Development of Tour Uriely 2005

208 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
In addition to their tendency to homogenize the experience as a
general type, most of the early theorists were unified in their notion
of tourism as a modern phenomenon. Nevertheless, studies were dominated
by two competing standpoints in early days. One side of the debate
took the form of social criticism, in which tourism was perceived as
another example of cultural decadence in modern capitalist societies
(Barthes 1972; Boorstin 1964; Turner and Ash 1975). According to this
approach, the tourist experience was viewed as a superficial and trivial
quest for ‘‘pseudo-events’’ and artificial attraction. The opposing conceptual
approach was primarily presented by MacCannell (1973) who
conceptualized the experience as a meaningful modern ritual which
involves a quest for the authentic. The polemic between these two perspectives
was manifested in MacCannell’s direct attack against Boorstin’s
standpoint, to which he referred to as a snobbish attitude rather
than an academic analysis that is based on empirical research (Mac-
Cannell, 19731973:600). This attempt to de-legitimize the competing
approach illustrates the noncompromising style of discourse of the
early theories.
A change in the style and form of theorizing has been noticeable
since the late 70s and the early 80s, with the appearance of academic
publications that associate contemporary tourism-related practices
and experiences with postmodernist culture (Baudrillard 1983; Eco
1986; Featherstone 1991; Lash and Urry 1994; Munt 1994; Pretes
1995; Rojek 1995; Urry 1990). In this context, the term ‘‘postmodern
tourism’’ was utilized with regard to a variety of developments, including
the emergence of alternatives to the conventional mass tourism;
the flourishing of nature-related and environment-oriented holidays;
the growing attraction of nostalgia and heritage related sites; and the
growing quest for simulated and theme-oriented tourism attractions.
In spite of this inconsistency in the usage of the term ‘‘postmodern
tourism’’, it is possible to point toward two main developments associated
with the postmodern era: the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’
postmodern tourism (Munt 1994; Uriely 1997). The former is focused
around ‘‘hyperreal’’ experience and refers to simulated themeparks
and other contrived attractions as typical postmodern environments
(Baudrillard 1983; Eco 1986; Featherstone 1991; Fjellman 1992; Gottdiener
1995; Lash and Urry 1994; Pretes 1995; Urry 1990). Conceptualizations
of the ‘‘other’’ postmodern tourism stress the search for the
authentic and point to the growing appeal of the natural and the countryside
as postmodern expressions (Barrett 1989; Munt 1994; Poon
1989; Urry 1990).
The distinction between the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’ appears
to follow the aforementioned polarity within the earlier theories.
While the ‘‘simulational’’ development follows Boorstin’s notion of
‘‘pseudo-events’’ (1964), the trend toward the ‘‘other’’ is compatible
with MacCannell’s argument regarding the quest for authenticity
(1973). However, unlike the earlier notions of modern tourism, the
two dimensions of postmodern tourism do not derive from two opposing
camps of scholars. On the contrary, some of the important views
include both the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’ dimensions in their