Finding the Perfect Souvenir: Where Commodities and Orientalism Meet
My name is Evan Fishburn, and I am really honored to receive this award. I am from Boise, ID and attended Timberline High School. My major is in English Literature, and I have also pursued a Certificate in Digital Media and Cinema, as well as a Certificate in TESOL. Although it was difficult to choose a major, studying literature felt like the right choice for me: it allowed me to explore a variety of books and authors I’ve always wanted to read, engage with their work analytically, and emulate their styles in my own creative writing.
For me, the most enriching classes I have taken at Boise State include Russian Literature, Film and Literature, Ethnic Literature, Critical Theory, Creative Writing, and Introduction to Media. For the past year, I have worked as a copy editor and contributing writer for The Arbiter, Boise State’s student newspaper. Through this experience, I have learned about the importance of media literacy and how to communicate news in a succinct and objective way. I have also made many friends outside of the English Department.
After I graduate, I will attend Columbia University in New York to learn more about the publishing industry, including book, magazine, print, and digital publications. I am excited to learn how editors read and how they form relationships with new writers. Eventually, I hope to work as an editor, a screenwriter, or an ESL teacher. Outside of school, I love to travel, take photographs, write short stories and poetry, read The New York Times, watch films at The Flicks, play the piano, and walk my dog.
Finding the Perfect Souvenir: Where Commodities and Orientalism Meet
The distance between the Orient and the Occident is not so physical as it is ideological. Though the Western middle class may travel to and enjoy holidays in any number of Asian countries, these visitors still experience the Orient as a construction – through the Western ideology – that supposes a superiority of the European over the Oriental. Such superiority is rooted in historical events and imperialist philosophies, and it is made manifest through the souvenir. Understanding these cultural differences, however, requires far more effort than simply rejecting labels or refusing to purchase souvenirs on a holiday. In today’s context, the commodification of people’s cultures can be understood through globalization.
While this study could be applied to various countries and cultures around the world, the way it applies to the Orient – countries of Asia – differs significantly than the way it applies to the Occident – countries of Western Europe and North America. For example, no one from the West would conflate a Frenchman with a relic of the Eiffel Tower, but he might conflate a Chinese man with a pair of chopsticks or a jade Buddha, or a Japanese woman with a kimono. In this way, I wish to explore the ways in which Asian cultures and identities are reduced to these mere souvenir-commodities specifically because of orientalism. Applying ideas about commodities from Slavoj Žižek’s “The Sublime Object of Ideology”(1998), and Orientalism from Edward Said (1978) to tourist studies complicates our understanding of souvenirs, but places them in a more global context, wherein culture is commodified at the detriment of the host country.
First, what defines a souvenir? According to Paraskevaidis and Androitis in their article “Values of Souvenirs As Commodities” (2015), “the word souvenir means ‘to remember’ … souvenirs as material objects link people with places and memories” (2). This physical link to a person’s spatial, temporal, and emotional memory is unique and significant, and it helps explain why tourists consistently purchase objects that have relatively little to no use-value. Interestingly, the concept of the modern souvenir arose out of religious pilgrimages, on which pilgrims would purchase “sacred relics” with “healing and miraculous attributes” (4). These relics also functioned as proof of completing the journey, whether arduous or not. During the age of imperialism, the museum collector’s admiration for “ancient objects … reveals [his or her] emotional ties to the past” and prompted them to seize thousands of non-European artifacts (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 3). Souvenirs “do not only function as reminders of the destination visited, but they may also symbolize tourists’ traveling experience, and at the same time represent a particular gaze” (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 1). This gaze is arguably the Western gaze, which, when applied to countries of Asia, becomes Orientalism. Though souvenirs are frequently physical objects, a photograph could also be viewed as such. With the rise of social media in the 21st century, photographs also convey “matters of social status and prestige that a consumer acquires” through global travel (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 5). Through the photograph, the tourist need not even purchase a physical object to communicate that he or she has the means to travel; thus, this souvenir has a high exchange-value.
