(Other) bodies and tourism studies

Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 180±201, 2001 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/00/$20.00

PII: S0160-7383(00)00012-8

(OTHER) BODIES AND TOURISM STUDIES Lynda Johnston University of Edinburgh, UK Abstract: Research ®ndings on two gay pride parades in New Zealand and Australia are offered in order to argue that critical social theory on embodiment can provide new challenges to, and exciting possibilities for, tourism research. Such studies tend to produce hegemonic, disembodied, and masculinist knowledges. Social sciences have been built on a mind/body dualism that privileges the former over the latter. Feminist writing on the body has thrown the Cartesian separation of the two into question. Explicit inclusion of gendered/ sexed and sexualized bodies in tourism research problematizes this dualism, thereby subverting the masculinism of tourism discourse. Keywords: the body, feminist theories, gay pride parades, sexualities, events. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Âsume Â: Les (autres) corps et les Âetudes de tourisme. Les reÂsultats des recherches sur deux Re de®leÂs de la Gay Pride en Nouvelle-ZeÂlande et en Australie sont preÂsenteÂs pour deÂmontrer que la theÂorie sociale critique au sujet de la repreÂsentation du corps peut fournir de nouvelles ideÂes et des possibiliteÂs stimulantes pour la recherche en tourisme. Les Âetudes de tourisme ont tendance aÁ produire des connaissances heÂgeÂmoniques, deÂsincarneÂes et masculinistes. Les sciences sociales ont Âete ÂechafaudeÂes sur un dualisme esprit/corps qui privileÁge l'esprit sur le corps. Les Âecrits feÂministes sur le corps ont remis en question la seÂparation carteÂsienne du corps et de l'esprit. L'inclusion explicite des corps sexueÂs et Âs dans la recherche en tourisme rend probleÂmatique ce dualisme et bouleverse ainsi sexualise Âs: corps, theÂories feÂministes, de®leÂs de la le masculinisme du discours du tourisme. Mots-cle Gay Pride, sexualiteÂs, ÂeveÂnements. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The following newspaper report from the Sydney Morning Herald compares and contrasts two separate tourism spectacles: the Chinese New Year celebrations in Hong Kong and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. The latter appears to be an exceptional tourism event: As Susan (middle-aged British visitor) said to her husband Peter (ditto) at the start of Saturday night's cavalcade of camp, ``it's good to have a bit of color in life, isn't it?'' . . . They were in Hong Kong for Chinese New Year in January to see 30-story skyscrapers [sic ] lit in electric hues. But it was nothing like this. Nothing like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (Hill 1998:1).

Lynda Johnston is a social/cultural geography lecturer in the Department of Geography at the University of Edinburgh (Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK. Email < [email protected] >). She completed her PhD at the University of Waikato (New Zealand). Her main research interests include the intersections of feminist and poststructuralist thought, in particular focusing on gendered/sexed and sexualized embodiment and tourism.

180

LYNDA JOHNSTON

181

This statement highlights the reponse of many tourists at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. Susan and Peter cheered, roared, and shrieked on whistles as this 1998 parade passed through the streets (Hill 1998). The spectacle of bodies on parade for tourists to ``gaze'' at, is an obvious starting point to discuss the tensions and possiblities of bodies and tourism studies. Gay pride parades provide an opportunity to deconstruct acts of tourism, pleasure, and politics lived through the bodies involved. The ``matter'' of subjectivities is under consideration here. Tourism studies, and most social research, tends to base its research on a universalized, contained, rational, and self-knowing subject. In an attempt to uncover the complexities of subjectivities in tourism research, sociologists Soile Veijola and Eeva Jokinen ask if it is possible to theorize ``embodiment, radical Otherness, multiplicity of differences, sex and sexuality in tourism?'' (1994:129). This paper responds to their question in two ways. First, it recognizes that the study of tourism within the social sciences has been built on Western hierarchical dualisms and tends to produce hegemonic, disembodied, and masculinist knowledge. Furthermore, the mind and body are usually conceptualized as a dualism which is gendered/sexed and sexualized (Johnston 1996). Too often tourism research is presented as methodologically precise and statistically impeccable but otherwise disembodied. One of the central dichotomies is Self/Other. Tourism can be theorized as the powerful manufacturer of the exotic (Rossel 1988) and a commodi®er of cultures (Greenwood 1978) which constructs ``Others''. The relationship between power, meaning, and knowledge within tourism has been given some attention in postmodern accounts of tourism. ``A neglected part of the postmodern project'' (Johnson 1989:134), however, has been to acknowledge the importance of feminist and critical social theory on embodiment. One such theorist, Elizabeth Grosz (1994) is concerned with the processes of embodied subjectivities as they evolve temporally and spatially. Her work is central to this paper. Second, by way of illustrating the empirical possibilities of an embodied account of tourism, a study is offered of gendered/sexed and sexualized bodies as part of two speci®c tourism hallmark events: the HERO Parade, Aotearoa/New Zealand's biggest gay pride parade, and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. The latter is an internationally famous event (Carbery 1995). The HERO Parade, now a similar event to the one in Sydney, has its origins as a project to raise funds for gay men living with HIV/AIDS. The name ``HERO'' validates the courage people have while living with HIV/AIDS. The name also incorporates both male and female genders. A focus of gendered/sexed and sexualized embodiment foregrounds subjectivity as always fractured and multiple, and contests hierarchical dualisms such as mind/body, Self/Other, gender/ sex, tourist/host and straight/gay.

182

THE BODY AND TOURISM

MIND/BODY DUALISMS IN TOURISM STUDIES Dualistic thinking has been present throughout the history of Western philosophy and has been the focus of many philosophers since Socrates (Derrida 1981; Foucault 1970; Nietzsche 1967, 1969). From the beginnings of philosophical thought, femaleness was symbolically associated with what reason supposedly left behind . . . malenss remained associated with a clear, determinate mode of thought, femaleness with the vague and indeterminate (Lloyd 1993:2±3).

