MARTINEZ ORDAZ, ADAN: QUESTIONING AN ETHNOGRAPHIC TEXT: JASON DE LEÓN: THE LAND OF OPEN GRAVES

SKETCHING ETHNOGRAPHY

QUESTIONING ETHNOGRAPHIC TEXTS

Adán Martinez Ordaz, Fall 2019

Department of Anthropology, University of California Irvine

Anthro 215A / “Ethnographic Methods” / Professor Kim Fortun

The Land of Open Graves The land of open graves: Living and dying on the migrant trail.  By Jason De León / Univ of California Press, 2015

What is the text “about” -- empirically and conceptually?
What modes of inquiry were used to produce it?
How is the text structured and performed?
How can it circulate?

What is the text “about” -empirically and conceptually?

This book looks at the repercussions that are a direct result of the enforcement of immigration policies in the Mexico - United States border. 

What modes of inquiry were used to produce it?

 Jason De León uses a very comprehensive approach to conducting ethnographies. De Leon, uses archeology, linguistics, photo-ethnography, and forensic sciences to capture the complexity of what it means to cross the Arizona Desert.,

How is the text structured and performed? 

The text is divided into 3 main sections. The beginning of the book focuses on policies enacted by the United States government, as well as the harsh physical terrain that is the Sonoran Desert and how these two structural forces result in violence against migrants attempting to cross the border. The second part of the book is focused on the journey and the difficulty that migrants encounter as they cross.. In the last part of the book, the author focuses on the physical and material remains that are left behind by migrants as well as the successful and failed attempts at border crossing. 

What is the text about – empirically?

What phenomenon is drawn out in the text?  A social process; a cultural and political-economic shift; a cultural “infrastructure;” an emergent assemblage of science-culture-technology-economics?

The main phenomenon that is drawn from the text is violence. Not only structural violence, but also physical and psychological. Immigration enforcement. Necropolitics resulting in necroviolence. 

Where is this phenomenon located – in a neighborhood, in a country, in “Western Culture,” in a globalizing economy?

Along the US - Mexico Border, more precisely on the Sonoran Desert. between Sonora and Arizona. 

What historical trajectory is the phenomenon situated within?  What, in the chronology provided or implied, is emphasized -- the role of political or economic forces, the role of certain individuals or social groups?  What does the chronology leave out or discount? 

In terms of historical accounts, the violent phenomenon presented here is directly correlated to the 1993 immigration “Prevention through Deterrence” policy, which forced migrants into more harsh and dangerous terrains. 

What scale(s) are focused on -- nano (i.e. the level of language), micro, meso, macro? What empirical material is developed at each scale?  

Since this ethnography is focused on the Sonoran Desert it can fit into the category of meso, but also macro, since it can be applied to other parts of the border. 

Who are the players in the text and what are their relations?  Does the text trace how these relations have changed across time – because of new technologies, for example?

The main players are the migrants that attempt to cross the border, the author provides a detailed description of what happens to successful and unsuccessful migrants crossers. .

What is the temporal frame in which players play?  In the wake of a particular policy, disaster or other significant “event?”  In the general climate of the Reagan era, or of “after-the-Wall” globalization?

The temporal framing is initially situated in the 1993, but then quickly  transposed into a post-911 world. 

What cultures and social structures are in play in the text?

What kinds of practices are described in the text?  Are players shown to be embedded in structural contradictions or double-binds?

Migrants are forced to migrate, often because of a life and death situation, which according to the book often leads to death. 

How are science and technology implicated in the phenomenon described?

The major implication of science and technology have to do with the methodological approach that the author has taken. What comes to mind is the use of forensics and archeology. In terms of phenomenological implications the uses of technology are associated with the surveillance apparatus. 

What structural conditions– technological, legal and legislative, political, cultural – are highlighted, and how are they shown to have shaped the phenomenon described in this text?

  De León refers to the  laws enacted by the US government Prevention through Deterrence policies. These regulations shape the trajectory of the migrants.

How – at different scales, in different ways – is power shown to operate?  Is there evidence of power operating through language, “discipline,” social hierarchies, bureaucratic function, economics, etc?  The way power operates is via legislation and the implementation of laws and surveillance technology.

Does the text provide comparative or systems level perspectives?  In other words, is the particular phenomenon described in this text situated in relation to similar phenomenon in other settings?  Is this particular phenomena situated within global structures and processes? 

The text does not provide a comparative analysis, but it does show how violence is enacted on different levels. 

What is the text about – conceptually?

Is the goal to verify, challenge or extend prior theoretical claims?

The conceptual mission of the text is to expose the results of structural violence. 

What is the main conceptual argument or theoretical claim of the text?  Is it performed, rendered explicit or both? 

The main conceptual argument is structural violence enacted upon those crossing over. The migrants are driven by the need to work by the false illusion that they are needed to work.

What ancillary concepts are developed to articulate the conceptual argument?

