Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 203±224, 2000 # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/99/$20.00+0.00

PII: S0160-7383(99)00066-3

THE SELF AND THE OTHER

Traveler, Ethnographer, Tourist Vasiliki Galani-Mouta® University of the Aegean, Greece Abstract: This paper, by presenting examples from the areas of ethnographic practice, tourism discourse, and travel narrative, sheds light on the process of self-discovery and selfrepresentation which results from the gazing into the elsewhere and the Other. In this regard, it highlights certain differences between modernity and postmodernity. A key question asked is how similar or different are encounters of travelers, ethnographers and tourists with the Other, their lived experience of travel and their representations of the self and the Other. All three cross geographical and cultural boundaries but tourists and travelers may not achieve the type of self-consciousness that anthropologists working within a self-re¯exive paradigm attain when gazing at the Other. Keywords: self, other, ethnography, tourism, travel, experience, modernity, postmodernity. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Âsume Â: Le moi et l'autre: voyageur, ethnographe, touriste. Cet article, en preÂsentant des Re exemples des domaines de pratique ethnographique, de discours de tourisme et de narration de voyage, Âeclaire le processus de la deÂcouverte et de la repreÂsentation de soi-meÃme qui Á cet reÂgard, l'article souligne reÂsulte de la contemplation de l'ailleurs et de l'autre. A certaines diffeÂrences entre modernite et postmoderniteÂ. On pose une question cleÂ: si les rencontres des voyageurs, des ethnographes et des touristes avec l'autre, ainsi que leurs expeÂriences veÂcues des voyages et leurs repreÂsentations du moi et de l'autre, sont similaires ou diffeÂrentes. Tous les trois traversent des frontieÁres geÂographiques et culturelles, mais il est possible que les touristes et les voyageurs n'atteignent pas le meÃme type de conscience de soi que les anthropologues qui travaillent en partant d'un paradigme de re¯exion de soi Âs: le moi, l'autre, ethnographie, tourisme, voyage, exet en regardant vers l'autre. Mots-cle peÂrience, moderniteÂ, postmoderniteÂ. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION This paper presents examples from the areas of travel narrative, ethnographic practices, and tourism discourse in order to shed light on the process of self-discovery and self-representation which results from the gazing into the elsewhere and the Other. It asks how similar or dissimilar are encounters of such groups as ethnographers, travelers and tourists with the so-called Other in terms of how they live their experience of travel and how they create representations

Vasiliki Galani-Mouta® is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Anthropology, University of the Aegean (Karantoni 17, Mytilene 81100, Greece. Email < v.mouta®@sa.aegean.gr >). She has done anthropological research on the impact of tourism on marriage, dowry, and women's status in a community of the Aegean island of Samos. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies.

203

204

SELF AND OTHER

of themselves and the Other. All three journey beyond their geographical and cultural boundaries but the practices and images of tourists and travelers suggest that they do not necessarily achieve the type of self-consciousness attained by anthropologists who work within a self-re¯exive paradigm as they gaze at the Other. Passing through different locations and crossing personal and cultural boundaries, explorers, missionaries, colonial of®cers, military personnel, migrants, emigrants, exiles, domestic servants, anthropologists, and tourists have their own travel histories. Yet, despite certain exceptions, especially in the area of pilgrimage, the status of traveler has been assigned predominantly to the economically welloff, white, European male who has embarked on voyages motivated by heroic, educational, scienti®c, and recreational purposes. In the Western discourse, the spatial practices of migrant workers, domestic servants, and refugees have not quali®ed as travel for reasons related to race and class (Clifford 1997:32±33). Among the nonwhites and the white lower class men and women, the changing of localities has been treated as denoting a basically involuntary sort of displacement; an experience marked by dependence and supposedly lacking in adventure, learning, exploring, and self-indulgence. The experiences of individuals from such social categories have been neglected or misunderstood because they have not produced diaries, books, travelogues nor been represented adequately in the literature of the social sciences. Yet, regardless of how it is conceived, travel has historically involved both the materially privileged and the oppressed; what is at issue are the different cultural, political, and economic compulsions that move people away from home. In the history of the Western world there have been many reasons why people traveled: searching for a religious experience through pilgrimage, seeking adventure as well as economic and social advancementÐboth in the context of colonial expansion and emigrationÐfor reasons related to the expansion of commerce or the practice of certain trades, or for seeking refuge, in exile, from persecution. Along with adventurers and wanderers, early travelers have been characterized as proto-anthropologists and proto-tourists (Crick 1985:76) for reasons concerning the prehistory and the early history of anthropology and also because of the relation linking the anthropologist to the tourist. They both share common origins, which can be traced to the explorer, the missionary, the merchant, and the traveler. Comparing the latter, the anthropologist, and the tourist on the basis of the diverse qualities of their experiences, it is possible to highlight the conditions under which the journey may or may not allow for the challenge of one's distinctions between self and Other. This paper focuses on the similarities and differences among the three with reference to the lived experience of travel, the encounter with the Other, the relationship of self to the latter, and the production (presentation) of the self in the context of travel discourse. It can be argued that the journey has the potential to facilitate a re-setting of boundaries as the traveling self, besides moving from

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

205

one place to another, may embark in an additional journeying practice, having constantly to negotiate between the familiar and the unknown, between a here, a there, and an elsewhere (Minh-ha 1994:9). Furthermore, considering that travelers can acquire experiences and undergo transformations, the journey may be seen as a type of passage in time. The interlocking dimensions of time and space make the journey a potent metaphor that symbolizes the simultaneous discovery of self and the Other. It is precisely this capacity for mirroring the inner and the outer dimensions that makes possible the ``inward voyage'', whereby a movement through geographical space is transformed into an analogue for the process of introspection. As Clifford states, ``a journey makes sense as a coming to consciousness'' (1988:167). Through their descriptions which structure and give meaning to their experiences in the process of narration, travelers can re¯ect upon their journeys in ways that produce images of self and identity (Neuman 1992:177±178). This paper presents examples from the areas of travel, ethnography, and tourism, in an effort to shed light on the narrations of the self which give rise to identities. The issue of people going places is important because it relates to notions of boundary, inside and outside, distance and difference, all of which enter into the construction and renegotiation of the self. It is commonplace that identities are constructed in relation to difference and not outside of it. That is, only in the context of the relation with the OtherÐconcerning what it is not or what it precisely lacksÐcan ``identity'' be produced and conceptualized (Butler 1993; Derrida 1981; Laclau 1990). In fact, to speak in psychoanalytic terms, and on the basis of Lacan's problematic, the self is constructed through the image of the Other. One reaches a selfrealization in view of that from whom he/she differs. Identity is constructed in a way which is analogous to languageÐas is, according to Lacan, the unconsciousÐin that, the assignment of meaning takes place within relations of similarity and difference between the words of a language code. Philosophers of language, like Derrida, argue that the speaker cannot produce a ®rm and unchanging meaningÐincluding the meaning of identityÐbecause, by its nature, conceptualization is something changeable: it seeks stability and integration (of identity) but it is continuously ruptured and transformed (because of the difference). Overall, the process of identity construction is subject to the ``game'' of difference and presupposes the drawing of symbolic boundaries. TRAVEL IN THE MODERN AND POSTMODERN AGE In the age of modernity, travel practices, and the changes they underwent can be traced in various contexts: in anthropology's representations of the exotic and the primitive prior to the emergence of the on-the-ground professional researcher; in the accounts written by travelers visiting areas of the Mediterranean (such as Greece) during the Victorian era; in the images of destination