The determinate, rational world was aligned, in Plato's universe, with ``form'', that is, the knowability of the objective world. The indeterminate was aligned with unknowable ``matter'' or nature. In early Greek philosophy, then, a bond between knowledge and rationality was established. This bond persists. According to Grosz (1989) dualisms are part of a continuous spectrum that has been divided into self-contained elements which exist in opposition to each other. Grosz suggests that ``when the system of boundaries or divisions operates by means of the construction of binaries or pairs of opposed terms, these terms are not only mutually exclusive, but also mutually exhaustive'' (Grosz 1989:xvi). It is important to highlight here that the two sides of the dualism are not unrelated. If one side is represented by ``A'', then its opposite will be a conceptualizaion of what A is not, such as Aÿ. The sides of the dualism, therefore, have an epistemological relation. This is a mode of knowing in which A has a positive status and only exists in relation to its Other. The ``other term is purely negatively de®ned, and has no contours of its own; its limiting boundaries are those which de®ne the positive term'' (1989:xvi). The classic examples, in relation to a study of gay pride parades, are that the terms ``Man'' and ``heterosexual'' have positive identities, while ``Woman'' (or not-Man) and ``homosexual'' (or not-heterosexual) have negative identities. This ``crisis of reason'' (Grosz 1993:187) has forced social scientists to examine critically the production of knowledge and to question founding epistemological assumptions. The mind/body dualism has important associations with reason and masculinity. Grosz argues that the mind has been traditionally associated with positive terms such as ``reason, subject, consciousness, interiority, and masculinism''. The body, however, has been negatively associated with ``passion, object, consciousness, exteriority, and femininism'' (Grosz 1989:xiv). This Western rationalist tradition entails a radical separation of mind and body that accords primacy to the mind. Lloyd (1993:2) claims that ``from the beginnings of philosophical thought, femaleness was symbolically associated with what reason supposedly left behindÐthe dark powers of earth goddesses, immersion in unknown forces associated with mysterious female power''. It is necessary to ``examine the subordinated, negative, or excluded term body as the unacknowledged condition of the dominant term, reason'' (Grosz 1995:32, emphasis in the original). One strategy available to

LYNDA JOHNSTON

183

social scientists is to examine the role embodiment has to play in the production and evaluation of knowledges. Veijola and Jokinen (1994) have begun a critical engagement with the gendered nature of the mind/body dualism within tourism studies. This work provides an important context within which to evaluate the construction of disembodied and masculinist knowledge. Longhurst argues that one way to subvert the ``hegemony that masculinity has over this knowledge, may be to create an upheaval of the dominant/subordinate structure of the relation between the mind and body'' (1995:97). Johnson asserts that ``instead of seeing the body as distinct from the mind, tied to a ®xed essence or reduced to naturalistic explanations, it can be viewed as the primary object of social production and inscription'' (1989:134). Bodies and their functions tend to be perceived as ``natural'' phenomena, as ``raw material'', that is, non- or pre-social. Yet, according to Grosz, ``the body'' cannot be regarded as purely a social, cultural, and signifying effect ``lacking in its own weighty materiality'' (1994:21). She offers a de®nition of the body, claiming: By body I understand a concrete, material, animate organization of ¯esh, nerves, muscles, and skeletal structure which are given unity, cohesiveness, and organization only through their psychical and social inscription as the surface and raw materials of an integrated and cohesive totality . . . The body becomes a human body, a body which coincides with the `shape' and space of a psyche, a body whose epidermic surface bounds a psychical unity, a body which thereby de®nes the limits of experience and subjectivity (1992:242; emphasis in the original).

This de®nition sketches the possibilities of what a body might be, but the ``matter'' of the body remains elusive and problematic. For gendered/sexed and sexualized bodies are not ®xed by nature, nor completely culturally constructed. ``The sexed body is not simply there, ready and waiting, for us to examine'' (Cream 1995:31). An analysis of gay pride parades cannot ignore the ``real'' and exposed ¯esh which is explicitly gendered/sexed and sexualized. Othering Bodies Tourism studies have tended to render the bodies and places of the tourist gaze as exotic ``Others''. Tourism is constructed through difference, the exotic, recreation, and displacement. Urry argues that ``Tourism results from a basic binary division between the ordinary-everyday and the extraordinary'' (1990a:11). Thus, the study of tourism is de®ned through hierarchical oppositions such as Self/Other, tourist/host, same/different, work/play. These opposing terms are never neutral. The positive term is valued over and above the negative one. There is much potential to examine the gendered nature of these dichotomies. However, dominant discourses have constructedÐfor the most partÐa masculine view of tourism as a product of waged labor classes in (post)industrial societies (Craik

184

THE BODY AND TOURISM

1997). Of several assumptions built into this view, the most obvious is that research frequently leaves unexamined the differences of women's and men's experiences as tourists. The non-gendered/nonsexed ``tourist'' becomes masculine by default. If, instead, the gendered/sexed body is made explicit then the ``illusion that they [tourists] represent humanity in general is destroyed'' (Jokinen and Veijola 1997:36). The tourism researcher has also been given universal status. There are important connections between Western rationality and the right to know. It has been argued that ``an assumption of an objectivity untainted by any particular social position'' or speci®cally gendered/sexed body, allows masculinist rationality ``to claim itself as universal'' (Rose 1993:7). Veijola and Jokinen maintain that: judged by the discursive postures given to the writing subject of most of the analyses, the analyst himself has, likewise, lacked a body. Only the mind, free from bodily and social subjectivity, is presented as having been at work when analyzing ®eld experiences, which have taken place from the distance required by the so-called scienti®c objectivity (1994:149; emphasis in the original).

The tourism studies analyst becomes, what Donna Haraway (1991) would call, the master subject (in other words, the dominant subject constituted as white, bourgeois, masculine, and heterosexual) no where to be found in actual texts or the ``®eld''. While still remaining somewhat distant from their research, tourism analysts are critically engaging with the social effects on host communities surrounding festivals, or hallmark events (Hall 1992; Olds 1988; Roche 1990, 1991). These social impacts, however, tend to be focused on employment, housing, infrastructurual changes, and community identity. These studies begin to bring the Other into tourism research, but they also reconstitute the hierarchical relationships of dominant discourses. For instance, Hall discusses prostitution and crime as undesirable side-effects of special events. These bodies are discursively constructed as deviant and are further Othered by the researcher. Referring to a particular special event, Hall (1992) also discusses the ``hoon effect'' of the Adelaide Grand Prix. The ``hoon effect'' is ``a reckless, irresponsible driver . . . who may or may not have been encouraged by the staging of the Grand Prix'' (Fisher, Hatch and Paix 1986:152). It is important to note here that the driver, not surprisingly, remains unsexed. If attention is paid to the masculinism of the hoon effect, then there is opportunity to make explicit dominant discourses of, for example, masculine-as-aggressive/feminine-as-passive. The marking-out and Othering of particular ``host'' bodies in these texts is in contrast with the (usually) disembodied ``gazing'' tourist. Recent research on tourism phenomena has suggested that tourism must be seen as part of a postmodern valorization of surface (Cohen 1995; MacCannell 1992; Roszak 1986; Selwyn 1990, 1996). Hence, tourism destinations are being theorized as fragmented collages of facts, clicheÂs, nature, and history intertwined with entertainments of spectacle and carnival (Cloke and Perkins 1998).

