Introduction

According to its most conventional interpretation, mourning is a way of managing and processing an absence, typically lasting a certain amount of time, after which one should return to a world governed by the principle of reality. In academic fields, this interpretation of mourning has been translated into work that has an ultimately therapeutic or healing purpose and which views suffering and loss as problematic situations that must be overcome. In the social sciences and in Latin America, this has resulted in abundant literature on the management of suffering in situations of violence or in support handbooks for the administration of loss in transitional contexts.

Recently, however, some researchers have managed to ground the category of mourning in less pathologised ways, and have addressed its social life: its public uses, the languages it spawns, the solidarities it inspires, the political forms it elicits. In this sense, the texts by Judith Butler, Veena Das, or Vinciane Despret are but a few examples that reveal a growing receptiveness to a possibility that the inherited theory in the social and human sciences tends to look down on: the possibility of inhabiting mourning, that is, of living with pain, absence, and catastrophe in a lasting and structured way. This is a major change, as even after Marcel Mauss and Robert Hertz, to name just two, our disciplines have been interested in the collective dimension of mourning, always focusing on it as a liminal moment, from which the individual will eventually emerge to rejoin society. But today the possibility of living in mourning seems thinkable; it is conceivable that mourning can be inhabited, however uncomfortably.

There are, in fact, multiple situations today that seem to require this approach, situations in which stable and lasting worlds of life are built on permanent mourning. Many examples of such situations can be found in Latin America, especially in that part of the region – most of it – that has earned the label of ‘post‐conflict society’. These include the post‐dictatorship nations of the Southern Cone, as well as Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. In those places, the dead, the disappeared, the tortured and the social management of their ‘bad death’, the ways of defining and classifying the bodies, the public and private rituals that are organised around that situation, the cultural practices inspired by it, the narratives fed by it, and, above all, the social life that unfolds there, have spawned complex spaces that contradict what we had considered to be the general principles of the social sciences. This Special Section focuses on what those situations prompt, and the four contributions featured in it address them from different experiences in fieldwork and drawing on different academic disciplines and traditions.

How Is Meaning Structured in Those Places?

The ties forged there are anchored differently. In them, the absent, the invisible, the dead are an essential part of collective solidarities, and, as a result, the ways in which community bonds are structured differ from the ordinary. Existence is possible in absence, and the capacity for constructing community out of pain and mourning should not be underestimated. In those contexts, devices used for managing death, such as the figure of the ghost, dreams, and silence, constitute the leading vehicles for meaning. Juan Pablo Aranguren, Juan Nicolás Cardona, and Juan Ángel Agudelo work on these from the field of psychology, addressing what are known as ‘false positives’ in Colombia.

How Is Mourning Manifested in Societies Pierced by Violence and Conflict?

It is common for normalised expressions of bereavement to be exhibited in public spaces, in essence in connection with manifestations by groups of relatives of the disappeared – the bad dead – such as when the exhumed remains of victims of political violence are released. There have certainly been numerous examples of this. In many cases, they are associated with policies – the ‘memory’ policies – that are by now highly standardised and institutionalised, the typical policies of transnational justice processes. In many of them, the state and the political establishment engage in the organisation of mourning normativities that (dis)allow forms of managing death, that (de)legitimise or pathologise them, or that even bar certain expressions of pain and rituality in the public space. Valérie Robin reflects on this in an anthropological study about the moral panic that culminated with the destruction of a mausoleum that housed the remains of Shining Path militants, labelled ‘terrorists’ and considered illegitimate victims of the armed conflict in Peru by both the Peruvian government and a large segment of Peruvian society.

What Type of Imagination Does Mourning Awaken?

In their canonical versions, the narratives currently associated with mourning trigger compassionate languages. Certain accepted public expressions of pain, the institutionalisation of proper figures of suffering, the naturalisation of concrete forms of managing death and the rejection of others are just some of the various consequences of this. But there are other expressions of pain, other forms and figures for managing grief, different ways of understanding life and death. This is addressed in the contribution by Gabriel Gatti, a sociologist, and Jaume Peris Blanes, a cultural studies researcher, who examine certain recent cultural products that imagine these issues from parameters that do not fit the canon, specifically the canon with which death is managed in the case of disappeared persons.

How Is the Bad Death Structured Publicly?

Certain dead may be claimed differently by the state and by groups of relatives, in which case the classification, manipulation, and administration of the bodies, the legitimate forms of expressing grief, and the work involved in mourning become a matter of fierce disputes, both in the public space and the media and in the private sphere. Mourning, in those cases, is an arena of intense controversy, where there is a concentration of varied and very significant disagreements: over the status of the bodies, over the hierarchies among citizens, dead or alive, and over the ways of labelling the individuals who are the object of public mourning (‘suspicious’ deaths, ‘undesirable’ dead, as, for example, with the dreadful figure of the ‘terrorist’ contrasted with the dead ‘fallen for the nation’). In her article, Laura Panizo, an anthropologist, analyses the impact of the exhumations of Argentine soldiers who fought in the Malvinas/Falkland War, reflecting on their relatives' mourning rituals and the representations of those deaths, understood as sacred, heroic, and sacrificial.

