Of Cannibals, Tourists, and Ethnographers

Cannibal Tours by Dennis O'Rourke

Review by: Edward M. Bruner
Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 438-445
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656251 .
Accessed: 02/07/2014 07:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewEssay

Of Cannibals, Tourists, and

Ethnographers
Edward M. Bruner
Departmentof Anthropology
Universityof Illinois

Cannibal Tours. Dennis O'Rourke. 77 minutes, color. 1987. Pur-

chase $995 (16 mm), $350 (video); rental$175, from Direct Cinema
Limited, P.O. Box 69799, Los Angeles, CA 90069 (213-652-8000).

CannibalTours, by AustralianfilmmakerO'Rourke, is aboutGerman,Ital-

ian, and Americantouristswho take a commercialgrouptourup the Sepik River
in PapuaNew Guinea.The title of the film derivesfromthe fascinationof Western
touristswith cannibalism.The touristsare aware that New Guinea has been pa-
cified and that cannibalismis prohibited,but they want to experience the primi-
tive, to visit a place wherecannibalismhad been practiced,to observe the peoples
whose ancestorshad eaten human flesh, and to hear stories about the wild, the
savage, and the exotic. If cannibalismwere still practiced, or if there were any
real danger, or if the infrastructureof luxuriousriver boats, firstclass air-condi-
tioned hotels, and moder air transportationwere not present, the tourists, of
course, would not go to New Guinea. They seek the titillationof a vicariousbrush
with danger. They want to see firsthandthe ultimate savage Other, with penis
sheath, paintedface, and spear, but only from the secure and safe vantagepoint
of luxurytourism,andonly afterthe disappearanceof the originalobject. Tourism
prefersthe reconstructedobject, and indeed, this preferencefor the simulacrum
is the essence of postmoderntourism, where the copy is more than the original
(Baudrillard1983; Eco 1986).
In the non-Westernworld, thereis probablyan optimumtime in local history
for each kind of Europeanvisitor. Explorers, traders,missionaries, and coloni-
alists come first, to discover, exploit, convert, and colonize, and are followed by
ethnographersand eventually tourists, who come to study or just to observe the
Other. Tourism, like ethnography,is not equipped to handle the rigors of first
contact,but does best afterotheragentsof Europeancivilization have pacifiedthe

438

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 439

indigenouspeoples, and after power is firmly in the hands of the Europeans.In

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

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Cannibaltourismmay appearto be a bizarreexception to the generalrun of

Westerntourismthat seems so mild andbenign, but this is not the case. The tours
offered in the industrialcountries appeal to the deepest recesses of the Western
imagination.Tourismhas less to do with what other peoples are really like and
more to do with how we imagine them to be, and in this respect is like any other
form of representation,including ethnography.Here is a list of some organized
toursoffered in recentyears:

* Sex tourism, in which a groupof men fly to Thailand,or to Koreaor Tai-

wan, for a week, in orderto actualizeevery sexual fantasy, in any combination,
includinghaving sex with children. Most popularin West Germanyand Japan,
sex tourismturnsthe countryvisited into a grandbrothel.
* Colonial tourism, developed in Indonesia for former Dutch colonials or
theirfamilies, focuses on colonial sites and times, includingvisits to World War
II Japaneseconcentrationcamps.
* Shoppingtourism, taking groups of Americansto Italy for private show-
ings Italiandesigner clothing and other goods, with visits to small boutiques,
of
all at a discount, an entiretourdevotedto shopping,the epitome of consumerism.
* Commandotourism, in the United States, where "average" Americans
receive militarytrainingin guerrillawarfareand in commandoexpeditions, in-
cluding instructionin variousweapons systems, with live ammunition.
* Explorertourism,thatreproducesthe greatexplorationsof the Age of Dis-
covery, so thatthe touristcan follow the route and relive the experienceof being
the firstin a new land. Thereare $35,000 toursto the SouthPole, and even plans
for tourismin space. It may be noted thatthe river boat that takes the touristsup
the Sepik is called the Melanesian Explorer, a name which has rathera romantic
ring to it.

Cannibal,sexual, colonial, consumer,military,andexplorertourshave their

rootsin Westerncapitalistconsciousness. They aretoursof desire andtell us more
about our society than about the society to be visited. They reflect a world in
which one segment, affluent, civilized, and industrial,projects its desires onto
anothersegment, poorer, more primitive, less developed. In tourism, the Third
Worldbecomes a playgroundof the Westernimaginary,in which the affluentare
given the discursivespace to enact their fantasies. In a remarkablescene in Can-
nibal Tours,on the last day of theirtour, the touristshave a farewellpartyon their
boat, in which the touristspainttheirfaces in white stripedSepik designs andplay
at being savages. They lunge as if to attackand then dance away, joke aboutthe
wooden penis carvingsthey have purchased,and in a mock performance,enjoy
a temporaryregressionto savagery. But even duringthe day, in the routineof the
tour,the tourists,in theirBananaRepublicsafariclothes, areliving out a fantasy.
What O'Rourkedoes well is to show the activities and interactionsof the
tourists,and to reveal throughinterviewsthe tourists'conceptionsof native peo-