LYNDA JOHNSTON

185

Academic work on postmodernism and tourism has tended to use the phenomenon as a way of validating and celebrating difference and liminality. Tourism is being discussed in terms of creating marginal places and these liminal places are being privileged as sites of radical possibilities, away from the oppressive spaces/places of modernity. Places on the margins, however, can also be spaces of powerlessness where, once again, the place becomes more central than the bodies which exist in that place. Shields' (1991) work is one such example, which celebrates marginal places and Others the body in the process. He discusses the British sea-side resort of Brighton, which is a ``place on the margin'' because of its reputation as a destination for the (heterosexual) ``dirty weekend'' (1991:73). However, Binnie has charged Shields with being unaware that Brighton is also a particular liminal space for gay men, lesbians, and queerbashers (1997:226). He argues that gay men are constructed as passive victims in Shields' narrative and inextricably linked to AIDS, thus rendering gay males deviant. Gay men's bodies become mere containers or vectors for HIV/AIDS (see also Brown 1995). Clearly then, at work in Shields' (1991) postmodern liminal spaces of Brighton is the marginality and invisibility of the Other: gay male and lesbian bodies. The notion of liminal postmodern spaces has been taken up by other tourism writers. There are a number of sociological authors who discuss postmodern tourism (especially Urry 1988, 1990a,b, 1992) and others who have theorized post-tourism and post-tourists (Feifer 1985). The hyperreal world of the French semiotician, Baudrillard (1988), inspired by his travels to North America (Eco 1986), has established ``the quintessential postmodern tourism experience'' (Munt 1994:101). Cultural meanings of shopping malls, theme parks, Disneyland, dockland regeneration, and World Fairs have been theorized as fundamental to the restructuring of capitalism and postmodern cultural shifts (Featherstone 1991; Harvey 1989; Levine 1987; Shields 1988; Urry 1990a; Walker 1991). Ironically, the simulated environment of Disneyland is now being viewed as an essentialized and authentic American cultural product. Although created for commercial touristic purposes, Disneyland over time became an American cultural landmark. Despite its `contrived' origins, it acquired a measure of `authenticity' . . . The analysis of the structure and the symbolism of Disneyland has disclosed its deep structural meaning in American culture (Cohen 1995:16).

In other words, the contrived postmodern landscape of Disneyland has acquired recognizable and dominant meanings which can be read by tourists. The common thread in these writings on postmodern tourism is that of simulated environments. Zukin (1991) and Soja (1992) are geographers working with hyperreal spaces and, interestingly, Gregory (1994) has critiqued their texts for being disembodied. He argues that ``in odysseys through postmodern spaces and over post-

186

THE BODY AND TOURISM

modern landscapes they [Zukin and Soja] have alsoÐand less accountablyÐlost sight of Lefebvre's de®ant insistence on the body as the site of resistance'' (1994:157±159). This is another example of a focus on place and the denial of bodies. There are other binary divisions emerging in tourism studies that work to produce disembodied knowledge, including the gender/sex division. The term gender is historically speci®c. Gender was developed in contrast to the term sex, to depict that which is socially constructed as opposed to biologically given. They were understood to be distinct (Nicholson 1990). In 1968, the psychologist Stoller argued that a person's gender identity is primarily the result of psychological in¯uences. One's biological sex signi®es, but does not determine, the appropriate gender identity for that person. In the 70s feminists began to utilize this gender/sex distinction to make political ground. Women began to argue persuasively that gender was a culturally constructed notion that varied across time and place. The introduction of the distinction was seen as a political attempt to intervene into the Western world that declared women as ``different'' because of their biology, their sex. It held out the ``promise of enabling an analysis of male privilege as the product of historically and culturally constituted systems of gender inequality, not as the natural outcome of biological differences between males and females'' (Yanagiasako and Collier 1990:131). The gender/sex distinction is murky. ``It is not clear how one can eliminate the effects of (social) gender to see the contributions of (biological) sex'' (Grosz 1994:18). This bodily uncertainty can create political opportunities for destablizing the mind/body dualism. Some feminist theorists in tourism studies have argued that dualisms such as private/public and home/abroad are gendered (Enloe 1989; Morris 1988a,b; Wolff 1995). There has been discussion of body images that are frequently used to sell holidays, destinations, and events. Travel brochures ironically represent prospective holidaymakers in idealized settings: the sun and sea are golden, the sky is blue, and the tourists semi-naked, bronzed, and relaxed (Marshment 1997). Bodies of scantily clad ``natives'' are suggestive of exotic places and people. Enloe argues that the desire to know another place is con¯ated, in the tourist imagination, with women ``as the quintessence of the exotic . . . something to be experienced'' (1989:28). The dominant position of spectatorship has been a masculine one (Doane 1990; Mulvey 1975), irrespective of the gender/ sex of the spectator. The dominant imagination could be understood as reinforcing the connections between the feminine and the body. For example: Predominant tourism brochure representations of men [are] associated with action, power, and ownership, while women are associated with passivity, availability, and being owned. From this perspective, uses of women, sexual imagery, and exotic markers in the tourism industry to market destinations are seen to often reinforce stereotypes and hierarchical divisions of labor. Host societies differentiated by race/ethnicity, colonial past, or social

LYNDA JOHNSTON

187

position from the consumer societies are sold feminized images (Swain 1995:249).

Gender in tourism studies is gaining wider readership. For example, in 1995 Annals of Tourism Research devoted a special issue to gender in tourism. Kinnaird and Hall (1994) use the term gender as an understood and unde®ned category. What is notable about these works is their concentration on the social construction of gender, in ways which reinforce a division between sex and gender. Swain, in her introduction to the ``Gender in Tourism'' special issue of Annals, strengthens this dichotomy when she argues: ``gender is, therefore, quite distinct from biological differences between the sexes, and is the basis of both women's subordination and potential change toward equality between women and men'' (1995:247). She does, however, encourage researchers to move beyond the ``add gender and stir approach'' and refers to the work of Veijola and Jokinen (1994) on the body and tourism: There is no escaping the authors' gender nor its signi®cance in how they theorize tourism. Their culturally constructed socially contained femininity raises the questions they pose to their ®ctionalized companions on a Finnish style vacation to Mallorca. For Veijola and Jokinen, `the body' is emblematic of what is missing in universalizing social sciences theories in general and in tourism studies speci®cally (1995:256).

