What do you think?
Rate this book
路徑：20世紀晚期的旅行與翻譯
是誰決定一個社群要在哪裡、何時，劃出一條區分你我的界線？
我們是否能將「移動」視為文化的構成要素，將族群視為一種互動而開放的「形成過程」？
人類座落（location）除了是由靜止所構成，也是由移轉（displacement）所構成。旅行（travels）與接觸（contacts）才是未竟的現代性研究中的關鍵。
在這些來來去去的移動中，我們可以發現哪些生存與互動技巧？有哪些資源可供一個多樣性的未來所使用？
人人都在移動，幾世紀以來皆是如此。探險、朝聖、移工或移民、觀光，以及旅行；人類移動並遭逢是一個存在已久且複雜的過程。所謂的「文化」與「邊界」並非先於接觸而存在，是透過接觸才得以維持。
聚焦必然會有所排除。因此，當人們傾向用「共同生活」的概念，來強調文化中的價值、社會階層與歷史，是否將忽略──甚至壓抑──許多不純粹的、難以或尚未梳理的集體創造與求生過程？所謂的「在地」是從誰的觀點來看？如何在政治上闡明和挑戰重大差異？定義與捍衛一個家園需要的是什麼？是誰得以決定一個社群要在哪裡（以及在何時）劃出一條區分內部者和外部者的界線？我們能否將移動視為文化的構成要素，而不僅僅是文化的轉移或延伸？
國家的、族群的界線，究竟是如何被不同的歷史主體所維繫、守衛、破壞與跨越？
《路徑》延續克里弗德在《文化的困境》中的討論，持續論證其對「文化」概念的主張，「無論如何，在受到族群絕對論撕裂的當代世界，對身分一致性的聲稱是無可避免的。文化看來是禍福參半的事物。我企圖鬆動對文化的常識性看法，聚焦在民族誌再現（ethnographic representation）的過程。我用來撬開文化觀念的槓桿是關於『書寫』（writing）與『拼貼』（collage）的延伸概念，前者被視為互動性、開放性和過程性的，而後者則是要為異質性提供空間，不僅是為美學並置，更是為歷史並置和政治並置提供空間。」
本書分為「旅行」、「接觸」與「諸多未來」三個部分。第一部分「旅行」主要討論民族誌田野工作，克里弗德將田野工作視為一項旅行實踐，突顯了在被歷史地、政治地定義的地點中進行的具身活動（embodied activity）。這種世俗的強調有助於開拓當前的可能性，擴展並複雜化民族誌研究的路徑。第二部分「接觸」談的是博物館──博物館不單純是一種西方機構的延伸，而是一個不同文化願景和不同社群利益的接觸區。那麼，在全球博物館蓬勃發展的當下，我們可以如何看待並期待更多樣性的參與？第三部分「諸多未來」考察了「離散」（diaspora）的當代銜接，考察了如何在與多個地方保持聯繫之際，又能同時履踐非絕對主義的公民身分形式。各式各樣的離散史被重構為一種「後殖民主義的史前史」，跨國旅行和接觸——人、物和媒體的旅行和接觸——並不指向單一的歷史方向。
然後，當歷史現實被理解為一連串未竟的遭逢，或許我們可以試圖定位自己，講述一則關於移動的新故事。
「我並不認為任何人會永遠被他的『身分』固定住，但也沒有人可以擺脫他的種族與文化、階級與種姓、性別與性向、環境與歷史等的特定結構。我理解這些以及其他交叉影響的決定因素，不是作為選擇或被迫接受的家園，而是作為世界旅行的場域，是困難的遭逢與對話的機緣。由此而來的推論是，任何關於一致性或普世性價值的新舊觀點，都沒有辦法解開文化政治的難題。只有更多的翻譯。
「這些文章是一點點開端，試圖追溯人們旅行的新、舊地圖和歷史，而其中被賦予了不同程度的權力或受迫。本書關切在移轉中所銜接的人類差異性，關切在愈來愈連結但非同質的世界中，糾纏的文化經驗、結構與可能性。」──〈序：未竟之業〉
我們是否能將「移動」視為文化的構成要素，將族群視為一種互動而開放的「形成過程」？
人類座落（location）除了是由靜止所構成，也是由移轉（displacement）所構成。旅行（travels）與接觸（contacts）才是未竟的現代性研究中的關鍵。
在這些來來去去的移動中，我們可以發現哪些生存與互動技巧？有哪些資源可供一個多樣性的未來所使用？
人人都在移動，幾世紀以來皆是如此。探險、朝聖、移工或移民、觀光，以及旅行；人類移動並遭逢是一個存在已久且複雜的過程。所謂的「文化」與「邊界」並非先於接觸而存在，是透過接觸才得以維持。
