Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
On this we agree with Shaw and Williams' (2004: 269) contention that while 'material rela-
tionships do fundamentally mediate virtually all tourism experiences', it is also true that 'the
economy of signs and symbols is not reducible to the costs of labour, capital and other factors
of production'. Thus, this chapter should not be perceived as an argument against the various
'critical turns' in the geographies of tourism. Rather, it echoes Bianchi's (2009: 498 and
Chapter 5
of this volume) unease that 'the world of work and associated organisation of
production appears to be an increasingly marginal concern within “critical” tourism scholar-
ship at a time when it is arguably most needed'.
The 'cultural turn': cultural commodifi cation and the experience economy
Although most researchers acknowledge the important role of the tourism industry in the
experience economy, a universal defi nition of the cultural products industry remains elusive
and highly contested. That said, the commodifi cation of consumption and the emergence
of symbolic or cultural capital (Bayliss, 2004, 2007; Featherstone, 1991) clearly elevates the
social-cultural dimension of tourism production and consumption. A signifi cant turning
point in the theoretical evolution of tourism studies was Urry's (1990)
The Tourist Gaze
,
which shifted attention towards the social and cultural relations of power in tourism. Ateljevic
and Doorne (2003) built on this platform, suggesting the consumption and production of
tourist goods is a surrogate vehicle for analysing human relations and representations of iden-
tity. A signifi cant body of work has emerged (Aitchison, 2001, 2006; Ateljevic
et al.
, 2007b;
Barnett, 2005; Bell, 2007; M. Crang, 1997; Crouch, 2000; Debbage and Ioannides, 2004;
Rojek, 2000, 2007) offering a more nuanced appreciation of the cultural and social dimen-
sions of the tourism production and consumption system.
McNeill (2008: 394) contends that hotels highlight the complex social geographies of the
city since they mirror 'the contradictions and inequalities of modern consumer societies' and
represent the reworking of urbanised consumption spaces. If 'you are what you buy' and 'you
are where you vacation' then the increased socio-cultural differentiation in the way in which
tourism is produced and consumed becomes important to any destination's success or failure.
However, others warn against the unchallenged acceptance of the 'cultural turn' (Meethan,
2001) suggesting that the cultural practice of tourism as an arena where individuals create
identities based on power and knowledge 'exaggerates the opportunities for autonomy and
self-actualisation provided for by tourism consumption' (Bianchi 2009: 495;
Chapter 5
of this
volume).
The 'mobilities turn': commodity chains and the tourism-transport interface
In
Chapter 2
of this volume, reviewing geographies of tourism, Hall and Page highlighted
the theoretical merits stemming from geographers' involvement 'in the development of
concepts of mobility' (see also Hall and Page, 2009: 6; Duncan,
Chapter 14
of this volume).
Much of the more economically oriented research in the 'mobilities turn' or 'New Mobilities
Paradigm' (NMP) in tourism geography focuses on the interplay between migration and
tourism, within the context of globalisation with an emphasis on labour migration (Aitken
and Hall, 2000; Uriely, 2001; Williams, 2006, 2007), second homes (Hall and Müller, 2004;
Müller, 2002a, 2004; see also Casado-Diaz,
Chapter 15)
and the spatial behaviour of tourists
in a given destination (Connell and Page, 2008; Lau and McKercher, 2007).
These differentiated mobilities of travel are explicitly connected to the mobility of capital,
goods and commodities in tourism given the global-local nexus of much of the tourism
