Toward a typology of stranger-host relationships

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF STRANGER-HOST RELATIONSHIPS

WILLIAM

B. GUD YKUNST

State University of New York at Albany The purpose ofthispaper is to review the concept of the stranger as it has been used in sociology, ant~r~po~og~~, and interc~Itura1 relations. Based upon this literature and two recent critiques, a t.vpofogy uf stranger-h5st re~ati5nships is developed. The imp~~cation.~ of the typology for integrating researrh in the sociology of tourism, intercultural adjustment, and accuEturation/assimilarion are discussed.

In recent years there has been an increase in the amount of research conducted on contact between people from different cultures/ethnic groups. While this research has been concerned with the same phenomena, intergroup interaction, there has been little integration of the various studies. One reason for this lack of integration appears to be an implicit assumption that the various types of contact studied are inherently different. For example, research on international students, military advisors, multinational corporation personnel, immigrants, and tourists tends to be conducted in isolation, with little attention to how the research relates to similar work on other types of contact. This is obviously only a partial listing of the various types of contact that have been studied. Other forms include, but are not limited to: diplomats, language interpreters, technical assistance personnel, charge agents, researchers, military personnel, missionaries, and refugees. The argument put forth in this paper is that research on the various types of intergroup contact ideally should be integrated. This position is consistent with Brislin (1981) when he points out “that research findings and the wisdom of accumulated experience from one type of intergroup contact can be helpful in analyzing others” (p. 2). The first step in integrating research on intergroup contact is to develop a conceptual scheme which subsumes the various types of contact. The purpose of the present paper is to outline a typology that accomplishes this objective. The typology proffered below is based upon a concept widely utilized in sociology and anthropology; namely, the concept of “the stranger.” Requests for reprints should be addressed to William B. Gudykunst, Dept. of Rhetoric and Communication, State University of New York at Albany, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany NY 12222.

401

402

William B. Gudrkuns/

THE CONCEPT OF THE STRANGER Since Simmel’s (1908) original introduction of the concept of the stranger (der .J&mden) and the first translation of his seminal essay by Park and Burgess (1921, pp. 322-7); there has been an abundance of research and theorizing based upon the concept (e.g.. Fortes, 1975; Hamilton-Guerson, 1921; Herman & Schild, 1961; Nash, 1963; Nash & Heiss, 1967; Nash & Wolf, 1957; Schild, 1962; Schuetz, 1944; Shack & Skinner, 1979: Siu. 1952; Skinner, 1963; Tiryakian, 1973a. b: Williams, 1964; Wood, 1934; Zajonic, 1952). (Although Park and Burgess were the first to translate Simmel’s original essay, the most frequently cited is Wolffs, which appears in Simmel. 1950.) The overwhelming amount of work related to the concept has led such writers as Alex Inkeles to conclude that “there is a special and well-developed sociology of the stranger” (1964. p. 12). As two recent critiques (Levine, 1979; McLemore, 1970) have pointed out, however, the literature on strangers is confounded by several different conceptualizations of the term. According to Simmel’s (1950) conceptualization of the concept, there is a paradox for the stranger in terms of space:

If wandering is the liberation from every given point in space, and thus the conceptual opposite to fixation at such a point. the sociological form of the ‘stranger’ presents the unity, as it were, of these two characteristics. This phenomenon too, however, reveals that spatial relations are only the condition on the one hand, and the symbol, on the other. of human relations. The stranger is thus being discussed here, not in the sense often touched upon in the past, as the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, but rather as the person who comes today and stays tomorrow. He is, so to speak, the pofential wanderer: although he has not moved on. he has not quite overcome the freedom of coming and going. (p. 402)

Simmel’s paradox is. therefore. one of both freedom and fixation occurring at the same time. Not all writers on strangers concur with Simmel’s conceptualization. One writer who differs. Wood (1934) describes the stranger:

As one who has come into face-to-face contact with the group for the first time. This concept is broader than that of Simmel.. For us the stranger may be, as with Simmel, a potential wanderer, but he may also be a wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, or he may come today and remain with us permanently. The condition of being a stranger is not, for the present study, dependent upon the future duration of the contact, but it is determined by the fact that it is the first face-to-face meeting of individuals who have not known one another before. (pp. 43-44)

Stranger-Host

403

Relationships

Similarly, Schuetz (1944) diverges from Simmel’s Schuetz the term stranger means:

conceptualization.

