Genocide in “Common Parlance”: Grief and the Political Persecution of Colombia’s Patriotic Union Party

Abstract

ABSTRACT “Genocide” is a key frame through which death is given social significance. Scholars have argued that genocide sits at the top of a hierarchy of grief – signalling it as the most profound paradigm through which those killed can be mourned. How does the mourning of life unfold when legal and social conceptualizations of genocide diverge? And what does this divergence tell us about the power of “genocide” as a label for violence? Focusing on the extermination campaign against Colombia’s Patriotic Union (UP) political party, this paper examines how recent transitional justice programmes have interpreted the question of genocide and violence against political groups. I specifically trace the development of two separate, discursive registers of genocide: one legal and one of “common parlance.” In so doing, I contribute to scholarly concern with the question of genocide and political groups in two ways. First, I interpret the exclusion of political groups from legal definitions of genocide as a question of grieveable life. Secondly, scholarly debate has focused on whether or not political groups ought to be protected under genocide law. I diverge from these questions to trace how emergent genocide discourses include political groups as a socially but not legally included within the term’s purview. I thus argue for scholarly attention to how political groups are interpellated in a manner that neither fully recognizes nor denies their status as victims of genocide.