Extreme mobilities: Challenging the concept of ‘travel’

Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Extreme mobilities: Challenging the concept of ‘travel’ Päivi Kannisto ⇑ Tilburg University, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 April 2015 Revised 6 January 2016 Accepted 21 January 2016

Coordinating Editor: Kevin Hannam Keywords: Extreme mobilities Location-independence Foucault Discourse analysis Power

a b s t r a c t This article explores extreme mobilities by analysing how ‘global nomads’ create their lifestyles. The focus is on power negotiations regarding freedom of movement and the limits of modern-day mobilities. The study is based on in-depth interviews, instant ethnography and virtual ethnography analysed with Foucauldian discourse analysis. Two discourses are examined—the discourse of home and hearth and the discourse of homelessness—that reveal contradictions in society and in global nomads’ lifestyles. While societies tend to be suspicious about sustained mobilities, mostly promoting homebound travel, global nomads are not able to detach themselves from home either. They are opportunists taking advantage of societies’ dominant discourses and practices. Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Tourism and migration studies are based on the assumption that people have a home. When tourists travel, they depart, enjoy leisure time in their chosen destination, and return home (Urry, 2002, pp. 2–3). Migrants, on the other hand, move from one home to another. In both cases, home is an irreplaceable reference point. It is where the journey starts and ends (see also Lisle, 2006, p. 217; Van Den Abbeele, 1992, pp. xvii–xviii). This article examines, based on worldwide empirical material of in-depth interviews, instant ethnography and virtual ethnography, the so-called global nomads who blur the boundaries of

⇑ Present address: Location-independent with no permanent address. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.01.005 0160-7383/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

221

conventional thought (Kannisto, 2015, 2016. See also Kannisto & Kannisto, 2012). They travel constantly without necessarily returning back to their country of origin or settling down anywhere, therefore questioning the fixed coordinates that form the basis for everyday life in societies. By virtue of their extreme mobilities, global nomads raise broader theoretical questions about travel, tourism and mobilities revealing interesting contradictions and power negotiations in contemporary societies. The most important of these negotiations—examined with Foucauldian discourse analysis—are about freedom of movement and the limits of modern-day mobilities. As mobilities are now at the centre stage in society and in academia, these debates have far-reaching consequences. They call for rethinking the dominant assumptions and concepts regarding travel, and including various, even extreme forms of mobilities when discussing tourism trends and their implications for policy requirements. 1.1. Literature review Itinerant lifestyle has long fascinated researchers. It has been examined, for example, through the lives of vagrants, hobos, and tramps (e.g. Anderson, 1923; Beier, 2004; Cresswell, 1993, 1999, 2001; DePastino, 2003). While many of these individuals covered only short distances (e.g. vagrants 70–80 miles per month, see Beier, 2004, p. 6), their lifestyles involved moving from place to place, usually in search of work. Air travel and the proliferation of information and communication technologies have afforded more opportunities for modern travellers and engaged a wider range of people in itinerant lifestyles, whether on the fringes of society or as globetrotting professionals. These developments have raised academic interest in ‘lifestyle mobilities’. Lifestyle mobilities cover a wide array of voluntary relocation to places that promise an improved or at least a different lifestyle (McIntyre, 2013. See also Cohen, Duncan, & Thulemark, 2013). In this article, this wide-ranging literature is divided into three strands: studies on long-term travel, lifestyle migration, and professional lifestyle travel. All these groups are multi-mobile, and they thus share important characteristics. However, there are also some differences, particularly in terms of their relationship to places, as the following account demonstrates. Studies on long-term travel examine backpackers, drifters, flashpackers and lifestyle travellers who are on a temporary journey lasting from one to several months, after which they return home to study or work, often in order to travel again later (e.g. Cohen, 1973, 2010, 2011; Hannam & Ateljevic, 2008; Hannam & Diekmann, 2010; Paris, 2012; Richards & Wilson, 2004; Wilson, Fisher, & Moore, 2009). Some may pursue this kind of lifestyle for several years, retaining a home base in their country of origin. Lifestyle migrants, on the other hand, leave their countries in order to search for a better quality of life, often in terms of cheaper living costs, milder weather, or a more relaxed lifestyle (e.g. Benson & O’Reilly, 2009; D’Andrea, 2006; Korpela, 2009; O’Reilly, 2000). Like long-term travellers, they have a fixed reference point: they search for a new home country that would better fit their lifestyles. Professional lifestyle travellers (or self-initiated expatriates as they are called in management literature) use their profession as a means of moving and exploring different locales (e.g. Inkson & Myers, 2003; Jokinen, Brewster, & Suutari, 2008; Lynn-Ee Ho, 2011; Suutari & Brewster, 2000). Not being tied down by a permanent employment contract or a particular company, they are relatively free to move around. However, when signing up short-term contracts, they need to settle down for some time, whereas global nomads avoid such commitments, preferring to be able to move on at will. Studies on lifestyle mobilities have accumulated our understanding of the complex intersections of travel, mobilities, and migration, but there are still gaps in our knowledge regarding extreme mobilities, for example how geographically independent lifestyles are created and enacted across time and space, and what kind of challenges they pose to individuals and states. Global nomads—due to their frequent border crossings and extended stays in various countries—offer an opportunity for analysing these topics that have largely been bypassed in tourism studies because of the underlying assumption that tourists are on a temporary escape that does not alter their basic coordinates. Traditionally, tourism has been viewed as reinforcing societies’ values and norms rather than confronting them (see Rojek, 2010, p. 2). Global nomads, therefore, provide us with a useful mirror of society. They can help us to understand where the world is now, and where it might be heading.

