Hierarchy of Sufferers

                To be honest, I did not expect how vivid and powerful Wagner’s piece would be.  Most of our readings up to this point were very… scientific, I suppose.  Of course, this is to be expected considering the title of the course, and although To Know Where He Lies does bring about very interesting ties between technology and anthropology, I found that the most interesting pieces of the memoir we those based around the reflections of the survivors. 

One thing that struck me in particular was the concept of a “hierarchy of sufferers,” which refers to the placement of mothers who have lost their sons (and especially so for those who have lost more than one) in a special status above other survivors.  One reflection that was made by Nura was that she had “only lost her brother and was not in the same category as many of the others…Nothing could compare to losing a child” (66).  I would be very interested to know how this cultural view affected the process of identification by various outsider groups.  Did ICMP pay special consideration to these individuals at the top of the hierarchy?  Did they recognize their status as they tested their blood and DNA?

                It was truly amazing to read about the role of technology in recovering the identities of the victims.  Although DNA technology offers a method to narrow down the scope of the search for the missing person, I was surprised that most of the procedures were heavily reliant on items found near the body like articles of clothing or personal possessions.  In the interview with Esefa, so many things were indiscernible to her, but only after close examination of a jacket reminded her of something lost so long ago (147).  In her story, she was able to travel and view the objects first hand, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have this luxury. 

Without physical evidence and first hand confirmations, it is hard for DNA technology alone to provide closure to some.  Jasmina’s interaction with a woman who lost her three sons and husband is an example of how even though DNA technology “proves” the identity of a human, it does not necessarily translate to meaningful knowledge.  I am kind of reminded of the social construction of knowledge…How does the data we scrape up from the remains, whether it’s remnants of  belongings or DNA links, turn into something that can be used to help survivors?  How is it that the fact of “knowing” so meaningful to some, yet meaningless to others?  What else can we do to ease suffering?