See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302191916

Cultural Heritage and Tourist Capital: Cultural Tourism in Bali

Book · January 1995

CITATIONS READS

59 3,991

1 author:

Michel Picard
CNRS-EHESS
60 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Appropriation of Religion in Southeast Asia and Beyond View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Picard on 18 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Tourism. Identity and Change, M.F. Lanfant, J.B. Allcock & E.M. Bruner,
eds., Sage, London, pp. 44-66, 1995.

Cultural Heritage and Tourist Capital :

Cultural Tourism in Bali

Michel Picard
URESTI/CNRS

«The touristic dilemma is clear: to freeze or not to freeze, to maintain boundaries or

to remove, to assimilate or to segregate, or in short - the sword cuts with both edges»
(Jafari 1984: 14).

In the early 1970s, when the news spread that the Indonesian government had decided
to launch mass tourism on Bali, tourist experts and lovers of Bali alike anxiously started
asking the question: «Would Balinese culture survive the impact of tourism?». For most of
them, there was little doubt that, sooner or later, the island of Bali would be overwhelmed by
the flood of tourists which were sweeping her shores - inexorably, business would get the
better of culture *.
The first expression of concern came from an American historian, Willard Hanna,
who published an inflammatory article on the impending ravages of tourism on Balinese
culture. He wondered whether the Balinese could profit from tourism without losing their
culture:
«How to exploit the tourist potential of the Island of Bali for the benefit of the
culturally rich but economically poor Balinese, without at the same time inducing
vulgarity or commercialization... In other words, the intent is to maximize the benefits
(profits) and minimize the detriments ("social and cultural pollution") and thus to
preserve Balinese values by acquisition of desperately needed foreign valuta» (1).
In his opinion, the problem was not likely to be resolved, and if tourism in Bali were to prove
to be a commercial success, it would become a cultural tragedy, as authentic traditions were
being packaged to conform to tourist expectations, legendary Balinese artistry was being
harnessed to create souvenir trinkets, and age-old religious ceremonies were being turned into
hotel floor shows - in short, Balinese culture was becoming a tourist commodity.
Consequently, he foresaw the not so distant days when the Balinese would start mistaking the
commercial by-products they sell to tourists for the genuine manifestation of their artistic
traditions.
While Willard Hanna was giving vent to his concern that undiscerning tourists would
spoil Balinese culture, the American anthropologist Philip McKean was challenging the
charge of corruption commonly laid against tourism by foreign observers. According to him,
the joint effect of the admiration evinced by tourists for Balinese culture and of the money
they brought to the island was to renew the Balinese's interest for their cultural heritage while
stimulating their artistic creativity. So much so that by patronizing Balinese culture, tourism
would contribute to its preservation and even to its revival, to the extent that it was turning it
into a source of both pride and profit for the Balinese:
«The entertainment, education, and care of international visitors would then pay the
Balinese to do what they have learned to do so well for their own satisfaction -
perform their arts and religion, their crafts and ceremonials» (2).
Two decades later, pros and cons are still being deliberated as to whether tourism has a
beneficial or a detrimental effect on Balinese culture. Thus, when one glances through the
academic literature on the so-called "sociocultural impact of tourism", one finds authors for
whom tourism has helped preserve the cultural heritage of Bali, while others accuse tourism
of destroying Balinese culture and turning it into a commercial commodity (3).
In this article, my intention is not so much to contest the conclusions of such studies
as to challenge the very question they address as being misleading. In my opinion, the
question is not to ask whether or not Balinese culture has been able to withstand the impact of
tourism, but rather to inquire what talk of "the impact of tourism on Balinese culture" entails:
what conception of culture, of tourism and of the way tourism affects culture is implied by
such a question?
As a matter of fact, the question of the "sociocultural impact of tourism" is an attempt
to solve a problem facing the tourist industry, that of the so-called "sustainable development
of tourism" - which is to develop a kind of tourism which does not destroy the resources it
exploits, be they "natural" or "cultural". Here is how a well-known tourist expert formulates
the problem:
«Tourism can destroy tourism. Tourism as a user of resources, can be a resource
destroyer, and through destroying the resources, which give rise to it, make the
resource-based tourism short-lived. Impacts, benefits and costs can and should
therefore be evaluated in advance of tourism development» (4).
The solution to this problem is generally sought in a cost-benefit analysis, involving some
sort of trade-off between cultural and economic values. This way of tackling the problem is
not just a matter of convenience, it is structurally determined by a recurrent set of oppositions
- on the one hand, between that which relates to culture and that which concerns economics,
on the other hand, between that which is located within the host society and that which comes
from without. As such, tourism is signified by economics whereas society is signified by
culture: tourism brings money to a society in exchange for exploiting its culture (5).
This approach - while congruent with the prospects and vested interests of the tourist
industry - does not clarify the process of touristification of a society. Indeed, the mere fact of
talking about the "impact" of tourism entails something of a ballistic vision, which amounts to
perceiving the host society as a target hit by a missile, like an inert object, passively subjected
to exogenous factors of change, with the subsequent problem of assessing the ensuing fallout
(6). On the contrary, I contend that, far from being an external force striking a native society
from without, touristification proceeds from within. Or, to be more precise, it blurs the
boundaries between the inside and the outside, between what is "ours" and what is "theirs",
between that which belongs to "culture" and that which pertains to "tourism".
It should thus be clear that what I call the touristification of a society amounts to much
more than just developing an area and equipping it with the facilities necessary to accomodate
tourists. In the process of touristification, it is not only the landscape and the local colour, but
also the cultural traditions of a society and the distinctive markers by which its members
acknowledge their being part of it, which are being severed from their context, serialized and
combined with a view to composing a tourist product. As soon as a society offers itself for
sale on a market, as soon as it attempts to enhance its appeal to the eyes of foreign visitors, it
is the very consciousness that society has of itself which is being affected. Thus the native
populations are not passive objects of the tourist gaze, but active subjects who construct
representations of their culture to attract tourists. Therefore, behind the commonly stressed
risks entailed by the commercialization of culture, one should pay attention to what is at stake
with the new meaning a culture acquires for its bearers by being promoted as a tourist
attraction. In other words, to the extent that it alters the view that a society takes of itself,
tourism reveals the way the native population relates to its memories, to its traditions, to its
values - in short, to its identity.
As to Balinese culture, my point is that it was neither "destroyed" nor "revived" - nor
even simply "preserved" - by tourism. This is because tourism cannot be conceived of outside
culture at all: it is inevitably bound up in an ongoing process of cultural invention. In other
words, I contend that tourism should be viewed as an integral part of Balinese culture.
Consequently, instead of asking whether or not Balinese culture has been able to
withstand the impact of tourism, I shall investigate here why it is that "Balinese culture"
inspires such concern to Westerners, Indonesians and Balinese alike. This, I shall attempt
mostly by submitting to a discourse analysis what various sources - from Bali as well as from
abroad - say about "Balinese culture" when they speak of tourism. And rather than focus on
the commercialization of culture, as in impact studies, I shall pay attention to the dialogic
process through which culture has become Bali's defining feature.

