The Uses of Culture in the Last Argentine Dictatorship (1976–1983): From Studies of Repression to Analyses of the Construction of Consensus

• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19879412
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Laura Schenquer
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Other Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X19879412

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 232, Vol. 47 No. 3, May 2020, 186–201

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19879412

© 2019 Latin American Perspectives

186

The Uses of Culture in the Last Argentine Dictatorship

(1976–1983)

From Studies of Repression to Analyses of the Construction

of Consensus

by

Laura Schenquer

Translated by

Victoria J. Furio

Democratic governments are not the only ones that formulate political strategies to

generate consensus. The last Argentine dictatorship (1976–1983) also developed cultural,

educational, and communication policies to maintain and increase its support and to curb

the opposition. However, these policies have not been studied in the postdictatorship,

largely because of the prevalence of the image of the apagón cultural (cultural black-

out)—the notion that the dictatorship’s project was simply repression and censorship.

Examination of recently discovered official documents reveals the productive and creative

character of the dictatorship’s cultural projects, which were used to increase social control

and impose a certain “order.”

Los gobiernos democráticos no son los únicos que formulan estrategias políticas para

generar consenso. La última dictadura argentina (1976–1983) también desarrolló políti-

cas culturales, educativas y de comunicación para mantener e incrementar su apoyo y

frenar a la oposición. Sin embargo, estas políticas no se han estudiado en la postdictadura,

en gran parte debido a la prevalencia de la imagen del apagón cultural—la noción de que

el proyecto de la dictadura era simplemente represión y censura. El examen de documentos

oficiales recientemente descubiertos revela el carácter productivo y creativo de los proyec-

tos culturales de la dictadura, que se utilizaron para aumentar el control social e imponer

un cierto "orden".

Keywords: Cultural policies, Argentine military dictatorship, Consensus, Coercion,

Social media

It has been said of the last Argentine military dictatorship (1976–1983) that, in

contrast to the Holocaust, which was followed by a phase of amnesia and later one

of recovery of memory, “memory has not been able to make room for history”

(Traverso, 2007), but analyses of the institutional violence and the recognition of

its victims have changed over time. In the majority of the first postdictatorship

Laura Schenquer is a research assistant in the Humanities and Social Sciences Institute of

Argentina’s National Council for Scientific and Technical Research. Victoria J. Furio is a translator

and conference interpreter located in Yonkers, NY.

879412LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X19879412Latin American PerspectivesSchenquer / Uses Of Culture in the Last Argentine Dictatorship

research-article2019

Schenquer / USES OF CULTURE IN THE LAST ARGENTINE DICTATORSHIP 187

works, both journalistic and academic, the violence was characterized as indis-

criminate, having no purpose other than depoliticization or social demobilization.

As Rouquié (1983) put it, this was a violence that “spurred a return to the private

sphere,” a feature shared by Latin American dictatorships in contrast to the

European fascisms. It was also pointed out that these dictatorships governed by

imposing a “culture of fear” (O’Donnell, 1984) that sought silence and paralysis.

This article begins investigating these characterizations and attributing

determinants to them in an effort to understand the first hegemonic interpreta-

tions of the repression and cultural destruction under the dictatorship. Then,

with the advantage of hindsight, it examines the renewed attention by research-

ers now returning to these issues, drawing on documentation recently discov-

ered.1 It will show that repression and cultural destruction were accompanied

by planning of and investment in cultural aspects2 considered essential for

reestablishing the social order pursued by the “National Reorganization

Process.”3 Examination of the programs conceived by the government formed

by the three sectors of the armed forces (the army, the navy, and the air force)4

and of various national and provincial agencies (the Department of Public

Information, the Ministry of Culture and Education, and the Santa Fe Province

Ministry of Social Welfare) provides an extensive view of the uses of culture by

the regime to achieve various objectives, among them continuously increasing

its legitimacy.

The FirsT AcAdemic sTudies on culTure

under The dicTATorship

Until the late 1990s academic studies on culture and dictatorship concen-

trated on the destructiveness of the National Reorganization Process. The

institutional violence deployed by the military regime was perceived in much

the same way: as widespread. Works such as Andrés Avellaneda’s (1986)

Censura, autoritarismo y cultura: Argentina 1960–1983 made substantial contri-

butions by recognizing the workings of the cultural repression apparatus and

indicating that “one of the basic methodologies [of state terrorism] was repres-

sion exercised indiscriminately and without clear justification in order to

cause massive internalization of the concept of punishment and thus forestall

the greatest possible number of reactions” (1986: 14). This impression of the

violence had an impact on the conception of who the victims were. Instead of

considering that there were people whom the regime categorized as enemies

that had to be eradicated in order to “cure” the national being, the construct of

indiscriminate violence resulted in the whole society’s being identified as the

victim of the dictatorship (Águila, 2008: 40; Crenzel, 2008: 105–113; Feld and

Franco, 2015: 9–21).

The conception of indiscriminate repression responded to two social needs.

The first, under the dictatorship, was the need to denounce what was happen-

ing in Argentina. The voices of this claim were, among others, Argentine intel-

lectuals abroad (many of whom, persecuted by the regime, had gone into exile)

who denounced the pervasive unplanned cultural censorship. In 1978 Julio

Cortázar, for example, wrote in the Colombian magazine Eco that in Argentina,