Rethinking the sociology of tourism

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM Erik CotNm" Department of Sociology & Soaal Anthro0ology The Hebrew Un;vers;ty Jerusalem, Israel and Faculty of Sociology Unwers;ty of BieHefeld. Weet Germany

ABSTRACT Cohen, Erik, "Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Voi. VI, No. 1, January/March 1979, pp. 18-3S. Two principal general approaches to tourism are criticized. It is argued against the tendency to over generalize, to propose universal models and to conceive of the dynamics of tourism as a unilinear process. Instead, a multiplicity of types, different typologies and a multilinear approach to the dynamics of tourism should be favored. It is further argued that conceptual schemes should be further elaborated, illustrating the argument by an elaboration of MacCannell's fundamental concepts. The article emphasizes the need for some basic problems in tourism research to be reformulated; it proposes a strategy for research which, while preserving theoretical pluralism and eclecticism, will safeguard continuity and the ability to generalize by developing a common research style for the sociology of tourism. Keywordo: tourism theory, research methodology. "Dr Erlk Cohen Is Associate Professor at the Oet:artrnemt of Soc;ology and Social Anthropology, the Hebrew Umvorslty of Jerusalem, Israel Preeently (1978-1979), he ts doing research and teaching at 1he Unworslty of Blelefeld, We~l Germany Dr Cohen has done sociological and anthropologcal reeearch m Israel (kibbutzim, new towns, ethmc groul~l), Peru (urban anttlropology), the Pacific islands (tourIsm). anti Thailand (tourism m hill tribes roglon) HIS present research Interests are tourism, expatriates, strangers, and social ecology Dr, ~ ~s Annals' Associate Editor for Sociology 18

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

RESUME Cohen, Erik. "'Pour repcnser la sooologie du tourlsme,'" Annals of Tourtsm Research, Vol. VI. no. l. 3anvier/mars 1979, pp. 18-35. L'artlcle fait la critique de deux faqons principales d'aborder le tourisme: celle de g6n6rahser et de proposer des modifies universelles et celle de voir la dynamique du tourisme comme etant un processus uni-lin6aire. On devralt plutbt favoriser une diversit6 de types, diff6rentes typologies, et une perspective muiti-lin6aire. On propose enfin 1'61aboration des cadres conceptuels, en s'appuyant sur une exphcation des concepts fondath'entaux de MacCannell. L'article msiste sur le besoin d'6noncer de nouveau quelques-uns des probl~mes de base dans le tourisme. II sugg~re enfin une strategie de recherche qui. tout en conservant un plurahsme et un 6clecticisme theoriques, gardera la contmmt6 et la capacit6 de g6n6rahser en d6veloppant un style commun de recherche pour la sociologle du tourlsme. Mots clef: th~orie de tounsme, m~thodologte de recherche INTRODUCTION Not so long ago a sociology of tourism did not really exist--the several scattered writings of early, mostly European sociologists, notwithstanding (Dumazdier 1958; Knebel 1960); cultural critics, rather than sociologists, dominated the scene -- and their approach to the tourist, his motives, his attitudes and his behaviour in the host environment was mostly humorously critical (e.g.. Boorstin 1964; Mifford 1959). The tourist has been portrayed as a superficial nitwit, easy to please as well as to cheat. Isolated in the environmental bubble of tourist hotels, restaurants and other touristic establishments, he was seen as an easy-going superficial creature, with only a slight contact with, and even a slighter understanding of. his surroundings. Writers such as Boorstin (1964) contrasted this image of the tourist with the heroic image of the traveler of old, and the "lost art of travel" was bemoaned. Only a few early writers, such as Sutton (1967), approached tourism from a neutral perspective. The image of the tourist, as it emerged from the cultural critics, informed to a considerable degree the early attempts of sociologists, including this writer's, to formulate a sociological approach to tourism (Cohen 1972). Most of the earlier sociological writings on tourism have been permeated by a distinctly critical attitude. Perhaps the most extreme example of this kind of writing is presented by Turner and Ash's book (1975). This critical view of the tourist has been complemented by a sharp criticism of the allegedly debasing effects tourism has on the culture, society, and environment of the hosts. Beginning with the pioneering article by Forster (1964) a great amount of literature has demonstrated the wide variety of problematic consequences which tourism has had for various societies, most of them undeveloped or at an early stage of development, such as the Pacific Islands (Finney and Watson 1975) or the Caribbean (Bryden 1973:Perez 1973/4). These works indicated that, generally speaking, tourism actually has a less beneficial economic impact on the host societies than has been claimed by tourist promoters and developers, while the detrimental social and cultural effects of tourism on the hosts had been underrated. Hence, as the UNESCO Report (1976) noted, while economists were generally positively oriented to tourism as a ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH. Jan/Mar 197b