206

SELF AND OTHER

places and of the traveling self arising from mass tourism; and in the information disclosed by ethnographies about the anthropologist's journeys and their quality of exploration. Victorian Travel and Anthropological Evolutionism The construction of otherness and the formation of the self comprise the quintessential of anthropological practice, which centers on ®eldwork. In the world of ®eldwork, ethnography is the product of the encounterÐinterpersonal and interculturalÐwith the Other. However, as a scienti®c ®eld which was built upon the historically constructed distinction between the West and the non-Western world, anthropology has been primarily the study of the nonWestern Other by the Western self. Upon its establishment, in the late 19th century, anthropology sought to cover the space of the ``savage'', within a wider thematic ®eld, taking on a role which until then had been played by philosophy, literature, and the written works of Victorian travelers and missionaries. Richard Burton, David Livingstone, and Henry Stanley were a few of those prominent authors who represented the Victorian travel book. For example, Livingstone's popular work Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa (1857) was largely devoted to a 4-year period wandering in southern Africa. Anthropology's early attempt to represent the primitive Other was later taken over largely by the mass media and tourism advertising, which sought to conquer the ethnographic present, a discursive space which was lost to colonialism and abandoned by ethnography. Within the Western tradition of travel, explorers, missionaries, colonial of®cers, and natural scienti®c researchers preceded the emergence of the on-the-ground anthropological professional. However, many of these produced works that in¯uenced the thinking of the armchair anthropologists in the latter part of the last century. Victorian travelers and Christian missionaries were nonprofessional observers who journeyed to distant lands not only for reasons imposed by various activities (such as commercial ones) but also to acquire the experience of ®rst hand encounters with people in unknown places. This experience has a de®nite romantic dimension from both a historical and a sentimental perspective. In the tradition of these non-professional observers belonged the producers of the ®rst ethnographic accounts which came to be used by metropolitan scholars like Edward Tylor, Lewis Morgan, James Frazer, and others. The ``of®cial'' (academic) audience addressed by many of that period's writers of ethnographic studies (as, i.e., the missionaries Robert Moffat, David Livingstone, and Henry Callaway) represent the ``main trend'' of evolutionism that coincides with the establishment of anthropology as a scienti®c ®eld (Thornton 1983:504). Regarding the method, there prevailed a division of labor between the producers of information (the ``on site'' observers) and the metropolitan analysts. The former presented their written accounts

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

207

as ``scienti®c'' because they addressed scholars in the academic world. Thus, while the content of their texts was a product of the unique and non-reproduceable experience of observation and encounter with the Other, it was nevertheless presented as part of a universal and apparently objective ``science''. In this way, ethnography became academic. What was not revealed were the conditions under which each ethnography was created, particularly, the involvement and attitudeÐintersubjective, moral and politicalÐof its writer (Thornton 1983:517). In Victorian Europe, the morally informed anxieties of the missionaries and the colonialists found a perfect ®t next to evolutionism, which thrived during the 19th century and provided the logic for a moral classi®cation of society. Yet, for the theologians and the supporters of Darwinism, more important proved the non-scienti®c, moral and atemporal classi®cation that was implied by the bible or social Darwinism, and which not only provided the Europeans with an identity but justi®ed their actions as well. For the Western intellectuals of the time, the Other provided evidence of a living specimen with all the defects of a distant past, which the course of evolution had cured in Western societies (Tyler 1986:127±128). The armchair anthropologists viewed the primitive and without ``history'' Other through the lens of a unilineal model that predicated the classi®cation of societies along a hierarchical scale de®ned in terms of time and morality (McGrane 1989:93). Primitive societies were used as a time machine through which one could travel back to the Western world's distant past and return, thereby, to the childhood age of humanity. Thus, in anthropological evolutionism, the Other was encountered both through representatives and outside of time. Furthermore, the understanding of otherness was not the result of travel but, rather, travel itself presupposed an already constructed image of the Other (Fabian 1983:121). Finally, in the 18th century and during the period of anthropological evolutionism, travel also led to the appropriation and collection of the Other. Of course, the collecting activities and this appropriation were not limited to the primitive world since they also prevailed in the area of the Mediterranean associated with classical antiquity. In this case, what is particularly interesting is the way travelers in the past approached antiquity in order to locate the not-so-distant Others, their ancestors. The World of Greek Classical Antiquity Within the Western European traveling tradition, the Mediterranean region served as a mirror into which the traveler could seek his/her own roots, even though it was also marked off by a distinctive otherness. Regarding Greece, the ambiguity of its status, re¯ected in the views of Europeans writing travel accounts in the 19th century, stemmed from its location ``on the margins'' of Europe (Herzfeld 1987). The narrative accounts of many of the travelers who visited Greece during the 18th and 19th centuries pre-

208

SELF AND OTHER

sent a highly ambiguous conception of the distinction between the ``familiar'' and the ``foreign'', reveal a possessive obsession with archaeological treasures, and shed light on the self-Other relation, showing how the journey can facilitate self-understanding and the construction of identity. This allowed most of these travelers to link the academic (classical) hellenism with its places of origin and, by abolishing time, to experience in the present the grandeur of an imagined past. This type of attitude is captured in the following passage from the writings of the French diplomat Marie-Gabriel de Choiseul-Gouf®er who traveled to Greece in the latter part of the 18th century: When I was leaving Paris to visit Greece, I only wanted to satisfy the passion of my youth for the most celebrated places of antiquity . . . I was tasting in advance the pleasure of going over this beautiful and illustrious region, a Homer and a Herodotus in hand, of feeling more vividly the rich beauties depicted in the Poet's images (Augustinos 1994:163).

