What do you think?
Rate this book
Strade: Viaggio e traduzione alla fine del secolo XX
James Clifford è il maggiore esponente,riconosciuto a livello internazionale, di quella che si può chiamare la «svolta letteraria» in antropologia. Finita la certezza della identità (il civilizzato da una parte, il primitivo e il selvaggio dall’altra) e compromessa la stabilità dei luoghi (il più piccolo villaggio in cui il ricercatore può recarsi è popolato di turisti, oltre che di altri antropologi), si può dire che tutto diventi oggetto dello studio antropologico. Si pensi alla mescolanza di etnie e di culture che si incrocia in un aeroporto, al sovrapporsi di tradizioni e di modernità, in breve alle articolazioni contemporanee della diaspora, cui è dedicato uno dei saggi più importanti del libro. Rispetto al precedente I frutti puri impazziscono, qui è più accentuato lo spostamento del centro dell’interesse nel senso del viaggio, del passaggio di frontiera – con conseguente contaminazione, ibridazione, vicendevole influenza e trasformazione delle culture. A questo mutamento dell’oggetto stesso della ricerca antropologica corrisponde uno stile di esposizione interpretativo, mediante il quale l’autore mette in gioco se stesso nei suoi rapporti con le realtà sempre in movimento di cui fa parte, che lo comprendono e lo modificano. Cosicché non stupirà trovare qui alcuni scritti autobiografici e altri animati da una vera e propria ricerca letteraria.
461 pages, Paperback
First published April 21, 1997
11 people are currently reading
253 people want to read
About the author
James Clifford
43 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