Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Cultural Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
438
pies. As tourists are not a monolithic group, there are vast differences in their
understandingof PapuaNew Guineans. One Italiantouristsays aboutthe people
of New Guineathat "natureprovides them with the necessities of life," so they
are satisfied, "happy and well fed," and they don't think about tomorrow. The
naturalman. This tourist reports that cannibalismwas a custom, practiced for
"reasonsof survival," even thoughhe says that wildlife was abundant,but he is
correctedby a young woman, apparentlyhis daughter,who says thatcannibalism
"was symbolic," so in a spiritof compromisethe touriststates that cannibalism
was "mostly for survival, but it was also symbolic," Shades of MarvinHarris,
materialismversus symbolism! Another tourist reportsthat native life is "slow
andpeaceful," and thatit was worthwhileto travelto New Guinea "to see a way
of life so oppositeto thatof Europe."'The binaryoppositionbetweenus andthem,
between subjectand object, is inherentin touristdiscourse.
A womanfromNew Yorkreportsthatshe took the tourbecause she had seen
museumexhibitionson New Guinea and became interestedin primitiveart. Her
concernnow, however, is thatratherthanproducingartfor themselvesthe people
are producingsouvenirsfor tourists. The trope of the disappearingprimitiveap-
pearsmany times in touristdiscourse, just as it had been prominentin anthropo-
logical discourse (Clifford 1986). A well-traveledGermantouristnotes that na-
tive culturehas been disruptedand thatNew Guineais a poor country,so we must
"shareour wealth with them." Touristviews runthe rangefrom naive to sophis-
ticated, but despite the variation,the touristsare fascinatedwith cannibalismand
with spiritbeliefs, and they all engage in the same activities on the tour;mainly,
they take pictures and bargainfor souvenirs. In the O'Rourkefilm, most of the
time, the tourists are shown taking photographsor purchasinghandicrafts,and
this is in accord with my own field observationson the behavior of tourists in
Indonesia,as well as in Kenya, Egypt, and otherThirdWorld areas.
A New Guinea elder says "We don't understandwhy these foreignerstake
photographsof everything," which is a very good anthropologicalquestion. An
answerto that question might proceed along the following lines (Barthes 1981;
Mulvey 1975; Sontag 1973). The majorsensory mode for the perceptionof the
native other is visual, throughthe viewfinder of a camera. Such a perspective
isolates the native people from their largersocial context, in that everythingout-
side the frameof the viewfinderis removed from view, including the politics of
the situation.In this sense, photographydecontextualizes,and is essentially con-
servative. Further,the camera serves as a protective device for the tourist-pho-
tographers,socially isolating them so that they do not have to relate directly to
the New Guineans, face to face, eye to eye. They can hide behind the camera
lens. The camerais a wonderfuldevice for closet voyeurs, in that they can look,
even stare, withoutembarrassment.
After the touris over and the touristsare back home, the majorphysical me-
mentosof theirtriparephotographsand souvenirs,which serve as devices to elicit
storiesand memories. The narrativestold by the touristsare less aboutthe native
culture as such, and more about the situations in which the photographswere
taken, and about the specific occasions in which the souvenirs were purchased.
Photographsand souvenirsare both collectibles, and it does not make too much
differenceif the photographsare very good, or if the souvenirsare "authentic"
to the culture, as long as the photographsand souvenirs are "authentic" to the
experienceof the touristandto the context in which the collectibles were acquired
(Stewart 1984). Having stories to tell aboutthe photos or aboutthe objects pur-
chased serves to personalizean impersonalgroup tour, for the hero of the story
becomes the tourist. My comments about the function of photographsand sou-
venirs are speculative, of course, but valid or not, there is no doubtof the central
importanceof photographsand souvenirsin tourism, and of their prominencein
CannibalTours.
Native views of the touristicencounterare insightfulandrealistic, at least as
O'Rourkepresentsthe indigenousperspective. One older New Guineansays that
the touristsread aboutus in books and come to see if "we are civilized or not."
The New Guineansrefer to themselves as "native peoples" and as "backward
peoples." A man notes that "We don't have money so we stay in the village; we
don't go to see othercountries," and anotherobserves "If they paid me more (for
my carvings), I could go on that ship with the tourists." The majortheme that
emerges from the interviews with New Guineans is the disparityin wealth be-
tween themselves and the tourists. One woman says "You white people have all
the money," and is particularlydisturbedby the bargainingpracticesof the tour-
ists who, promptedby the tourguides, always rejectthe firstprice offered and ask
for a "second price," andeven a "thirdprice."'An eldernotes thatwhen he shops
for a shirtor for trousersin town, he must pay a fixed price.