19

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

relatively painless, quick, and labor-intensive avenue to rapid development, sociologists and anthropologists, concerned, or perhaps overconcerned, with the preservation of native cultures and societies, have in the past generally taken a negative attitude towards the industry. Partly as a reaction to the earlier work of social critics and sociologists, there has been in recent years a sharp reaction against the accepted view of the tourist. This reaction has been initiated by an incisive paper by Dean MacCannell (1973) and continued in his subsequent book (1976). Graburn's (1977) paper, which views tourism as " a sacred journey," argues similar lines. According to these novel approaches the image of the tourist prevalent in the sociological literature, has been unwittingly influenced by the image of the tourist which prevails in the society at large and is expressed by such works as Boorstin's. MacCannell, in particular, claims that by accepting the prevalent view of the tourist, the sociologist has confused the data of his observation with his instruments of analysis, whereby an understanding of the deeper cultural significance of tourism has been precluded. MacCannell opposes this derogatory view of the tourist. His incisive analysis presents researchers with an important and most original new approach to tourism: rather than the superficial nitwit as popularly represented, the tourist is a pilgrim of the modern age. His journey is a pilgrimage to the central symbols of human culture, the attractions, which in turn represent Society, in a Durkheimian sense. The tourist's journey, henc.e, is nothing but a payment of "ritual respect for society" (MacCannell 1973:589). The startling conclusion of MacCannelrs analysis is that tourism is a modern functional substitute for religion. For MacCannell, the modern tourist is not out for superficial enjoyment: rather he seeks "authenticity," a motive which makes his quest essentially a religious one. The fact that he rarely, if at all, achieves the experience of authenticity, results not from the quality of the quest, but is rather due to the manipulations on part of the tourist establishment to which he is subject. In touristically developed areas, the tourist is caught in a covert, but all-embracing "tourist space." constructed by the tourist establishment, in which authenticity is staged for the earnest but unsuspecting seeker. His high motives are, hence, ultimately doomed to frustration. His predicament resembles, in its futility, that of the existentialist heroes of Sartre's "'No Exit." MacCarmelrs analysis has certainly removed some of the obstacles to the development of a more sophisticated sociology of tourism. Nevertheless. MacCannell's work suffers weaknesses similar to those of his antagonists, in particular the tendency to present a highly idealized global view of "the tourist." Without denying the value of MacCannell's analysis one can not, therefore, subscribe to it without reservation. In the opinion of this writer, it is time to rethink some of the fundamental approaches and positions in the sociology of tourism. By no means is this intended to deny the value of earlier sociological or anthropological analyses of tourism or to claim that their findings and conclusions were wrong. Nevertheless, it appears that simplistic and global views of the tourist and of the impact of tourism on the host societies prevents one from developing a more sophisticated approach to tourism, from gaining a clearer understanding of the place of tourism in contemporary life, or from ascertaining its possible role in advancing the less developed countries. In the following, an attempt is made to clarify and define several of the critical

20

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

issues emerging from the recent work in the sociology of tourism. This attempt will make use of some of the insights which this writer gained during his recent fieldwork on tourism among the hill tribes of Northern Thailand. A detailed account of this study appears elsewhere (Cohen 1979a and forthcoming). However. some of the more general findings are highly relevant to the ongoing critical discussion. This attempt at "rethinking" the sociology of tourism will relate principally to four major topics: 1. the need to draw distinctions where in the past there were mainly generalities, 2. the need to further elaborate some of the promising concepts which recently emerged in the field, 3. the need to reformulate some of the current problems in the field; and 4. the need to develop a research strategy for the sociology of tourism. THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC Two images have been prevalent in the sociology of tourism: an early one which saw the tourist mainly as a superficial nitwit and a later one which sees in him the contemporary pilgrim. Both suffer the same disadvantage: namely, they talk about the tourist in general without taking into account the wide variety of touristic phenomena reported in the literature (for summary discussions see Cohen 1972,1973,1974; Noronha 1977:4-9:Smith 1977:8-13). It should be noted that both images of the tourist have, in the main, been derived from the American cultural milieu. Boorstin's image is explicitly that of the American mass traveller, who at the time of his writing dominated the international touristic scene. MacCannell's tourist is implicity the " p o s t - m o d e r n " young American traveller, who was prevalent in the turbulent times during which MacCannell conducted his rather unsystematic research. It seems obvious by now that there is no point in search for "'the tourist." Rather, there exist different types of tourists which are distinguishable by a wide variety of characteristics. The problem is not, however, merely to establish a typology of tourists; such typologies have been proposed by several writers, and Knox recently even attempted to construct a "typology of tourist typologies" (Knox 1978:3). The problem is rather to evolve a coherent way or ways to classify tourists so that the classification is of both theoretical interest as well as empirical relevance. Since tourism is evidently a multi-dimensional phenomenon, it would be senseless to search for the typology of tourists as it is senseless to talk about the typical tourist. However, this does not mean that for each empirical purpose at hand a special typology should be constructed as has sometimes been the case (Noronha 1977:9). One of the most fruitful theoretical approaches to the study of tourists is that emanating from Simmel's and Schuetz's sociology of the stranger. In the analysis of the phenomenon of strangeness and familiarity two main dimensions can be distinguished.

1.

an interactional dimension, relating to the extent and manner in which the

2.

a cognitive-normative dimension, referring to the manner in which the stranger

stranger interacts with the host population, conceives of and relates to the host environment (Cohen, in preparation). On each of these dimensions specific typologies of tourists can, and in fact have ANNALS OF" TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

2]

