- Email: [email protected]
Towards establishing a new paradigm for tourism and hospitality development
Int. J. Hospitality Management Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 309-317, 1992 Printed in Great Britain
0278-4319/92 $5.00 + 0.00 © 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd
Towards establishing a new paradigm for tourism and hospitality development Joseph A. Hegarty Dublin College of Catering, Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin, E ire
Introduction In approaching a paper that attempts to address tourism and hospitality development issues philosophically, one runs the risk that readers are already fully familiar with the subject matter in hand and that one has nothing to say except what everybody knows. 'I want to urge you that one who has nothing to say except what everybody knows already may yet say something worth saying' (Wisdom, 1950). John Wisdom goes on to illustrate how this happens through two examples that beg the question, 'But don't we sometimes become unduly confident that what a man says is false because his argument is invalid and/or his premise false? And if we do then there are occasions on which it is worth saying to us a man may be right in what he says although his argument is invalid and/or his premise is false--a thing which everybody knows.' However, it is not sufficient simply to show that it is sometimes worth saying what everybody knows. It is necessary to bring out how, when, and why it is sometimes worth saying what everybody knows, and to bring out the several ways of doing this, which have the effect of informing people of what they may not know. Tourism is something that everybody knows: tourists; residents of destinations; operators of tourism businesses; practitioners; students; teachers; civil servants; and policy makers in governments, development aid agencies, and banks. All of these persons from tourists to policy makers bring various philosophical perspectives to bear on decisions about actions and value formations affecting or stemming from their roles. What has all this to do with tourism, hospitality or philosophy? In a bewildering and bewildered world, what is the point of talk, talk about tourism. The point is that talking about tourism and hospitality can influence the listeners' feelings about tourism, and can alter apprehensions about tourism and hospitality development in the developing world. One seeks here to open up a discussion that hopefully will help to illuminate the reality of tourism. This is one of the functions of philosophy--to illuminate reality. One does not seek to impose a set of philosophies either singular or diverse upon the complexity that everybody knows as tourism. International tourism and hospitality operates at present within a paradigm of profitdriven megabusiness, with allegedly scant regard for environment, community or culture. Khun (1962) used the term 'paradigm' to describe the set of achievements that a scientific community 'acknowledges as supplying the foundation of its future practice'. 309
310
Discussion Paper
They are achievements that "attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity', and are 'sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practioners to resolve'. After the publication of Khun's book, his critics observed that the concept was vague, and was used in several different meanings. Khun suggested a revised concept, which for the purpose of this paper, allows a very broad definition of a 'paradigm', i.e. 'A paradigm is the general mode of how things (in society and) in the community of tourism and hospitality educators and practioners are repeatedly being done'. Given the finiteness of the planet's resources, and the seeming insatiability of the demand, some dramatic rethinking of 'the ways things are done" needs to be developed. Such rethinking is referred to as a 'paradigm shift'. In between paradigm shifts a period of 'normal activity' is going on that keeps within the prevailing paradigm (Mannermaa, 1991). This paper proposes a paradigm shift in tourism and hospitality development through the assessment of some considerations that will affect the future role of tourism and hospitality in human development. It will attempt to establish some characteristics by which tourism might be recognized in tomorrow's society. Such considerations, if they are to rise above the merely economic supply and demand forecasting, must deal with tourism and hospitality as contributing to man's understanding of man, helping man toward his own human achievements, and the preservation of the planet, and cannot escape the problems and entanglements of philosophy. At the deepest level, this examination of tourism and hospitality development concepts needs to deal with the underlying paradigm, and to assess its value in a global and cultural context. At this level, philosophical awareness and ethical consciousness can contribute towards a paradigm shift in tourism and hospitality development especially in the developing world. Philosophical consciousness in tourism and hospitality is not yet a phrase of common occurrence in writings on the theories and practises of the discipline. There is an inherent danger that the use of such phrases may be no more than high sounding titles for generalized discussion about the aims and methods of tourism and hospitality provision. One wants to suggest that language of this sort has a proper and useful function in the tourism and hospitality debate. The bold use of phrases like, 'philosophical or ethical consciousness', 'the philosophy of tourism', 'the philosophical basis of tourism', may be used in pretentious sophistry, but they may be used also in genuine and propagative fields of enquiry. The essential factor is that the user stipulates the contextual definition of the term (Scheffler, 1971). This paper seeks to examine whether philosophy can be of service to tourism and hospitality policy makers, participants, students and practitioners as a framework for decision-making. This, in turn, requires an appreciation of the methods and findings of philosophy, as well as an appreciation of tourism and hospitality.
