In the context of the anniversary of Independence, the historian Camila Perochena analyzed the mechanisms with which each political force “appropriated” a specific interpretation of history, with a view to consolidating “its” political identity.
In the specific case of Kirchnerism, the “revisionist” process of the dates and the patriotic acts responds to a design designed to question the citizens from the emotional point of view, the specialist thinks. In that sense, Perochena remember the concepts that he transmitted Xavier Grosman, who was in charge of staging public acts during the government of Cristina Kirchner. The organizer revealed to Camila that the festivities had responded to a design that was based on the “triple e”: an ethical, epic and aesthetic story. The “emotional impact” of the commemorations was appealed to so that people “felt part of a group” and immediately “identified with the government’s political identity,” observed Perochena, who has just edited the book “Christina and history”.
News: Do you consider that during the Kirchner governments there was an appropriation of the word “freedom”?
Perochena: It is difficult for someone or a sector to appropriate a word, I do not usually use that expression. Yes, of course, they commemorate independence by giving that context of independence a political charge related to those governments. So, just as Perón spoke of a second independence when he spoke of his government, and said that in 1816 he had given the first independence, his government constituted a second independence. Because it was not a political independence, but rather an economic independence, and Kirchnerism takes up that idea of Peronism. And when different acts are carried out for July 9 or when reference is made to independence, not so much to the idea of freedom, what Kirchnerism says is that freedom was achieved in 1810. What Kirchnerism comes to do is constitute that second independence, which is economic. In both Peronism and Kirchnerism, the idea of independence is going to be tied to this idea of economic independence.
News: What do you think of the allusions to Perón’s pen in recent speeches by Alberto Fernandez and Cristina Kirchner?
Perochena: To try to understand the act of the other day, both that of Alberto Fernández and that of Cristina Kirchner, it is necessary to know that each one molded his own Perón. Each one brought to the present a Perón to try to give the political battle within the Front of All. Alberto Fernández made a description more focused on the Perón of 1973. The President returns to that more consensualist Perón who seeks to end conflicts. When Cristina says that Perón also used the pen, she is also constructing the Perón that he needs to give the debate within the Frente de Todos. In that appointment Cristina recovers another Perón, not the one from 73, but the Perón of the first presidency, the one who establishes paid vacations, bonuses, collective bargaining. Each one highlights the Perón who serves him or with whom he identifies to fight in the present.
News: Why do you think that every time history is discussed, debates and cracks are created?
Perochena: History, like the present, is a field of political dispute and memory, that is, the way in which we remember the past. In this sense, memory also implies disputes, the way in which the different social and political sectors interpret the past is not the same. So, since we have a politically polarized society, it is logical that these polarizations of the present are traced back to the past. For example, Cristina Kirchner in her speeches. In the book “Cristina and History” I say that she makes a polarizing use of the past, what does this mean? that traces the polarization of the present in the past to try to see those divisions between an “us” and a “them”.
News: How is the relationship of political parties with Argentine history?
Perochena: Most of the traditional political parties tend to have some view on history. Political identity implies having a look at the stories that preceded us to build that identity. But, not everyone gives political traditions the same importance. In Kirchnerism, Cristina affirms that the cultural battle takes place by rewriting history. So for Kirchnerism, history has a much more central place, politically speaking, than for Mauricio Macri. Because according to her, in order to do politics and advance in the economic-social-political plane, it was necessary to rewrite the 200 years of Argentine history and that is why she created new museums and monuments. In turn, she talks about history in the middle of her speeches and the identity she sought to build, giving history a central political place. That doesn’t always happen. The macrismo, during her mandate, chose not to fight for the past. There was a decision to talk as little as possible about history because they considered that it was a way to differentiate themselves from Kirchnerism. As Macri believed that seeing the past was having a nostalgic look at Argentina and that did not allow to look at the future.
Argentina is a society that has a very deep historical culture where people think about the past, talk about history and discuss history. Doing without the historical dimension when wanting to establish a political identity in a society like Argentina can be a problem.
News: How does the interpretation of history proposed by Kirchnerism impact society? How do they do it?
Perochena: His speeches on history make an impact because they served to constitute a Kirchnerist political identity. And even today it continues to be an agglutinated identity and the political identity of a part of the Argentine population. That to me indicates that the way in which Cristina constituted that identity in political terms served her, that is, the use of her past served her to constitute that Kirchnerist identity. So I think it does have an impact on society. Also, I would add that it’s not just what she says in her speeches. When one looks at Kirchnerism and the different acts in relation to the history of Kirchnerism (July 9, May 25, December 10, November 20), it is important not only what Cristina says, but also the scenery that surrounds her . The public acts of Kirchnerism are conceived and designed. For my book I interviewed Javier Grosman, who was the one who staged Kirchnerism, he told me: “Well, in every Kirchnerist act, I seek to convey the triple E, an ethical, epic and aesthetic story.” What does that mean? It is the search for people to be moved when they see certain things, to be outraged when they see others, to feel part of a group, to feel united among themselves, to identify with the political identity of the government. So it’s not just how effective what Cristina says is, it’s the context in which she says it and the shows that were put together to broadcast those speeches.
*By Cesare Augusto, Sharon Carrillo, Nanu Corletto, Stephanie Loli Moore and Fernando Stevens, students of the Profile School of Communication.
by Profile Students
