The Perils of Reading National Geographic

Reading National Geographic by Catherine A. Lutz; Jane L. Collins

Review by: Susan Schulten
Reviews in American History, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 521-527
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2703329 .
Accessed: 16/11/2011 10:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reviews in American History.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE PERILS OF READING NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

Susan Schulten

Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins. ReadingNationalGeographic.Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1993. xvii + 309 pp. Photographs, appendixes,
notes, bibliography, and index. $59.95.

For the past century,millions of Americans have glimpsed the farthest reaches
of the earth through the eyes of NationalGeographic.Although popular since
the turn of the century, the magazine's subscription base skyrocketed after
World War Il, reaching 10 million by the 1980s, a figure that does not begin to
include those who skimmed the magazine in dentists' offices and beauty
salons. The longstanding quest to fascinate its readers led the magazine's
editors to respond to popular tastes as well as political realities, making the
magazine an important, though relatively unrecognized, source of American
cultural history. In Reading National Geographic,Catherine Lutz and Jane
Collins, trained respectively in anthropology and sociology, attempt to un-
pack the cultural meanings of the magazine's photography during the Cold
War.Ultimately, however, the history of the National Geographic Society and
its monthly is more complicated than they allow.
The authors confess both personal and political reasons for their interest in
NationalGeographic.Both have rich childhood memories from the early 1960s
of poring over the magazine's "seductive representations of the third world"
(p. xi). Coming of age during the Vietnam War,the authors learned the power
of photography not just to please, but to shock, educate, and motivate
political change. To Lutz and Collins, the war highlighted the growing
importance of the photograph in American society, which today constitutes "a
central feature of contemporary life" (p. 4). The rise of images over print, they
argue, was one of two crucial cultural shifts affecting National Geographicin
the postwar era, one that transformed the medium of recording history and
produced the genre of photojournalism that the magazine mastered so well.
This new power of the visual, coupled with the publication's massive
circulation figures, gave it exceptional influence over American perceptions of
the world.
But, as the authors rightly point out, any form of cultural production is
itself a result of historical conditions, and therefore they carefully examine the
Reviews in American History 23 (1995) 521-527 ? 1995 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
522 REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 1995

relationship between the magazine and historical change in the second half of
the twentieth century. Among the most influential historical trends in this
period, and the second cultural change significant in their analysis of National
Geographic,is the rise and fall of a consensus regardingAmerican stewardship
abroad since World War II. The postwar decolonization movements, the
Vietnam War,and even terrorism constituted a "partial thwarting of Ameri-
can hegemony," which had profound consequences for American national
identity (p. 10). The emergence of a postcolonial society after World War II,
Lutz and Collins explain, changed the way NationalGeographicpresented the
world, exemplified by the gradual disappearance of Westerners in photo-
graphs of Third World subjects. In general, the colonial relationship that
previously enabled the magazine to photograph the world had been chal-
lenged, and therefore visual references to this contested relationship became
"studiously avoided" (p. 40).
For Lutz and Collins, even more important than its response to history was
the magazine's ability to negate it-by far their most provocative argument.
Because the authors are concerned with power relations, particularly those
involving race and gender, they focus exclusively on the presentation of Third
World human subjects in National Geographic.Although the magazine's
longstanding credo has been to show "the world and all that is in it," Lutz and
Collins counter that it has in fact peddled a very narrow-highly optimistic-
view of the world. Readers are encouraged to identify with non-Western
subjects on the basis of universal humanist principles-which transcend
differences of race, class, gender, language, and politics-rather than accord-
ing to a "progressive humanism" that historicizes the differences between
nationalities and cultures. Rather than stressing very real and important
cultural differences, the magazine, Lutz and Collins conclude, has relied on
positive universal human qualities-love, kinship, and community. Studying
the magazine's American readers, the authors found that photographs of
smiling families, and especially of mothers and children, brought positive
responses. Photographs that emphasized conflict and difference-such as
indigenous rituals, wartime violence, mass social upheaval, and poverty-
were less popular.
Lutz and Collins argue that the editors at the publication have emphasized
the universal over the historical in order to make these subjects and their
respective cultures comprehensible to Americans. They analyze this editorial
strategy within a paradigm that Roland Barthes has termed the "Family of
Man," named after Edward Steichen's highly popular photography exhibit of
the 1950s that emphasized the essential unity of mankind. Accordingly, by
emphasizing unity within a range of diversity, and invoking universal human
qualities, the authors suggest that the editors suppressed the reality and
SCHULTEN I Reading National Geographic 523