222

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

The term ‘global nomad’ adopted in this research has been used in lifestyle mobilities studies for long-term travellers, lifestyle migrants, and third culture kids (highly mobile youth and expatriate children), for highlighting the range and frequency of their travels (see Benjamin & Dervin, 2014; D’Andrea, 2006; Richards & Wilson, 2004). This paper draws attention to another aspect of nomadism: the tense relationship between nomads and societies, as illuminated in the following definition by Caren Kaplan: ‘‘[a] nomad is a person who has the ability to track a path through a seemingly illogical space without succumbing to nation-state and/or bourgeois organisation and mastery” (Kaplan, 1996, p. 66). A critical remark regarding this definition is pertinent. While global nomads have agency, choice and resources as Kaplan suggests, the definition is glamorising. It implicitly suggests that nomads are successful in their attempts to avoid societies’ power networks. In this paper, the outcome of these efforts is left open until sufficient evidence is available. While it is true that alternative lifestyles often involve a strong agency that may go against conventional norms and mores, they may also be subject to the dominant discourses in which these norms, values and ideals are (re)created. Hence, an adoption of a more neutral definition: global nomads are homeless travellers who—by practising extreme mobilities—aim to live location-independently, seeking detachment not only from particular geographical locations but also from discourses of territorial belonging. 1.2. State and power In contemporary world, the nation-state is one of the major power networks that organises individuals’ lives and fosters a sense of belonging (see Brubaker, 1996, p. 63). The role of the state is crucial for all citizens, because the state issues the documents that are needed for establishing identity (Arnold, 2004, p. 131). The state also grants citizens freedom to move (Cresswell, 2013, p. 106), which is a prerequisite for international travel. The influence of the state extends to research, because the state is usually adopted as a primary category of analysis. While studies and topics have become more mobile, researchers’ gaze therefore remains fixed (Kalir, 2013, p. 312). The same applies to studies of society, which are embedded within the analysis of the nation-state, making ‘society’ and ‘state’ virtually synonyms (Hroch in an unpublished paper ‘Nationale Bewegungen früher und heute’, as cited in Hobsbawm, 2000, p. 173; Sassen, 2008, p. 281; Urry, 2001, p. 7). In this paper, the supremacy of the state is challenged by using Michel Foucault’s theories of discourse and power. Foucault is among the few theorists who have extensively discussed power, inspiring theorists across disciplines, including tourism researchers (e.g. Church & Coles, 2007, pp. 2, 8, 29; Hannam, 2002; Hollinshead, 1999; Holloway, Green, & Holloway, 2011; Urry, 2002). Foucault tied the question of power to knowledge, maintaining that power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge. It is produced everywhere and pervades the whole of the social body. From this viewpoint, the state—although an important site of exercise of power—does not possess power of its own. Foucault purposely used the term ‘relations of power’ (instead of mere ‘power’) so that people would not think of a static political structure (1991, p. 26; 2002a, pp. 336–337; 1997, p. 291). He argued, by contrast, that power is shifting and constantly renegotiated: ‘‘. . . one should take as its model a perpetual battle rather than a contract regulating transaction or the conquest of a territory. . .” (1991, p. 26. See also Bærenholdt, 2013, p. 26; Deleuze, 2006, p. 71; Foucault, 1998, p. 452, 2002a, p. 336, 1978, p. 102). Foucault approached power struggles with discourse analysis. He defined discourses as ‘‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak” (1969, pp. 66–67), emphasising the reciprocity between discourse and praxis. In regard to travel and global nomads, this means that discourses are vehicles of thought and action with which people discuss and define the limits of mobilities—who is allowed to leave, why, and what is expected from them in return (see also Brah, 1996, p. 179; Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006, p. 1). These discourses have practical consequences, shaping and directing individual mobilities. In this paper, the challenges that global nomads pose to the dominant discourses regarding travel are examined through the concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’. The two concepts are said to establish the meaning of full membership in society (Holston & Appadurai, 1999, p. 187). What these

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

223

concepts mean in practice is much disputed. In the most general sense, ‘citizenship’ has come to mean the right to receive the protection of the state, for instance police protection and welfare, and the opportunity to exercise political rights such as voting (e.g. Arnold, 2004, p. 20; Beck, Cohn-Bendit, Delors, & Solana, 2012; Rosanvallon, 2008, p. 20). ‘Nationality’, on the other hand, has been associated with an individual’s sense of identity and belonging (Calhoun, 2007, p. 1). The two concepts often overlap, as citizenship has been configured under the rubrics of national identity and economic independence (Arnold, 2004, p. 166. See also Bauman, 2007, pp. 28, 56; Malkki, 1992, p. 27). While national identity is a rather recent development of the 19th century, the economic criterion of citizenship was already present in Aristotle’s work, although many influential philosophers and sociologists have later criticised the idea that property—instead of sheer humanity—should be the marker of citizenship (Pocock, 1985, p. 103. See also Barbalet, 2010; Rousseau, 2002, p. 164; Simmel, 2004, p. 317; Weber, 1978). Discussions on ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ are far from settled. They represent a power struggle in which citizens’ benefits and duties are at stake. Sociologist Saskia Sassen (2008) has accurately called citizenship ‘‘an incompletely specified contract” between the state and the citizen, which leaves both citizens’ rights and duties open, allowing accommodating new conditions at will (pp. 277, 321). For the sake of clarity, a simple division between the two is made in the following analysis: ‘Citizenship’ is used to refer to the duties and benefits of citizenship, while ‘nationality’ is associated with subject formation. While there are yet few studies on how citizens’ mobilities are being reconfigured (Cresswell, 2013, p. 121), Foucauldian theories seem to offer interesting horizons for such an analysis. Rather than viewing the state as the primary user of power, Foucault focused on those forms of subjectivity that link to the state but are not necessarily merely subject to it. One option is to look at this through the concept of ‘cosmopolitanism’, which is understood here as cultural literacy that enables individuals to negotiate the foreign and feel at home everywhere (see Johnson, 2014, p. 259). Cosmopolitanism reduces the influence of the state as people’s rights and duties are less and less owed to or derived from it (see Urry, 2001, p. 19). Instead, lifestyle choices—including travel and mobilities—define people’s lives highlighting that they have also agency. The research questions that address this ongoing shift from static societal structures to individual mobilities are two-fold and deal with the differences between global nomads and the settled (the location-dependent who better confine to the prevalent formulation of ‘travel’: (1) How do global nomads make sense of their extreme mobilities in regard to the settled?, and (2) How are extreme mobilities enabled and constrained by settled discourses? The research questions draw attention to the designation and allocation of individuals’ rights through freedom of movement. Rather than in overt rules and regulations, these rights are implicitly defined in discourses in which home, citizenship and nationality are represented. 2. Materials and methods The research questions are approached with qualitative methods to ensure rich data and gain deep insights into personal experience. The methods include in-depth interviews, instant ethnography, and virtual ethnography. 2.1. The sample The research sample consists of 30 global nomads (23 male and 7 female). The majority are from Western countries, while a few come from immigrant families and have a multicultural background. The non-Western participants are from Mexico, Argentina, Japan, and Russia. At the time of the interview in 2010, the participants were between 24 and 72 years of age. They had wandered the world without a home and a permanent job for at least three years, which were the research criteria, while some had lived location-independently for thirty years. The participants had visited between 9 and 192 countries travelling by various means including public transport (trains, buses, ferries, and planes), hitch-hiking, sailing, cycling, and driving by car or motorhome.

