Abstract

The research methodologies that generate social scientific knowledge from the collection of empirical information have diversified thanks to technological advances and transdisciplinarity; Due to this, it is important to reflect on the way in which these disciplinary intersections nurture and complicate the role of sociocultural research. This article seeks to delve into the events, analysis and learning that emerged during the creation of the participatory social documentary Hombres de Esperanza (2017) and its various exhibitions to the general public, academics and experts in visual art. In this way, it is intended to dialogue the artistic discourse with that of the social sciences from the common points that converge in the creation of an ethnographic documentary, which was made in Tijuana and deals with an evangelical rehabilitation center.

Keywords: visual anthropology, ethnographic cinema, participatory social documentary, drug, masculinities, religion

Building Hope: Participative Social Documentary as a Research Method at a Tijuana Evangelical Rehabilitation Center; Challenges and Lessons Learned

Research methodologies that produce social-scientific knowledge based on gathering empirical evidence have recently expanded thanks to technological advances and interdisciplinarity. Thus it is pertinent to reflect on how such disciplinary intersections nourish and add complexity to socio-cultural research's role. The article proposes a deep exploration of the events, analyzes and lessons-learned that emerged from creating the participative social documentary Hombres de esperanza (Men of Hope, 2017) and its various presentations to the general public, academics and visual arts experts. Dialogue is sought between the artistic and social-sciences discourses, based on common points that converge in the creation of an ethnographic documentary in Tijuana that took an evangelical rehab center as its subject.

Keywords: Visual anthropology, ethnographic film, participative social documentary, illicit drugs, masculinities and religion.

Probably of all our feelings the only one that is not truly ours is hope. Hope belongs to life, it is life itself defending itself.
Julio Cortazar, Rayuela

The sociocultural research commonly involves long processes of exposition and exchange of ideas between professors, colleagues and occasionally interested public, in the framework of congresses and seminars. In this way, a final product is generated in the form of theses, articles or chapters in refereed publications, and it will be commented and contrasted in order to generate new knowledge. This process, common in research academies, acquires new nuances by integrating methodologies that seek to generate knowledge from products that are nourished by artistic expressions and, therefore, the meanings and knowledge generated around the works are fed both by the process their creation and the impact they can cause on the public.

The text that I present below is an unusual exercise, as it refers to events, analysis, learning and new reflections that emerged from the exhibition of the participatory social documentary Hombres de esperanza (2017) to three different audiences: academics (as it is a relevant document for visual anthropology), film festivals1 (visual arts experts) and presentations open to the general public. The official synopsis of the video is as follows: the stories that make up this documentary were directed by members of the La Esperanza evangelical rehabilitation center. To get to this place it is necessary to leave the outskirts of the city of Tijuana by a dirt road uphill at the top of a hill; there is a series of small constructions delimited by a mesh. In this place are cloistered about a hundred men who, through faith, seek to transform their identity in order to leave their addictions behind.

The creation of this documentary was carried out alongside the Master's thesis in Cultural Studies Men of Hope: Transformation of Male Identity in Evangelical Rehabilitation for Drug Dependence (González-Tamayo, 2016), presented at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. The audiovisual materials used for the research were generated in a photography and video workshop held in the rehabilitation center during the second half of 2015, and analyzed using the structural analysis method (mae) (Suárez, 2008).

The detailed results of this research can be consulted as part of the publications Miradas multidisciplinarias a la diversidad religiosa mexicana (Martínez and Zalpa, 2016) and Let drugs with God's help ?: experiences of internment in border rehabilitation centers (Odgers and Olivas, 2018). This last work is particularly relevant, as it compiles the research of all the members of the research project The therapeutic offer of the Evangelical Rehabilitation Centers for drug addicts in the Baja California border region2.

Theoretical reflections regarding the creation of a participatory social documentary

Visual anthropology as a searcher of ethnographic knowledge has allowed the integration of images, videos, sounds and the context in which they were created as a tool for sociocultural analysis, which has been a great opportunity to incorporate related disciplines such as communication sciences into the discussion. and the visual arts. Regarding the exercise of participatory action ethnography (eap)3, it was sought that it could be inserted in the terms of an anthropological investigation, which would allow the theoretical discussion of a social problem that needs much more attention than it receives and an audiovisual document with artistic values, because despite the geographical limitations and the conditions precarious rehabilitation center, the testimonies that make up the ethnographic documentary (Zirión, 2015) were carefully and creatively planned by the inmates who directed them. As an example of this type of document in Mexico, previously the anthropologist Antonio Zirión directed Voces de la Guerrero (2004), a documentary in which young people living on the streets were provided with cameras so that they could give their opinion on their reality.

