I arrived in the mountain zone of Montes de María to conduct primary research in September 2017, when the peace accords signed with the FARC guerrillas began to be implemented in the territories most affected by the consequences of the armed conflict. This context created high expectations among rural inhabitants and campesino communities. For example, among these expectations were the improvement of living conditions in rural areas. I perceived that some campesinos, especially interlocutors, saw me as a resource and a person who could collaborate with rural communities in the context of the state processes taking place in the region, particularly those related to the peace accords but also other ongoing state processes.
In my visits to rural areas, some campesinos asked me about specific aspects of the peace accords and about the process of formulation of the PDET since they knew that I was also conducting research and participating in the different stages of its formulation. In one community
I was even asked to talk to a group of women about the PDET, the relevance of women participation, and the gender approach, which I did.
In the case of the victims of the mass arbitrary detentions, some of them asked me questions about legal issues. I had to clarify that I was only a researcher, and I could not provide legal advice. Some interviewees could have assumed that since I was a researcher, I probably also had some knowledge about legal issues. Several times I met in the Court in Sincelejo with a lawyer who has handled many cases of these victims in order to solve my own questions regarding legal matters related to these cases or to ask about campesinos’ questions. I was under the impression that some of these victims somehow expected that I could help in any way regarding their cases, even if it was only to contribute to making their experiences more visible.
In turn, the peace accords created expectations among some of these victims regarding the possibility of knowing the truth behind the mass detentions, and achieving some justice and reparations. Some of these campesinos even thought that there was an opportunity to demonstrate the innocence of those who were convicted of rebellion. This context in which I collected narratives about past forms of violence could have shaped some campesinos’ expectations and willingness to speak about these topics.
Although these expectations were present among some campesinos I interviewed during the first months of my fieldwork, in other cases, they emerged among other victims in the last months of my fieldwork when it was more explicit that the Truth Commission was arriving soon to the territory. However, there was also confusion among inhabitants about the Truth Commission’s scope, especially the fact that it is only an extrajudicial body.
I also found that a few other campesinos who were detained and incarcerated did not demonstrate expectations regarding what happened to them and felt that this was somehow a
buried topic. Other campesinos knew very little about the Truth Commission or other components of the peace accords, especially ordinary campesinos. Leaders often have more access to information than the ordinary campesino. During my fieldwork, the best-known aspect of the implementation of the agreement was the PDET because its formulation was taking place in the territory and involved the participation of communities.
During most of my primary field research, the experiences of the mass detentions were not discussed at the community or public level, but mainly among victims. During the last months of fieldwork this began changing due to the expectations created by the Truth Commission among some of these victims. During this period, some organizations of victims and some NGOs had also begun talking about presenting reports to the Truth Commission concerning the dynamics of the armed conflict and the different forms of violence that took place in the region.
This context especially shaped victims’ expectations and narratives regarding justice, truth, and reparations and attempts of these victims to organize themselves in order to become more visible, particularly during the last months of my fieldwork and after that. I organized two collective meetings during the last month of my fieldwork to explore further expectations concerning truth, justice, and reparations among campesinos who were arbitrarily detained and incarcerated and to facilitate a space where some of these victims and other campesinos could discuss these issues.
Memory-making has been taking place in the region for several years and has continued with the Truth Commission’s work and the more recent elaboration of reports by NGOs or organizations of victims in order to present them to this commission. Campesinos’ narratives about past experiences I collected in the field also became a scenario for memory-making, especially regarding experiences of state violence in rural communities.
I tried to establish equal and reciprocal relationships in my interactions with campesinos. In a context where some state officials and sometimes NGOs’ members often arrive late to meetings scheduled with communities, cancel them without enough notice in advance, or sometimes do not fulfill their promises, I was very careful not to reproduce these practices. Although it seems pretty obvious, establishing equal and reciprocal relationships involves respect. For example, recognizing the value of campesinos’ time or their own forms of expertise and knowledge are basic to build more equal relationships. In a meeting with a state official scheduled in a community, I and some campesinos waited more than an hour and a half before the official arrived. People were annoyed by the situation.
Being sensitive to the precarious socio-economic conditions in which communities live was also important. I was careful not to cause additional economic hardship to rural communities and to conduct my interviews in the places and times that were more convenient for campesinos. Some campesinos complained when meetings were organized in the urban area or in Sincelejo and the organizers did not reimburse transportation expenses. While most state officials and members of NGOs often arrived by car in rural communities, I always traveled by motorcycle, which is the most common way of transportation used by rural inhabitants. I did not want to accentuate our differences regarding socio-economic or other opportunities such as university education, which rural communities often lack. However, at the same time, I was able to rent an apartment in the urban area and traveled several times a week to rural communities which is not an option for most rural inhabitants.
Conducting collaborative research was a way to reciprocate with campesino communities, avoid relationships based on extracting information without giving anything in return, and establish more equal relationships. Some of my interlocutors saw as positive that I was conducting
collaborative research and that I was conducting research in their communities and accompanying their processes during a significant period. These perceptions are also mediated by campesinos’s previous experiences regarding the presence of some NGOs, state actors, or even other researchers in their communities. In some cases, campesinos have felt used, or interventions have caused damage, for example, conflicts among members of communities. However, some NGOs have also conducted long-term work with some rural communities and this accompaniment has been beneficial for these communities.
