Part of review forum on “Navigating Cultural Memory: Commemoration and Narrative in Post-Genocide Rwanda”
The idea for this forum emerged after a panel at the 66th African Studies Association (ASA) meeting in San Francisco. The ASR book review editor, Christopher Day, invited Whitaker, Longman, and Fisher to refine their reviews, and Hudani also allowed her review to be submitted. I am equally grateful to Yolande Bouka, whose contribution to the ASA panel was exceptional. As a first-time monograph author with a unique and complex positionality, I could not have wished for better colleagues to write these reviews. Some of these reviewers are mentors, friends, and senior colleagues who have generously provided me with critical feedback in the past. This response reiterates themes across the reviews—positionality, fluidity and malleability of memory, and engagement with memory politics—before reflecting on some of the critical questions raised.
Positionality
It was gratifying to read the reviewers’ appreciation of my complex positionality and its effects on my methodological and ethical approaches (as it was not always obvious when to include my own history and location). Fisher and Longman both valued my insights as a Rwandan scholar and the distinct critique of various actors’ roles in shaping memory. Hudani focused on my experiences as a diasporic Rwandan, which facilitated a sensitive and nuanced portrayal of Rwanda’s post-genocide memory landscape. Whitaker also noted that my insider/outsider positionality added depth, particularly in the book’s autobiographical elements. My positionality has shifted over the course of my research as I have navigated difficult topics, such as master narratives and how people respond to them. Researchers conducting studies on a topic close to home face different challenges and opportunities than those from outside.
Fluidity and Malleability of Memory
All the reviewers recognized how memory, as a process, is constantly negotiated and renegotiated, not static or unchanging. Fisher and Longman focused on my archetypes of Champions, Antagonists, and Fatalists and how this framework can be applied beyond Rwanda (e.g., how to politicize [or not] Holocaust memory. Whitaker adds that some individuals “perform” their responses to the master narrative, suggesting that participation in state-sponsored commemorations may be both genuine and performative.
All the reviews consider Navigating Cultural Memory an important contribution to decolonial scholarship in memory studies and African studies; it challenges the dominant paradigms of memory in postconflict studies (Fisher). After all, Rwanda’s memory landscape cannot be neatly categorized or reduced to external frameworks. The book, therefore, challenges the limitations of Eurocentric approaches to memory studies, while outlining decolonial alternatives in the study of localized memory practices (Hudani).
Engagement with Memory Politics
The book focused on the hegemonic master narrative—the state’s singular narrative of the 1994 genocide—and varied responses to it. This master narrative took an emotional toll on individuals, particularly survivors, who were forced to relive their trauma through state-sponsored commemorations. There were tensions between the official narrative and personal memory; memory politics’ notions of retraumatization and withdrawal characterized the Fatalist positionality (Whitaker). I also attended to nonstate actors and alternative forms of memory. Longman praised the book’s emphasis on cultural, artistic forms and folklore that shape Rwanda’s memory landscape. Hudani valued the book’s engagement with vernacular memory.
Reflections on Critical Questions
In the book, I attempted to reckon with the dominance of Western scholars in African studies. Longman addresses this question directly, asking whether all works produced by scholars from the Global North are inherently colonial. I agree that they are not. Many valuable works on Rwanda and other African contexts come from scholars of non-African backgrounds. However, one key point—that perhaps could have been made clearer—is that those of us who have been trained in Western academic traditions must remain vigilant about how we conduct research and the frameworks we employ. Our concepts may not fully align with or accurately represent how communities perceive themselves and their worlds. This warning includes scholars from Africa who are educated in and work at Global North academic institutions. Rather than critiquing individuals’ identities, we should focus on the institutions and systems that facilitate research and scholarship (and often hinder scholars from the Global South).
I propose engaging with Indigenous concepts such as Agaciro (a term used by my respondents) to better understand seemingly divergent memory practices. Agaciro helps us reconcile connections between localized forms of cultural memory that appear to be in conflict. I presented respondents’ perspectives by analyzing their everyday proverbs, songs, and other artifacts that are often ignored in scientific studies. Localized conceptual frameworks in non-Western contexts allow for specificity and challenge the limitations of often hegemonic Western frameworks. All these frameworks should coexist, not compete with the Global North.
Fisher raised two important questions on the political instrumentalization of narratives and the risk of calcifying the labels of Champion, Antagonist, and Fatalist. Indeed, readers should carefully engage with the archetypes to avoid oversimplifying complex experiences or reinforcing master narratives. I attempted to model this process by describing the malleable nature of memory and its fluid relationships with the master narrative. I hope researchers emphasize this fluid and multifaceted nature to encourage deeper dialogue with the nuances of Rwanda’s political and historical context. Scholars bear an ethical responsibility to challenge dominant or politically manipulated narratives. Deconstructing master narratives and emphasizing the dynamic nature of identities will allow us to foster a more inclusive and critical understanding of Rwanda’s past and present.