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

been, constructed. An example of an mteractional typology is the author's earlier classification of tourists into four major types, according to the extent to which tourists expose themselves to the strangeness of the host society or encapsulate themselves in the environment bubble of the home society (Cohen 1972). Smith's typology (1977:8-13) represents a similar but more elaborate attempt on the same interacttonal lines. An example of a typology based on the cognitive-normative dimension could be this author's more recent attempt to construct a phenomenology of tourist experiences (Cohen 1979b) in which an attempt is made to reconcile the intrinsically opposed positions of Boors(in and MacCannell concerning the nature of contemporary, tourism. Five modes of touristic experiences are distinguished: the recreational, the diversionary, the experiential, the experimental, and the existential. The several modes designate the meaning which the touristic experience has for the tourist within the context of his general attitude towards his society and the surrounding world. The baste quest(on here is where the "spiritual center" of the mdividual is located. Insofar as he still identifies with the cultural center of his society and finds no meaning in the surrounding cultures, he will tend towards recreational tourism. For a tourist of this type, who comes close to the one described by Boorstin. the tour is nothing but recreation, through which he recuperates from the strains and tensions of his daily life, but possesses no deeper meaning. However, many moderns, as MacCannell has rightly emphastzed, are alienated from their society in daily life. This does not, however, mean that they automattcally become "ptlgrims," seeking authenticity in "the centre out there." as Victor Turner (1972) called the pilgrim's goal. Instead. different modes of touristic experiences of the alienated individual can be dtstmguished. The diversionary mode is one in which the individual neither possesses a spiritual center at home nor seeks for one abroad. Rather, the trip is for him a pure diversion, a mere escape from the boredom and meaninglessness of routine, everyday existence into the forgetfulness of a vacation (i.e. a literally "vacant," namely empty, time). The further modes represent progressive steps towards the identification of the tourist's experience with the pilgrim's. The experiential mode comes closest to MacCannell's conception of the tourist. The tourist, aware of the fact that he himself is precluded from having authentic experiences, basks in the authenticity of the life of others. The experimental mode represents one further step: The tourist experiments with vartous unfamiliar, alternative ways of life in the search of a new spiritual center. Finally, the existential mode is represented by the tourist who has actually acquired a new, "'elective," spiritual center, towards which he feels the same adherence which the traditional religious pilgrim felt for the major centers of his religion. The journey of the existential tourist to his elective spiritual center, is homologous in meaning to the traditional pilgrimage. The elective center becomes the new center of his cosmos. MacCannell could obviously argue against this typology on the ground that it merely describes the superficial "phenomenological" characteristics of the tourist's experience. He could claim that what on the surface appears to be mere superficial recreation in fact has a deeper structural significance. He would find support for this argument in Leymore's (1975) pioneering study on the deep structure of modern advertisement in which it has been claimed that apparently superficial, even vulgar, symbols relate to deep underlying themes of human life. One may reply that it is essential to keep the phenomenoiogical and the structural levels apart. Their confuston has indeed led to MacCannell's overgeneralizatton. It is one thing to discover by 22

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

analysis that a superficial experience might have deeper structural significance; it is quite another thing to claim that this deeper structural significance actually motivates every tourist--or, in MacCannell's terms, that every tourist essentially seeks authenticity. A problem of general sociological significance is thereby obscured: the conditions under which deep structural themes penetrate, so to speak, to the surface and acquire motivational significance. Rather than postulating that all tourists are modern pilgrims despite what they say or feel. one should look for the general societal condmons which generate tourism in the experiential, experimental, and especially, extstential mode. The two kinds of typologies of tourists, the interactional and the cognitive-normative, are clearly mutually related. It is not, however, a one-to-one relationship. In any concrete empirical study, tourists can be characterized in terms of each of these typologies; indeed the relationship between them could aid in understanding the nature and the dynamics of a specific touristic situation. One of the consequences of this generalizing trend in the sociology of tourism has been the tendency to deal either explicitly or implicity with one type of tourist: the conventionalized or "institutionalized" modern mass-tourist; with the exceptions of youth or drifter tourism which has recently attracted some attention (Cohen 1973:Mukerji 1978;Teas 1974;ten Have 1974;Vogt 1976), the many other kinds of partial or full-fledged tourists (Cohen 1974) have hardly been discussed in the literature. The specific processes and forms of institutionalization of tourist roles have not been a focus of sociological attention. It appears, however, that contrary to the general though implicit assumption, there is no single process of institutionalization at work, which could give birth to a single, homogeneous, world-wide system of tourist institutions. Rather, different types of tourist roles may become institutionalized in different ways and are served by different systems of tourist institutions; the phenomenon of mass-drifting (Cohen 1973) is a c l e a r example of such "parallel institutionalization." Moreover, the nature of tourist institutions serving the same type of tourist may differ considerably, depending on the wider institutional structure of the host society. K e m p e r ' s comparative study reported in this issue of Annals clearly demonstrates this point for conventional mass tourism, while ten Have' s (1974) paper represents a detailed case study of the tourist-oriented institutions emerging in response to mass-drifter tourism as a consequence of an " e n l i g h t e n e d " and tolerant policy of the authorities in contemporary Amsterdam. But one needs more detailed comparative studies to encompass the whole range of forms of institutionalization of tourist roles and emergence of corresponding touristic institutions. The tendency of sociologists towards generality is also reflected in their effort to evolve a general model for the development of tourism in a destination area and for the concomitant change in tourist-host relationships. Thus, Noronha (1977:17), in an analysis of the literature, finds "... that tourism develops in three stages: i discovery ii local response and initiative, and iii institutionahzed (institutionalizatton)." True enough, Noronha points out that "... ff should be noted that there is no historical inevitability in the stages Outlined above: no destination area must pass through the three stages, or pass through them in the order mentioned, although the great majority of tourist destination areas have done so" (1977:23-24). However, not ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

