Master of Social and Cultural Anthropology

Faculty of Social Sciences

Moving worlds staying the same (or not)

An essay for the „Anthropology of Travel” course
taught by Prof. Dr. Noel B. Salazar

Abstract:
”In the current essay I am interested in the relation between three different concepts that are used in
anthropological discourse when treating mobilities: transnationalism, translocality and imaginaries. While the concept
of ‘ imaginaries’ is easy to treat from an interdisciplinary approach, when discussing international mobilities, the
interchangeable use of transnationalism and translocality makes it harder to understand what is at stake in each case.
For this purpose, imaginaries understood as reflectors identity and subjective aspects of the travelling subjects involved
and the social construction of locality can set the difference between the two different terms. If different, are
translocality and transnationalism to be reconciled in the social world? I argue that this is indeed the case, the
(re)production of locality appearing in these situations where tensioned contexts and identity loss related anxieties are
more prevalent.”

Keywords: imaginaries, translocal, transnationalism, travel, identity

Student
Liviu Popa

2016
 Introduction
In discussing topics like transnationalism and translocality there is a tension between
presupposing abstract subjects and focusing on the subjective imagining subjects, especially in
anthropology. While a migrant would rarely if ever consider herself/ himself a transnational actor,
academic discourse applies many concepts and interpretative frameworks in order to reflect a social
reality that is not bound to commonsensical local or national characteristics. When terms become
so broad that they are being used for encompassing all sorts of phenomena, the author’s own
position is needed in defining the concepts that she or he operates with and what their implication is.
Simply put, social phenomena within anthropology can be treated in two major ways: by
developing an internally coherent narrative-world for the observations resulted from research1 or by
the ethnographic evocation of the observations with the minimal involvement on behalf of the
anthropologist. While applying objective schemes of interpretation on symbols and staying relative
to the data does not seem sufficient, it is unknown what this approach could be replaced with in
order to permit a more adequate image of the social realities (Keesing 2006). To what extent can an
observing subject get more knowledge than those who are observed? Why does one society goes
there or here rather than nowhere? The answers to these questions reflect one’s way of approaching
the discipline and while not unproblematic, they give an account of the meaningful social action
and the way objectivity is treated in the post positivist manner (Reed 2010). Probably, a great deal
of objectiveness without falling in naturalism could be attained by the researcher’s critical
involvement with other disciplines which deal with the same aspects of human life, but from
different traditions. It is the very debate that gets us to more adequate understandings of the
observed phenomena, keeping also the study of the human endeavors alive.
After the consideration above, I must say that the vague terms which are at stake in this paper
will be considered from a multidisciplinary stance, not only from the perspective of the social and
cultural. The concept of imaginary as it is being discussed in cognitive anthropology will prove
very insightful, because it reflect the exact tension I was talking about previously. I argue here that

1
By appealing to or developing interpretative models and theories that make sense of what is going on in a particular
context. Also the mere selection of observations and ordering them can be included here, it does not have to be a
narrative in the literary sense;

1
any talk on imaginaries calls for i. a consideration of subjectivities and their imaginings ii.
combined with the interpretative role of the researcher that looks for implications and their
relevance to social contexts. Although my own experience is scarce at this moment in dealing
directly with the discourses and imaginings of the traveling actors involved in the research theme of
transnationalism and translocality, I am thankful for having the opportunity to consult these
etnographies that proved very insightful.
Apart from this introductory session, I will split the current paper into three different parts which
follow a progressive logic towards giving a better image of the relation between imaginaries,
translocality and transnationalism. First, I will examine existing literature on the subject of
imaginaries and fitting anthropological ways of treating it, bringing here also points from readings
and discussions after a lecture taught by Professor Noel B. Salazar. Secondly, I will analyze
discussions on transnationalism and translocalism and give sufficient reason for distinguishing
between the two, important here being the issue of imaginating actors and the imaginaries resulted
which are found in the producing of localities or the transnational context. Lastly, I will try to
bring together all three concepts in providing an understanding of what a translocal imaginary in
transnational context could mean, by looking at an ethnography that deals with social platform-
based communities and their importance in identity and imaginary building.
I would say that travel is never done without (at least) two imaginaries: one which motivates
displacement and another which longs for returning to past. This framework would eventually be
helpful in analyzing clashes and interactions of different imaginaries, spreading of ideas, identity
and community building and so on, emphasizing on the social constitution of the human efforts.

