Why didn’t we know this before? Challenging the Culture of the Transition through the concentration camp at Castuera

ABSTRACT

In post-conflict democracies with a recent past of intrastate violence and social fracture, depictions of the nation’s history play a role in efforts toward reconciliation. Public institutions act as agents in constructing the narrative of the country’s traumatic past, thus controlling public display of trauma and determining what is deemed essential to remember and what is not. In the case of contemporary Spain, the politics of oblivion normalized during the Transition produced an absence of democratic memory in Spanish education. This contribution examines the pedagogical possibilities of Spanish concentration camps, namely the concentration camp at Castuera (Badajoz), where the Asociación Memorial Campo de Concentración de Castuera (AMECADEC) has been working on the implementation of educational visits and the development of didactic guides. As with many other Spanish concentration camps, Castuera displays a lack of architectural remains, which poses a challenge to the concept of “ruins”. The activities developed by AMECADEC propose an alternative articulation of pedagogy and trauma, based on the educational possibilities of ruins and their political and material absences. As such, these activities offer an example of how to engage the processes of symbolization and memory intervention needed to create new historical narratives about Spain’s current democracy, challenging the Culture of the Transition.

KEYWORDS:

• Concentration camp
• trauma
• pedagogy
• performance
• ruins

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Following Aguilar Fernández, the “official” memory refers to the historical narrative that acquires the most visibility in the public space, the one that is reflected in the monuments and commemorations and that is promoted through memory policies. This memory is usually promoted by governments (at different levels) or by legislative chambers (state or sub-state) (2008, 57). By “non-official” I am referring to dissident or alternative memories that have been expelled from the public space, which is monopolized by “official” memory.

2 As a note on the evolution of the Franco regime, political scientist and sociologist Romero Tejada (2019, 3) proposes a taxonomy of the timeline of Spanish history from the Civil War until the present: (1) From 17 July 1936 through 1 April 1939: Francoist dictatorship, military stage, extreme violence; (2) 2 April 1939 through 20 November 1975: Francoist dictatorship, political stage, armed surveillance, institutionalization of the regime; (3) From 21 November 1975 through 29 December 1978: Francoist dictatorship, political stage, armed surveillance, the snake changes its skin (transition); (4) From December 1978 until today: neo-Francoist democracy, political stage, constitutional armed surveillance.

3 Such as the Federación Estatal de Foros por la Memoria or the Asociación para la Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica.

4 This section is based on information on the visits collected through multiple conversations with AMECADEC co-founders Antonio López Rodríguez and José Ramón González Cortés. Between 2021 and 2023, we regularly held videocalls and exchanged emails to discuss their pedagogical project and the visits to the concentration camp. My intervention is also informed by the didactic unit that González Cortés designed to complement the visits to the camp. Published in 2010, seven years after the visits began, the unit provides historical information about the camp and provides a general description and observation of the different parts of the visits. Lastly, my intervention is informed by the article “El Campo de concentración de Castuera: del olvido forzado a lugar de memoria y recurso didáctico” (2011), written by AMECADEC members Guillermo León Cáceres, López Rodríguez and González Cortés. This article meticulously describes visits to the camp, including maps, pictures of the space and pictures of some of the visits. The visits are organized for groups who have a particular interest in seeing the space and are never mandatory.

5 As stated on the association’s website: “Los fines de AMECADEC, determinados en sus Estatutos (art.3), son los siguientes: Atender a las familias de las víctimas que aún están desaparecidas por causa de la Guerra Civil y posterior represión franquista, así como escuchar sus propuestas y peticiones, aun cuando no tengan relación con el Campo de Concentración de Castuera. Servicio de información a las familias basado en conocer sus nombres e indagar su paradero; promover la concesión de una indemnización para los exprisioneros (incluir a los que nos se les dio en 1990 por no completar los 3 años de cárcel); promover la difusión y conocimiento de lo que pasó en el Campo de Concentración de Prisioneros de Castuera y los demás de la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura; promover la instalación de un Centro de Interpretación del Campo de Concentración de Castuera y el sistema de Campos de Concentración franquista; vincular el conocimiento del Campo de Concentración con la defensa y divulgación de los Derechos Humanos; crear un ‘banco de memoria’ con los testimonios recogidos de las personas de la comarca y de la región que pasaron por Campos de Concentración. Incluir por supuesto los familiares que tuvieron a alguien dentro de las alambradas; promover proyectos que contemplen el fomento de la cultura por la Paz y la difusión del Derecho Internacional Humanitario, tanto en el ámbito educativo como en el resto de la sociedad; promover proyectos que contemplen actividades de sensibilización y cultura democrática en otras sociedades del ámbito internacional que hayan sufrido procesos represivos y vulneración de los Derechos Humanos” (AMECADEC 2008).

6 “Bien de Interés Cultural” is a Spanish judicial figure of protection of (material and immaterial) historical heritage.

7 The Christian cross was adopted by the Francoist regime as part of its symbolic rhetoric. It represented anti-semitism (Preston 2012, 42), Christian education (Camprubí 2014, 54), redemptive Christian values (Yarza 2004, 60) and the discursive historiographical fantasy of Francoism as a crusade (Preston 2012, 118); all crucial axes of the regime.

8 It should be noted here that Stoler writes about a colonial empire, and this article focuses on a dictatorial regime. Nevertheless, her conceptualization of “ruins (of empire)” provides us with certain conceptual tools to reflect on the concept of ruins, their materiality and intellectual ruination in post-Francoist Spain.

9 My analysis relies heavily on scholars within the field of memory studies, particularly those who have focused on Holocaust memory, such as Cathy Caruth or Shoshana Felman. Although it is not assumed that the framework of memory studies inspired by the Holocaust is directly applicable to the Spanish context, the Holocaust is subtly and overtly integrated into the dynamics, contributions and debates surrounding the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime. The paradigm of Nazism and the Holocaust is discussed in various historical works addressing the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime; for instance, Paul Preston’s 2011 book, The Spanish Holocaust. Furthermore, studies of contemporary Spain apply the terminology utilized to denounce Nazi crimes to the acts of extreme violence perpetrated by Francoist forces and their supporters both during and after the Spanish Civil War. Thus, phrases linked to the Shoah, such as “extermination camps” or “Holocaust”, are employed to characterize the deportation of Republicans. This phenomenon of the intersection and overlay of memories is also evident in testimonies and autobiographical works. The conceptual and theoretical frameworks derived from Holocaust-inspired memory studies have the potential to extend our understanding beyond the Spanish national context, encouraging reflection on issues of transitional justice and human rights from different perspectives.

10 For further reference, see Felman (1992), who surveys psychoanalytical approaches to (the philosophy of) pedagogy.

11 In the theory of Judith Butler, “becoming otherwise” involves breaking away from predefined categories and embracing a fluid and dynamic understanding of identity. It suggests the potential for individuals to redefine themselves beyond societal expectations and norms, allowing for a more inclusive and expansive understanding of human subjectivity. This concept is closely linked to Butler’s broader exploration of how individuals can resist and subvert oppressive structures through acts of performative agency.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Judit R. Palencia Gutiérrez

Judit R. Palencia Gutiérrez is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at California State University, Fullerton. She received her Ph.D. in Hispanic Studies at University of California, Riverside in 2022, with a focus on contemporary Spanish peninsular cultural studies. Her research interests include political philosophy, psychoanalysis, historical memory, transitional justice, trauma and memory, public art, critical legal studies and critical pedagogies. Her latest publications focus on the politics of space, public art and transgenerational trauma. Email: [email protected]