23

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

only is one hard put to imagine how an area could pass the stage of "discovery," for example, after that of "institutionalization;" it is also obvious that Noronha proposes a general model of unilinear evolution. Though he admits that exceptions may occur, these do not suggest alternative general models. It is this assumption of unilinearity which to this author seems problematic: insofar as a researcher encounters a system which does not develop in the expected direction, he tends to consider it an exception. Thus, Noronha, for example, notices that "..when developing nations have adopted tourism as a strategy of economic development there are often instances when tourism development commences at stage III, or by-passes stage II" (1977:24). This author has a general predilection against unilinear models of social change and a preference for multilinear ones (cf., Cohen 1976). Rather than search for the model of transformation of tourist destination areas, one should try to discover different types of basic dynamics. One important variable differentiating such types is the manner in which tourism has been introduced into the area: the tourist system can grow organically from within the area, or can be induced from the outside (Cohen 1972:180). Systems which have grown organically, tend to develop in the direction proposed by Noronha. Systems which have been induced from the outside probably manifest different dynamics: it is the initial stage in which the tourist facilities are most comprehensively institutionalized. In this stage a wide gap still separates the tourists from their unaccustomed hosts. The tourist facilities are managed by outsiders with the locals having very little or no say in tourist affairs. This is particularly the case in areas where a wide social, cultural and economic gap separates the hosts from the tourists. Some South Pacific islands (e.g. Guam, Tonga or Tahiti) and some islands in the Carribean can be used as the most blantant examples of the initial stages of induced tourism. There are indication that an induced tourist system undergoes a dynamics which is in some respects the opposite from the one characteristic of organically growing systems: it becomes at least partly "de.institutionalized." Whereas in organically growing systems, the center of control of the tourist industry moves away from the host area towards ever farther and farther removed centres (Forster 1964:Greenwood 1972), an induced tourist system reveals the reverse tendency. As the local population and the government of the host country become increasingly aware of the economic, social and political importance of tourism, they attempt to take over the control of the industry or at least to play a more active part in it, as was the case, for example, in Fiji. Moreover, as the local population becomes more familiar with tourism and its opportunities, new initiatives start to spring up around the tourist establishments. Hence, a situation develops whichin areas of organic growth of tourist systems characterizes an early phase of touristic development. Human relationships may undergo a similarly reversed process. At the early stage of induced tourism, there is often a stark socio-culturai gap between tourists and the hosts:hosts, being unprepared for the onslaught of large numbers of foreigners, are unable to perform any but the most manual jobs in the tourist system. The lack of knowledge of foreign languages and lack of familiarity with the tourists' customs, as well as the general shyness characteristic of long-insulated populations, precludes any meaningful social exchange between the tourists and the hosts. This too may change with time. As more members of the native population become involved with the tourist system and perform more active roles in it, and as some of them acquire some skills in the foreign language and learn how to deal with foreigners, more personal contacts may develop. All this, however, is yet a hypothesis. Only systematic research on the

24

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

differential dynamics of various tourist systems will show whether it is an adequate one.

The sociological study of the dynamics of the tourist-host encounter has also proceeded on general, unilinear lines. Thus, for example, Doxey (1976) proposes a four-stage model for the development of the hosts' attitude to the tourist, ranging from " e u p h o r i a " to " a n t a g o n i s m . " The question here, as in the preceding discussion, is whether a generalized model for the dynamics of host-tourist relationships should be proposed, or whether here too one has to deal with different kinds of dynamics, which depend upon such factors as how tourism has been introduced into the region (organic vs. induced growth), the attitude of locals to outsiders prior to the introduction of tourism, etc. If tourism has been induced from the outside, and if locals are initially xenophobic, a euphoric attitude at the first stage can hardly be expected. Thus, among the hill tribes of Northern Thailand, touring companies, originating in the city. often impose their guests upon remote villagers. Though they might be remunerated for their efforts and thus profit from the enterprise, the villagers are still often reluctant to provide hospitality, particularly if, as among the Pwo Karen, religion teaches them to beware of strangers. Suspicion rather than euphoria tends to characterize this stage. However, as they get used to strangers, their initial suspicion might gradually turn into a more benevolent attitude. At the other extreme, studies of communities with a long history of tourism have shown that the process of attitudinal change does not necessarily end with antagonism but might turn into one of indifference: in such places, as MacCannell (1976:106) points out, "The local people...have long discounted the presence of tourists and go about their business as usual .... treating tourists as part of the regional scenery." Pi-Sunyer (1977:155) also found in the Catalan community he studied that locals showed indifference or, at most, dislike towards tourists but only rarely hated them. LaFlamme, in this issue of Annals reports a similar finding. On the basis of the few detailed studies of host attitudes towards tourists, it appears that there is no universal model which could do justice to their differential dynamics under varying conditions. A careful comparative study of the host-tourist relationships should lead to the formulation of several models of such dynamics. The last, but perhaps the most important area of sociology of tourism in which general models have been evolved, is that of the impact of tourism upon the host society. This is a complex subject, yet, due to space limitation, only a brief discussion is given here. Two contrasting models have been proposed in this field: (a) a development model, according to which tourism breeds socio-economic change and development, and (b) a dependency model, according to which tourism leads merely to economic growth but leaves the underdeveloped social structure of the destination area more or less untouched or even reenforces previously existing social discrepancies (Perez 1973/4; Wirth 1976). Contrary to the state of affairs in most of the previously discussed areas, a considerable body of information has already been accumulated on the concrete consequences of tourism under varying conditions. The controversy between the protagonists of the various models is essentially ideological and hence has been only little influenced by the results of empirical research. The two models do not really seem to be alternative general descriptions but rather polar points of a continuum: in each concrete situation, it should in principle be possible to establish whether tourism furthered development or dependency. A neutralization of ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

