Since the publication of The Travels of Marco Polo in the early fourteenth century, European adventurers, explorers, tourists, and scientists have traversed other parts of the world and written accounts of their experiences for European audiences. In Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, Mary Louise Pratt studied the accounts of Europeans and European-Americans who traveled to European colonies and other non-European parts of the world from the early eighteenth century to the early twenty-first century. According to Pratt, European travel books presented Europeans with an image of the rest of the world as vulnerable to European control and ultimately shaped Europeans’ impression of their place in the world.
Pratt’s survey focused especially upon writings about travel in Africa and South America. By employing elements of literary analysis to travel writing, Pratt demonstrated how Europeans viewed imperial possessions and subjects. Northern European, bourgeois travel writers, such as Anders Sparrman, John Barrow, Alexander Von Humboldt, and Mary Kingsley, portrayed colonial and neo-colonial dominions as vulnerable, subjectable, and profitable lands and societies. Although stylistic approaches shifted over the course of nearly 300 years, travel writers consistently constructed an image of European ownership of the non-European world. In this image, Europe, the center of civilization, owned and rightfully controlled the barbarous periphery of the imperial world. This image of imperial ownership “created the imperial order ‘at home’ and gave” Europeans their place at the top of that order (3). Ultimately, the European imperial gaze was constant and monolithic from the 1800s to the 2000s. The travel writing by Europeans and United States citizens in the 1970s drew on many of the basic assumptions and images employed by travel writers of the 1790s (216). Pratt concluded that Eurocentric “imperial eyes” continue to influence US and European responses and opinions in the twenty-first century in regard globalization and migration from former colonies to former imperial powers (241-243).
However, Pratt did not exclusively focus on European travel writers. Pratt explored the phenomenon of transculturation where imperial subjects selected, coopted, and transformed the image European travel writers presented of subjugated societies and cultures. In Latin America, for example, creole, European-American elites constructed a perception of themselves that reinforced European imagery. Creoles identified themselves as civilized Europeans and the masses of indigenous, mixed, and African peoples in Latin America as barbarous subjects. In the decolonized, neo-imperial twentieth century, Latin American travel writers adopted European forms of travel writing; however, Latin American writers were not governed by a Eurocentric interpretation of the world. Travel writing allowed Latin American writers to conceive of their own nations not as a “poor reflection of Europe,” but “as a unique self-creation.”
Imperial Eyes, at its core, was an interdisciplinary study. Pratt not only historicized the writings of European travelers, but also incorporated literary analysis to her study. For example, by focusing upon the language, presentation, and imagery of the naturalist writings of Anders Sparrman, Pratt revealed how Sparrman constructed an image of southern Africa freely open to European domination (48-55). Pratt, therefore, demonstrated the value of an interdisciplinary approach to a historical topic. Imperial Eyes also revealed the inherent value of travel narratives in the history of European imperialism. Finally, Pratt successfully incorporated the perspective of subjugated peoples in contrast to the writings of Europeans. This allowed Imperial Eyes to be international in scope and scale.
Nevertheless, Pratt’s work suffered from a number of conceptual problems. Pratt attempted to draw continuity in European perceptions of non-Europeans over the course of 300 years; however, Pratt skipped large periods of time in between some writings. The first eight chapters of the book surveyed travel accounts mostly written between the 1750s and the 1850s. However, the final two chapters addressed only a handful of accounts between the 1860s and the 2000s. Also, Pratt focused almost exclusively upon Africa and Latin America in her study. This approach did not incorporate European travel writing in regard to Asia, the Pacific, or North America. Pratt did not demonstrate how or if European travel writing in a major colony like India differed from southern Africa or Peru. The large gaps in time and omission of large parts of the world detracted from Pratt’s overall argument and made it far from comprehensive.
Imperial Eyes also failed to fully consider the wide variety of travel accounts. Although Pratt discussed shifts in style and motivation in travel writing over time, she depicted European travel writing as monolithic and consistent over 300 years. However, not all writings support Pratt’s argument. For example, in Insurgent Mexico, the American journalist John Reed recounted his experiences traveling in Mexico and reporting on the Mexican Revolution in 1913 and 1914. Reed portrayed Mexicans not as vulnerable, neo-imperial subjects, but as empowered individuals fighting for their country’s freedom. By arguing that travel writers always saw the world through “imperial eyes,” Pratt overlooked travel accounts that perceived of non-Europeanized parts of the world differently.
Nevertheless, Imperial Eyes represented a pioneering approach to the history of imperialism by employing an interdisciplinary approach to the study of travel narratives. Although flaws and omissions did undermine Pratt’s larger argument, Imperial Eyes should stand as a model for interdisciplinary studies. Pratt’s work will also undoubtedly influence future studies that utilize travel accounts and narratives.