聚焦必然會有所排除。因此，當人們傾向用「共同生活」的概念，來強調文化中的價值、社會階層與歷史，是否將忽略──甚至壓抑──許多不純粹的、難以或尚未梳理的集體創造與求生過程？所謂的「在地」是從誰的觀點來看？如何在政治上闡明和挑戰重大差異？定義與捍衛一個家園需要的是什麼？是誰得以決定一個社群要在哪裡（以及在何時）劃出一條區分內部者和外部者的界線？我們能否將移動視為文化的構成要素，而不僅僅是文化的轉移或延伸？
國家的、族群的界線，究竟是如何被不同的歷史主體所維繫、守衛、破壞與跨越？
《路徑》延續克里弗德在《文化的困境》中的討論，持續論證其對「文化」概念的主張，「無論如何，在受到族群絕對論撕裂的當代世界，對身分一致性的聲稱是無可避免的。文化看來是禍福參半的事物。我企圖鬆動對文化的常識性看法，聚焦在民族誌再現（ethnographic representation）的過程。我用來撬開文化觀念的槓桿是關於『書寫』（writing）與『拼貼』（collage）的延伸概念，前者被視為互動性、開放性和過程性的，而後者則是要為異質性提供空間，不僅是為美學並置，更是為歷史並置和政治並置提供空間。」
本書分為「旅行」、「接觸」與「諸多未來」三個部分。第一部分「旅行」主要討論民族誌田野工作，克里弗德將田野工作視為一項旅行實踐，突顯了在被歷史地、政治地定義的地點中進行的具身活動（embodied activity）。這種世俗的強調有助於開拓當前的可能性，擴展並複雜化民族誌研究的路徑。第二部分「接觸」談的是博物館──博物館不單純是一種西方機構的延伸，而是一個不同文化願景和不同社群利益的接觸區。那麼，在全球博物館蓬勃發展的當下，我們可以如何看待並期待更多樣性的參與？第三部分「諸多未來」考察了「離散」（diaspora）的當代銜接，考察了如何在與多個地方保持聯繫之際，又能同時履踐非絕對主義的公民身分形式。各式各樣的離散史被重構為一種「後殖民主義的史前史」，跨國旅行和接觸——人、物和媒體的旅行和接觸——並不指向單一的歷史方向。
然後，當歷史現實被理解為一連串未竟的遭逢，或許我們可以試圖定位自己，講述一則關於移動的新故事。
「我並不認為任何人會永遠被他的『身分』固定住，但也沒有人可以擺脫他的種族與文化、階級與種姓、性別與性向、環境與歷史等的特定結構。我理解這些以及其他交叉影響的決定因素，不是作為選擇或被迫接受的家園，而是作為世界旅行的場域，是困難的遭逢與對話的機緣。由此而來的推論是，任何關於一致性或普世性價值的新舊觀點，都沒有辦法解開文化政治的難題。只有更多的翻譯。
「這些文章是一點點開端，試圖追溯人們旅行的新、舊地圖和歷史，而其中被賦予了不同程度的權力或受迫。本書關切在移轉中所銜接的人類差異性，關切在愈來愈連結但非同質的世界中，糾纏的文化經驗、結構與可能性。」──〈序：未竟之業〉
640 pages, Paperback
First published April 21, 1997
12 people are currently reading
256 people want to read
About the author
James Clifford
42 books40 followersJames Clifford is a historian and Professor in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Clifford and Hayden White were among the first faculty directly appointed to the History of Consciousness Ph.D. program in 1978, which was originally the only graduate department at UC-Santa Cruz. The History of Consciousness department continues to be an intellectual center for innovative interdisciplinary and critical scholarship in the U.S. and abroad, largely due to Clifford and White's influence, as well as the work of other prominent faculty who were hired in the 1980’s. Clifford served as Chair to this department from 2004-2007.