In the case of Hombres de esperanza, the result of this artistic process of visual creation was reflected in a photographic exhibition in the center, dedicated to their families, and a participatory social documentary (dsp). This is defined as

a documentary video that analyzes social reality from a critical perspective, made collectively by people or social organizations. At the same time, due to the fact that normally the groups and collectives considered do not have previous experience in audiovisual production, the dsp It also consists of a training process and a series of participatory techniques that allow the group to acquire the theoretical and practical knowledge necessary to prepare the documentary (Mosangini, 2010: 10).

Some of the most recurrent concerns in anthropology is the approach to study groups so that the researcher has the least possible influence on their dynamics. In the case of participant observation methodologies, it is assumed that the intervention of the researcher will influence any dynamics that come from the field work. This is particularly noticeable when cameras are involved, as in any situation a recording device influences the established dynamics in any group, which can be intimidating in most cases. Likewise, on certain occasions recording devices give rise to individuals wanting to be noticed, by assuming that the fact of carrying a camera turns the researcher into an agent of change with whom they can communicate about problems that they want to have an impact.

During the process of preparing the work plan with the inmates, the potential inequality of power implied by the use of technological tools in the context of a population of men with diverse needs, often with few studies, was taken into account. This problem is inserted in the terms of decoloniality that Chakravorty-Spivak (2003) problematized when he asked himself "can the subaltern speak?" Although Spivak took up the case of indigenous women, the essence of asking to what extent this involvement in the field can be an extension of a colonizing attitude on the part of the researcher should never be lost sight of.

At some point when I received feedback, I was asked if transmitting knowledge of narrative structure, shots and types of shots would limit the creativity of the inmates. This is relevant, as the terms in which the interns would speak are vital so as not to sacrifice their style and creativity. Under this logic of thought, it is possible to go to the extreme of considering education regarding cinematographic language as a colonialist imposition. These questions are important because they lead us to propose that the problems that people want to portray outweigh the thematic interests of the researcher, which is an important exercise of humility, respect and trust of the researcher-filmmaker with his informants-production partners .

In this regard, field practice showed that under no circumstances should the informants be underestimated, since all of them, no matter how limited their situation, knew about movies, were very excited to use the cameras and had come to the workshop to learn, In other words, we shared the necessary references to understand the importance of the workshop's knowledge and how it would be reflected in the final result.

In this sense, resorting to the development of a dsp It is useful, since the teaching-learning process helps the members of the group to be actively involved with the available tools and to participate in them in a playful way. This is extremely beneficial in ethnographic terms, since the active exercise of the application of the acquired knowledge denoted leaderships, fears, agendas and hopes that were not reflected at the time by in-depth interviews.

Learnings from field work and conceptualization

The dynamics of the photography and video workshops implied that all the members traveled through different areas of the rehabilitation center to capture various activities in the place. Some examples of events that occurred in the field will be described below that, viewed in retrospect, suggestively show the level of involvement that can be achieved with a moderate intervention methodology, and which, due to the nature of the documentary and the objectives of the research, they were not included in previous documents.

During the period of fieldwork in the rehabilitation center, one of the most important challenges was the establishment of cordial work papers, as well as rules that would benefit the anonymity of those who did not want to be part of the documentary despite being in the center, and even being part of the recording team. People who distrusted the intentions of the workshop were immediately invited to join the dynamic and several takes were improvised at that time. The improvised shots in the different spaces of the rehabilitation center were of great help to portray areas that were not available to the researcher. From these documents it was possible to learn about construction activities, murals and even difficult-to-access spaces, such as the detoxification (Detox).

The most difficult testimony to record was the internment process, since the inmate who directed the scene was at rest due to an injured leg and the filming required the coordination of several inmates to put together a recreation4 entrance to the Detox. During the minutes we were in that room, an inmate still affected by narcotics was verbally aggressive with the inmate who was filming. This scene was repeated twice as there were problems with the audio; on one of these occasions, I exceptionally took the camera to be sure of having a record in which the faces of the inmates who were in detoxification did not appear.

