Memory Connection Journal

Abstract

Abstract

This essay examines the discursive memory of Argentina’s Last Dictatorship
identified in documents produced by the Intelligence Directorate of the
Buenos Aires Provincial Police (DIPPBA) during the democratic period.
It explains its theoretical-methodological framework and outlines some lines
of thought to compare the discursive memory notion with public memory.

This essay examines the discursive memory identified in documents produced
by the Intelligence Directorate of the Buenos Aires Provincial Police (DIPPBA).¹
This police organization was created in 1956, during the Cold War and a year after
the military coup that overthrew President Juan Domingo Perón in 1955. It was
closed in 1998, amid a reform of the Buenos Aires police and during Argentina’s
democracy, which was regained in 1983 after the brutal military dictatorship that
had begun in 1976. In 2000, the archive of the DIPPBA and the building that
housed it were handed over to the Provincial Commission for Memory. In 2003,
its contents became publicly accessible. Thus, using Pierre Nora’s term, it can be
referred to as a lieu de mémoire or site of memory.²

The DIPPBA archive has primarily drawn interest from history, sociology, and
social and cultural anthropology. However, the documentation produced by the
DIPPBA during its operation within the democratic system (from 1983 to 1998)
has been largely ignored. Similarly, there have been few rhetorical-discursive
studies on the role of memory within the discursivity produced by the DIPPBA.
In fact, rhetorical and discourse studies conducted in Argentina explore memory
by focusing on a discursive series: the return and reformulation, in a new
context, of statements and ways of expression previously produced. The notion
of discursive memory accounts for this mechanism.

I will now explain the theoretical-methodological framework on which I rely;
then, I will address the discursive memory related to the military dictatorship that
can be identified in institutional documents produced by the DIPPBA during the
democratic period. Finally, I will outline some lines of thought to compare the
notion of discursive memory with that of public memory.

Theoretical and Methodological Framework

This work takes a rhetorical approach to discourse analysis.³ I view discourse
analysis as an interdisciplinary field that sees discourse as the interaction of texts
with social contexts,⁴ combining knowledge from linguistics and the humanities.

In this sense, I view the group responsible for the DIPPBA archive as a
discourse community. By discourse community I mean a group that produces
discourses inseparable from their practices, organization, and existence as a
group. A discourse community includes enunciators who share values,
opinions, and an enunciative identity that implies the interaction of a specific
type of social organization with a specific type of textual organization.⁵ It is
important to note that the discursive genres used by a community tend to provide
cohesion and identity. However, discourse communities are not homogeneous,
nor do they have a predefined essential identity; rather, they configure themselves
through what I call inter-community relationships, including the potential
antagonism between the DIPPBA and the communities under surveillance.⁶

It is also important to consider that a discourse community revolves around
memory. This is discursive memory, understood as the repetition, reformulation,
or forgetting of statements and forms of expression in a new context.⁷ In the
study of discursive memory, the recurrence of certain phrases is of interest, such
as “final solution,” “ethnic purification,” “never again,” or “subversion.” These
phrases often migrate from one discourse to another, encapsulate ideologies or
political positions, and generate controversies in the public sphere. In discourse
analysis these phrases are known as “formulas.”⁸ The circulation of formulas
can be across languages, as with the term “Lo stato totalitario” (The totalitarian
state) which shifted from Italian to German as “Der totale Staat,” and to the
Spanish Falange as “El Estado totalitario.” It can also involve a center-periphery
movement, either between different languages or within a single language.⁹
Finally, it is worth clarifying that discursive memory functions not only in verbal
signs or discourses but also in non-verbal signs, thus encompassing semiotic
memory, which holds great power in certain political collectives.

Central to a discourse community are its communicative routines, which
contribute to its enunciative identity while forming part of the community’s
characteristic discursive memory. In this sense, I draw on the proposals of
organizational rhetoric, which study the strategic use of symbols to generate
meanings or communicative processes through which organizations seek
to influence a specific audience, whether internal or external.¹⁰ Within this
framework, it is crucial to consider how communicative norms generate collective
identities, promote or reinforce values and objectives of an organization, and
exert control. Regulations that aim to unify communicative practices within
an organization play a significant role, with bureaucratic rhetoric particularly
prominent in organizations like the DIPPBA. This is a discourse that
emphasizes (supposed) value neutrality, universality, standardization, and
fixed roles, all of which create an aura of impartiality.¹¹

Discursive Memory in the DIPPBA

1) Generic Memory and Writing Norms
A first issue to consider is that of writing norms and what I call genre memory,
which are crucial for shaping the identity and cohesion of a discursive community.
In this regard, it should be noted that within the DIPPBA, we are dealing with
specific genres tied to a hierarchical community whose socio-historical conditions
are highly conventionalized, especially the purpose, the status of the legitimate
speakers and recipients, and a rigid textual structure.