weight of history, which is ridden with disturbing conflicts, power inequali-

ties, and social change. More specifically, the magazine's trademark became
"'aworld of happy, classless people outside of history but evolving into it,
edged with exoticism and sexuality, but knowable to some degree as indi-
viduals" (p. 116). In the pages of National Geograpzicwe glimpse a highly
diverse world, but one in which we are assured that all cultures share
fundamental values. To the authors, this tacit affirmation of unity has turned
what might have been politically charged material into risually exciting but
politically tame tourist shots. The Family of Man dynamic makes the world
safe, and therefore conquerable, for Americans. It is not that highlighting
universal human qualities is necessarily harmful, the authors write, but rather
that there are less and more critical ways of xviewing difference, and to
homogenize non-Westerners essentially negates their role in the larger,
historical human drama.
The authors suggest that in addition to homogenizing their non-Western
subjects, the editors have also depoliticized them. Specifically, they have
failed to connect positive and negative images of their subjects historically
and sociologically, instead trying to "balance"the good with the bad. Articles
that challenged our notions of right and wrong, ot basic moral values, of
universal relationships, were printed only occasionally. Here Lutz and Collins
have hit pay dirt. Traditionally,articles in Nation7al
Geographicpresented both
the good and the bad, but rarely investigated the relationship betweenthe two.
Nor were they likely to trace the troubles of any given area to problematic
sources, including those that might have implicated the United States. With
the exception of some pieces covering the Vietnam War,the bulk of coverage
has shied from political analysis.
Lutz and Collins also argue that, aside from avoiding political or social
commentary, National Geographiccomposes photographs to reflect clear pat-
terns of racial power; race, that is, has been a central factor both in the
production and the reception of the magazine's images. This is partially
explained by the fact that the subscription base is over 90 percent white,
though figures for actual readership are much more difficult to estimate.
Generally, the authors argue that the publication's images are the product of
the race and gender of the photographer,who "looks out on this exotic world
from that Marlboro Country where the jaws are all square with a tough
growth of stubble and the Indians are all gone" (p. 185). The authors
interview some photographers and editors to learn about the production
process, though much more could have been made of these opportunities. To
interpret the photographs they rely heavily on theories of mass culture,
photography, cultural consumption, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. For
instance, the authors hypothesize that the Vietnam War and the civil rights
524 REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY I SEPTEMBER 1995

movement challenged the traditional colonial relationships within the

magazine's photographs of the ThirdWorld. After the upheavals of the 1960s,
the authors argue, Westerners gradually disappeared from the photographs.
This change, they write, transformed the Third World, now free from Western
subjects, into "a safe, comfortable space, where race was not an issue and
where white people did not have to reevaluate the sources of their privileges"
(p. 159). Yet later the authors claim that the withdrawal of Americans and
other Westerners from these photographs indicated a tendency "to see the
Third World as a more dangerous place, a place where they were no longer
welcome to walk and survey as they pleased" (p. 207). Reconciling these two
theoretical interpretationsof a phenomenon so central to their argument-the
disappearance of the Westerner-raises questions about their use of theory.
Theoretical tensions are also found elsewhere. In one chapter, the authors
write that subjects in native dress, Western dress, and lack of dress all signify
Western attempts to "contain" the non-Western subject. Further along, a
chapter devoted to "The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes" suggests
that looking directly into the camera and looking away both constitute signs
of deference (pp. 198-203). Although these photographs offer fertile ground
for cultural analysis, the use of so many theories-of race, gender, cultural
consumption, and photographic composition-leaves the reader with a body
of theoretical possibilities that supports so many different conclusions that, in
the end, it clarifies little.
Other attempts to probe the racial dynamics of the magazine are also
problematic. In chapter 6, the authors quantify the number of articles devoted
to "light-," "bronze-," and "dark-,"skinned people, arguing that readers of
the National Geographicidentify the human subjects primarily by their skin
color. Light- and bronze-skinned subjects are seen by white readers as most
familiar, and their dark-skinned counterparts as most foreign. Lu.z and
Collins rest this assumption on historical references to the hierarchy of races
found in fairs and expositions of the late nineteenth century, where
Euramericans drew conclusions about others based on the darkness of their
skin. Finding that the "dark-skinned"have appeared at a fairly constant rate,
the authors suggest that there might have been a quota to the frequency of
articles devoted to this group. Yet according to the authors, "[p]eople who
could be categorized as bronze formed a fairly regular 60 percent of the total,
with the remaining 12 percent constituted by light- or white-skinned third
world peoples" (p. 160). This continuity, while indicating a general concern
for racial balance in the magazine, does not necessarily indicate that an
informal quota has been directed at "dark-skinned" subjects. To claim that
such a continuum of racial preference exists in the minds of the readers
demands more solid evidence than references to "popular stereotypes."
SCHULTEN / Reading National Geographic 525