Treating imaginaries: what to look at?

During the course “Anthropology and travel” taught by Noel B. Salazar at KU Leuven I had the
opportunity to give a presentation on the theme of “Imaginaries” based on three texts assigned by
the professor. In order to facilitate discussion in the class, participants were asked to play a ‘quiz’ in
which they were confronted with many problematic statements in relation to which they had to take
a stance and argue for. When the following statement: “Travel is impossible without imaginaries”
showed up, twelve out of seventeen respondents agreed with the statement, while five disagreed.
What I find relevant here are two objections addressed by my colleagues who disagreed with the

2
previous assertion. Their critique and my response to it are meant to give a preliminary insight into
the meaning of imaginaries, preparing here also an extensive consideration of it.
If I remember correctly, the first point made was that as an embodied experience, travel is
conceivable without imaginings and more about certain feelings and ways of experiencing it. This
position implied the possibility of imaginary-free travel that had no destination and that was done
for its own sake. While it might be true that purposeless travel could be done, I do not think that the
process of imagining and embodiment exclude each other and that displacement can be done
without any expectations of the contexts one is to be found in or expectations towards how the
encountering of other places, people, landscapes and so on would impact the human subject. In fact,
many authors suggest that the relation between travel and imagination only makes sense as an
embodiment of travel and imagination (Lean 2016; Conradson and Deirdre 2007).Instead, the clash
would then reside between inner and outer worlds (Lean 2016) and subsequently, between the
production of localities and the social power of contexts which localize (Appadurai 1995), an idea
to which I will come back later on.
The second point made, which is somewhat similar with the first one, is that in the case of open-
minded people, expectations 2 of their travel destinations do not apply, introducing here a rather
moral appreciation of the issue. This is quite problematic in that it presupposes individuals can have
access to brute reality when travelling, without the biased image of one’s own subjectivity. While it
is hard to say what an ‘open minded’ person is and how one came to become like this, it still does
not dissolve the problem. My argument would be that even language is imaginary-bound and by
choosing certain words to describe that which is being experienced subconscious mechanisms are at
play, influencing one’s perspective on the matter.
When talking about imaginaries, three ways of describing them are widespread in
anthropological literature: Castoriadis’s account of cultural ethos, Lacan’s approach of fantasy,
Taylor and Anderson’s shared cognitive schemas (Strauss 2006). Claudia Strauss analyzes all three
theories, measuring the extent up to which they fulfill the methodological needs for subject oriented
anthropological research.
The first perspective, found in the writings of Castoriadis implies that the social imaginary is
“the central world view associated with a particular group, setting off one group from another”
(Strauss 2006: 329). What this theory indicates is that the social imaginary can be discovered in the

2
Understood most likely as stereotyping images in travel experiences.

3
materiality of a society and that images about the other are embodied “elsewhere than in the
individual unconscious” ( Strauss citing Castoriadis 2006: 325). The homogeneity of social
imaginaries implied by this perspective makes the narrative of the research subjects slightly
negligible, which raises certain problems when talking about one’s identity in relation to her/ his
social background and imaginaries. The second perspective is that of Lacan, for which the binary
oppositions between the real3 and the fantasy of specific subjects are central in his work. While the
material conditions might be shared among one society, the imaginings of the individuals are not
definitely so. The link between the individual and the social level is to be considered from the angle
of the social symbols which are used for the creation of self image 4. Eventually, the tricky aspects
of Lacan’s distinctions could make the anthropologist talk about abstract cultural subjects and
forget about the grounding of the social symbols in the individual psyche (Strauss 2006: 329). The
third and last consideration is that of social imaginaries as cultural models, implied by the works of
Benedict Anderson and Charles Taylor. From this perspective, the social imaginary:
“… incorporates a sense of the normal expectations that we have of one another,
the kind of common understanding which enables us to carry out the collective practices
that make up our social life. This incorporates some sense of how we all fit together in carrying out the
common practice. This understanding is both factual and ‘normative’; that is, we
have a sense of how things usually go, but this is interwoven with an idea of how
they ought to go, of what missteps would invalidate the practice” (Strauss citing Taylor 2006: 330)
Similar to Taylor’s definition, the model cognitive anthropologists use for studying the social
phenomena of imaginaries is focused on the modes of knowledge given by prototypes 5 , exemplars as
fictional or real cases an individual appeals to when they try to prove the model and implicit theories of how
the prototype admits variation and why some features are common (Strauss 2006). The anthropologist would
then be interested how are certain ideas picked up and maintained within society by focusing on the narrative
of the subjects and rejecting the homogenous character of culture.
The extensive consideration of the cognitive approach found in the writings of Strauss has
two purposes here: a) to stand for the interdisciplinarity anthropological discipline and b) to
facilitate an introduction on the relation between knowledge and imaginaries in the context of travel.
While the reluctance to integrate psychological models into culture studies comes from the fear of
assuming imperialistic discourse (Quinn and Strauss 2006), the lack of interdisciplinary approaches

