Three dilemmas on forget and forgiveness

SVAMPA, LUCILA

Conferencia; 4th INTH Network Conference, Media, Mediations and Mediators: (Re) Mediating History in the 21st Century; 2022

International Net of the Theory of History

Academic and political discussions about forgiveness usually tie this performative utterance to forget, not only on an etymologically level, but also in relation to memory issues. In fact, the similarity between amnesty and amnesia (amniyia) produces an analogue effect as well. When interpreting its theoretical features and its historical impact many analytical difficulties related to this term come to the fore. For instance, post-trauma societies deal with the dualism that unites on the one hand, memory to an ethical duty and forgiveness to impunity, on the other.After a responsibility is established, the possibility of forgiveness appears. Under the constitutional figure of pardon or amnesty, great disputes are brought together that oscillate between the denunciation of oblivion and the need for reconciliation. The discussions around the possibility of a pardon at the state level also question who can hold the power to pardon: are the victims or the institutions that should reserve that right? In light of dictatorial experiences and extreme violence in some countries, two more aspects are also discussed: what type of conduct can be pardoned, on the one hand, and, on the other, possible conditions under which forgiveness can be granted. Based on these questions, we will address this faculty from three dilemmas, recovering the interventions that Arendt (2008), Ric?ur (2000) and Derrida (1999) have made on the subject. The first of the dilemmas will focus on whether forgiveness should be considered only in the personal sphere or if it can be transferred to the political sphere; the second, in the pertinence of the establishment of borders to delimit what is forgivable; and the third, in the unconditionality of forgiveness in the face of the demand of a counterpart.