The "living museum"

If today Bali is internationally renowned as a tourist paradise, it is not due solely to
the charm of the Balinese or the beauty of their island, or even to the extravagance of their
ceremonial pageants. What appears nowadays to be the touristic vocation of Bali is the result
of deliberate decisions not originally made by the Balinese themselves but by others beyond
their shores.
When the island of Bali was finally subjected and incorporated into the Netherlands
Indies in 1908, it had already long been viewed by Dutch orientalists as a "living museum" of
the Hindu-Javanese civilization, the one and only surviving heir to the Hindu heritage swept
away from Java by the coming of Islam. This view also prevailed within government circles,
with the result that the enlightened colonial policy designed for the island was to preserve the
Balinese cultural heritage. In fact, the island of Bali not only had to be rescued from the
onslaught of modernization, but furthermore its inhabitants had to be taught by their new
lords how to remain authentically Balinese - such was the aim of the cultural policy known as
the "Balinization of Bali" (Balisering). Once restored to its pristine splendour, Balinese
culture could then be presented to the appreciation of the outside world (7).
Tourism in Bali took off in 1924, with the launching of a weekly steamship service
connecting the island with Batavia, Surabaya and Makassar. After the opening of the Bali
Hotel in 1928, the number of visitors increased steadily from a few hundreds to several
thousands a year before the war. Among these visitors, special mention should be made of the
small party of foreign artists and connoisseurs who established the reputation of Bali. The
accounts, paintings, photographs and films which recorded their sojourn on the island
contributed to forging a sensational image of native life, an image which would be relayed in
due time through the promotional services of the nascent tourist industry. And indeed, the
island of Bali has consistently been described ever since as the Island of the Gods, as the
homeland of a traditional culture insulated from the modern world and its vicissitudes, whose
bearers, endowed with exceptional artistic talents, devote an outstanding amount of time and
wealth to staging sumptuous ceremonies for their own pleasure and that of their gods... and
now in addition for the delight of the tourists (8).
After the artists came the anthropologists, who - like the tourists at that time - were
mostly American and belonged to the "Culture and Personality" school (9). Their studies
comforted the Dutch colonial policy of cultural preservation while providing academic credit
to the image of serene harmony bestowed on Bali by the artists. Reading them, one gathers
that the Balinese were too busy performing their culture to bother with the presence of a
foreign administration. And indeed, once the matters of government had been appropriated by
the Dutch, the Balinese were left with not much else to do but to cultivate their arts and
celebrate their religious festivals, further elaborating their expressive culture.
Despite the Dutch government's claim to preserve Balinese culture, the colonial
occupation of the island provoked the disintegration of its traditional order, while the
requirements of a modern administration prompted the formation of an indigenous
intelligentsia, which mediated between the Balinese population and its foreign masters. On
the one hand, Balinese intellectuals started questioning themselves about the relationship
between religion, art and social order, with the aim of bringing to light the foundations of
their cultural identity, whereas on the other hand, they were in the novel position of needing
to explain what it meant to be Balinese in terms comprehensible by non-Balinese.
Thus it is that culture - in the case in point, mostly narrowed down to artistic and
ceremonial manifestations - became Bali's defining feature, providing the common ground on
which Dutch orientalists and American anthropologists, artists and tourists, could encounter
each other and the Balinese.
No sooner had culture become the emblematic image of Bali than foreigners started
fearing for its oncoming disappearance. Indeed, when one reads the accounts of between-the-
wars Bali, one realizes how firmly their authors were convinced of witnessing the swan song
of a traditional culture miraculously preserved from the contagious corruption of modernity.
In fact, since the "discovery" of the island by an avant-garde of artists and anthropologists, it
is as if the mere evocation of Bali suggested the imminent and dramatic Fall from the Garden
of Eden (10): sooner or later, the Last Paradise (11) was doomed to become Paradise Lost.
And one could surmise that the appeal exerted by the island of Bali over its visitors rested to a
large extent on the premonition of the impending demise of its culture.
Among the perils seen to be threatening Balinese culture, the most conspicuous one
was none other than the coming of tourists themselves. Hence the ambivalent attitude evinced
by the colonial authorities with respect to tourism. On the one hand, Balinese culture was the
major asset for the tourist promotion of the island. On the other hand, if the cultural heritage
of Bali was to be preserved, measures had to be taken to protect it from the corruptive contact
with the modern world through the presence of foreign visitors to the island.
The war spared the colonial government the necessity of defining a consistent tourist
policy for Bali. After Indonesia's independence, tourism on the island remained very limited,
visitors being dissuaded by the rudimentary state of the infrastructures together with the
political turmoil and the xenophobic orientation of the régime that marked the period. Yet,
President Sukarno made Bali - now a province of the Republic of Indonesia - a showplace for
state guests. Eager to use the fame of the island to attract foreign tourists, he undertook the
construction of an international airport and had a luxury hotel built on the beach. The Bali
Beach Hotel was completed in 1966 just when Indonesia closed its doors to foreigners,
following the mass killings of the 30th September 1965 "coup d'Etat".
Only after the "New Order" régime installed by President Suharto began opening
Indonesia to the West would tourists start coming back to Bali in significant numbers. More
precisely, one can date the launching of mass tourism in Bali from 1969, the year of the
inauguration of the international airport.