On two occasions, food served as a means to denote the trust that was generated between the inmates and the investigator. The first occasion came during a visit to continue the arrangements for the workshop (specifically seeking the signature of the director of the rehabilitation center). By coincidence, the arrival was at lunchtime and the inmates insisted on sharing a plate of vegetables. At first I considered the situation of the inmates and I was sad to accept; however, I found it rude not to agree. As they ate, one of them told me how nutritious the broth was for their diet and how this was a blessing. Likewise, it was common for them to refer to my visit to the center as a personal mission that I was unaware of, but which they assumed would bring me closer to God.

The second occasion occurred at a time when I was about to leave the center, but they called me to one of the rooms, where they were secretly eating a pizza, of which they offered me a slice. It was not unusual for me to access the rooms, as we filmed in various parts of the center, but it was not common for me to be invited informally, without the camera involved. As the weeks went by, it was remarkable that the inmates had gotten used to the dynamics, making very rude jokes in my presence, even with sexual overtones.

During filming an intern showed me a piercing that pierced his nose, which he hid from the shepherd by inserting it into his nostrils. At the beginning of the recording of a testimony, we had to postpone it due to the mood of the director in turn, since the story he was narrating affected him personally. On another occasion, I witnessed the entry of an alcoholic inmate, who despite opposing some resistance to his admission had a can of beer in his hand throughout the process; Out of respect for the new inmate, I did not turn on the camera at that time, because despite the temptation to obtain interesting material for the viewer, it would betray the vision that the inmates had of the documentary and would add a morbid and unnecessary tone.

At the end of the workshops, we organized a closing ceremony for the families of the inmates, in which photographs of them were exhibited. Thanks to Dr. Olga Odgers Ortiz, my then thesis director and executive producer of the documentary, we managed to make the necessary arrangements, as well as pay for the printing of photographs and certificates for the interns as part of my field work; I titled this exhibition Hombres de esperanza. For me, the reaction of the workshop participants to this concept was very relevant, because, as I have mentioned in other texts, it was intended to build a bridge between two concepts that they use on a daily basis (men of the world and men of faith); and by doing this, he endowed his rehabilitation process with a certain identity; fortunately the interns welcomed the concept.

First cut and view of the inmates

Respect for the vision of each inmate's testimony was a particularly important issue during the documentary editing process. As the rehabilitation center did not have an electric light (they used a gasoline engine to light themselves on occasions), and there were not the technical resources to teach the inmates to edit, the testimonies were recorded in a linear fashion, with specific instructions that were respected in editing. To respect the individuality of the visions, the images generated in different testimonies were not mixed, and two sequences were included as behind the scenes to better understand the field work carried out (in black and white), in addition to a sequence of credits with own shots.5

The most important step to legitimize the documentary was taken when a first cut of the documentary was presented at the rehabilitation center, since the inmates had to validate the work carried out or suggest modifications, since there were decisions that I could not consult at the time, such as the use of music and the order of the testimonies; I also eliminated several thanks to the researcher, as they distracted from the point of the testimonies. Since this process took a couple of months, not all the inmates who participated in the documentary were present, as some had withdrawn or in certain cases had escaped. The documentary was presented in the chapel, with the presence of members of their families; It was interesting that, as they took their seats, they repeated the evangelical-Pentecostal custom of sitting on one side of the men and on the other side of the women.

In order to see the documentary, we brought a speaker and a projector, as well as a sheet that the inmates obtained and nailed to the wall and the cross of the altar. The documentary was lived with great effusiveness by the inmates, who laughed, applauded and while listening to the testimonies they repeated aloud: "Amen", as they usually do in their services. One of the informants told me that he withdrew from the projection because he could not contain his tears. At the end of the video, a dynamic of questions and answers began, in which a great identification with the exposed material was denoted, I was invited to show it in schools and they asked me to place greater emphasis on the issue of families. The comment of a young woman was outstanding, since she scolded the inmates for laughing in many parts of the documentary and not taking the testimonies with greater solemnity and respect. The inmates responded by applauding him.