Marking and describing various phenomena which he encounters in his journey, the traveler can present a much more encompassing picture of the self than any autobiography. Thus, for example, in his work Itineraire de Paris Áa Jerusalem et de Jerusalem Áa Paris (1811), which describes a 10-month voyage that took him around the shores of the Mediterranean, Francois Chateaubriand writes that he ``. . . was going to visit the Parthenon and Jerusalem as an offspring of Pindus and a crusader of Jerusalem'' (Augustinos 1994:185). In this particular work, the writer's identity is constructed through a dynamic relationship between the external world and the inner self in which one stimulated the other. In his attempt to portray the self, Chateaubriand used the journey as a metaphor, a source of symbols imprinted on the landscape, that stirred in memory especially meaningful legendary and historical events. He saw his voyage to the East in terms of representations of pilgrimages and missions of his compatriots and lived mentally their passion and belief. Referring to his visit to the Holy Places, he wrote: I was going to touch these shores which the Godefrois, the Richards, the Joinvilles, and the Cousis had visited like me. Obscure pilgrim that I am, will I dare to trample a soil consecrated by so many illustrious pilgrims? At least I too have faith and honor: and by virtue of these qualities I would still be recognized by the ancient crusaders (Augustinos 1994:216).

Of course, Chateaubriand was not a religious pilgrim, but a literary one, and his voyage to the Orient was above all a personal exploration. It was a more inward and less external adventure as well as a negation of the present and an immersion into a utopia of the past. He sought a restitution of the past in his own consciousness and memory and, in this effort, the physical world provided for him the necessary medium for self-expansion. For this reason, Chateaubriand's focal points were mainly the historical sites and monuments that had engraved on them the marks of the past,

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

209

while the moden Greeks entered only in the periphery of his interests. From works such as that of Chateaubriand it can deduced that part of what the voyage promised in the past was the possibility for the traveler to live and develop self-awareness in new ways. In general, the narratives of travelers who visited Greece prior to the advent of mass tourism, produced images of the self that reveal endurance, resistance, perseverance but also haughtiness, arrogance, and egocentrism as well as a possessive passion for the achaeological treasures. In these accounts one also notes a reversal of the basic contrast ``familiar±foreign''. The world of antiquity was not the unknown but the familiar, which led the traveler to return to his youth. Thus, antiquity was revealed as one's spiritual homeland, the past which one carried within himself/herself. But the relationship between present and past was also reversed. The immersion into the memory of the past required the non-recognition of the present, especially since it was a present that could not be identi®ed with the ``us''. For example, Johann Bachofen, in his Greek Voyage, a work published in 1851 and imbued with romanticism, saw a continuity with ancient Greece in certain unconsciously inherited characteristics which the modern Greeks exhibited; at the same time, however, he saw a break with the ancient past both in the way of thinking and in the consciousness of modern Greeks (Andonopoulou 1997:35±36). The shocking antithesis between the idea and the reality of Greece had also disillusioned Gouf®er, who reported to have obtained some pleasure only from the contemplation of scenes reminiscent of antiquity. A gathering of old men on the island of Siphnos eagerly asking the foreign visitors for news of the outside world evoked for Gouf®er scenes of antiquity: I thought I was transported to the fair days of Greece; these porticoes, this popular assembly of old men to whom one listened with respectful silence, their faces, their clothes, their language, everything reminded me of Athens or Corinth (Augustinos 1994:166).

The above examples suggest that the traveler recognized a (Greek) present only in those cases where he/she did not see threads of continuity in the relationship between ancient and modern Greece; that present, he/she incorporated it in the category of ``foreign'' (as unpredictable, odd and undesirable) and maintained it at a distance from the category ``us''. It could be argued that the travel narrative exposes the writer to the Other and allows, thereby, for the discovery of the self; thus, it informs primarily about the traveling hero rather than about those he encounters. The latter appear only through the writer's experienceÐnot as individuals in and of themselves. As for the term ``foreign'', its meaning is associated with the construction of boundaries and it is mobilized for purposes of exclusion. The characterization ``foreign'' is a way of excluding the Other from whatever one wishes to safeguard as his/her ownÐa way of de®ning one's own self. By the 20th century, the ``foreign'' is constructed and projected by the international communication and advertising media in order to be availed to tourists as a commodity.

210

SELF AND OTHER

Tourist Travel The late 19th century is considered the period when travel declined, with the rise of mass tourism; it is the period when the processes of democratization and commercialization of tourism began (Boorstin 1964). In the context of the conceptual distinction established in the literature between travel and tourism, the tourist is presented as unadventurous and lacking initiative and discrimination, whereas the traveler is associated with the values of discernment, respect, and taste. While travel is seen as a resource in the endeavor of self-realization, tourism is considered to actually con®rm one's view of the world rather than transforming it (Rojek 1993:175). Undoubtedly, most tourists visiting Greece today do not combine, in their experiences, tourism and culture, as was the case for travelers in past centuries. Such tourists are bent on having fun and do not ``read'' the contemporary Greeks' cultural ways through the lens of Western classical imagery. As they basically seek the aesthetically appealing, and turn away from ``serious'' images, tourists end up with a conception of Greece that is not so much associated with a classical past but with the stimulation of the senses. The separation of popular pleasure from high culture is a characteristic of modernity, which has tended to insist on distinct social practices and rules of divisionÐsuch as between public and private life, home and abroad, art and life (Rojek and Urry 1997:3). Given that the tourist gaze is constructed through signs, the portrait of modern Greece in the tourist literature is a mixture of sandy beaches, bottles of retsina (resinated wine) and ouzo (alcholic drink), bouzouki (sort of mandoline) players and dancers of syrtaki (type of dance), and the symbol of the Parthenon. This type of gaze, ``authorized'' mainly by the discourse of play and pleasure, can be contrasted to the gaze of travelers like Chateaubriand, which was embedded in the discourse of education (the latter meant to yield a heightened experience of self-realization). It could also be argued, following Urry (1990:86±87), that the Victorian traveler to Greece represented the ``romantic'' gaze whose ``solitary'' appreciation of the ancient sites and the magni®cent landscapes required cultural capital, whereas the mass tourist visiting the country today represents the ``collective'' tourist gaze. The latter is oriented towards popular pleasures, discourages an elitist, private-type of contemplation, and aims at high levels of popular participation. It is exemplary of postmodern culture's tendency to affect the audience through its immediate, pleasure-inducing impact, and not through formal aesthetic properties. It is also interesting that some of the signs making up Greece's tourism image are often used by non-tourist discourses as well; they serve the purpose of marketing programs or commodities which are generated outside Greece but are either located or carried out within the country. Thus, information supplied through the web page of the Internet on an American-sponsored College Semester Abroad program in Greece begins with the following passage:

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

211

GreeceÐor Hellas as it has been known since ancient timesÐis a spectacular country that speaks to all of our senses. Ancient temples built overlooking the clear-blue waters of the Aegean Sea . . . Feta (white cheese) and tomatoes draped with pure olive oil . . . Bouzoukis, violins, and lyres accompanying dancers in the air . . . Wild goats perched on top of rugged mountains. These are only a few of the precious images from the unique cultural and natural landscape of the islands of Greece (http://www.worldlearning.org/ csa/europe/greece_pom.html)

The particular program exempli®es the breakdown of the boundary between education and tourism, spheres of activity which have been kept distinct under the culture of modernity. The idea behind the program's philosophy and marketing rhetoric is that education (and the type of ``work'' it entails) can take place in non-conventional settings and situations (while traveling and living with host families in a foreign country), and that it can also allow for ``leisurely'' experiences; this underlying orientation provides evidence of the de-differentiation of spaces and functions, one of the key characteristics of postmodernity (Rojek 1993:188). Tourists embark on their journeys with already formed images, largely the product of popular cultural representations and of touristic discourse; they also expect to be entertained and exposed to performances whichÐwithout violating their aestheticsÐare different from those of their familiar world. A place is transformed into a tourism site through a system of symbolic and structural processes which follow the direction marked by the dominant discourse. The latter in¯uences the way tourists ``read'', ``appropriate'', and ``exploit'' the areas they visit. For a place to be considered suitable for aesthetic appropriation, it must be distinguished from everyday life on account of its natural, historical, or cultural extraordinariness. As the dominant narration exerts a control over such a place, it turns it into a tourist object. What follows is an example of how the tourist industry presents sights, and how advertising seeks to entice tourists with evocations of `'exotic'' worlds. This passage, obtained from a Greek travel magazine, introduces a narrative which presents Cuba under the caption ``Cuba, cigars, rum, and surrealism''. It [Cuba] believes deeply in Fidel Castro and takes steps towards economic reform. It dreams and makes you dream. Between its aged past, which is prevalent everywhere, and its thirst for life, it seduces you with a cocktail of rhumba rhythms and salsa. With bicycles running everywhereÐdue to a shortage of gasolineÐand its fascinating religious rituals which captivate you, the Cuba of Che Guevara and Hemingway gives lessons in courage and hope (Cosmos Travel 1996).

In the presentation, the country's distinctive otherness is marked ®rst of all by a key national symbol, its leader Castro, whose name conjures up images of resistance, heroism, and unsurpassable endurance. The tourist is then enticed with evocations of a place that offers what is missing from one's ordinary/everyday existence

212

SELF AND OTHER

(at ``home'')Ðthe dream. Dreaming amounts to an imaginative journey which only the unfamiliar, the ``alien'', can bring about. The references to rhumba and salsa, which also play an important role in the dreaming, evoke a stimulation of the senses either in ways foreign to one's sociocultural routine or at a level higher than the ordinary. As for the revolutionary ®gure, Che Guevara, and the famous American novelist, Hemingway, they are used in an attempt to link Cuba to world symbols that embody the unique or the ideal in thought and action. Further, the religious rituals are mentioned because of an association with Latin exuberance, color, sensuality, and mysticism. In the same magazine, a presentation of the Aegean island of Kos begins with the title ``From the Philosophy of Hippocrates to Night Entertainment''. It reads: As the ship enters the harbor, you are welcomed by the magni®cent castle of the Knights of Saint John, which predisposes you for the Italian taste of the island's architecture . . . Hippocrates gives you a tour of the Asclepium, and initiates you into the secrets of herbs. And you, yourself, travel, on a bicycle, from the past to the present and plot your personal itinerary to discover the place that was declared ``City of Europe'' for ``96'' (Cosmos Travel 1996:126± 127).

In this passage, the advertising discourse seeks to ``exoticize'' an Aegean island and make it ``distant'', symbolically, for Greek tourists. This is accomplished through references to both the Castle's bearing architectural traces of an Italian past, and to the presence of Hippocrates who leads the tourist to nature's ``mysteries''. The ®rst reference emphasizes the island's history while the second identi®es the place with practices imbued with the qualities of myth. Indeed, in urging the tourist to pass from the past to the present, the narrative assigns to this person the status of time traveler who goes somewhere ``historic''. But the marketing strategy does not end here. The impression created is that present-day Kos is equally important as ancient (mythical) Kos because it meets the standards of a powerful ``foreign'' entity, the European Union. The association with Europe is not only meant to be ¯attering but also to create high expectations in comparison with what one is used to at ``home''. Despite the claims made often by the advertising industry that travel has the capacity to transform the tourist's self (Bruner 1991:241±242), the experience cannot be interpreted in terms of the quest for authenticity (MacCannell 1989). This is partly because televisual culture blurs the distinction between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Representational codesÐsigns, images and symbolsÐrooted in televisual culture, make a sight accessible in everyday life. In speaking of the process of indexing of representations, Rojek (1997:70±71) refers to tourist perceptions drawing on a series of visual, textual and symbolic representations to the original object (in guide books, movies, television shows, and travelers' tales). The concept of indexing refers to a range of representations. Therefore,

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

213

tourist perceptions consist of a mixture of elements. Because such elements draw on representations which appear largely in movies and television shows, the sights are often anti-climatic experiences (in the sense that one feels that his/her expectations are not met). Further, sights have no single or original meanings, since one might frame the sight by indexing cultural items from cinema, television, and literary works. Because electronically derived images are so powerful in framing one's perception of a place, the tourist does not resist this version of reality. The indexing of representations involved in perceptions means that the quest for authenticity cannot serve as a force of motivation for tourists. Rojek argues that the pleasure and excitement felt by them while traveling is in part associated with the switching of routines (1997:55±56). It is the constant need for new distractions, rather than the authenticity of sights, that prompts tourists to travel. Ethnographic Travel Unlike tourism, which emphasizes mainly the visual dimension of the intercultural encounter, ethnography relies mostly on its discursive side. If the tourist who travels in groups tends to surrender the control of his/her journey to others, the ethnographer is in constant struggle to attain a deep insight into another culture. Given Dubisch's argument (1995:33) that anthropologists experience things during their research journeys that do not occur at homeÐ and this, by implication, differentiates them from touristsÐwhat new awareness of himself/herself can the anthropologist attain because of ethnographic travel? Malinowski's travel practice in the 20s marked the onset of a new paradigm of knowledge which requires the active engagement of the anthropologist in the society of the Other. In this sense, ethnographic travel came to be identi®ed with a new form of exploration, ®eldwork, which has become the critical point in the research process and in the anthropologist's career. Malinowski's pioneering example has shown that ethnographic research reveals hidden or unknown aspects of the investigator him/herself and, the reverse, that autobiography can shed light on ethnography (Stocking 1983); in other words, ®eldwork connects an important personal experience with a general ®eld of knowledge (Hastrup 1992). To understand the distinct quality of exploration that ethnographic travel entails, one must examine how the relationship with the Other is experienced and revealed, how experience is transformed into authority in the ethnographic text, and how the anthropologist, as writer, constructs the self and the Other. The ethnographies of the 20s and 30s share many similarities with travel writing. This is evident in the emphasis attributed by the writer to his/her journey to another place to experience the Other, as well as in the role of travel in romantic imagination. In his work Argonauts of the Western Paci®c (1922), Malinowski invites the reader to join him on a journey which would reveal to him/her the

