Development of Tour Uriely 2005

More documents

Recommendations

Info

206 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE may engage in different experiences, it also points toward the existence of multi-type individual backpackers who correspond to more than one mode of experience across their backpacking biography or even during a single trip (Uriely et al 2002). In this regard, this backpacker is akin to Feifer’s (1985) earlier conceptualization of the ‘‘post tourist’’, who enjoys the movement across different types of experiences in a single excursion. The Role of Subjectivity. The current notion of the tourist experience as a diverse phenomenon is accompanied by another development in which attention is shifted from the displayed objects provided by the industry to the tourist subjective negotiation of meanings as a determinant of the experience. This shift is evident in various studies, including the conceptualization of authenticity, the emerging research area of heritage tourism, as well as the typologies described above. With respect to the latter, the further classification of institutionalized tourist conducted by Wickens (2002) serves her attempt to stress the subjective ability of these holidaymakers to assign different meanings to their experiences. Specifically, by drawing upon Goffman’s (1961, 1967) role theory, Wickens (2002) shows that while holidaymakers are committed to the individual mass tourist role arranged for them by the industry (the provided object), they choose to step out of it and assign themselves to one of the subjective roles or micro-types, which shape their experiences. Similarly, Uriely et al (2002) showed that while the Israeli backpackers are committed to this form of tourism (which could be grasped as a given object of tourism), they subjectively construct their experiences in line with one or more of the modes suggested by Cohen (1979). These further classifications of well-established typologies challenge the position that the experience is solely shaped by the industry and carried out by passive consumers. Instead, these deconstructions of existing typologies stress the importance of the individual’s practice, in which the subjective negotiation of meanings by the human actor is illuminated. Clearly, this position is also noticeable with regard to the multi-type backpacker (Uriely et al 2002) and the post-tourist (Feifer 1985) who subjectively construct their personal experience by taking fragments from different modes or products provided by the industry and reassemble them as they choose. The shift from the objects provided by the industry to the role tourist subjectivity in the construction of experiences is well exemplified with respect to the issue of authenticity. In this context, Wang (2000) identifies two object-related notions of authentic experiences that exist in the literature (objective and constructive authenticity) and introduces a new approach (existential authenticity), which emphasizes tourists’ subjective activities. Objective authenticity is associated with the early theorists, such as Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973), who share a similar notion of authenticity despite their debate regarding the fundamental quest of tourist in the modern era. Specifically, both Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973) apply a museum-like usage of the term authenticity that stresses the originality of the toured object. In line with this approach, authentic experiences in tourism are equated to epistemological experiences of displayed objects which are found to
NATAN URIELY 207 be genuine. Constructive authenticity is associated with those who challenge the simplistic notion of objective authenticity and argue for a more complex and constructive one (Bruner 1989; Cohen 1988; Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983; Salamone 1997; Silver 1993). According to this approach, displayed objects are considered to be authentic not because they are inherently so but because of their construction as such by tourists or service providers in terms of points of view, perspectives, or powers. Therefore, authentic experiences and the authenticity of displayed objects in tourism are considered to constitute one another. While the early approach of objective authenticity concerns the attributes of displayed object solely, the constructive perspective highlights the role of people in the construction of attributes associated with displayed objects. Yet, both perspectives share the position that authentic experiences derive from visiting attractions provided by the industry. Unlike both objective and constructive authenticities, Wang’s (2000) existential authenticity has nothing to do with that of the displayed objects. Instead, it corresponds to a potential existential state of being, which is activated by the participant practices. According to this perspective, tourists may feel that they themselves are much more authentic when they engage in nonordinary activities, in which they are more freely self-expressed than in daily life. While the growing attention that is given to the subjectivity of tourist experiences is clearly evident in the contexts of typologies and the study of authenticity, a similar development seems to be instigated within the study of heritage tourism (Poria, Butler and Airey 2003) and urban tourism (Page 2002). In this context, Poria and colleagues have recently challenged the inclination of previous studies to focus solely on the supply of heritage attractions and its management (Crange 1999; Halewood and Hannam 2001; Hewison 1987; Garrod and Fyall 2000; Seale 1996). Instead, they suggest that individuals’ subjective perceptions and behaviors are the core elements of heritage tourism experiences and thus require emphasis. This point of view is also highlighted by Ashworth (1998) who suggests that different individuals perceive and encounter heritage spaces in different ways based on their cultural background. Moreover, similar to Wang’s notion of existential authenticity, Uzzell suggests that ‘‘museums and interpretive centers can be seen as places where people come to understand themselves’’ (1998:16). Toward Relative Interpretations. The question whether the distinction made in the literature between modern and postmodern tourism reflects upon concrete developments in the nature of the tourist experience is a matter of intellectual debate. Yet, a comparison between the early theories of modern tourism and later conceptualizations of postmodern tourism reveals significant differences in terms of style and form of theorizing. Specifically, it is suggested that while the former conceptualize the tourist experience in terms of absolute truths, the latter make use of concepts of relative truths. Thus, unlike the debates between competing theories of modern tourism, the discourse between different approaches of postmodern tourism is characterized by compromising statements.
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: NATAN URIELY 205 tion was challenge
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?