3
Its essence to be found in the Marxist tradition of the term.
4
Which is not unproblematic, Strauss suggests, as it creates new anxieties because of its illusory nature.
5
Linked with what is normally considered a stereotype.

4
and the missing theoretical grounding of certain concepts in their particular explanatory fields
deters anyone who seeks to obtain knowledge from ever achieving it.
Failing to provide understanding does not happen because by not grasping psychological
concepts one cannot grasp reality ( I am myself doubtful that psychology, or any other science of
the humane, is able to provide complete images of the human mind or behavior in all its
complexities), but rather because they are prone create this cloud of uncertainty around their
theories which can result in complicated schemes of abstraction and social myths( for more on this
topic and what could be learned from it, maybe a volume on the history of bad anthropology should
be written). The second point, more relevant for the topic of this essay, is concerned with the idea of
social imaginaries and knowledge. What I argue for is that imaginaries in travel experiences always
imply the social level and that, in the case of knowledge, imaginaries are of no use.
Let us consider the following example: a very skilled geographer who hates the cold
temperatures in Europe during winter, knows how air currents flow and how to predict temperature
ranges and decides to go in the Southern hemisphere (after the calculations show there are nice
conditions there). This geographer is thus motivated to go to the place of choice after attaining
‘hard’ knowledge about it, not because he heard about it or saw some tourism pamphlets which
recommended it. Consequently, a neighbor of this geographer might hate the cold too and by
surfing the internet and hearing about sunny beaches and seeing photographs of people having fun
by the swimming pool, ends up in the same place as the geographer we have encountered before.
My question is this: do imaginaries have a role in both cases? The answer would be no if by
imaginaries we understand projected normality of places or situations implied by the travel
experiences and not knowledge of the state of things at the travel destination or on the way. While
both of them hate the cold and have a need to be in a warmer place, the difference lies in their
approach to knowledge and imaginaries or normality, respectively. In objective terms, knowledge
does not live up to one’s expectations, while imaginaries being social constructions of power and
symbolic capital, do not guarantee the same experiences (or normality) for everyone and they are
unable to create with the natural constrained-expectation, but instead behave to a great degree like

5
it6. An issue here would be the trust in the ability of knowledge or imaginaries to fulfill certain
needs and not lead the subjects into problematic situations7.
In an interview with Nigerians who have never left their continent (Smith 2006), the interviewer
asks whether Europe and America are “lands of opportunity” and the respondents’ answers are as
follows:
“R1: Yes, I think and know that is true because it is a developed part of the world
full of opportunities, e.g. jobs, advanced schools. (Male, 21–35, messenger, M:
baker, F: electrician)
R2: Well, it may be true because in the UK everything is [within] the common
man[’s] reaches. The common man can get everything at his disposal. (Male,
21–35, cleaner, M: farmer, F: farmer)
R3: It is true, because there in [the] UK you don’t have to struggle for job
opportunities. If you want education it is there free and in fact everything is
at your disposal. So the UK could be seen as a promised land where everything
is available. (Female, 21–35, housewife/student, M: petty trader, F:
farmer/preacher)” (Smith 2006: 53)
What struck me is that in all the answers mentioned above there seems to be a fine line between
knowledge and the projected images of the places talked about. What is the relation between the
two concepts? Knowledge would imply a transformative process by which “(to know) means
forming a representation which did not pre-exist the experience of contact and which makes it
possible to understand something that one did not understand before. (…) In knowledge there is
some enrichment or redesign of the actor’s representation categories.” (Girard and Schéou 2016),
whereas the imaginary would be a socially constructed readymade way of seeing and being in the
world.
In living up to the expectation floating around a particular society, the importance of economic
capital is another factor one should keep in mind. After all these considerations on the issue of
imaginaries I do not think Smith’s suggestion is the best approach, simply because attaining that
which is expected at the social level does not make sense outside a Marxist interpretation. When
talking about social imaginaries it’s hard to say that imagination exists only for those who
command control over sufficient quantities of capital (Smith 2006), as I will show later on, Polish
migrant children who don’t have a notion of capital are still able to imagine their going home and
the home-related contexts in Poland. Talking about capital, an interesting idea is that of social