The Master Plan for the development of tourism in Bali

Earlier that year, the First Five-Year Development Plan had stressed the importance of
international tourism as a factor of economic development for Indonesia - and more
specifically, as a means to curb the ruinous deficit of the country's balance of payments -,
while laying the foundations of a national tourism policy. Banking on Bali's prestigious image
as a tourist paradise, the government decided to make this island the showcase of Indonesia as
an international tourist destination. Furthermore, Bali was to serve as a model for future
development of tourism in the archipelago.
Following the advice of the World Bank, the Indonesian government commissioned a
team of French experts to draw up a Master Plan for the development of tourism in Bali.
Their report, published in 1971 and revised in 1974 by the World Bank, proposed to confine
the bulk of the tourists to a luxury beach enclave, while providing for a network of excursion
routes linking the new resort with major attractions on the island (12).
Now, why should tourists be confined to an enclave? According to the market study
on which the Master Plan was based, these tourists were expected to be wealthy Westerners
touring Bali with the idea of vacationing a few days on the beach. Yet, for prospective
visitors Bali was not just another tropical island with beaches of white sand bordered by palm
trees, it was the "Island of the Gods", a place teeming with temples and ceremonies, vibrating
with music and dance. But if they expected to find in Bali a traditional culture preserved up
until now from the undermining attacks of modernity, the tourists themselves were active
carriers of this modernity spreading across the planet, so that their presence might well
smother what they strove to embrace. Therefore the problem faced by the French consultants
was to develop tourism in Bali without damaging Balinese culture. Consequently, by keeping
the tourist resorts well away from Balinese residential areas, they tried to shield Balinese
culture as much as possible from the frontal shock of tourism.
The rationale underlying the Master Plan was thus to warrant a sustainable
development of tourism on Bali by ensuring the preservation of the resources upon which its
success was seen to depend - primarily, the cultural traditions which had made the island
famous the world over.
With the official promulgation of the Master Plan by Presidential Decision, tourism
ranked second only to agriculture in economic priority in the province. Meanwhile the
number of tourists multiplied from fewer than 30,000 in the late 1960s to over 1 million in
the early 1990s - this, without taking into account the growing numbers of Indonesian tourists
visiting Bali, for whom there are no statistics available. During the same period, hotel
capacity increased from less than 500 to about 30,000 rooms. As for the Balinese themselves,
they are approaching 3 million on an island which is only 5,600 km2 large.
While for the last two decades tourism has been the most visible factor of economic
growth in Bali, its actual contribution to the regional economy is difficult to assess accurately.
Most experts tend to agree that tourism has conferred considerable financial gains to Bali,
even though their uneven distribution within the population and throughout the island, as well
as the growing encroachment of foreign interests, remain a matter of concern. On the other
hand, the Balinese authorities appear to display an ambivalent attitude toward the
implications of tourism for their society and culture (13).

Cultural Tourism
To tell the truth, the Balinese authorities did not actually have any say in the decision
of the central government to trade in their island's charms in order to refill the state coffers,
nor had they been consulted about the Master Plan. Behind a facade of official assent, the
plan advocated by French consultants, finalized by World Bank experts, and imposed by
Jakarta technocrats, gave rise to undisguised criticism in Bali. For its Balinese detractors, the
Master Plan might be a plan for the development of tourism, but it clearly was not a plan for
the development of Bali. Witness the fact that it was based on a market study of tourist
arrivals in Bali and not on an assessment of the development needs of the island.
Faced with a fait accompli, the Balinese authorities attempted to appropriate tourism
in order to use its benefits as a tool for regional development, while taking advantage of the
fame it was bringing to their island to further their position within the Indonesian nation. In
response to the Master Plan, they proclaimed their own conception of the kind of tourism they
deemed the most suitable to their island - namely what they termed "Cultural Tourism"
(Pariwisata Budaya) (14). This conception was formulated in 1971, a few months after the
publication of the Master Plan, when the Governor convened a "Seminar on Cultural Tourism
in Bali", under the joint aegis of the provincial agencies for tourism, religion, culture and
education (15).
The proceedings of the seminar reveal that the Balinese perceived tourism as being at
once fraught with danger and filled with the promises of forthcoming prosperity. On the one
hand, the artistic and religious traditions which had made the name of Bali famous the world
over provided its main attraction as a tourist destination, thus turning Balinese culture into the
most valuable "resource" for the island's economic development. But on the other hand, the
invasion of Bali by foreign visitors originating from different horizons was seen as a threat of
"cultural pollution". Accordingly, the Balinese regarded tourism as a "challenge" to be taken
up with caution: «How to develop tourism without debasing Balinese culture?». Such was the
task assigned to Cultural Tourism - to take advantage of Balinese culture to attract tourists,
while using the economic benefits of tourism to foster Balinese culture.
Thus one sees that, from the 1930s to the 1970s, the problem facing the authorities in
charge of designing a tourist policy for Bali - the Dutch colonial administration, the French
consultants and World Bank experts, the Balinese government - has been defined in terms of
a dilemma: tourism relies on culture, but tourism is a threat to culture. Yet the solution
favoured by the Balinese differs significantly from the one adopted by their foreign
predecessors - instead of trying to keep the tourists at bay, they welcome them.
The rationale underlying this choice is that, in order for tourism to contribute to the
development of Bali, the local population must be in a position to participate in the tourist
trade and reap its benefits, which in turn implies that the tourists must be allowed to spread
and spend their money throughout the island. But this presupposes that the threat hanging
over culture due to tourism should be removed, as the whole idea of Cultural Tourism rests
on the claim that the interests of Balinese culture must concur, in the long run, with those of
the tourist industry.
Moreover, the Balinese appear to be genuinely proud of the fame of their culture
abroad, and are eager to show their cultural traditions at their best to the tourists. In this
respect, they link the success of tourism to the state of their culture - and thus bind their
culture to tourism - to a larger extent than did the Master Plan (16). By so doing, they turn to
their own advantage Jakarta's decision to promote their island as an international tourist
destination in order to acquire hard currency. Indeed, by the same token as tourism makes
their culture the main economic resource of their island, it is their main bargaining asset vis-
à-vis the Indonesian government. Clearly, should the touristic exploitation depreciate
Balinese culture, it would diminish the appeal of Bali as a tourist paradise. Thus, not only
would the tourist industry have ruined Balinese culture, but it would have sown the seeds of
its own destruction as a result. Accordingly - so the Balinese say -, once the central
government has chosen Bali as the main tourist destination in Indonesia, it is in its own
interest, as well as in the interest of the tourist industry, to preserve and promote Balinese
culture.
Now, the problem remains that the provincial government has no legal authority to
conduct its own tourist policy. Under these conditions, it is not really surprising that, instead
of the concrete measures one might have expected, the doctrine of Cultural Tourism led to a
confusing profusion of discourses while arousing impressive fervour in Balinese public
opinion. But one should beware of dismissing all this enthusiasm as mere verbal
gesticulation, as but an implicit admission of helplessness on the part of the Balinese
authorities (17). For, by defining Balinese cultural identity in reference to the "challenge" of
tourism, these discourses strengthen the social links that bind the Balinese people together in
defense of their culture, while their authors can pretend they are actually speaking in the
name of Bali.