This work is an important starting point. Questions of embodiment are raised, but neither the special issue on gender, nor Swain's introduction elaborate on the body as a potential site of resistance in discourses of tourism studies. These efforts have unwittingly repeated the privileging of the mind over the body, thereby raising other problems: ``the omission of the body as a vital element in the constitution of masculine and feminine identity and the consignment of those who argue for a corporeal feminism . . . into the nether world of biological essentialism'' (Johnson 1990:18). The gendered/sexed and sexualized body become denied and Othered in tourism studies' accounts of gender. Homosexuality, gay or queer bodies have largely been excluded from the discourse. Much of what has been written tends to de®ne gay tourism through economic possibilities (the pink pound/dollar), thus further Othering and denying queer bodies (Holcomb and Luongo 1996; Torres-Kitamura 1997; Time Magazine 1995). Elsewhere, ``homosexuals'' appear unproblematically in the sex tourism and HIV/AIDS literature (Cohen 1988)Ðbut see Bravmann (1994) who discusses the places of Lesbos and Greece in gay and lesbian tourism imaginations; and Binnie (1995) who examines the importance of Amsterdam as a gay mecca for international gay tourists; and Hughes (1997a,b) for a discussion on gay (male) identity and the spaces of tourism. Pritchard, Morgan, Sedgely and Jenkins have identi®ed a ``gay gap'' in tourism literature. They attempt to raise ``some issues surrounding gay tourism, gay destinations and gay space'' (1998:280).

188

THE BODY AND TOURISM

The authors acknowledge the heterosexuality of public spaces but tend to essentialize ``gay'' identity as a singular and static subjectivity. Their article is directed at the tourism industry and mainly focuses on economic factors, for instance: It seems likely that more and more marketers will seek to court the gay consumer. While actively targeting the gay market as potential customers may not be relevant or sensible for all in the tourism industry, it will become increasingly important for it to avoid negative stereotypes and unwitting offensiveness. As more and more gay people come out, the average consumer is increasingly likely to know a gay man or lesbian woman (1998:280).

There are several hegemonic assumptions in this advice for tourism marketers. The average consumer here is constructed as heterosexual. A gay man or a lesbian woman, however, is marked as the Other. The binary between hetero/homo remains ®xed. The authors have not theorized the shifting complexities of embodiment, sexuality, or subjectivity. If academics wish to ``materialize'' gay and lesbian tourism, it must be balanced by a critical re¯ection on what the bodily identities gay and lesbian mean, especially in particular places. The matter of the body has not escaped Veijola and Jokinen (1994). They argue for the inclusion of the body and critique various theoreticians as producers of disembodied knowledge, such as Krippendorf (1987), MacCannell (1989), Rojek (1993), and Urry (1990a). Veijola and Jokinen argue that ``the tourist has lacked a body because the analyses have tended to concentrate on the gaze and/or structures and dynamics of waged labor societies'' (1994:149). They draw on the work of feminist poststructuralist writers such as Butler (1990) and Game (1991) to identify the importance of gendered/sexed embodiment to the study of tourism. Veijola and Jokinen (1994) bring into tension the gender/sex and social constructionism/essentialism dichotomies by beginning with the ``real'' body. For example, at one point in their tourist journey at the beach they remark: At that moment, a wet and gritty ball lands in the middle of us, followed by ¯uent international apologies. I turn around, annoyed, to inform the intruder about the unwritten rules on public beaches, but fall silent again when facing a naked manÐor to be precise, his sex, which is not socially constructed (Veijola and Jokinen 1994:140; emphasis in the original).

Feminist philosopher, Kirby challenges the matter of the body as universally taken-for-granted in Western knowledge, and so begins a series of what she calls ``dumb questions'' about what the body might be (1997:2±4). Kirby (1997) uses the Hindu ritual of thaipusam to illustrate that the matter of the body is not straight-forward. Tourists at this ritual become astonished voyeurs at the spectacle of a man's body, grotesquely impaled on elaborate metal spokes which are driven into the skin and organs of his body. His hands, face, lips, and neck are also skewered with long spikes. Kirby notes that:

LYNDA JOHNSTON

189

this man does not bleed, nor does he scar . . . However, this cultural/ritual in-corporation is not generalizable, for it does not extend to the bodies of tourists, or even other members of the devotee's own community who might witness the festival (1997:3).

Here Kirby suggests that the cultural context that surrounds a body can also come to inhabit it. At gay pride parades, the paraders are impaled, in a sense, by the tourist's gaze. Unlike the religious rituals of Kirby's example, a pride parade has the purpose of secular display. It may not, however, be any more accessible to the watching tourists than an extreme religious ritual. The cultural context of ``queerness'' surrounds and arguably inhabits the paraders, but to some extent also extends to the bodies of the watching tourists. Despite Kirby's claim that ritual incorporation is not generalizable, bodies involved in the tourism process do undergo change. Äeda argues that Castan the tourist attempts to rede®ne their body in contrast to the Other's Body and to rede®ne it in order to attach it with the category of Self that is being upheld and which can only be seen through the re¯exive play of the Other, as a category and as Body (cited in Veijola and Jokinen 1994:147).

Äeda's analyses is a concern for the body and Fundamental to Castan the ``spatiotemporal order of the activities through which tourism exists'' (1996:213). Research which includes the Other (that is those people de®ned as homosexual, poor, Black, diseased, working class, and so on) is an important starting point for re-theorizing. The next step, however, is to focus on an unsettling of the dominant/subordinate structure between mind and body, or between heterosexual and homosexual, thereby challenging the masculinism of tourism studies. Focusing attention on the gendered/sexed and sexualized bodies of gay pride parades can prompt new understandings of power, knowledge, and social relationships between bodies and tourism processes. Tourism Embodied The Self/Other dichotomy is evident at gay pride parades. Speci®cally, Auckland's HERO Parade and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade are tourism sites which exaggerate and upset Western hierarchical dualisms. This paper began with a middle-aged British tourist Susan and her husband Peter as one example of the Self±tourist/Other±host dichotomy as it is played out on their bodies at the two parades. These tourists clearly marked themselves as heterosexual (distinguishing themselves as married) or Self, rather than face possible consequences of being marked out as homosexual or Other. This paper will draw on empirical examples of host bodies as Other and tourist bodies as Self, and the ways these categories are upheld and unsettled at gay pride parades. The methods used to collect qualitative data on the 1996 HERO Parade were focus groups and individual in-depth interviews with