214

SELF AND OTHER

native's adventures in the Melanesian archipelago. This work can be seen as a story of adventure involved in travel, but also as an allegorical journey from the European macrocosm to the microcosm of the Trobrianders. The Argonauts could be characterized as a metaphorical journey into human nature, a heroic attempt of immersion into another culture with the prospect of achieving a deeper understanding of human nature (Thornton 1985:8). In dealing with the experience of travel, Malinowski approached the ideal of the participant observer by introducing a self-image deriving from the annals of travel writing. In the Argonauts' famous opening lines, he writes: Imagine yourself suddenly set down surrounded by your gear, alone on a tropical beach close to a native village, while the launch or dinghy which has brought you sails away out of sight (1922:4).

The image of the castaway is suggestive of a utopian model for the ethnographer, considering that castaways, whose condition is characterized by innocence, approach in certain ways the ideal of participant observer. Many classical ethnographies include the stereotypical ``myth of encounter'' which explains how the ethnographer was elevated to the status of ``recognized'' participant observer. Such a myth usually begins by depicting the ethnographer's initial ignorance, given that he/she has no contacts, ®nds himself/ herself in a state of confusion, and is inevitably led to misinterpretations. In other words, metaphorically, his/her situation can be portrayed as a childlike state. With time, however, the confusion and innocence are replaced by a mature, sound, and infallible knowledge. Such ``transformative'' myths create the impression of a deep immersion in the local societyÐand, consequently, an insight from withinÐwhich allows the writer to appear in the rest of his ethnographic work as a well informed interpreter and representative of the society he/she has studied (Clifford 1988:39±40). Modern ethnography's textual production has been in¯uenced largely by the positivist history of social anthropology, which extolled the neutral, non-personal, and scienti®c character of the endeavor. As a result, it has tended to reveal the ``personal'' only to the extent that the researcher's experience could function as a unifying source of authority. In the past, anthropologists would introduce the ®rst person, I, in key points of their ethnographic monographs, in order to simply give validity to their work and to their role as interpreters (Clifford 1986; Pratt 1986; Rosaldo 1986); otherwise, the self was absent from their written works. Furthermore, in the descriptions of arrivals, the I did not derive as much from the practice of ®eldwork as from the Western tradition of travel writing. The separation of the self and personal narratives from ``objective'' observations and descriptions was dictated by the long established tradition in Western social sciences of assigning the personal (emotional) to the area of the ``just anecdote'' or the trivial (Okely 1992:6). However, despite the curbing of autobiographic narratives, the anthropological self often found escape either in literature, where it was trans-

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

215

formed into a product of imagination, or in the secret information of diaries. The diary was used by Malinowski as a space where the self could be separated from the aspiring scientist and be able to express its anxiety, anger, confusion, and even its most secret fantasies. It was for this reason that its publication caused serious objections concerning anthropology's public image. Yet, the everyday and the inter-subjective condition, in conjunction with the revelation of the personal, comprise those exact elements that give special value to Malinowski's diary (A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term, 1967). The detailed examination of both the Diary and the Argonauts, as examples of writing, allows one to understand that the personal/ emotional and the theoretical cannot be easily separated from each other nor from the entire cognitive/intellectual process. As Clifford (1988:102±104) argues, the writing of ethnography, and particularly the construction of the myth of culture, functioned for Malinowski as a way of attaining the unity of the self. In his ethnographic works, the constructed wholes of self and cultureÐthe latter resulting from the functionalist analytical approachÐcan be viewed as interdependent allegories of identity. In the decades of the 60s and 70s a series of ethnographic works were published which examined the anthropologist's relationship to his/her own self as participant observer and interpreter. Yet, the personal descriptions associated with ®eldwork were usually incorporated in volumes separate from those of the ``formal'' ethnographies. This separation reveals a dual approach consisting of public/ private, objective/subjective spheres of experience. Colin Turnbull, for example, ®rst published a descriptive account (1961), written in the ®rst person, of his ®eldwork among the Pygmies of the Congo, and published 5 years later on the same theme, his more ``objective'' monograph (1965). Things started to change in the 80s, with the emergence of narrative ethnography which focused on the ethnographic dialogue or the encounter with the cultural Other. It also became understood that the researcher is not a politically impartial observer nor a stable, monolithic, or uni®ed self but a product of a historical period, of a speci®c analytical perspective within the ®eld, and of his/her personal experiences. Both anthropology and tourism have produced representations of the Other which provided a context for the mediation of the experience of modernity. Symbolizing the elsewhere and the exotic, the Other has functioned as a vehicle that allowed for an inverse image of home, place, self, and power. As it has been argued, the concerns and interests that spurred travel during the modern age are to be located in the discursive space created by the quest for and imposition of control and order. In the process of the ``appropriation'' of the Other, anthropological and travel practices have tended to con®rm rather than question already established images of the self and the Other. This issue touches on the question of self-identity, which cannot be understood unless related to particular power structures within speci®c historical contexts. For anthropologists, the task of

216

SELF AND OTHER

decoding diverse cultural realities has led them to producing a supposedly ``real'' view of the Other, while assigning people's own ideological models to the realm of representation; this authoritative vantage point is especially revealing of the political function of the anthropologist's professional identity. It also aligns directly with anthropology's concern with becoming an objective ``science'' which left practically no possibilities for acknowledging the researcher's travel experience as part and parcel of his/her interpretative endeavor. This same concern prevented anthropologists from considering the issue of similarities between themselves and tourists. In the case of tourism, its course of development in the age of modernity shows an eroding of the monopolistic, elitist ``reading'' of diverse cultural landscapes. This qualitative transformation is one reason tourism has quali®ed as a predecessor to postmodernism. The postmodern age is marked by the spread of images and symbols and, with the mass media facilitating the viewing of typical objects by the tourist gaze, tourism has entered into every home. The actual expression of the ``traditional'' distinctiveness of the tourist practice and its separation from the rest of society is no longer a likelihood, and this development has opened the way for the ``culturalization'' of tourist practices. Urry's argument (1990) concerning tourism in the postmodern age is that the sign comprises a substitute of the gaze and the latter cannot exist without the former. The signs which invoke the idea of travel are today mass produced by the culture industry, as a result of the decline of internal distinctions between the concepts of home and abroad, work and travel, authentic and contrived; this development re¯ects, in turn, a popular (mass) domination of representations. Travel in Postmodernity The written works of an ethnographer, an author-traveler, and a poetess may now be examined in order to look for stories of selfpresentation and self-transformation they might contain. The fact that, beyond gazing, these three travelers have sought close contact and interaction with the landscapes and the cultures they visited, constitutes a common ground for comparing the stories of the self they narrate. Furthermore, a comparison of the spatial and textual practices of ``independent'' travel with those of ethnography can shed light on the traveler-ethnographer relationship. Unlike in the past when the habitus of ®eldwork was de®ned against that of travel, today, for reasons related to the postmodern concern with the dissolving of boundariesÐbetween the personal and the professional, self and other, theory and experienceÐthe boundary between literary travel and academic ®eldwork, as well as between academic analysis and travel narrative, is renegotiated. It is acknowledged that both travel and ®eldwork-as-travel have had to grapple with many similar problems like strangeness, privilege, miscomprehension, and stereotyping. Overall, as the postmodern worldÐbecause of travel and mobilityÐis undergoing a continuous