For

an adult individual of our times and civilization who tries to be permanently accepted or at least tolerated by the group which he approaches. The outstanding example for the social situation under scrutiny is that of the immigrant.. But by no means is their validity restricted to this special case. The applicant for membership in a closed club, the prospective bridegroom who wants to be admitted to the girl’s family, the farmer’s son who enters college, the city-dweller who settles in a rural environment, the “selectee” who joins the Army, the family of the war worker who moves into a boom town-all are strangers according to the definition just given. (1944. p. 499)

Of the three conceptualizations, Wood’s is the most general. While Wood’s work provides an excellent foundation for the development of a systematic sociology of the stranger, often it is overlooked by scholars writing in the area who use only Simmel as a primary point of reference. It should be obvious from the above that Simmel, Wood, and Schuetz’s conceptualizations of the stranger-host relationship differ from the more common usage of the term stranger. The difference lies in the fact that each of these writers view the stranger-host relationship as a figure-ground phenomenon, with the stranger always defined vis-a-vis a host. This differs from broader uses of the term where strangerhood is viewed as a function of the degree of unfamiliarity between two or more people. For example, Lofland (1973) views people as strangers if they lack biographical and/or personal information about the other person. There are at least two research traditions which generally are classified under rubric of the sociology of the stranger (McLemore, 1970). The first tradition involves research based upon Simmel’s original conceptualization of the term, or research on people living in a foreign environment but not desiring membership in the host group. The second line of research is concerned with strangers that Wood calls “newcomers,” people in a foreign environment who desire membership in the host group. In terms of the intercultural literature these two research traditions involve issues of intercultural adjustment and acculturation/ assimilation, respectively. Research and theorizing on strangers is further confounded by the attention the stranger concept receives in the study of marginality (McLemore, 1970) and the lack of differentiation between work on the stranger and research on social distance (Levin, 1979). Levine (1979) finds the work on the concept of the stranger so undifferentiated that he concludes that the literature is a “confused assortment of statements.” In other words, there is not a well-developed area of the sociology of the stranger as Inkeles would have us believe.

404

William B. Gudykunst

A TYPOLOGY

OF STRANGER-HOST

RELATIONSHIPS

One of the major attempts to clarify the conceptual confusion with regard to the sociology of the stranger is Levine’s (1979) specification of a typology of stranger relationships. Levine contends that the critical variable is not the length of time a stranger spends in the host community; rather, the focus should be upon the type of relationship that the stranger aspires to establish with the host (e.g., to visit, for residence, for membership in the host group). Whatever the stranger’s aspiration, there is a response by the host community to the stranger. According to Levine this reaction will involve feelings of anxiety or latent antagonism. He goes on to describe the host’s response as “compulsive, reflecting the reality of a persisting ambivalence underlying all stranger relationships and the related fact that these relationships are invested with a particularly high degree of affect. It will be compulsively friendly if positive feelings predominate, compulsively antagonistic if negative ones are dominant” (Levine, 1979, p. 30). By cross-classifying these two variables Levine develops a typology which contains six categories: guests, sojourner, newcomer, intruder, inner enemy, and marginal man. I disagree with Levine’s choice of terms both in his typology and in the text of his article. My disagreement centers around the use of the terms “sojourner” and “newly arrived.” For me a sojourner is a traveler, a visitor, not a person who has come to the host community to reside. On the other hand, a newly arrived implies a person who has come to stay. 1 would contend that these are more common uses of the terms in the Iiterature and Levine’s uncommon use of the terms can lead to conceptual confusion on the readers part if he/she is not careful. Given that Simmel’s conceptualization of the stranger focuses upon both the nearness and farness-or what Simmel calls ambivalence---of the stranger-host relationship, Levine’s typology oversimplifies the potential relationships between strangers and hosts. The objective of the remainder of this paper is to expand and modify Levine’s typology in order to present a more fully developed typology which will allow an integration of the writing of Simmel, as well as that of Wood and Schuetz. Table 1 presents a typology of stranger-host relationships with the stranger’s interest in the host community and the host’s reaction to the stranger as the two critical variables (following Levine, 1979). The stranger’s interest in the host community is trichotomized into visit, residence, and membership. Similarly, the host’s reaction is broken down into a trichotomy: friendly, ambivalent, and anlagonistic. It is here where the current typology differs from Levine’s As noted above, Levine uses the dichotomy “compulsive friendliness” and “compulsive antagonism.” The argument being made is that if Simmel’s stranger-host relationship is