The system for handlingmoney on grouptours makes for a kind of mystifi-
cation. The touristsmustpay the touragentsin advance,for the entiretour, a lump
sum paymentfor an all inclusive package, includingtransportation,lodging, and
meals, so that while actually on tour there are no furtherexchanges of money.
Thus, in the interactionsbetween the touristsand the local representativesof the
tour agency there is no necessity to pay for anythingon tour, as everythinghas
alreadybeen prepaid,nor need the touristseven ask what anythingcosts. Thus,
the local agentsandthe guides can presentthemselves as noncommercialfriendly
helpers. There is no occasion to remindthe touristsof the economics of the rela-
tionship, of the fact thatthe services and help so graciouslyoffered are provided
only because they have been paid for.
In oppositionto this, touristsgive money to native people who pose for pho-
tographs,and one local entrepreneurcharges the tourists $2 per camerato take
picturesinside the spirithouse. Money is exchanged. When touristspurchasena-
tive craftsandsouvenirsthe bargainingis bloodthirsty,with the tourguides taking
the side of the tourists. The tourists are not familiarwith local purchasingprac-
tices, arein a strangeland, andareafraidof buyingthe wrongobjectsor of paying
too much. Many tourists are elderly or retired, and part of what they have paid
for on the group tour is the assurancethat they will be protectedand cared for.
The tour guides, who know the local system, presentthemselves as helping the
touriststo purchasethe best objects at the rightprice. In many countries,the tour
guides receive a commissionon all purchases,but this is not disclosed to the tour-
Guineans are exploited. The film is not strident, but it mocks the tourists, however
gently. Not that there is anything wrong with O'Rourke's perspective, but rather
than to present it ever so subtly, or to disguise or deny it, or to present the film as
if it were an "objective" account that neither "condones nor condemns," I wish
O'Rourke's point of view had been more explicitly presented in the film, taken as
an object of investigation, discussed, and reflected upon. In ethnographic film,
we have moved away from the off camera authoritative voice-over, and we are
doing more, as O'Rourke has done, to let the actors, in this case the tourists and
the natives, speak for themselves. Now we need to hear a stronger more explicit
voice from the filmmaker.
Notes
References Cited
Barthes,Roland
1981 CameraLucida. New York:Hill and Wang.
Baudrillard,Jean
1983 Simulations.New York:Semiotext (e).
Bruner,EdwardM.
1989 CreativePersonnaand the Problemof Authenticity.In Creativityin Anthropol-
ogy. SmadarLavie, Kirin Narayan, and Renato Rosaldo, eds. Ithaca:Cornell Uni-
versityPress (in press).
Buck-Morss,Susan
1987 Semiotic Boundariesand the Politics of Meaning:Modernityon Tour-A Vil-
lage in Transition.In New Ways of Knowing;The Sciences, Society, andReconstruc-
tive Knowledge. MarcusG. Raskin and HerbertJ. Bernstein,eds. Pp. 200-236. To-
towa, N.J.: Rowmanand Littlefield.
Clifford,James
1986 On EthnographicAllegory. In WritingCulture:The Poetics and Politics of Eth-
nography.James Clifford and George E. Marcus, eds. Pp. 98-121. Berkeley: Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress.
Cohen, Erik
1984 The Sociology of Tourism:Approaches,Issues, and Findings. Annual Review
of Sociology 10:373-392.
Crick, Malcolm
1985 "Tracing" the Anthropological Self: Quizzical Reflections on Field Work,
Tourismand the Ludic. Social Analysis 17:71-92.
de Certeau,Michel
1984 The Practiceof EverydayLife. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Eco, Umberto
1986 Travels in Hyperreality.In Travels in Hyperreality:Essays. UmbertoEco, ed.
Pp. 3-58. San Diego: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Graburn,Nelson H. H.
1983 The Anthropologyof Tourism. Nelson Graburn,ed. Annals of Tourism Re-
search 10(1):9-33.
MacCannell,Dean
1976 The Tourist:A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken.
1989 Introduction.In Semiotics of Tourism. Dean MacCannell,ed. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 16(1):1-6.
Mulvey, Laura
1975 Visual Pleasureand NarrativeCinema. Screen 16(3):6-18.
Rosaldo, Renato
1989 Cultureand Truth:The Remakingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Smith, Valene L.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism. Revised edition 1989. Phila-
delphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Sontag, Susan
1973 On Photography.New York:Delta.
Stewart,Susan
1984 Objectsof Desire. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.