Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
other (the global, the once-in-a-lifetime). In other words, it is very much part of everyday
life - as one of a number of connections that we have with the world - and not, as has previ-
ously been portrayed, a distinct and
special
activity confi ned to certain spaces and periods (e.g.
holiday resorts and the annual vacation). Thus, tourism
interfaces with
other social activities
and structures - a position that is consistent with post-structuralism (and some forms of struc-
turalism). Furthermore, the NMP refocuses our attention on the multiple and intersecting
mobilities of various
individuals
(i.e. hosts, guests and those not directly implicated in the
tourism system), and of other sentient and non-sentient life forms, buildings, objects and
machines. Tourist sites and destinations are thought to arise from contingent conjunctions of
these agents at particular points in space and time, in order to realise certain performances
that one might recognise as 'tourism' (see also Larsen,
Chapter 8
of this volume). Here, as
above, this description of tourism (places) corresponds to post-structuralist conceptions of the
social world, by emphasising the signifi cance of
contingency, performance
and
interpretation
.
Tribe (2010: 26) describes CTS as a 'network under formation', consolidating earlier work
applying critical theory to tourism and integrating this with other entities that are comple-
mentary to its aim of delivering knowledge that might help improve the human condition. It
is a response - indeed, a radical reaction - to mainstream studies of tourism as a
business
which, it is alleged, have ignored questions of power, discourse and representation (Ateljevic
et al.
, 2007b). One target for criticism is the 'essentialist' view propagated by structuralist
theories of tourism, which reduces it to a set of differences and relations, especially binary
oppositions such as 'empowered tourist-disempowered host' (Bianchi, 2009: 486; see also
Chapter 5
in this volume). Given the ideologically oriented standpoints of critical theory
(feminism, Marxism, etc.), one would think that CTS might answer Britton's (1991) call for
a more critical tourism research agenda (notwithstanding the contradictions inherent in this
proposition). However, it stands accused of elevating the
cultural
over the political and
economic and, thus, of retreating from political economy - in having more to say about 'the
discursive, symbolic and performative realms of tourism and tourist experiences' than of
power relations (Bianchi, 2009: 484).
Hence, the claim by Ateljevic
et al.
(2007b: 3) that 'it is an academy of hope' is open to
contestation. Nevertheless, its youthfulness must be acknowledged, and it is gradually
becoming institutionalised through conferences (and associated publications), for example
Embodying Tourism Research: Advancing Critical Approaches
(Dubrovnik, 2005),
The Critical Turn
in Tourism Studies: Promoting an Academy of Hope
(Split, 2007),
Connecting Academies of Hope:
Creative Vistas and Critical Visions
(Zadar, 2009), and
Tourism Futures: Creative and Critical
Action
(Cardiff, 2011).
It is too early to tell whether or not the NMP and CTS will have a lasting legacy for
tourism-related research. What is clear, however, is that much progress has been made in
building new conceptual and theoretical foundations for tourism studies, drawing on post-
structuralist philosophy and its antecedents. This chapter has focused on the contribution of
geographers and geographical scholarship to this process, and on its implications for space-
and place-related research questions in tourism overall. It does, however, come with a 'health
warning' - in seeking to address the perceived defi cit of tourism theory, we should not 'throw
the baby out with the bathwater' and dispense with empirical study altogether.