224

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

The participants had begun to wander at different stages in life. Some dropped out of school or they hit the road right after school; others studied, worked, and grew tired of the rat race; some middleaged or elder men and women started to travel after their children left home, often after a divorce; and a few had been building a career as freelancers or entrepreneurs on the road. Because of the disparity of the group, ‘global nomad’ is suggested as a heuristic concept with which extreme mobilities can be analysed rather than as a definitive category. The data analysis aims to maintain the richness of the group instead of creating coherent interpretations that would apply to everyone, therefore ignoring important discrepancies. What unifies the research is in identifying commonalities in discourses that global nomads produce. Due to the chosen approach, the research results apply to this group of travellers only. 2.2. Data collection The participants were sampled using snowball methods. Initial contacts were made through a hospitality exchange network, which is one of the few forums that gathers many global nomads, therefore offering an important source for locating participants. The main data was gathered in semi-structured in-depth interviews that probed the participants’ daily life, motivations, decision-making processes, directions, schedules, livelihood, possibilities, challenges, and relationships with other people and societies. Most of the questions were open-ended, and guiding their direction was avoided. A general questionnaire was used as a frame in order to ensure consistency in subject areas (see e.g. Jordan & Gibson, 2004, pp. 222–223). The interviews were conducted using video conference calls, which included audio and video streams. This was the most cost-effective and time-saving method for reaching the participants who were scattered all over the world. Whenever possible, the participants were also met personally and observed on-site with instant ethnography, which allowed an immersion into the participants’ lives (see also Büscher & Urry, 2009, pp. 103–104). Instant ethnography was conducted with fourteen participants. In instant ethnography, the time together included everyday practices such as walking, sitting, talking, cooking, watching films, and exploring the surroundings. This method has been used earlier in similar situations that require multiple-site data gathering (e.g. Marcus, 1995; Söderström, Randería, Ruedin, D’Amato, & Panese, 2013). It broadened the views based on video interviews, particularly with those who had been shy in the interview. In many cases, however, the video interview alone offered sufficient material for analysis. In addition, the participants were followed in various social media sites, networking forums, hospitality exchange services, blogs, and by email. This virtual ethnography allowed the researcher to dwell in the loose-knit community of global nomads, which formed around this research. Communication involved a combination of proximity and distance, nearness and farness as is typical for virtual relationships (see also Hine, 2000; Molz & Paris, 2015, p. 178). As most global nomads maintain their relationships online, virtual ethnography offered interesting additional material. Most of the global nomads participated in the research using their own name. Many of them are public figures in the sense that they write blogs, newspaper stories or books about their life, so there was no serious concern about violating anybody’s privacy, although what they publish is selective. A few of the participants opted to use a pseudonym to protect their privacy, and in one case, also the nationality was changed per the participant’s request. 2.3. Study methods The data collected is analysed with discourse analysis. It provides a strategy of posing meaningful questions to the research material, which in this case consists of interviews and field notes from participant observation and virtual ethnography. The analysis proceeds in three phases: text analysis, processing analysis, and contextual analysis (Fairclough, 1989, p. 26). Text analysis is a descriptive phase that introduces and characterises global nomads and their lifestyles, and prepares the research material for further examination. Processing analysis then dismantles the structure and rhetorical devices of the data. The elements under scrutiny include

