Nothing but the Truth, take two: fighting for the reader in the Tlatelolco 1968 discourse

The hypothesis put forward in this project is that there are two mechanisms of creating a collective memory of the event: one is hegemonic (dominated by state discourses and, potentially, academic studies of the shooting), and the other is posthegemonic (dominated by literary and popular discourses). We also posit that neither mechanism produces or even aims to produce an accurate representation of the event; instead, the two systems control cognitive and affective domains in collective conscience. The present paper will compare the way the two mechanisms are used in the contemporary analyses of the Tlatelolco massacre. The two works in question are Roberto Blanco Moheno, Tlatelolco: historia de una infamia (1969), and Guillermo Balám, Tlatelolco: Reflexiones de un testigo (1969). I aim to determine whether the two authors, apparently representing the opposing camps in the Tlatelolco discourse, approach the representation of the massacre from two divergent perspectives or whether their texts are characterised by the unity of the mechanisms involved in creating a memory of the event in the collective conscience.

The hypothesis put forward in this project is that there are two mechanisms of creating a collective memory of the event: one is hegemonic (dominated by state discourses and, potentially, academic studies of the shooting), and the other is posthegemonic (dominated by literary and popular discourses). We also posit that neither mechanism produces or even aims to produce an accurate representation of the event; instead, the two systems control cognitive and affective domains in collective conscience.

The present paper will compare the way the two mechanisms are used in the contemporary analyses of the Tlatelolco massacre. The two works in question are Roberto Blanco Moheno, Tlatelolco: historia de una infamia (1969), and Guillermo Balám, Tlatelolco: Reflexiones de un testigo (1969). I aim to determine whether the two authors, apparently representing the opposing camps in the Tlatelolco discourse, approach the representation of the massacre from two divergent perspectives or whether their texts are characterised by the unity of the mechanisms involved in creating a memory of the event in the collective conscience.