Stranger-Host

405

Relationships

TABLE 1 A Typology of Stranger-Host Stranger’s

Relations

Interest in Host Community

Host’s Reaction to Stranaer

Visit

Residence

Membershio

Friendly (Leaning to Positive)

Guest

Newly

Newcomer

Ambivalent (Indifference)

Sojourner

Simmel’s Stranger

Immigrant

Antagonistic (Leaning to Negative)

Intruder

Middle-Man Minority

Marginal Persons

General Area of Research

Sociology Tourism

Intercultural Adjustment

Acculturation/ Assimilation

of

Arrived

basically ambivalent (not positive or negative), such a category must be included otherwise Simmel’s stranger does not fit into the typology. Further, if the underlying stranger-host relationship is basically ambivalent as Simmel suggests, then when the host’s reaction does lean toward positive or negative, it will in all likelihood not be “compulsive.” The present typology yields nine types of stranger-host relationships: (a) guest, (b) newly arrived (for a discussion of why “newly arrived” rather than sojourner, is being used to describe this cell, see above), (c) newcomer, (d) sojourner (for a discussion of why “sojourner” is used for this cell, see p. 404), (e) Simmel’s stranger, (f) immigrants, (g) intruder, (h) “middleman” minority, and (i) marginal persons. Following Levine’s argument, each of these types can be applied to either individual strangers or a collectivity of strangers. Prior to discussing each of these types separately a brief examination of the factors that affect the particular status a stranger assumes vis-a-vis the host community is needed. Following Levine (1979), the factors affecting the aspirations of the stranger and the factors affecting the response of the host will be discussed separately. It should be noted, however, that the stranger-host relationship is a transactional one and each set of factors will inevitably influence the other. Levine (1979) specifies two factors that influenced the stranger’s aspirations: (a) the reasons for leaving home (e.g., alienation, economic hardship, political oppression) and (b) the condition of entering the host group (e.g., amount of prestige, special skills). In addition to these two factors there are several additional factors that will influence’the