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

217

readjustment of cultural geographies, the formerly stable distinctions between the familiar and the foreign, the self and Other, as well as the conventional views about the ``®eld'' where anthropological research takes place, have been undermined. A reaction to these conditions is an increasing reorientation of the ethnographer's gaze towards the self, as the appropriate place for interpreting cultural experience. Recognizing ®eld research as an ethnographic journey of self-discovery, Dubisch reports on the identities she carried into the ®eld, on how her research came about, what she learned about herself, and if her experience of ®eldwork colored the way she has come to view the world. Her work, In a Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender, and Politics at a Greek Island Shrine (1995), is a good example of postmodern re¯exivity. Having done her original ®eldwork on the Aegean island of Tinos in 1969±70, Dubisch had returned to do research on the island's popular shrine in the summer of 1986. At that time, a serious back problem, causing her psychic and physical pain, enabled her to understand why suffering led people to seek healing at the shrine (1995:33). Behind this understanding lies the selfre¯exive process Dubisch underwent in the context of experiencing her ®eldwork. Through the pilgrims, she became conscious of her own suffering in ways that enabled her to attain a new awareness of herself. By re¯ecting back on her ®rst journey to the ®eld and her crossing of cultural boundaries, Dubisch also challenged several previous assumptions that had informed her concerns and emotional responses (1995:216±217). Insofar as a re¯exive anthropology has come to critique the emotional/objective boundary and accept the ®eldwork's functioning as an inner journey, the anthropologist is obliged to recognize his/her experience as well as the emotional responses to what he/she experiences (Rosaldo 1989). Dubisch's inward journey encompassed an understanding of her previously negative attitude toward Orthodox worship and, hence, it became constitutive of a process of self-search and self-awareness. Dubisch discusses several moments, during ®eldwork, when she experienced feelings unknown to her, re¯ected upon her own culture, and questioned her identity. Furthermore, having faced situations when she felt that she crossed the dividing line between the categories of outsider and insider, or observer and participant, Dubisch came to understand the incompatibility of the two components of ®eld researchÐobservation and participation. The ®rst implies a certain distance, similar to a tourist's stance, while the second suggests emotion-inducing involvement, hence not separation, not observing (1995:116). Dubisch sought to solve this dilemma by turning her emotions into a vehicle towards understanding, and by seeing the categories of self and Other as interrelated rather than as distinct and separate. By the same token, she allowed for a conceptual blurring of the boundary between tourist, anthropologist, and pilgrim, depending on how people positioned herÐrelationally and situationallyÐand how she positioned herself by her own biography and experience.

218

SELF AND OTHER

In his work The Pillars of Hercules: A Grand Tour of the Mediterranean (1995), the author-traveler Theroux is, above all, explicit about his disdain for tourists and their behavior. Indeed, to set himself apart from them, he stresses the solitary nature of his traveling enterprise, while also elaborating on various measures he took to safeguard his sense of freedom and the novelty of his experience, such as traveling in the off-season and choosing not to ¯y (1995:489). What heightened Theroux's expectations of his travels was his seeking embodied experiences. As he recognized, traveling engaged all of his senses and raised in him a mixture of feelings. This point gives additional support to the argument about the distinction between travelers and tourists, given that the latter's experience is mainly visual. Despite the fundamental disassociation Theroux makes with the opposite of travelÐi.e., tourismÐhe does not hide the dilemma he faced concerning the ambiguity of his identity as a traveler (1995:47±48). This issue of identity relates to the self-indulgent nature of his endeavorsÐthe fact that in Theroux's consciousness, moving freely from one place to another did not qualify as work or as part of the productive and family routines of life. It was only the systematic observing, along with the writing, that legitimized what otherwise appeared as a feeble and empty of meaning exercise. Thus, Theroux's solution to his identity-related dilemma lies in his convincing himself that being there was not an end in itself but served the task of making systematic observations and writing them down. It could be argued that the formation of his identity as a travel writer is mediated by the creation of narrative accounts based on a mode of solitary travel which involves crossing a variety of sites and encounters. One can also discern the use of ``the essential trope of life as a journey'' (Fussell 1980:210) when Theroux reports he spent a lifetime traveling. Travel had served as a fundamental means for his reaching adulthood and maturity; however, the object of his quest had been the unknown, what was conceived as the distant in the sense of representing a back in time. The known, the Mediterranean, represented the future, a time marked by change. It can be deduced from Theroux's sentiments (1995:6±7) that the maturity he obtained from his travels to the periphery had enabled him to ®nd novelty in the familiar Mediterranean as well as to sustain both his awareness and his dreams. The literary history of the Mediterranean provided for Theroux the major guidelines regarding the places he chose to visit. These were places that had become famous because foreign writers discovered and wrote about them or also lived in them. What Theroux found mysterious, fascinating, or disturbing, in experiencing the places he visited, is important not so much for its revelations about the condition of an external reality but for what it reveals about the travel experience itself. At times he highlights certain aspects of the lives of people he encountered because he found them exemplary of patterns of human interaction in a premodern, agrarian world (1995:186±187). At other times, when describing well-known

