-
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 phe- nomena, 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, re- searchers, 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 Simmels (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
Simmels 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 Simmels (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)
Simmels paradox is. therefore. one of both freedom and fixation
occurring at the same time.
Not all writers on strangers concur with Simmels
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 Relationships 403
Similarly, Schuetz (1944) diverges from Simmels
conceptualization. For Schuetz the term stranger means:
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 girls family, the farmers 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, Woods is the most general.
While Woods 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
Schuetzs 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 Simmels
original con- ceptualization 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 new- comers, 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 Levines (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 strangers 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 hosts 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 Levines 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 Levines uncommon use
of the terms can lead to conceptual confusion on the readers part
if he/she is not careful.
Given that Simmels conceptualization of the stranger focuses
upon both the nearness and farness-or what Simmel calls
ambivalence---of the stranger-host relationship, Levines typology
oversimplifies the potential relationships between strangers and
hosts. The objective of the remainder of this paper is to expand
and modify Levines 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 strangers interest in the host community and the hosts reaction
to the stranger as the two critical variables (following Levine,
1979). The strangers interest in the host community is
trichotomized into visit, residence, and membership. Similarly, the
hosts reaction is broken down into a trichotomy: friendly,
ambivalent, and anlagonistic. It is here where the current typology
differs from Levines As noted above, Levine uses the dichotomy
compulsive friendliness and compulsive antagonism. The argument
being made is that if Simmels stranger-host relationship is
-
Stranger-Host Relationships 405
TABLE 1
A Typology of Stranger-Host Relations
Strangers Interest in Host Community
Hosts Reaction to Stranaer Visit Residence Membershio
Friendly (Leaning to
Positive) Guest Newly Arrived Newcomer
Ambivalent
(Indifference)
Antagonistic (Leaning to Negative)
Sojourner
Intruder
Simmels
Stranger
Middle-Man
Minority
Immigrant
Marginal Persons
General Area of Research
Sociology of Tourism
Intercultural Adjustment
Acculturation/ Assimilation
basically ambivalent (not positive or negative), such a category
must be included otherwise Simmels stranger does not fit into the
typology. Further, if the underlying stranger-host relationship is
basically ambiva- lent as Simmel suggests, then when the hosts
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) Simmels stranger, (f) immigrants, (g) intruder,
(h) middle- man minority, and (i) marginal persons. Following
Levines 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
strangers 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 influencethe
-
406 William B. Gudykunst
strangers 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 cosmo- politan?), (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 hosts 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 hosts 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 strangers 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 guests interest in the host community is
to visit, while the hosts 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 Doxeys (1976) four-stage model of the hosts 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 Doxeys (1976) can not do
justice to the differential dynamics under varying tourist
conditions. For example, Doxeys model does not take into account
how tourism was introduced
-
Stranger- Host Relationships 407
into the host community or the attitudes of host prior to the
introduction of tourism.
Newly Arrived
The newly arrived outsiders interest in the host community is
one of
residence, but not membership, while the hosts 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 newcomers 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 sojourners interest in the host community, like the guests, is
to visit and then leave. The host communitys response to the
sojourner, however, is not inherently positive as in the case of
the guest. Rather, the hosts 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 strangers interest in the host community is one of
residence and the hosts reaction is one of ambivalence, the
relationship is identical to the one Simmel discussed in his essay
Der Fremden. This type, therefore, is labeled Simmels Stranger. In
that Simmels position was summarized above, it is not necessary to
elaborate further here.
Immigrants
The immigrants interest in the host community is one of
membership, while the host communitys 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 intruders interest
in the host community is only to visit, however, the host
communitys 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 Doxeys (1976) four stage model for the
development of hosts attitude toward tourists, this type includes
those he labels antagonism.
Middle-Man Minorit?
This category of stranger strives toward residence in the host
com- munity, but must overcome the same antagonistic or negative
host reaction as the intruder. Traditionally, the middle-man
minority in- volves 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 Parks (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 Simmels, 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, in- cluding on whose territory, time-span,
purpose, type of involve- ment, frequency of contact, degree of
intimacy between participants,
-
4/o William 8. [email protected]
relative status and power, numerical balance. and visible
distinguish- ing 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 Bochncrs contact variables to the typology
proffered in this paper. howc\,er. will extend its usefulness.
(Bochners [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 hosts 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 figure- ground phenomena. Specifically. since strangers assume
a status only vis- a-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
hosts 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 compar- ing 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 qfminorit.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 contra- culture 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.
-
412 William B. Gudykunst
KIM, Y.Y. Toward an interactive theory of communication
acculturation. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 3. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transac- tion, 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 yfstrangers. New York: Basic Books. 1973.
MAC CANNELL. D. The tourist. New York: Schocken Books. 1976.
MCLEMORE, S.D. Simmels 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 Review,. 1957, 22, 400-405.
NASH. D.J.. & HEISS, J. Sources of anxiety in laboratory
strangers. Sociological Quarterl.r, 1967, 8. 2 15-22 I.
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.
SCHUETZ, A. The stranger: An essay in social psychology.
American Journal qf Sociology, 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
third-
culture. 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 com-
munities. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1964. WOOD, M.J. The
stranger: A study in social relationships. New York: Columbia
University Press. 1934.
-
Stranger-Host Relationships 413
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 ldtranger tel quil. a
4te employ& en sociologic, anthropologic et dans l'&ude des
rapports inter-culturels. Se basant sur les r&herches anti-
&dents et cur dew critiques rkntes, la communication
d&eloppe une typologie des rapports &stranger-hate. Sont
&galement discutges les cons&quences de cette typologie
pour l'integration des re- cherches en sociologic du tourisme, pour
l'adaptation intercul- turelle 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, anthro-
pologfa 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.