Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Structuralism has since moved on from Saussure's conceptions and is now better known
for its association with Marxism. Karl Marx wrote extensively on the inner workings of capi-
talism and class confl ict, and was to have a profound infl uence on what later came to be
known as 'confl ict theory' - one of the two schools of thought in structuralism, the other
being 'functionalism' (Holden, 2005; Sharpley, 2008). Both stress the importance of struc-
tures in society - especially economic ones - and how these condition human action, but they
are divided on the means by which societies reproduce themselves. Whereas functionalism
proposes that social structures work together to maintain order, confl ict theory directs us to
issues of power in society, specifi cally the ability of a dominant group (the bourgeoisie, in
Marx's writings) to impose their values on and maintain control over subordinate groups (the
proletariat). Britton's (1991) oft-cited essay on tourism as a capitalist industry draws upon
Marxian frameworks, and is credited with setting the agenda for a more critical approach to
tourism geographies which has addressed, among other things, the commodifi cation of
culture and the peculiarities of tourism production and consumption under capitalism (Shaw
and Williams, 2002; see also Gibson, 2009,
Chapter 6
of this volume; Bianchi,
Chapter 5
of
this volume; and Debbage and Ioannides,
Chapter 19
of this volume).
Structuralism has been subjected to an extensive critique, notably from 'voluntarist'
accounts that privilege human agency and deny the existence (prior or otherwise) of social
structures. To a greater or lesser extent, these competing positions have been reconciled in a
new phase of structuralist thinking marked by contributions from Anthony Giddens on
struc-
turation theory
and Roy Bhaskar on
critical realism
(see Bhaskar, 1978, 1979; Giddens, 1984).
The former treats structure and agency as inseparable and mutually constitutive (i.e. acts of
agency, when repeated so often as to become the norm, beget structures that constrain other
acts of agency), whereas the latter holds that they each possess distinct or
sui generis
powers in
their own right and, therefore, exist separately from their interactions (Gale and Botterill,
2005). However, there have been relatively few published applications of structuration theory
in tourism studies, other than under the guise of something else such as time geography (Hall,
2008a; Shoval,
Chapter 22
of this volume) or actor-network theory (Bramwell, 2005) and
virtually nothing of substance on critical realism (much to the frustration of this particular
author).
This brings us, fi nally, to post-structuralism, which absorbs some aspects of structuralism
and rejects others. (Similarly, post-structuralism shares much common ground with post-
modernism, although the two philosophies are
not
synonymous with each other.) Notable
points of departure include the following:
Social structures may constrain human action, yet these are
not
strictly economic - culture
and politics (power) play their part, too;
They do so because spaces and places - like other things, acts and ideas - do not have fi xed,
stable meanings but, instead, are interpreted in various ways by a variety of actors (indi-
viduals and groups) implicated in their production and consumption;
Rather than deny the existence of a mind-independent world, post-structuralists recog-
nise that there are objective facts about material objects
together with
subjective meanings
attributed to them. These meanings vary according to the social context in which they are
situated, but may take on the
appearance
of truths where asserted and accepted as such (this
is an outcome of the power dynamics operating within societies);
Empirical research is not impossible, so long as claims are qualifi ed by acknowledging the
biases (perspectives, prejudices, etc.) of the researcher through 'refl exive', self-referential
(though not self-indulgent) accounts that are often written in the fi rst person.
