This article empirically analyzes how victims’ remains were recovered, identified, repatriated, and retained after the World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It does so by asking the question whose body is it. This question brings to the fore issues related to personhood and ownership: how are anonymous and unrecognizable bodily remains given back an identity; and who has ownership of or custody over identified and unidentified human remains? It is in this respect that the article engages with technoscientific and legal, or “technolegal,” trajectories of human remains in the wake of the WTC tragedy. By using the metaphor of “materialization,” it becomes possible to trace how remains are forensically identified and implicated in legal regimes. “Technolegal materialization” as a concept and methodological sensitivity contributes to the current “actor-network theory” (ANT)-inspired legal scholarship, which tends to focus on legal practices in courtrooms but not those beyond them. In this article, 9/11 victims’ remains are followed from “Ground Zero” to the forensic laboratory and beyond and articulates five instances of technolegal materialization of bodily remains and their past and contemporary existences.
BennettCaroline. 2014. “Who Knows Who We Are? Questioning DNA Analysis in Disaster Victim Identification.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 239–56.
2.
ButlerJohn M.2005. Forensic DNA Typing. Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
3.
CallonMichel. 1986. “The Sociology of an Actor-network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of Science in the Real World, edited by CallonMichelLawJohnRipArie, 19–34. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
4.
CallonMichelLatourBruno. 1992. “Don’t Throw the Baby out the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringAndrew, 343–68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
CloatreEmiliePickersgillMartyn. 2015. Knowledge, Technology and Law. New York: Routledge.
6.
CollinsHarry M.1983. “An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” In Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Knorr-CetinaKarinMulkayMicheal, 85–113. London, UK: Sage.
7.
Colwell-ChanthaphonhChip. 2011. “‘The Disappeared’: Power over the Dead in the Aftermath of 9/11.” Anthropology Today27 (3): 5–11.
8.
DixPamela. 1998. “Access to the Dead: The Role of Relatives in the Aftermath of Disaster.” The Lancet352 (9133): 1061–62.
9.
EdkinsJenny. 2011. Missing. Persons and Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
Estate of Finn v. City of NY. 1973. 76 Misc.2d 388. New York: Supreme Court.
11.
EvisonMartinGrahamEleanorHaimesEricaLudwigAnikaMaguireChrisScullyJackie L.ToomVictorWilliamsRobin. 2012. “A Comment on the Hill-Turney Exchange: From Normative Antagonism to Interdisciplinary Collaboration.” New Genetics and Society31 (4): 385–90.
12.
FaulknerAlexLangeBettinaLawlessChris. 2012. “Introduction: Material Worlds: Intersections of Law, Science, Technology, and Society.” Journal of Law and Society39 (1): 1–19.
13.
FerrándizFrancisco. 2013. “Exhuming the Defeated: Civil War Mass Graves in 21st-century Spain.” American Ethnologist40 (1): 38–54.
14.
FiguraBenjamin. 2011. A Bayesian Approach to Disaster Victim Identification. New York: State University of New York.
15.
HaimesEricaToomVictor. 2014. “Hidden in Full Sight: Kinship, Science and Law in the Aftermath of the Srebrenica Genocide.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 277–94.
HarawayDonna J.1991. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilige of Partial Perspective.” In Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature, edited by HarawayD. J., 183–201. London, UK: Free Association Books.
18.
HarawayDonna J.1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan(c)_Meets_OncoMouse(TM). Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
19.
HuffineEdwinCrewsJohnKennedyBrendaBombergerKathrynZinboAsta. 2001. “Mass Identification of Persons Missing from the Break-up of the Former Yugoslavia: Structure, Function, and Role of the International Commission on Missing Persons.” Croatian Medical Journal42 (3): 271–75.
20.
ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross). 2009. Missing People, DNA Analysis and Identification of Human Remains. A Guide to Best Practice in Armed Conflicts and Other Situations of Armed Violence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross.
LatourBruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LatourBruno. 2010. The Making of Law. An Ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
25.
LawJohn. 2009 “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by TurnerBryan S., 141–58. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
26.
LynchMichael. 2002. “Protocols, Practices, and the Reproduction of Technique in Molecular Biology.” The British Journal of Sociology53 (2): 203–20.
27.
LynchMichaelColeSimonMcNallyRuthJordanKathleen. 2008. Truth Machine. The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
28.
MacKinnonGailleMundorffAmy. 2006. “The World Trade Center–September 11, 2001.” In Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction, edited by BlackSueThompsonTim, 485–99. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
29.
M’charekAmade. 2013. “Beyond Fact or Fiction: On the Materiality of Race in Practice.” Cultural Anthropology28 (3): 420–42.
30.
M’charekAmadeHagendijkRobde VriesWiebe. 2013. “Equal before the Law: On the Machinery of Sameness in Forensic DNA Practice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (4): 542–65.
31.
MolAnnemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
MolAnnemarie. 2010. “Actor-network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie50 (1): 253–69.
33.
MoonClaire. 2013. “Interpreters of the Dead: Forensic Knowledge, Human Remains and the Politics of the Past.” Social & Legal Studies22 (2): 149–69.
