4.7 - smith, anne-marie - state terror in argentina. a frankfurt school perspective (en)

7/30/2019 4.7 - Smith, Anne-Marie - State Terror in Argentina. a Frankfurt School Perspective (en)

1/12

The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service

State Terror In Argentina. A Frankfurt School Perspective

State Terror In Argentina. A Frankfurt School Perspective

by Anne-Marie Smith

Source:

PRAXIS International (PRAXIS International), issue: 4 / 1986, pages: 477-487, on www.ceeol.com.
http://www.ceeol.com/http://www.ceeol.com/http://www.ceeol.com/http://www.dibido.eu/bookdetails.aspx?bookID=c51d4ec3-66bd-4122-9449-de6dade71cc3http://www.ceeol.com/


2/12

POLITICAL CHRONICLE

STATE TERROR IN ARGENTINA.A FRANKFURT SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE

Anne-Marie SmithTerrible Changes"Terror," observes Juan Corradi, "aims not only to control but also tochange social actors."l The military government in Argentina, particularly inthe years 1976-1979, changed Argentina in many ways. Some twentythousand of its citizens were "disappeared:" abducted, imprisoned, torturedand murdered without warrant, charge, trial, or record. Much of the rest ofthe population was frightened or suaded into compliance, denial, orsubmission.The fate of the desaparecidos and of the Argentine population in generalincorporates two aspects of state terror. One dimension is the direct use ofextreme and arbitrary physical coercion. In Argentina, this reached grotesqueextremes of brutality in the government's "Dirty War" against all suspectedopponents. These acts of violence were generalized, supplemented, andlegitimized in a second dimension of state terror, the manipulation ofnormative power. Through its selective use of language, its dominance over

media and the legal system, as well as indoctrination campaigns and propaganda, the government sustained a "culture of fear" through which it gainedthe compliance and ideological acceptance of the Argentine people.The transformation of Argentina through these normative aspects of stateterror is explored and chronicled in the memoirs of three survivors: EduardoGaleano'sDays and Nights ofLove and War, Andrew Graham-Yooll'sAMatterofFear: Portrait ofan Exile, and Jacobo Timerman's PrisonerWithout a Name,Cell Without a Number. All three journalists are victims of state policy tovarying degrees. In their memoirs each displays considerable sensitivity to thechanges being effected in Argentine political culture, attending particularly tothe new modes of communication and behavior developed by the regime, itsopponents, and the populace generally in dealing with the situation of terror.Such qualities suit the three works to a consideration of Argentina in lightof the theories of the Frankfurt School. In assessing the authoritarian states ofNazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, the Frankfurt theorists confronted someof the same phenomena as the Argentine journalists: an authoritarian statemanipulating mass culture, winning complicity, and turning opponents intocompetitors. Max Horkheimer in particular addressed these cultural andnormative aspects of authoritarian regimes in "The End ofReason" and "TheAuthoritarian State." Approaching the works of Galeano, Graham-Yooll, andTimerman from the perspective of Frankfurt insights enables a deeperreading of the memoirs' accounts of Argentina's transformation through stateterror.Praxis International 6:4 January 1987 0 2 6 ~ 8 4 4 8 $2.00


3/12

478 Praxis InternationalThe Nature of TerrorIn Argentina in the late 1970s, a person might be abducted from street orhome for opposing the military regime, assisting those who opposed theregime, or being suspected of opposing or disapproving of the regime-or for