Clifford is the author of several widely cited and translated books, including The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art (1988) and Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late 20th Century (1997), as well as the editor of Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, with George Marcus (1986). Clifford's work has sparked controversy and critical debate in a number of disciplines, such as literature, art history and visual studies, and especially in cultural anthropology, as his literary critiques of written ethnography greatly contributed to the discipline’s important self-critical period of the 1980's and early 1990's.
Clifford's dissertation research was conducted at Harvard University in History (1969-1977), and focused on anthropologist Maurice Leenhardt and Melanesia. However, because of his impact on the discipline of anthropology, Clifford is sometimes mistaken as an anthropologist with graduate training in cultural anthropology. Rather, Clifford's work in anthropology is usually critical and historical in nature, and does not often include fieldwork or extended research at a single field site. A geographical interest in Melanesia continues to influence Clifford's scholarship, and his work on issues related to indigeneity, as well as fields like globalization, museum studies, visual and performance studies, cultural studies, and translation, often as they relate to how the category of the indigenous is produced.
Clifford is the author of several widely cited and translated books, including The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art (1988) and Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late 20th Century (1997), as well as the editor of Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, with George Marcus (1986). Clifford's work has sparked controversy and critical debate in a number of disciplines, such as literature, art history and visual studies, and especially in cultural anthropology, as his literary critiques of written ethnography greatly contributed to the discipline’s important self-critical period of the 1980's and early 1990's.
Clifford's dissertation research was conducted at Harvard University in History (1969-1977), and focused on anthropologist Maurice Leenhardt and Melanesia. However, because of his impact on the discipline of anthropology, Clifford is sometimes mistaken as an anthropologist with graduate training in cultural anthropology. Rather, Clifford's work in anthropology is usually critical and historical in nature, and does not often include fieldwork or extended research at a single field site. A geographical interest in Melanesia continues to influence Clifford's scholarship, and his work on issues related to indigeneity, as well as fields like globalization, museum studies, visual and performance studies, cultural studies, and translation, often as they relate to how the category of the indigenous is produced.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 7, 2013
Routes -- a play on the word Roots, which is Clifford's real topic -- is a curiosity amongst academic books. It's a collection of essays that all deal in one way or another with how travel defines culture, and it's also something of a state of the field of anthropology in its dealings with travel (fieldwork), transnationalism and diaspora in the late 1990s. Some of his remarks feel rather commonplace to me now, fifteen years later, but I appreciate that even when making what feels like an obvious claim Clifford seeks to explore it from all angles. (In this respect the book is a model for the kind of dissertation I'd like to write.)
But I have two complaints. First -- this is why I say it's curious -- the book collects not just essays, but also a speech, a book review, what I think are a couple of diaries, etc., and while from a creative point of view these are all of value, from the PhD student's point of view they're missed opportunities. I would have loved to hear Clifford's remarks, for example, on what he calls "White Ethnicity." Unfortunately, I would have to extrapolate them from the various vignettes assembled (somewhat misleadingly) under that "chapter" title in the book. Ultimately, I read the book for its three primary essays ("Spatial Practices," "Museums as Contact Zones," and "Diasporas"), and I found myself skimming the rest. In numerical terms, that means I really found valuable about 100 of the book's 408 total pages. Second, and here I'm being perhaps too literal, I don't really think the book lives up to its subtitle's claim to be about "Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century." There are fleeting remarks about the act of translation, sure, but not anything I'd consider a major contribution to that particular conversation.
But I have two complaints. First -- this is why I say it's curious -- the book collects not just essays, but also a speech, a book review, what I think are a couple of diaries, etc., and while from a creative point of view these are all of value, from the PhD student's point of view they're missed opportunities. I would have loved to hear Clifford's remarks, for example, on what he calls "White Ethnicity." Unfortunately, I would have to extrapolate them from the various vignettes assembled (somewhat misleadingly) under that "chapter" title in the book. Ultimately, I read the book for its three primary essays ("Spatial Practices," "Museums as Contact Zones," and "Diasporas"), and I found myself skimming the rest. In numerical terms, that means I really found valuable about 100 of the book's 408 total pages. Second, and here I'm being perhaps too literal, I don't really think the book lives up to its subtitle's claim to be about "Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century." There are fleeting remarks about the act of translation, sure, but not anything I'd consider a major contribution to that particular conversation.