中文翻译：

---

简介：居住哀悼

介绍

根据其最传统的解释，哀悼是一种管理和处理缺勤的方法，通常持续一定时间，此后应返回到受现实原则支配的世界。在学术领域，对哀悼的解释已转化为具有最终治疗或治愈目的的工作，并将苦难和损失视为必须克服的棘手情况。在社会科学和拉丁美洲，这导致了关于暴力情况下的痛苦管理的大量文献，或在过渡情况下管理损失的支持手册。

然而，最近，一些研究人员设法以较少病态的方式为哀悼奠定基础，并解决了哀悼的社会生活：它的公共用途，产生的语言，所激发的团结以及所引发的政治形式。从这个意义上说，朱迪思·巴特勒，维埃纳·达斯或芬西安·德斯普雷特的著作只是一些例子，显示出人们越来越接受社会和人文科学中的遗传理论倾向于看不起的可能性：居住哀悼的可能性也就是以持久和结构化的方式生活在痛苦，缺席和灾难中。这是一个重大的变化，即使在马塞尔·莫斯（Marcel Mauss）和罗伯特·赫兹（Robert Hertz）仅举两个例子之后，我们的学科也一直对哀悼的集体维度感兴趣，始终将其作为临终关头，从此个人最终会重新加入社会。但是今天，人们丧葬的可能性似乎令人深思。可以想到，可以哀悼，但是不舒服。

实际上，当今有多种情况似乎需要这种方法，在这种情况下，稳定和持久的生活世界是建立在永久哀悼之上的。在拉丁美洲，尤其是在该地区的大部分地区（已获得“冲突后社会”的标签），可以找到许多这种情况的例子。这些国家包括南锥体的独裁国家，以及哥伦比亚，墨西哥和秘鲁。在那些地方，死者，失踪者，他们的“死者”遭受酷刑和社会管理，定义和分类尸体的方法，围绕这种情况而组织的公共和私人仪式，受其启发的文化习俗，故事所提供的叙述，以及最重要的是在那里展开的社交生活，产生了复杂的空间，这些空间与我们认为是社会科学的一般原理相矛盾。本节重点介绍这些情况所提示的内容，其中的四项贡献是从不同的野外工作经验中汲取的，并借鉴了不同的学科和传统。

这些地方的意义是如何构成的？

在那里锻造的领带的锚点不同。在其中，缺席，无形，死亡是集体团结的重要组成部分，因此，社区纽带的构成方式与普通人不同。在没有人的情况下可能存在，因此，不应低估因痛苦和哀悼而建立社区的能力。在这些情况下，用于管理死亡的设备（例如鬼影，梦境和沉默）构成了实现意义的主要手段。Juan Pablo Aranguren，JuanNicolásCardona和JuanÁngelAgudelo从心理学领域着手研究这些问题，解决了哥伦比亚的“误报”问题。

在暴力和冲突刺穿的社会中，哀悼的表现如何？

通常在公共场所展示丧亲的正常表达，本质上是与失踪者（重者）亲属的表现有关，例如当释放政治暴力受害者的遗体时。肯定有很多这样的例子。在许多情况下，它们与政策（“内存”政策）相关联，这些政策到现在已高度标准化和制度化，成为跨国司法程序的典型政策。在许多国家中，国家和政治机构参与哀悼法典的组织，以规范（不）允许管理死亡的形式，使他们（去合法化）或病态化，甚至禁止公众表达某些痛苦和礼节。空间。

哀悼会唤醒哪种想象力？

在其规范的版本中，当前与哀悼相关的叙述触发富有同情心的语言。某些公认的痛苦公开表达，适当的痛苦数字制度化，处理死亡的具体形式的自然化以及对其他形式的排斥只是这些后果的一部分。但是，还有痛苦的其他表达，用于处理悲伤的其他形式和数字，理解生与死的不同方式。社会学家加布里埃尔·加蒂（Gabriel Gatti）和文化研究人员Jaume Peris Blanes的贡献解决了这一问题，他们研究了某些最近的文化产品，这些产品从不符合标准的参数中想象这些问题，特别是处理死亡的标准对于失踪人员。

严重死亡是如何公开构成的？

国家和亲属对某些死者的主张可能有所不同，在这种情况下，对尸体的分类，操纵和管理，表达悲伤的合法形式以及哀悼中涉及的工作都成为激烈争端的问题，两者在公共场所，媒体和私人领域。在那些情况下，哀悼是一个激烈争论的舞台，其中存在着各种各样且非常重要的分歧：关于尸体的地位，关于死者或活着的公民的等级制度以及对个人贴标签的方式他们是公开哀悼的对象（“可疑”死亡，“不希望”死亡，例如，与“恐怖分子”的可怕人物与“为国家堕落”的死亡对比）。人类学家劳拉·帕尼佐（Laura Panizo）在她的文章中，