Development of Tour Uriely 2005

More documents

Recommendations

Info

202 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE concerns the supposedly innovative nature of the latter. In this regard, Ryan (2002) notes that various aspects associated with postmodernist thought, such as the emphasis given to the context, the stress of plural reality, and the inclination for relativity were already seminal aspects of the phenomenological perspective. Other voices opposed to postmodernist views derive from neo-Marxist and power-conflict perspectives with regard to the little attention that the former give to power relations in general and to economic and class relations in particular (Callinicos 1990; Hollinshead 2002; Kaplan 1988; Morgan 1995). A related point of criticism addresses postmodernist thought as a destructive perspective, which fails to elaborate and transform new directions for political action or social reformation (Best 1994). The inclination to remain solely negative is also criticized with regard to the future of social sciences. In this context, it is argued the attack of postmodernist thought on the basic assumptions of social theory—including the quest for generalizations, unity of vision, and continuity of knowledge—is not followed by sufficient alternatives for structuring knowledge (Antonio 1991; Gitlin 1989). This controversy in the social sciences requires an additional clarification regarding the usage of the distinction between modernist and postmodernist theorizing in the current analysis. In this respect, the premise of this paper is that it is not necessary to agree with the postmodernist perspective in order to use this distinction as an analytical device. Similar to the position presented by Giddens (1990) and Wang (2000), one might be aware of a collection of similar developments that occur in various domains, including tourism or the social sciences, but still disagree with the view that these developments involve such an acute change that they justify the claim that postmodernity has already replaced modernity. Accordingly, the distinction between the two schools of thought applied in this paper does not reflect a position that the latter has already replaced the former. It does, however, assume that the depicted developments in the study of tourist experiences are associated with a wider cultural development, which is referred to in the literature as postmodernity. In addition, one might agree with the notion of so-called ‘‘postmodernist culture’’ in general, and ‘‘postmodernist forms of theorizing’’ in particular, and still criticize these contemporary developments. Thus, it is possible to utilize the distinction as an analytical device through which conceptual developments of the tourist experience are characterized and then challenged. In this context, by characterizing various conceptualizations, the current analysis includes dichotomies based on generalizations. Conceptualizations of the Tourist Experience Developments discussed here exemplify the incorporation of postmodernist modes of analysis in recent conceptualizations of the tourist experience. Specifically, practices of deconstruction are illustrated in the first two developments, which focus on the tendency of recent
NATAN URIELY 203 works to de-differentiate the experience from everyday life and to stress its pluralized nature, respectively. The third involves the growing attention that is given to the role of subjectivity in the constitution of the tourist experience. The fourth concerns the shift toward a compromising academic discourse, in which the tourist experience is conceptualized in terms of relative rather than absolute truths. De-differentiating the Experience. Early conceptualizations of the tourist experience emphasize its distinctiveness from everyday life. For example, Cohen (1972, 1979) refers to the quest for strangeness and novelty as a key element and argues that. . . ‘‘tourism is essentially a temporary reversal of everyday activities-it is a no-work, no-care, no-thrift situation’’ (1979:181). Similarly, Smith defines the tourist as. . . ‘‘a temporarily leisured person who visits a place away from home for the purpose of experiencing change’’ (1978:1). The notion of this experience as contrary to the routine of everyday-life is also stressed in MacCannell’s portrayal of tourism as a modern form of the essentially religious quest for authenticity. In this regard, MacCannell argues that while modern individuals perceive their everyday life as inauthentic, ‘‘authentic experiences are believed to be available only to those moderns who try to break the bonds of their everyday experiences and begin to live’’ (1973:159). The differentiation between everyday life and tourist experience was also highlighted by Turner and Ash (1975) who suggested that the temporary distance of tourists from their regular environments allows them to suspend the power of norms and values that govern their daily lives and to think about their own lives and societies from a different perspective. The notion of the tourist experience as disparate from the routine of everyday life has been challenged since the 90s by scholars who introduced the perspective of postmodern tourism (Lash and Urry 1994; Munt 1994; Urry 1990). The premise suggests that while the modern era is characterized by processes of differentiation among normative, aesthetic, and institutional spheres of social activity, the postmodern condition involves processes of de-differentiation that blur these distinctions. In this context, Lash and Urry (1994) conceptualize the decreasing distinctions between everyday life and tourist experiences as ‘‘the end of tourism’’. Specifically, they argue that experiences that were once confined to tourism—including the enjoyment of gazing at distant sights and the pleasure of engaging in aspects of other cultures—are currently accessible in various contexts of everyday life. In the era of mass media, for instance, attractions can be enjoyed via video and virtual reality displays within the comforts of one’s home. Similarly, the proliferation of simulated environments might bring together multiple sites and sights from around the world in one’s nearby theme park or shopping mall. Accordingly, many tourist-related experiences are currently reachable without the necessity for travel to separate destinations. Consequently, Lash and Urry (1994) indicated a process through which people become tourists most of the time, whether they are taking a vacation or conducting daily activities.
Page 1 and 2: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures doi
Page 3: NATAN URIELY 201 cism, anti-empiric
Page 7 and 8: NATAN URIELY 205 tion was challenge
Page 9 and 10: NATAN URIELY 207 be genuine. Constr
Page 11 and 12: NATAN URIELY 209 complete portrayal
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?