being a relative or acquaintance of such a person, or a witness to theabduction. Union leaders, lawyers, and students were particular targets, aswere journalists, civilian politicians, psychiatrists, artists, and priests. But thetwenty thousand victims included infants and elderly, passers-by as well astheir third cousins.The disappeared were abducted by security police, the armed forces, orfrequently by unidentified paramilitary groups. If not killed immediately,they were incarcerated, tortured, and interrogated, sometimes for a period ofyears, and with no public statement of their detention. Most of the disappeared were apparently killed. Many of the corpses were dumped into the sea.Very few have returned-or been returned.This is a description of terror as it immediately touched some twentythousand in a population of twenty-five million. It is a description of actswhich were denied, accepted, or justified in the courts, press, officialspeeches, and streets of Argentina during the military regime. What is thenature of such terror? How are we to understand its social occurrence andimpact? How does it not only control but change political subjects?Political terror has been defined as "The arbitrary use, by organs of politicalauthority, of severe coercion against individuals or groups, the credible threatof such use, or the arbitrary extermination of such individuals or groups."2Reflecting particularly on terror as a process of transforming and shapingpolitical subjects, Corradi elaborates: "[Terror] is essentially a technique ofdisorientation, aimed at depriving subjects of the opportunity to calculate andforesee the consequences of their actions. It is a form of power in whichconformity does not guarantee security."3 Whether the writers are journalists,social scientists, or political theorists, these themes distinguish terror fromother forms of coercion. It is arbitrary, incalculable, and disorienting. Itdenies the subjectivity, individuality, and humanity of the victims, and sets nobounds on who the victims might be.In terms more familiar from the Frankfurt School, state terror is the end ofthe reason and the negation of individuality. Indeed to Horkheimer, thenconsidering the effects of monopoly state-capitalism, "The collapse of reasonand the collapse of the individual are one and the same."4Throughout his writing, Horkheimer attacks and critiques instrumentalreason. This is reason degraded to a pragmatic exercise of matching swiftestmeans with given ends: "thinking as an energy-conserving operation."sReason becomes formulaic and manipulating rather than conceptual orreflective, and is engaged only for a purpose: gain of profit, power, security, orcontrol. In such a situation conceptual reasoning-particularly as a source of

critique and emancipation-ceases to exist. Instrumental reason, then, is theabsence ofthat quiet consideration of diverse possibilities which presupposes the leisure and

AccessviaCEEOL NL Germany


4/12

Praxis International 479freedom of choice.... With the abolition of the otium and of the ego, no aloofthinking is left. The social atoms, though they may still yearn for liberation, havelost the speculative sense, in the good and bad connotation of that term.6With the loss of reason, individuals "disappear" too. The individual as a

unique, free, choosing subject (to the extent that such a being existed in abourgeois world) is replaced under an authoritarian state by a unit of masssociety, striving to obey, to conform, to survive. One loses the possibility ofconceptual thought, of foreseeing one's self through time, or of making realchoices. Thus the individual'sresponsibility of long term planning ... [gives way] to the ability to adjusthimself [sic] to the mechanical tasks of the moment. The individual constrictshimself. Without dream or history, he is always watchful and ready, alwaysaiming at some immediate practical goal. His life falls into a .sequence of datawhich fit in advance the questionnaires he has to answer. 7These two strands of analysis, the dominance of instrumental reason andthe decline of the individual, intertwine in a situation of state terror. Reasonbecomes instrumental on the part of both state and population. In Argentinathe regime pursued a goal: total eradication of opposition; through swift andthorough means: elimination of all offenders, potential offenders, andwitnesses. The concept of subversion does not seem to have been a matter ofmuch reflection at this time. Opposition was broadly and vaguely defined,opponents scarcely identified-or misidentified.The population, employing the same instrumental reason, conformed more

and more to the demands of the situation. "[E]veryone is suspect in masssociety," wrote Horkheimer. "Everyone needs a permanent alibi ... livingand being prepared have become one and the same thing."g But how does oneprepare for something as arbitrary as disappearance? Argentines knew, aspopulations before them, that none were destined yet all were candidates forthe prisons, the camps, or the void of disappearance. Unable to foresee,choose, act or reflect on their own situations, they become watchful, ready,striving not to be "involved" when it isn't clear what "involved" means. As afungible unit within a suspect population, each person whether inside oroutside of prison seems equally to be a prisoner without a name in a cellwithout a number.By the late 1970s, Argentina was in the midst of this frightening episode.The dominance of instrumental reason and the loss of individuality becamethe twin channels through which policies of state terror not only controlledbut changed Argentine social reality. As Horkheimer writes, summarizinginstrumental reason, "The less human beings think of reality in qualitativeterms, the more susceptible reality becomes to manipulation."9 The memoirsof Galeano, Graham-Y0011, and Timerman are testaments to that manipulation.Terror in ArgentinaWhile alike in their denunciation of the regime, the three writers come from