6
By imposing normativity. This issue has to be readdressed in the context of biopolitics which enables societies to
constrain like nature does.
7
Knowledge can make one question his own reality, which is deemed unpleasant, while imaginaries are marked by
short-sighted vision which can also be unpleasant when proven so.

6
capital as informal norm that promotes cooperation between individuals (Fukuyama 2001) which
could explain why there’s a need for normalizing subjects and localities. I am unsure if what Smith
calls imagination is the same as what was described above as individuals will to maintain social
cohesion by projecting normality (and from here normativity) onto reality, but for the purpose of
this essay I will end the discussion here.
Translocal production and transnational anguish
Being used interchangeably in the academic literature, distinguishing between translocality and
transnationalism is not an easy task, but I am confident that the concept of imaginary is helpful in
this undertaking, making sense of the identity-building process in the already mentioned
frameworks. In this part, the main aim is to give an account of that which is being imagined by the
translocal and transnational subjects in order to see what is characteristic to these two different
frameworks.
In the case of translocality, a shared local imaginary and set of practices are now transgressing
the boundaries of their place-origin. What this transgression implies is that by the displacement of
social subjects8, certain values and images are reiterated in the new place, making one’s identity
correspond in the new locality with that to be found in the root locality. Then, by transgressing its
local character, becomes a local-transgressing (or simply translocal) feature. What this
correspondence of values, identities and imaginarier with the place of origin enables is the creation
of a cultural model which is not dependent on one’s locality and to which other subjects from
different localities can belong to. In order to see how translocal identities unfold in reality, an
ethnographic study case has to be called upon, the relation between identity and imaginaries
becoming more evident and the risk of talking about abstract subjects minimizing.
I would like to invoke here a research which was centered on Polish migrant children’s
experiences of home and mobility in Scotland (Moskal 2015). What I found relevant for the current
discussion are many points made in the study: the bridging between the “here and there”, children’s
relation with the place of origin and the production of locality9. For Appadurai locality does not
have to be thought of strictly in spatial terms, instead it is to be seen as relational and contextual,
translocality implying also a certain manner in which different localities are being reproduced

8
Due to various reasons, depending from case to case.
9
In fact, the reading of Appadurai might explain why my take on locality is so close to the way this ethnographic
account deals with the issue and how the distinction between translocality and transnationalism is being made in the
current essay.

7
(Appadurai 1995). As it was the case with one of the children in the ethnographic study, for Kate
the representation of home can include elements from both the place-origin and the current context:
when drawing a subjective map of her home, Kate placed the house and school in Edinburgh next to
her house, garden and playground in the Polish town she came from (Moskal 2015). The author
relates this episode with the bridging of two notions of home into a single one, on the first hand
there is the experience of her current locality and secondly, the imaginary of the roots and original
home. These apparent contradictory elements are not conflicting as they both lay at the foundation
of Kate’s identity, depicting her home imaginary in both places. Another episode from this
children’s narrative based ethnography is that of Vicky, a respondent of 10 years old who despite
her declaration that she wants to stay in Scotland, she “took the initiative to go to Polish Saturday
school and persuaded her parents that she wanted to go” (Moskal 2015: 150). By this, I interpret
that she manages to bring locality in the new place, identifying more with Scotland and at the same
time keeping alive the Polish imaginary by deliberately going to Polish Saturday school. These
episodes are meant to reflect both the importance of the translocal concept in regards to identity and
imaginary production, but also to contrast with the concept of transnationalism.
What is transnationalism? It is a very slippery concept as it brings together two opposites:
having two different homes10 or having no home at all (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004). Unlike
translocality, transnationalism would rather involve a context of underlying tension in the travelling
subject with both her/ his local origin and the state that is hosting her/ him. In this case, one’s
identity resides neither “here” nor “there”, but in something different. In this context, the rise of a
new category of transnational networks (often characterized by mixed ethnicities) is born in a quest
for recapturing identity. Examples of such networks can be found either in the case of asylum
status-seeking migrants living in refugee camps to “workers of the world” or cosmopolitans in the
Stoic or Kantian meaning of the term (Nussbaum 1997). Another relevant aspect in the case of
transnationalism is the point of reference, if in the case of translocalities the analysis of migration
phenomena deals with concepts of home imaginary and practices of (re)producing locality, the
transnational category is more focused on state action, economy and policy in a globalizing world
with its border transgressing institutions (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004). Seeing things as
dependent on the transnational context makes academics talk about other things that are