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

225

argumentation, agency, degrees of precision and vagueness, choice of words, their etymology, connotations, and rhetorical devices such as synonyms, metaphors, metonymies, binary oppositions, causal relationships, and means of legitimisation (Fairclough, 1989; Van Dijk, 2008). When those units of meaning that support each other and form a relatively coherent system of meaning-making are discovered, a discourse has been identified. The focus is on two discourses: the dominant and the opposing one. In contextual analysis, the constraints of production and reception of discourses are examined in order to analyse how and why global nomads produce the two discourses, whom do they address, why, how, and to what kind of subject positions these discourses invite them. The questions reveal important power negotiations regarding the limits of travel. They illustrate how global nomads are constituted as subjects who resist, exercise and submit to power relations, and how these relations shape and direct their travels, particularly in relation to ‘home’. 3. Homeless, stateless, and footloose As discussed above, ‘home’ is essential in the concept of tourist travel. It is the anchor that attaches travellers to a specific place on earth. Although global nomads aim at location-independence, they also need to refer to home in order to make sense of their lifestyle. This is due to the relational quality of language. As Ferdinand de Saussure (1990) argued, ‘day’ can only be understood in relation to ‘night’ (pp. 100–102, 166). Similarly, extreme mobilities only make sense in relation to the lifestyles of the settled, and therefore the dominant discourse regarding travel has to be the starting point for analysis. 3.1. The discourse of homelessness In dominant discourses, home harbours various positive meanings. It is a place where one can relax, feel accepted and loved. Despite global nomads’ will to detach themselves from this realm of comfort and safety, they produced the dominant discourse as well. ‘‘Home is where the heart is” (Elisa, 54), was one of the most common replies when asked about the meaning of home. Global nomads associated home with their family and friends in their country of origin. However, another discourse was also produced: ‘‘I don’t really have a home. I’m a gypsy”, Elisa (54) continued. The coexistence of the two discourses—the discourse of home and hearth and the discourse of homelessness—is not the result of a cognitive dissonance or thoughtlessness, as we are not in complete control of discourses. They speak us as much as we speak them (Foucault, 1978, p. 95). When analysed more closely, the two discourses illustrate global nomads’ complex position towards the necessary coordinates of travel: home and home country. Home for them represents a sedentary existence they have abandoned. Their life is in a suitcase, backpack, trailer, trunk, or a cabin—wherever they happen to be. They stay in one place for a couple of days, weeks, or months, but at the end they always move on, attracted by novelty. In this context, home is more like ‘‘a prison” (Michel, 47), not only literally but also metaphorically as part of the pleasure of travel is regarded as being lost if one needs to go back. Andy (54) illustrated: ‘‘I don’t need to return to a home nest like tourists who have nothing else to think about than how to get back.” Homelessness, by contrast, liberates global nomads to explore the world. It appears to relate to the cosmopolitan ease with which they move across cultures (see Johnson, 2014, p. 259). ‘‘I don’t feel like I really have a home per se. I feel the same comfort level here as in some other part of the world”, George (31) described. While the discourse of home and hearth, for global nomads, is disempowering, the discourse of homelessness provides them with choice, agency, and freedom. These are elements that do not usually appear in discourses on homelessness under other circumstances, and they therefore invite criticism of global nomads’ privileged position. Global nomads are not condemned to live on the streets like the destitute. They have the necessary resources to support themselves on the road, and most of them possess passports that allow them to travel almost anywhere in the world. This element of choice is essential. As Barbara (52) argued: ‘‘A traveller has a life purpose and has chosen travelling as a lifestyle choice. We’re not victims, we travel by choice.”

226

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

In interviews and observations, power asymmetries between global nomads and those who have less choice were addressed in various ways depending on the context—who speaks to whom, how, and why, as Foucault encapsulated the analytic questions for examining conditions of production and reception of discourses (1969, pp. 68–74). Global nomads, for instance, consciously ‘‘forgot” that not everyone can do the same and roam the world as they please (cf. Ahmed, 1999, p. 335; Arnold, 2004, pp. 157–158). They assumed the role of a mentor and used the discourse of homelessness for encouraging others to travel. Scott (33) argued: ‘‘People think it’s [location-independent lifestyle] much more incredible than it actually is. And they miss the point. If I can do this, then anybody can do this.” Sometimes global nomads belittled their travel experience in order to be more approachable in social situations where their out-of-the-ordinary lifestyle created barriers of communication. At other times, the participants readily—and guiltily—admitted their privileges entering empathetically into the shoes of the other. Claude (50) pondered the differences between pastoralists and modern-day nomads saying: ‘‘Traditional nomads had a hard life. They had family and animals, and they died young. It was not a choice for them; they were just following their parents. I chose this. I’m a luxury nomad.” Despite the term ‘luxury nomad’, neither Claude nor the other participants live in affluence. The line separating them from the less privileged is thin if measured in monetary terms. In 2010, the participants’ spending varied between 210 and 2100 US dollars a month, while the majority spent between 420 and 840 US dollars a month, including all costs from travel tickets to medical services. Global nomads’ privileges—as the discourse of homelessness suggests—are not related to wealth. They are about choice and freedom of movement. 3.2. The interplay of the two discourses Although global nomads praise homelessness, in dominant discourses it is a predicament to be concealed (see Dordick, 1997, p. 182). In order to understand how these two contradictory discourses can coexist, we need an analysis of their implications, functions, and dynamics. Starting from implications, discourses are not just about language, ideas, and thoughts; they have also practical consequences, as Foucault maintained. When global nomads produce the discourse of homelessness, they also choose—consciously or unconsciously—some of its negative connotations and repercussions, including a lower status. Jeff (25) elaborated: ‘‘As a man who owns only what he can carry, I find people have a general lack of respect over the long term. Initial interest soon fades and gives way to contempt. Without possessions to assert one’s power, other people quickly find a way to create rank.” Although global nomads themselves do not regard lack of home and address as a distress, it complicates their everyday life, because societies are built on the assumption that everybody has a home. Consider the following example where Scott (32) described his attempts to find work. I spent three months hitching around my favourite country in the world, mostly the North Island, knocking from door to door at Montessori schools, asking for a job. I was barefoot, sleeping in the woods every night, smelt of the road’s asphalt, with a knife on my hip, no qualifications and no palpable experience. I never got a job. [SCOTT, 32] While Scott’s account is ironic—he knows that his situation must have looked weird in the eyes of other people—the challenges he describes are actual. Global nomads reported that without a home, searching for a job is difficult, and without a job, renting a place is not necessarily possible because a pay slip is required to guarantee that the renter has a steady income. Debit and credit cards pose similar problems. A pay slip is required in order to prove that there is a steady inflow of cash for paying the bills. With experience, however, global nomads learn to negotiate with the settled without anchoring themselves in things: People ask for your permanent address, it’s difficult sometimes. Sometimes you have to create an appearance of stability in order to make people comfortable. It’s for other people. Then you have a