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 441

pies. As tourists are not a monolithic group, there are vast differences in their
understandingof PapuaNew Guineans. One Italiantouristsays aboutthe people
of New Guineathat "natureprovides them with the necessities of life," so they
are satisfied, "happy and well fed," and they don't think about tomorrow. The
naturalman. This tourist reports that cannibalismwas a custom, practiced for
"reasonsof survival," even thoughhe says that wildlife was abundant,but he is
correctedby a young woman, apparentlyhis daughter,who says thatcannibalism
"was symbolic," so in a spiritof compromisethe touriststates that cannibalism
was "mostly for survival, but it was also symbolic," Shades of MarvinHarris,
materialismversus symbolism! Another tourist reportsthat native life is "slow
andpeaceful," and thatit was worthwhileto travelto New Guinea "to see a way
of life so oppositeto thatof Europe."'The binaryoppositionbetweenus andthem,
between subjectand object, is inherentin touristdiscourse.
A womanfromNew Yorkreportsthatshe took the tourbecause she had seen
museumexhibitionson New Guinea and became interestedin primitiveart. Her
concernnow, however, is thatratherthanproducingartfor themselvesthe people
are producingsouvenirsfor tourists. The trope of the disappearingprimitiveap-
pearsmany times in touristdiscourse, just as it had been prominentin anthropo-
logical discourse (Clifford 1986). A well-traveledGermantouristnotes that na-
tive culturehas been disruptedand thatNew Guineais a poor country,so we must
"shareour wealth with them." Touristviews runthe rangefrom naive to sophis-
ticated, but despite the variation,the touristsare fascinatedwith cannibalismand
with spiritbeliefs, and they all engage in the same activities on the tour;mainly,
they take pictures and bargainfor souvenirs. In the O'Rourkefilm, most of the
time, the tourists are shown taking photographsor purchasinghandicrafts,and
this is in accord with my own field observationson the behavior of tourists in
Indonesia,as well as in Kenya, Egypt, and otherThirdWorld areas.
A New Guinea elder says "We don't understandwhy these foreignerstake
photographsof everything," which is a very good anthropologicalquestion. An
answerto that question might proceed along the following lines (Barthes 1981;
Mulvey 1975; Sontag 1973). The majorsensory mode for the perceptionof the
native other is visual, throughthe viewfinder of a camera. Such a perspective
isolates the native people from their largersocial context, in that everythingout-
side the frameof the viewfinderis removed from view, including the politics of
the situation.In this sense, photographydecontextualizes,and is essentially con-
servative. Further,the camera serves as a protective device for the tourist-pho-
tographers,socially isolating them so that they do not have to relate directly to
the New Guineans, face to face, eye to eye. They can hide behind the camera
lens. The camerais a wonderfuldevice for closet voyeurs, in that they can look,
even stare, withoutembarrassment.
After the touris over and the touristsare back home, the majorphysical me-
mentosof theirtriparephotographsand souvenirs,which serve as devices to elicit
storiesand memories. The narrativestold by the touristsare less aboutthe native
culture as such, and more about the situations in which the photographswere
taken, and about the specific occasions in which the souvenirs were purchased.

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
442 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Photographsand souvenirsare both collectibles, and it does not make too much
differenceif the photographsare very good, or if the souvenirsare "authentic"
to the culture, as long as the photographsand souvenirs are "authentic" to the
experienceof the touristandto the context in which the collectibles were acquired
(Stewart 1984). Having stories to tell aboutthe photos or aboutthe objects pur-
chased serves to personalizean impersonalgroup tour, for the hero of the story
becomes the tourist. My comments about the function of photographsand sou-
venirs are speculative, of course, but valid or not, there is no doubtof the central
importanceof photographsand souvenirsin tourism, and of their prominencein
CannibalTours.
Native views of the touristicencounterare insightfulandrealistic, at least as
O'Rourkepresentsthe indigenousperspective. One older New Guineansays that
the touristsread aboutus in books and come to see if "we are civilized or not."
The New Guineansrefer to themselves as "native peoples" and as "backward
peoples." A man notes that "We don't have money so we stay in the village; we
don't go to see othercountries," and anotherobserves "If they paid me more (for
my carvings), I could go on that ship with the tourists." The majortheme that
emerges from the interviews with New Guineans is the disparityin wealth be-
tween themselves and the tourists. One woman says "You white people have all
the money," and is particularlydisturbedby the bargainingpracticesof the tour-
ists who, promptedby the tourguides, always rejectthe firstprice offered and ask
for a "second price," andeven a "thirdprice."'An eldernotes thatwhen he shops
for a shirtor for trousersin town, he must pay a fixed price.
The system for handlingmoney on grouptours makes for a kind of mystifi-
cation. The touristsmustpay the touragentsin advance,for the entiretour, a lump
sum paymentfor an all inclusive package, includingtransportation,lodging, and
meals, so that while actually on tour there are no furtherexchanges of money.
Thus, in the interactionsbetween the touristsand the local representativesof the
tour agency there is no necessity to pay for anythingon tour, as everythinghas
alreadybeen prepaid,nor need the touristseven ask what anythingcosts. Thus,
the local agentsandthe guides can presentthemselves as noncommercialfriendly
helpers. There is no occasion to remindthe touristsof the economics of the rela-
tionship, of the fact thatthe services and help so graciouslyoffered are provided
only because they have been paid for.
In oppositionto this, touristsgive money to native people who pose for pho-
tographs,and one local entrepreneurcharges the tourists $2 per camerato take
picturesinside the spirithouse. Money is exchanged. When touristspurchasena-
tive craftsandsouvenirsthe bargainingis bloodthirsty,with the tourguides taking
the side of the tourists. The tourists are not familiarwith local purchasingprac-
tices, arein a strangeland, andareafraidof buyingthe wrongobjectsor of paying
too much. Many tourists are elderly or retired, and part of what they have paid
for on the group tour is the assurancethat they will be protectedand cared for.
The tour guides, who know the local system, presentthemselves as helping the
touriststo purchasethe best objects at the rightprice. In many countries,the tour
guides receive a commissionon all purchases,but this is not disclosed to the tour-

