Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
7
The Value of Social Tourism for
Disadvantaged Families
Lynn Minnaert
Introduction
In popular Western culture, as exemplified in movies and television adver-
tisements, the family is stereotypically presented as a smiling, supportive,
nuclear unit. Although alternative family types have become more prolific
and accepted in recent decades, it seems the concept of the nuclear family,
based on the relationship between a man and a woman legally bound
together through marriage, sharing a common residence (Muncie & Sapsford,
1995), still holds a strong appeal. The stereotypical family as depicted in the
media is affluent, travels the world and all members regard each other with
affection and are supportive of each other (Dallos & Sapsford, 1995).
Real families rarely live up to all or even most of the stereotype (Dallos
& Sapsford, 1995). Non-nuclear family types, such as lone-parent families,
families with single-sex parents and reconstituted or blended families are on
the rise (UK National Statistics, 2007). There is an increasing lack of trust
in the institution of the family to play a role in the social integration of
individuals: the family, 'by many accounts, is becoming less cohesive, less
embedded in the community, and hence less able to provide the necessary
connections, normative control, and civic training that is required to prepare
children for productive adult roles as workers, family members and citizens'
(Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2007: 219).
Families are also not universally affluent and well travelled. This chapter
focuses on disadvantaged families, as defined by the UK Index of Multiple
Deprivation. The Index determines disadvantage in terms of deficiencies in
six 'dimensions': 'income, employment, health deprivation and disability,
education and training, housing and geographical access to services' (Miller,
2003: 5). Disadvantage is often a combination of these: low education
levels, for example, may lead to unemployment, resulting in a low income.
Individuals on low incomes are more likely to live in poor housing and areas
with fewer services.
93