190

THE BODY AND TOURISM

parade participants and organizers. Further, participant observation at this parade workshop was carried out for six weeks in advance. A brief questionnaire was distributed to tourists on the night of the parade (February 17, 1996). During the 1996 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade questionnaires were also distributed. At the 1997 and 1998 events, participant observation was also carried out. Newspaper texts have been collected and analyzed since the ®rst parade in 1994. In what follows these data are used to describe some of the discourses that surround gay pride parades and examine some of the implications of these discourses in terms of the relationship between parade participants (hosts) and watching tourists. The parades are held annually around the months of February and March. These are distinct from most northern hemisphere parades, which are held annually around the months of June and July. Northern hemisphere parades are, for the most part, marches. Members of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities march to commemorate the New York Stonewall riots of June 1969. These riots of®cially established the beginning of the gay liberation movement. Born out of these riots, gay pride parades made public the previously private bodies of gays and lesbians. Pride, visibility, and protest are the dominant discourses which construct nothern hemisphere parades. HERO and Mardi Gras are predominantly constructed around ideas of performance and entertainment, as well as protest. These parades are held at night and involve elaborate ¯oats, costumes, and dance performances. The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parades attract around 800,000 spectators and the parade takes approximately four hours to pass through the streets. On a smaller scale, Auckland's HERO Parade attracts around 200,000 onlookers who pack both sides of the street (Moore 1996:3). Gay pride parades do not simply (and uncontestedly) inscribe streets as queer, they actively produce queer streets (Bell and Valentine 1995). Parades can be read as public deconstructive spatial tactics, a queering of the street. According to Duncan, ``Gay Pride parades, public protests, performance art, and street theater as well as overtly homosexual behaviour such as kissing in public'' (1996:139) upset unarticulated norms. Duncan believes that lesbian and gay practicesÐif they are made explicitÐhave the potential to denaturalize the heterosexuality of public places. The spatial tactics of gay pride parades are also ``crisis points in the normal functioning of `everyday' experiences'' (Cresswell 1996, cited in Duncan 1996:139). Normative heterosexual geographies become explicit only when homosexual geographies become explicit. Valentine argues that ``Pride marches achieve much more than just visibility, they also challenge the production of everyday spaces as heterosexual'' (1996:152). HEROÐthe month-long festival of gay events, the parade, and the partyÐhas been strategically scheduled to occur just two weeks prior to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The timing is im-

LYNDA JOHNSTON

191

portant because both events attract international tourists. One Auckland tour operator, who caters to the gay market, exclaimed: There are gay people who spend their life partying and they go to HERO and then they go to Mardi Gras, and then they might go up to something in the States. And that's quite normal to do that, and just party all year. You know, go away and basically go to parties on holiday, but the party is the attraction (in-depth interview).

One would think that the majority of international tourists to HERO and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras would be gay. The majority of domestic tourists, however, are straight, as explained by an operator: People will say to you that ``no one can put a party on like a poofter''. So, you know, straight people love gay parties. They, they love HERO. And they love Mardi Gras. And generally most people I would send to Mardi Gras would be gay. . . . But there are straight people that go over with their gay friends and have a good time over there. A lot of people go over to Mardi Gras to the parade, and the excitement, and the events and the shows, and theater and everything else associated with it. Um, there are certainly party animals in the straight community who are very attracted to gay parties because they're always well done (in-depth interview, emphasis in original).

Therefore, Gay Pride parades and parties have a reputation of ``being well done'', or, in other words, well organized, well performed, and risqueÂ. Such a reputation reinforces and spectacularizes the HERO and the Sydney Mardi Gras Parades. Some of the ¯oats in the HERO Parade have been particularly challenging to the heteronormativity of public space. Auckland City Councillor and Deputy Mayor (quoted in the Sunday Star Times 1994:A5), described some of the ``inappropriate'' bodies of the ®rst 1994 Queen Street HERO Parade. A whole lot of men that had G-strings on and nothing much else, and bare-topped women, and just a lot of sights that I don't think are suitable for Auckland.

The Deputy Mayor's opposition to the parade constructs the participants as ``Others'', as deviant ``bodies'', while the watching tourists of Auckland are constructed as the ``Self'' or the dominant straight ``mind'' of Auckland (Johnston 1997). The queer bodies in the parade become Othered by the tourists at the roadside. It is useful here to highlight some of the responses in the tourists' questionnaire. In the 118 questionnaires that were (randomly) distributed and retrieved on the night of the 1996 HERO Parade, 90 people identi®ed as heterosexual (76%), 18 as gay male (15%), three as lesbian (2.5%), three as bisexual (2.5%) and four (3%) did not specify their sexuality. The 35 questionnaires distributed at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras con®rmed similar pro®les, an overwhelmingly heterosexual-identi®ed spectatorship.

192

THE BODY AND TOURISM

This trend of heterosexuals attending gay pride parades, particularly the Sydney event, has been noted elsewhere. According to Bell and Valentine, It seems that the construction of Pride marches for a straight [tourist] spectator audience is becoming a very important issue for marches in the US and, judging by some footage of Mardi Gras shown on British TV recently, in Australia too (look at who's watching the parade) (1995:26, emphasis in the original).

HERO, according to its Director, has always been constructed for the ``straight'' tourist spectator: Well, the parade is basically put on for the straight community when it comes down to it. Like a hundred thousand people there, I don't know, 5,000 would be gay? . . . Ah, so it's for straights and that's ®ne. I don't think we should have a problem with that at all. We should encourage it (in-depth interview).

Parade participants are de®ned by their particular embodiment. They are marked and inscribed as the visible Other. One participant, Josie, described her desired ``look'': I kind of want to dress all sex kitten, cutesy and lollypop. I want to wear a pink rubber `70s style bikini with long false eyelashes, pink eyes, lips, and nailsÐall shiny and glittery. It will be gorgeous. I would like to show a bit of ¯esh . . . I just want to be all out sexy to everyone (individual interview).

There were many HERO entries that used their bodies as sites of (sexual) subversion. For example, ``Miss Kitty and Friends'' consisted of a six-foot-six drag queen with two men on dog leads dressed as poodles. The ``Salon Kitty'' entry focused on rubber/latex fetishes and dressing for pleasure. Parade entries which were most controversial reinforced the dichotomy between heterosexual and homosexual, or tourists and hosts. Consider the following participation/observation notes the author made after watching the 1997 HERO Parade: ``There are some normal people in the parade, there are some normal people in the parade, you know, straight people. It's not all gay'' (said one woman to the man who was watching the parade with her). . . . ``OhÐwhatÐthat's sexually dysfunctional'' (said a man as he watched a lesbian bondage and domination performance) (emphasis in the original). These comments can be interpreted as the (heterosexual) tourists' attempt to reconstruct gay hosts' bodies as deviant and Other. At the same time, the tourists establish themselves as ``normal'' or as heterosexual: the Self. This oppositional relationship between Self and Other can be further explained by Young: When the dominant culture de®nes some group as different, as Other, the members of those groups are imprisoned in their bodies. Dominant discourse de®nes them in terms of bodily characteristics (1990:123).