In an analysis that criticizes the lack of historical awareness of National

Geographic,Lutz and Collins have themselves flattened the weight of history
regarding the importance of race. During the Cold War, which defines the
period under study, politics reigned supreme in international relations. How
"familiar" or "friendly" a country was to the United States rested more on
politics than race. Indeed one of the ironies of the Cold Warwas the American
conviction that some dictators were "better"than others because they paid lip
service to the United States government, or were fighting an enemy remotely
connected with the Soviets. The authors themselves acknowledge that from
1945 to 1959, not one article on the Soviet Union appeared, a moratorium
ending when Nixon recounted his visit to Moscow for the magazine's readers.
Similarly, pieces on the People's Republic of China were rare from 1950 to
1978, though from 1900 to 1935 the magazine included seventy articles related
to the Chinese. These were political-not racial or ethnic-realities that
directed the magazine's content, as well as its reception, and therefore ought
to be considered primary in any study of the Cold War. Without a more
thorough consideration of historical, political, and socioeconomic influ-
ences-above and beyond the civil rights and decolonization movements-
skin-color categories become static.
The authors also tend to conflate important national and racial terms,
using the phrases "ThirdWorld," "non-Westernworld," and "world outside
United States boundaries" irnterchangeably.Such usage fails to address
nations that fit into only one of these slippery categories, such as industrial-
ized non-Western countries. Ultimately, this terminology undermines the
authors' critique of American ethnocentrism by revealing the extent to which
they have internalized the mythical homogeneity of the non-Western world.
In more than a few places they fall into precisely the trap that they warn
against: throughout the book are photographs of non-Western subjects whose
nationality or ethnicity go unnamed by the authors, and are therefore left
anonymous.
This tendency to oversimplify is the basic weakness of ReadingNational
Geographic,a flaw that reveals the sheer complexity of the National Geo-
graphic Society. Lutz and Collins are correct in arguing that the content of
NationalGeographichas been carefully edited, avoiding extreme depictions of
wealth, poverty, and violence. The editors, moreover, have rarely elaborated
on the social or historical causes of their subject's situation. While discrete
photographs might document poverty, war, or despondency, others are
strategically placed to "balance"the overall picture. Furthermore,the Society
itself has a conservative history, reluctant to take sides on political issues save
for endorsing American involvement in conflict abroad.
Lutz and Collins lament this neutrality because, in their view, National
526 REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 1995

Geographichas both the power and the opportunity to be an influential

political force in photojournalism. Significantly,the authors open their study
with questions about the invasion of Grenadaand end by challenging the war
against Iraq. In between, they struggle to understand why the magazine
made no effort to challenge either of these conflicts. By avoiding overly
political pieces, and strategically defusing strongly political photographs,
Lutz and Collins conclude that the publication forecloses political dialogue,
and "may not contribute to social change in the ways that we would hope" (p.
278). Instead, it "helped white, upwardly mobile Americans to locate them-
selves in a changing world, to come to terms with their whiteness and relative
privilege, and to deal with anxieties about their class position, both national
and international" (p. 38). These conclusions are problematic on a number of
levels.
First, they are somewhat speculative, suggesting that ultimately the maga-
zine has had a singular effect. In chapter 8, interviews of fifty-five American
readers of the magazine tell a different story. When asked to react aloud to
twenty randomly selected photographs from the magazine (without cap-
tions), readers gave a tremendous range of responses even to a single
photograph: some comments were politically charged, others were dismiss-
ive, and still others suggested racial prejudice. What provoked and engaged
one viewer reaffirmed "illusions of American superiority" for another (p. 11).
Throughout the study, the authors admit that many of the images evoked
concern and questions among readers, and that many of the most popular
photographs were those with the most ambiguous and complex messages.
Thus generalizations about the singular effects of the photographs are
undermined by the range of evidence collected.
At the heart of the problem for Lutz and Collins is that though the
magazine has inspired a desire to learn more about a given country or s'ibject,
it has infrequently been able, or willing, "to generate dismay or the desire for
change" (p. 278). Essentially, the authors expect National Geographicto be
something other than it has been. Rarely does their analysis grant that one of
the reasons for the magazine's immense, longstanding success has been the
ability to tap the curiosityof its readers. Although the Society has presented a
somewhat sanitized world, it has also brought that world closer to millions
who would never experience it firsthand, and millions whose enduring
interest has sustained the magazine's phenomenal growth. While National
Geographicmay very well cater to a desire to contain the world outside the
United States, it also strikes a more basic sentiment of human interest which
ought to be taken on its own terms. Lutz and Collins themselves admit that
the editors have frequently deviated from market research, giving readers
what they "ought to have" as well as what they want (pp. 82-83). It is this
SCHULTEN / Reading National Geographic 527

ambiguous middle ground between charged political photojournalism and

aesthetic nature shots that the magazine usually occupies, and its ability to
negotiate this terrain is part of its success and its complexity.
The final chapter opens with a telling question, engendered as much as
anything else by the authors' own experiences during the Vietnam War:
"what kind of progressive political possibilities are there in the confrontation
between readers and photographs?" (p. 259). What Lutz and Collins do not
acknowledge is that National Geographicwould never have gained such an
immense readership and become an American institution with the politicized
content that they advocate. Their own survey of viewers' reception to the
magazine's photographs indicates that the graphic, disturbing, "political"
photographs were the least popular. The ideal of a politically charged National
Geographicsimply could never be anything but an ideal. Thus the essential
question of the study is the essential problem with the study, asking why the
magazine has not been something that it never set out to be. While Lutz and
Collins have admirably focused on an amazingly influential but entirely
understudied institution, they have done so through lenses that distort rather
than clarify.

Susan Schulten, Departmentof History, Universityof Pennsylvania,is writing a

history of geographicknowledgeand perceptionin Americansocietyfrom the late
nineteenthto the mid-twentiethcentury.