406

William B. Gudykunst

stranger’s aspirations regarding the host community. These include. but are not limited to: (a) the attitudes of the stranger toward the host (Gudykunst, 1977), (b) the general intercultural attitudes of the stranger (e.g., is the stranger a person whom Adler [1976] would refer to as a “multicultural” person or one whom Walsh [1973] would label “cosmopolitan”?), (c) prior contact between the stranger and the host community (Gudykunst & Halsall, 1980) (d) contact with other strangers (Gudykunst & Halsall, 1980). This list is not all inclusive. For a further discussion of attitudes of strangers toward the host see Brein and David (1971) and Gudykunst (1977). In his paradigm of a sociology of the stranger Levine (1979) specifies four factors that will affect the host’s response toward the stranger: (a) the extent of stranger-host similarity (e.g., ethnicity, language, race), (b) the existence of categories and rituals for dealing with strangers, (c) the criteria used by the host for group membership (e.g., kinship, religion, citizenship), and (d) the conditions of the host community (e.g., size, age, degree of isolation). In addition, following Brislin (198 1) it can be argued that previous experience with other strangers will influence the host’s response toward the stranger. Given the above discussion of the factors that can influence the particular status a stranger assumes vis-a-vis the host community, the specific types of stranger-host relationships can now be examined. The nine types of stranger-host relationships presented in Table 1 cover a wide variety of different research areas. For example, the typology covers the traditional writings on the stranger, marginal-persons, immigrants, and sojourners. If looked at from the perspective of the stranger’s aspirations toward the host community, the typology includes work on sociology of tourism (to visit), intercultural adjustment (residence), and assimilation; acculturation (membership). Space does not allow for an elaborate discussion of each of the specific types, therefore, what follows should be considered as an outline of the typology and its individual elements, Guest Given the typology, a guest’s interest in the host community is to visit, while the host’s reaction toward the guest is leaning to positive or friendly. This type includes some, but not all, tourists. The tourists included in this category are those that the host community desires, for whatever reason (e.g., contact, money). Using Doxey’s (1976) four-stage model of the host’s attitude toward the tourist, this category would involve the stage he labels “euphoria,” or a positive attitude toward the tourist. Cohen (1979) however argues that linear models such as Doxey’s (1976) can not do justice to the differential dynamics under varying tourist conditions. For example, Doxey’s model does not take into account how tourism was introduced

Stranger- Host Relationships

into the host community of tourism.

or the attitudes

407

of host prior to the introduction

Newly Arrived The newly arrived outsider’s interest in the host community is one of residence, but not membership, while the host’s reaction toward the stranger is friendly and/or positive. As indicated earlier, Levine (1979) uses the term sojourner to label this type. I have chosen newly arrived, because sojourner is a term usually used to apply to visitors (Siu [1952] has used sojourner to talk about a group that clings to the culture of its ethnic group-again a nontraditional use of the term.) Like the guest, the newly arrived is a desirable person in the host community. Included in this category would be a large portion of diplomatic personnel residing in foreign nations, businesspersons invited to set up operations in a foreign culture, change agents (e.g., Peace Corp) invited into a host community, and other outsiders living in a foreign culture where there is a desire for the services offered,

Newcomer The newcomer’s interest in the host community is one of establishing membership, and the corresponding host reaction to the newcomer is positive or friendly. In general, newcomers constitute desired migrants, including migrants whose skills the host community needs and political migrants whose orientations the host community views as positive. The differentiating characteristic of the newcomer, like the guest and newly arrived, is the positive attitude of the host toward the stranger.

Sojourner A sojourner’s interest in the host community, like the guest’s, is to visit and then leave. The host community’s response to the sojourner, however, is not inherently positive as in the case of the guest. Rather, the host’s reaction toward the sojourner can best be classified as ambivalent and/or indifferent. The term sojourner may not be the ideal label to use for this type. It is, however, better used here than to describe the newly arrived type. Possibly a better term would be “traveler,” but this term has additional connotations which are not desirable (Fussell, 1980). This category, like that of the guest, involves the study of tourism. In discussing indifferent attitudes of the host toward the tourist, MacCannell indicates that “The local people . . . have long discounted the presence of tourists and go about their business as usual,. , . treating tourists as part of the regional scenery” (1976, p. 106).

408

William B. Gudvkunst

Simmel S Stranger When the stranger’s interest in the host community is one of residence and the host’s reaction is one of ambivalence, the relationship is identical to the one Simmel discussed in his essay “Der Fremden.” This type, therefore, is labeled “Simmel’s Stranger.” In that Simmel’s position was summarized above, it is not necessary to elaborate further here.

Immigrants The immigrant’s interest in the host community is one of membership, while the host community’s response can best be described as one of ambivalence or indifference. This type would include the vast majority of research/writing on people aspiring to assimilate and/or acculturate in a new culture. So much has been written on this category that it is impossible to begin to summarize the writing here (for an overview of research on immigrants see Kim, 1979; Kitano, 1980; Padilla, 1980).

