Review: Of Cannibals, Tourists, and Ethnographers Author(s): Edward M.

Bruner Reviewed work(s): Cannibal Tours by Dennis O'Rourke Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 438-445 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656251 Accessed: 22/02/2010 10:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

ReviewEssay

Of Cannibals, Tourists, and Ethnographers

Edward M. Bruner
Departmentof Anthropology Universityof Illinois

Cannibal Tours. Dennis O'Rourke. 77 minutes, color. 1987. Purchase $995 (16 mm), $350 (video); rental$175, from Direct Cinema Limited, P.O. Box 69799, Los Angeles, CA 90069 (213-652-8000).

CannibalTours, by AustralianfilmmakerO'Rourke, is aboutGerman,Italian, and Americantouristswho take a commercialgrouptourup the Sepik River in PapuaNew Guinea.The title of the film derivesfromthe fascinationof Western touristswith cannibalism.The touristsare aware that New Guinea has been pacified and that cannibalismis prohibited,but they want to experience the primitive, to visit a place wherecannibalismhad been practiced,to observe the peoples whose ancestorshad eaten human flesh, and to hear stories about the wild, the savage, and the exotic. If cannibalismwere still practiced, or if there were any of real danger, or if the infrastructure luxuriousriver boats, firstclass air-condiwere not present, the tourists, of tioned hotels, and moder air transportation course, would not go to New Guinea. They seek the titillationof a vicariousbrush with danger. They want to see firsthandthe ultimate savage Other, with penis sheath, paintedface, and spear, but only from the secure and safe vantagepoint of of luxurytourism,andonly afterthe disappearance the originalobject. Tourism and indeed, this preferencefor the simulacrum object, prefersthe reconstructed is the essence of postmoderntourism, where the copy is more than the original 1983; Eco 1986). (Baudrillard In the non-Western world, thereis probablyan optimumtime in local history for each kind of Europeanvisitor. Explorers, traders,missionaries, and colonialists come first, to discover, exploit, convert, and colonize, and are followed by and ethnographers eventually tourists, who come to study or just to observe the Other. Tourism, like ethnography,is not equipped to handle the rigors of first civilization have pacifiedthe contact,but does best afterotheragentsof European
438

CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 439

indigenouspeoples, and after power is firmly in the hands of the Europeans.In effect, afterthe primitiveculturehas been conquered,it may thenbe reconstituted in tourism, for the tourist world is one of the reconstructionand the simulacra. New Guinea tourismmay well be at a historical optimum, at a point where the but nativesare no longer threatening where thereare not yet hoardsof othertourists. It is upscaleadventure tourism,an off-the-beaten-track out-of-the-wayplace, whereEuropeandominationis so recent thatthe touristsfeel close to the past era of cannibalismand savagery, an era reproducedfor them in narrative perforand mance. In what he calls imperialistnostalgia, Rosaldo (1989) notes thatcolonialism frequentlyyearns for the "traditional"culture, the very culturethat the colonialists have intentionallyaltered or destroyed. But it is precisely this traditional culturethat the touristscome to see, and as it no longer exists, the culturemust be reconstructed them. Touristslong for the pastoral,for theirorigins, for the for unpolluted,the pure, and the original(Bruner1989), and in New Guineathey see themselves as exploring the forest primeval. The irony is that tourismseeks and occupies the ethnographicpresent, the very discursive space that colonialism mournsfor and thatethnography long since abandoned.Much as we may try has to deny or evade it, colonialism, ethnography,and tourismhave much in common, as they were born together and are relatives (Crick 1985; Graburn1983). Colonialism, ethnography,and tourism occur at different historical periods but arise from the same social formation,and are variantforms of expansionismoccupying the space opened up by extensions of power. From the perspective of tourismis an illegitimatechild, a disgracefulsimplification,and an ethnography, impostor(de Certeau 1984:143), and we strive to distinguishethnographyfrom tourism,for tourismis an assaulton our authorityand privilegedposition as ethfrom the perspective nographers.Although for us tourism is an embarrassment, of native peoples who are sometimes confused by the social distinctionsthat are apparentlyso importantto us, what we label as colonialism, ethnography,and tourismare experiencedin a comparablemanner.The colonialist, the ethnographer, and the tourist are similarly foreigners with great wealth and power who have come to New Guinea, each with their own particular demandsand idiosyncraticrequirements. the native peoples, we are the Other. To This bringsus to the most recentof these foreign visitorsto New Guinea, the German,Italian,andAmericantouristsandthe one who represents them, the AustralianfilmmakerDennis O'Rourke. As an interpretive with a reflexive bent who is writinga book anthropologist on touristperformances,I find O'Rourke'sfilm to be a fascinatingexplorationof ThirdWorldtourism,raisingquestionsthathave not yet received adequateattention in mainstreamanthropology.We have made a good beginning in the study of tourism(Cohen 1984; Graburn1983; MacCannell1976; Smith 1977), and due to the workof Foucault,Bourdieu, Said and others, we have become increasingly sophisticatedabout the kind of social theory needed in tourismresearch, theory that deals with representation and power, practice and discourse, the simulacra and the authentic.In this review essay, I discuss some of these theoreticalissues as they were suggested to me by viewing the film.

