Development of Tour Uriely 2005

NATAN URIELY 205
tion was challenged by Cohen who proposed that ‘‘different kinds of
people may desire different modes of tourist experiences’’
(1979:180). In line with this premise, Cohen developed a typology of
five modes of tourist experiences that span between the quest for mere
pleasure on one end and the search for meanings on the other. His notion
of plurality is also the premise of other categorizations, aiming to
capture the existing variety in the practice of tourism (Cohen 1972;
Krippendorf 1984; Pearce 1982; Plog 1977; Smith 1978).
The emergence of typologies marks one step in the shift from essentialist
and unifying depictions of the tourist experience as a general
type toward an approach that stresses its diverse and plural characteristics.
Another step in this direction is carried out in recent studies,
which deconstruct well-established typologies by stressing the diversity
within each of the existing categories in these typologies. This trend
could be exemplified with regard to the four-fold tourist typology (drifter,
explorer, individual mass, and organized mass) which construct
the differentiation between noninstitutionalized and institutionalized
tourists, respectively (Cohen 1972). With respect to the latter, the existing
variety of experiences within the category of individual mass tourist
is revealed in a recent study of British holidaymakers in Chalkidiki, in
the region of Northern Greece (Wickens 2002). The study indicates
that these holidaymakers are akin to the individual mass tourist type,
but they are characterized by highly diversified patterns of interests
and activities. Accordingly, they are further classified into five subtypes
in accordance with dominant motivations: placing a strong emphasis
on the local culture, searching for sensual and hedonistic pleasures,
wishing for a romantic experience, questing for sunshine and hot climate,
and enjoying the familiarity provided in a destination to which
they return on an annual basis (Wickens 2002). Consequently, Wickens
suggests that ‘‘...future studies should focus on multiple types of tourism,
by identifying and examining the different micro-types, which are
specific to the study’s particular situation’’ (2002:849).
While Wickens’ study points toward the existing diversity among
institutionalized tourists, a recent study of Israeli backpackers in various
destinations stresses the multiplicity of experiences among noninstitutionalized
tourists (Uriely et al 2002). Specifically, this study reveals
that while most of the backpackers conform to the conventional forms
(length of trip, means of transportation, category of accommodation,
flexibility of the itinerary, etc.), they comply with the different modes
of tourist experiences suggested by Cohen (1979). While some were
mostly interested in mere pleasure-related activities and thus corresponded
to the ‘‘recreational’’ or ‘‘diversionary’’ modes, others pursue
profound meanings and conform to the ‘‘experiental’’, ‘‘experimental’’,
or ‘‘existential’’ modes (Uriely et al 2002). Based on these findings,
the study places doubt on the implicit inclination to couple
together external practices and internal meanings and to assume that
tourists who travel in a similar form share the same experiences. Moreover,
the study of these backpackers illustrates another dimension in
the growing notion of the tourist experience as a diverse and a plural
phenomenon. Specifically, while this study shows that different people