globalization, cultural tourism, and the great ethical shift in anthropology

Introduction

The discipline of anthropology has its roots in the project(s) of colonialism. Anthropologists were used in the colonial projects of the British, as well as in the expansionary movements of the United States in informing the hegemony of the United States government over the indigenous populations which lived within its territories and its frontiers (Rylko-Bauer et. al. 2006). These inquiries were deployed to serve one purpose: to inform colonial administrators and reinforce and strengthen the power structures of specific nation-states. To this day, anthropology often attempts to play ethically indefensible roles. A primary example is the war in Iraq, where anthropologists have been hired by the United States military to “study” groups for ostensibly peaceful reasons. On the surface (and in arguments on behalf of the occupation of Iraq) these deployments appear as ways of sensitizing the military to cultural issues, but their deeper intentions are often less benign. A major difference, however, exists between the use of anthropology in the colonial era and the utilization of anthropology in the US occupation of Iraq - the unambiguous and sonorant resistance by reputable anthropologists to the militarization of the discipline (Gonzalez 2007). This anecdote - though simplified here - reveals that a fundamental change has occurred in the discipline of anthropology between the colonial era and the present day: an ethical shift from the classification, organization and “scientific” inquisition of the Other on behalf of power structures to the quest for social justice and the critique of Western paradigms.

The following is not meant to be an exploration of the continuum of sociological and anthropological theory, nor a pontification on the ethical justifications for applied anthropology. It is rather meant to be a glimpse of anthropology from the perspective of someone who is coming into anthropology today and a testament to how they have been enculturated into it. The above mentioned shift towards social justice, pluralism, and the idea of embracing and promoting alternative worldviews is a shift that has come to characterize the mood of American anthropology for the student in the beginning of the 21st century. When I use the word “mood” I mean it in terms of the atmosphere of modern anthropology and the pervading tones in the discipline. This mood has an ethical dimension to it that instructs incoming anthropologists to take an essentially pluralistic view towards the human experience and a instrumental view towards the discipline of anthropology. In many ways, this mood can be encapsulated in one word: responsibility. This is precisely why well-educated, ethically-sound anthropologists wouldn’t even have to think twice about turning down offers to work for the military and its illegal occupation of Iraq: such roles and deployments are simply unconscionable and indeed against everything contemporary anthropology has come to represent.

Indeed, this theme of social justice and the promotion of respect among and between cultures is something that is of paramount importance in my own research. I am not interested so much in the theoretical and historical dimensions of anthropology as I am the applied and current dimensions of anthropology in a globalized world. The power of markets and states in our global society is on a scale that is unprecedented in human history. With this globalization, however, we have not seen a decrease in the significance of culture, but rather an increase in its significance. As “the world has become smaller, “ cross-pollinations of cultures have become more common and more instrumental in the way people choose to appropriate their cultural resources. The marketing of ethnicity and the use of culture in West Africa to attract tourists through archaeological sites, heritage sites, or live performances and displays is the process I am interested in as an anthropologist. My interest, however, isn’t spawned from some kind of theoretical position. It is rather spawned from a question: how can these forms of cultural tourism benefit the populations who deploy them and simultaneously communicate to the world their meaning, and in so doing create a positive interface for different cultures?

In the following, I will explore the way this mood of social justice and pluralism has permeated my understanding of the discipline of anthropology as it exists in the 21st century. I will incorporate modern sociological and anthropological theories that symbolize this mood into my discussion and attempt to describe how they have informed my own development as an anthropologist. Of primary importance are theories about globalization and the exponential increase in the power of competing identities from indigenous, migratory, and regional populations (Friedman 2003). I will first discuss what I see as a more complex and less one-sided form of globalization than is commonly perceived (based on Friedman 2003 and Graber 2001) and then discuss how this process has put different global groups within a position to negotiate their identities and statuses. I will contextualize my interests in cultural and heritage tourism within this broader context and attempt to outline a research plan to realize my own ambitions. I feel that this ethical shift has taken my initial interest in the exotic (prior to my experience as a student in anthropology) to subsequent quests for understandings of social justice and ways of accentuating the voices of marginalized people into the global discussion. In this context, I will demonstrate that the mood of modern anthropology - the quest for social justice and equality by means of mutual understandings - is a mood that is appropriate for the opportunities implicit in this global opportunity where groups are increasing both the volume of their voices and their call for an equitable share of the world’s resources.