5/12

480 Praxis Internationalinterestingly different perspectives. Galeano is an Uruguayan exile andself-styled revolutionary, frequently expressing his solidarity with radical leftgroups around the world. The magazine he wrote for, Crises, was not onlyclosed by the regime but had its files and back copies destroyed as well; ineffect, a "disappeared" publication. Graham-Y0011 was news editor of thehighly respected English-language Buenos Aires Herald. His voice is the mostnon-partisan, surprised, and scared of the three. As the child of a Britishcitizen, he was able to flee with his family to England upon discovering hisname on the hit lists of both left- and right-wing paramilitary groups. Theinternationally known Timerman was more well-to-do as editor and publisherof an independent daily, La Opinion. His initial support for the military coupand his personal friendships with military presidents could not prevent hisimprisonment and torture by an extremist section of the army. His book dealswith the anti-Semitic character of the regime and of authoritarian regimesthrough history.From their different standpoints, all three journalists confront the transformations in language, behavior, and beliefs of the people about whom theywrote and for whom they felt they were writing. Each notes changes in themeanings and use of words, the creation of new jargon, and the volatility ofcertain terms. They record experiences of "negative reflection," not only asterrorist tactics are adopted by the state, but as the trappings of state authorityand respectability are mimicked by radical opponents. The three also puzzleextensively over the silence, acceptance, or compliance of the population tothe regime's practices.The instrumental use of language, to which Horkheimer was so sensitivewhen analyzing fascist Germany, is perhaps best represented in Argentina by"disappeared"-the label used by government and people to refer to victimsof the terror. As a normative label, the term conveys several messages.Legally, it is evasive. How can the state be responsible, accountable, or evenknowledgeable about something as seemingly supernatural as sheer vanishment? Emotionally, the term is blinding and assuaging. How can weconcretely protest, search, or even mourn for those who have inexplicably"gone away." Logically, the term obstructs our reasoning. It short-circuitsinquiries, suggesting that the fate of victims is beyond our understanding or

criticism-as well as pursuit or accounting.The disappeared cannot be seen, heard, touched-or searched for. But doesthat mean they cannot see, hear, feel-or be found? The euphemisticneutrality of the term obfuscates the reality of the pain of the victim, theresponsibility of the captors, the possible relevance of those who remain. Thesole recognition of state responsibility and agency in the term is that the verbbecame intransitive; one had not simply disappeared, rather one had beendisappeared. The instrumentally neutral-if still haunting-term for thevictims of state terror achieves some of what Horkheimer observed in theclimate created by fascism:Its tortures transcend the power to achieve or imagine; when thought attempts tocomprehend the deed, it stiffens with horror and is rendered helpless.... Even


6/12

Praxis International 481the consciousness of oppression fades. The more incommensurate become theconcentration of power and the helplessness of the individual, the more difficultfor him to penetrate the human origin of his misery. 10If the term "disappeared" is the most evident of sinister changes inArgentine vocabulary, it is not the only one. All three journalists remark onthe new jargon created to indicate the new realities of the period. A session ofelectrical torture, for example, is a "chat with Susan." To die under torture isto be "cooled out." Illegal terrorist groups "kidnap" journalists-byinvitation-to prearranged press conferences. And if an officer issues someonea "ticket," it is a one-way ticket to death. Like "disappeared," many of theterms deny cognition or responsibility. It is an arbitrary, disorientingvocabulary-for an arbitrary, disorienting set of practices and experiences. Inthe manipulated reality of Argentina in the 1970s, language ceased to be a

