Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
and superfi ciality were elaborated by Turner and Ash (1975). Tourists were restricted by surrogate
parents (travel agents, couriers, hotel managers) in strictly circumscribed and fumigated worlds
where they were relieved of any responsibility and protected from harsh reality. Those surrogates
made sure that tourists only saw 'approved' places and objects, in order to avoid too much
contradiction with the home country. Characteristics of local cultures were over-simplifi ed and
mass-produced, resulting in 'tourist kitsch'.
Cohen (1972, 1979, 1988) smooths this negative view by maintaining that there is no single
tourist as such but rather a variety of tourist types and modes of tourist experiences. 'Experiential',
'experimental' and 'existential' tourists do not rely on and, to varying degrees, even reject
conventional organized tourist activity. Moreover, such environmental bubbles 'permit many
people to visit places which otherwise they would not, and to have at least some contact with
the “strange” places thereby encountered' (in Urry 1990: 8).
The major challenge to Boorstin's position came from MacCannell (1976). He criticizes
Boorstin (1964) and Lévi-Strauss (1955) because their accounts are exemplary of an upper-
class view, where deriding tourists is 'intellectually chic': 'tourists dislike tourists' to quote
MacCannell's own words (1976: 10). He further argues that the so-called 'pseudo-events' stem
from the social relations resulting from tourism and not from an individualistic commitment to
the lack of authenticity. For MacCannell, all tourists are looking for authenticity. This postmodern
quest for authenticity is paralleled with the universal concern with the sacred. The tourist then
is a kind of modern pilgrim, seeking authenticity away from everyday life in other historical
periods, other cultures as well as in purer, simpler lifestyles. Among these, tourists are particularly
fascinated by the 'real lives', that is the daily work lives of others. Since direct observation of
these real lives is diffi cult and ethically unacceptable, tourist attractions (or 'tourist spaces') are
constructed backstage in a contrived and artifi cial manner. These constructions lie at the core of
MacCannell's concept of 'staged authenticity'. Other authors have elaborated on this concept
(Pearce and Moscardo 1986; Crick 1988). MacCannell also speaks of alienated leisure (since
tourism involves a return to the workplace). He notes the extreme diversity of tourist centres of
attractions and the regulation of these (tourists' attention cannot be left to chance).
Urry (1990) also neglects authenticity as the basis for the organization of tourism: tourists
are not looking for authenticity but 'just' for an escape from everyday life. Another argument
comes from Feifer (1985) who points out that some tourists ('post-tourists') almost delight in
the inauthenticity of tourist experiences. They know that there is no authentic 'tourist experience'
as such but merely a series of games that can be played. Based on Foucault's (1976) idea of the
gaze, Urry proposes an alternative explanation of tourism. The tourist gaze arises from a
movement (journey) of people to, and their stay in various other destinations, i.e. outside the
normal places of residence and work. While tourist gazes may bear on a lot of different places
and objects, they share common characteristics, i.e.:
1 Gazes are related to purposes that are not directly connected with paid work.
2 Tourist gazes have a mass character.
3 Features have to be out-of-the-ordinary, in that they separate the tourist from everyday and
routine experiences.
4 Tourist satisfaction stems from the anticipation of intense pleasures, especially through
daydreaming and fantasy (Campbell 1987). Such anticipation is constructed and sustained by
advertising and the media, which generate sets of signs.
5 'The gaze is constructed through signs and tourism involves the collection on such signs'
(Urry 1995: 3).