Becoming imprisoned in one's body, violently reasserts a border between mind and body. At a tourist event such as the HERO

LYNDA JOHNSTON

193

Parade or the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade, the implications are that hosts and tourists remain in a dichotomous and hierarchical relationship. Border Anxiety Young (1990) uses the concept of cultural imperialism to examine general forms of group oppression and violence. Cultural imperialism works to keep a group invisible at the same time it is marked out and stereotyped. The most visible Others, for example, women, Blacks, disabled people, can be clearly marked out as different from the dominant white, male subject. However, a border anxiety is present when the Other is least visible. Young argues that ``homophobia is one of the deepest fears of difference precisely because the border between gay and straight is constructed as the most permeable; anyone at all can become gay'' (1990:146). The border is most threatening when the gay body cannot be told apart from the straight body. Only when gay bodies are clearly marked as different, as in gay pride parades, does this border become visible and thus less threatening to the dominant culture. This may be one reason why attending gay pride parades has become so popular. A clearly marked border between gay (parade participants) and straight (tourists) was maintained at the roadside through the use of road markings, parade ``of®cials'' and police. This border was illustrated in many questionnaire responses. At the roadside (behind the barrier) one respondent (self-identi®ed as male, 36±45, New Zealand European/Pakeha, self-employed, heterosexual) had come to the HERO Parade to ``have a look'', and de®ned it as a tourism event because ``It's strange, a freak show and a laugh if you're straight''. This response can be read as not only an attempt to mark the parade participants as different from the dominant white, heterosexual subject, but also to mark the parade bodies as ``freaks''. Several responses from tourists illustrated a desire to maintain a border between straight±tourist and gay±host. For example, ``Alternos deserve to have their lifestyles exposed a bitÐmakes us more comfortable'' (male, 46±55, Other European/ UK, heterosexual). Clearly, this response exaggerates a dichotomy between heterosexuals (``us'') and homosexuals (``alternos''). The choice of words tends to normalize heterosexuals and to construct homosexuals as Other and as deviant. ``Makes us more comfortable'' can be read as the dominant subjects of heterosexuality granting permission for the event to be held. The parades are, supposedly, a ``comfortable'' way to see gay bodies. Other responses indicate a voyeuristic fascination: ``to watch the strange people and to check out fashion'' (male, 26±35, New Zealand Maori, student, heterosexual); ``to perve'' (female, 26±35, technician, heterosexual); ``have a look, entertainment'' (male, 36±45, manager, New Zealand European/ Pakeha, heterosexual); and ``out of curiosity'' (female, 46±55, New Zealand European/Pakeha, credit manager, heterosexual); and

194

THE BODY AND TOURISM

``have a look, to see it ®rst hand'' (male, 26±35, New Zealand European/Pakeha, ®reman, heterosexual). Tourists' expectations of gay pride parades establish their fascination with, and Othering of, queer bodies. Some of the tourists' expectations and motivations to attend the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade were similiar: ``for fun and to see something different'' (male, 36±45, Chinese, student, heterosexual); ``because I know it is a very good attraction and very interesting'' (female, 15± 25, Indonesian, student, heterosexual); and ``to see all the exciting people'' (female, 15±25, Australian, clerk, straight). There were many ¯oats that directly emphasized ``deviance'' and hence the perceived threat that queerness poses to social order. The ``Demon Float'' and ``Salon Kitty'', which is a bondage and sado-masochism ¯oat described as ``Rubber/Latex fetish: Dressing for pleasure'', both challenged the heteronormative notions of acceptable sexual desire and pleasure through their displays of sado-masochism. The ``New Zealand Prostitutes Collective'' brought the bodies of illicit sex workers into public view. The TransPride ¯oat challenged the authenticity of rhetoric about two genders/sexes. ``Miss Kitty and Friends'', which consisted of a sixfoot-six-tall drag queen with two men on dog leads dressed as poodles, provided an animated debate about sexuality, bestiality, and gender/sex roles. The penis/phallus was made public by the ``Safe Sex: No Ifs, No Butts'' ¯oat which consisted of a large revolving polystyrene penis and eight dancing men and two women whipping each other. Of course, there were tourists who believed the HERO Parade and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade were important for homosexual identity. These responses tended to disrupt the border between straight and gay, tourist and host, mind and body. Disrupting the Border Responses that exempli®ed support and pride, especially from those tourists who identi®ed as gay, disrupted Self/Other and mind/ body dichotomies. These included ``celebratory'' remarks such as ``to celebrate gay pride and my own sexuality'' (female, 26±35, Australian, clerk, lesbian); or ``to celebrate what I am, to be with friends, to have fun and be happy, and to ®nd a man'' (male, 15±25, box of®ce manager, Australian, gay). There were also transgressive responses that linked citizenship and homosexual identity. The effect of these can be read as constructing a type of queer (Australian) nation, including ``to grasp the wonderful atmosphereÐto be a proud AustralianÐto be part of a great moment'' (female, 15±25, Australian, student, lesbian); or ``to celebrate democracy and one nation working and playing together'' (male, 36±45, public relations consultant, bisexual). Another response subversively sexualizes institutional discourses of (Christian) holidays, when she states: ``Because Mardi Gras is for

LYNDA JOHNSTON

195

queers what Xmas is for heterosexuals'' (female, 26±35, library assistant, Anglo-Australian, lesbian). Another example which disrupts the Self±tourist/Other±host dichotomy is the Rainbow Youth ¯oat in the 1996 Auckland HERO event. This parade entry undermines and jeopardizes dualistic thinking. Contained on the ¯oat were young people dressed in various Auckland high school uniforms. Their banner read: ``We're Here, We're Queer, We're in Your Classroom''. Their school uniforms marked their bodies as Self, not as Other. Tourists at the HERO Parade, intent on consuming the Other, have this desire disrupted. Rainbow Youth discussed their parade objectives in a focus group interview. Renee: I think that's why, it's basically why I think it's a good idea. We're getting out there and part of, our ¯oat is that we're all dressed in school uniforms and our banners like ``We're Here, We're Queer, We're in Your Classroom'', kind of thing . . . and it lets people know that, that we are in the classrooms and also for people who might be watching who are queer, it's quite good to know that there are other people out there going through the same thing. Lynda: Yeah. A lot of the people going in the parade dress up to be really outrageous. So it's quite ironic that you're putting on, um, you know uniforms to be like regular life out there. It's a really nice kind of twist to the whole parade. Steve: The other thing is that the very fact that we are wearing uniforms is in its own way outrageous . . . In some ways, um, the point, the point of our ¯oat is to shock people a little bit . . . It's to wake them up and say ``were here'' and in that respect it is going to be quite outrageous . . . Um, it'll be interesting to see people's reactions when they see their school uniform (focus group interview, emphasis added).