September 27, 2013
Like with most of the other books dealing with diasporas and movement there is little to no mention here regarding Cuban diasporas. I would argue that this book main's contribution was the emphasis he placed in individual stories instead of metanarratives.
July 28, 2008
An analysis of Clifford's views on hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences using Henry Miller's narrative The Collosus of Marousi.
Anthropological research, when focused on studying other cultures, centered on the experiences of “fieldwork,” a task that led anthropologists to towns and villages in order to understand a “native” culture. (Clifford, 21-23) Despite these attempts, modern anthropologists have found flaws in this logic as a result of consistent interactions between groups of people. These interactions prevent a culture from being truly native as they are tainted by a culture with which they have had contact. Thus, anthropologist James Clifford argues that in order to study other cultures one must understand the “local/global historical encounters, co–productions, dominations, and resistances” through a lens focused “on hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences as much as on rooted, native ones.” (Clifford, 24) This approach permits the study of culture in its entirety, both as native and as interrupted by exterior cultures and can be found throughout travel writings such as Henry Miller’s The Colossus of Maroussi.
The basis for Clifford’s argument is that all cultures have interacted in some capacity with others. Fieldwork is a prime example. An anthropologist researching a culture does so by attempting to “blend in” to the town. However, this task is impossible. Despite attempting to “blend in,” he stands out due to his cultural differences in clothing, body language, and other actions while bringing many of his personal traditions, biases, and practices to his research. This often results in the mingling of cultures a phenomenon that does not simply occur with anthropologists, but rather it occurs in all cultures as a result of interactions with others and the larger world; the villages are not static. They may receive world news from the radio or a newspaper; they may partake in the arts of other cultures; they might trade with other tribes, states, or countries; they may interact with travelers from abroad or even a travelling member of their own culture. In each of these different ways, it is possible to see how a single culture might be exposed to one or more different cultures. Consequently, Clifford argues that we are not simply studying their own traditional lifestyle, but a lifestyle that has been influenced by the larger world; it is an experience of mixed origin that borrows from the larger world, not simply the local community. In this way, a culture is truly dynamic. It is this dynamic understanding of culture that Clifford refers to as a “hotel,” since culture “comes to resemble as much a site of travel encounters as of residence.” (Clifford, 25) It is this exact world that Henry Miller enters into during his travels to Greece.
Henry Miller’s travel narrative begins with an explanation of why he chose to travel to Greece and an account of his journey with a Turk, a Syrian, some Lebanese students, and an Argentine. (Miller, 3-7) These men coerce him into a conversation on America with which they were all enamored. “Progress was their obsession. More machines, more efficiency, more capital, more comforts-that was their whole talk.” (Miller, 6) Despite the far ranging cultures of origin, they were all fascinated with the American culture and lifestyle to which they had access. Even the Greek he meets on the ship has a desire to travel to America. (Miller, 7) From this early story, it is made known that Greece is influenced by many different cultures, evidence that the Greek culture, and maybe even the larger European culture, is not simply native. The American influence is further emphasized when Miller travels with Katsimbalis to Spetsai where they meet Mister John, the hotel proprietor, who describes the fruit stand he owned in New York City. Mr. John, a Greek by birth, left his home and travelled to America where he lived for many years before returning to Greece. (Miller, 64) It is clear from the conversation that his experience altered his understanding of his own culture which he then shared with others.
The integration of culture did not solely manifest itself in one’s outlook on life, but also infiltrated their homes. While in Athens, at the residence of Seferiades, Miller is treated to an evening of Jazz from Seferiades collection of Jazz music which consisted of Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and many other Americans. (Miller, 107) Later, when he arrives at the home of Mr. Tsoutsou, he enters “the sort of den which St. Jerome might have created for himself” with a “cross-cut of everything which had gone to make the culture of Europe.” (Miller, 131) For Mr. Tsoutsou, like Seferiades, they are attracted to various aspects of other cultures which they crave to integrate into their daily lives. Miller, rather unimpressed by their grasps for ulterior cultures, remarks “Soon one would have to come to a place like Crete to recover the evidence of a civilization which had disappeared.” (Miller, 131) Miller offers a strong critique of the merging of cultures, suggesting that like America, one can no longer find the “true” culture of “Europe proper” as they have strayed from the “native experiences” in favor of incorporating facets of many cultures, thus creating a “hybrid, cosmopolitan experience.”
