Conclusion

Routledge eBooks, pp. 141–150

Abstract

In this chapter, I depart from the logocentric tendency to see voice and silence as binary opposed metaphors about power: voice as empowerment; silence as powerlessness. Instead, I propose to see voice and silence as allied modes of articulation, relating to each other not in terms of either/or, but of this/and. I develop this proposition by providing an overview of the four main types of voice and silence that can be identified in postcolonial memory conflicts: deceptive, appropriated, repressive, and disruptive voices; empowering, protective, resistant, and disruptive silences. The purpose of this classification is to show how moving beyond logocentrism will benefit postcolonial memory studies.

Authors 1

1. Gerlov van Engelenhoven corresponding Aachen

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society (LUCAS)