著者

山下 晋司 Shinji Yamashita

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, no.1, pp.1-33, 1992-07-31

---

In 1908 the royal family of Klungkung, the oldest and the lastkingdom of Bali, by then part of Dutch East India, committed theto tourism. It aims to make a contribution to the historical anthropologyof the Island as well as to the anthropology of tourism.The main part of the paper consists of four sections. The first sectiondescribes the birth of Bali as the "tourist paradise" in the 1920s tothe 1930s. In this setting, the roles played in the old theatre state of Bali,such as those of sponsors (kings) , director (priests) and actors/audience(peasants) had to change drastically. Now the "theatre" acted as hoststo tourists within the colonial state. The second section pays special attentionto the role of artists, scholars and anthropologists—WalterSpies, a German artist and musician, and Margaret Mead, the Americananthropologist, among others—who stayed in Bali in the 1930s, and whohelped creat the Western perception of Bali as the exotic, oriental "lastparadise." Related to this, the third section examines the re-creation oftraditional Balinese art—dance in particular—under the influence of thetourist, a Balinese version of the "invention of tradition" to quote EricHobsbawm. The final section analyses the present situation in which the"tourist paradise" has been transformed further into the "national parkof beautiful Indonesia" as part of Indonesia's nation building process.Both tourism and nationalism necessarily empasise the beauty of the Indonesiannation, and particularly that of Bali as its foremost tourist attraction.By examining the Balinese cultural dynamics in relation to tourism,I am analysing the Balinese version of what James Clifford has called the"modern art -culture system." Following Clifford, I mean by the "artculturesystem" the way in which the West adopts, transforms and consumesnon-Western cultural elements. In the twentieth century, objectsfrom "primitive" societies have been re-evaluated both as "works ofarts" by artists (and also, importantly, by tourists) , and as "scientificcultural materials" by anthropolgists. In this system artists, tourists andanthropologists play complementary and in some ways, similar, roles,each in establishing the "authenticity" of cultures.It is within this modern art-culture system that the Balinese tourismis embedded. In other words, as is the case with museums whichClifford analyses, it is this modern system which the anthropology oftourism must really analyse. In this sense the anthropology of tourismmust be the anthropology of modernity and/or of post-modernity. TheBalinese case considered here is just one example which demonstratesthis thesis.puputan, mass suicide, by marching helplessly and almost in a state oftrance against the invading Dutch colonial army. It was literally thedeath of negara, the theatre state of nineteenth-century Bali, analysed byClifford Geertz. After the old state died out, however, Bali wasdiscovered by Western pioneer tourists and was reborn again as "the lastparadise" under the Dutch colonial regime.By the 1930s Balinese tourism was well developed, to the extent thatin 1931 Miguel Covarrubias, a Mexican artist and traveller and the writerof the now classic Island of Bali wrote of the Island: "we were disappointed;the tourist rush was in full swing." After a break during theWorld War II and following the Indonesian Independence Revolutionperiod, tourism in Bali reappeared again in the late 1960s as part of thedevelopment policy of the government of the independent Republic of Indonesia.It goes without saying that the Island has now gained worldwidefame as an international tourist site. The number of tourists in1991 is reported as amounting to over 600,000.This paper describes the historical transformation of Bali from thenineteenth-century "theatre state" to the twentieth-century "touristparadise," and examines the dynamism of Balinese culture with reference