capitalist rationalization of labor (replete with
detailed divisions of labor, new patterns of skilling
and deskilling, etc.). In agriculture, however, older
labor practices seem to be retained much longer,
not so much as ‘residuals’ but as the very meat and
marrow of the production process. Henderson (1999)
develops a convincing theory of risk (to, for example,
finance capital) to explain the persistence of these
labor forms. See Mann (1990), Mann and Dickinson
(1978), Wells (1996).
8 And often made more complex as workers move
from agricultural work to suburban landscaping to
restaurant work, or to whatever pickup work is avail-
able in the day-labor markets that have developed
across the state.
9 As David Matless writes, ‘the question of what a
landscape “is” or “means” can always be subsumed
under the question of how it works’ (1998: 12).
10 Which is not to say that non-elites do not develop
landscape sensibilities: of course they do.
11 I say ‘him’ because the landscape way of seeing is
both historically and ideologically, in many respects,
masculine (Rose, 1993; though see Nash, 1996).
12 The literature on the politics of landscape representa-
tion is now large. Two key works are Barnes and
Duncan (1992) and Duncan and Ley (1993).
13 This fact of California agricultural production has
been well documented (McWilliams, 1971; Daniel,
1981; Majka and Majka, 1982; Mitchell, 1996).
14 Named after an early Spanish colonial land-baron in
California, Joaquin Moraga.
15 Moraga developed as a transitional community
between the ‘small-owner republic’ of immediate
post-war suburbia that Walker (1995) describes, and
the monster-home suburbia of the 1990s.
16 Stephen Daniels (1989) has written of the ways that the
landscape is ‘duplicitous’. Such a duplicity does not
imply that people are obviously ‘dupes’ of the land-
scape. Rather, it implies that part of the work – the
socially intentional work – that landscape does is to hide
consequences and connections from us, to fetishize.REFERENCESBaker, A. and Biger, G. (eds) (1992) Ideology and Land-
scape in Historical Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, T. and Duncan, J. (eds) (1992) Writing Worlds:
Discourse, Text, and Metaphor in the Representation of
Landscapes. London: Routledge.
Baudrillard, J. (1988) America. London: Verso.
Berger, J. (1971) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.
Blomley, N. (1998) ‘Landscapes of property’, Law and
Society Review32: 567–612.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bugarin, A. and Lopez, E. (1998) Farmworkers in
California. Sacramento: California Research Bureau,
California State Library, CRB-98-007.Castells, M. (1996) The Network Society. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Cosgove, D. (1985) ‘Prospect, perspective, and the evolu-
tion of the landscape idea’, Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers10: 45–62.
Cosgrove, D. (1998) Social Formation and Symbolic
Landscape (1984). Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Daniel, C. (1981) Bitter Harvest: A History of California
Farmworkers, 1870–1941. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Daniels, S. (1989) ‘Marxism, culture, and the duplicity of
landscape’, in R. Peet and N. Thrift (eds) New Models
in Geography, vol 2. London: Unwin Hyman.
pp. 196–220.
Daniels, S. (1993) Fields of Vision: Landscape Imagery
and National Identity in England and the United States.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Duncan, J. (1980) ‘The superorganic in American cultural
geography’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers70: 181–98.
Duncan, J. and Ley, D. (1993) Place/Culture/Representation.
New York: Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (2000) The Idea of Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellingwood, K. (1999) ‘Data on border arrests raise
Gatekeeper debate’, Los Angeles Times1 October: A3.
Fuller, V. (1939) ‘The supply of agricultural labor as a
factor in the evolution of farm organization in California’.
United States Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee
on Education and Labor, Hearings on S. Res. 266,
Violations of Free Speech and the Rights of Labor,
Part 54, Exhibit 8762-A, pp. 19,777–19,898. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
Gross, G. (1999) ‘5-year-old Gatekeeper is praised,
denounced’, San Diego Union31 October: B1.
Harvey, D. (1982) The Limits to Capital. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of
Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Henderson, G. (1999) California and the Fictions of
Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heyman, J. (1998) ‘State effects on labor exploitation: the
INS and undocumented immigrants at the Mexico–
United States border’, Critique of Anthropology
18: 157–80.
Krissman, F. (1995) ‘Farm labor contractors: the processors
of new immigrant labor from Mexico for California
agribusiness’, Agriculture and Human Values12: 18–46.
Langerweische, W. (1998) ‘Invisible men’, New Yorker
23 February and 2 March: 141.
Majka, L. and Majka, T. (1982) Farmworkers, Agribusi-
ness, and the State. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Mann, S. (1990) Agrarian Capitalism in Theory and
Practice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Mann, S. and Dickinson, J. (1978) ‘Obstacles to the develop-
ment of capitalist agriculture’, Journal of Peasant
Studies5: 466–81.DEAD LABOR AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY 2473029-ch11.qxd 03-10-02 10:51 AM Page 247