However, collaboration also has limits. I conducted collaborative research with campesinos and their organizations, especially in some communities. I collaborated with reports, wrote the minutes of meetings, helped writing letters, systematized memory exercises, collected documents, and helped gather information that communities needed or collaborated in other ways. In a few other communities, I also collaborated, although to a lesser extent. In other communities, I mostly conducted interviews without directly reciprocating in other ways because it would have been impossible to keep the same level of collaboration in all communities.
In the last cases, I was concerned about being seen as some members of NGOs or institutions that visit communities briefly and do not return after their work is done. I hope that my research and participation in process that are socially and politically relevant for rural populations in the current Colombian context constitute a way of reciprocating with communities where direct collaboration was limited.
I felt welcome in campesino communities, which significantly facilitated not only my field research but also made pleasant my stay in the region. Building trusting relationships began in the summers of 2014 and 2015 during preliminary visits to some rural communities in Ovejas and Chalán and continued during primary fieldwork. However, these relationships were not the same
in all communities. I worked more closely with some communities than with others. Being open about my background also helped to build these relationships. Some campesinos asked me about my family, where I was born in Colombia, what did I do before starting my PhD studies and even my views about some topics. Trust is central in ethnographic work and could be more difficult to build in contexts that have been affected by protracted armed conflict and violence (Malthaner 2014, Chakravarty 2012).
I also conducted fieldwork in a context where traditional gender roles are still present. However, it changed during the armed conflict and has continued changing in the post-conflict transition, mainly as a result of the circulation of gender discourses brought by NGOs and also state officials. In rural communities, many women are still in charge of domestic activities and care for their children. In turn, men still play a role as providers of their families and are often more involved in organizational processes. However, I also saw women actively involved in organizational processes and playing important roles as leaders of their communities or as part of organizations of victims.
As a female researcher, I interacted with men and women during my fieldwork. I participated in many spaces where both were present such as meetings and other activities taking place in communities, the different spaces of formulation of the PDET, meetings between campesinos and state officials, or members of NGOs. However, sometimes I was in spaces where the presence and participation of men were prominent, especially concerning electoral politics and sometimes organizational processes. Even in the context of the formulation of the PDET, which explicitly incorporated the gender approach, the participation of men was more prominent, especially in the grupo motor (community level) and municipal level. In the grupo motor in
Ovejas, which was elected by rural communities in the preassemblies, approximately 70% of delegates were men.
I did not feel that my condition as a female researcher was an obstacle to participate in any of these spaces, and this was not completely unusual since women members of NGOs working with campesino communities or female community leaders also participate in spaces where participation of men is prominent. However, I was concerned about collecting many male voices to the detriment of female voices. I tried to balance it by reaching other women in other spaces such as in their houses, while developing domestic activities, or in community activities.
Several scholars have reflected on the political, ethical, and other implications of conducting research and the challenges for fieldwork in violent or repressive contexts (Nordstrom and Robben 1995; Malthaner 2014) and in post-conflict contexts (Theidon 2013). Some studies have addressed issues such as building trust, threats to the security of the researcher and interlocutors, negotiating access, difficult field relations, and other ethical challenges (Malthaner 2014; Wood 2006).
I conducted my primary fieldwork almost a decade or more after the main events of political violence during the armed conflict took place in rural communities. However, the effects of some of these forms of violence have lingered in the post-conflict transition. Violence has also continued in other ways. Explorations of memories of the violent past have taken place in recent years in the region, particularly in the context of collective reparations processes, the National Center of Historical Memory’s reports, or the work on memory by NGOs. These processes have often focused on some municipalities and some campesino communities disregarding others. However, the fact that these processes have been taking place in the region for several years made it easier to ask about the violent past.
In the cases of some victims of the mass arbitrary detentions, the memories of these experiences are still painful. The detentions took place more recently in comparison with other forms of political violence in the region. The fact that these victims have been less visible and are even not recognized as victims accentuate the suffering experienced. Some scholars point out that speaking about memories of violent experiences could lead to retraumatization, while others state that some memories of violence could be unspeakable, or there could be a silence (Das 2006). While this cannot be underestimated, this should also be analyzed in the specific context in which the research takes place.
In a few cases, victims of the arbitrary detentions cried while talking about their experiences, especially women. In other cases, also involving men, there was some sadness when people remembered these violent experiences. However, I also found that overall, these victims wanted to talk about what happened to them and to be listened. Only in one case, a woman said that she did not want to talk about the detentions but rather to forget, a decision which I respected.
While talking about past violence could still be painful for some victims, their invisibility as victims, not being listened to, and the lack of recognition of what happened to them are also harmful. In these cases, the best option is to let people decide if they want to talk about violent experiences or not and how much detail they want to narrate.
In a chapter about methodological and ethical problems that emerge in contexts where mass crimes have taken place, Pouligny, Doray and Martin (2007) point out that in their field investigations a recurrent theme in many of the interviews was that “no one had ever taken the time to listen to people tell their stories. Listening to others putting their stories into words is to restore those who have suffered trauma to what makes them human and unique” (p. 26). In the context where I conducted the research, I found this to be true. Some of these victims explicitly
told me that they found some relief in being listened to. However, it does not mean to deny that in some cases, accounts of violent experiences could be unspeakable, that silence could also be present, or that some people do not want to remember violent events.