The future of visual anthropology: engaging the senses. by Pink, Sarah
The future of visual anthropology: engaging the senses. by Pink, Sarah
复制标题
视觉人类学的未来：吸引感官。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1469-8676.2008.00027_23.x
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Gabriela Boangiu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gabriela Boangiu
人类学对旅行的研究从来没有这么好过。随着人们对“学习”的重新关注（Nader 1972），跟随大群图尔斯上下车的日子，坐在舞台上等待游客出现的日子，或者当他们离开工厂大门进入宿舍墙时偷偷尾随在疲惫不堪的农民工后面的日子已经一去不复返了。本书避开了劳工移民和旅游旅行之间的常见区别，而是探讨了在国际化的世界观中，当人们在相对特权的社会经济社区进行长期旅行时会发生什么。虽然本书中的大多数案例研究仍然集中在一种类型的劳动力迁移上，但这是最杰出、最高薪的劳动力：居住在印度尼西亚的企业外派人员（第3章），在蒙古、波兰和澳大利亚之间穿梭的获奖电影摄影师（第5章），以及在夏威夷度假胜地每周工作30小时的“志愿者”（第9章）。正如编辑Vered Amit在她的导言中指出的那样，正是这些人和他们的社区，学者们正在铸造“世界主义”的理论网络，然而，正如本书中的民族志案例研究所表明的那样，“精英们曾经如此认同[世界主义]。看起来，它们毕竟不是世界性的”（第9页）。外籍妻子将自己在雅加达的生活描述为“泡沫”;美国中产阶级社区的日本妻子觉得有义务维持一个日本家庭，以便在丈夫在国外的任期结束后，更容易承受不可避免的回归“真实的日本世界”的过渡（第二章）。出于这个原因，这一系列的章节值得广泛阅读和讨论，他们一起展示了民族志研究在对话中的必要性，但不一定是勾结，与现代性和当代世界的统治批判理论。阿米特简明扼要地阐述了中心论点：“所有形式的运动都是由不对称区分的期望和经验释放出来的潜力。”（第8页）个案研究追溯了这些期望和经验在各种情况下的演变;特别值得注意的是梅克·费希特关于印度尼西亚侨民社区的章节，卡伦·福格·奥尔维格关于美国、加拿大和英国的加勒比中产阶级家庭移民叙事结构的章节（第6章），卡罗琳奥利弗关于西班牙太阳海岸的英国退休老人的“理想流动性”（第8章）。虽然某些情况下会受益于更持久的民族志，但缺乏这种细节说明了研究移动的主题的困难，对他们来说，旅行是他们社会经济身份和生活机会的重要组成部分（Greenhalgh采访的电影摄影师就是一个很好的例子）。在某种程度上，人们可能会想，人类学家怎么能对这样的旅行对象进行长期的田野调查当一个人的线人和合作者认为他们的旅行经历是他们生活展开的大画面中的暂时“小故障”时，人类学理论的局限性是什么？这让我想起了纳尔逊·格拉本关于旅游的仪式特征的理论（2001年）和朱莉娅·哈里森的《作为一个旅游者》（2003年）的新的重要性，其中分析的重点是旅行的欲望，而旅游的目的是什么？
The anthropological study of travel has never had it so good. With a revived focus on ‘studying up’(Nader 1972), gone are the days of following large group tours on and off buses, sitting around a stage waiting for visitors to show up for a performance, or stealthily trailing behind exhausted migrant workers as they leave the factory gates to enter the dormitory walls. The volume under review eschews the commonplace distinction between labor migration and tourism travel in favor of exploring what happens, in a cosmopolitan worldview, when people travel for long-term engagements in relatively privileged socio-economic communities. While most of the case studies in the volume continue to focus on a type of labor migration, this is labor of the most distinguished, most well-paid kind: corporate expats living in Indonesia (Chapter 3), award-winning cinematographers shuttling between Mongolia, Poland, and Australia (Chapter 5), and ‘volunteers’ paying to work 30 hours a week at a retreat in Hawai’i (Chapter 9). As editor Vered Amit notes in her introduction, it is these very people and their communities on whom scholars are casting the theoretical net of ‘cosmopolitanism’and yet, as the ethnographic case studies in this volume demonstrate,‘the elites once so identified with [cosmopolitanism]... are not, it would appear, very cosmopolitan after all’(p. 9). Expatriate wives describe their lives in Jakarta as a ‘bubble’; Japanese wives in middle-class American neighborhoods feel obliged to maintain a Japanese household to make the inevitable transition back to the ‘real world of Japan’easier to bear when their husbands’ tenure abroad ends (Chapter 2). For this reason, this collection of chapters deserve to be widely read and discussed–together, they demonstrate the imperative for ethnographic research in conversation, but not necessarily in cahoots, with reigning critical theories of modernity and the contemporary world. The central argument is stated succinctly by Amit:‘[w] hat drives all forms of movement are the potentialities unleashed by expectations and experiences of asymmetrical distinction’(p. 8). The case studies trace the unfolding of these expectations and experiences in various contexts; of particular note are chapters by Meike Fechter on expatriate communities in Indonesia, Karen Fog Olwig on the structure of migration narratives by middle-class Caribbean families in the United States, Canada, and Britain (Chapter 6), and Caroline Oliver on the ‘aspirational mobility’of elderly British retirees in Spain’s Costa del Sol (Chapter 8). While certain cases would benefit from more sustained ethnography, the absence of such details speaks to the difficulties of studying mobile subjects for whom travel is part and parcel of their socio-economic identities and life opportunities (the cinematographers interviewed by Greenhalgh are a case in point). To an extent, one may wonder how an anthropologist could do long-term fieldwork with such traveling subjects–what are the limits of anthropological theory when one’s informants and collaborators consider their travel experiences as temporary ‘glitches’ in the big picture of their lives unfolding? This brings to mind the renewed importance of Nelson Graburn’s theory on the ritualistic features of tourism (2001) and Julia Harrison’s Being a Tourist (2003), where the analytical emphasis is on the desire to travel, and the