The tourism industry--defining tourism There is a tendency to think of tourism as a self-contained industry with neatly defined borders. If this were simply the case, it would certainly make the task of those attempting to measure tourism activity and plan the future of tourism easier. Conceptually, to define tourism seems a difficult if not impossible task. The classical picture of tourism is that of an individual traveller who can follow his personal impulses, wishes and ideas in the peaceful tranquillity of a lakeside hotel nestling between woodland
Discussion Paper
311
mountains at a destination of his/her choice. This destination area is operated by managers with a system approach to goal-directed profitability. This picture was worked up to a definition by Cohen (1972) who described the tourist as 'a voluntary, temporary traveller, travelling in the expectation of pleasure from the novelty and change experienced on a relatively long and non-recurrent round-trip'. Useful though this definition is, it does not account for the present day mass phenomenon of a social nature that can no longer be measured in terms of the individual either in the use it makes of time and space, or in its relationships with the production of goods and services. Tourism has become one of the major concerns of nations and of the international community. The concept of tourism is ephemeral. To define it precisely is a difficult if not impossible task (Holloway, 1989). D ' A m o r e (1985) explores the notion that tourism of the post industrial, information, learning or New Age Society is a Third Generation of Tourism Development. Professor Hunziker (1951) held, in one of the first attempts at a definition, that tourism is 'the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the travel and stay of non-residents, in so far as they do not lead to permanent residence and are not connected to any earning activity'. However ephemeral these definitions may appear, there are common elements that have been described by Dean (1986). From the individual tourist's point of view the tourist product is a set of activities that starts from the time of leaving home, includes everything that takes place during the period away from home and ends with the return. It is a bundle of services loosely linked together. From the point of view of the provider, each service is an entity in itself. What they sell is purchased by several different markets. Thus a hotelier, for example, provides a service to tourists, local businesses, wedding parties and other entertainment. Just how broad the tourist product is can be seen if it is recognized as having six main components. (i) Environment: (ii) Activities: (iii) Accommodation: (iv) Transport: (v) Services: (vi) Infrastructure:
The raw material of tourism that gives a tourist destination its particular appeal; it has natural, cultural and social elements. These are based upon and derive from the environment, e.g. trekking, rafting, mountaineering, sightseeing, fishing, horseriding etc. One must have a place to sleep and eat, There must be ways of getting to and moving around the destination. Those many services that support tourism: information services; health services; booking services; customs services and so on. Without roads, airports, telephones, telex systems, sewerage, etc., tourism cannot work.
This definition of tourism suggests that tourism covers much more than hotels, restaurants and access transport, the areas that are normally perceived as the tourist product. Przeclawski (1973) suggested that 'Tourism is the whole phenomena of spatial mobility connected with a temporary, voluntary change of place, rhythm and conditions of living, and coming into personal contact with the visited environmment/natural, cultural or social.' This definition reiterates the personal, individual focus of tourism. Lea (1988) points out the difficulty of arriving at a definition of tourism. Jafar Jafari and Brent Ritchie (1981) define it as 'the study of man away from his usual habitat; of the
312
Discussion Paper
industry which responds to his needs; and of the impacts that both he and the industry have on the host's socio-cultural, economic and physical environments'. McIntosh and Goeldner (1990) define tourism as "the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments, and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting the tourists and other visitors'. Pearce (1991) broadly concurs with these definitions. The implications of such definitions are fundamental to the question of, *what are the costs and the contributions of tourism to human development?' To date, this question has not been fully answered. One doubts whether indeed it has been fully asked, for this question is a philosophical question, a moral question, it goes beyond the immediate, to the important. International tourism and hospitality has grown by leaps and bounds. It has become a major force in the world. It affects economics, lifestyles, social, cultural and environmental aspects of man on earth. Its development has been in accordance with the economic laws of supply and demand, and the financial laws of rate of return on investment. There is little doubt about its role in foreign exchange earnings for many countries~ but in poor countries it is the most important factor in the balance of payments. Therefore, tourism and hospitality is more than a business--it is a full economic sector. Available statistics on tourism and hospitality jobs, sales, output, investment, tax revenues and other key economic statistics are testimony to the size and importance of the sector in national and international economics. With current expected employment of over 130 million people worldwide, and gross sales projected to reach U.S.