25

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGYOF TOURISM

the controversy, complemented by a more systematic coupling of theory and empirical research in this field could arrive at a most important result: the specification of the economic, social and cultural conditions under which tourism generates development and of those which instead lead to mere dependency. Some of the conditions which make tourism an instrument of development can already be spelled out: in particular the need for a slow pace of touristic growth, the need for local participation, the need for the concomitant development of other branches of the economy, etc. These. however, are only the most obvious conditions, touching directly upon the process of introduction of tourism. Less known to researchers are the deeper structural conditions, characterizing the host society on the one hand and the forces behind tourism on the other, which facilitate or block the realization of these conditions. It is here that the anthropological study of tourism, particularly if cast in a comparative framework, could be most valuable. ELABORATION OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In the recent theoretical literature on the sociology of tourism, the rudiments of several promising conceptual frameworks can be distinguished (cf. Cohen 1972, 1973, and 1974; Graburn 1977; MacCannell 1973 and 1976; McKean 1977; Nash 1977; Smith 1977). The most incisive and promising attempt, in the opinion of this author, is that by MacCannell which is based on the complementary concepts of " s t a g e d authenticity" and "tourist space." But this conceptual framework should be much further elaborated to facilitate its application to the empirical study of tourism in a wide variety of concrete situations. The following short exercise in elaboration is intended to illustrate its inherent possibilities. The distinctions and additions made here are largely derived from an attempt to analyse the aforementioned data from Northern Thailand on the lines proposed by MacCannell. For MacCannell, the tourist establishment tends invariably to create non-authentic tourist spaces for the benefit of the unsuspecting tourist who tends to accept them unreflectively as "'real." Thereby " s t a g e d authenttcity" is invariably the consequence of touristic development. However, not all kinds of empirically observed touristic situations fit into MacCannell's scheme. It is necessary to distinguish, on the basis of MacCannell's approach, between four types of touristic situations as presented in table. 1. Table 1 Types of Tourlstle Situations

Real Real

(I)

Tourlst~s Impression of Scene Staged

Authentic

(3)

Denial of Authenticity (Staging Suspicion)

(4)

Contrived

Nature of Scene Staged

26

(2)

Staged Authenticity (Covert Tourist Space)

(Oven Tourist Space)

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

Distinctions between two dimensions of touristic situations can be made: one, the nature of the scene which the tourist enters, and two, the tourist's impression of the scene. On the first dimension, a distinction is made between real scenes (those which have not been manipulated by the hosts or by the tourist establishment in order to create a false impression) and staged scenes (those which have been so manipulated). On the dimension of tourist impressions one may also distinguish between two kinds of impressions: the impression that the situation entered is a real one and the impression that it has been manipulated or staged by the hosts or the tourist establishment. In MacCannell's analysis, it is precisely this second dimension which is missing; MacCannell implicitly assumes that tourists always take the situation as necessarily real or authentic. The distinctions made here result in four types of touristic situations:

1. Authentic:

This is a situation which is both "objectively real" as well as accepted as such by the tourists. This situation is encountered outside "tourist spaces," e.g. on off-the-beaten-track tours, taken by young, authenticity-seeking tourists.

2.

Staged authenticity:

3.

Denial of authenticity:

This is the situation described by MacCannell, in which the tourist establishment stages the scene for the tourist, but the tourist is not aware of the staging and therefore accepts it as real. The tourist establishment is interested in presenting its contraptions as real and, therefore, makes efforts to keep the tourist unaware of the staging. This author proposes to call this situation one of "covert tourist space." Here the reverse from situation 2 occurs. The scene is "objectively real." However, the tourist, who has learned from some dire previous experience that apparently authentic situations have been purposely manipulated to mislead the visitor, doubts its authenticity. He develops a suspicion that he has been taken in, when in fact, this has not been the case.

Thus, for example, in Northern Thailand, some tribal villages which are frequently visited by tourists are regarded by some young authenticity-seeking tourists as not " r e a l . " They feel the village has been constructed for the benefit of the tourists, with people dressed up as tribals, whereas in fact they are ordinary Thais. The situation o f " denial of authenticity" is of particular theoretical interest, since it represents the feedback effects of previous touristic learning on the tourists' approach to new situations. When Boorstin published his book (in 1964), the existence of what he called "pseudo-events," the substitution of contrived events for real ones in American popular culture, had not yet penetrated the consciousness of the broad masses of American consumers. Hence, he could have assumed that the general travelling public was not yet aware of the manipulations which tourist attractions undergo to make them more attractive to the mass tourists. Since then, however, a general process of touristic sophistication has taken place. Travelers have become prograssively more aware of the manipulations to which the sights they are visiting had been subjected. Once they realized that they have been "taken in" on one occasion, they will tend to be more circumspicious on the following ones. Some tourists, particularly the younger authenticity-seeking ones, may develop a general tendency to disbelieve what they see or are told, even if this is "objectively ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

27

RETHINKING TIlE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

authentic." This attitude of "staging suspicion" is, in a sense, complementary to MacCannell's "staged authenticity." 4. Contrived: This is a situation in which the scene is admittedly staged by the hosts, or the tourist establishment, and the tourist is conscious of the staging. This author proposes to call such a situation one of "overt tourist space." A good example of such overt tourist space are model villages, such as villages which have been especially established to show the tourist the traditional way of life of a people which has either disappeared or been adulterated. Another example might be staged performances of traditional dances or rituals, which are produced especially for tourists, in settings and in times which are admittedly not the original ones.

The typology enables one not only to classify and compare different kinds of touristic situations, but to outline typical processes of change of such situations. MacCannell discusses mainly the process of transition from type (1) to type (2): the staging of authenticity and the emergence of covert tourist space. This elaboration enables one to conceptualize a complementary process of "touristic denouement" (a transition from type 2 to type 4): the process through which the staged nature of a touristic situation is uncovered or exposed by growingly sophisticated tourists, and covert tourist space is, contrary to the intentions or wishes of the tourist establishment, turned into overt tourist space. This discussion illustrates how important concepts, proposed but not systematically developed by sociologists of tourism, can be usefully elaborated. At the present junction, more continuity in the sociological study of tourism, through further elaboration and empirical testing of existing conceptual frameworks, would serve the development of this field better than the constant proliferation of ever new approaches. REFORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS MacCannell has rendered an important service to the sociology of tourism by arguing that the image of the tourist emerging from sociological writings is nothing but the prevalent popular view of the tourist in society which the sociologists have unwittingly accepted as being "objectively" correct. In doing so they have turned part of the problem to be examined into an instrument of their investigation. One must not agree with the consequences which MacCannell draws from his insight in order to appreciate its importance. In fact, a similar state of affairs has emerged in an adjoining area. namely the study of the impact of tourism on the host society, culture and environment. There exists a wide-spread popular viev~ that tourists are a major factor of socio-cuitural and environmental change, who by their very presence and behaviour as well as by the demands which they make upon the hosts, often effectuate a wide-spread and primarily negative transformation of their destination. This view prevails particularly in the areas from which tourists originate, where people are aware of tourism, but not of other factors of change in popular destination areas: it is often not shared by the people of the area itself, whose own attitudes to the consequences of tourism are often left unexamined. The popular view, however, has a feed-back effect upon the tourists themselves. Tourists, particularly the more sensitive ones, have developed what could be called a "bad touristic conscience." They often feel guilty of their own activity because they feel that they destory the very place which they came to visit. This view of the impact of tourism has also long been naively accepted by