34.
MorganOliver W.SribanditmongkolPongrukPereraCliffordSulasmiYeddiVan AlphenDanaSondorpEgbert. 2006. “Mass Fatality Management Following the South Asian Tsunami Disaster: Case Studies in Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.” PLoS Med3 (6): e195.
35.
MulqueenPatrick J.2013. “‘Only Dust Remains[?]’ The 9/11 Memorial Litigation and the Reach of Quasi-property Rights.” Brooklyn Law Review78 (1): 231–70.
36.
MundorffAmy. 2008. “Anthropologist-directed Triage: Three Distinct Mass Fatality Events Involving Fragmentation of Human Remains.” In Recovery, Analysis and Identification of Commingled Human Remains, edited by AdamsB.ByrdJ., 123–44. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
37.
MundorffAmy. 2009. Human Identification Following the World Trade Center Disaster: Assessing Management Practices for Highly Fragmented and Commingled Human Remains. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
38.
NIJ (National Institute of Justice). 2006. Lessons Learned from 9/11: DNA Identifications in Mass Fatality Incidents. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
39.
OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). 2005. Notification Request Form. New York City: Office of Chief Medical Examiner.
40.
OCME (Office of Chief Medical Examiner). 2015. World Trade Center Operational Statistics. New York City: Office of Chief Medical Examiner.
41.
OlsonPhilip R.2014. “Flush and Bone: Funeralizing Alkaline Hydrolysis in the United States.” Science, Technology, & Human Values39 (5): 666–93.
42.
ParkerLisa S.LondonAlex JohnAronsonJay D.. 2013. “Incidental Findings in the Use of DNA to Identify Human Remains: An Ethical Assessment.” Forensic Science International. Genetics7 (2): 221–29.
43.
PereraClifford. 2006. “Tsunami Disaster Victim Identification in Sri Lanka: Legal Aspects.” Medicine, Science and the Law46 (4): 282–86.
44.
Petrović-ŚtegerMaja. 2009. “Anatomising Conflict—Accommodating Human Remains.” In Social Bodies, edited by McDonaldMaryonHelenLambert, 47–76. London, UK: Berghahn.
45.
Phillips & Jordan. 2003. Anatomy: World Trade Center/Staten Island Landfill Recovery Operation. Knoxville, TN: Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
46.
PinchTrevor J.BijkerWiebe E.. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science14 (3): 399–441.
47.
PottageAlain. 2011. “Law Machines: Scale Models, Forensic Materiality and the Making of Modern Patent Law.” Social Studies of Science41 (5): 621–43.
48.
RibowskyShiya. 2006. Dead Center. Behind the Scenes at the World’s Largest Medical Examiner’s Office. New York: Harper.
49.
RosenblattAdam. 2015. Digging for the Disappeared: Forensic Science after Atrocity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
SchefferThomas. 2010. Adversarial Case-making: An Ethnography of English Crown Court Procedure. Boston, MA: Brill.
51.
ScullyJackie Leach. 2014. “Naming the Death: DNA-based Identification of Historical Remains as an Act of Care.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 313–32.
52.
SearcyElizabeth. 2014. “The Dead Belong to the Living: Disinterment and Custody of Dead Bodies in Nineteenth-century America.” Journal of Social History48 (1): 112–34.
53.
ShalerRobert C.2005. Who They Were: Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing. New York: Free Press.
54.
SledzikPaul S.DirkmaatDennisMannRobert W.HollandThomas D.MundorffAmy Z.AdamsBradley J.CrowderChristian M.DePauloFrank. 2009. “Disaster Victim Recovery and Identification: Forensic Anthropology in the Aftermath of September 11.” In Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, 2nd ed., edited by SteadmanD. W., 289–302. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
55.
ToomVictor. 2011. Dragers van Waarheid. Twintig Jaar Forenisch DNA-onderzoek in Nederland [Carriers of Truth. Twenty Years of DNA Profiling in the Netherlands]. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer Press.
56.
ToomVictor. 2012. “Bodies of Science and Law: Forensic DNA Profiling, Biological Bodies and Biopower.” Journal of Law and Society39 (1): 150–66.
57.
Van OorschotIrene. 2014. “Seeing the Case Clearly: File-work, Material Mediation, and Visualizing Practices in a Dutch Criminal Court.” Symbolic Interaction37 (4): 439–57.
58.
WagnerSarah E.2008. To Know Where He Lies. DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica’s Missing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
59.
WagnerSarah E.2014. “The Social Complexities of Commingled Remains.” In Commingled Human Remains: Methods in Recovery, Analysis, and Identification, edited by AdamsB.ByrdJ., 491–506. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
60.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2004. Management of Dead Bodies in Disaster Situations. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization; World Health Organization.
61.
WilliamsRobinWienrothMatthias. 2014. “Identity, Mass Fatality and Forensic Genetics.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 257–76.
62.
WoodsSimon. 2014. “Death Duty—Caring for the Dead in the Context of Disaster.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 333–47.
63.
WTC Families for a Proper Burial v. City of New York. 2008. 567 F.Supp.2d 529. New York: United States District Court.