$3 (three) trillion by 1992, tourism is the world's largest industry (Tourism Policy Forum, 1991), exceeding the defence industry, manufacturing, the oil industry and agriculture (Lundberg, 1990). Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries with gross sales expected to be maintained at an 8.7% growth through 1992. But when defining tourism, many people argue that it does not exist as an identifiable industry (Coltman, 1989). There are limitations to the levels of tourism development in environmental, social, cultural and economic terms. At present, mankind is living in a situation where it is no longer a matter of dispute whether environmental problems are real or not. This became evident to many people after the United Nations World Commission on Environment (also known as the Brundtland Commission, W C E D , 1987) delivered its report with the title 'Our Common Future' to the UN in 1987 and was focused on yet again at the Earth Summit in Rio last June. According to the Brundtland Commission, it is no longer correct to speak of energy crises, environmental crises, economic crises, development crises etc. They are only different aspects of the same crisis. Ecological and economic systems are connected to each other, and nations are bound together not only by economic, but also by ecological systems. In the past, people tended to be worried about the problems created in the environment caused by the various economic systems. At present the problem is more often than not reversed: the ever-worsening environmental damages have created a threat to the economic systems. From the viewpoint of nature, the production processes involved in human economies have had the following effect: humanity takes natural resources, transforms them into material products, uses (consumes) them, and finally sends them back to nature in the form of waste, thus increasing entropy in nature. As Georgescu-Roegen (1971) has pointed out, what man is doing in his economy is basically transforming material into
Discussion Paper
313
waste. Sustainable development in nature is setting limits to these processes, both to the input as well as to the output ends of the process. The threat of ecocatastrophes is created by the fact that mankind is reaching and to some degree has already reached these limits.
End o f the industrial era In many countries in the world, the era of the industrial society is coming to an end. Industrial society is dying, and with it the industriaI way of goal-setting, work organization and creation of economic, societal and cultural organizations etc. The relative importance of industrial production, as well as the share of people employed by industry, has been decreasing for a considerable time (Dean, 1986). This development is quite in line with the decrease in importance of agricultural activities during the period when the industrial economic mode took the leading position in society, i.e. the transformation from an agricultural society to an industrial one. The non-material economy, knowledge industries and service branches are becoming more and more important economic activities. Instead of centralized industrial giants, small high-tech companies often have taken the innovative and leading role in creating this new type of economy. This change means that the social and political institutions of industrial society also are facing ever greater pressures in the birth pains of this new society. Not only are the old conflicts of the industrial society of great importance, e.g. the conflicts between capital and labour. The gap between the rich North and the poor South, as well as the conflict between man's techno-economic system and the ecosystem of nature are much more important conflicts today. In dealing with these conflicts, particularly in the context of hospitality and tourism development, the old paradigm may not be an adequate response. Because of its historical commercial foundations and the predominance of small ownermanager type businesses, the profession of tourism and hospitality has experienced unnecessary difficulties in becoming established in an intellectual or academic sense. Nor has its role in the social and political life of nations been adequately assessed. A 1991 poll of 14 countries around the world measured the current perception of opinion leaders and policy makers relative to the economic contribution of tourism and hospitality and reveals a contradiction. The analysis shows that tourism and hospitality is far from being understood as the leading economic contributor to the world and national economies. Despite its real rank as the world's largest industry, public perception ranks it low (Tourism Policy Forum, 1991). It has suffered also from the lack of research capability and credibility that would derive from such recognition. One acknowledges that for some nations its economic value has been noted, sometimes at cost to its ecology.