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

219

tourism destinations, he makes no effort to hide his disgust, cynicism, and outright disappointment (Theroux 1995:35). In these cases Theroux echoes Fussell (1980) who relegates locations visited by tourists to a place outside of reality. As still another situation, Patricia Storace is an American poetess who lived for a year in Greece, in the early 90s, and recorded her impressions in a book, Dinner With Persephone (1996). Although early in her book she states that her desire to understand Greece stems largely from her need to understand herself, Storace's journeys of self-discovery cannot be heard in an autobiographical sense. She rarely reveals to the reader how direct experience incited in her a type of self-re¯exivity. Moreover, the latter does not result in a selftransformation but rather kindles Storace's awareness of her vulnerability, along with a concomitant af®rmation of her self-con®dence. Overall, Storace avoids exploring her inner experiences, reveals very little about her emotional investments in Greece, and limits her reactions to dispensing judgments on those who bare themselves to her. What gives a tone of self-re¯exivity and even self-questioning to her work, is Storace's reference to mirrors (1996:123), which appear to register a rather uncertain image of herself; the use of this device conveys perhaps an ideology concerning identity in the age of postmodernity. Today many thinkers agree that there is an acceptance of multiple and subject to change identities compared to the earlier age of modernity, when identities appeared to be more stable (Bauman 1996; Kellner 1992:174). However, while some mirrors re¯ect a fragmented and shifting self-image of Storace, some others are straightforward and leave no room for questioning the images they project. Thus, Storace's tendency to view television as a mirror of Greek society, and her friends as a mirror of all the Greeks, betrays her inability to avoid the trap of generalizing and homogenizing the Other. Indeed, she attributes heterogeneity only to her own ``we'' category (the Americans), while homogenizing the ``they'' category (the Greeks) (1996:172±173). The self-image Storace projects is that of a well-informed traveler, who displays con®dence in herself and in her interpretations of the Greek reality and seeks to satisfy an intellectual interest centered on cultural understanding. Unlike Dubisch, who acknowledges the importance of both the interior and the exterior journey of her ethnographic research endeavors, Storace gives the impression of not being touchedÐat the level of inner experienceÐby her travels' spatial and temporal dimension. Whereas Theroux also makes a point to distance himself from tourists (Dann 1999:172±173), Storace does not appear to be concerned with this issue. She deliberately seeks to engage herself with local people, at least at the level of socializing with friends and acquaintances, unlike Theroux whose encounters with the Other are limited to impromptu conversations in public places; indeed, he appears to experience more meaning in the lives of fellow travelers and writers, whom he goes out of his way to encounter, rather than of the people through

220

SELF AND OTHER

whose space he traverses. The self-image Theroux gives is one of a ``real'' traveler who does not need cushions or comforts while traveling but, instead, stoically endures uncomfortable and unpleasant experiences. Undoubtedly, Theroux and Storace experience different ways of seeing because of their distinct biographies and gendered identities; yet, both fall into the trap of generalizing the Other and using stereotypes (often negative ones) to mark off a distinctive otherness. Generally, their actions are largely those of sightseers and they cannot be said to have gone through occasions when they held the position of insider, as Dubisch has. Finally, unlike Dubisch, neither Theroux nor Storace appear to be aware that they made sense of the places they journeyed to by drawing attention to the dialectical relationship of such places with the places from which they came. CONCLUSION Travelers, anthropologists and tourists can be considered observers who gaze into the elsewhere and the Other, while looking for their own re¯ection. Their storytellings and written works suggest that they look in the worlds of Others as a means of laying claim to their own. The oppositions of civilized and primitive, modern and traditional, familiar and exotic, and self and Other have dominated the realm of discourse in Western societies since the age of explorations. Both in ethnographic writing and in the travel literature, the representations of the Other have been mediating the experience of modernity. Ethnographic works re¯ect an effort by anthropologists to reconcile, through textual production, the ``exoticness'' with the world of modernity, which is trapped in the tension between progress and nostalgia. The latter, according to Graburn (1995:166), is also a driving force in many types of tourism and is particularly subject to commercial and political manipulation. Like the traveler, the ethnographer has sought the (exotic) Other because it promised an opportunity for adventure as well as for challenges (physical and intellectual) inherent in differenceÐqualities he/she has not been able to ®nd in the modern world. However, the experience of the self through the Other has ultimately proven to be a quest for and imposition of control and order. In the course of history, colonialism, religious missions, ethnographic research, and tourism have provided ample outlets for the quest for self-representation; in the face of modernity's inherent qualities of individualism, mobility and fragmentation, such a quest has been motivated by a nostalgia for ideal, integral communities. The end result of this process has been the objecti®cation of cultures, societies, and geographies. In the last several years, the metaphors of mobility have proven useful for deconstructing anthropology's ®xed and ethnocentric categoriesÐsuch as those of self and Other, the familiar and the exotic. More important, the advance of self-re¯exive anthropologies, which involve an awareness of oneself and of the importance of giving due credit to the voice of the Other, lies in their contributing to

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

221

reduce the problems of subjectivity in participant observation. As part of the self-re¯exive trend, some ®eldworkers have reported a transformation through the research experience, while others have experienced their research as a journey of self-discovery (Reinhartz 1992). Anthropologists interested in the creative use of autobiography have recognized ®rst that the identities the ethnographer carries into the ®eld must not be subsumed or hidden under the overarching rubric of ethnographer or scholar and second, that his/ her entrance into another society or ethnic group is accompanied by the crossing of a boundary of self-de®nition (Okely 1996). As in anthropology, attempts have also been made in the study of tourism and travel to deconstruct certain well-established categories. In the literature, the term tourism has been de®ned in contrast to opposite Others, like travel. This dichotomy makes the de®nition problematic in the sense that tourism and its opposite Others are perceived as distinct and separate with no possibility of converging or even forming a continuum. The effort to deconstruct tourism has essentially begun from a critique of the structural perspective. A corollary of this critique is the view that tourism be, instead, approached as process (Abram and Waldren 1997:2±3). The advantage of this analytical viewpoint is that it can highlight the diverse qualities of touristic experience, while it can also allow for the tracing of changes, through time, in the orientations of people who travel. Overall, the notion of tourism as process is predicated on the understanding that tourist identities are neither static nor invariable. Thus, one can hypothesize that those tourists who keep returning to the same place year after year are likely to develop a different sense of the place and even discover that it ®lls for them experiential vacancies. For such tourists, abroad would most likely be a place they feel part of, where they dwell and not just go through. In their perception, what marks their regularly visited place is perhaps their sharing time and experiences with the Other. By the same token, even though travel writers, like Theroux, view their real enemy to be the tourist, and assign themselves to the category of traveler, they may deny themselves shared time and experiences with the Other, insofar as they chase after the vestiges of a vanished reality. Travelers sense the external world by relying heavily on literary texts and other travelers' accounts, rather than on tour operators and the advertising discourse; this suggests that the textual genre can still compete successfully with the visual postmodern media, like television and the Internet, which focus upon the gaze (Dann 1999:161). However, through the works they produce, travelers generate new images, which are added to the repertoire of signs that tourists in turn consume. In this sense, both Theroux and Storace provide additional elements that allow tourists to look for signs of Greekness, typical Italian behavior, typical attitudes of the Turks and Greeks towards one another and towards strangers, etc. In contrast to this type of practice, often encountered in travelers, anthropologists demonstrate the distinctiveness of the communities they study and, without applying a reductionist logic, look for associ-

