Session 4: Representations
Chair: Roger Bromley

The Dynamics of Apocalyptic Ends: When Religious Symbols Allows Violence
Maria Leppäkari
Academy of Finland, Finland

Violence has a double nature. It is a two-egged sword which can be used to oppress as well as to liberate (Girard 2005: 24). The dichotomic character of the apocalyptic myth strongly relates to existence versus non-existence and as the symbol of the ultimate end Jerusalem has proved particularly important in the discourse of expressing hope of rescue from an eternal death, involving both the individual and all mankind. In a way, apocalyptic representations of Jerusalem stand for global crisis management and hope. Here eternal death, and its opposite, an everlasting life in a promised paradise, launch a kind of “survival instinct”.
As a representation endtime Jerusalem comprehends the notion of time, life and death as they become projected in the apocalyptic-millenarian visions of the world’s destiny. In apocalyptic ends the split of blood seems unavoidable, and hence, seen as part of what René Girard calls the double nature of violence illustrating the point that “the same substance can stain or cleanse, contaminate or purify, drive men to fury and murder or appease their anger and restore them to life” (Girard 2005: 38).
This presentation highlights the impact of religious endtime representations in relation to concepts of death. The empirical material on which the conclusions are drawn, are based on the author’s fieldwork in Jerusalem. Cases presented are Jewish Third Temple activists and Christian sympathisers to their cause. Apocalyptic violence, which in this case involves three parties: Jewish Temple activists, evangelical Christians (also known as Christian Zionists), and their common apocalyptic enemy Islam, is here illuminated in light of Girard’s theory in Violence and the Sacred [1972] and Leppäkari’s in Apocalyptic Representations of Jerusalem (2006).

Download Conference Paper -

---

Imaginaries of Contemporary Crises: A Critical Discourse Analytical Study upon the Representation of ‘Rights’ in a Ddocumentary Film about the London Bombings
Yiannis Mylonas
The Film, Media, Cognition and Communication Department, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

The dispersed character of terrorism as a practice became more coherent to the Western realm through the operationalisation of counter terrorist discourses. The media played a major role in that in the sense that they provided public ‘visibility’ upon the potentiality of terrorist threat. What this essay would like to discuss is the way such representations of threat negotiate a number of issues evolving around ‘civil rights’; discrimination of populations, legitimacy of ‘emergency’ legislation, surveillance, militarisation. More specifically, it will focus on the way public discourses of broader issues of ‘rights’ are contextualised in the aftermath of a terrorist attack when represented in documentary film production. The case study is a documentary produced shortly after a terrorist event that embraces the question “why bomb London?” regarding the London public transport attacks of 7/7/2005. The analytical paradigm used is based on Critical Discourse Analysis which provides a structure that can respond to different questions of ‘how’ meanings are constructed and legitimised, that this paper primarily addresses in their substance.

 Download Conference Paper -

---

Kumaramaza?: Representing The Rwandan Killer
Madelaine Hron
Department of English & Film, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada

In ikinyarwanda, the native language of Rwanda, only a tonal inflection separates the verbs “to exterminate” and “to work hard” (kumáramaza/ kumaramaza). Drawing on this subtle distinction, in this paper, I will examine the figure of the Rwandan genocidal killer. Moving from feature films to 1st person testimonials, I will explore the various descriptions, explanations and justifications for mass murder implicit in these cultural representations – from senseless slaughter to seasonal manual labor.
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda – which claimed more than 800 000 lives in 100 days – was unparalleled both in its brutality and its banality. Neighbors slaughtered neighbors. Most often with machetes. Once the atrocities ended, some 120 000 people were imprisoned, to be tried for their involvement in the killings. After 10 years, most of them had still not been prosecuted. So, since 2003, an estimated 50,000 suspects have been released from prison, to be dealt with by village tribunals or gacaca. In gacaca, if a killer confesses to his crimes and asks for forgiveness of the victim’s family, with sufficient veracity, he is live free within the community.
Opening with mainstream films (eg. Hotel Rwanda, Shooting Dogs, 100 Days), I will outline some of the stereotypes associated with the Hutu killers, from “African savages” to “enemies”. I will contrast these depictions with the rather startling first-hand justifications given by perpetrators themselves in post-genocidal ‘gacaca documentaries’ (eg. In Rwanda We Say, Living Forgiveness Rwanda: A Killer Returns Home); which in turn conflict with culturally-specific formulations of “serial murder” or “psychopathy” by Rwandan victims and witnesses. Finally, this paper will deliberate Hatzfeld’s Machete Season – a collection of candid testimonials by genocidal killers. These killers’ own representations and justifications for slaughter—such as “seasonal” “manual labor” – again challenge conventional scholarly explanations for genocidal activity (These range from “victimization” (Mamdani) to the “mob effect” (Staub).) In all, this paper is an attempt to try to theorize some of these culturally-specific models of violence, formulated by ordinary Rwandans themselves, as either survivors or perpetrators of genocide. 

Download Conference Paper -