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

227

common language with them and you don’t have to explain your whole lifestyle to them. I can play the game, I clean up nice. [BARBARA, 52] The game of ‘‘cleaning up” is about discourses. Global nomads alternate between the discourse of home and hearth and the discourse of homelessness depending on the context. When negotiating with the settled, they assume dominant discourses in order to avoid suspicion, fear, and questions. They mirror the other party and smooth over possible frictions. The discourse of homelessness, by contrast, offers the perfect means of provoking the audience. Location-independence alone is provocative—it is global nomads’ declaration of independence as the following section shows—and some global nomads like to stir their audiences’ feelings and imagination further, sometimes with unintended consequences. When Michel (47) was at the US border with Canada, he declared himself homeless: ‘‘I think it wasn’t a good answer [laughs]. The interrogation took forty-five minutes and all other passengers of the Greyhound bus waited for me.” As global nomads constantly alternate between the discourse of home and hearth and the discourse of homelessness, often without even noticing it, the two can be viewed as complementary rather than as conflicting. Both discourses also have ‘home’ as their centrepiece, although in a very different sense. While the dominant discourse represents home as an ideal place, the discourse of homelessness associates home with a set of commitments from which global nomads want to detach themselves. 3.3. What do global nomads reject? The attachments that home entails are examined next through the overlapping concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’. By choosing location-independence, global nomads oppose the dominant idea— conveyed by these two concepts—that citizens should (1) make a contribution to the home market, and (2) cherish territorial belonging (see Arnold, 2004, pp. 5, 166; Malkki, 1992, p. 27). In practice, the duty to contribute means working, consuming, accumulating wealth, and paying taxes. In contemporary society, citizens are engaged primarily in these roles (Bauman, 2007, pp. 28, 56). Rather than pursuing a high-paying, high-status job, however, global nomads prefer to invest in quality of life. Many of them do not work at all, or they work as little as possible. Jérémy (27) elaborated when asked about the upsides of his lifestyle: ‘‘I wake up in the morning knowing that I don’t have to do something I don’t want to do. I feel happy, that is very important.” In many Western countries, home is considered a necessary demonstration of economic contribution, and therefore a precondition for any degree of citizenship (Arnold, 2004, pp. 3–4, 17, 27). In this context, home is not just a dwelling structure but demonstrates citizens’ ability to earn their living, make wise financial decisions, pursue long-term goals, and accumulate wealth (DePastino, 2003, p. xxi). By choosing idleness and homelessness, global nomads challenge this dominant idea. Global nomads also withdraw from relations that construe people as consumers. Tor (61) illustrated the mentality by saying: ‘‘My sense of values is very different from most Americans today. I’m a very non-materialistic person, I don’t buy things.” Global nomads do not necessarily boost the national economy by paying taxes either. Some earn so little that they do not need to pay taxes, while others structure their activities to avoid taxes. The economic criteria for citizenship (consumption, property, possessions, and taxes paid) are measurable and therefore practical, but another question is how do they apply to the global nomads. Are they fit for citizenship at all or are they mere freeloaders? Answering this question is not straightforward as global nomads do not necessarily exploit the benefits of citizenship. They have assumed the responsibility of their own safety, education, income, and health care. These are tasks that are usually performed by welfare states where most global nomads originate from, but rather than relying on society, global nomads take pride in self-ownership. Many of them reject also private safety nets such as travel insurance. I had a treatment in the Philippines where it cost me 150 USD. The same would have been around 2200 USD in the United States. As long as it’s not a major thing, like a cancer when you need a million dollars, I can afford to do my own health assurance. [ANDY (54)]

228

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

Global nomads are not completely self-sufficient, however. They build their own safety nets that consist of their family, friends, and members of hospitality exchange services that offer them contacts in new destinations. These networks are primarily maintained online because of the high mobility of global nomads. Although the analysis of the role of various technologies in global nomads’ lives was not within the scope of this study, the study methods imply that they use internet, for example email, video-conferencing and social media for building and maintaining their safety nets (see also Molz & Paris, 2015). Compared to those who settle in one place, global nomads seem to take more risks, but the degree of risk varies. Some global nomads have reserves to draw on to deal with particular events or crises and to secure their later lives, while others live from hand to mouth without envisioning the future. Situations also change, and in case of major problems willingness to take risks may be reduced. One of the participants chose to return to her country of origin after twelve years of travel in order to get public health care for her partner who got a life-threatening disease. As this example shows, global nomads’ lives are not static but characterised by constant revision, transformation and uncertainty, as is typical for contemporary lives in general (see Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991, pp. 17–20). In addition to financial contribution towards home, global nomads oppose the idea of territorial belonging implied in ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’. Both identifications restrict individual subjectivities. They are predetermined and static, contradicting with fluid lifestyles. Even when global nomads create bonds with new places, cultures and people, their nationality and citizenship remain unchanged. The States, they want me to have a physical home, a domicile, and a nationality. When you come to any state and you cross the border, they want you to say: I’m such and such and my passport number is such and such. I’ve spent more than half of my life out of Argentina so why should I be Argentinian? Just because you spend a certain number of years in some country, does that make you Argentinian? I don’t know. Maybe I go to Mongolia or Bhutan and I feel very strongly identified with the people and the country even though I was not born there or have documents there. Or Japan or whatever. [GUSTAVO, 51] From global nomads’ point of view, lack of alternatives is one of the biggest problems in citizenship and nationality. They cannot be chosen or renounced without a tedious and expensive process of legally exchanging them to another. When someone becomes a traveller they slowly come to realise that nationality no longer matters, as blood type or other trivial things we are born with, yet have no control over. My home country has never been defined, except by passport. Norway, Canada, America? For me, I would be unable to give a home country if someone were to ask for it. Those terms simply don’t register as comfortable for me. [JEFF, 25] Nation-states are mandatory communities over which individuals have no control. They are entered by birth and exited by death only. This is in contrast to global nomads’ attempts to design and master their own life, and it is also in contrast to human rights: governments have unilaterally imposed citizenship and assumed arbitrary jurisdiction over their citizens. This is a strong measure of power in which citizens have little to say. Citizenship and related duties were simply imposed on them (Wolff, 1996, p. 4). While citizens also gain rights in return for obligations, there are no opportunities to opt out of the bargain at a global scale. Individuals cannot ignore their ‘roots’, because the world is based on the idea that everyone belongs in one place. For global nomads, this is a strange idea: ‘‘I’m not in the least interested in being an American in the world, I’m much more interested in being wherever I am” (Rita, 72). Global nomads would like to have more choice, and also change their mind at will. ‘‘We’re a bit like chameleons: we change. Maybe when I’m in Japan, I’m a little bit like Japanese” (Gustavo, 51). However, officially assuming a homeless and stateless status would make legal travel impossible. This is not an option for global nomads, whose lifestyle depends on freedom of movement. They have to solve the problem otherwise, which raises the question of how alternative their lifestyle actually is.