Final product authorship

One of the most relevant questions that arose when the documentary began to be distributed was that of authorship. By posing the exercise of transforming the research question6 In an artistic concept that could awaken in the inmates audiovisual creativity, provide them with the tools to carry out this product and integrate it into a document that functions as an anthology of their testimonies, it can be considered that the field work is equated to a process of artistic creation . From this approach, the researcher or workshop leader becomes an artist, who as a generator of the work dynamics could appropriate the entire authorship of the products, since they would be his work.

Regarding the above, although the content generation dynamics for the documentary was clearly agreed from the beginning of the workshop, including the corresponding institutional permits, the exercise proposed by contemporary art currents within the appropriation modes (Furió Vita, 2014 ) works as a double-edged sword in the case of the authorship of this documentary. Beyond the correct compilation of the generated material, taking into account the nom-028, letters of consent and transfer of rights, the fact of considering the inmates as elements that make up the work of an artist sacrifices the most important part that the investigation seeks to highlight: the vision of the inmates.

In cinematographic terms, a suitable figure for a researcher-filmmaker is the producer; because despite having on many occasions the original idea of the work, generating the means for the audiovisual product to be carried out and owning its rights, it is not considered an author, since the authorship is found in the decisions of the director. However, in the case of this documentary, by acting as editor, curator of the anthology of testimonies and articulator of some behind-the-scenes segments that were incorporated to give narrative coherence to the documentary, it is not possible to deny that my voice and vision are embedded along with those of the inmates; then we would speak of a collective leadership.

Exhibition period

The distribution period was difficult, as it involved negotiations with institutions and programmers in congresses, which were held in places that were generally not equipped to display videos. The external public in general appreciated the topic that was touched on in the documentary; Among the comments that provoked me the most reflections, there was a great empathy for the stories that were presented, in which part of the public mentioned that it would be difficult for them to ignore the homeless, because now they were more aware that they tend to be sick and helpless men7 because of his addictions.

The only direct criticism against the inmates 'speech came from a visual media professor, who insisted that the inmates' speech was hypocritical. The response to this was respectful, remembering that inmates have the right to tell their perspective of the situation and that qualitative research uses the meanings of the speeches rather than their verisimilitude. A very comforting comment from an academic highlighted that in the creation exercise that the inmates went through, they had been given the opportunity to represent themselves, and they had chosen to represent themselves with dignity.

Within the team that studied the rehabilitation centers, one of the greatest recognitions was having a registry that works as a sample of a problem that is not very comprehensible, due to the fact that the number of men who go through the rehabilitation center is so large and fluctuating that it makes difficult to have proof of his passing. Finally, the greatest recognition that the documentary has received was a Special Mention from the jury in the framework of the International Catholic Film Festival of Cali, where they recognized the value of the documentary “for its risky audiovisual proposal, thanks to which the inmates of a rehabilitation center in Tijuana become directors of their own documentary, giving us a valuable, honest and joyful testimony of the path that they have taken at the hand of Jesus Christ to be born to a new life free of vices, full of hope ”.

Over the years and some visits that we have made after the investigations I have witnessed that the rehabilitation center has changed, since it is now composed of other people and the conditions of the property have improved. Most of the interns I worked with I did not see again after the workshop; the population of the center is highly fluctuating and they do not always provide location data.

Conclusions

The process of creating a participatory documentary as a tool for sociocultural research is complex in several ways. Firstly, raising it in an institution that does not consider this type of resulting product as part of the research itself forces us to duplicate the work to differentiate the thesis from the documentary. The bureaucratic processes, the ethics committee, the process of convincing the managers and inmates of the rehabilitation center, the letters of informed consent, protecting the identity of the people who should not appear, technical problems, all these factors are problematic elements but common in these processes.

It is important to know the informants as well as possible and to design the insertion methodology based on the needs of the group and what the researcher can offer. The field work carried out should not only lead to an understanding of the situation, the intervention methodologies seek empathy, horizontality and relationships of trust. Due to this, the intentions of the researchers and the hierarchies of power that are generated must be clear, discussed and agreed upon. In the case of vulnerable groups, it is advisable to use theoretical concepts that provide agency to the study population, to make the discussion more complex in terms that do not invite re-stigmatization of these populations.