Steve's remark highlights the possible border anxiety of the Self/ Other relationship between parade participants of the Rainbow Youth ¯oat and the roadside tourists. However, a ¯oat representing the Self, such as the Rainbow Youth ¯oat, upsets and disrupts this dichotomy. Tourists watching may recognize their own, or one of their children's, school uniform. As a consequence, the border between straight/gay, mind/body, Self/Other becomes blurred. The interaction of Rainbow Youth and tourists demands a rethinking of the guests' processes also with respect to the dichotomy of work/ play. Rainbow Youth's ¯oat can also be conceived as representing ``work'' (especially to those involved in education). However, at this tourism event, the Other is represented at work and at play, thus fragmenting the work±mind/play±body dualisms usually upheld by tourism studies analysts (Krippendorf 1987). Gendered/sexed and sexualized bodies of the HERO Parade and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade provide important

196

THE BODY AND TOURISM

contexts from which to discuss various power relations involved in tourism processes. The relationship between parade participants and watching tourists can be theorized as both complicit with dualistic mechanisms of Western thought, and at the same time, contesting hierarchical dualisms.

CONCLUSION Sexually embodying tourism challenges Western constructions of disembodied masculinist knowledge. Tourism studies, like most of the social sciences, has been built upon hierarchical dualisms. An analysis of these dualisms uncovers some of the complexities and power relations involved in tourism processes. Rather than just adding the body to studies, the use of feminist and critical social theory on the body challenges existing conceptions of tourism events. Veijola and Jokinen ask ``how are we going to change our research practises and tourist practices in a way that prevents us from constituting the Other out-side of ourselves?'' (1994:148; emphasis in the original). Investigations would bene®t from the inclusion of the researchers' embodied experiences. In this respect, recognition could be given to the Other within the Self. Writing from one's located and embodied position is one way that may unsettle positivist, rational, and masculinist constructions of tourism researchers. This paper has argued that one way to subvert mind/body and Self/Other dichotomies in tourism practices and in research is ®rst to recognize the hierarchichal relationship of Self (tourist) and Other (host). However, the second strategy is to unsettle mind/body and Self/Other dichomoties. Bringing the gendered/sexed body into tourism epistemologically challenges the distinctions between mind and body, Self and Other, tourist and host. Another implication of embodying studies is that research becomes focused on groups that have been marginalized both in the academy and in tourism processes. Using these ideas to understand the power relationships between tourist and the host participants of the HERO Parade and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade has led to a rede®nition of tourism processes. Rather than conceptualizing tourists and hosts as distinct and separate, these bodies become (re)sexualized through these touristic events. Attention to the (sexed, sexualized, raced, (dis)abled, etc.) embodied in processes of tourism events and practices has much potential and there is room for much more research in this area. It then becomes possible to theorize ``embodiment, radical Otherness, multiplicity of differences, sex and sexuality in tourism'' (Veijola and Jokinen 1994:129).& Acknowledgments ÐAppreciation is extended to Robyn Longhurst, Robin Peace, Jon Binnie, and Karen Nairn for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper.

LYNDA JOHNSTON

197

REFERENCES Baudrillard, J. 1988 America. London: Verso. Bell, D., and G. Valentine 1995 Mapping Desires: Geographies of Sexualities, D. Bell and G. Valentine, eds. London: Routledge. Binnie, J. 1995 Trading Places: Consumption, Sexuality and the Production of Queer Space. In Mapping Desires: Geographies of Sexualities, D. Bell and G. Valentine, eds., pp. 182±199. London: Routledge. 1997 Coming Out of Geography: Towards a Queer Epistemology? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:223±237. Bravmann, S. 1994 The Lesbian and Gay Past: It's all Greek to Whom? Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal in Feminist Geography 1:149±167. Brown, M. 1995 Ironies of Distance: An Ongoing Critique of the Geographies of AIDS. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13:159±183. Butler, J. 1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Carbery, G. 1995 A History of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Parkville, Victoria: Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Äeda, Q. Castan 1991 An ``Archaeology'' of ChicheÂn ItzaÂ: Discourse, Power and Resistance in a Maya Tourist Site. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Albany: State University of New York. 1996 In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring ChicheÂn ItzaÂ. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cloke, P., and H. Perkins 1998 ``Cracking the Canyon of the Awesome Foursome'': Representations of Adventure Tourism in New Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16:185±218. Cohen, E. 1988 Tourism and AIDS in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 15:467±486. 1995 Contemporary Tourism: Trends and ChallengesÐSustainable Authenticity or Contrived Post-Modernity? In Change in Tourism: People, Places and Processes, R. W. Butler and D. G. Pearce, eds., pp. 12±29. London: Routledge. Craik, J. 1997 The Culture of Tourism. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 113±136. London: Routledge. Cream, J. 1995 Re-solving the Riddles: The Sexed Body. In Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities, D. Bell and G. Valentine, eds., pp. 31±40. London: Routledge. Cresswell, T. 1996 In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Derrida, J. 1981 Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Doane, M. 1990 Film and the Masquerade: Theorizing the Female Spectator. In Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, P. Erens, ed., pp. 41±57. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Duncan, N. 1996 Renegotiating Gender and Sexuality in Public and Private Spaces. In BodySpace: Destablizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, N. Duncan, ed., pp. 127±145. London: Routledge.