Promotion of culture and development of tourism

The Balinese doctrine of Cultural Tourism was elaborated and propagated throughout
the 1970s by a series of surveys and seminars dealing with the development of tourism and its
consequences on Balinese society and culture.
In 1972, a research programme was launched by the University of Bali in order to
assess the "sociocultural impact" of tourism. Six reports were published between 1973 and
1978, with results revealing not so much the actual implications of tourism for the Balinese as
their perception generally shared among the intelligentsia (18).
As Indonesian academics, the authors of the reports rationalize the exploitation of the
bountiful cultural "resources" of their island for the purpose of developing tourism, inasmuch
as it is officially recognized to be of benefit to Indonesia. But as native Balinese, they cannot
but be disturbed at the thought that the most intimate expressions of their culture are being
listed in the catalogues of tour operators, together with hotel services and tariffs. One could
surmise that they would rather not have to acknowledge the fact that they are compelled to
assess the worth of their culture according to its monetary value, thus to make
commensurable that which is not. Whereas for the foreign experts it was only a matter of
cautious management of resources, for the Balinese it is an axiological upheaval which strikes
them at the very core of their identity.
Nonetheless, they recognize that Cultural Tourism is basically a trade-off between
cultural values and economic values. Even though they do not actually carry out a formal
cost-benefit analysis, the balance sheet of their research shows that, by and large, they
consider the economic impact as positive, whereas the cultural impact is on the whole deemed
negative. More specifically, they condemn tourism as "polluting" Balinese culture, a pollution
whose symptoms they see everywhere, be it the profanation of temples and the desecration of
religious ceremonies, the monetization of social relations and the weakening of communal
solidarity, or the slackening of moral standards which results from the pervading
mercantilism. For them, it is as if the price the Balinese have to pay in order to raise their
"standard of living", was the violation of their "rules of life" - a painful dilemma indeed.
How could the Balinese acquire economic values without losing their cultural values,
how could they improve their "standard of living" without contravening their "rules of life",
in other words, how could they maximize the economic benefits of tourism while minimizing
its cultural costs? Such was the issue discussed at no less than five seminars held between
1977 and 1979, some convened by the Directorate General of Tourism alone, others jointly
with the Directorate General of Culture.
From the proceedings of these seminars, it emerges that the solution of Cultural
Tourism consists in promoting culture and tourism simultaneously, so as to ensure that the
development of tourism results in a reciprocal development of culture. This is clearly
illustrated by the title of the seminars organized by the Directorate General of Culture and the
Directorate General of Tourism - "Promotion of Culture and Development of Tourism"
(Pembinaan Kebudayaan dan Pengembangan Kepariwisataan) (19). Consequently, to make
sure that the interests of culture do concur with those of tourism, the cultural and the tourist
policies were coordinated by a "Commission of Cooperation for the Promotion and
Development of Cultural Tourism", jointly created in 1979 by the Director General of Culture
and the Director General of Tourism. The objectives of this commission were defined as
follows:
 «To increase and extend the use of cultural objects for the development of tourism,
and to use the proceeds of tourism development for the promotion and the
development of culture» (20).
Since the agreement defining the respective roles of culture and tourism was signed, the
enthusiasm initially aroused in Bali by the motto of Cultural Tourism has waned, while the
surveys and seminars on tourism have been few and far between. Not that the concern for
tourism among the Balinese has diminished, far from it, but tourism has become part of their
cultural landscape. In fact, the Balinese nowadays appear more interested in making the most
of their culture in the interest of tourism rather than attempting to assess the impact of
tourism on their culture (21). At the same time, the fears originally raised by the coming of
the tourists have given way to a public expression of satisfaction. Indeed, the reversal of
opinion regarding the consequences attributed to tourism is spectacular: formerly accused of
being a cause of "cultural pollution", tourism is now extolled as an agent of the "cultural
renaissance" of Bali. As for justification to back this favourable reappraisal of tourism, one
finds continually asserted in the media that tourist money has revived the Balinese interest in
their artistic traditions, while the admiration of foreign visitors for their culture has reinforced
the Balinese sense of identity.
If one relies on Balinese public opinion, one might surmise that, after an initial period
of adjustment during which the rapid spread of tourists on the island would naturally arouse
legitimate fears, Cultural Tourism has achieved its mission successfully. Yet, before rejoicing
with the Balinese, one should elucidate what has become of "Balinese culture" in the
discourse of "Cultural Tourism" (22).

Balinese culture: "cultural heritage" and "tourist capital"

In less than a decade, between 1971 and 1979, the doctrine of Cultural Tourism
succeeded in merging the "promotion of culture" with the "development of tourism", to the
point of entrusting the fate of Balinese culture to the interested care of the tourist industry. By
the same token, it managed to reconcile the interests of their respective spokesmen. But for
this to happen, the opposition between tourism and culture - which had given rise to the
doctrine of Cultural Tourism in the first place - had to be denied. This was achieved by
splitting "Balinese culture" into two distinct conceptions: whereas before the advent of
tourism, their culture was for the Balinese a "heritage" which they had to preserve, it now
became, in addition, a "capital" which they can exploit for profit.
In the discourse of Cultural Tourism, Balinese culture is invariably defined by
referring to three concomitant components:
- it has its roots in the Hindu religion;
- it permeates the customs of the Balinese community and inspires its traditional institutions;
- it is embodied in artistic forms of great beauty.
Thus defined by the interweaving of "religion" (agama), "custom" (adat) and "art"
(seni), "culture" (kebudayaan) is presented as the "distinctive marker" (ciri khas) of "Balinese
identity" (identitas Bali). In this respect, their culture represents for the Balinese a heritage
handed down by their ancestors, and should be considered as a "cultural value" (nilai
budaya). Moreover, given the religious character of their "cultural heritage" (warisan
kebudayaan), it is admittedly difficult for the Balinese to distinguish that which belongs to
religion from that which pertains to custom and, therefore, to differentiate clearly between the
sacred and the profane.
With the coming of tourists, their culture is no longer the exclusive property of the
Balinese alone, since it has become the main attraction of their island in the eyes of its
visitors. And it is precisely its unique blending of religion, custom and art which represents
the "trademark" (citra) of Bali, that which confers to its tourist product a decisive superiority
in the competition with other destinations in the area. So much so that, because of its appeal
to tourists, their culture has become for the Balinese their main capital, that is, an "economic
value" (nilai ekonomi). Now, as a "tourist capital" (modal pariwisata), the Balinese culture is
so entangled with tourism that it has become difficult to separate that which belongs to
culture from that which pertains to tourism.
By viewing their culture as capital, the Balinese blurred the initial opposition between
tourism and culture, between economic values and cultural values. This in turn resulted in
reversing the professed relationship between tourism and culture: the warning that obedience
to the rules of custom and religion should not be sacrificed to the interests of the tourist
industry notwithstanding, it plainly appears that if the provincial government exhorts the
Balinese to take good care of their culture, it is to the extent that the economic value of the
tourist capital of Bali depends on the cultural value of its cultural heritage - in short, to attract
more and more tourists.
But one must push the argument further and ask whether the Balinese view of their
culture as a "heritage" - presented by them as being its original state, going back to before the
coming of the tourists - is not in fact the sign that it has already been converted into a
"capital". For, all available evidence points to the fact that it is only once it had been enlisted
as a tourist asset, available for profitable financial transactions, that the Balinese started
regarding their culture as an heirloom to be carefully preserved and nurtured. Accordingly,
one suspects that the alleged primordial unity of "religion", "custom" and "art", in terms of
which the Balinese nowadays readily define their culture, far from expressing the intrinsic
substance of their identity, is the outcome of a process of semantic borrowing and conceptual
adjustment which they had to make as a result of the opening up of their social space to the
outside world - via the colonization, the Indonesianization and the touristification of their
island.