The intelligence tasks of the DIPBA community were closely related to
discursive genres inherent to its practices, used both during the military
dictatorship and the democratic period. For example, the discursive genre known
as an “Information Acquisition Plan” is required to include what intelligence terms
“Essential Intelligence Elements,” which formulate the questions to be
answered, and “Other Intelligence Elements.” Another genre, the “Information
Diary,” includes the date and time of information entry to the DIPPBA, a summary
of the information, the source of origin, and internal recipients.¹²

The discursive genre known as the “intelligence report,” through which the
DIPPBA community disseminated intelligence for decision-makers, whether
military or civilian political authorities during democracy, was subject to
detailed regulation aimed at standardizing and unifying its writing. Notably, a
document from the dictatorship titled “Guidelines for Structuring and Writing
Police Intelligence Reports or Messages” resurfaced as discursive memory in
the DIPPBA’s Internal Regulations, effective in 1991, during democracy.¹³ The
only indication that these guidelines were issued in a democratic context is
the substitution of the example illustrating the need to first write out a name
in full and then provide its abbreviation for clarity. In the “Guidelines” from
the dictatorship era, the example is “Argentine Communist Party (ACP is its
abbreviation),” while in the democratic context, this abbreviation is replaced
with “Argentine Automobile Club (AAC).”

Another trace of dictatorial discursive memory in the democratic era’s 1991
Regulations is the use of the term “psychological action,” a phrase tinged with the
National Security Doctrine associated with the dictatorship. This occurs when
referring to an intelligence agent attending a conference and needing to guard
against being influenced by the speaker being monitored.

2) Discursive Memory around “Subversion”
The second aspect of dictatorial discursive memory within the DIPPBA during
democracy revolves around the term “subversion.” It is important to note that
the term “subversion” was recurrently used in the DIPPBA from the early 1960s
onwards. It served to unify the internal enemy, encompassing various sectors
of Peronism, communism, and even far-right organizations like Tacuara.
In the subject “Intelligence V” of the Intelligence School’s 1981 Plan and
Curriculum, drawn up during the military dictatorship, the term “subversion”
is associated with words like “Revolutionary War,” “Terrorism,” “Activists,”
and “Agitators.” This is an instance of what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca call
the extension of concepts, as the meaning of “subversion” expands to encompass
political and oratorical activities.¹⁴ This legitimized repression against anyone
opposing the dictatorship. Additionally, the Intelligence V subject includes
the economic and religious dimensions of subversion, including “Third World
political and religious groups” and “the [Catholic] Church’s social doctrine
and Liberation Theology.”

The DIPPBA, as mentioned earlier, was closed in 1998, and Argentina regained
democracy in 1983. What happened to the term “subversion”? Interestingly, the
1991 DIPPBA Internal Regulations still retain, albeit marginally and in just one
article, the term “subversion.” Article 2172 states:

Within the framework of operations against subversion, all personnel will seek
and report on people, issues, events, and any relevant information” (unnumbered
DIPPBA File, titled “Intelligence Directorate Regulations,” Doctrine Desk, p. 13).

In a context where “operations against subversion” were no longer a factual
reality in Argentina, this phrase appears as a remnant of the DIPBA’s “internal
enemy.” It results from the inertia characteristic of what is called “wooden
language,”¹⁵ a language inherent to what has been termed “the bureaucracy of
evil.”¹⁶ The 1991 DIPPBA Regulations were, in fact, reformulated in 1993, and the
article where the term “subversion” had resurfaced was removed.