440 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Cannibaltourismmay appearto be a bizarreexception to the generalrun of Westerntourismthat seems so mild andbenign, but this is not the case. The tours offered in the industrialcountries appeal to the deepest recesses of the Western imagination.Tourismhas less to do with what other peoples are really like and more to do with how we imagine them to be, and in this respect is like any other form of representation, including ethnography.Here is a list of some organized toursoffered in recentyears: * Sex tourism, in which a groupof men fly to Thailand,or to Koreaor Taiwan, for a week, in orderto actualizeevery sexual fantasy, in any combination, includinghaving sex with children. Most popularin West Germanyand Japan, sex tourismturnsthe countryvisited into a grandbrothel. * Colonial tourism, developed in Indonesia for former Dutch colonials or theirfamilies, focuses on colonial sites and times, includingvisits to World War II Japaneseconcentration camps. * Shoppingtourism, taking groups of Americansto Italy for private showings of Italiandesigner clothing and other goods, with visits to small boutiques, all at a discount, an entiretourdevotedto shopping,the epitome of consumerism. * Commandotourism, in the United States, where "average" Americans receive militarytrainingin guerrillawarfareand in commandoexpeditions, including instructionin variousweapons systems, with live ammunition. * Explorertourism,thatreproducesthe greatexplorationsof the Age of Discovery, so thatthe touristcan follow the route and relive the experienceof being the firstin a new land. Thereare $35,000 toursto the SouthPole, and even plans for tourismin space. It may be noted thatthe river boat that takes the touristsup the Sepik is called the Melanesian Explorer, a name which has rathera romantic ring to it. Cannibal,sexual, colonial, consumer,military,andexplorertourshave their rootsin Westerncapitalistconsciousness. They aretoursof desire andtell us more about our society than about the society to be visited. They reflect a world in which one segment, affluent, civilized, and industrial,projects its desires onto anothersegment, poorer, more primitive, less developed. In tourism, the Third Worldbecomes a playgroundof the Westernimaginary,in which the affluentare scene in Cangiven the discursivespace to enact their fantasies. In a remarkable nibal Tours,on the last day of theirtour, the touristshave a farewellpartyon their boat, in which the touristspainttheirfaces in white stripedSepik designs andplay at being savages. They lunge as if to attackand then dance away, joke aboutthe wooden penis carvingsthey have purchased,and in a mock performance,enjoy a temporary regressionto savagery. But even duringthe day, in the routineof the tour,the tourists,in theirBananaRepublicsafariclothes, areliving out a fantasy. What O'Rourkedoes well is to show the activities and interactionsof the tourists,and to reveal throughinterviewsthe tourists'conceptionsof native peo-

CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 441

pies. As tourists are not a monolithic group, there are vast differences in their of understanding 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 his correctedby a young woman, apparently 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 disappearingprimitiveappearsmany times in touristdiscourse, just as it had been prominentin anthropological discourse (Clifford 1986). A well-traveledGermantouristnotes that native culturehas been disruptedand thatNew Guineais a poor country,so we must "shareour wealth with them." Touristviews runthe rangefrom naive to sophisticated, 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 understand why these foreignerstake of photographs everything," which is a very good anthropological question. 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 everythingoutside the frameof the viewfinderis removed from view, including the politics of the situation.In this sense, photography decontextualizes,and is essentially conservative. Further,the camera serves as a protective device for the tourist-photographers,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 mementosof theirtriparephotographs souvenirs,which serve as devices to elicit and storiesand memories. The narratives told 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.

442 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

and Photographs 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 purchased serves to personalizean impersonalgroup tour, for the hero of the story becomes the tourist. My comments about the function of photographsand souvenirs are speculative, of course, but valid or not, there is no doubtof the central of importance 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 between themselves and the tourists. One woman says "You white people have all the money," and is particularly disturbedby the bargainingpracticesof the tourists who, prompted the tourguides, always rejectthe firstprice offered and ask by 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 mystification. 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. of Thus, in the interactionsbetween the touristsand the local representatives 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 relationship, 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 phocharges the tourists $2 per camerato take tographs,and one local entrepreneur inside the spirithouse. Money is exchanged. When touristspurchasenapictures tive craftsandsouvenirsthe bargainingis bloodthirsty,with the tourguides taking the side of the tourists. The tourists are not familiarwith local purchasingpractices, 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-

CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 443

ists. The system is so constructedthatthe touroperatorsandtheiragents, who are of the masterminds the entireoperationand who gain the most profit, pose as the defendersof the tourists against the crooked natives who are trying to cheat by overchargingfor their handicrafts.The victims of the system are the native vendors, who find themselves confused by their predicamentof dealing with obviously wealthy touristswho, strangely,insist on hardbargainingfor every item. Touristswho spend $4,000 on a two-week tourpackage will bargainthe price of a carvingdown from $5 to $3, for partof touristdiscourse is that naive tourists pay higherprices than local residents, and the touristsdo not want to be duped. Certainly, some tourists are duped, but the way the system operates in New Guineaand elsewhere victimizes the native peoples. Given the fact that international mass tourism is part of a purely commercial transaction,an exchange of money for experience and memories, I find the host-guest metaphor,sometimes used to describethe native-tourist relationship,to be thoroughlymisleading.2 In Cannibal Tours one hears the tourist and the native voices, but what of the filmmaker'svoice? My major criticism of O'Rourke is that his film is not reflexive enough. At times, one hears a question asked by an interviewer,but all too often the informants'statementsare presentedwithout any indicationof the contextof the interview, or of the presence of the interviewer.I find it especially annoyingwhen what is clearly a single interview is brokenup into two or three segments, I suppose for aestheticeffect, but it makes following the argumentdifficult. Interspersed with the film showing presentday New Guinea are old black andwhite still photographs the colonial era, of the time of Germancolonization of before World War I. Some of these photographs are exquisite, and serve O'Rourke'spurpose of contrastingthe old days with the present, of comparing colonialism with tourism. O'Rourkeis very sophisticatedin his use of sound effects, and I especially enjoyed the music by Mozart and the sounds of someone turningthe dial of a shortwaveradio, as if to remind us that we are still in the moderncivilized world. Thereis muchabouttourismin PapuaNew GuineathatO'Rourkeleaves out of the film that I wished he would have included. I wanted to see more of the for performances tourists,the sing-sings and dances, and I wantedmore attention devotedto the tour agents and the tour guides. Why couldn't we have had interviews with these guides, so as to heartheirvoice andtheirperspective?The entire infrastructure tourism, not only the agents and guides but also the hotels, the of crew of the MelanesianExplorer, and certainlythe scene in the towns could have been included, but maybe this is asking too much. O'Rourkeis not an ethnographer, he is a filmmaker,and there is no doubt that he has made a visually interesting film on a fascinatingtopic, one thatI have shown to my seminaron tourism and ethnographic That showing led to a good discussion comparrepresentation. film and ethnography,or visual and verbalrepresentations,and to a comparing ison of the strengthsof each medium. The advertisementfor the film states, "This gently ironic film neithercondones nor condemns the touristsor the PapuaNew Guineans." I disagree. As I see the film, O'Rourke'sview is thattourismis neocolonialismand that the New

444 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

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 'The reversetrend,of course, as MacCannell(1989:1) andBuck-Morss(1987) note, is one in which thereis a flow in the opposite direction,as workers,refugees, anddisplacedpeoples from the peripherymove to the capitalistcenters, undoubtedlywith their own projected images of wealth, security, and power. 2Thebook edited by Valene L. Smith, Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism, especially the revised 1989 edition, contains some excellent materials,despite the title. References Cited Barthes,Roland 1981 CameraLucida. New York:Hill and Wang. Jean Baudrillard, 1983 Simulations.New York:Semiotext (e). Bruner,EdwardM. 1989 CreativePersonnaand the Problemof Authenticity.In Creativityin Anthropology. SmadarLavie, Kirin Narayan, and Renato Rosaldo, eds. Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress (in press). Buck-Morss,Susan 1987 Semiotic Boundariesand the Politics of Meaning:Modernityon Tour-A Village in Transition.In New Ways of Knowing;The Sciences, Society, andReconstructive Knowledge. MarcusG. Raskin and HerbertJ. Bernstein,eds. Pp. 200-236. Totowa, N.J.: Rowmanand Littlefield. Clifford,James 1986 On Ethnographic Allegory. In WritingCulture:The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.James Clifford and George E. Marcus, eds. Pp. 98-121. Berkeley: Universityof 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.

ANDETHNOGRAPHERS CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, 445 Eco, Umberto 1986 Travels in Hyperreality.In Travels in Hyperreality:Essays. UmbertoEco, ed. Pp. 3-58. San Diego: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich. Nelson H. H. Graburn, 1983 The Anthropologyof Tourism. Nelson Graburn,ed. Annals of Tourism Research 10(1):9-33. MacCannell,Dean 1976 The Tourist:A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken. 1989 Introduction. Semiotics of Tourism. Dean MacCannell,ed. Annals of TourIn 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. Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. Sontag, Susan 1973 On Photography.New York:Delta. Stewart,Susan 1984 Objectsof Desire. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.