ABSTRACT

This article brings together approaches from a range of disciplines to explore how we might approach testimony as it is produced through culture. It examines how we can define and understand the diverse forms of witnessing that are produced in artistic works and everyday practices such as education and law. With a focus on the witness to atrocity, the article develops a theoretical framework for the study of testimony through culture. It highlights the importance of focusing on the ‘witnessing text’ and the relationship between text and audience. Authenticity is thus understood as a process based on trust and acknowledgement, which can explain our reluctance to accept perpetrator testimony. Nonetheless, allowing perpetrators to speak and engaging with perpetrator texts through ‘other-oriented empathy’ is essential if we are to fully understand and prevent mass violence. Authenticity and empathy are also key terms in our engagement with secondary witnesses. Reflection on what it means to ‘know’ violence can help us unpick the relationship between ethical approaches to the mediation of testimony and the response elicited by ‘fake’ testimonies. Ultimately, I conclude that fictionalisation of testimony is legitimate, but that it gives rise to ethical questions relating to the purpose of that mediation.

摘要

本文汇集了来自各个学科的方法，以探讨我们如何处理通过文化产生的证词。它探讨了我们如何定义和理解艺术作品和教育和法律等日常实践中产生的各种形式的见证。本文着眼于残暴行为的证人，为通过文化研究证词建立了理论框架。它强调了关注“见证文本”以及文本与受众之间关系的重要性。因此，真实性被理解为基于信任和确认的过程，可以解释我们不愿接受犯罪者的证词。尽管如此，如果我们要充分理解和防止大规模暴力行为，允许犯罪者发表讲话并通过“面向他人的同理心”与犯罪者文字进行互动是至关重要的。真实性和同理心也是我们与次要证人交往的关键条件。对“知道”暴力意味着什么的反思可以帮助我们揭露调解证词的道德方法与“假”证词引起的反应之间的关系。最终，我得出结论，证词的虚构化是合理的，但它引起了与调解目的有关的伦理问题。对“知道”暴力意味着什么的反思可以帮助我们揭露调解证词的道德方法与“假”证词引起的反应之间的关系。最终，我得出结论，证词的虚构化是合理的，但它引起了与调解目的有关的伦理问题。对“知道”暴力意味着什么的反思可以帮助我们揭露调解证词的道德方法与“假”证词引起的反应之间的关系。最终，我得出结论，证词的虚构化是合理的，但它引起了与调解目的有关的伦理问题。