Intruder Similar to the guest and the sojourner, the intruder’s interest in the host community is only to visit, however, the host community’s reaction toward intruders is leaning toward negative or antagonistic. This type includes visitors who are unwelcome in the community they are visiting. Included in this category would be visitors like the late Shah of Iran during his visit to the United States at the time when the U.S. embassy personnel were being held hostage in Iran. Following Doxey’s (1976) four stage model for the development of host’s attitude toward tourists, this type includes those he labels “antagonism.”

“Middle-Man ” Minorit? This category of stranger strives toward residence in the host community, but must overcome the same antagonistic or negative host reaction as the intruder. Traditionally, the “middle-man” minority involves a group that is higher in status than other minorities, but at the same time is lower in status than the dominant group (Blalock, 1967; Bonacich, 1973). These minorities “often serve as buffers between dominant and subordinated groups and can become the targets and scapegoats for the stress of that system” (Kitano, 1980, pp. 216-17). Since these minorities act as a buffer between dominant and subordinate groups, there are often antagonistic feelings directed toward their members.

Stranger-cast

~eIatio~hi~s

409

Levine uses the term “inner enemy” to label this type and argues that middle-man minorities fit into his sojourner (my newly arrived) category. I have modified the terms for several reasons. First, in reviewing the literature I found very little reference to inner enemy. Second, it did not seem appropriate to classify “middle-man” minorities into a category involving positive attitudes on the part of the host. Even though the writings on l‘middle-man” minorities do not always emphasize negative feelings on the part of the host, these people are often scapegoats and subject to antagonistic feelings. Therefore, this term has been chosen to label this type even though it is not ideal.

h4argind Person The final type of stranger-host relationship is the marginal person. This type of relationship involves a stranger who strives for membership in the host community, but meets with an antagonistic host reaction. This category encompasses the research and writing that is often categorized under work on the stranger, but which stems from Park’s (1928) essay on “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” Park conceived of the marginal person as an individual who was “more or less of a stranger” in two cultures, while aspiring to membership in the host community. This conceptualization is significantly different from Simmel’s, yet similar enough that many writers often fail to recognize the distinction. Stonequist (1937) made the necessary distinction, but a decade later it was lost in the writings of Hughes (1949).

CONCLUSION In its present form the typology proffered in this paper subsumes previous research on numerous kinds of intergroup contact under one general conceptual scheme. The typology, therefore, can be useful in integrating research from intercultural relations, cross-cultural psychology, intercultural communication, and racial/ethnic relations. More specifically, the typology allows for the integration of research which was previously assumed to be different; for example, while writings on overseas scholars and technical assistance often assume the two “types of contact” to be different, the scholar and advisor share a common stranger status (i.e., newly arrived in the typology outlined in this paper), therefore, suggesting that the outcomes of the two situations should be more similar than different. The typofogy outlined above has the advantage that every form of contact fits into one, and only one, type. This is not the case with one other recent attempt to develop a general typology of contact situations (Bochner, 1982). Bochner (1982) isolates several contact variables, including “on whose territory,” “time-span,” “purpose,” “type of involvement,” “frequency of contact,” “degree of intimacy between participants,”

4/o

William 8. [email protected]