globalization and the Importance of anthropology

Globalization has created more interfaces between more cultures than any process before. Globalization is defined by Anthony Giddens as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events many miles away and vice versa” (Giddens 1990). In a world defined by globalization, interactions between different cultures - at times positive and at times negative - become an everyday process where all of the actors involved play a consequential role. Populations previously subdued by colonialism become consumer economies; populations previously filling the roles of colonial administrators become market economies. In this process, a new importance is imbued to the realm of the cultural. People’s tastes and attitudes become increasingly important as cultural interactions become more common and markets become more integrated. Although 20th century power structures remain largely intact, they have become more susceptible to contestation and negotiation. To the dominant, their power seems inevitable; to the dominated, their subjugation seems negotiable. The process of globalization gradually erodes concepts of black and white and pulls the stage curtains open to a situation that appears much more fragmented, disintegrated, precarious and negotiable. On this stage, however, the actors work out a form of theater that displays a sense of something that does unify the roles: opportunity.

Within this window of opportunity there exists a chance for greater social justice and the fulfillment of responsibility by all actors involved. Though great patches of stagnant conservatism which seek to makeover their societies in one static image still exist - and they primarily spar among each other - the overall trend is towards “emerging forms of democratic practice” (Graeber 2001). Pluralism and political liberalism are not enemies, they are comrades. The opportunity for cultural, political, and religious groups to live side-by-side in a shrinking, increasingly more compact world, has never been greater. The question transforms from “How do we deal with the foreign forces amassing outside of the borders of our industrial centers?” to “How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines”(Rawls 1993, 123)? According to Waltzer, “a community’s culture is the story its members tell so as to make sense of all the different pieces of their social life - and justice is the doctrine that distinguishes the pieces. In any differentiated society, justice will make for harmony only if it first makes for separation. Good fences make just societies” (Waltzer 1983). These spheres of cultural autonomy need not been seen as a threat, but rather as a preexisting condition for harmony. Both Rawls and Waltzer are correct in pointing out that the mutual, autonomous existence of reasonable cultural doctrines is essential to finding harmony is an increasingly smaller and more fragmented world. It is not the job of a just society to determine what is culturally offensive or non-offensive, but to protect the freedoms of the groups from which it is comprised.

Jonathon Friedman also views the current state of affairs as a decline in the hegemony of the advanced industrial centers and a corresponding increase in “fragmentation” (Friedman 2003, 162). This decline in hegemony is due to the failure of the modernist nation-state to effectively achieve its goal of realizing a national form of identity. When such a project fails, marginalized and stigmatized groups move to establish themselves more concretely. Although Friedman sees this leading to more tense and precarious scenarios (for instance his identification of the parameter of vertical polarization among economic classes in industrial centers), it can also be interpreted as moving toward a more multicultural setting in which these spheres are able to establish themselves democratically and cooperatively. In my own view, I see this not as a ominous power vacuum but as a step toward increased cosmopolitan empowerment.

Graeber makes the logical step in his work towards a more cosmopolitan, multicultural empowerment citing neoliberalism as the true catalyst for many of these processes. The platforms of many of these movements, for instance the Ya Basta! movement in Italy, demand “a universally guaranteed ‘basic income,’ a principle of global citizenship that would guarantee free movement of people across borders, and a principle of free access to new technology - which in practice would mean extreme limits on patent rights” (Graeber 2001, 169). Neoliberalism, in trying to argue for an internationally active economy comprised of private free market capitalists and technocrats, is nothing but a concealed attempt to crush and reconsolidate the progressive movements that have come to be part of the process of horizontal fragmentation. Neoliberalism is limited to free flow of commodities - it increases the barriers against the flow of people while breaking down the barriers in the flow of goods (Graeber 2001, 170). Most importantly, neoliberalism fails to meet the needs of the people it purports itself to aid. Recent food riots in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are a testament to the inability of this system to provide an equitable chance for its participants.