28

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

sociologists and anthropologists (UNESCO 1976). Indeed, only recently have they begun to draw a distinction between the popular view of the tourists' impact, and the actual consequences which tourism had for the host situation. As recent research has shown (cf. McKean 1976). these consequences are neither necessarily as "negative." nor as pervasive as the popular view would have them. Boissevian, in particular, has recently drawn our attention to the fact that the tourists' impact on the host situation has been exaggerated. He claims that, in the sociological literature, "...there is generally a failure to distinguish the social and cultural consequences of tourism from other developments taking place in the society concerned..." (Boissevain 1977); thus changes which have in fact been caused by other factors are attributed to tourism. The problem is particularly vexing since tourism often develops rapidly in those areas which are also affected by other processes of change. It is therefore important for the investigator to reformulate his problem and to distinguish two quite separate questions. First, the actual role of tourism in the process of change in the destination area should be considered. Tourism is usually only one of a congeries of exogenous factors which impinge upon an area. The task of the investigator is, in the first instance, to deal with the difficult empirical problem of assigning relative weights to each of these factors, including tourism, in effectuating specific changes in the destination area. But an even more difficult and theoretically more engaging problem is to grasp the manner in which these various exogenous factors, tourism included, interact with one another in producing change in the local situation. In particular, one should examine whether the effects of tourism are reinforced by the presence of other factors of change or are ameliorated by these factors and conversely, whether tourism reinforces or ameliorates the impact of other factors. There is also the problem of compatibility between the factors themselves. Does tourism facilitate or contravene the activity of other factors, and is the development of tourism reinforced or blocked by the presence of the other factors? Tourism is admittedly, as Forster (1964) already pointed out, a "process." but not an isolated one. It should, hence, be studied within the broader context of the processes of change in the destination area. Such an approach is particularly appropriate in situations where tourism has recently penetrated into newly developing regions in conjunction with a variety of other forces of "modernization." Second, concerning the impact of tourism, the subjective evaluations of the different parties involved should be considered. This includes the tourists themselves as well as different groups in the population. One should clearly distinguish the impact which is determined through a sociological analysis from the ideas people have about the impact. One should also keep apart the distinctive evaluation of the various parties concerned, such as the tourists, the touristic entrepreneurs, various groups in the host population as well as that of the researcher himself. Though the researcher's evaluation may be based on an "objective" sociological analysis, his, like everyone else's is necessarily based on values, priorities and attitudes. The question is w h o s e are those values, priorities, and attitudes? Are they those of his profession or those of his society, of the tourists or of the hosts? This question is particularly pertinent since, though sociologists might claim to be speaking in the interest of the host population; as Boissevain (1977:535-6) has recently pointed out, a discrepancy very often exists between their evaluations of the impact of tourism and that of the population. Hence, not only should the evalution of the hosts be presented separately from that of the researcher, but the causes of the discrepancy ANNALS OF' TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

~-9

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

should be investigated as well. In the first instance, it should be asked whether the discrepancy is due to a difference in the respective perception of facts or merely to a difference in the values, priorities and attitudes according to which the commonly accepted facts are evaluated. Such an approach may be of practical relevance. If it turns out that the discrepancy is due to a differential factual analysis, the hosts may be made aware of what the researcher considers his more correct analysis and asked to reconsider their evaluation. A similar procedure could in principle be followed with the other parties in the situation: tourists, entrepreneurs, planners, etc. This procedure will enable one to pinpoint the source of the "conflicts of tourism." i.e., whether the discrepancies in evaluation are primarily due to and depend on differences in the perception of facts, which once straightened resolve the discrepancies, or whether they are due to a difference in values. In the first instance, the practitioner is confronted with a mere problem of communication; in the second, however, he faces a "political" conflict. People's percepnons and evaluations not only follow interaction; they also shape it. How people perceive a situation and their role in it will hence influence their behaviour. The sociological and even anthropological literature on tourism has not fully considered this point. Too much was imputed to the participants in the touristic process, tourists, entrepreneurs, and hosts alike; but their preceptions, evaluation and the bearing of these on their behaviour were too little investigated. There is an ever more widely felt need among students of tourism (Noronha 1977:9-10; Pi-Sunyer 1974 and 1977; S[nith 1974), that problems should not be stated exclusively in etic, but also, and in some instances predominantly, in emic terms (from the point of view of the participants in the touristic situation). The point of departure for any emic analysis should obviously be the emic definition of the " t o u r i s t . " which as Noronha (1977:19) pointed out. has not been taken account of in sociological definitions and typoiogies of the concept. In fact. as yet little is known about the manner in which tourists are emically defined, a problem of much interest in areas of recent tourist penetration, such as the hill tribe area of Northern Thailand or some outlying Pacific islands. On this author's experience in Northern Thailand. the way people conceive of the visiting strangers whom we call " t o u r i s t s " is vital for the understanding of thetr attitudes towards them. The same point emerges from Leach's (1973) discussion of tourism among the Trobrian islanders. Lacking a term for " t o u r i s t " in their language, they simply called them soldiers (in Pidgin English), the outsider role which the newcomers most closely approximated. The consequences of such an ethno-classification are obvious. This kind of emic analysis was carried one step further by Pi-Sunyer (1977), who descirbed the changes which the natives' image of the tourist historically underwent, and which, in turn, is closely related to their attitude towards tourists. As yet, there is no full ethnographic account of tourism, no study which renders the process and the manner by which tourists become incorporated in the cosmology of a people and the changes which the arrival of tourism brought in that cosmology. TOWARDS A RESEARCH STRATEGY A careful reading of the recent spate of literature on tourism leaves one with an uneasy feeling of a certain dualism. On the one hand, there is a large number of specific empirical case studies whose full theoretical implications are often not fully spelled out. On the other hand, there is a body of theoretical writings whose empirical basis is often meager. Further efforts should be directed in the first instance to fill up