In terms of behavioral psychology, Paraskevaidis and Androitis concluded that the purchasing of souvenirs is a normal human activity when visiting another place (5). It is easy to have contempt for tourists who purchase “tacky” souvenirs, but it is rare to find someone who abstains from any direct souvenir purchasing or who is not implicated through souvenir-gifts. Similarly, the tourist’s intention in buying souvenirs is innocent enough but has deeper ramifications: his or her purpose was “to know and come in touch with the local culture and civilization of the host societies and the main means to remember the place visited was the souvenir” (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 5). It is too simplistic to think that acquiring an object – with most souvenirs being mass-produced in Chinese factories – will help one to “know” a country. These buying habits for cheap, useless collectibles is somewhat irrational, yet, while souvenirs may lack use-value, they possess sign-value (material need), exchange-value (symbolic power), and sometimes spiritual-value (holiness) (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 2-3). In terms of fulfilling a person’s need, souvenirs could even be purchased for reasons beyond consciousness; though evaluating how Freud relates to this topic would be worth pursuing, it is perhaps beyond the scope and focus of this paper.
To understand why souvenirs are so prevalent around the world, we must place them in a context of capitalism, globalism, and mass production. According to Paraskevaidis and Androitis, “the main difference between pre-mass produced and mass-produced souvenirs is that the former functioned as genuine representations of sites and other artistic works, whereas the latter are identified as cheap and inauthentic commercial objects” (2). It is easy for anyone to notice mass-produced souvenirs at a market or bazaar – rows and rows of similar looking objects, replenished daily for another round of tourists, and usually available for export on souvenir websites. In this sense, souvenirs are not “authentic.” This mass production of souvenirs developed into “a global phenomenon only after World War II, when tourism movements started to become a privilege of the middle-class in the western societies” (Paraskevaidis and Androitis 2). Because of post-WWII consumerism and the spread of capitalism, America and the West dominated, managed, and produced the Orient and their identities. Is it only a coincidence, then, that the rise of American presence in Asia and the rise of souvenir production both manifested during the post-WWII period? With the spread of capitalism and consumerism, especially American consumerism in the 1950’s, it is not surprising that this phenomenon would reach and take hold of Asian countries. Furthermore, this trend of mass purchasing and mass-production spawned commodity fetishism, revealing that “there are relations between people behind the relations between things” (Žižek 720) and reducing vendors to the souvenirs they offer rather than the identities they inhabit.
To apply Edward Said’s idea of Orientalism, which he posited in his book of the same name, souvenirs from Asian countries take on a new meaning. According to Said, in the introduction of Orientalism (1978), he states, “European culture was able to manage – and even produce – the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period” (11). This European influence certainly was indicative on the tourist industry in these countries, wherein British and French military members would bring home items they had “discovered” – if not for their families, then for their vast museums. The British Museum, the Louvre, and many others are clear examples, leading to a remarkable ownership and exoticizing of the cultural “other,” not only by domestic tourists in Britain and France, but also by other Western tourists who visit Britain and France, even to this day. This “authority” over the other “establishes canons of taste and value,” hence the way Western audiences appropriate Russian matryoshka nesting dolls, Persian boxes, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Japanese fabrics, Chinese porcelain, Indian bangles, Indonesian batik, Philippines’ batok tattoos, and other cultural items (Said 27). This very sentence demonstrates how easy it is to conflate or fetishize a country (or its people) with a commodity.
If the museum artifact can also be considered a souvenir, then the countries from which these artifacts originated have not been given enough credit. After all, “the Orient is not only adjacent to Europe, it is also a place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the other” (Said 9). Furthermore, the European “material civilization and culture” was strengthened and formulated through its contrast to the Orient and its triumph in conquering and collecting from the world (Said 11). Without the Orient, what would Europe be? Even the few museum visitors who read and listen to every label and audio recording form in their minds a limited idea of another civilization. The “contrasting image, idea, personality, [and] experience” of the Orient reifies the “civilized” identity of the Occident (Said 11). The museum is useful in many ways as an educational epicenter for understanding the world without having to travel everywhere, but this usefulness may only apply to the middle-class Westerner. What does an Egyptian man think, for example, when he sees artifacts from Cairo behind glass in the British Museum? At its simplest, the museum is proof of historical global power and dominance – celebrated, rather than questioned, by most authorities and visitors.
