Victims, Violence and Voice: Transitional Justice, Oral History and Dealing with the Past

Transitional justice is concerned with the legal and social processes established to deal with the legacy of violence in post-conflict and post-authoritarian contexts. These processes are essentially “creatures of law” – they are established by statute, their work is molded and shaped by lawyers, and their outcomes are benchmarked against what is or is not acceptable in domestic and international law. Concerns have mounted in recent years about the dominance of legalism within the field and the instrumentalization of those most directly affected by past violence. A commonly prescribed – but as yet largely empirically untested – corrective is that transitional justice theory and practice must become more open to interdisciplinary insights and perspectives. The interview – in different guises, contexts and settings – is at the heart of most transitional justice processes. As a historian now working in a School of Law I reflect in this article on the theoretical and practical intersections between law, history, and the interview. Drawing on more than 200 interviews concerning the Northern Ireland conflict and six other international case studies I concentrate in particular on interview-based initiatives that purport to be “victim-centered”. Having identified three interrelated risks - the manipulation of victim voice by vested interests, the affording of authority to particular voices, and the reification or “freezing” of identity - and having related these to the constraints of legal mechanisms and a wider failure to manage victims’ expectations, I argue that a greater familiarity with oral history theory and praxis can usefully illuminate the tensions between legal and historical approaches to engaging voice, and ultimately offer guidance to the shared challenge of victim-centered transitional justice.

Beyond Typologies: Foregrounding Meaning and Motive in Domestic Violence Perpetration

Within the study of domestic violence typological approaches have gained prominence in part as a response to the wider feminist canon that presumes perpetrators are all simply motivated by male power. In this article we use a single case study to query the presumption inherent in the most commonly used typological approaches that offender motivations remain largely static overtime and can be read off easily from self-reports or official records. We conclude by pointing to the need, both for academics and practitioners, to engage interpretively with the specific meanings acts of violence hold for domestic violence perpetrators - informed as they can be by sexist values, perceptions of entitlement and a specific history of conflict, suspicion or grievance – that can change who they are and the way they behave in the aftermath of assaults and breakups, as the foreground of crime is reincorporated into a background narrative.