Development of Tour Uriely 2005

212 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
suggested that like all other social activities, tourism and leisure are
also subjected to processes of class, ethnic, or gender related domination,
which impose constraints on the degree of freedom associated
with the tourist experience. Such a power-conflict perspective is applied
by Hollinshead (2002) who criticizes postmodernist thought for
ignoring the power of the industry to shape the interpretation of heritage
sites in line with the historical view of specific interest groups.
Third, ignoring the displayed objects provided by the industry assumes
that differences in interpretations are related solely to the characteristics
of the individual tourist. Nevertheless, it is also possible to assume
that some objects or forms of tourism are open to a wider variety of
interpretation than others.
Thus, future research should not ignore the nature of the specific
visited object or the particular form of tourism as a determinant of
the subjective experience. For example, questions regarding whether
independent excursions may be experienced in more various ways than
organized tours, or if all museums are alike in terms of the variety of
experiences available in their visitation, are to be empirically addressed
in future studies. Moreover, future studies should focus on the nature
of the relations between the objects and the subjects that constitute the
tourist experience. Such an attempt is illustrated in a recent study of
backpackers’ narratives, which argues for a cyclic relationship between
the institutional discourse provided by the industry, the experience of
the tourist, and its impact on the individual’s experience of self-change
(Noy 2004). Specifically, Noy suggests that a narrative of self-change
might be linked to the exceptionality of a subjective experience, which
could not separated from the uniqueness of the visited destinations as
constructed by the institutionalized discourse of tourism. Yet, the latter
is continually reshaped through the subjective narratives of adventure
and self-change that backpackers communicate to each other or wouldbe
backpackers before, during, and after their trip.
The aforementioned shift from contradictory and decisive statements
to relative and complementary interpretations of the tourist
experience is another matter of concern that needs to be addressed.
In this context, one might grasp this development as an indication
of the liberal approach and the sense of modesty on behalf of contemporary
researchers. Nevertheless, it is suggested that the debates that
existed between the early conceptualizations of modern tourism stimulated
further studies which support or challenge one of the conflicting
aforementioned theories. In contrast, the inclination of current
scholars to avoid debates and to accept seemingly conflicting phenomenon
under the category of postmodern tourism is congruent with the
statement that ‘‘under postmodernism anything goes’’ (Hollinshead
2002:198).
In conclusion, the shift toward postmodernist or late modernist theorizing
in the literature on the tourist experience was considered in
this paper as a complementary extension of earlier theories rather than
as a sharp and contrasting departure from earlier modernist theorizing.
However, it was also suggested that further steps in this direction
might threaten the possibility of structuring future knowledge in a