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

229

3.4. Alternative or opportunistic? As discussed above, global nomadism shares many features with other lifestyle mobilities that are gaining in popularity among people looking for alternative lifestyles. Many of these mobilities have been rather romantically related with counter-cultural and marginal qualities (e.g. Cohen, 1972, 1973; D’Andrea, 2006). In the light of this research, this is only one side of the story. While global nomads have counter-cultural tendencies because of their opposing discourses and their correlation with marginality—they are not only marginal in terms of numbers but most of them do not work regularly or return to their country of origin, which is contrary to the dominant concept of ‘travel’—they also support dominant discourses. Analysis, therefore, needs to take into account discrepancies rather than aim at coherence by considering opposing acts only. Power is not just obeyed or rejected. It is also enabling and alluring, as Foucault maintained (2002b, p. 120). Even though global nomads question, for example, civic duties, they may be attracted to the benefits that states offer them. They also depend on the order kept by the state in their destinations as well as public infrastructure including information technology and travelling infrastructure. Furthermore, only the state can issue them the passport that they need for their travels. If I want to renounce my citizenship, then I’ll have to renounce my passport. This was a real issue when I was travelling through the Bush administration. A lot of people would be giving me grief for being American and I’ve been told by many people: ‘Oh, you should say you’re from Canada.’ I’m an American, good, bad, or ugly. [ELISA, 54] As Elisa’s statement illustrates, global nomads are opportunists. Whenever they assess that the rewards are higher than the costs, they subject themselves to power. Freedom of movement for them is the ultimate goal for which they are ready to sacrifice some of their other freedoms and, consequently, they remain in the realm of dominant discourses. This is due to the relational quality of language and thinking discussed in the beginning of this section. As the Saussurean theories maintained, meaning is created by oppositions. The more global nomads try to detach themselves from dominant discourses, the more they end up recreating them because their lifestyle only makes sense when contrasted to those of the settled. Global nomads have to justify and negotiate their choices against assumptions made in dominant discourses. The most important of these assumptions is related to the concept of ‘travel’, which shapes and directs global nomads’ mobilities. To start with, travellers need a purpose for their trip such as tourism, business, or a family reunion. As global nomads’ travels do not necessarily fall into any of these categories, they may have to bribe immigration officials or lie about their intentions. It’s [crossing borders] a pain in the ass. Sometimes I try to scam it by paying bribes, but it costs a lot of money. For me, India is really good because we can get ten years and I only have to leave every six months. I’ve never had a work permit. Everything I do is street vending and freelance writing. I never try to make it the legal way. [ELISA, 54] The duration of stay is also limited, and often a return or an onward ticket is required. ‘‘It’s odd that the whole world wants return tickets. They always want me to have a return ticket to Austria, but for me it’s a one-way travel”, Stefan (47) opined. Although these requirements are not always enforced by immigration, airline companies may refuse to sell one-way tickets or board passengers without valid onward tickets, or they exploit the law in order to sell extra flights to their customers. Another challenge are visa-runs, which require exiting the country every three months, monthly, or even biweekly, or countries that require travellers to apply for a visa in their home country. As these difficulties show, extreme mobilities are an anomaly within the current international passport and visa system. Without any considerable alternatives to states, global nomads are practical even though they may dream of more freedom. They have learned to avoid state officials, and they patiently deal with the obligatory formalities and requirements.