mode of comprehension, reflection, or criticism, becoming rather a "mediumof information, orientation, and command."llSome key terms remained steadily in use but became controversial asdifferent groups sought to monopolize their definition. Such words include"terrorist," "subversive," and "victim," particularly when used to refer to thedead or abducted. Graham-Y0011 attempted to keep a record of everyone whodied from the violence, regardless of identity. The list would occasionally bestolen and then appear in a partisan publication with a certain portion of thenames missing. Government and radical opponents alike attacked the effort tocompile one record as suspicious, foolish, and sinister. Other newspapersdidn't try: "For most newspapers it was impossible to keep such figuresbecause they had to separate the good dead from the bad dead; the contortionsrequired to achieve such divisions discouraged the effort."l2 In an arbitraryworld good and bad become hard to distinguish, subversive and victim losetheir meaning.Words were changing in meaning, use, and legality, even while legality waschanging. All the newspapers knew that certain reports were controversial.Those inclined to print stories about the disappeared were discouragedthrough threats, closures, and raids. Then in April 1976, as Graham-Yoollrecounts, the government circulated a notice without letterhead or authorizingsignature, but hand-delivered by officers-thus both disguising and makingclear its status as an official order. The notice forbade publication ofinformation, comment, or reference to "subversive incidents" or theappearance of bodies. The next day the newspaperClarin, which had recentlybeen firebombed, published a full page feature telling its readers that the presswas free of censorship in Argentina. Given their experience, Graham-Yoollcouldn't blame them. Another newspaper mentioned the notice. The BuenosAires Herald reprinted the order in full across the front page.Shortly afterward Graham-Y0011 was at a lunch with journalists andofficers. Challenged by another journalist if the Herald would print the newsof the recent disappearance of a famous novelist, Graham-Y0011 engages in atense exchange with the naval officer who had delivered the censorship order.The irate officer hisses at him "There is no censorship."


7/12

482 Praxis InternationalThe tension generated by his annoyance was broken by his remark; several menlaughed. The outrage of such a statement and his temper sounded-as angeroften does-extremely comical. As the laughter quietened, he too smiledknowingly. 13By printing the censorship order across the front page, the Herald wasseeking to re-secure reality, to name the bounds of legality, to insist thatsomeone take responsibility for unsigned orders and agentless actions. Thefront page story was not only an affront to the government, but a challenge toits monopoly on and manipulative use of normative power-if a rather limitedchallenge, given that the paper was printed in English.The accoutrements if not the actuality of legitimacy and authority remainedwith the state however, spawning ironic incidents of negative reflection. Suchbehavior often denotes opposition mimicry of the state at its most coercive and

dominating. As Horkheimer observed in "Authoritarian State": "Whateverseeks to exist under a state of domination runs the danger of reproducingit. . .. . The authoritarian state has to fear the opposing mass parties only ascompetitors. They do not threaten the principle of the authoritarian state."14In the case of Argentina, however, it seems impossible to declare whether thePeronist unions, Montoneros, or Anti-Communist Alliance were reflecting themilitary in their terrorist tactics-or vice versa. In the context of the late1970s, it is not the instances of adoption of state violence which areremarkable, but rather the efforts to reproduce the trappings of statetradition, composure, and legitimate authority. Guerrilla press conferencesare an odd instance of this.Early press statements from illegal terrorist groups were often made in theback of moving trucks to journalists genuinely kidnapped and often blindfolded. As the Montoneros in particular gained confidence, however, they tookon a different style. Graham-Yooll is "kidnapped"-that is, invited andtransported-to one conference in a safe house in the suburbs of BuenosAires. In the elegant home, he and other journalists are seated in orderly rowsof chairs, served wine and offered food, and addressed by Montoneros inbusiness suits. Each is also handed a colored plastic folder. "This wassophistication," writes Graham-Yooll, "the guerrillas handing out press kits."The kit is complete with a full account of the abduction of an industrialist, hispending release following payment of a record ransom, maps, photographs,and statements of recent Montonero military actions. "The folder had noinstructions on what to do in case of a police raid," adds Graham-Yooll. 15The whole episode has an air of calm composure, easy authority, andconventionality. It reproduces the formality, hospitality, and etiquette ofpress conferences arranged by the prestigious, or by the government itself.Except that these were guerrillas, broadcasting an abduction. And thegovernment they seemed to mimic lacked legitimate authority.One other epsiode highlights the irony of reflections of a stable, predictableworld which did not exist. This is the behavior not of guerrillas but of ajournalist in his office threatened by a paramilitary group allied with or at leastallowed by the military government. Here is Galeano's story.