10
I stress on the aspect of difference, because if the same “home” model was applied in the hosting countries with
sources in the place of origin, we would deal with translocality (by having the same home model in different places).
The home model would imply either material aspects (architecture, furniture, decorations) or family relations.

8
transnational besides human mobility: “the transnational life of cheese” (MacDonald 2013) with its
whole system of exchange relations and world wide spread industry or the transnational impact of
technology in Africa (Tettey 2013). In these cases, the imprecision of a place of origin and border
transgressing set of practices or things are motives for speaking of a global economy and exchange
system.
As already shown in, the issue of migration is not the only relevant aspect when talking of
transnationalism or translocality (Greiner and Sakdapolrak 2013). For example, with the constant
flux of people and ideas that we witness today and with increasing access to different types of
media, the destinations people travel to are already virtually known (Salazar 2011). By looking at
tourism experiences as transnational commodities one can observe the interaction between the
different consumer imaginaries and the world that is built around them.For example, when it comes
to tourist behavior, the mere acquisition of a souvenir is dependent on iconic characters of
imaginaries (Salazar and Graburn 2014); this transaction is authorizing symbols and a particular
form of exchange and contact with the “local”, the normalized practices becoming sufficient for an
experience of the Other. Another example of the shift found at transnational level is that of the
tourist guide who tries to keep a local profile in the way she/ he dresses or relates to the presented
places, but who also tries to stay close to the cosmopolite group identity by mentioning travel or
focusing on the “we” aspect when talking (Salazar 2011).
All in all, the tension which comes with transnationalism is more than often a serious thing that
needs to be addressed. The uncertainty that people seeking refugee status go through is very
problematic and where there’s family involved and children the pressure should be unimaginable. In
their case, the policy can prove unjust as they cannot go back to where they came from and they
also cannot stay, being doomed to roam and seek acceptance. I will not go further into this subject,
my purpose here being only to bring awareness to the social realities we are dealing with today .
A last thing I will address in this paper is the translocal imaginary found in transnational context. Having
presented the two concepts of transnationalism and translocality separately, this is the place in which they
merge so their differences can better be understood. Let us consider Facebook, a social platform that is
responding for the identity building needs of people around the world. By posting photographs, sharing
quotes or commenting on other people’s posts, the virtual users create an identity of themselves in this public
space that has nothing to do with one’s national context. The Facebook platform is thus transnational in that
it calls for the constant affirmation of the user’s identity and it does not bound one to his place of origin to a

9
great extent11. What it happens is that in the case of real life transnational subjects (diaspora) they grasp local
identity by creating virtual communities based on their origin. In the case of the Uyghur youth, one of the
ways they use the online platform responds to their needs of conserving an ethnic identity that they are afraid
to lose (Rizwangul , Horst, Papoutsaki and Dodson 2015). What is their local imaginary they try to
conserve? Their idea about homeland and the use of words that makes one think about it (like Weten or Yurt,
instead of referring to China). Another passage I find iconic for the way local identity is conceived of abroad
is this passage from an online Facebook group:
“We who live abroad are representing Uyghurs, and as such others understand
Uyghurs through looking at us. Therefore, we shall care about how we act not
only for ourselves but also for being as an Uyghur.However, some Uyghurs
living abroad and have grown up in a non-Uyghur society may not be aware of this point.
I was wondering do those Uyghurs care about their identity? What will be the result of our
effort for preserving Uyghur identity?” (Rizwangul , Horst, Papoutsaki and Dodson 2015)

In the passage above, there is this interplay between the loss of identity because of living abroad and the
affirmation of one’s identity.Thus, I would associate the living abroad with that subjective tension
characteristic for transnational context combined with the need of local imaginary reproduction, in terms of
caring about acting “for ourselves but also for being as an Uyghur” which is not only a normative statement,
but also a normal one for the group involved.