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CANNIBALS, TOURISTS, AND ETHNOGRAPHERS 443

ists. The system is so constructedthatthe touroperatorsandtheiragents, who are

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

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Guineans are exploited. The film is not strident, but it mocks the tourists, however
gently. Not that there is anything wrong with O'Rourke's perspective, but rather
than to present it ever so subtly, or to disguise or deny it, or to present the film as
if it were an "objective" account that neither "condones nor condemns," I wish
O'Rourke's point of view had been more explicitly presented in the film, taken as
an object of investigation, discussed, and reflected upon. In ethnographic film,
we have moved away from the off camera authoritative voice-over, and we are
doing more, as O'Rourke has done, to let the actors, in this case the tourists and
the natives, speak for themselves. Now we need to hear a stronger more explicit
voice from the filmmaker.

Notes

'The reversetrend,of course, as MacCannell(1989:1) andBuck-Morss(1987) note, is one

in which thereis a flow in the opposite direction,as workers,refugees, anddisplacedpeo-
ples from the peripherymove to the capitalistcenters, undoubtedlywith their own proj-
ected images of wealth, security, and power.
2Thebook edited by Valene L. Smith, Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism,
especially the revised 1989 edition, contains some excellent materials,despite the title.

References Cited

Barthes,Roland
1981 CameraLucida. New York:Hill and Wang.
Baudrillard,Jean
1983 Simulations.New York:Semiotext (e).
Bruner,EdwardM.
1989 CreativePersonnaand the Problemof Authenticity.In Creativityin Anthropol-
ogy. SmadarLavie, Kirin Narayan, and Renato Rosaldo, eds. Ithaca:Cornell Uni-
versityPress (in press).
Buck-Morss,Susan
1987 Semiotic Boundariesand the Politics of Meaning:Modernityon Tour-A Vil-
lage in Transition.In New Ways of Knowing;The Sciences, Society, andReconstruc-
tive Knowledge. MarcusG. Raskin and HerbertJ. Bernstein,eds. Pp. 200-236. To-
towa, N.J.: Rowmanand Littlefield.
Clifford,James
1986 On EthnographicAllegory. In WritingCulture:The Poetics and Politics of Eth-
nography.James Clifford and George E. Marcus, eds. Pp. 98-121. Berkeley: Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress.
Cohen, Erik
1984 The Sociology of Tourism:Approaches,Issues, and Findings. Annual Review
of Sociology 10:373-392.
Crick, Malcolm
1985 "Tracing" the Anthropological Self: Quizzical Reflections on Field Work,
Tourismand the Ludic. Social Analysis 17:71-92.
de Certeau,Michel
1984 The Practiceof EverydayLife. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CANNIBALS, ANDETHNOGRAPHERS
TOURISTS, 445

Eco, Umberto
1986 Travels in Hyperreality.In Travels in Hyperreality:Essays. UmbertoEco, ed.
Pp. 3-58. San Diego: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Graburn,Nelson H. H.
1983 The Anthropologyof Tourism. Nelson Graburn,ed. Annals of Tourism Re-
search 10(1):9-33.
MacCannell,Dean
1976 The Tourist:A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken.
1989 Introduction.In Semiotics of Tourism. Dean MacCannell,ed. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 16(1):1-6.
Mulvey, Laura
1975 Visual Pleasureand NarrativeCinema. Screen 16(3):6-18.
Rosaldo, Renato
1989 Cultureand Truth:The Remakingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Smith, Valene L.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism. Revised edition 1989. Phila-
delphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Sontag, Susan
1973 On Photography.New York:Delta.
Stewart,Susan
1984 Objectsof Desire. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

This content downloaded from 161.116.246.151 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions