Representing a group at the interface

When talking about lifeworlds or perceptions meeting and mingling the concept of the interface might seem as something occurring at a rather abstract level. However the idea does imply real face-to-face encounters of the individuals or groups negotiating at the intersection (Long 1989, 2). But who is physically put to or present at the interface when the idea is to transmit the perception of a whole social group or culture? The several external influences and the different roles that people have and assume in their lives through the activities in which they participate daily makes it complicated to establish somehow “pure” agents or representatives of a particular group. However working in a group, as a collective, in a conflict situation with multiple “opponents” can also be seen as a pertinent resource. The coalition of actors should retain a shared definition of the interface situation and have the same objectives and interests and be able to find a certain level of agreement

on what the best course of action is upon negotiation. The representatives are conceded and trusted with the power to act and make choices on behalf of the group and thus should also possess the cultural means of transmitting and translating messages at the interface. Coalitions can also be formed of networks of actors sharing common goals. (Long 2001, 56.) In tourism there is a need to represent the interests of the individual communities but perhaps the indigenous or the Tacana as a whole, a coalition, as well upon interacting and making decisions of how community-based tourism in their home surroundings should be carried out.

A further challenge in representation is that in order to reach compromise or any level of harmony at the interface the representative needs to respond also to the claims and expectations of the other actors present (ibid., 70). Negotiation requires flexibility, and choosing what the important battles to tackle and win are is tricky. Representation is also complicated by the fact that the interface has the potential to transform the perceptions of the people involved and that people might also have individual goals that they wish to pursue, which could compromise their loyalty to the group. However the representatives cannot simply discard their background and initial intentions since this can easily lead to losing legitimacy in the eyes of not only one’s own social group but the other participants of the interface as well (Arce 1992, 217). Since shifts and transformations are hard to predict, the best a group can usually do is put people who share the values and ideas of the group here and now to the interface. The choice of who represents a group isn’t always necessarily a democratic commonly agreed upon decision, occasionally representatives are born naturally or certain active people rise to the occasions in an almost self-selected manner. For instance in tourism the community leaders might also be natural leaders for the enterprises since they are already in a way responsible for the development and wellbeing of the community. The formality of the process of choosing representation can depend for instance on how organized or hierarchic the entity and interface are. Regular communication and discussion with one’s group about strategies and routes of action are essential in further developing and defining the cultural priorities and understandings (Long 2001, 77). A lot is required from a representative since it is not only enough to know who the other people at the interface are, but also what for instance the knowledge system that they represent consists of and implies at the intersection (Nakata 2007b, 143).

As mentioned, at the cultural interface the stress is on the individual who is placed at the intersection of varying cultures. He represents himself but carries obviously with him a cultural background. The differentiated responses that may occur from individuals of the same culture might not mean acculturation or distance from one’s roots, but could and should according to Nakata be seen as rather reflecting the dynamism within the groups and the diversity of the contexts that the

is always preserved through history and narratives of what they have been as a collective and this continuity in the present is what makes people belong to a culture, an identity even in changed circumstances. (Nakata 2002, 286; 2007b; 205.) Yet we simply cannot expect even a seemingly homogenous group to react and respond to the multitude of situations and elements at the interface always in a harmonized way. Or as Long (2001, 51) suggests the cultural repertoires that consist of values, types of discourses, traditions and symbols, should be embraced as heterogeneous and hybrid. The idea of the existence of clear black and white perspectives needs to be contested. In the Madidi context this could mean not stigmatizing community members as non-indigenous even if certain decisions they take don’t match the cultural norm or mainstream.

Accepting heterogeneity can also lead to getting rid of cultural or social stereotypes, even though this might once again complicate predicting actions and reactions at the interface. Even so, there is always something common within the groups, which helps us understand their complex position, but the interface shouldn’t be tried to reduce to e.g. a simple indigenous-western relation. Also, a culturally or historically based deterministic perception of events at the interface shouldn’t be entertained since it is a place of possibilities beholding positive and negative impacts for different people and groups at different times. (Nakata 2007b, 200.) This means that from what has previously occurred at the interface one shouldn’t make conclusions of what might occur. Adding to this idea is the important point that Long (2001, 70) brings up, which is that it shouldn’t be assumed that certain groups, for example ones based on gender or ethnicity, behold deeper loyalties. Hence an indigenous representative can be equally flimsy in his stance at an interface as e.g. a government official with seemingly less fundamental ties to the interest he is pursuing.