“relative status and power,” “numerical balance.” and “visible distinguishing characteristics.” He further differentiates contact “between members of the same society” and “between members of different societies.” While each of the variables isolated are indeed factors in every contact situation, using them to develop a typology leads to a typology where one form of contact can be placed in several categories, therefore, making integration of research findings and the development of theory more difficult. Further, the distinction between within and between society forms of contact ignores work on the sociology of the stranger which suggests that these two types of contact are not different in kind. The addition of Bochncr’s “contact variables” to the typology proffered in this paper. howc\,er. will extend its usefulness. (Bochner’s [I9821 article on the dimensions of the contact situation appeared after this paper was initially accepted for publication. Had it appeared earlier the dimensions outlined by Bochner could have been more thoroughly incorporated into the typology presented.) There are several “labels” such as “multicultural” persons (Adler, 1976). “third-culture” people (Useem. Useem, & Donoghue. 1963). “mediating” persons (Bochner. 1973) and “universal” persons (Walsh. 1973) used in the literature which some may argue should be incorporated into the present typology. Such an argument. howev,er, is inappropriate. Each of these labels was developed to describe people with certain characteristics and not different types of contact situations. Multicultural persons. for example. are not equivalent to any of the nine ty,pes presented in the typology outlined here. This is not to say. however, that these various characterizations of people who are effective interculturally are unrelated to the present typology. As was mentioned earlier. whether or not a stranger is a universal person. for example. will affect the host’s attitude toward the stranger and, therefore, the particular status the stranger will assume vis-a-vis the host. One of the major implications of the present typology, for research involves the necessity of looking at the contact situation as a figureground phenomena. Specifically. since strangers assume a status only visa-vis a host community, it follows that strangers should be studied in reference to a host community. In other words, future research should take into consideration the host’s attitude toward specific categories of strangers and the strangers’ desire with respect to the host community. If these factors are not taken into consideration, different types of contact may be lumped together. confounding the results. For example. one plausible explanation for inconsistent results in previous research on international students in the United States is the fact that researchers did not take into consideration the host community,‘s attitude toward the students. By examining the different categories of strangers and comparing within and between category variance in communication, for example. the proffered typology can be tested empirically~.

Stranger-Host

Relationships

411

The typology outlined above is only a beginning attempt to explicate the various types of stranger statuses vis-a-vis a host community. A more complete elaboration of the typology is necessary. When fully articulated the typology will integrate previous research on each of the individual stranger statuses, specific individual characteristics which influence strangers, elaborate on the factors which influence the status a stranger assumes, stipulate the factors influencing changes in strangers’ status and, finally, specify how the typology can be integrated with the study of other forms of social relations.

REFERENCES ADLER, P. Beyond cultural identity. In L. Samovar and R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (2nd ed.). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth, 1976. BLALOCK, H.M. Toward a theory qf‘minorit.v-group relations. New York: Capricorn Books, 1967. BOCHNER, S. The mediating man. Honolulu: East-West Center, 1973. BOCHNER, S. The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact. New York: Pergamon Press, 1982. BONACICH, E. Toward a theory of middle man minorities. American Sociological Review. 1973, 38, 583-94. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. H. Intercultural communication and the adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 197 I, 16. 2 15-230. BRISLIN, R.W. Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to+ace interaction. New York: Pergamon Press, I98 I, COHEN, E. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociolog.v, 1979, 13, 179-201. DOXEY, G.V. A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants. In Impact of tourism. Salt Lake City: The Travel Research Association, 1976. FORTES, M. Strangers. In M. Fortes & S. Patterson (Eds.), Studies in African social anthropology. London: Academy Press, 1975. FUSSELL, P. Abroad. London: Oxford, 1980. ‘CUDYKUNST, W.B. Intercultural contact and attitude change. In N.C. Jain (Ed.), International and intercultural communication annual, Vol. IV. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1977. GUDYKUNST, W.B., & HALSALL, S. The application of a theory of contraculture to intercultural communication. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook. 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1980. HAMILTON-GRIERSON, P.J. Strangers. In J. Hastings (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion and ethics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 192 I. HERMAN, S.N., & SCHILD. E.O. The stranger-group in a cross-cultural situation. Sociometrjb. I96 I, 165 176. HUGHES, E. Social change and status protest: An essay on the marginal man. Ph.vlon, 1949, 10, 58-65. INKELES, A. What is sociology? Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1964.