Miller largely writes about these “hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences” which permeate his trip, but the paradox is that Miller does not want to find a “hybrid, cosmopolitan experience,” but rather the native Greek experience. While his “native experiences” are few, they always occur for him as moments of personal clarity. During a trip to Mycenae, Henry Miller has what amounts to a religious experience. In his mind, the experience is not rooted in other cultures, but simply that of the Ancient Greeks. Here he has found a connection to the past through “one of the navels of the human spirit.” (Miller, 86) Mycenae may be the birthplace of not only Greek culture, but all culture. This assessment is both emotional and fantasized. Miller is actually unsure about the experience, questioning “whether I was recalling things I had read as a child or whether I was taping the universal memory of the race.” (Miller, 86) For Miller, it was desirable to believe that he had taped a “universal memory” whereby he could experience the true Greek culture. Instead, it is more plausible that his life experiences led him to revere Mycenae for its holiness. Furthermore, Miller’s experience is not even shared by the Greeks around him as evidenced by the story about the little boy who was crying because his sister stole three drachmas. Miller is shocked that money even exists in such an awe-inspiring place as Mycenae. For Miller, this represents the world he left behind in New York City: “American culture.” Separation appears impossible in this place. (Miller, 87) Miller, desirous of holding onto his “native experience,” passes it off as “an hallucination” to which he responds “Let him stand there and weep…he didn’t belong, he was an anomaly.” (Miller, 87) While Miller wishes to look only at the “native experiences,” he finds it impossible to analyze Greece from this sole perspective.
In reality, the study of another culture requires one to utilize an approach which allows for the study of the culture in its entirety, both as “native” and as “hybrid, cosmopolitan.” As Clifford maintains, this research must be more like a hotel than a field since one must “rethink cultures as sites of dwelling and travel.” (Clifford, 31) These hotel interactions then do not necessarily mean that everyone must travel. Rather, the interactions between people create a greater knowledge base which provides an alternative understanding of travel. Miller himself takes part in this form of travel during a revelation that his travel experience has been far broader than travelling back and forth between Athens and Corfu. Miller says,
people came to me at the cafes and poured out their journeys to me; the captain was always returning from a new trajectory; Seferiades was always writing a new poem which went back deep into the past and forward as far as the seventh root race; Katsimbalis would take me on his monologues to Mt. Athos, to Pelion and Ossa, to Leonidion and Monemvasia; Durrel would set my mind whirling with Pythagorean adventures; a little Welshman, just back from Persia, would drag me over the high plateaus and deposit me in Samarkand. (Miller, 51-52)
He further explores Greece through the paintings of Ghika as well as other artists and writers. This realization is important in the mind of Clifford, because it demonstrates that this form of travel and the traditional version of travel is equally important since it allows everyone an opportunity to gain both a local and global sense. These types of events, according to Clifford do not take place in the fields, but rather in a “hotel lobby, urban café, ship, or bus.” (Clifford, 25) And it is certainly not a coincident that these are the same places where Miller is able to travel through the experiences of others. The world Miller experiences is one where “people leave home and return, enacting differently centered worlds, interconnected cosmopolitanisms.” (Clifford, 27-28) For the duration of his travels, Greece was his hotel where he could experience Greek culture, not simply as a “native experience,” but in its entirety, his believed “native experiences” coupled with “hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences.”
Anthropological research, when focused on studying other cultures, centered on the experiences of “fieldwork,” a task that led anthropologists to towns and villages in order to understand a “native” culture. (Clifford, 21-23) Despite these attempts, modern anthropologists have found flaws in this logic as a result of consistent interactions between groups of people. These interactions prevent a culture from being truly native as they are tainted by a culture with which they have had contact. Thus, anthropologist James Clifford argues that in order to study other cultures one must understand the “local/global historical encounters, co–productions, dominations, and resistances” through a lens focused “on hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences as much as on rooted, native ones.” (Clifford, 24) This approach permits the study of culture in its entirety, both as native and as interrupted by exterior cultures and can be found throughout travel writings such as Henry Miller’s The Colossus of Maroussi.