8/12

Praxis I ntemational 483The telephone rings and I jump. I look at my watch. Nine-thirty in the evening.Should I answer or not? I answer. It's the Jose Rucci Commandos from theArgentine Anti-Communist .Alliance."We're going to kill you, you bastards.""The schedule for calling in threats, sir, is from six to eight," I answer.I hang up and congratulate myself. I'm proud ofmyself. But I want to stand upand can't: my legs are limp rags. I try to light a cigarette. 16

Threats are from six to eight. Galeano's spontaneous remark recreates perhapsa mythic time when political conflict occurred without violence, when life hada pattern and even a schedule in which expectations, deliberations, andchoices could occur. His courageous retort denies the arbitrary idiocy, evenwhile pointing out the mundanity, of "We're going to kill you, you bastards."Not only among government officials and the press but among the populaceas well the writers note a form of self-censorship, an unwillingness or inabilityto comprehend or condemn. "What statistic" Galeano asks, "records thosecondemned to resignation and silence ... imprisoned by fear?" To Galeano,censorship "truly triumphs when each citizen is transformed into theimplacable censor of his own acts and words."17 The pattern of selfcensorship and compliance in Argentine political culture and attitudes is againexhibited by certain words. To be "involved" is bad and dangerous,adequately explaining or justifying abduction and torture. But involvementitself remains a highly ambiguous, unexamined concept, its allegation rarelychallenged. The phrases "he must have been involved" or "you never knowwhat people get involved in" come up continually in Graham-Yooll's conversations with parents, colleagues, and neighbors of the disappeared. Similarly,Timerman hears "Nothing happens to those who stay out of politics" as fearturns to indifference. 18The most moving chapter of Graham-Yooll's A Matter of Fear becomes ameditation on a similar phrase: to be "in the middle". He argues with anacquaintance, the spouse of a dead Montonero who wants to escape Argentinaand is seeking his help. To Graham-Yooll, the couple have been victimized bythe Montoneros. Young and middle-class, they were not prepared for orcapable of understanding guerrilla warfare, tactics, ideology. He is angry atthe Montoneros for pushing them out of the middle, where they should havestayed. "And what did you do?" she asks. "Stayed in the middle. As always"he responds. "Yes, you're in the middle," she retorts, "but not neutral: you'reright in the middle of the mess."19 Sobered and frightened by her words,aware that his angry speech is so much bravado, he leaves her hotel. Hereturns the next morning with money for her escape but she has been killed inthe night by police firing hundreds of bullets into her body. The hotelmanager catches Graham-Yooll just as he is about to enter the building. Policeguards are inexplicably off their posts for a moment. The trembling managergrips his arm:

"I don't know what it was about; but I suspect it was political. I won't sayanything. It's bad for business if we do. Pay me for the room and get out. Youdon't want to risk getting yourself in the middle of this mess."zo


9/12

484 Praxis InternationalIn the middle; involved; political. As though such phrases meantsomething. As though they were definite locations in an arbitrary world.Parents disown their children, witnesses deny their vision, colleagues nod inexplanatory acceptance, others are too frightened-or become tooindifferent-to speak. As Horkheimer observed, "The new order contradictsreason so fundamentally that reason does not dare to doubt it. Even theconsciousness of oppression fades."21 And so in Argentina as in NaziGermany the terror was accepted; and in acceptance, found accomplices. Nearthe end of his book Timerman charges,It is a psychological and ideological process we've seen repeated many times inthe history of this century: adjusting to a situation without sharing its ideas leadsinevitably to being an accomplice of the acts engendered by those ideas.22The changes in Argentine political culture that result from the terror arelast seen in the anger directed at journalists who pry, publish, or protest.Fearful acquaintances and threatened colleagues avoid them; other editorshold them in contemptfor risking [their newspapers] in the cause of individual rights and civilizedmorals; the armed forces were merely using tough methods to rid the country ofthe threat from the Left. Remember Algeria, they asked? Well, those wereAlgerian methods.23

Again, Horkheimer's analysis is most relevant here. In "Traditional andCritical Theory" he wrote: "Among the vast majority of the ruled there is theunconscious fear that theoretical thinking might show their painfully wonadaptation to reality to be perverse and unnecessary."24

Role of the CriticIn writing their memoirs, the Argentine journalists become critical chroniclers of the regime and its wielding of normative power. They are alsoself-conscious of their own roles in this situation, trying to determine thecharacter, efficacy, and relevance of their criticism. Each develops a differentstance, which may be elucidated with reference to the views of the Frankfurt

School.There is no one Frankfurt perspective on the role of the critical intellectual,but rather a series of shifting views. As fascism, mass culture, and administered societies appeared overwhelming, initial affirmations of the intellectual'sengaged praxis within historical struggle gave way to more pessimisticevaluations. Horkheimer's aggressive declaration of the intellectual's"dynamic unity with the oppressed class ... [as] a force within it to stimulatechange" is later replaced by the admission that "The belief that one is acting inthe name of something greater is morally bankrupt."25 Eventually seeing theprocess of critique as a matter of individual, private reflection, Adornoobserved that "In the face of totalitarian unity, . . . something of theliberating social forces may even have converged in the sphere of theindividual. Critical Theory lingers there without bad conscience."26 Having


10/12

Praxis International 485relinquished praxis, the Frankfurt view of criticism and the critic becomesless and less experiential, withdrawing finally to the position that the value ofcriticism-is simply that it exists. By 1942 for Horkheimer, "Thought itself isalready a sign of resistance, the effort to keep oneself from being deceived anylonger."27Some of these different Frankfurt School views of criticism are shared bythe Argentine journalists, facilitating an interpretation of their positions.Timerman, for example, approximates the constricted evaluation of the criticfound in "The Authoritarian State." Although Timerman's book is the mostovert attempt at analysis and critique of the Argentine regime and antiSemitism, he remains of the three journalists the most deeply pessimistic ofhis own voice. Throughout the essay he repeats only that he "could not andwould not know how to share" his memories, experiences, and fears. Yetthrough his tenacious refusal to adopt the "reasonable" behavior demanded byhis captors, Timerman typifies Horkheimer's obstinate statement that simplyto exist and not conform is itself critique:The existence of one solitary "unreasonable" man elucidates the shame of theentire nation. His existence testifies to the relativity of the system of radicalself-preservation that has been posited as absolute. 28Galeano, on the other hand, displays the confidence of one who feels incontact with his subject, engaged in struggle. He sees the truth-value of hiswriting in the degree to which it directly contributes to the process ofliberation:What one writes can be historically useful only when in some way it coincideswith the need of the collectivity to achieve its identity ... [for] what process ofchange can activate a people that doesn't know what it is, nor from whence itcomes ... [nor] what it deserves to become?29

Although aware of the obstacles to his project-particularly the illiteracy thatdenies comprehension and inflation that denies the purchase of his magazineto the very people he wants to reach-he nonetheless remains sure of the valueof his work. In his postscript "In Defense of the Word," Galeano affirms thathe writes "with neither arrogance nor false humility, but with recognition ofbeing a small part of something vast."30Graham-Y0011, finally, is more difficult and skeptical. He is not comfortablewith his role as politicized journalist, much less full social critic.There were many articles in which I dared myself to make brief reference topolitical anomalies-then I fretted about reactions to publication. It was a stupid,not a vicious, circle in which I compelled myself to report and then waited interror for the outcome. What is more, it was an exhausting exercise whichachieved very little. 31

In a letter of threat veiled in assurance, a naval officer reminds him "If youhave a clear conscience, you have nothing to fear." But, writes Graham-Yooll,Of course I do not have a clear conscience. Mine has always been quite murky,clouded by the timidity of the small man who dreams of acts of courage butthinks that even the smallest step out of line will bring dire consequences. 32