30

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

this gap between abstract theory and empirical research. The methodological problem in the field of tourism is similar to that encountered in other fields of applied sociology. Strictly speaking, there exists no "sociology of tourism," in the sense of a separate field of sociological theorizing, just as there exists no "sociology of sport" (Ball 1975:39). Instead what goes under this rubric is an apphcation of general sociologtcal theories to the special field of tourism. If there is a unity to the field, it does not derive from the existence of a general theory of tourism, but rather from a set of common empirtcai characteristics marking off touristic from other types of social phenomena. The boundaries, however, between tourism and adjoining fields are by no means crisp: rather, there exists a wide range of transitional phenomena (Cohen, 1974). The complexity and heterogeneity of the field of tourism suggests that there is no point in searching for the theoretical approach to the study of tourism, just as there is no point m searching for the conceptualizatton of the tourtst. Rather, a pluralistic and even eclectic research strategy is advocated. The many different emptrical problems can only be tackled by utilizing a wide range of concepts and research instruments derived from a variety of sociological and anthropological "schools" and theories. Moreover, like in other fields of applied sociology, the most fruitful work in the sociology of tourism will be accomplished by a skillful blending of different approaches for the elucidation of specific problems. An advocacy of theoretical pluralism and electicism, however, does not necessarily mean that the study of tourism should proceed in a purely a d hoc manner. On the contrary, the very manifoldness of. possibilities makes it necessary, and even imperative, to strive consciously for continuity in empirical research and for generalization of theoretical insights gained from single studies. How are continuity and generalization to be achieved under conditions of theoretical pluralism and manifoldness of empirical problems? This should be achieved primarily through the development of a research style, which, despite all the variety of approach and subject matter, deals with the problems in a similar m a n n e r . T h e principal attributes of the desirable style emerge from the preceding discussion. Research in the sociology of tourism should be processual, contextual, comparative and emic: 1. P r o c e s s u a l Tourism is a complex process or perhaps congeries of specific processes. There are philo-genetic processes of touristic penetration, development and decline in a given area, and orth-genetic processes involving the generation and execution of individual touristic trips. Though the processual nature of tourism is generally granted, longitudinal (diachronic vs. synchronic) studies are few (e.g. Cohen forthcoming; Forster 1964; Greenwood 1972; Packer 1973; Pi-Sunyer 1973; and Nash in this issue). It is understandable that not every study can be longitudinal. But even static (synchronic) studies can and should take a processual perspective by clearly recognizing that the snap-shot picture they render is only that of a stage in a continuous process and can be analyzed and understood only within the context of that process. Contextual: Tourism is a process which takes place in a wide-ranging geographical, ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political context. One of the most serious drawbacks of specific studies in the field of tourism has been that this context is only rarely fully specified. The sine qua non of any continuity or generalization in the study of tourism, however, is a full specification o f the

2.

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

31

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

circumstances under which the process takes place. The importance of such a specification also emerges clearly from the preceding discussion of the clo~e inter-relationship between processes of touristic penetration and other processes of social change. The principal question which sociologists of tourism would have to answer in the future is, which of the multitude of contextual circumstances in which a kind tourism is embedded is of primary importance for its analysis. Attention may be paid, among other things, to the characteristics of the tourists themselves, of the touristic institutions, of the general institutional framework of the destination area (as e.g. analysed in K e m p e r ' s contribution to this issue of Annals,) or to the deeper social and cultural characteristics of the host society analyzed. 3. Comparative: The current writing on the sociology of tourism suffers from a lack of an explicit comparative perspective. Highly interesting analyses of specific touristic situations can rarely be used for a more general analysis because they have not been set in a comparative framework. Research projects within which several touristic situations are compared are admittedly rare (Packer 1973; Peck and Lepie 1977; Pi-Sunyer 1977; Reiter 1973 and Kemper in this issue). However, even if the research design involves only one particular case, it is still implicitly part of the comparative study - that of similar projects conducted by other researchers. Research on tourism could be considerably advanced if researchers would take explicit cognizance of the comparative context. There are several respects in which this could be done: in the definition of the research problem; in the selection of the research site; in the definition of the variables; and in the description of the general characteristics of the ecological and social setting in which research has been conducted. Regard to the comparative context on part of researchers conducting case studies would greatly advance secondary comparative analysis. 4. Emic: It emerges from the preceding discussion that it is not sufficient to study the touristic process from the outside; one has to recognize that the emic perspective not only forms, in Pi-Sunyer's (1974) term, a " s e p a r a t e reality," but is also of consequence for the external manifestations of touristic processes. The emic perspective of the different parties participating in the touristic process should hence be given explicit recognition in the research design. The strategy of research proposed here aims at cutting a middle way between a presumptuous attempt to create a monolithic (generalizing) "theory of tourism" and the piece-meal, ad hoc investigation of discrete empirical problems. While recognizing that tourism is not a theoretical subfield of sociology, and that many and diverse theoretical approaches can be applied to its investigation, one should nevertheless aim at establishing a common style of investigation through which that continuity in research and generalization of findings will be facilitated. This should result eventually in closing the gap between theoretical treatises and empirical case studies, a discrepancy which marks the current state of affairs in the sociology of tourism. [] [] BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, D.W. 1975 A Note on Method in the Sociological Study of Sport. In Sport and Social order. D.W. Ball and J.W. Loy, eds. pp. 39-SI. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