A less discussed factor is the level of involvement8 that is generated with the people with whom you collaborate and the responsibility that is acquired when returning to their stories, this is particularly evident when editing. Assembling everything is complex, since the need arises to respect their voices, balance the stories, make an entertaining video, get original or royalty-free music, all in favor of the stories. In the case of the inmates' vision, it was important that their story could connect with other people with similar problems and that the testimony of their case served as an example to others and warned them about the excessive use of narcotics. Despite the difficulties involved in this process, as far as the researchers are able, it is recommended that the groups involved participate in the execution of the final product.

Regarding distribution, the lack of institutional protocols regarding audiovisual documents implies that eventually, as a filmmaker and researcher, you face the difficulty of finding an audience and spaces for dissemination. This is particularly complex for researchers who have not had contact with film distribution dynamics. Consequently, the exhibition tends to be reduced to forums, congresses or online publications, which does not usually pay off financially, due to the institutional nature of these spaces.

The creation of an audiovisual product that pretends to be part of a social scientific investigation generally implies a difficult and lonely path when there is no work team, which is common in these intersections between visual anthropology and documentary cinema, since there is no one industry that supports ethnographic cinema, and institutions often do not have mechanisms to get the most out of documentaries. Thus, it is not a model that benefits the generation of new content. However, in the case of Hombres de esperanza The public who have been able to see the documentary have been very grateful for the effort made.

Bibliography

Chakravorty-Spivak, Gayatry y S. Giraldo (2003). “¿Puede hablar el subalterno?”, en Revista Colombiana de Antropología, vol. 39, pp. 297-364.

Festival Internacional de Cine de Guadalajara (2017). Doculab.9: Los confines de la de-construcción, y re-conexión del recuerdo. Guadalajara: ficg 32.

Furió Vita, Dolores (2014). Apropiacionismo de imágenes: Found Footage. Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Disponible en http://hdl.handle.net/10251/37019, consultado el 23 de agosto de 2019.

González-Tamayo, Eduardo (2016). “Hombres de esperanza: transformación de la identidad masculina en la rehabilitación evangélica a la fármacodependencia (Tijuana, B.C.)”. Tijuana: El Colegio de la frontera Norte [tesis de maestria].

González-Tamayo, Eduardo (2017). Hombres de esperanza. Tijuana: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte [dvd].

Berraquero-Díaz, F. Maya-Rodriguez y F. Escalera (2016). “La colaboración como condición: la etnografía participativa como oportunidad para la acción”, en Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares, vol. 71, núm. 1, pp. 49-57. https://doi.org/10.3989/rdtp.2016.01.001.04

Farrell, Warren (2000). The Myth of Male Power. Nueva York: Berkley Trade.

Martínez, Luis y G. Zalpa (coord.) (2016). Miradas multidisciplinarias a la diversidad religiosa mexicana. Tijuana: El Colegio de la frontera Norte / Juan Pablos Editor.

Mosangini, Giorgio (2010). Documentales para la transformación: guía para la elaboración de documentales sociales participativos. Madrid: acsur-Las Segovias.

Niney, François (2015). El documental y sus falsas apariencias. México: unam.

Odgers, Olga y O. Olivas (coord.) (2018). ¿Dejar las drogas con ayuda de Dios? Experiencias de internamiento en centros de rehabilitación fronterizos. Tijuana: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

Suárez, Hugo José (coord.) (2008). El sentido y el método: sociología de la cultura y análisis de contenido. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán.

Zirión, Antonio (2015). “Miradas cómplices: cine etnográfico, estrategias colaborativas y antropología visual aplicada”, en Iztapalapa, núm 78, año 36, pp 45-70. https://doi.org/10.28928/revistaiztapalapa/782015/atc2/zirionpereza

Zirión, Antonio, A. Adrián y D. Rivera (2004). Voces de la Guerrero. México: Homovidens [dvd].

Data sheet

Qualification: Men of hope.

Direction: Inmates and servants of the La Esperanza rehabilitation center, Eduardo Y. Glez. Tamayo.

Camera: Inmates and servants of the La Esperanza rehabilitation center.

Direct sound: Eduardo Y. Glez. Tamayo.

Production and post-production: Eduardo Y. Glez. Tamayo.

Executive producer: Olga Odgers Ortiz.

Dignicraft Consulting: Ana Paola Rodríguez, José Luis Figueroa, Omar Foglio.

Music: Alexis Alonso and Roel López.