But what does all of this mean for anthropology? Anthropology can take a closer look at these processes and opportunities and help predict and alleviate some of the tensions that may or may not come along with them. For example, in an increasingly globalized world more and more different types of people are bound to cross more and more different lines of borders. Anthropology’s experience with asylum seekers has taught us what kinds of problems to expect when immigrants arrive in their new homes and how some of the issues that they escaped from can conflict with cultural constructions they can find in their new place of residence (Good 2007). Immigrant groups may be forced, through slow or ineffective convergences with their new countries’ economies, to rely on informal networks and illicit economies to get ahead (Dohan 2003). By understanding these processes through ethnography and “thick description,” anthropologists can help these groups on local levels and help inform the policies that effect them. Anthropologists can be advocates for cross-cultural understanding and create public arenas for different groups to voice their views and opinions. They can help mitigate the chances for conflict by understanding the perspectives of the different parties involved.

What distinguishes good applied anthropology and ethnography from other approaches to social and cultural questions is its use of communities’ voices in its analyses. Works such as Daniel Dohan’s “The Price of Poverty” look through the dense and convoluted layers of statistics that emerge from demographic questionnaires and censuses to the voices of the individuals which they are meant to represent. What anthropologists find is that these statistics don’t represent the communities they are attempting to describe. Communities are able to describe themselves, and within these descriptions - within these narratives and discourses - lies the information that can be of most use in informing policy or enacting advocacy.

In other words, anthropology is more important now than it has ever been before. The opportunities that have arisen out of globalization and horizontal fragmentation are opportunities that could lead to a more cosmopolitan yet more equitable world. Yet without the understanding of these processes on local and international levels many of these opportunities could stand unfulfilled. It is therefore necessary for anthropologists to not just become involved on the academic, theoretical, and methodological levels, but to become advocates in their communities and in the world. After all, if anthropologists can become advocates enough to dissociate themselves from the military-industrial complex they can surely become advocates enough to inform policy issues on issues of immigration and disaster relief. An important thing to keep in mind, however, is that anthropologists are good at what they do because they have thorough in a specific area of interest. My area of interest happens to be cultural and heritage tourism in West Africa and how it provides an opportunity for people to have positive cross-cultural interactions.

applied anthropology and cultural tourism in West Africa

The opportunities and dilemmas that globalization has presented include the movement of people around the world - via tourism - at a rate unprecedented in human history. International tourism has been growing at an annual rate of 4% (World Tourism Organization 2006), and much of this tourism involves trips to politically-stable developing countries like Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Cambodia and Ghana. Many tourists who return from such trips rave about their experiences “in a different culture” and make the ubiquitous “the best thing about x is the people” comment. The fundamental fascination behind these types of travel and these forms of narratives is the concept of cultural and heritage tourism.

Tourists travel to Ghana for a variety of reasons. African-Americans who visit the coast of Ghana to tour the slave castles at Elmina and Cape Coast make up a large proportion of the tourism industry (Bruner 2005). Tourists also enjoy the pristine beaches and turquoise waters, the rain forests rich with primates and water falls, and the local markets lively with traditional Ghanaian culture and everyday life. One thing that I became fascinated with during my experience in Ghana was the interaction between these tourists and the Ghanaians whom they met along the way. Though the majority of these interactions are fundamentally economic, there are also interactions that occur on a more curious and globalized level.

Tourists in Africa like to enjoy cultural displays such as dancing, musical performances, funerals, and subsistence activities such as sea fishing. Beach areas in Cape Coast are full of Ghanaian fishermen who stand next to the beautiful ocean and pose for pictures with tourists for a small donation. Nearby, market women sell fish and cold drinks and prepare food for the tourists to enjoy. The fishermen also invite tourists to go out on the fishing boat with them, usually the morning of the following day, for a price of about $30 USD - a huge amount of money in Ghana equivalent to the ordinary Ghanaian’s monthly income. Local clothes and art work are also sold en masse to the groups of tourists who descend onto the beach during the busy season. In all of these above-mentioned fashions, Ghanaians in Cape Coast take part in the marketing of their culture to generate income. But something else is also happening beneath the surface - Ghanaians are interacting with tourists from industrial centers in Europe and North America in a positive and fundamentally beneficial way.