Boundary maintenance
Now that their culture has become the prime resource of their island, the problem for
the Balinese is to decide how far they are actually willing to turn their cultural heritage into a
tourist capital, or in other words, to which extent their cultural values may be assessed
according to their economic value. Indeed, failing to know their cultural boundaries, what is
theirs and what is not, the Balinese incur the risk of no longer being able to differentiate
between their own values and those brought in by the foreign visitors. Such a result would
turn Balinese culture into what the Balinese authorities themselves call a "tourist culture"
(kebudayaan pariwisata) - that is, a state characterized by an axiological confusion between
what belongs to culture and what pertains to tourism.
This is in fact the crux of the matter: is there a clear demarcation line for the Balinese
between what they do for themselves and what they do for their visitors, between that which
belongs to culture and that which pertains to tourism? As we recall, for Willard Hanna,
Balinese culture was becoming a tourist commodity to the extent that the Balinese were
mistaking the commercial attractions they present to the tourists for their genuine cultural
traditions. And it was on this point precisely that Philip McKean opposed Hanna's
conclusions.
He maintained that, far from destroying Balinese culture, tourism was in fact
revitalizing it, a conviction based on one of the most deeply rooted assumptions about
Balinese culture - its dynamic resilience. Indeed, the Balinese have long been celebrated for
knowing their cultural boundaries, and they are praised for their ability to borrow whatever
foreign influence suits them while nevertheless maintaining their identity over the centuries.
Accordingly, McKean claimed that the Balinese are coping with the tourist invasion of their
island as well as they have coped with others in the past - that is, they are taking advantage of
the appeal of their cultural traditions to foreign visitors without sacrificing their own values
on the altar of monetary profit. And he stated that tourism has reinforced among the Balinese
a sense of boundary maintenance between what they do for themselves and what they do for
their visitors (23).
This conclusion has been elaborated further by Raymond Noronha, the World Bank's
"cultural adviser" to the Bali Tourism Development Board. «Why is it that tourism has not
destroyed Balinese culture?» asked Noronha. In his opinion, it is because the Balinese have
learnt to distinguish their cultural performances according to the audience for whom they are
intended, with the consequence that the meaning of a Balinese cultural performance is not
affected by its being performed for a tourist audience (24).
Following the lead of McKean and Noronha, the Swiss sociologist Jean-Luc Maurer
devised four criteria to assess the sociocultural impact of tourism on a host society, among
which is what he called its "degree of cultural functionality", that is the ability to differentiate
between the sacred and the profane, between what can eventually be commercialized and
what must absolutely not be affected by commercial relations. And when it came to applying
this criterion to Balinese society, he discerned the emergence of two distinct and juxtaposed
spheres of cultural production, one reserved for internal consumption, the other producing for
external consumption. From which he concluded:
«the Balinese know perfectly well where to draw a clear line between the sacred and
the profane; between what can be sold and what must be protected at all costs» (25).
Interestingly enough, a decade later, in a reassessment of the sociocultural impact of tourism
on Bali published in 1988, Maurer observes that according to the criteria of internal cohesion,
cultural creativity and social solidarity, Balinese society is now threatened by social
disfunction. However, he still contends that,
«if there is one criterion that Balinese society appears to have maintained intact, it is
the distinction between sacred and profane» (26).

The sacred and the profane

As a matter of fact, the provincial government has been acutely conscious of the
danger of axiological confusion entailed by the commercialization of Balinese culture, and it
has endeavoured to provide the local population with specific instructions concerning what
they may and what they must not sell on the tourist market. This concern is reflected in the
numerous warnings regarding the misuse of traditional symbols and artefacts as decoration
for hotels, restaurants and shops, as well as the turning of cremations into tourist attractions.
But the topic which has received the most extensive publicity in Bali is certainly the attempt
at enforcing the distinction between the sacred and the profane in relation to dance
performances.
As one should know, the celebrated dances which have contributed so much to the
fame of Bali abroad are not merely a spectacle to be watched but also a ritual to be enacted.
Indeed, dance in Bali is not intended only for human audiences, because present among the
spectators are the ancestors, the gods and the demons, who share with the Balinese a keen
taste for lively festivals and fine performances. In this respect, Balinese dance is at once an
offering to the gods and an entertainment for the people.
As long as their dances were reserved for their own use, there was no question for the
Balinese to know where ritual ended and where spectacle began. But when ritual dances were
turned into hotel floor shows, the provincial government was faced with the necessity of
tracing a demarcating line between religious ceremonies and the commercial attractions
which were being derived from them. This was attempted as early as 1971, when the Balinese
cultural authorities convened a "Seminar on Sacred and Profane Dance" (27).
The aim of this seminar was to work out criteria to separate "sacred art" from "profane
art", in order to distinguish between the dances which might be commercialized for the tourist
market and those which should not. This proved to be a very delicate task, judging by the
confusion of the participants, a select group of Balinese officials and academics requested to
write a paper on that topic. Their embarrassment was not really surprising, bearing in mind
that the Balinese language does not have at its disposal the terminology which would permit
its speakers to articulate the opposition between the sacred and the profane. In fact, as in any
official meeting, the seminar was conducted in Indonesian, a language which has no terms for
"sacred" and "profane" either. Consequently, the organizers had to resort to neologisms
borrowed from Latin languages for the very wording of the problem at hand.
This semantic borrowing resulted in uneasy attempts to create a distinction which was
in fact alien to the Balinese. Small wonder, then, that several participants, unable to
understand the proposed terms of reference, decided to look for further clarification in their
Dutch dictionary, which in turn led them to commit a revealing misinterpretation. Instead of
conceiving the problem they had to solve as a matter of discriminating between two domains
which had hitherto been left undifferentiated, these Balinese started elaborating about "sacred
and profane dances" as one all-encompassing category, thus conferring the attributes of the
"sacred" and of the "profane" on the very same dances!
These conceptual difficulties notwithstanding, the Governor of Bali issued a decree
prohibiting the performance of "sacred dances" for tourist audiences. But the fact is that this
decree was never really enforced, for the obvious reason that it did not make sense to the
Balinese - certainly not, in any case, to the performers themselves. The observation of those
tourist performances which, building on the fascination of foreigners for possession trance,
deliberately exploit the dramatic character of ancient rites of exorcism, clearly confirms this,
by demonstrating the difficulty encountered by the Balinese in distinguishing between the
ritual and spectacular dimensions of a performance, even as commercial as its purpose might
appear (28).
In any case, some years later the Balinese authorities had come to a different
perception of the problem, witness the position adopted by one of the former participants of
the 1971 seminar, who stated at a conference on Balinese culture in 1985 that the sacred
dances were threatened by imminent extinction, as a number of them were no longer
performed in the context of religious ceremonies. Accordingly, he proposed that these dances
should be "processed" to become a source of inspiration for the composition of new
choreographies, some of which could then be used to renew the tourist performances, which
are in real danger of losing their attractiveness by becoming a mere routine (29).

