5.3.1 Participant Post-Tour Narratives
Post-tour narratives are a continuing and active process on the part of tourists as they actively seek out souvenirs and particular points of interest in order to share their experiences when they return. These experiences change in regards to audience and over time, but the overarching importance here is that these narratives are the most disjoined and easiest to reconfigure (E. Bruner, 2005). At the end of the closing ceremony, just before the closing
ceremony banquet, participants were asked to recall their experiences with their host families and local sessions. The CIE displayed some pictures taken by their photographers on a large screen from the local sessions and the secretary general of the CIE handed a microphone to one individual from each of the local sessions (including myself). Participants recounted their experiences by stating how much they enjoyed their time and how much they would miss their host families. They also congratulated the summit organizers for creating memorable
experiences. Often, participants would explain to the other audience members in attendance what was occurring in the pictures.
Participants are encouraged to submit comments to the CIE after the summit in addition to photos. The CIE uses its own photos and posts them on their website and in their official publications such as the flash reports and the Grassroots Communication newsletters (in
buildings or objects. Rather, they wanted to display pictures of participants with people. In each instance, the CIE engages in selecting which elements to construct a master narrative of the summit experience. That is, they use particular accounts by the participants by taking only
particular images and stories of the participants and placing them on their website or publications in order to display that grassroots exchange occurred and the summit was a success. Thus, such practices are not distinct from those that tourist conduct themselves. However, the important issue to address here is the ability of the CIE to select which voices will be heard and which images will be displayed in order to represent the summit. As E. Bruner (2005), argues, post-tour narratives are structured in such a way as to frame how the experience will be remembered for those that such narratives are told to. As a master narrative, the purpose of the CIE’s website and official reports are to refashion how participants remembered their time in Japan while also framing the pre-tour narratives of potential future participants through the use of images, video, and text. This is carried out by such phrases as “the American guests enjoyed unique cultural exchange programs and experienced the daily life of Ōita families through homestay” and “After the fun and meaningful local sessions…”
Such statements speak for participants collectively and, while travel testimonials from participants are also posted on the CIE website, these, too, are also selected and displayed for their value in supporting the summit’s master narrative of grassroots exchange replete with tropes of enjoyment, discovery, and learning. The testimonials of participants as stated during the closing ceremony and after the summit are in-line with such a discourse. While the CIE does create community Facebook pages for summit participants based on each summit, allowing participants to extend their post-tour narratives, posts to these pages stop around five months after a summit has ended and mainly constitute pictures taken during the summit. In this case,
while participants have the ability to control how their lived experiences are displayed and narrated, the CIE’s website, which is continually updated and presents all previous summits back to 2007, continues to serve as the master narrative of summit participant experience.
5.3.2 What is Grassroots Exchange?
In talking with my informants, the issue of how they would be represented after the summit did not come up. Rather, I found that my informants did not necessarily have a clear definition of grassroots exchange, and that their purpose in attending the summit did not necessarily coincide with such definitions. Given this, questions of representation were not at issue because participants had their own reasons for attending the summit and constructing their own sense of authenticity based on what they hoped to encounter or complete during their stay. Despite this, illustrating my informant’s comments regarding how they completed grassroots exchange or not suggests that informants’ personal narratives do not necessarily coincide with the generalized statements of the CIE regarding summit success. In addition, participant post- tour narratives cannot be reduced to simple temporal frames as the CIE does by fixing participant responses and reactions within one single instance of lived experience. The issue, as Ricœur notes, is that intention as articulated in one instance and platform does not necessarily mean that speakers retrace and rethink those very motives in latter retellings (Dowling, 2011). The goal here is to demonstrate that what grassroots means to participants is multifarious based on previous experiences before the summit and experiences occurring after the summit and that such comments cannot be captured in one overarching recapitulation of the summit as the CIE does.
Brian and Heather reflected on their definition of grassroots exchange by commenting on the summit’s structure while also indicating the possibility for future encounters beyond it.
Heather remarked that the notion of grassroots means meeting at a common or “base level” instead of “reasons of political, individual advancement or personal gain.” She believed that the summit aided as a platform in facilitating such encounters and that the summit should continue because of this. She also suggested that this kind of program allows participants to appreciate “how we are all separate and yet universal members of humanity.” Heather was therefore critical of the descendants of the Manjiros, Whitfields, and Commodore Perry. She suggested that their speeches framed the purpose of grassroots exchange around them and their historical legacies as opposed to addressing contemporary issues and aiding in understanding how Japanese and Americans share important similarities and differences. Thereof, the overall interpersonal connections that the summit allow for are of more importance. Brian, also made similar
comments in defining what grassroots exchange means when he stated “grassroots exchange is interaction, giving and receiving, at the basic level of a society.” He further commented that the top-down approach towards organizing the summit contradicted this definition. Despite
corporate and political involvement in organizing and funding the summit, Brian mentioned that possible future encounters with those that participants meet during the summit could occur outside such an organizational structure. For Brian, grassroots exchange cannot occur during the summit but it can lead to it afterwards “if any individuals take the initiative to continue to
interact after the summit.”
Amy and Mariko provided no definition for grassroots exchange. Amy remarked that “I never really understood the definition of grassroots, even though I've seen this term used in various organizations.” However, like Heather and Brian, she did state that grassroots implied returning to something basic. This means encountering “regular folks” from different places. While the closing ceremony aided in reinforcing how the program fosters these kinds of
encounters, she stated that the ceremonies program did not actually influence how she viewed her purpose in Japan nor her understanding of grassroots exchange. Mariko shared similar sentiments, in that she stated “I understood the importance of the opening and closing
ceremonies, but it really didn't have any influence on me or my purpose in Japan.” In addition, Mariko stated that she did not have any definition for grassroots exchange. Instead, she
commented that “I came basically just for the experience and to explore my other half.” For Mariko, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the summit was an important means of connecting her with what she considered her cultural heritage. In this sense, she was not learning about Japanese culture in the summit but, rather, learning about herself. This personal narrative was not captured in the CIE’s official reports or videos, nor in a separate video made by local Ōita news.
Dr. Perry and John had similar understandings of grassroots exchange in that they both mentioned the importance of individuals while also how such interactions are important to larger political interests. John stated that, “I feel that the only effective way to improve international relationships between countries is to have the citizens meet and spend time with each other in their respective homes.” His comments are tied to his understanding of the Manjiro story that, for him, reflects how attitudes between countries can change by people from different cultures living together. The summit aids in this process by allowing Japanese and Americans to meet and homestay thus aiding in changing perceptions between the two countries. Dr. Perry shared a similar perception in stating that “I would define Grassroots Exchange as a medium to improve relations with persons of different cultures and backgrounds.” Informal conversations, food and drink constitute such a medium. The importance of this approach, Dr. Perry stated, was that it can allow individuals to learn more about each other’s culture and “improve relations with nations, like the US and Japan.” Through such grassroots efforts, Dr. Perry also remarked that he
could aid in changing Commodore Perry’s reputation in the United States and Japan to a more positive one.