Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Photo courtesy of Akshay Mahajan (Creative Commons licence)
After a long period of relative silence, the most tragic period in Cambodia’s history has experienced a renaissance of interest. Spurred by the ongoing tribunal and a slew of excellent films including Enemies of the People, Lost Loves and Brother Number One, this attention demonstrates the continuing efforts made towards understanding the Khmer Rouge regime, as well as the difficulty of achieving reconciliation with such a traumatic past.
Yet one aspect of Democratic Kampuchea remains neglected, and relates to the way the Khmer Rouge used language to facilitate their murderous policies. As well as using dehumanising language to denigrate ‘New People’ (neak thmei) as unworthy of human compassion, Khmer Rouge parlance constantly applied metaphors of health and the body to both individuals and society at large.
Physical and moral purity were consistently emphasised by cadre who demanded behaviour bordering on pious religiosity, with Angkar the recipient of reverence. Inability to meet such high standards denoted disease and decay that were likely to infect others, with prophylaxis and excision the only method employed to stop the rot.
Enemies were ‘worms’ (dangkow) who ‘gnawed the bowels from within’ (see roong ptai knong). They represented ‘no loss’ (meun khaat) when ‘weeded out,’ (daak jenh) whilst victims of enforced migration were ‘parasites’ (bunhyaou k’aek) who ‘brought nothing but bladders full of urine’ (yoak avey moak graowee bpee bpoah deuk) The sick were ‘victims of their own imagination,’ (chue sotd aarumn) unlike the party who remained ‘strong’ (kleyang) and ‘healthy’ (dungkoh).
All this is, of course, nothing new. For the Soviets, the Cossacks were ‘malignances’ to be ‘removed’, Tutsi victims in Rwanda were labelled ‘cockroaches,’ whilst perhaps the most obvious victims of such an exclusionary discourse were the Jews in Nazi Germany, as famously documented by Victor Klemperer. This practice not only dehumanises victims, but it also legitimises violence by glorifying it and insinuating that it promotes ideals of purity and health in the broader socio-political body.
This pseudo-medical discourse is essentially an aesthetic undertaking. It envisages an ideal society as culturally and often racially homogenous, and attempts to justify horrific tragedy as the price for harmonious utopia. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge demonstrated how an aesthetic vision can quickly degenerate into a society devoid of the traits of humanity. As a result, we should be particularly wary of regimes that employ such remedial, exclusionary rhetoric, because of the inherent dangers its implementation may portend.
Fionn Travers-Smith is a history postgraduate at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Nicely written entry. Care to offer a new perspective on where you see such rhetoric being applied elsewhere in mainland Southeast Asia?
0
0
Sabai, Sabai – have a look at the language of Burma’s various military regimes – something that is fast changing. Like the Khmer Rouge, the Tatmadaw and SPDC/SLORC et cetera promote ideas of superiority and solidarity with ‘the people’. For example, ‘The People’s Desire’ billboards:
“Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy.”
There are more.
0
0
Appealing, simple, descriptive, “snazzy” catchphrase is perhaps best way to incite or mobilize a mob. Not just naming them, simply describing would suffice as well.
Burmese communist called the monks parasites before urging the public to kill them. All extremism, it seems, calls for ablution of blood.
But other “milder” forms are daily found everywhere for the purpose of control on the behaviour of the mob.
McDonald’s “I am lvoing it”, KFC’s “I like it like that.” Loreal’s “Because you are worth it” are all effective mind benders if not so gory.
0
0
Very interesting analysis Fionn,
Are you familiar with the language used by Malaysia’s Malay ruling elites against their “enemies” (targeting especially the Chinese community).
Granted that Malaysia has not experienced genocide like Khemer Rouge or the Communist purge in Indonesia, but I’m wondering, if from a conceptual perspective, the intent is the same?
Some examples: PERKASA , Attacks on the leader of Bersih, Church bombings, etc
0
0
“As a result, we should be particularly wary of regimes that employ such remedial, exclusionary rhetoric, because of the inherent dangers its implementation may portend”
Hmm
The West possesses the most extensive holding to mass media.
From TV News channels, BBC, VOA down to mom and pop talk radio that denigrate individuals, groups and countries, who are not inline with ideology of the West, without ever any regards for the humanities.
That is not mentioning coded terms, misinformation and outright lies that are spewed out repeatedly to prepare or encourage others for the dirty deeds.
Khmer Rouges were able to effect the “Killings Fields” 2┬║ to:
1) US failed “Dominoe Policy”
2) Concerted Western media negligence to the aftermath of Khmer Rouge’s carnage.
The only redemption to the above is forum such as New Mandala to counter “Stupid is stupid does”.
0
0
“Political chaos is connected with the decay of language… one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.”
George Orwell
0
0
Dear Fionn Travers-Smith:
Your discussion of language and political violence is interesting, but I think the photograph you show is almost even more interesting.
