Development of Tour Uriely 2005

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
NATAN URIELY 209 complete portrayal of postmodern tourism (Urry 1990; Uriely 1997). Furthermore, unlike former theories of modern tourism, both dimensions generate complementary rather than contradictory perspectives. For instance, Munt’s position regarding the ‘‘simulational’’ developments is evident already in the first sentence of his work on the ‘‘other’’ postmodern tourism: ‘‘I do not set out to challenge these but to consider figuratively the other possibilities of postmodern tourism’’ (1994:101). CONCLUSION The objective of this paper was to track and analyze conceptual developments in the study of the tourist experience. In light of the ample academic works regarding this subject and mainly its spread across several subareas of tourism studies, an attempt to provide a complete literature review was precluded in this paper. Thus, without claiming to capture all of the developments in study of the tourist experience, this paper identified four significant trends in its conceptualization: from differentiation to re-differentiation of everyday life and tourism; from generalizing to pluralizing portrayals of the tourist experience; from focusing on the toured objects to the attention given to the role of subjectivity in the constitution of experiences; and from contradictory and decisive statements to relative and complementary interpretations. In light of the first three conceptual developments the tourist experience is currently depicted as an obscure and diverse phenomenon, which is mostly constituted by the individual consumer. This perspective regarding the nature of contemporary tourist experiences raises several important issues that need to be dealt with by planners, managers, and marketers. For example, the availability of various aspects of the tourist experience in the routine of everyday life seems to threaten future demands. In addition, the impact of practitioners in the industry needs to be reexamined in light of the supposedly increasing role of subjectivity. For instance, the possible constitution of various experiences within the established category of individual mass tourists (Wickens 2002) requires rethinking in terms of planning, managing, and marketing resorts that host this tourist segment. These, and other practical implications of recent conceptualizations, need to be considered as important issues. Nevertheless, the analysis carried out in this paper concerns mostly the consequences of the four conceptual developments rather than on the practice of tourism in real life. By reviewing the four trends as a whole, it is argued that while the early theories of the tourist experience complied with the so-called ‘‘modernist’’ form of theorizing in the social sciences, contemporary conceptualizations of the same issue correspond to modes of analysis referred to in the literature as ‘‘postmodernist’’ thought. In this context, the association between postmodernist theorizing and practices of deconstruction (Denzin 1991; Frazer 1989; Ryan 2002) is illustrated in the first two developments, which emphasize processes of
Page 1 and 2: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures doi
Page 3 and 4: NATAN URIELY 201 cism, anti-empiric
Page 5 and 6: NATAN URIELY 203 works to de-differ
Page 7 and 8: NATAN URIELY 205 tion was challenge
Page 9: NATAN URIELY 207 be genuine. Constr
Page 13 and 14: NATAN URIELY 211 The evaluation of
Page 15 and 16: NATAN URIELY 213 solid way and resu
Page 17 and 18: NATAN URIELY 215 Morgan, W. 1995 In

Development of Tour Uriely 2005

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?