Culture as trademark and identity marker

The outcome of this investigation might appear to support Hanna's rather than
McKean's position. But this is beside the point. What is significant is the fact they both share
a similar vision of culture. To the extent that they stress the necessity of boundary
maintenance to prevent the risk of cultural commercialization, they are mainly concerned by
what can be marketed and staged for tourists. Accordingly, in most discussions concerning
Bali's cultural survival, "culture" is not understood in its broad anthropological sense, but
narrowed down to those aspects subject to aesthetic appreciation, namely artistic expressions.
And this indeed is precisely what the Balinese authorities have in mind when they talk of
"cultural renaissance", that is, what they call "cultural arts" (seni budaya), in accordance with
the slogan devised by the Directorate General of Tourism - «Tourism preserves the nation's
cultural arts».
This is the price the Balinese have to pay in order for their culture to become a tourist
attraction: what they offer must be comparable to and distinctive from what is being offered
by other destinations which are competing with the island of Bali for tourist money. In this
respect, the disjunction of "Balinese culture" between "heritage" and "capital" should be
understood as much more than just a rhetorical artefact - as the evidence of an irreducible
tension between two conceptions of culture. Indeed, the eagerness of the Balinese to preserve
their cultural heritage is not only an admission of their intent to profit from their tourist
capital, but above all an attempt to root their identity in their filiation, to recover the thread of
a singular history handed down from their ancestors - in short, to rescue their culture from a
typology in order to tie it to a genealogy (30).
It should be clear by now that tourism has neither "polluted" Balinese culture, nor has
it brought about its "renaissance", but rendered the Balinese self-conscious of their culture -
thanks to tourism, the Balinese realize they possess something valuable called "culture". And
as it grew valuable in Balinese eyes, their culture became distant and concrete, turning into an
object detachable from themselves, which could be represented and copied, marketed and
exchanged, at will.
As a matter of fact, this cultural self-consciousness goes back to the time of the
Netherlands Indies, with the opening up of the Balinese social space. As we have seen, if
culture has become Bali's defining feature, it is to a large extent due to the orientalists,
anthropologists, artists and other distinguished visitors from the past. This prestigious cultural
image in turn led the Indonesian government to choose Bali as the prime tourist destination of
Indonesia when it decided to develop international tourism in order to acquire badly needed
foreign currency. The result was that culture became the interface between Bali and the
outside world: "Balinese culture" is simultaneously the trademark of Bali as a tourist
destination - what the Balinese display as a label which distinguishes the product "Bali" from
other products sold on the tourist market -, and the marker of Balinese identity - what the
Balinese exhibit as the distinctive emblem of their "Balineseness" (Kebalian) (31).
The problem is that the Balinese are now prisoners of a cultural image promoted by
the marketers of Bali as a tourist paradise. In as much as they are expected to display
evidence of their "Balineseness", the Balinese run the danger of becoming signs of
themselves. For all their attempts to affirm their identity, they are for ever reacting to an
injunction which they cannot elude, and so much so that they come to ratify the touristic
vision of themselves even when they pretend to be beyond its grip. Such is the challenge of
tourism for the Balinese, a challenge which is not unlike a paradoxical injunction (32).
I shall conclude with a revealing anecdote. A few years ago, the Bali Post - the
leading daily newspaper in Bali - published an article entitled «The Balinese are losing their
Balineseness». The author declared that, carried away by the admiration they saw in the
tourist gaze, the Balinese turned a blind eye to the painful fact that the authenticity of their
cultural identity was seriously impaired. This accusation did not go unnoticed on the island. A
poll was conducted among the readers of the paper, from which it emerged that while 40% of
the answers imputed to tourism a demise of "Balineseness", the remaining 60% thought on
the contrary that the growing numbers of tourists coming every year to Bali was the most
convincing proof to the enduring authenticity of the Balinese cultural identity...