When reading Said, it may not seem to be an obvious link to souvenirs; he discusses the discourse that perpetuates orientalist thought, not individual objects. However, I argue that Said links to tourist studies in that souvenirs are a direct consequence of Orientalism. Through the Western philosophy that constructs Eastern identity, Orientalism also creates a distortion of that identity, simply because it is constructed from the outside (the outside, it should be noted, is also responsible for determining demand for souvenir production) and thus generalizes a country to a set of stereotypes. Said writes that his “two fears are distortion and inaccuracy” (16). The souvenir is one way that Asian culture is distorted and inaccurate for the tourist’s consumption. In the article, “Case Study on the Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment” (1993), Krishna Menon mirrors this thought when he writes, “tourism reinforces cultural stereotypes and social structures … such stereotypes, unfortunately, distort the identity of the host society” (84, 86). When a tourist, for example, experiences a village dance or ceremony in Goa that is marketed as a culturally immersive experience, he might extrapolate this performance to characterize the entire country of India. Yet, this representation is “a highly artificial enactment of what a non-Oriental has made into a symbol for the whole Orient” (Said 29). During one time, such a performance might have been authentic, when it was confined to a local population and included only people of this culture. However, once done solely out of obligation for the tourist, it becomes a sham, which has dire effects on cultural heritage. Likewise, if a Western tourist witnesses poverty, homelessness, violence, or illness – all occurring in the West as well – he may suppose that all people from an Asian country suffer in this way.
In Goa, India, Menon found that “tourism … has made the people money-minded. They no longer spontaneously dance all night during festivals, but they now do it for money” (Menon 37). Children, too, behaved badly around tourists when they believed they could beg or intimidate them for money, and other members in society have been negatively impacted by the prevalence (and globalized infiltration) of Western-style bars, fast-food chains, nightclubs, resorts, and even drug use (Menon 37). Tourism also affects the spirituality of the people, “destroying the ties that bind people to their faith, religion and aesthetics,” and affecting subsequent generations (Menon ii). All of these influences necessarily constitute a lasting change to identity – just as the Western tourist generalizes an entire people based on a few, limited interactions, the “native” is changed, his culture cheapened.
There is great danger in simplifying any nation or culture to a set of arbitrary symbols and signifiers, such as those that souvenirs represent. Another danger exists in cultural isolation, when the tourist (as Occident) and the host (as Oriental) rarely come into contact with each other to avoid potential unpleasantness:
The tourist is isolated from the strangeness of the host environment and the local people within the ‘environmental bubble’ of the familiar western-style hotel. The hotel provides all the experiences the tourist seeks – sun, sea, sand, sumptuous buffets, entertainment -without the responsibility to deal with the harsh reality of the local culture and customs, which are presented in superficial, small modules of ethnic entertainment packages, shopping and restricted sight seeing trips. (Menon 54)
By avoiding contact with the oppressed, the Western tourist is able to feel ethical about his or her holiday, purchasing habits, measly donations to local beggars, and so on. In most cases, the tourist is oblivious to the harm he or she causes these people because an alternative function of the hotel or resort is to isolate the tourist from discomfort, the disturbing “kernel” of truth, to quote Žižek. The same applies to souvenir acquisition. While at one time these cultural symbols possessed a great deal of significance (when used by members of a culture), souvenirs today are not produced for anyone other than the tourist. Simply put, “they” do it for “us.” Of course, the irony is that vendors are forced to, through the global entrenchment of capitalism, to sell and market these items to generate a modest income and support their families. Handcrafted goods are too time-intensive and cannot be produced on a large scale, which forces people to pursue cheap, inauthentic souvenirs. While the tourist industry is a valid aspect of economies around the world, it poses a real threat to the original cultures of an area and their environment.
Although it is easy to presume that the host country benefits economically from tourist activities, it is not always so. While the country in general may benefit economically, the local cultures that must support the tourists often suffer. According to the UNESCO case study in India, in which researchers studied the effects of tourism in three Indian cities (Jaisalmer, Khajuraho, and Goa), “the local economy does not benefit from such investments: they have taken away productive village land, monopolized local resources, increased inflation and only provided a few menial jobs for the local people” (Menon 90). Governmental promotion of tourist activities runs contrary to the local interest, leading to inflation, converting homes to vacation rentals, reserving the best beaches for tourists, building water-dependent golf courses, and so on. According to the 1987 Goa Conservation Report, “the potential of tourism should be regarded as a valuable economic asset” (Menon 55). Yet, this potential asset is pursued “to detriment of local people” (Menon 46). This is not to suggest that all tourist-related activities be done away with, but to call attention to the ways the local prosperity and landscape are threatened through tourism, both internally and externally.
Lawmakers are often aware of the negative effects of tourism in places such as “Thailand, [the] Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea,” but “they are nevertheless ignored in order to increase the short-term gains of revenue from tourism” (Menon 71). Clearly, the economic interest takes precedent in these matters of foreign exchange. Furthermore, “the tourist industry – with Government support – is primarily concerned with the welfare of the tourist and not the host society” (Menon 71). Even though the tourist may learn about the negative effects his consumption may have on the local population, such knowledge has little effect on his purchasing behavior. The government official, too, may overlook citizen wellbeing in matters concerning economic growth. This effect is a consequence of ideology, where “the cynical subject is quite aware of the distance between the ideological mask and the social reality, but he nonetheless still insists upon the mask” (Žižek 717). This insistence helps humans continue on with their lives, professions, and holidays in good conscience, despite the poverty, government corruption, and social injustice that occurs in other parts of the globe and also in the tourist’s home country. With respect to luxury tourism in Goa, only the elite benefit (Menon 50), while the local people complain about “the increasing cost of the local staples – fish and vegetables” (Menon 51). Are tourists likely to cancel their plans once learning about this unpleasant fact? According to Žižek, probably not.
Though tourists celebrate souvenirs, the people of the host country may feel otherwise. This idea is best demonstrated at Erarta, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Saint Petersburg, Russia. A six-foot-tall matryoshka doll stands on the third floor, smiling, painted in bright red and flowery accents. It is propped open from the side, allowing visitors to look inside, where they see a dark interior and metal spikes poking out. This appearance is reminiscent of an “Iron Maiden,” a Roman torture device in which a prisoner is locked inside, pierced by these spikes, and eventually killed. In the context of Russian symbols, the matryoshka doll is an iconic and popularly mass-produced souvenir, sold at almost every street corner in Saint Petersburg. Though embedded in Russia’s history of ornate woodwork, these once-artisan dolls have become a symbol of tourism and foreign consumption – cheaply made, ever-present objects. The search for “authenticity” is almost impossible; with globalization, there are now nesting dolls with U.S. presidents, rock bands, superheroes, Star Wars, the Addams Family, the Simpsons, and more painted onto them. This artwork, then, comments on this hype as a metaphorical torture chamber and liability to the Russian people, signifying how cultural symbols are turned into commodities and used against the culture to which they belong. In some cases, the local culture may reject these symbols of culture while tourists extol them. Unless viewing souvenirs through the native’s perspective, the tourist may naïvely continue to consume and celebrate them as embodying foreign cultures without appreciating how capitalism has corrupted them.
In conclusion, the ethics of tourism and souvenir acquisition is a complex issue, which doubtlessly requires further exploration. With the ways globalization has interconnected and altered countries around the world, it is impossible to find easy solutions. Nevertheless, it is imperative to be a sensible tourist, studying the specific culture of a place prior to visiting, understanding that the true “essence” of a place is an abstract concept, and realizing that people’s lives are far more important than a seamless holiday. According to Paraskevaidis and Androitis, souvenirs contain a multitude of meanings and are thus highly subjective: “souvenirs vary according to the way they are interpreted by tourists in relation to their utility, their meanings, and the memories they represent” (2). While there is nothing wrong with wanting to commemorate a holiday with a cheap trinket, the tourist should consider why he or she feels obligated to do so and how he or she perpetuates an unfair cultural exchange.
Through Žižek, we see that the idea of a souvenir as a commodity is inevitable, exploiting a culture yet contributing to a country’s economy. Yet, through Said, we see that reducing a country to specific symbols and tourist expectations is irresponsible and fails to deconstruct Eurocentric beliefs. The paradox of tourism is that the ultimate search for “authenticity” in a foreign place is impossible because the tourist presence has helped eradicate any authenticity. If there is any authenticity left, it is safeguarded from the tourist enterprise. As found in the Indian case study, “what the policy implies is that what is good for the tourist is good for India” (Menon 71). This line of thought has dangerous implications, as governments cater to the wealthy foreign tourist rather than provide for its citizens in tourist-friendly areas. Though tourism is a useful way of seeking to understand other cultures, it is sometimes carried out in vain, for personal or economic self-interest. Forming stereotypes, too, is harmful because they are incomplete; likewise, the danger in cultural performances for tourist entertainment is that they are fabrications. However, few tourists question what they are seeing, especially if it makes them uncomfortable. Lastly, “tourism brings about more complex changes than other economic development projects, because it necessarily juxtaposes people of different cultures and economic attributes,” bringing together the Occident and the Orient (Menon 84). While questioning the way ideology functions is important, it is only a first step. Action, motivated by questions and knowledge, is the only way to enact real change. Knowledge, in fact, may be the best souvenir.
Works Cited
Menon, A. G. Krishna. “Case Study on the Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment:
India – Jaisalmer, Khajuraho and Goa.” UNESCO. 1993. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001216/121600eo.pdf.
Paraskevaidis, Pavlos, and Konstantinos Andriotis. “Values of Souvenirs As Commodities.”
Tourism Management, 48, 2015, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517714002143. Bottom of Form
Said, Edward W. “Introduction.” Orientalism. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1978, pp.9-36.
Žižek, Slavoj. “The Sublime Object of Ideology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology, edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, pp. 712-724.
References:
Bardhi, Fleura (2010). “Negotiating cultural boundaries: Food, travel and consumer identities.” Consumption, markets and culture (1025-3866), 13 (2), p. 133. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247521866_Negotiating_cultural_boundaries_Food_travel_and_consumer_identities.
Behar, Richard. “Globalization: Between Fairness and Exploitation.” Pbs.org, 1 August 2002. Accessed 13 December 2017. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/uncategorized/land-of-wandering-souls-globalization-between-fairness-and-exploitation/3073/.
Ehrenfeld, Sylvain. “Ethical Dilemnas of Globalization.” Ethicalfocus.org, April 2008. Accessed 14 December 2017. Retrieved from http://ethicalfocus.org/ethical-dilemmas-of-globalization/.
“Erarta Museum.” Erarta.com, 2017. Accessed 11 December 2017. Retrieved from https://www.erarta.com/en/museum/.
Manfred, Sing and Younes Miriam. “The Specters of Marx in Edward Said’s Orientalism.” Welt Des Islams, vol. 53, no. 2, July 2013, pp. 149-191. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/4918955/The_Specters_of_Marx_in_Edward_Said_s_Orientalism.
Morgan, Nigel, and Annette Pritchard. “On Souvenirs and Metonymy.” Tourist Studies. 5.1, 2005, 29-53. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468797605062714?journalCode=toua.
Sakir, Salman. “Globalization Is Only a Good Thing If It Benefits All Groups of Society.” The Huffington Post, 15 December 2014. Accessed 14 December 2017. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/salman-sakir/globalization_b_5992002.html.