30.12.2013 Views

Development of Tour Uriely 2005

Development of Tour Uriely 2005

Development of Tour Uriely 2005

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

NATAN URIELY 211<br />

The evaluation <strong>of</strong> the shift toward postmodernist or late modernist<br />

theorizing in terms <strong>of</strong> its promises and threats to future research is required<br />

as well. In this regard, one might appreciate the practice <strong>of</strong><br />

deconstruction, including the de-differentiating and the pluralizing<br />

depictions <strong>of</strong> the tourist experience, for their rising sense <strong>of</strong> sensitivity<br />

to the complexity and the diversity <strong>of</strong> tourism. Indeed, early generalizations<br />

were not sensitive to issues such as gender-related or cultural<br />

diversity. With respect to the former, for instance, Elsrud (2004) argues<br />

against the lack <strong>of</strong> gender awareness in the literature although there is<br />

so far no evidence suggesting a similarity between the ways in which<br />

men and women interpret their tourist activities.<br />

Similarly, most <strong>of</strong> the generalizing conceptualizations concern the<br />

mind <strong>of</strong> the Western tourist, while ignoring other voices, whether<br />

Japanese, Singaporean, or Brazilian (Elsrud 2004; Wang 2000). Thus,<br />

pluralizing depictions <strong>of</strong> the tourist experience, which are sensitive to<br />

gender or cultural diversity, seems to be appropriate for future research.<br />

However, the inclination <strong>of</strong> earlier theories to generalize<br />

and differentiate the tourist experience from the routine <strong>of</strong> daily life<br />

is probably part <strong>of</strong> their attempt to capture the essence <strong>of</strong> the investigated<br />

phenomenon rather than their lack <strong>of</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> its<br />

diversity. Such a modernist attempt to track the essence <strong>of</strong> a phenomenon<br />

by generalizing is particularities aims to make sense <strong>of</strong> its diversity<br />

rather than to deny it. By turning away from this fundamental<br />

attempt <strong>of</strong> scientific practice, the recent deconstructions appear to<br />

threaten the possibility <strong>of</strong> structuring future knowledge. In this respect,<br />

the recent conceptualizations comply with the notion <strong>of</strong> postmodernist<br />

thought as a destructive perspective, which fails to<br />

elaborate sufficient alternatives for structuring knowledge (Antonio<br />

1991; Gitlin 1989).<br />

Therefore, in addition to their deconstruction in recent studies,<br />

early conceptualizations <strong>of</strong> the tourist experience need to be reconstructed<br />

in future studies. Specifically, further studies are encouraged<br />

to redefine the current distinctions between tourist and everyday life<br />

experience and to develop new typologies, which capture the logic <strong>of</strong><br />

contemporary variations. For instance, if work and tourism are currently<br />

intertwined (Pizam et al 2000; <strong>Uriely</strong> 2001; <strong>Uriely</strong> and Reichel<br />

2000), future studies should specify which types <strong>of</strong> work-related activities<br />

are incorporated in contemporary tourist experiences. Questions<br />

regarding the remaining similarities within institutionalized holidaymakers<br />

or backpackers need also to be addressed in light <strong>of</strong> recent<br />

studies, which stress the multiplicity <strong>of</strong> experiences that are available<br />

within each <strong>of</strong> these conventional categories <strong>of</strong> tourism (<strong>Uriely</strong> et al<br />

2002; Wickens 2002).<br />

The postmodernist inclination toward subjectivity is another problematic<br />

aspect <strong>of</strong> recent conceptualizations. First, it is suggested that<br />

an approach that ignores the external opportunities or constraints imposed<br />

on the individual cannot provide a complete depiction <strong>of</strong> the<br />

tourist experience. Second, the focus on subjectivity could be seen as<br />

a naive perspective, which assumes that tourism is an area <strong>of</strong> life that<br />

facilitates a real freedom <strong>of</strong> choice. In contrast to this view, it is

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!