Here, it should be remembered that during the democratic period, another
group of dangerous people to be monitored was referred to by the DIPPBA as
“delinquents or opponents.” This raises the question of “opponents” of what.
The answer is implied but not explicitly stated in DIPPBA documents and is open
to political interpretation because of its ambiguity. Notably, during democracy,
an Intelligence and Counterintelligence Manual from 1992 only mentions
searching for information and surveillance of foreigners, their clandestine
settlements, inhabitants of emergency shantytowns (social factor), dropout and
illiteracy rates (educational factor), and unemployment rates (labor factor).
All these factors suggest that these so-called delinquents or opponents were
discursively constructed, within the neoliberal context of Carlos Menem’s
Peronist government, as social activists drawn from among shantytown dwellers,
poor immigrants, and the unemployed.¹⁷

Discursive Memory and Public Memory

In this final section, I return to the notion of discursive memory to outline a
relationship with the notion of public memory. Firstly, I would like to stress that
the notion of discursive memory can be applied to communities based on secrecy,
such as intelligence services, where the notion of public memory would not be
relevant. Furthermore, the focus of discursive memory lies in how past discourses
or forms of expression return in the present, whereas the notion of public
memory investigates how the past is constructed, represented, or remembered
in the present. Both discursive memory and public memory can be manifested
in various significant forms, not just verbal. It is also important to note that
the notion of public memory, encompassing commemorations, museums, or
memorials, is broader than the notion of discursive memory.

The notion of discursive memory emerged in France in 1981, with a publication
by Jean-Jacques Courtine linked to the study of ideology from an Althusserian
perspective.¹⁸ The triple temporality proposed by the Annales School influenced
the interest in investigating discourses beyond the fleeting temporality
of events. This led to the recognition that the return and reformulation of
statements and ways of expression revealed an unconscious process of ideological
subjection. On the other hand, the notion of public memory, more closely
related to the “memory turn,” allows for better understanding of strategic
or manipulative uses of the past.

Matthew Houdek and Kendall Phillips discuss various approaches to the
notion of public memory and emphasize that public memory provides elements
for what rhetoric calls Inventio.¹⁹ In a similar vein, I believe that the same can
be said for discursive memory. For instance, I have studied recurring topoi and
integrated discursive memories justifying military coups in Argentina between
1930 and 1976.²⁰ It could be added that both discursive memory and public
memory offer elements for Elocutio, providing communicative resources or
figures of speech that become memorable in the public sphere, such as certain
medical-biological metaphors designating communism as a “cancer,”
or bureaucratic writing routines based on regulations that have been repeated
over time, as exemplified in the secret sphere of the DIPPBA.

Matthew Houdek and Kendall Phillips also discuss the controversies and
tensions that run through public memory. As far as discursive memory is
concerned, I can confirm that it allows for the study of how past controversies
return and are reformulated in present controversies, which I have also explored
in coup-related discourses from 1930 to 1976.²¹ Moreover, both the notion of
public memory and discursive memory can refer to the notion of forgetting.²²
Lastly, it should be made clear that both the notion of discursive memory
and that of public memory highlight the importance of memory in constructing
national, political, or community identities. In the context I have explored here,
intelligence communities like the DIPPBA are a prime example.