One thing to consider in a place like Cape Coast, Ghana is the relatively light presence of tourism. Compared to places like Cuzco, Teotihuacan, or the Taj Mahal this small West African fishing city gets a trickle of tourists. The area isn’t inundated with tourists off of cruise ships or involved in package deals who are looking to take a few pictures and ensue their journey. Most tourists in Cape Coast have a genuine interest in understanding the history of the slave castles, viewing the ecosystems in the nearby rain forests, and interacting with Ghanaians on a personal level.

My interests in cultural tourism have to do with the ways it can benefit the people who take part in it: the local communities and the tourists. The types of questions I want to ask to local communities include: How do you feel about tourists coming to view your cultural practices? Is it appropriate for foreigners to come into your everyday life and attempt to learn something from it? Do you feel like you are being adequately paid for your work? Are these tourist projects benefiting only a certain segment of your population, or is a certain age group, gender, or economic class primarily benefitting from these enterprises? Are you also learning something about the tourists and the countries they come from? I would also like to ask tourists: Do you understand the economic impacts you have on the communities you visit? Do you feel like you are seeing a “genuine” display of the local culture? What kinds of things bother you in your interactions with the local community? What kinds of insights into life, culture, and history have you gleaned from your experiences in these communities? Answers to these types of questions through ethnographic “thick description” could help illuminate some of these processes and could also benefit local communities in establishing tourist plans and expanding interactions with foreign tourists.

conclusion

Globalization has made the world a smaller place. In this environment of constant cross-cultural interaction, people are making quick inferences about the cultures they interact with - inferences that have consequences for future interactions with similar individuals and communities further down the road. Cultures and ways of life come in contact in a variety of different contexts: e.g., immigration, inquisitiveness, and tourism. Understanding the circumstances of these interactions and the discourses behind them is an extremely important role for cultural anthropologists in the 21st century. The discipline of anthropology, now steeped in an ethic of social justice and responsibility, has the opportunity to play a major role in the way that people come to understand each other and make decisions about each other. My own research intends to focus on the way these processes have played out in West Africa through cultural tourism. By understanding the interactions that take place in such contexts, we can better know how to help design such projects and help the economies of local communities in the process.

bibliography

Bruner, E.M (2005). Culture on Tour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dohan, D. (2003). The Price of Poverty: Money, Work, and Culture in the Mexican American Barrio. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Friedman, J. (2003). Globalization, Dis-integration, Re-organization: The Transformations of Violence. In “Globalization, the State, and Violence,” ed. Jonathon Friedman: 1-14, 16-19, 20, 21, 22, 31-33. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). Dimensions of Globalization. Pp. 245-252 in “The New Social Theory Reader,” eds. Jeffrey Alexander and Steven Seidman. London; Routledge.

Gonzalez, R.J. (2007). Towards mercenary anthropology? The new US Army counterinsurgency manual FM 3-24 and the military-industrial complex. In Anthropology Today, 23(3);14-19.

Good, A. (2007). Anthropology and Expertise in the Asylum Courts. Cornwall, Britian, United Kingdom: Routledge-Cavendish

Graber, D. (2001). The Globalization Movement: Some Points of Clarification. In Items and Issues 2(3-4):12-14.

Meisch, Lynn A. (2002). Andean Entrepreneurs: Otavalo Merchants & Musicians in the Global Arena. USA: University of Texas Press,

Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press

Rylko-Bauer, B,, M. Singer, and J, V Willigen (2006). Reclaiming Anthropology: Its Past, Present, and Future. In American Anthropologist, 108(1): 178-190.

Waltzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Pp. 3-12, 17-20, 318-319. Tennessee: Perseus Books.