Can you describe the history of the photography you display? I assume it is a Tuol Sleng S-21 photograph. What do the scribbles say? Who do you think might have marked it up? Why?
For a fascinating, harrowing discussion of photographic images and understandings of political violence, I recommend this book. It’s difficult reading, but, as the author would argue, also important.
– Keith
—
“The Cruel Radiance: Photography and Political Violence”
by Suzie Linfield
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo5929941.html
In The Cruel Radiance, Susie Linfield challenges the idea that photographs of political violence exploit their subjects and pander to the voyeuristic tendencies of their viewers. Instead she argues passionately that looking at such images–and learning to see the people in them–is an ethically and politically necessary act that connects us to our modern history of violence and probes the human capacity for cruelty.
Grappling with critics from Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht to Susan Sontag and the postmoderns–and analyzing photographs from such events as the Holocaust, China’s Cultural Revolution, and recent terrorist acts–Linfield explores the complex connection between photojournalism and the rise of human rights ideals. In the book’s concluding section, she examines the indispensable work of Robert Capa, James Nachtwey, and Gilles Peress and asks how photography should respond to the increasingly nihilistic trajectory of modern warfare.
A bracing and unsettling book, The Cruel Radiance convincingly demonstrates that if we hope to alleviate political violence, we must first truly understand it–and to do that, we must begin to look.
============================================
0
0
I like this photograph too. It is indeed from Tuol Sleng, here is a link to the others in the display, all of them defaced:
http://siamesegothic.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/defaced-exhibits-in-tuol-sleng-museum-of-genocide/
The pictures of Pol Pot and other KR government members from this room’s exhibition had been completely destroyed by visitors. The whole site is marked by contemporary graffitti in Khmer, and not a small amount in English also; “NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN!” and so on.
I interviewed S21 survivor Vann Nath in the facility itself in 2007. I asked both he and an employee of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia what they thought about this vandalism in what was now a museum, and they both answered that it was a good thing, showing that both Khmer and foreign visitors correctly understood the nature of the KR.
0
0
Non-tok:
So…. the the defacement of the photographs in the Tuol Sleng museum shown in your link was done by post-1979 visitors, both Khmer and foreigners, is that right?
In that case, it seems likely to me that this defacement would have then been done out of anger– i.e. that the photos in the link you provide would likely have been of the Tuol Sleng prison guards– not of its victims.
And then– the photo of the woman the top of the page here is in fact not an example of the de-humanization of victims by the Khmer Rouge.
Rather the photo could be an example of people, survivors, taking out their anger at their oppressors and executioners.
Fionn Travers-Smith: Can you confirm whether the woman in the photograph was a victim of Tuol Sleng, or a prison guard herself?
This is why we need to take photographs seriously–to try understand more exactly what is happening in them, and to be very careful in how the images are used.
0
0
Keith,
All the defacement and graffiti was very new, courtesy of Khmer visitors and tourists.
The majority of prisoners at Tuol Sleng were KR affiliated themselves. That was the function of this particular facility, to cleanse the party and state apparatus. Prisoners were tortured to extract confessions that included long lists of other ‘traitors’ within the KR ranks, who would in turn end up in S21 dictating lists of their own. As many have previously noted, this makes the S21 photographs even more remarkable and their value harder to classify.
I’ve not been to Tuol Sleng for some years, but in 2007, the photo Fionn has used in this post was hanging in a separate exhibition of photos of KR leaders and cadres. Some of the people in these pictures were not famous, and as such their photos were still in one piece, albeit defaced. The highest ranking person whose picture had not been destroyed was Son Sen, although his face had been scratched out. (See second picture down in the link I gave previously)
0
0
Non-Tok:
I’m not an expert in this area for sure- so a couple questions if possible:
Can you expand on what you mean with “the majority of prisoners at Tuol Sleng were KR affiliated” ?
Once again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me a bit of an issue to reference the many non-political actors — children, random family members and associates — killed at Tuol Sleng as “KR affiliated”…. And what about the many victims who were linked to the Lon Nol regime?
Are you drawing on somebody’s research with the idea that the *majority* of S-21 victims were “KR affiliated”– [i.e. official KR cadres] ?
Second, you write: “As many have previously noted, this makes the S21 photographs even more remarkable and their value harder to classify.”
– Can I ask who are the researchers who have written interpretations of the S-21 photographs ?
Thanks if you have a moment.
Lastly, maybe its just me, but I’m still slightly confused on why Fionn would show a photo of a defaced photo of a KR cadre- which was defaced by post-1979 public visitors to S-21– as a lead-in to a discussion on how the KR dehumanized their enemies through the use of language.
– Keith
0
0
Sorry for late reply and thanks for some thought provoking responses
Greg, thank you for the reference. Of course the Malays and Chinese have experienced some friction before, yet have not seen such vicious response as in Cambodia. The two “Malayan Emergencies” ended relatively peacefully by comparison to the khmer case. Not a high standard of judgment, of course, but enough to allow for the rehabilitation and reintegration of Chin Peng and various borderland guerrillas back into society.