Michel Picard
Paris, June 1991
Revised July 1993
 NOTES

* This article is based on observations gathered during numerous trips to Bali since 1974, and
more precisely on research undertaken in the island during 1981 and 1982. The field work
was accomplished under the auspices of the Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia and
benefited from the institutional patronage of Prof. Dr. I Gusti Ngurah Bagus, Head of the
Department of Anthropology at the Universitas Udayana. Besides Professor Bagus, I would
like to thank my colleagues in the Unité de Recherche en Sociologie du Tourisme
International of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Marie-Francoise Lanfant,
Claude-Marie Bazin, and Jacques de Weerdt - for helping me elaborate the theoretical
framework which structured my field work. I would also like to thank Kunang Helmi and
Vivienne Roberts for their assistance in conveying my French thoughts in English.
(1) Hanna 1972: 1. For similar opinions, see Francillon 1990 and Turnbull 1982.
(2) McKean 1973: 35. For similar opinions, see Lansing 1974: 46 and McTaggart 1980: 463-
64.
(3) For examples of the first opinion, see Cohen 1988: 382; Dogan 1989: 223-24; Macnaught
1982: 373-74; Travis 1984: 24; Turner & Ash 1975: 155-60; etc. For the second one, see
Crandall 1987: 376; van Doorn 1989: 82; Greenwood 1977: 131; O'Grady 1981: 25-34;
Pizam & Milman 1984: 12; etc.
(4) Travis 1982: 257.
(5) On the question of the "sociocultural impact of tourism" and its implications, see Lanfant
1987, as well as Picard 1979 and 1987.
(6) This interpretation is not unlike that of Robert Wood, who writes of «a billiard ball
model, in which a moving object (tourism) acts upon an inert one (culture)» (1980: 565).
(7) This is but an oversimplification of a highly complex and poorly documented history. For
a survey of the Dutch colonial policy on Bali, see Schulte Nordholt 1986.
(8) Covarrubias 1987 is still up to this day the most widely read book on the island of Bali.
On the creation of the image of Bali as a tourist paradise, see Vickers 1989.
(9) On the prevalent view of Bali among American anthropologists in the 1930s, see the
collection of articles assembled in Belo 1970.
(10) The title of a famous tourist brochure published in the 1930s.
(11) The title of the first book written in English on Bali, published in New York in 1930
(Powell 1986).
(12) On the Master Plan, see IBRD/IDA 1974 and SCETO 1971.
(13) This ambivalence is manifest in the survey on economic growth and tourism recently
published by a pair of well-known Balinese economists, who came to the following
conclusion: «And whether the alleged negative socio-cultural effects of tourism are
outweighed by its economic benefits is a question beyond the scope of this chapter»
(Jayasuriya & Nehen 1989: 347). Interestingly enough, in 1971 the SCETO consultants had
asserted that «the actual economic benefits of the operation will go to too small a minority to
compensate for the social nuisances caused by the project» (1971, vol. 1: 17). This
pessimistic statement was dismissed by the World Bank experts who appraised and revised
the Master Plan in 1974: «Assuming that the negative effects can be controlled, it is expected
that the positive effects - in terms of increased employment, incomes and foreign exchange
earnings - will result in an overall impact which, on balance, is desirable» (1974: 25). What is
significant here, is not so much the fact that the World Bank experts disagreed with the
SCETO consultants, but rather the basic agreement that they both share with the Balinese
economists, that the assessment of the impact of tourism on a host society involves a trade-off
between economic benefits and sociocultural costs.
(14) This semantic appropriation of tourism by the Balinese authorities in reaction to what
had been imposed upon them by the Indonesian government was effected by resorting to an
Indonesian frame of reference, first of all, by means of an Indonesian - as opposed to a
Balinese - terminology. Indeed, there is no word in Balinese for "culture", nor for "tourism"
either, whereas these words have entered Indonesian via Sanskrit.
(15) See Seminar Pariwisata Budaya 1971.
(16) Far more anyway than what is actually the case. As the authors of the Master Plan had
rightly asserted, for the majority of tourists, who barely venture out of their beach resort, Bali
is basically a tropical destination whose cultural image confers some extra glamour to their
holiday, compared to, say, Hawaii or the Maldives. Thus, the Balinese claim that tourists are
really eager to discover the cultural wonders of their island is more an expression of wishful
thinking - besides being an ideological stance of the utmost importance - than a statement of
factual evidence.
(17) Even, of course, if it is also that. Strictly speaking, there is no solution to a dilemma, as
each of its terms leads to the same result, which appears at once undesirable and inescapable.
The choice being impossible, the perception of a problem as a dilemma entails various
escapist strategies, such as attempts to label the situation in order to symbolically control it. In
this respect, the discourse of Cultural Tourism works as a "magic" formula, by qualifying as
Balinese a tourist policy largely controlled from outside the island. On this, see Picard 1990b.
(18) For a circumstantial appraisal of these reports, see Francillon 1979.
(19) The English translation cannot but imperfectly render the idea conveyed by the
Indonesian terminology. The term pembinaan implies an intention, a concerted effort to
shape, to build up and to promote a quality, which is not taken for granted but should be
developed in a certain direction. On the contrary, the word pengembangan brings forth the
idea of an opening up, of an organic growth analogous to a natural evolution, like a
blossoming flower.
(20) Proyek Sasana Budaya Jakarta 1979: 6.
(21) The main seminar on tourism held in Bali during the 1980s is a case in point. Whereas
the previous ones dealt with «the promotion of culture and the development of tourism», the
seminar organized by the provincial government in 1987 focused specifically on «the
promotion and development of tourism». And the one and only paper dealing with culture,
given by the Head of the Regional Service of Culture, was mostly devoted to specify what the
Balinese culture should be in order to contribute more effectively to the development of
tourism. See Pemerintah Daerah 1987.
(22) One should find already a clue of what happened in the vocabulary used by the Balinese
authorities. Even though the doctrine of "Cultural Tourism" was phrased in the national
language, when speaking of "cultural pollution" the Balinese frequently resorted to a
vernacular terminology, whereas the slogan "cultural renaissance" is generally voiced in
English. This double switch of language, first from Balinese to Indonesian - with the use of
Balinese terms to express key cultural concepts -, and then the change-over to English, is a
sign of a revealing shift of identity, pointing to the fact that Bali has become more and more
integrated within the Indonesian state as well as within the international tourist market.
(23) Originating in the work of Fredrik Barth, the notion of "boundary maintenance" was
later to be taken up in numerous studies dealing with the impact of tourism on indigenous
cultures. In these studies, the capacity of a local population to maintain a duality of meanings
- that is, a cultural performance will continue to have a signification for the native people
independent of the presence of tourists, and it would take place even in the absence of a
foreign audience - has been elected as a criterion permitting their authors to assess the
integrity of the culture under scrutiny.
(24) Noronha 1979: 201-202.
(25) Maurer 1979: 97.
(26) Maurer & Zeigler 1988: 81.
(27) Proyek Pemeliharaan dan Pengembangan Kebudayaan Daerah 1971.
(28) See Picard 1990a, for a discussion of the problems raised by this seminar and the way
they were handled.
(29) Pandji 1985: 480-81.
(30) On this question, see Lanfant & Graburn 1992.
(31) "Balinese culture" is also the emblem which differentiates the province "Bali" from the
other provinces composing the Republic of Indonesia. So much so that, strictly speaking, the
touristification of Bali cannot be considered apart from its Indonesianization. On this, see
Picard 1993.
(32) The Balinese are not the only people to face such a challenge, witness the studies
implying that touristified peoples are beginning to question their own identity while tourists
demand that they should present an authentic image of themselves. On this, see Bruner 1991,
Errington & Gewertz 1989, MacCannell 1984, etc.
 REFERENCES