230

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

When I’m dealing with officials—customs and immigration—I’m careful about my behaviour. I’m consciously humble and respectful and quiet and patient, because they have the power to make my life miserable. [TOR, 61] While global nomads are critical of states and nations, they assume dominant discourses when necessary, as their will to travel exceeds their will to criticise. They are prime examples of ‘‘border artistry” by which people deal with, transcend, ignore, overcome, use, and build borders (Beck, 2007, pp. 697–698; Bærenholdt, 2013, p. 31). Most often, this means that they use loopholes of the current system, which fails to acknowledge their lifestyle. 4. Conclusion This article provided fresh insights into the research of lifestyle mobilities by examining how extreme mobilities challenge the concept of ‘travel’, and what are their repercussions for multimobile people and states. The topic was approached through a group of full-time travellers, the socalled global nomads, who question the commitments and attachments that home entails, particularly the idea embedded in the concepts of ‘citizenship‘ and ‘nationality’ that individuals should contribute towards home and cherish national identity. Two research questions were answered: (1) How do global nomads make sense of their extreme mobilities in regard to the settled?, and (2) How are extreme mobilities enabled and constrained by settled discourses? The research findings show that global nomads question and enforce the dominant discourses from which they try to detach themselves. While they challenge some dominant norms, values and ideals, they also take advantage of them, particularly in regard to citizenship. Global nomads’ alternative qualities therefore remain relative. However, their rebellion reveals the current limits of mobilities, having important societal and academic implications. From the societal point of view, the research results show that although mobilities have increased, having a home, being rooted in one place, and paying taxes there are expected in exchange for freedom of movement. The rights and duties of citizens are still tied to the nation-state (see also Held, 1989, p. 176), leading to a paradoxical situation: those practising extreme mobilities must retain a home territory in order to maintain their lifestyle. If extreme mobilities were to be enabled or acknowledged, the notion of ‘travel’ and the related concepts of ‘home’, ‘citizenship’, and ‘nationality’ would have to be redefined. Currently, the required tie to home country is restricting and merely creates inequality, because it only includes individuals who are rooted in place and have a home (see also Arnold, 2004, p. 160). This complex debate, which is infused with power, challenges societies to rethink mobilities, particularly the question of who benefits and who pays the costs of mobile lifestyles. Currently, states are managed according to nationalist principles counting the losses and profits, such as migration flows and tax income, at a state level. Those who aspire to practise extreme mobilities need to use loopholes in the system or break the law, and therefore become exceptions that prove the rule of being settled. These debates influence research. A reassessment of epistemological questions of what travel and mobilities are, how they should be conceived, and whether they should be encouraged or suppressed is needed, and methods that are better able to deal with change, plurality, incongruence, and power ought to be deployed. In this study, Foucauldian discourse analysis was applied in order to tackle power in economic, social, political, and cultural contexts, and to understand how it works. Rather than viewing travellers as counter-cultural or conformists, multiple ways in which power operates were considered, particularly positive power that keeps global nomads within the realm of home despite their overt criticism. The research results illustrate the challenge of any change: even resistance is bound to enforce dominant discourses and recreate dominant norms, values, and ideals. Evidently, there are a few limitations in this paper. While it has been able to examine the economic and nationalistic root cause for contradictions in mobilities discourses and practices, further research is needed on various forms of extreme mobilities and their policy implications. Because of the

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

231

dominant financial interests and growing securitisation in societies, various forms of subversive mobilities, that seek to undermine the constraints of the settled discourses, can offer interesting topics for research. Even if these subversive mobilities are bound to enforce current norms and conceptions, they serve to locate turbulent subjects that are in need of reassessment. References Ahmed, S. (1999). Home and away: Narratives of migration and estrangement. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 329–347. Anderson, N. (1923). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Arnold, K. R. (2004). Homelessness, citizenship and identity. New York: State University of New York. Bærenholdt, J. O. (2013). Governmobility: The powers of mobility. Mobilities, 8(1), 20–34. Barbalet, J. (2010). Citizenship in Max Weber. Journal of Classical Sociology, 10(3), 201–216. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London: Sage Publications (Original work published 1986). Beck, U. (2007). Beyond class and nation: Reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world. The British Journal of Sociology, 58 (4), 679–705. Beck, U., Cohn-Bendit, D., Delors, J., & Solana, J. (2012, May 12). Let’s create a bottom-up Europe. Guardian. Retrieved from . Beier, A. L. (2004). The problem of the poor in Tudor and early Stuart England [PDF version]. London: Methuen (Original work published 1966). Benjamin, S., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2014). Migration, diversity, and education: Beyond third culture kids. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Benson, M., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Migration and the search for a better way of life: A critical exploration of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review, 57(4), 608–625. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora: Contesting identities. London: Routledge. Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Büscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99–116. Calhoun, C. (2007). Nations matter: Culture, history, and the cosmopolitan dream. Oxon: Routledge. Church, A., & Coles, T. (2007). Tourism, power and space. Oxford: Routledge. Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1), 164–182. Cohen, E. (1973). Nomads from affluence: Notes on the phenomenon of drifter-tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 14(1–2), 89–103. Cohen, S. A. (2010). Personal identity (de)formation among lifestyle travellers: A double-edged sword. Leisure Studies, 29(3), 289–301. Cohen, S. A. (2011). Lifestyle travellers: Backpacking as a way of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1535–1555. Cohen, S. A., Duncan, T., & Thulemark, M. (2013). Introducing lifestyle mobilities. In S. A. Cohen, T. Duncan, & M. Thulemark (Eds.), Lifestyle mobilities: Intersections of travel, leisure and migration (pp. 1–18). Farnham: Ashgate. Cresswell, T. (1993). Mobility as resistance: A geographical reading of Kerouac’s ‘On the Road’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(2), 249–262. Cresswell, T. (1999). Embodiment, power and the politics of mobility: The case of female tramps and hobos. Transactions of the Institution of British Geographers, 24, 175–192. Cresswell, T. (2001). The tramp in America. London: Reaktion Books. Cresswell, T. (2013). Citizenship in worlds of mobility. In O. Söderström, D. Ruedin, S. Randeria, G. D’Amato, & F. Panese (Eds.), Critical mobilities (pp. 105–124). London: Routledge. D’Andrea, A. (2006). Global Nomads. Techno and new age as transnational countercultures in Ibiza and Goa [PDF version]. London: Routledge. de Saussure, F. (1990). Cours de linguistique générale [Published posthumously by C. Bally, A. Riedlinger, and A. Séchehaye]. Paris: Éditions Payot (First published 1916). Deleuze, G. (2006). Foucault (S. Hand, Trans, Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press (Original work published 1986). DePastino, T. (2003). The citizen hobo: How a century of homelessness shaped America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dordick, G. A. (1997). Something left to lose: Personal relations and survival among New York’s homeless. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1) (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books (Original work published 1976). Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish. London: Penguin (Original work published 1975). Foucault, M. (1997). The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics, subjectivity and truth: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 1) (R. Hurley et al., Trans.) (pp. 281–301). New York: The New Press (Original work published 1984). Foucault, M. (1998). Structuralism and post-structuralism. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Aesthetics: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 2) (R. Hurley et al., Trans.) (pp. 433–458). London: Penguin (Original work published 1983). Foucault, M. (2002). The subject and power. In J. D. Faubion, (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 3) (R. Hurley et al, Trans.) (pp. 326–349). London: Penguin (Original work published 1982).

