Reading Resist Racism, I found a link to an article in this Sunday’s Washington Post by a journalist by the name of Amit Paley who chronicled her exploration of “tribes” in Thailand. The article is a study in class privilege, with a global twist. It begins with the sentence: “You can see almost anything in the world if you pay enough.”
She wanted to see women of the Padaung (or Kayan), who are from Burma but now live in Thailand as refugees. The Kayan women are famous for wearing brass rings around their necks, leading to the illusion of an elongated neck created by the depression of their collarbone. Paley writes:
Ever since I glimpsed the Padaung as a child in my grandfather’s National Geographics, I had wanted to see these curious women, who suffer painful disfigurement to emerge as graceful beauties.
Her description of human beings, indirectly, as curiosities, combined with the comment that you can see “anything… if you pay enough” (my emphasis) is an excellent example of the objectification of ethnic others.
Paley’s desire to see these women is almost thwarted by the majority of tourist companies in Thailand who describe her effort as exploitative and immoral. They even suggest that the women are “prisoners held captive in the villages by businessmen” making money off of tourism. This is confirmed by Wikipedia, for what it’s worth.
This doesn’t stop Paley, who keeps asking until she finds a company that will take her to one of the remote villages in which Kayan women live.
The women she meets confirm that they wear traditional garb, continue traditional practices (such as the brass rings), and are even forced to remain in the villages, in order to attract tourists. Men, largely, appear to be exempted from earning their keep in this way.
Paley says that one powerful male village member said that the women “must wear the dress because of tradition” and “spoke excitedly about its appeal to tourists and noted that half of the village’s income of $30,000 a year comes from tourism.”
A woman in brass rings told her “We do it to put on a show for the foreigners and tourists!”
Paley finishes with this lackluster reflection:
So is it unethical to visit the long-necked women? It is clearly true that money spent to visit them supports an artificial village from which they essentially cannot leave. On the other hand, many of them appeared to prefer living in virtual confinement as long as they are paid and safe. According to what they told me, their situation beats the alternative of living in a repressive country plagued by abject poverty and hunger.
I don’t feel guilty about visiting the Padaung, but my feelings might be different if I had traveled solely as a tourist rather than as a journalist. And I certainly don’t like their lot in life: Shouldn’t everyone have the freedom to live and travel wherever they want?
Well, Paley has shown that she certainly does have that freedom. And she is apparently willing to use her “journalist” identity to justify just about any advantage that her privilege affords her.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 19
Blucheez — August 26, 2009
Does the word "zoo" ever come up in the article? Because that's what it seems to be.
Tamara — August 26, 2009
Fow what its worth, I was in Thailand in March, and had absolutely no trouble finding myself unintentionally visiting a "Long Neck Village" - it turned out to be part of the intinerary on the first random tour at the random hostel I stayed at in Chiang Mai, so I find the suggestion that 'most' tourist companies are eschewing them becuase it's immoral ludicurous.
It was one of thge most incredibly awkward and uncomfortable experiences i've ever had. A few things that helped alleviate it slightly were that there were very few girls (no men or boys at all), thus at least letting me vaugely entertain the hope they were in a school somewhere (though I have no clue if this is so) and I didn't get the impression that anyone actually lived in the "village" where we tourists were brought - it was more a collection of handicraft and souvenier stalls, so at least we weren't intruding into their homes, and for some at least in my group the visit was seperately itemized, so got the impression the place does receive a commision for every group that comes there, and so are making some money whether or not anyone buys anything.
None of which makes me think its an overall good situation or would ever persuade me to go there again as a tourist.
theunbeatablekid — August 26, 2009
Paley ignores the history and social function of this fashion beyond labeling it as traditional. Just because practices such as footbinding or the slave trade are traditional does not make any less inappropriate. In addition, is there evidence that these are actually traditional and not manufactured traditions?
R — August 26, 2009
I'm not sure that tourism is the morally-significant problem here.
I'd agree that this 'tradition' is probably a symptom of exploitation. These women feel pressure to participate in tourism to avoid taking their next-best option.
So, in my view, the issue is "the next-best option is terrible" more than, "their current situation is exploitative." (I'm assuming that they're 'prisoners' in an economic sense, rather than a physical restriction sense)
Would these womens' lives improve if everyone stopped visiting their towns tomorrow?
EKSwitaj — August 26, 2009
The key to understanding what Paley was doing is in the use of "see" rather than "meet". That pretty much gives away how she regards these women.
Leerie — August 26, 2009
It's not "freedom" that lets you live and travel where you like, it's your bank balance. Fairly big difference there, considering that you can have cash physically in your hand whereas freedom will never stop being an abstract concept.
Woz — August 26, 2009
One thing I always think about in discussions like these is how much of this is lurid exploitation and how much of it is making a living in whatever crappy way you can. The text quoted in the post indicates that while the women aren't particularly fond of the neck rings, they do it to earn a (meager) income they otherwise have little way to earn. I guess I'm thinking of it in the context of other such crappy jobs that are taken as the "better than nothing" option (e.g. coal mining) that we don't really think of as exploitative in this way, even though it's far more harmful to those individual's (coal miner's) health than are the neck rings
Mary Cotter — August 26, 2009
Wow! You are so amazingly awesome! And so smart!
Raluca — August 27, 2009
As an activist for human rights in Burma, I know some stuff about their issue too, and I can say this is a really tough question. In Burma, their ethnic group, like many others, is opressed by Burma's military dictatorship; they often face forced labour, forced relocations and a lot of other human rights abuses and also severe poverty; that's why so many of them flee to Thailand, where their life isn't much better as they are either neglected or downright exploited by Thai authorities and they often cannot enjoy any protection of the law whatsoever.
As for the ethical approach to tourism; my oppinion: if you just go there to see and say "how ghastly" you won't be doing any good; you're just perpetuating exploitation. If you go there to do anthropological field work, to do humanitarian work or at least with the intention to rise awareness at home about the poor conditions they live in & ways they can be helped, then it is perfectly alright.
I'm sure that after Burma will become a democratic country (which I'm pretty sure it will, sooner or later, after they will achieve sustainable development and education for both men and women, it will only be up to them whether to continue these traditions or not; but most likely I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't; I have a feeling they are only keeping this alive because it attracts tourists, which helps them gain a little money that they desperately need.
Louche — August 30, 2009
That she's a journalist would be okay, I think, if she actually went there to, as the above person said, raise awareness. But it sounds like she went there to see a "curiosity" and claim a story that only people with lots of money could. The journalist excuses herself while neglecting to shed light on any possible solutions, and she leaves the only alternative as abject poverty.
Links for Sunday Brunch « The Mex Files — September 6, 2009
[...] Dr. Lisa Wade (Sociological Images) dissects Washington Post travel writer Amit Paley’s article on Thailand, and gaping at the “colorful native costumes”: The women she meets confirm that they wear traditional garb, continue traditional practices (such as the brass rings), and are even forced to remain in the villages, in order to attract tourists. Men, largely, appear to be exempted from earning their keep in this way. [...]
Anna Goldstein — August 13, 2013
It would have been nice for this post to link to more info, other than just a wikipedia article. It wasn't hard for me to find this article on BBC from 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7215182.stm. I wonder if there is any more recent info out there, other than the Washington Post story in question.