William B. Gudykunst

412

KIM, Y.Y. Toward an interactive theory of communication acculturation. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 3. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1979. KITANO, H.L. Race relarions (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. LEVINE. D.N. Simmel at a distance. In W. Shack & E. Skinner (Eds.), Srrangers in African socieries. Berkeley: University of California Press 1979. LOFLAND, L. A vtaorld yf‘strangers. New York: Basic Books. 1973. MAC CANNELL. D. The tourist. New York: Schocken Books. 1976. MCLEMORE, S.D. Simmel’s stranger: A critique of the concept. Pac$c Sociological Revievt,, 1970. 13, 86-94. NASH, D. The ethnologist as stranger. South~*esrern Journal qf’ Anrhropolog~~, 1963. 19, 149-167. NASH, D., & WOLF. A.W. The stranger in laboratory culture. Ameruan Sociological

NASH.

D.J..

Sociological

Review,. 1957, 22, 400-405.

&

HEISS,

Quarterl.r’,

J. Sources of 1967, 8. 2 15-22 I.

anxiety

in laboratory

strangers.

PADILLA, A.M. (Ed.). Acculturation: Theory, models and some neM~J;inding.s. Boulder. CO: Westview Press, 1980. PARK, R.E. Human migration and the marginal man. Americnn Journal of Sociology,, 1928. May, 88 l-93. PARK, R.E.. & BURGESS, E.W. Introduction to the science qf sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I92 1. SCHII.D, E.O. The foreign student. as a stranger. Journal ofSocial Issues. 1962. 18, 41-54.

A. The stranger: An essay in social psychology. American Journal qf 1944, 49, 499-507. SHACK. W.A., & SKINNER, E.P. Srrangers in A.frican societies. Berkeley. CA: University of California Press, 1979. SIMMEL. Cl. Exkurs iiher der ,fremden. Sociologic. Leipzig: Dunker and Humblot, 1908. SIMMEL, G. The stranger. In K. H. Wolff (Trans. and Ed.), The sociology qf George Simmel. New York: Free Press, 1950. SIU, P.C.P. The sojourner. American Journal of Sociology, 1952, 58, 34-44. SKINNER, E.P. Strangers in West African society. Africa, 1963, 33. 307-320. STONEQUIST, E. The marginal man. New York: Scribners, 1937. TIRYAKIAN, E.A. Sociological perspectives on the stranger. Sounding. 1973a. 45-58. TIRYAKIAN. E.A. Perspectives on the stranger. In S. TeSelle (Ed.). The rediscovery, of erhnicify. New York: Harper & Row. 1973b. USEEM, J., USEEM, R., & DONOGHUE, J. Men in the middle of the thirdculture. Human Organization, 1963, 22, 169-l 79. WALSH, J. Intercultural education in the community’ of’ man. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1973. WILLIAMS, R. M. Strangers nex[ door: Ethnic. relations in American communities. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1964. WOOD, M.J. The stranger: A study in social relationships. New York: Columbia University Press. 1934. SCHUETZ,

Sociology,

413

Stranger-Host Relationships ZAJONIC,

R. Aggressive

attitudes of the ‘stranger’

as a function

of conformity

pressures, Human Relations, 1952, 5, 205-2 16.

ABSTRACT

TRANSLATIONS

Cette communication examine le concept de l’dtranger tel qu’il. a 4te’ employ& en sociologic, anthropologic et dans l'&ude des rapports inter-culturels. Se basant sur les r&herches antila communication d&eloppe &dents et cur dew critiques rkntes, une typologie des rapports &stranger-hate. Sont &galement discutges les cons&quences de cette typologie pour l'integration des recherches en sociologic du tourisme, pour l'adaptation interculturelle et pour acculturation/assimilation.

El prop&it0 de este papel es para rev&tar el concepto de1 estranjero tal coma ha side utilizado en la sociologia, anthropologfa y relaeiones interculturales. Basado sobre esta literatura y dos reseiias criticas reck%, un estudio de tipos entre la relacioh estranjero-h&sped es desarrolado. Las implicaciones de la tipologfa para integrar la investigacibn en la sociologfa de1 turismo, acomodaci6n intercultural y la aculturacick-asimilacik son descutidas.