The basis for Clifford’s argument is that all cultures have interacted in some capacity with others. Fieldwork is a prime example. An anthropologist researching a culture does so by attempting to “blend in” to the town. However, this task is impossible. Despite attempting to “blend in,” he stands out due to his cultural differences in clothing, body language, and other actions while bringing many of his personal traditions, biases, and practices to his research. This often results in the mingling of cultures a phenomenon that does not simply occur with anthropologists, but rather it occurs in all cultures as a result of interactions with others and the larger world; the villages are not static. They may receive world news from the radio or a newspaper; they may partake in the arts of other cultures; they might trade with other tribes, states, or countries; they may interact with travelers from abroad or even a travelling member of their own culture. In each of these different ways, it is possible to see how a single culture might be exposed to one or more different cultures. Consequently, Clifford argues that we are not simply studying their own traditional lifestyle, but a lifestyle that has been influenced by the larger world; it is an experience of mixed origin that borrows from the larger world, not simply the local community. In this way, a culture is truly dynamic. It is this dynamic understanding of culture that Clifford refers to as a “hotel,” since culture “comes to resemble as much a site of travel encounters as of residence.” (Clifford, 25) It is this exact world that Henry Miller enters into during his travels to Greece.
Henry Miller’s travel narrative begins with an explanation of why he chose to travel to Greece and an account of his journey with a Turk, a Syrian, some Lebanese students, and an Argentine. (Miller, 3-7) These men coerce him into a conversation on America with which they were all enamored. “Progress was their obsession. More machines, more efficiency, more capital, more comforts-that was their whole talk.” (Miller, 6) Despite the far ranging cultures of origin, they were all fascinated with the American culture and lifestyle to which they had access. Even the Greek he meets on the ship has a desire to travel to America. (Miller, 7) From this early story, it is made known that Greece is influenced by many different cultures, evidence that the Greek culture, and maybe even the larger European culture, is not simply native. The American influence is further emphasized when Miller travels with Katsimbalis to Spetsai where they meet Mister John, the hotel proprietor, who describes the fruit stand he owned in New York City. Mr. John, a Greek by birth, left his home and travelled to America where he lived for many years before returning to Greece. (Miller, 64) It is clear from the conversation that his experience altered his understanding of his own culture which he then shared with others.
The integration of culture did not solely manifest itself in one’s outlook on life, but also infiltrated their homes. While in Athens, at the residence of Seferiades, Miller is treated to an evening of Jazz from Seferiades collection of Jazz music which consisted of Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and many other Americans. (Miller, 107) Later, when he arrives at the home of Mr. Tsoutsou, he enters “the sort of den which St. Jerome might have created for himself” with a “cross-cut of everything which had gone to make the culture of Europe.” (Miller, 131) For Mr. Tsoutsou, like Seferiades, they are attracted to various aspects of other cultures which they crave to integrate into their daily lives. Miller, rather unimpressed by their grasps for ulterior cultures, remarks “Soon one would have to come to a place like Crete to recover the evidence of a civilization which had disappeared.” (Miller, 131) Miller offers a strong critique of the merging of cultures, suggesting that like America, one can no longer find the “true” culture of “Europe proper” as they have strayed from the “native experiences” in favor of incorporating facets of many cultures, thus creating a “hybrid, cosmopolitan experience.”