198

THE BODY AND TOURISM

Eco, U. 1986 Travels in Hyper-Reality. London: Picador. Enloe, C. 1989 Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. London: Pandora. Featherstone, M. 1991 Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage. Feifer, M. 1985 Going Places. London: Macmillan. Fisher, A., J. Hatch, and P. Paix 1986 Road Accidents and the Grand Prix. In The Adelaide Grand PrixÐThe Impact of a Special Event, J. P. A. Burns and T. J. Mules, eds., pp. 151±168. Adelaide: Centre for South Australian Economic Studies. Foucault, M. 1970 The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock. Game, A. 1991 Undoing the Social: Towards a Deconstructive Sociology. Buckingham: Open University Press. Greenwood, D. 1978 Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as Cultural Commodi®cation. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 171±186. Oxford: Blackwell. Gregory, D. 1994 Geographical Imaginations. Cambridge: Blackwell. Grosz, E. 1989 Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. 1992 Bodies±Cities. In Sexuality and Space, B. Colomina, ed., pp. 241±253. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 1993 Bodies and Knowledges: Feminism and the Crisis of Reason. In Feminist Epistemologies, L. Alcoff and E. Potter, eds., pp. 187±215. New York: Routledge. 1994 Volatile Bodies: Toward A Corporeal Feminism. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. 1995 Space, Time and Perversion: The Politics of Bodies. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Hall, C. M. 1992 Hallmark Tourist Events. London: Belhaven Press. Haraway, D. 1991 Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books. Harvey, D. 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hill, K. 1998 Record Crowd Forms a Sea of Celebration. The Sydney Morning Herald. http: //www.smh.com.au/daily/content/980302/national1.html. Holcomb, B., and M. Luongo 1996 Gay Tourism in the United States. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3):711±712. Hughes, H. 1997a Holidays and Homosexual Identity. Tourism Management 18:3±7. 1997b Sexuality, Tourism and Space. In Managing Tourism in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice, D. Tyler, M. Robertson and Y. Guerrier, eds. Chichester: Wiley. Johnson, L. 1989 Embodying Geography: Some Implications of Considering the Sexed Body in Space. In New Zealand Geographical Society Proceedings of the Fifteenth New Zealand Geography Conference, pp. 134±138. Wellington: New Zealand Geographical Society. 1990 New Courses for a Gendered Geography: Teaching Feminist Geography at the University of Waikato. Australian Geographical Studies 28:16±27.

LYNDA JOHNSTON

199

Johnston, L. 1996 Flexing Femininity: Female Body-Builders Re-®guring ``the Body''. Gender Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 3(3):327±340. 1997 Queen(s)' Street or Ponsonby Poofters? Embodied HERO Parade Sites. New Zealand Geographer 53(2):29±33. Jokinen, E., and S. Veijola 1997 The Disoriented Tourist: The Figuration of the Tourist in Contemporary Cultural Critique. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 23±51. London: Routledge. Kinnaird, V., and D. Hall 1994 Tourism: A Gender Analysis, V. Kinnaird and D. Hall, eds. Chichester: Wiley. Kirby, V. 1997 Telling Flesh: The Substance of the Corporeal. New York: Routledge. Krippendorf, J. 1987 The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann Professional Publishing. Levine, M. 1987 Downtown Redevelopment as an Urban Growth Strategy: A Critical Appraisal of the Baltimore Renaissance. Journal of Urban Affairs 9(2):103± 123. Longhurst, R. 1995 The Body and Geography. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 2:97±105. Lloyd, G. 1993 The Man of Reason: ``Male'' and ``Female'' in Western Philosophy. London: Routledge. MacCannell, D. 1989 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisured Class. New York: Schocken Books. 1992 Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. London: Routledge. Marshment, M. 1997 Gender takes a Holiday. In Gender, Work and Tourism, M. T. Sinclair, ed., pp. 16±34. New York: Routledge. Moore, L. 1996 New Route Wins Hearts of Hero Parade. New Zealand Herald (February 19: 3). Morris, M. 1988a Things to do with Shopping Centres. In Grafts: Feminist Cultural Criticism, S. Sheridan, ed., pp. 193±225. London: Verso. 1988b At Henry Parks Motel. Cultural Studies 2:1±47. Munt, I. 1994 The ``Other'' Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the New Middle Classes. Theory, Culture and Society 11:101±123. Mulvey, L. 1975 Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16(3):6±19. Nicholson, L., ed. 1990 Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge. Nietzsche, F. 1967 The Will to Power. New York: Random House. 1969 On the Geneology of Morals. New York: Vintage. Olds, K. 1988 Planning for the Housing Impacts of a Hallmark Event: A Case Study of Expo 1986. Unpublished MA thesis. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Pritchard, A., N. Morgan, D. Sedgely, and A. Jenkins 1998 Reaching Out to the Gay Tourist: Opportunities and Threats in an Emerging Market Segment. Tourism Management 19:273±282. Roche, M. 1990 Mega-Events and Micro-Modernization: On the Sociology of New Urban Tourism. Shef®eld: University of Shef®eld Press.

200

THE BODY AND TOURISM

1991 Mega-Events and Urban Policy: A Study of Shef®eld's World Student Games. Shef®eld: University of Shef®eld. Rojek, C. 1993 Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel. London: Macmillan. Rose, G. 1993 Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rossel, P. 1988 Manufacturing the Exotic, P. Rossel, ed. Copenhagen: International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs. Roszak, T. 1986 The Cult of Information. Cambridge: Lutterworth. Selwyn, T. 1990 Tourist Brochures as Post-Modern Myths. Problems of Tourism 13:13±26. 1996 The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. Chichester: Wiley. Shields, R. 1988 Social Spatialisation: The Case of the West Edmonton Mall. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 7:147±164. 1991 Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge. Soja, E. 1992 Inside Exopolis: Scenes from Orange County. In Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, M. Sorken, ed., pp. 94±122. New York: Noonday. Stoller, R. 1968 Sex and Gender. London: Hogarth. Sunday Star Times 1994 Real Heroes? (April 10):A5. Swain, M. B., ed 1995 Gender in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 22(2). Time Magazine 1995 Tourism: Big Dollars in Gay Travel. Time Magazine 146(13):54±55. Torres-Kitamura, M. 1997 Out and About. Hawaii Business 42(10):23±45. Urry, J. 1988 Cultural Change and Contemporary Holiday Making. Theory, Culture and Society 5:509±526. 1990a The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. 1990b The Consumption of ``Tourism''. Sociology 24:23±35. 1992 The Tourist Gaze ``Revisited''. American Behavioral Scientist 36: 172±186. Valentine, G. 1996 (Re)negotiating the ``Heterosexual Street'': Lesbian Productions of Space. In BodySpace: Destablizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, N. Duncan, ed., pp. 146±155. London: Routledge. Veijola, S., and E. Jokinen 1994 The Body in Tourism. Theory, Culture and Society 11:125±151. Walker, M. 1991 Disney®cation of the Planet. The Guardian Weekly (August 4):21. Wolff, J. 1995 Feminist Sentences. Oxford: Blackwell. Yanagiasako, S., and J. Collier 1990 The Mode of Reproduction in Anthropology. In Theoretical Approaches on Sexual Difference, D. Rhode, ed., pp. 131±141. New Haven: Yale University Press. Young, I. M. 1990 Justice and The Politics of Difference. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

LYNDA JOHNSTON

201

Zukin, S. 1991 Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Submitted 12 March 1997. Resubmitted 15 April 1998. Resubmitted 29 April 1999. Resubmitted 28 October 1999. Accepted 19 January 2000. Final version 9 February 2000. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Margaret B. Swain