Conclusion
The concepts of transnationalism and translocality are to be addressed separately. Apart from the
contexts and practices each of these categories implies, important issues that arise are those of imaginaries
and identity making. The considerations on the concept of imaginaries was present in the first part of this
essay as they unfolded in psychology and anthropology. Thus, what Lacan has suggested with the fantasy
building process that solves some anxieties, but leads to others seems to make sense in the case of the
ethnographies involved in discussion. Even so, I think that by focusing on the normalizing and normative
aspects of the imaginaries, one is less prone to make assumptions about abstract subjects as Strauss
suggested already. (Strauss 2006: 337).
On the first hand considerations of translocality call for a consideration of the production of locality and
the way this is being done in the context of another (de)localizing power. The example of Polish children
migrants’ imaginaries of home showed that tension can be solved as long as locality is integrated or
reproduced somewhere else and that the bridging between here and there could be made in the case of
migrant mobilities. Transnationalism, on the other hand, is more about a context of uncertainty and tension,

11
This idea can be disputed, based on the suggestions that the platform provides which takes one’s locality into
consideration.

10
in which the narratives and identities involved in this topic are being influenced by many external factors like
state policy, tourist imaginaries, exchange systems and institutions. The reason why locality cannot be
invoked in this case is the mere lack of it, the origin lying in plurality and interaction rather than in a singular
identity providing imaginary.

Reference list
Appadurai, Arjun. "The production of locality." Counterworks: Managing the diversity of
knowledge 204 (1995): 225.

Girard, A. and Schéou, B., 2016. 7 Fair Tourism and the “Authentic” Encounter. Tourism
Imaginaries at the Disciplinary Crossroads: Place, Practice, Media, p.130.

Greiner, Clemens, and Patrick Sakdapolrak. "Translocality: Concepts, applications and emerging
research perspectives." Geography Compass 7, no. 5 (2013): 373-384.

Keesing, Roger M. "Anthropology as Interpretive Quest." Anthropology in Theory: Issues in

Epistemology (2006): 258-266.

MacDonald, Ken. "The Transnational Life of Cheese." A Companion to Diaspora and

Transnationalism (2013): 293-315.

Moskal, Marta. "‘When I think home I think family here and there’: Translocal and social ideas of
home in narratives of migrant children and young people." Geoforum 58 (2015): 143-152.

NurMuhammad, Rizwangul, Heather A. Horst, Evangelia Papoutsaki, and Giles Dodson. "Uyghur
transnational identity on Facebook: on the development of a young diaspora." Identities (2015): 1-
15.

Nussbaum, Martha C. "Kant and stoic cosmopolitanism." Journal of political philosophy 5, no. 1
(1997): 1-25.

Quinn, Naomi, and Claudia Strauss. "Introduction to special issue on the missing psychology in
cultural anthropology's key words." Anthropological Theory 6, no. 3 (2006): 267-279

Reed, Isaac Ariail. "Epistemology Contextualized: Social‐Scientific Knowledge in a Postpositivist

Era." Sociological Theory 28, no. 1 (2010): 20-39.

Salazar, Noel B. "The power of imagination in transnational mobilities." Identities 18, no. 6 (2011):
576-598.
Salazar, Noel B., and Nelson HH Graburn, eds. Tourism imaginaries: Anthropological approaches.
Berghahn Books, 2014.

11
Smith, Andrew. "‘If I have no money for travel, I have no need’Migration and
imagination." european journal of cultural studies 9, no. 1 (2006): 47-62.

Strauss, Claudia. "The imaginary." Anthropological theory 6, no. 3 (2006): 322-344.

Tettey, Wisdom J. "Cell Phones and Transnationalism in Africa." A Companion to Diaspora and
Transnationalism (2013): 346-365.

Waldinger, Roger, and David Fitzgerald. "Transnationalism in Question" American journal of

sociology 109, no. 5 (2004): 1177-1195.

12