Miller largely writes about these “hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences” which permeate his trip, but the paradox is that Miller does not want to find a “hybrid, cosmopolitan experience,” but rather the native Greek experience. While his “native experiences” are few, they always occur for him as moments of personal clarity. During a trip to Mycenae, Henry Miller has what amounts to a religious experience. In his mind, the experience is not rooted in other cultures, but simply that of the Ancient Greeks. Here he has found a connection to the past through “one of the navels of the human spirit.” (Miller, 86) Mycenae may be the birthplace of not only Greek culture, but all culture. This assessment is both emotional and fantasized. Miller is actually unsure about the experience, questioning “whether I was recalling things I had read as a child or whether I was taping the universal memory of the race.” (Miller, 86) For Miller, it was desirable to believe that he had taped a “universal memory” whereby he could experience the true Greek culture. Instead, it is more plausible that his life experiences led him to revere Mycenae for its holiness. Furthermore, Miller’s experience is not even shared by the Greeks around him as evidenced by the story about the little boy who was crying because his sister stole three drachmas. Miller is shocked that money even exists in such an awe-inspiring place as Mycenae. For Miller, this represents the world he left behind in New York City: “American culture.” Separation appears impossible in this place. (Miller, 87) Miller, desirous of holding onto his “native experience,” passes it off as “an hallucination” to which he responds “Let him stand there and weep…he didn’t belong, he was an anomaly.” (Miller, 87) While Miller wishes to look only at the “native experiences,” he finds it impossible to analyze Greece from this sole perspective.
In reality, the study of another culture requires one to utilize an approach which allows for the study of the culture in its entirety, both as “native” and as “hybrid, cosmopolitan.” As Clifford maintains, this research must be more like a hotel than a field since one must “rethink cultures as sites of dwelling and travel.” (Clifford, 31) These hotel interactions then do not necessarily mean that everyone must travel. Rather, the interactions between people create a greater knowledge base which provides an alternative understanding of travel. Miller himself takes part in this form of travel during a revelation that his travel experience has been far broader than travelling back and forth between Athens and Corfu. Miller says,
people came to me at the cafes and poured out their journeys to me; the captain was always returning from a new trajectory; Seferiades was always writing a new poem which went back deep into the past and forward as far as the seventh root race; Katsimbalis would take me on his monologues to Mt. Athos, to Pelion and Ossa, to Leonidion and Monemvasia; Durrel would set my mind whirling with Pythagorean adventures; a little Welshman, just back from Persia, would drag me over the high plateaus and deposit me in Samarkand. (Miller, 51-52)
He further explores Greece through the paintings of Ghika as well as other artists and writers. This realization is important in the mind of Clifford, because it demonstrates that this form of travel and the traditional version of travel is equally important since it allows everyone an opportunity to gain both a local and global sense. These types of events, according to Clifford do not take place in the fields, but rather in a “hotel lobby, urban café, ship, or bus.” (Clifford, 25) And it is certainly not a coincident that these are the same places where Miller is able to travel through the experiences of others. The world Miller experiences is one where “people leave home and return, enacting differently centered worlds, interconnected cosmopolitanisms.” (Clifford, 27-28) For the duration of his travels, Greece was his hotel where he could experience Greek culture, not simply as a “native experience,” but in its entirety, his believed “native experiences” coupled with “hybrid, cosmopolitan experiences.”
November 11, 2016
excellent book, which discloses the politics of contemporary travel and travel writing culture. Clifford prime concern is with the problem of deliberately making the 'stasis'and 'purity'by travel writers in the world which is full 'movement' and 'disorder'".
Read
September 14, 2017Kirkus reviewer accurately dubs this "slow going for the casual reader"--the marginalia of my used book proclaims, "pompous ass"--but it's the natural extension of my anthropology kick. It's formally adventurous for an academic tome, and that kept my curiosity going, even though the academic/critical pieces are probably more successful than the self-consciously postmodern poetic bits. The first and last essays were my favorite.
Clifford has a real knack for reviewing museums. I was completely carried away by his descriptions, contextualizations, questions and criticisms of the exhibits he visits all over the world. The "Fort Ross Meditation" is incredibly rich, a model I loved and expect to return to. The long series of unanswered questions are perhaps the most important parts of the book.
Though it must be pointed out that after all the fuss he made over representing New Guinean portraits in color, this one got reproduced for the cover in black and white.
Clifford has a real knack for reviewing museums. I was completely carried away by his descriptions, contextualizations, questions and criticisms of the exhibits he visits all over the world. The "Fort Ross Meditation" is incredibly rich, a model I loved and expect to return to. The long series of unanswered questions are perhaps the most important parts of the book.
Though it must be pointed out that after all the fuss he made over representing New Guinean portraits in color, this one got reproduced for the cover in black and white.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews