RE S E ARCH PRO PO S AL
Research coordinators: Michael Stewart, Eniko Magyari-Vincze
ReSET program participant: Serban Vaetisi – Faculty of European Studies, Cluj, Romania
Student team: Valentina Gidea, Andreea Micu, Nausica Pop, Cristina Stanc
Title of research: LOCAL AND GLOBAL WITHIN THE RURAL TOURISM. A study on
traditional food, folk objects, and local ecology of an agrotourisitc lodging in Romania
Expected research budget attached
Background, Issues and Aims of the Research
I intend to realize a research on the fieldwork of rural tourism. My aim is to understand how
globalization and global culture aspects interlace traditional local aspects (such as
traditional/national food, handicraft/folk objects, and local/regional ecology) within the sociocultural context and economy of rural tourism. In this, an ethnographic account on a fieldwork of
four to six days on an appropriate region we (my students and me) are prepairing to do, next year.
Rural tourism is a relatively new phenomenon in Romania linked with recent governamental
projects and laws, as well as with proper investements and ideas of developing own home, region
and business. There are some predilect regions for rural tourism in Romania (such as Apuseni
Mountains, Maramures, Prahovei Valley, or Brasov region) and, what probabily characterizes it
most, aside suitable natural setting, is the connection with large-known cultural assumptions that
bind tourism (such as: the splendor of Romanian viallages and peasants, or the existence of a
peculiar and attractive types of landscape, history, agriculture, folklore, mythology, and way of
living).
As a prior anthropological observation we could remark how all of these are often ideologized
within the Romanian culture, and how this ‘traditional’ ideologization interlace with the new one,
of the new economic and ‘global’ interests in such regions. Infrastructure, environmental issues,
and even touristic services remain often, in this context, as secondary interests.
1
Besides this background observation, that could render many understandings in our approach, we
will focus on how ‘local’ and ‘global’ appear in the peoples’ life, behavior and reactions as well
as in the objects and values involved in such tourism.
This research, I consider, could well encompass the main three directions within which I trained
ever since as regards anthropological research: nationalism, economic restructuring, and
globalization.
One of the potential locations to develop such a research is an agrotouristic lodging in Albac, a
village in the Apuseni Mountains, relatively close to Cluj, with good routes of acces and
reasonably accomodation and meals prices.
Research Questions and Methodology
Surely we are not yet assured of the relevance of a problem or another regarding a topic like this.
Depending on what we will find on the field and on what people will be eager to speak about we
will precise more our questions and methodology.
As already noted, three possible main issues we would intend to focus upon are traditional food,
folk articles and local ecology. Within these we would consider the following
questions/hypothesis to be asked/confirmed:
-
if local/traditional food are presented and served traditionally and what this actually
means
-
what transnational/global elements interlace with presumed national/local ways of
preparing and serving meals
-
what are considered to be folk objects, how are they produced and obtained, and what are
their use and role within the touristic activities
-
how traditional handicraft objects are used (i.e if local hosts and hostess are wearing folk
clothes; if meals are served in traditional clay plates and with traditional wood spoons; if
2
these objects are also decorating the rooms; if these objects are also destinated for
purchasing by the visitors etc.)
-
what detectable modifications these are given as the result of their integration within the
modern facilities of a confortable lodge
-
how local interpretation of environment and agricultural production is connected with the
new ideologized assumptions on healthy and pure foods and with ‘natural’ folksy objects
-
how these behavior, objects, and values are integrated within the discourse of both hosts
and visitors etc.
Following this, a suitable triangle of links we will pursue between food, objects and environment
as reciprocically influencing their ways of being utilized, interpreted and integrated by local
people and tourists according to their interests. This could help us in the process of conducting
our research as we could ask question about a lot of things starting from a casual discution on a
common shared topic.
As methodology we intend mainly to use participant observation, interviews and photos. We
will aim to observe mainly what rural tourism means, and we will prepare interviweing guides for
hosts and tourists. The general questions will refer to their status, habits, interests, and
expectations as hosts/tourists, and the specific questions will refer to the food they are
prepairing/consuming etc., the object they are ornating/wearing/buying etc., and the natural
environment they are using/percieving etc., in the framework of this kind of tourism. As research
team we will try to organize our work by rendering to each of us, aside common tasks, some
individual task, as for instance interviewing certain person, focusing observation on certain
element, or documentating certain issue.
As theoretical background we will consider the usual definitions of local and global as they
appear in relevant anthropological works on topics such “traveling cultures” (Clifford, 1992),
“hybrid cultures” (Canclini, 1995), “transnational connections” (Hannerz, 1996) or “crosscultural consumption” (Howes, 1996). A prior delimitation regarding other working notions as
postsocialist tourism, rural tourism, traditional food, folk objects or local ecology are also to be
established. Besides, administrative and economic regulations regarding the rural tourism or
3
socio-political elements involving the way this is perceived in the various contexts (e.g. the
postsocialist socio-economic changes, the Romanian politics and culture, the larger local
community, etc.) will be, also, taken into account.
As form of presenting what we will find out on the field, we intend to compose an ethnographic
account that to encompass: the way we developed the fieldwork, the data we gathered, some
interpretation regarding the topics we focused upon, and some general consideration reflecting
the relationship between local and global within the rural tourism and the way this is socially,
economically, ecologically, culturally and ideologically integrated.
Expected Outcomes of the Research
Considering tourism as one of the main medium of globalization (Urry, 1995; Tomilson, 1999)
we are expecting to find intersting and relevant aspects the interaction (or the ‘clash’) local (i.e.
rural)/global (i.e.tourism) brings within the studied topic expressed by the rural tourism.
An ethnographic description of what rural tourism in the studied region means is to be provided
along with this research. This account will not aspire to offer a monograph of the local rural
tourism, nor a diagnosis of the large issuses (as ‘globalism’ or ‘localism’) it arise. We rather will
present a form of understanding this phenomenon through the local/global challenges and
reciprocical influences, as they appear in the view of three proposed discernible topics: food, folk
objects, and environment.
We expect to clarify ourselves, through this research, which are the global and local elements
involved in this type of affair; how they interweave, and how people involved use and respond to
them. Particular social relations, international networks, power and economic relations, or
gender/age/ethnictiy-based seggregations will also be observed.
Hence an implicit critical discourse assessing the ideological implications these interconnections
bring, will be promoted.
4
In conclusion, this research is expected to encompass: (a) a depiction of a phenomenon (“rural
tourism”) previously described in general and theoretical terms, that to assure a deeper
understanding of some peculiar aspects of it; (b) responses to prior problems put in association to
some obvious and some less evident issues regarding “rural tourism”, accompanied by few
interpretation; and (c) an analytical presentation of the fieldwork, the data, and the interpretation
we obtained (the way we reached to the responses). Considering this, one of the result of our
research could be also a contribution at “cutting globalization research down to size by
reintegrating it into the methodological mainstream of anthropology” (Eriksen, 2003).
Cited References
1. CANCLINI, N.G., 1995. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving
Modernity, Univeristy of Minnesota Press.
2. CLIFFORD, James, 1992. ”Traveling Cultures”, in Lawrence Grossberg et al., Cultural
Studies, Routledge, pp. 96-116.
3. ERIKSEN, Thomas Hylland, 2003. “Introduction”, in T.H. Erikson, ed., Globalisation:
Studies in Anthropology, Pluto.
4. HANNERZ, Ulf, 1996. Transnational Connections. Culture, People, Places, Routledge.
5. HOWES, D., ed., 1996. Cross-cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local realities,
Routledge.
6. TOMILSON, John, 1999. Globalization and Culture, Polity Press&Blackwell Publishers.
7. URRY, J., 1995. “Tourism, Europe, and Identity”, in J. Urry, Consuming Places,
Routledge, pp. 163-170.
PROJECT PROPOSAL BY SERBAN VAETISI
5