232

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

Foucault, M. (2002b). Truth and power. In J. D. Faubion, (Ed.), Power: essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 3) (R. Hurley et al., Trans.) (pp. 111–33). London: Penguin (Original work published 1977). Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hannam, K. (2002). Tourism and development I: Globalization and power. Progress in Development Studies, 2(3), 227–234. Hannam, K., & Ateljevic, I. (Eds.). (2008). Backpacker tourism: Concepts and profiles. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Hannam, K., & Diekmann, A. (Eds.). (2010). Beyond backpacker tourism: Mobilities and experiences. Bristol, NY: Channel View Publications. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Mobilities, immobilities and moorings [Editorial]. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22. Held, D. (1989). Citizenship and autonomy. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 162–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage Publications. Hobsbawm, E. (2000). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1990). Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism Management, 20, 7–23. Holloway, D., Green, L., & Holloway, D. (2011). The Intratourist Gaze: Grey nomads and ‘other tourists’. Tourist Studies, 11(3), 235–252. Holston, J., & Appadurai, A. (1999). Cities and citizenship. In J. Holston (Ed.), Cities and citizenship (pp. 1–18). Durham: Duke University Press. Inkson, K., & Myers, B. A. (2003). ‘The big OE’: Self-directed travel and career development. Career Development International, 8 (4), 170–181. Johnson, P. C. (2014). Cultural literacy, cosmopolitanism and tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 255–269. Jokinen, T., Brewster, C., & Suutari, V. (2008). Career capital during international work experiences: Contrasting self-Initiated expatriate experiences and assigned expatriation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(6), 979–998. Jordan, F., & Gibson, H. (2004). Let your data do the talking: Researching the solo travel experiences of British and American women. In J. Phillmore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 215–235). London: Routledge. Kalir, B. (2013). Moving subjects, stagnant paradigms: Can the ‘mobilities paradigm’ transcend methodological nationalism? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2), 311–327. Kannisto, P. (2015). Adventuring and vagrancy. In F. Dervin & S. Benjamin (Eds.), Migration, diversity, and education: Beyond third culture kids (pp. 211–232). Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. Kannisto, P. (2016). Global nomads and extreme mobilities. Farnham: Ashgate. Kannisto, P., & Kannisto, S. (2012). Free as a global nomad. Phoenix, AZ: Drifting Sands Press. Kaplan, C. (1996). Questions of travel: Postmodern discourses of displacement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Korpela, M. (2009). More vibes in India: Westerners in search of a better life in Varanasi. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Lisle, D. (2006). The global politics of contemporary travel writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynn-Ee Ho, E. (2011). Migration trajectories of ‘highly skilled’ middling transnationals: Singaporean transmigrants in London. Population, Space and Place, 17, 116–129. Malkki, L. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24–44. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117. McIntyre, N. (2013). Mobilities, lifestyles and imagined worlds: Exploring the terrain of lifestyle migration. In S. A. Cohen, T. Duncan, & M. Thulemark (Eds.), Lifestyle mobilities: Intersections of travel, leisure and migration (pp. 193–207). Farnham: Ashgate. Molz, J. G., & Paris, C. M. (2015). The social affordances of flashpacking: Exploring the mobility nexus of travel and communication. Mobilities, 10(2), 173–192. O’Reilly, K. (2000). The British on the Costa del Sol. London: Routledge. Paris, C. M. (2012). Flashpackers: An emerging subculture? Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1094–1115. Pocock, J. G. A. (1985). Virtue, commerce, and history: Essays on political thought and history, chiefly in the eighteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (Eds.). (2004). The Global Nomad: Backpacker travel in theory and practice. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Rojek, C. (2010). Labour of leisure: The culture of free time. London: Sage Publications. Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-democracy politics in an age of distrust (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rousseau, J.-J. (2002). The social contract and the first and second discourses (S. Dunn, Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Sassen, S. (2008). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Original work published 2006). Simmel, G. (2004). The Philosophy of Money (3rd enlarged ed.) (D. Frisby, Ed.; K. Mengelberg, D. Frisby, and T. Bottomore, Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1900). Söderström, O., Randería, S., Ruedin, S., D’Amato, D. G., & Panese, F. (2013). Of mobilities and moorings: Critical perspectives. In O. Söderström, S. Randería, D. Ruedin, D. G. D’Amato, & F. Panese (Eds.), Critical mobilities (pp. 1–21). Lausanne: EPFL. Suutari, V., & Brewster, C. (2000). Making their own way: International experience through self-initiated foreign assignments. Journal of World Business, 35(4), 417–436. Urry, J. (2001). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century [PDF version]. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2002). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications (Original work published 1990). Van Den Abbeele, G. (1992). Travel as metaphor: From Montaigne to Rousseau. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

P. Kannisto / Annals of Tourism Research 57 (2016) 220–233

233

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth and C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press (Original work published 1922). Wilson, J., Fisher, D., & Moore, K. (2009). The OE goes ‘home’: Cultural aspects of a working holiday experience. Tourist Studies, 9 (1), 3–21. Wolff, J. (1996). An introduction to political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.