Issue of illegality and the how deportability serve to enact enforcement policies. 

How is empirical material used to support or build the conceptual argument?

The materials presented here are both physical and material, and they serve as a first hand example of the damage done by the many structures at play. 

How robust is the main conceptual argument of the text?  On what grounds could it be challenged?

The main conceptual argument of the text is very robust, challenging its main premise becomes difficult when there is physical evidence. 

Modes of inquiry? 

What kinds of data (ethnographic, experimental, statistical, etc.)  are used in the text, and how were they obtained?

The ethnographic approach taken by De Leon truly reflects the holistic ideal of anthropology. By using multiple fields within the discipline such as archeology, linguistics, forensic science and ethnography the author succeeds in providing a whole picture of what it means to attempt to cross and die at the border. 

If interviews were conducted, what kinds of questions were asked?  What does the author seem to have learned from the interviews?

Interview were conducted, (45 to be exact) but the author mentions that interviews that are done in shelters have certain limitations, and that is the reason why he decided to interview people on the street that were headed towards the border. 

How was the data analyzed?  If this is not explicit, what can be inferred? How are people, objects or ideas aggregated into groups or categories?

The majority of people were men, the author separates successful crossers vs the ones with failed attempts. 

What additional data would strengthen the text? 

The text is very strong as it is, perhaps bringing more perspectives from the enforcement officers would have resulted in a more even approach.A female perspective would have added more depth.  

Structure and performance?

What is in the introduction? Does the introduction turn around unanswered questions -- in other words, are we told how this text embodies a research project? 

The book begins with a powerful vignette of ethnographic that sets the tone,as it attempts to evidence an issue that has been ignored. People are dying at the border. 

Where is theory in the text?  Is the theoretical backdrop to the text explained, or assumed to be understood? 

Theory is interwoven into the narrative and is is  explained in instances in which the mentioning of a change in legislation is not enough. The author does a good job in explaining his theoretical framework. 

What is the structure of the discourse in the text?  What binaries recur in the text, or are conspicuously avoided?How is the historical trajectory delineated?  Is there explicit chronological development?

In terms of historical trajectory, the stories develop in a chronological order, starting in 1993 and moving towards a post 911 world. 

How is the temporal context provided or evoked in the text?

The temporal context provided is truncated. 

How does the text specify the cultures and social structures in play in the text?How are informant perspectives dealt with and integrated? 

The integration of the informants is integrated in a way in which their stories are not drastically changed, the author acknowledges that he did not use pseudonyms for some of his participant. He wanted to preserve their real identities of those who died during their border crossing attempt, not only because the family wanted it that way, but also to make sure that their stories remained true. 

How does the text draw out the implications of science and technology? At what level of detail are scientific and technological practices described?

The implication that are drawn from the changes in technology are directly related to issues of surveillance.  

How does the text provide in-depth detail – hopefully without losing readers?

The text is rich and thick, but due to the nature of the content, it is difficult to read. Yet, it is written in a way in simplistic way that avoids over pretentious academic jargon, which makes it easy to pick up again. 

What is the layout of the text?  How does it move, from first page to last?  Does it ask for other ways of reading? Does the layout perform an argument?

The layout of the text is often interrupted by photographs, but the photographs serve as a continuation of the text.

What kinds of visuals are used, and to what effect?

The use of photo-ethnography is one of the highlights of this book,  the images, as powerful as they are, add a new dimension to the text. 

Acronyms, background of policies, explanations of language. 

How is the criticism of the text performed?  If through overt argumentation, who is the “opposition”? 

The criticism of the text is performed via example of migrants, it is not until the end where there is real and direct opposition to U.S policies. 

How does the text situate itself?  In other words, how is reflexivity addressed, or not?

Reflexivity is addressed by comparing it to what others have done, and by reasoning why the author is not interested in conducting ethnographic fieldwork in the same vein as other authors. The author mentions an example of an anthropologist  who decided to cross the border to experience first hand what it meant to cross the border, but without acknowledging his positionality and privilege. 

Circulation?

Who is the text written for?  How are arguments and evidence in the text shaped to address particular audiences?

The text appears to have been written with immigration scholars in mind. Arguments and evidence are presented in a way that it is easy to understand the root causes of migration as well as the repercussions of transgressing the law. 

What all audiences can you imagine for the text, given its empirical and conceptual scope?

General audience, Chicanx studies, archeology, Border studies. Anthropology. 

What new knowledge does this text put into circulation?  What does this text have to say that otherwise is not obvious?

This text gives the discourse of immigration a new raw face, one that is hard to ignore. 

How generalizable is the main argument?  How does this text lay the groundwork for further research? What kind of “action” is suggested by the main argument of the text? 

The text does not suggest any main kind of action but it does criticize the dependence of the U.S on what is consider “cheap labor” and how this is one of the main causes fueling the problem of undocumented migration.