Plan B: I enjoy your reasoning, indeed, history is replete with governments double-dealing and engaging in ‘realpolitik’. John Pilger’s “The War You Don’t See” (2010) is an excellent example of similar mechanisms at work elsewhere.
Keith: Thank you for the reference, I am not aware of this work but am looking forward to reading it. Just as language can categorise and group individuals in the service of power, so too the image. This reminds me of another piece on this topic that you should read if interested, Jacqueline Sischy’s “The ethics of remembrance: The S-21 photographs” – available here or contact me if you don’t have access to ProQuest:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2073607461&sid=23&Fmt=2&clientId=10306&RQT=309&VName=PQD&cfc=1
nontok: I find it interesting that you mention an interview with Vann Nath that took place in S-21, is this interview in the public domain? I wonder if the location had any emotional impact that may have influenced his testimony, since it was at the sight of his own trauma. Interesting also that his answer you reference seems to suggest that the defacement of the images is a form of a “reclaiming” the physical space of S-21. This echoes recent ideas trending in academia about the influence of space on human agency, which explores how contests over this space influences both the original conflict and its remembrance. Tyner’s ‘Unmaking of Space’ is one example of this line of enquiry. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Killing-Cambodia-Geography-Genocide/dp/0754670961
Keith Barney: I think nontok is broadly correct in saying that S-21 victims were predominantly KR cadre. Of course you are right that many others got swept up into its net, including innocent dependants and various others such as Kerry Hamill (as depicted in the film I mentioned, Brother Number One). In answer to your question there is a lot of research that shows S-21 as the main central prison for the santebal secret police. S-21 was for “high-ranking” prisoners, mostly cadre but foreigners and dependants of cadre would also fit this category. Chandler’s ‘Voices of S-21’, Meng Try-Ea’s ‘Chain of Terror’, Dith Pran’s ‘S-21: Khmer Rouge Killing Machine’ (film) all demonstrate this point adequately. Of course, the best evidence for S-21’s position in the broader security system can be found at DCCAM, or case 001 of the ECCC.
Our Cambodian editor, Geoffery Cain chose the photo, and has more information on its provenance. Thanks again for all fantastic your comments!
0
0
Also whilst on the subject of the S-21 photography, one of the best scenes in Brother Number One is when Mark Hamill interviews the previous S-21 photographer (his name off the top of my head escapes me).
In this scene it seems the photographer has been very psychologically affected by his previous role in the prison. The way he describes his work carries some of the traits of categorisation and assignment that my article was alluding to. Indeed, it seems like a linguistic self-defence mechanism aimed at protecting himself from the trauma of having been a participant, whilst continuing to dissociate himself from the victims even today.
Almost perversely, he then turns a compact camera onto Mark Hamill, and compares taking photographs of Mark there and then to when he took portraits in the prison, presumably including Mark’s brother Kerry. It makes for some astonishing, slightly awkward viewing.
0
0
Keith,
By saying KR-affiliated, I simply meant that the overall majority of prisoners were KR cadres and their families. I understand that to be so from every book I’ve read on the subject and the primary evidence I’ve seen and heard in the museum and beyond.
A “bit of an issue to reference the many non-political actors” as KR-affiliated? Very possibly.
But this returns us to the original subject of this post I think; the dehumanization, to use Fionn’s term, that lubricated extermination under the KR, and continues to influence the way the KR are understood by many Cambodians today. The graffitti on the photos is a part of the backwash from that; even though some of the subjects in the defaced pictures are children, their assocciation, or affiliation, with the KR makes them guilty in the eyes of many visitors.
In regard to your second point, I’m afraid I was actually thinking more of the reactions of art critics, newspapers and gallery visitors when the s21 pictures began to be exhibited around the world, most notably in the Museum of Modern Art in New York in the 90’s. That coincided with Pol Pot’s trial and house-arrest by the KR, and provoked wide discussion on the value and meaning of the photographs from all sorts of perspectives.
I’m certainly no expert on Cambodia or the KR either. My work in 2007 on the subject was to satisfy my personal interest and nothing more, just to be clear.
Regards
0
0
Fionn, Nontok:
Many thanks for the interesting and informative replies.
– keith
0
0
Hi Fionn
Sorry for late response. My interview with Nath is not in the public domain. We actually moved to a hotel halfway through because the noise of the rain on the roof in S21 became too loud for the tape.
I don’t think the location had any influence on his answers, he seemed to spend a great deal of time there as an unofficial curator and generally assisting the DCC staff anyway. Always a sombre fellow, understandably, the only time I saw him visibly moved was when discussing his children who died during the Pol Pot era. In some respects, I think he actually found it hard to stay away from S21.
Thanks for the reading recommendations, I will definately have a look.
0
0