Endnotes

1. This article is the result of research projects funded by the University of Buenos
Aires (UBACYT) within the framework of the Grupo de Investigación en Archivos
de la Represión (GIAR), based at the Institute of Linguistics, University of
Buenos Aires: https://grupoinvestigacionarchivosdelarepresion.wordpress.com/
2. Pierre Nora Les lieux de mémoire (Paris: Gallimard, 1996).
3. María Alejandra Vitale, “Enfoque retórico del análisis del discurso”, in Métodos
del análisis del discurso. Perspectivas latinoamericanas, ed. Oscar I. Londoño
Zapata (Buenos Aires: Biblos, forthcoming).
4. Dominique Maingueneau, Discours et analyse du discours: Une introduction
(Paris: Armand Colin, 2014).
5. Dominique Maingueneau, L’ Analyse du discours. Introduction aux lectures de l’
archive. (Paris : Hachette, 1991).
6. María Alejandra Vitale, “Comunidad discursiva e ironía en un servicio de
inteligencia”, in Rutinas del mal. Estudios discursivos sobre archivos de la
represión (Bs. As.: EUDEBA, 2022), 67-84.
7. Jean-Jacques Courtine, « Analyse du discours politique (le discours
communiste adressé aux chrétiens) », Langages 62 (1981) :19; “Le tissu de la
mémoire : quelques perspectives de travail historique dans les sciences du
langage”, Langages 114 (1994) : 5-12 ; Metamorfoses do discurso político: derivas
da vida pública (São Carlos: Claraluz, 2006).
8. Alice Krieg-Planque, La notion de “formule” en analyse du discours. Cadre
théorique et méthodologique, (Besançon: Presses Universitaires de
Franche-Compté, 2009).
9. Alice Krieg-Planque. La notion de “formule” en analyse du discours. Cadre
théorique et méthodologique.
10. Mary Hoffman & Debra Ford, Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies,
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009).
11. George Cheney, Lars Thøger Christensen, Charles Conrad and Daniel J. Lair,
“Corporate rhetoric as Organizational Discourse”, in D. Grant; C. Hardy; C.
Oswick and L. Putnam, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse,
(SAGE Publications, 2004), 79-103.
12. Another genre is, for example, the situation chart, which is the graphic record of
the activity in progress.
13. From Article 2143 to Article 2159.
14. Perelman Chaïm et Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie, Traité de l’argumentation. La
Nouvelle rhétorique, Bruxelles, Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1976 [1958].
15. Ruth Amossy et Anne Herschberg Pierrot, Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue,
discours, société. (Paris: Armand Colin, 2021).
16. Patricia Funes “Desarchivar lo archivado. Hermenéutica y censura en las
ciencias sociales latinoamericanas”, Iconos. Revista de ciencias sociales
30 (2008): 27-39.
17. Carlos Menem was President of Argentina for two consecutive mandates, from
1989 to 1999.
18. Jean-Jacques Courtine, « Analyse du discours politique (le discours
communiste adressé aux chrétiens).
19. Matthew Houdek & Kendall Phillips, “Public Memory”, Oxford Research
Encyclopedia, Communication (communication.oxfordre.com). USA: Oxford
University Press.
20. María Alejandra Vitale, ¿Cómo pudo suceder? Prensa escrita y golpismo en la
Argentina (1930-1976). (Bs. AS.: EUDEBA, 2015).
21. María Alejandra Vitale, ¿Cómo pudo suceder? Prensa escrita y golpismo en la
Argentina (1930-1976).
22. Matthew Houdek & Kendall Phillips, “Public Memory”; Jean-Jacques Courtine,
« Analyse du discours politique (le discours communiste adressé
aux chrétiens) ».

Bibliography

Amossy, Ruth et Anne Herschberg Pierrot, Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue, discours,
société. Paris: Armand Colin, 2021.
Courtine, Jean-Jacques. “Analyse du discours politique (le discours communiste
adressé aux chrétiens) », Langages 62 (1981) :19-128.
Courtine, Jean-Jacques “Le tissu de la mémoire : quelques perspectives de travail
historique dans les sciences du langage”, Langages 114 (1994) : 5-12
Courtine, Jean-Jacques Metamorfoses do discurso político: derivas da vida pública.
São Carlos: Claraluz, 2006.
Funes, Patricia. “Desarchivar lo archivado. Hermenéutica y censura en las ciencias
sociales latinoamericanas”, Iconos. Revista de ciencias sociales 30 (2008): 27-39.
Hoffman, Mary & Debra Ford. Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
Krieg-Planque, Alice. La notion de “formule” en analyse du discours. Cadre théorique et
méthodologique. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Compté, 2009.
Maingueneau, Dominique Discours et analyse du discours: Une introduction. Paris:
Armand Colin, 2014.
Nora, Pierre. Les lieux de mémoire. Paris: Gallimard, 1996.
Perelman, Chaïm et Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Traité de l’argumentation. La Nouvelle
rhétorique. Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1976 [1958].
Vitale, María Alejandra “Comunidad discursiva e ironía en un servicio de
inteligencia”, in Rutinas del mal. Estudios discursivos sobre archivos de la represión,
edited by María Alejandra Vitale. Bs. As.: EUDEBA, 2022: 67-84.
Vitale, María Alejandra. “Enfoque retórico del análisis del discurso”, in Métodos
del análisis del discurso. Perspectivas latinoamericanas, edited by Oscar I. Londoño
Zapata. Buenos Aires: Biblos, forthcoming.

Biographical Note

María Alejandra Vitale is Professor of Semiotics at the University of Buenos Aires.
She is president of the Argentinian Society for Linguistic Studies (SAEL) and vice
director of the Master’s Degree in Rhetoric and Argumentation at the National
University of Tucumán. Her work focuses on the rhetorical dimension of an
archive of repression, memory, and argumentation. She has published several
books, including ¿Cómo pudo suceder? Prensa escrita y golpismo en la Argentina (2015)
y Rutinas del mal. Estudios discursivos sobre archivos de la repression (2022).
His essays have appeared in such journals as Argumentation et Analyse du
Discours, Langage et Societé, Res Rhetorica—a quarterly of the Polish Society
of Rhetoric, and Rhetoric Society Quarterly.
alejandravitale@filo.uba.ar