11/12

486 Praxis InternationalFrom such a pOSItIon Graham-Y0011 cannot embrace the engagedconfidence of Galeano; nor has he achieved the stubborn withdrawal ofTimerman, criticizing by surviving. Once again in the middle, Graham-Y0011follows a different course, one perhaps shared by Horkheimer and Adorno ofDialectic ofEnlightenment, writing in aphorisms, hints, and negations. "Onlyif someone writes this as fiction," concludes Graham-Yooll near the end of hisbook, "will it last; will it be believed."33Since these books were written the Argentine military regime has fallen,replaced in 1983 by a democratically elected civilian administration. In thebeginning of what will be a long process, several military leaders have been

put on trial for crimes against the disappeared. Five junta members have beensentenced, two former presidents to life imprisonment.The changes caused by state terror discussed here-in the political cultureof language, attitudes, behavior-are not the whole story of the effects of theArgentine regime. The unraveling of the nation's economy, state bureaucracy,and social institutions were also severe. Similarly, the trials themselves do notindicate a full turn around of Argentine political society. It is useful, forexample, to recall that the collapse of the military government was causedforemost by the exigencies of external debt and the fiasco of the MalvinasWar, not by the clamor of the people. Such exigencies may topple Alfonsin aswell.Yet in this cultural dimension, the ongoing trials join with the memoirsexamined here to fulfill in some part the Frankfurt project of understanding,judging, and criticizing the present, and as Benjamin would have it of"redeeming" the past-perhaps redeeming the disappeared.

NOTES1. Juan E. Corradi, "TheMode of Destruction: Terror in Argentina," Telos 54 (Winter 1982-3), p. 63.2. Alexander Dallin and George W. Breslauer, Political Terror in Communist Systems (Stanford, 1970),p. 1.3. Corradi, "Mode of Destruction," p. 63.4. Max Horkheimer, "The End of Reason," in The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed. Andrew Aratoand Eike Gebhardt (New York, 1982), p. 36.5. Ibid., p. 28.6. Ibid., p. 36.7. Ibid. , p. 37.8. Ibid., pp. 38-9.9. Horkheimer, "The End of Reason," p. 31.10. Ibid. , p. 44.11. Ibid. , p. 37.12. Andrew Graham-Yooll, A Matter ofFear: Portrait of an Exile (Westport, eT, 1981), p. 56.13. Ibid. , p. 93.14. Max Horkheimer, "The Authoritarian State," in The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed. AndrewArato and Eike Gebhardt (New York, 1982), pp. 98, 103.15. Graham-Yooll, A Matter ofFear, p. 36.16. Eduardo Galeano, Days and Nights ofLove and War, trans. Judith Brister (New York, 1983), p. 78.17. Galeano, Days and Nights, pp. 75, 79.18. Jacobo Timerman, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, trans. Toby Talbot (New York,

1981), p. 152.


12/12

Praxis International 48719. Graham-Yooll, A Matter ofFear, p. 74.20. Ibid., p. 80.21. Horkheimer, "The End of Reason," p. 44.22. Timerman, Prisoner Without a Name, p. 145.23. Graham-Yooll, A Matter ofFear, p. 84.24. Max Horkheimer, "Traditional and Critical Theory," in Critical Theory: Selected Essays (New York,

1982), p. 232.25. Horkheimer, "Traditional and Critical Theory," p. 215; Horkheimer, "The Authoritarian State,"p. 112.26. Quoted in Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston, 1973), p. 277.27. Horkheimer, "The Authoritarian State," p. 116.28. Horkheimer, "The End of Reason," p. 45.29. Galeano, Days and Nights, pp. 185, 190.30. Ibid., p. 191.31. Graham-Yooll, A Matter ofFear, p. 47.32. Ibid.33. Ibid., p. 121.

4.7 - smith, anne-marie - state terror in argentina. a frankfurt school perspective (en)

Documents