BELO, J. (ed), 1970, Traditional Balinese Culture, New York: Columbia University Press.
BRUNER, E.M., 1991, 'Transformation of self in tourism', Annals of Tourism Research,
18/2, 238-50.
COHEN, E., 1988, 'Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism', Annals of Tourism
Research, 15/3, 371-86.
COVARRUBIAS, M., 1987, Island of Bali, Singapore: Oxford University Press (1937).
CRANDALL, L., 1987, 'The Social Impact of Tourism on Developing Regions and Its
Measurement, in: J.R.B. Ritchie & C.R. Goeldner (eds), Travel, Tourism and
Hospitality Research. A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 373-83.
DOGAN, H.Z., 1989, 'Forms of Adjustment. Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism', Annals of
Tourism Research, 16/2, 216-36.
van DOORN, J.W.M., 1989, 'A Critical Assessment of Socio-Cultural Impact Studies of
Tourism in the Third World', in: T.V. Singh, H.L. Theuns & F.M. Go (eds),
Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, Frankfurt:
Peta Lang, 71-91.
ERRINGTON, F. & D. GEWERTZ, 1989, 'Tourism and anthropology in a post-modern
world', Oceania, 60/1, 37-54.
FRANCILLON, G., 1979, Bali. Tourism, Culture, Environment, Paris: Unesco (1975).
FRANCILLON, G., 1990, 'The Dilemma of Tourism in Bali', in: W. Beller, P. d'Ayala &
P. Hein (eds), Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small
Islands, Paris: Unesco, MAB Series, 267-72.
GREENWOOD, D.J., 1977, 'Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on
Tourism as Cultural Commoditization', in: V.L. Smith (ed), Hosts and Guests,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 129-38.
HANNA, W.A., 1972, 'Bali in the Seventies. Part I: Cultural Tourism', American Universities
Field Staff Reports. Southeast Asia Series, 20/2, 1-7.
IBRD/IDA, 1974, Bali Tourism Project. Appraisal Report, Washington: Tourism Projects
Department.
JAFARI, J., 1984, 'Unbounded Ethnicity. The Tourist Network and its Satellites', Revue de
Tourisme, 3, 4-21.
JAYASURIYA, S. & K. NEHEN, 1989, 'Bali: Economic Growth and Tourism', in: H. Hill
(ed), Unity and Diversity. Regional Economic Development in Indonesia since
1970, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 330-48.
LANFANT, M.-F., 1987, 'Présentation de la table ronde internationale sur L'"impact social et
culturel du tourisme international" en question: réponses interdisciplinaires',
Problems of Tourism, 10/2, 3-20.
LANFANT, M.-F. & N.H.H. GRABURN, 1992, 'International Tourism Reconsidered: The
Principle of the Alternative', in: V.L. Smith & W.R. Eadington (eds.), Tourism
Alternatives. Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 88-112.
LANSING, J.S., 1974, Evil in the Morning of the World. Phenomenological Approaches to a
Balinese Community, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Center for South
and Southeast Asian Studies.
MacCANNELL, D., 1984, 'Reconstructed ethnicity: Tourism and cultural identity in Third
World communities', Annals of Tourism Research, 11/3, 388-89.
MACNAUGHT, T.J., 1982, 'Mass Tourism and the Dilemmas of Modernization in Pacific
Island Communities', Annals of Tourism Research, 9/3, 359-81.
MAURER, J.L., 1979, Tourism and Development in a Socio-Cultural Perspective: Indonesia
as a Case Study, Genève: Institut Universitaire d'Etudes du Développement.
MAURER, J.L. & A. ZEIGLER, 1988, 'Tourism and Indonesian Cultural Minorities', in:
P. Rossel (ed), Tourism: Manufacturing the Exotic, Copenhagen: International
Workgroup for Indigenous Affairs, 64-92.
McKEAN, P.F., 1973, Cultural Involution: Tourists, Balinese, and the Process of
Modernization in an Anthropological Perspective, PhD Dissertation, Brown
University.
McTAGGART, W.D., 1980, 'Tourism and Tradition in Bali', World Development 8, 457-66.
NORONHA, R., 1979, 'Paradise Reviewed: Tourism in Bali', in: E. deKadt (ed), Tourism.
Passport to Development?, New York: Oxford University Press, 177-204.
O'GRADY, R., 1981, Third World Stopover. The Tourism Debate, Geneva: World Council of
Churches.
PANDJI, G.B.N., 1985, 'Seni Wali di Bali dan perkembangannya' [Sacred art in Bali and its
development], in Laporan Pertemuan Ilmiah Kebudayaan Bali, Denpasar: Proyek
Penelitian dan Pengkajian Kebudayaan Bali, 469-82.
Pemerintah Daerah, 1987, Laporan Seminar Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Pariwisata
Menuju Tahun 2000 di Propinsi Bali [Seminar on the promotion and
development of tourism towards the year 2000 in the province of Bali], Denpasar:
Pemerintah Daerah Tingkat I Bali.
PICARD, M., 1979, Sociétés et Tourisme. Réflexions pour la Recherche et l'Action, Paris:
Unesco, Etablissements humains et environnement socio-culturel.
PICARD, M., 1987, 'Du "tourisme culturel" à la "culture touristique"', Problems of Tourism,
10/2, 38-52.
PICARD, M., 1990a, '"Cultural Tourism" in Bali: Cultural Performances as Tourist
Attraction', Indonesia, 49, 37-74.
PICARD, M., 1990b, 'Kebalian Orang Bali: Tourism and the Uses of "Balinese Culture" in
New Order Indonesia', Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, 24, 1-38.
PICARD, M., 1993, '"Cultural Tourism" in Bali: National integration and regional
differentiation', in M. Hitchcock, V.T. King & M.J.G. Parnwell (eds), Tourism in
South-East Asia, London: Routledge, 71-98.
PIZAM, A. & A. MILMAN, 1984, 'The Social Impacts of Tourism', Industry and
Environment, 7/1, 11-14.
POWELL, H., 1986, The Last Paradise, Singapore: Oxford University Press (1930).
Proyek Pemeliharaan dan Pengembangan Kebudayaan Daerah, 1971, Seminar Seni Sacral
dan Provan Bidang Tari [Seminar on sacred and profane dance], Denpasar.
Proyek Sasana Budaya Jakarta, 1979, Naskah Kerjasama Ditjen Kebudayaan dan Ditjen
Pariwisata [Memorandum of cooperation between the Directorate General of
Culture and the Directorate General of Tourism], Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal
Kebudayaan.
SCETO, 1971, Bali Tourism Study. Report to the Government of Indonesia, Paris:
UNDP/IBRD.
 SCHULTE NORDHOLT, H., 1986, Bali: Colonial Conceptions and Political Change, 1700-
1940. From Shifting Hierarchies to 'fixed Order', Rotterdam: Comparative Asian
Studies Programme, Erasmus University.
Seminar Pariwisata Budaya, 1971, Hasil Keputusan Seminar Pariwisata Budaya Daerah Bali
[Seminar on Cultural Tourism in Bali], Denpasar.
TRAVIS, A.S., 1982, 'Managing the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and
leisure development', Tourism Management, 3/4, 256-62.
TRAVIS, A.S., 1984, 'Social and Cultural Aspects of Tourism', Industry and Environment,
7/1, 22-24.
TURNBULL, C., 1982, 'Bali's New Gods', Natural History, 1, 26-32.
TURNER, L. & J. ASH, 1975, The Golden Hordes. International Tourism and the Pleasure
Periphery, London: Constable.
VICKERS, A., 1989, Bali: A Paradise Created, Berkeley: Periplus.
WOOD, R.E., 1980, 'International Tourism and Cultural Change in Southeast Asia',
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 28/3, 561-81.

View publication stats