reach acceptable fit levels, being dismissed. It could be explained by the heterogeneity of the results by country ; Este estudo busca analisar as relações entre os componentes da identidade nacional e a ideologia política, em suas manifestações, autoritária e de dominância social; e as expressões do bem-estar subjetivo e social em amostras de cinco países da América Latina. Para tal fim, se desenvolveu um estudo por enquetes no Brasil, Chile, Colômbia, México e Peru (n = 1039). Os resultados evidenciam relações significativas entre as expressões ideológicas com algumas dimensões da identidade. A ideologia autoritária se relaciona positivamente com os componentes da identidade, enquanto que a ideologia de dominância social o faz em menor medida e de forma inversa. As relações entre os componentes da identidade e o bem-estar apresentam uma associação positiva, e estas relações são mais intensas no caso do bem-estar social que no caso do bem-estar subjetivo, ainda que certa heterogeneidade por país também seja observada. Tentou-se propor um modelo geral das relações entre as variáveis derivadas dos três conceitos, mas este não alcançou bons níveis de ajuste, o que se explicaria pela heterogeneidade dos resultados obtidos por país

AbstractAlthough different social crises may eventually favor undemocratic and authoritarian forms of governance, at some point, such antidemocratic practices require the support of a significant part of the population to be implemented. The present research investigates how and whether the COVID‐19 pandemic might have favoured greater support for antidemocratic governmental practices, on the premise of regaining control and security. Using data from 17 countries (N = 4364) and national‐level indicators (i.e., real number of contagions and deaths, and sociopolitical indicators), we test how the risk of contagion and death from COVID‐19, along with personal orientations (i.e., social dominance orientation [SDO], right‐wing authoritarianism [RWA], and perceived anomie) motivate authoritarian and antidemocratic practices. Results from multilevel models indicate that risk perception and perceptions of political instability predict a wish for stronger leadership, agreement with martial law, and support for a controlling government especially when SDO and RWA are high, while more egalitarian and less conservative people agree less with these authoritarian measures in spite of the levels of risk perception. We discuss the implications for these findings for future research on similar but also dissimilar external events (natural disasters, war, or terror incidents) and the consequences for societies with higher authoritarian tendencies.