I genuinely enjoyed this reading by De Leon and thought that the ethnography he presented took on a unique stance. Allowing his subjects to document their own experiences was something I had never considered, but as the author discussed, a hands-off approach can be helpful in allowing participants to have more freedom in what they contribute to the work. They do not have to feel uncomfortable in the presence of an outsider and are granted more agency in revealing their own experiences, as it is, after all, their experience, and not an experience guided through someone else’s perspective. I suppose this is similar to allowing interviewees to talk about themselves or reply to open questions rather than directly asking them specific questions.
De Leon thought his presence could lead to risk in his research and field sight – thus, I’m wondering how much of anthropological work does end up being biased due to the unwarranted presence of a stranger? Even in documentary fieldwork, filmmakers can easily tell their subjects what to do and when to do it in order to gather the content they wish to show audiences. Alternatively, people can change their behavior or things they say because there is a camera or researcher present. As a result, true experiences and lived realities are not being portrayed in a genuine light, leading to false understandings of a culture or area of study. Thus, it is interesting to consider De Leon’s methods of ethnography. While there is a risk in not being able to control and monitor certain aspects of the conducted research, there is also a risk that interference would corrupt the gathered data.