32

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC COHEN

Boissenvain, J. 1977 Tourism and Development in Malta. Development and Change 8:523-538. Boorstin, D. 1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in American Society. New York: Harper. Bryden, J. 1973 Tourism and Development: A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, E. 1972 Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39(I):164-182. 1973 Nomads from Affluence: Notes on the Phenomenon of Drifter Tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 14(1-2):89-103. 1974 Who Is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review 22(4):527555.

1976 Environmental Orientations: A Multi-dimensional Approach to Social Ecology. Current Anthropology 17:49-70. 1979a The Impact of Tourism on the Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand. lnternationales Asienforum. 10. 1979b A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13:179-201. Forthcoming, Hill Tribe Tourism. In Highlanders of Thailand. W. Bhruksasri and 3. McKinnon, eds. In preparation. Strangeness and Familiarity. Doxey, G.V. 1976 A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants: Metholody and Research Inferences. In The Impact of Tourism, pp. 195-208. Salt Lake City: The Travel Research Association. Dumazdier, J. 1958 Vers une sociologie du tourisme. Repertoir des Voyages, 11. Finney, B.R., K.A. Watson, eds. 1975 A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East.West Center. Forster, J. 1964 The Sociological Consequences of Tourism. Comparative Sociology 5:217-227.

International Journal

of

Graburn, N.H.H. 1977 Tourism: The Sacred Journey, In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Valene Smith, ed. Pp. 17-31. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Prgss. Greenwood, D. J. 1972 Tourism as an Agent of Change: a Spanish Basque Case. Ethnology 11:80-91. Kneblal. H.J. 1960 Soziologische Strukturwandlungen im modernen Tourismus. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag. Knox. J.M. 1978 Resident-Visitor Interaction: A Review of the Literature and General Policy Alternatives. Paper at PEACESAT Conference, "The Impact in the Pacific." ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH. Jan/Mar 1979

33

RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

Alternatives. Paper at PEACESAT Conference, "The Impact of Tourism in the Pacific." Leach, J.W. 1973 Making the Best of Tourism: The Trobriand Case. In Priorities in Melanesian Development. R.J. May, ed. Pp. 357-361. Port Moresby: Research School of Pacific Studies, Umversity of Papua-New Guinea. Leymore, V.L. 1975 Hidden Myth. New York: Basic Books. MacCannell, Dean 1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology 79(3):589-603. 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books. McKean, Ph. F. 1976 Tourism, Culture Change, and Culture Conservation in Bali. In Changing Identities in Modern Southeast Asia. D.J. Banks, ed. Pp. 237-248. The Hague: Mouton. 1977 Towards a Theoretical Analysis of Tourism: Economic Dualism and Cultural Involution in Bali. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith ed. Pp. 93-107. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mifford, N. 1959 The Tourist. Encounter 13(4):3-7. Mukerji, Ch. 1978 Bullshitting: Road Lore among Hitchhikers. Social Problems 25(3):241-252. Nash, D. 1977 Tourism as a Form of lmperalism. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 33-47. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Noronha, R. 1977 Social and Cultural Dimensions of Tourism: A Review of the Literature in English. New York: World Bank. Draft Copy. Packer, L.V. 1973 Tourism in the Small Community: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Development Change. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. Peck, J.G. and A.S. Lepie 1977 Tourism and Development in Three North Carolina Coastal Towns. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 159-172. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Perez, L.A. 1973/4 Aspects of Underdevelopment: Tourism in the West Indies. Science and Society 37:473-480. Pi-Sunyer, O. 1973 Tourism and Its Discontents: The Impact of a New Industry on a Catalan Community. Studies in European Society 1:1-20. 1974 Tourist Images: A Separate Reality. Paper, Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. 34

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

ERIC C O H E N

1977 Through Native Eyes: Tourists and Tourism in a Catalan Maritime Community. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 149-155. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Reiter, R.R. 1973 The Politics of Tourism in Two Southern French Communes. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

Ph.D.

Smith, V.L. 1974 Eskimo Perceptions of Tourists in Four Alaskan Communities. Paper, Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. 1977 Introduction. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 1-14. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press. 1977 (ed) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Sutton, W.A. 1967 Travel and Understanding: Notes on the Social Structure of Touring. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 8(2):218-223. Teas, J. 1974 I Study Monkeys - What Do You Do? Youthful Travelers in Nepal. Paper, Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. ten Have, P. 1974 The Counter Culture on the Move: a Field Study of Youth Tourists in Amsterdam. Mens en Maatschappij 49:297-315. Turner, L. and J. Ash 1975 The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. London: Constable. Turner. V. 1972 The Center Out There: Pilgrim's Goal. History of Religions 12(3):191-230. UNESCO 1976 The Effects of Tourism on Socio-Cultural Values. Annals of Tourism Research 4(2):74-105. Vogt, J.W. 1975 Wandering: Youth and Travel Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 4(1):25-41. Wirth, A.J. 1976 Massentourismus und abh~ngige Entwicklung; Kritik der herrschenden Theoreme zum Tourismus in der Dritten Welt. PhD. Dissertation, University of Marburg.

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

35