Tourism: maintaining stereotypes

The concept of bounded cultures is a contradiction. Many of us may think of cultures in a certain light, or even constricted to a certain box, but why? What do we think of when someone says they’re from India, or Japan, or England? Why do we have preconceived notions of what that person’s culture is and perhaps even how they should behave?

In later posts, we will concentrate our look at this statement considering the realm of food. But first let’s face the general facts: cultures don’t exist in a glass box, they never have and, in my opinion, never will. Many people believe that globalization will lead to a singular and "global" culture, where all our vast amount of differences will shrink. However, “in-authenticity” or borrowing and adopting has in fact been the norm of food culture and has not led to homogeneity. Instead can and will continue to lead to a third-space of Identities. Loose as well as precis methods and customs are not ahistorical, and migrations of people and goods, including food, have been ongoing through time and space. It is true that new identities will be formed, but this does not detract from “tradition” as even tradition is a dynamic and continuous process.

There are often two sides that one must choose from: authentic or apocryphal. Are you on the side of a closed-off cuisine, where food is relegated to the country it’s “from”? Or are you a globalized “foodie” with the understanding that different products, ideas, and practices will result? Do you have to choose just one side?

Yet, stereotypical and entrenched discourses, considering how we speak and think of  other cultures, highly influence how individuals and groups assume one another (Pratt Ewing, 2008, p. 184-211). Even if the intentions of tourism aim to be good, there is the underlying tensions of difference that exist, as hosts and tourists typically live very different lives. These moments of interaction highlight how the pleasure of one person often relies on the labor or subjugation of another (Pezzullo, 2007, p. 34-35).

The tourism industry is especially insidious when it comes to upholding stereotypes and ideas of what a culture or a region has to offer. Often, we in the West, or Global North, aim to promote “culture”, but as we choose to define it – cultures are “facts of nature” (Sylvain, 2008, p. 405). Adam Kuper even suggests that the American idea of “multiculturalism” is a new re-branding of “race” – where we can remain politically correct, yet still group people into somehow unchanging and fixed groups (qtd in Sylvain, 2008, p. 405). Unfortunately, this is quite beneficial in the eyes of the ethnotourism industry, where touring groups don’t want to see the “Bushmen” (the San) of the Kalahari on cellphones and wearing brand-name clothing. We want the “exotic” and “authentic” image of what we have seen in National Geographic and the like. It’s as if we won’t allow certain boundaries to be crossed if they violate our arbitrary and preconceived boundaries.

Figure 1 and 2: The difference an image makes - a member of the San poses, wearing different styles of clothing. Which one do you think tourists want to pay to see?

It’s pleasant to keep these categories up when we are in search of something “authentic”, but pretty horrific when looking at the bigger picture of globalization and transnationalism. Creating these strict images of what (or who) is “authentic” reifies notions of geographically-rooted differences - that differences between cultures are somehow inherent to the people who make up the space. We should aim to always be mindful of how personal identities have been defined, historically, and how that influences us presently. We learn who to accept and who to “Other” – it is not something in our blood or in nature. Katherine Pratt Ewing discusses the disadvantages of upholding ethnic boundaries, even hybrid ones, in her article on Turkish immigrant womens’ integration into German society. Pratt Ewing notes that the construction of hybrid ethnicities and cultures do not necessarily benefit individuals in a new country, but often promote divides between ethnic and cultural groups (2008, p. 185-187). Walls are built up and maintained through the hyphentated labels we place on others, i.e. German-Turkish. This creates a binary, where people are grouped into an essentialized approach to culture, and tension for those forced to subscribe to this limiting narrative. Furthermore, in the manner of labeling theory, these identities placed onto others can drastically affect the way individuals see themselves and thus behaviors they carry out. Labeling someone influences how they will continue to react to you, their society and themselves.

Is this created image of “Other” groups currently beneficial to anyone? While the San people may choose to dress and act in such colonial representations of the Global North, this is often due to the insidious identity expectations of the tourism industry. They make more money when they present a certain image. And, in another borrowed colonial concept, money provides security, status and safety. They are exploited for their “authenticity”. But what if tourists did not have such expectations of a “pristine primitive” dancing naked in their mind (Sylvain, 2008, p. 419)? Do we keep such strict boundaries on cultures and ethnicities simply because we have certain images formed in our minds of a distant past? Perhaps. Humans categorize everything – we are pattern-seeking and do this with people as well. It provides a certain level of comfort. But given this self-awareness, perhaps we can shift focus. Perhaps we can make ourselves uncomfortable. We can understand such categories and delineations as arbitrarily drawn, not objectively fixed, and could merely be interested in interacting and engaging with how other people live in their very active, dynamic present.

_________________________________________________

References

Pezzullo, P. C. (2007). Toxic tourism : Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environmental justice. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. doi:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.macewan.ca

Pratt Ewing, K. (2014). Between cinema and social work: Diasporic Turkish Women and the (dis)pleasures of hybridity. In J. X. Inda and R. Rosaldo (eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization (pp. 184-211). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Sylvain, R. (2014). Disorderly development: Globalization and the idea of "culture" in the Kalahari. In J. X. Inda and R. Rosaldo (eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization (pp. 403-432). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

*All images taken from creative commons