222

SELF AND OTHER

ations between the local and national levels. In this sense, anthropologists have challenged the notion of self-contained communities travelers look for. Finally, regarding the issue of re¯exivity, it can provide an insight into the ethnographers' and the travelers' analysis of themselves in the context of their engagedness with Others. Re¯exivity is an aftermath of experience and refers to the conscious use of the self as a resource for making sense of others. Of the examples examined in this paper, only Dubisch's ethnographic account provides evidence of the creative use of self-re¯exivity; it shows how the anthropologist can activate various dimensions of self and reveals how the Other becomes a backdrop that re¯ects the conditions of her own situation back home. It appears that authors-travelers who pass through places in the periphery looking for foreignness, may be aware of the inner dimension of travel but not in a self-re¯exive way. They may seek, like Theroux, to basically set themselves apart from the tourist and this concern may be an essential element of their sense of identity. Others, like Storace, may wish to project primarily the writer self who transforms one's observations of a linguistic, social, and cultural nature into an interpretive (authorized) account, while hiding his/her autobiographical role in the process. Such writers-travelers, unlike anthropologists, are not self-conscious that the images and stories they produce about Others are directly linked to their own identities and interests which lie in their home culture.& REFERENCES Abram, S., and J. Waldren 1997 Introduction: Identifying with People and Places. In Tourists and Tourism: Identifying with People and Places, S. Abram, J. Waldren and D. Macleod, eds., pp. 1±11. Oxford: Berg. Andonopoulou, A. 1997 J.J. Bachofen: The Greek Voyage. In Minutes of the International Symposium on Travels to Greece in the 18th and 19th Centuries, pp. 27±36. Athens: University of Athens (in Greek). Augustinos, O. 1994 French Odysseys: Greece in French Travel Literature from the Renaissance to the Romantic Era. Baltimore MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Bauman, Z. 1996 From Pilgrim to Tourist, Or a Short History of Identity. In Questions of Cultural Identity, S. Hall and P. duGay, eds., pp. 18±36. London: Sage. Boorstin, D. J. 1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper. Bruner, Ed 1991 The Transformation of Self in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18(2):238±250. Butler, J. 1993 Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge. Clifford, J. 1986 On Ethnographic Allegory. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of

VASILIKI GALANI-MOUTAFI

223

Ethnography, J. Clifford and G. Marcus, eds., pp. 98±121. Berkley CA: University of California Press. 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature and Art. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1997 Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cosmos Travel. 1996 Cosmos Travel, Summer issue 17. Crick, M. 1985 ``Tracing'' The Anthropological Self: Quizzical Re¯ections on Field Work, Tourism, and the Ludic. Social Analysis 17:71±92. Dann, Graham 1999 Writing Out the Tourist in Space and Time. Annals of Tourism Research 26(1):159±187. Derrida, J. 1981 Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dubisch, J. 1995 A Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender and Politics at a Greek Island Shrine. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Fabian, J. 1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Subject. New York: Columbia University Press. Fussell, Paul 1980 Abroad: British Literary Travelling between the Wars. New York: Oxford University Press. Graburn, N. 1995 Tourism, Modernity and Nostalgia. In The Future of Anthropology: Its Relevance to the Contemporary World, Ahmed A and C. Shore, eds., pp. 158± 178. Atlantic Highlands NJ: The Athlone Press. Hastrup, K. 1992 Writing Ethnography: State of the Art. In Anthropology and Autobiography, J. Okely and H. Callaway, eds., pp. 116±133. New York: Routledge. Herzfeld, Michael 1987 Anthropology through the Looking Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kellner, Douglas 1992 Popular Culture and Constructing Postmodern Identities. In Modernity and Identity, S. Lash and J. Friedman, eds., pp. 141±177. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Laclau, E. 1990 New Re¯ections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso. Livingstone, D. 1857 Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa. London: John Murray. MacCannell, D. 1989 The Tourist (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan. Malinowski, B. 1922 Argonauts of the Western Paci®c. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1967 A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McGrane, B. 1989 Beyond Anthropology: Society and the Other. New York: Columbia University Press. Minh-ha, T. 1994 Other Than Myself/My Other Self. In Travellers' Tales: Narratives of Home and Displacement, G. Robertson, M. Mash, L. Tickner, J. Bird, B. Curtis and T. Putnam, eds., pp. 9±26. New York: Routledge. Neuman, M. 1992 The Trail Through Experience: Finding Self in the Recollection of Travel. In Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience, C. Ellis and M. G. Flaherty, eds., pp. 176±201. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

224

SELF AND OTHER

Okely, J. 1992 Anthropology and Autobiography: Participatory Experience and Embodied Knowledge. In Anthropology and Autobiography, J. Okely and H. Callaway, eds., pp. 1±28. London: Routledge. 1996 Own or Other Culture. London: Routledge. Pratt, M. L. 1986 Fieldwork in Common Places. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, J. Clifford and G. Marcus, eds., pp. 27±50. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Reinhartz, S. 1992 Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rojek, Chris 1993 Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel. London: Macmillan. 1997 Indexing, Dragging and the Social Construction of Tourist Sights. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 52±74. London: Routledge. Rojek, C., and J. Urry 1997 Transformations of Travel and Theory. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 1±19. London: Routledge. Rosaldo, R. 1986 From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, J. Clifford and G. Marcus, eds., pp. 77±97. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. 1989 Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press. Stocking, G. 1983 The Ethnographer's Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology From Tylor to Malinowski. In Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, G. Stocking, ed., pp. 70±120. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Storace, Patricia 1996 Dinner with Persephone. New York: Pantheon Books. Theroux, Paul 1995 The Pillars of Hercules: A Grand Tour of the Mediterranean. London: Penguin. Thornton, R. 1983 Narrative Ethnography in Africa, 1850±1920: The Creation and Capture of an Appropriate Domain for Anthropology. Man 18:502±520. 1985 Imagine Yourself Set Down . . . Mach, Frazer, Conrad, Malinowski and the Role of the Imagination in Ethnography. Anthropology Today 1(5):7±14. Turnbull, C. M. 1961 The Forest People: A Study of the Pygmies of the Congo. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1965 Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds of the African Pygmies. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. Tyler, S. A. 1986 Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, J. Clifford and G. Marcus, eds., pp. 122±140. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Submitted 5 May 1998. Resubmitted 18 March 1999. Resubmitted 22 April 1999. Accepted 6 May 1999. Final version 2 June 1999. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Jeremy F. Boissevain