Ethics---a framework for choice The term 'ethics' and the term 'morality' are derived respectively from the Greek and Latin words for custom and habit. The word 'ethics' is derived from a Greek root 'ethos' which originally meant 'dwelling' or 'stall' (Lehman, 1963). The Latin translation given to this word was 'mos' from which the word 'morality' is derived. Lehman records 'that the
314
Discussion Paper
term was first applied not to h u m a n beings but to animals'. H e continues, 'It was obvious to men that animals needed to be put s o m e w h e r e for shelter and protection. Thus the germinal idea in the word is the stability and security provided by a 'stall' or "dwelling' for animals'. The verb root eiotha means 'to be a c c u s t o m e d to' or 'to be wont to'. Hence the relationship between stability and custom was a kind of elemental datum of experience. It was really the primary office of custom to do in the h u m a n area what the stall did for animals: to provide security and stability ( L e h m a n , 1963). Thus ' c u s t o m ' or 'behaviour" was the original m e a n i n g of 'ethics', as well as that of 'morality'. But in the subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t of philosophy, a distinction came to be made b e t w e e n 'ethics' and 'morality'. Thus, morality generally refers to a set of beliefs about what one ought to do, how one should behave, whereas ethics or moral philosophy refers to the rational or philosophical foundations of such principles. Etymologically therefore (from the point of view of a study of the origin of language), ethics means the science of the customs and habits of man, or m o r e precisely, the science of h u m a n behaviour ( A y e r , 1980). (There are o t h e r sciences of h u m a n b e h a v i o u r also, such as sociology, political theory, history and psychology.) Ethics, h o w e v e r , studies h u m a n b e h a v i o u r from a special point of view, namely from the point of view of its g o o d n e s s or rightness. A thing is said to be g o o d when it possesses a value either as an end in itself (intrinsic goodness) or as a means towards such an end (functional or instrumental goodness), and it is said to be right when it is straight or according to the rule. To say, then, that ethics is c o n c e r n e d with the g o o d n e s s or the rightness of h u m a n b e h a v i o u r is to say or mean that it is c o n c e r n e d with the value that h u m a n b e h a v i o u r possesses in view of some end or ideal at which man aims. and with the rules or general principles by which h u m a n behaviour is to be directed if this end is to be attained. At this stage, the following questions arise: why does anything possess a value at all'? A n d why do we distinguish between that which is an end-in-itself, and that which is merely a means towards such an end? A n d , is tourism a means or an end'? Briefly, what do we m e a n by these terms? F u n d a m e n t a l l y , a thing is said to possess a value when it fulfils a certain function. M o r e o v e r , and this is essential, this function is always a function in relation to man. Thus, a blade is a g o o d blade in the measure that it shaves well, a pen is a g o o d pen if it writes well, a watch is a g o o d watch if it keeps time accurately, and so on. This 'is precisely what is m e a n t when saying that objects are instrumentally good: they are g o o d when they effectively carry out or answer to the intentions of man. As means to an end. however, such objects are incapable of being intrinsically good. H o w does one know what is intrinsically g o o d ? The answer is that one cannot fail to recognize the p r o p e r t y of intrinsic goodness when c o n f r o n t e d with it. In this context, its properties are similar to the c o n c e p t "quality'. M o o r e (1903) takes it as the things that ought to exist for their own sake. Propositions concerning what is intrinsically g o o d as contrasted with what is g o o d only because it is a means to something intrinsically g o o d are susceptible neither of p r o o f nor of disproof. This is because "good' is the name of a simple, unanalysable property, which M o o r e calls ' n o n - n a t u r a l ' , because it cannot be identified with any natural p r o p e r t y ( M o o r e , 1903), Aristotle identifies only man as intrinsically g o o d because man is the only end-inhimself. H e n c e , to treat man as a means rather than as an end-in-himself is to treat him as an objective and never as a man. The g o o d of man is defined as the activity of the soul in
Discussion Paper
315
accordance with virtue or, if there are a number of human excellences or virtues, in accordance with the best and most perfect of them. 'What is more, it is this activity throughout a whole life. One swallow does not make a summer, nor one fine day. So one good or short period does not make a man blessed and happy.' (Maclntyre, 1987). Immanuel Kant notes that Greek ethical theory does not sufficiently show the relationship between man's end (happiness) toward which all things tend and for the sake of which all things exist, and the actual experience of the individual who is supposed to live by the ethical demand. Greek ethics has been so preoccupied with the ethical end or goal as to give insufficient attention to the ethical subject, the actual doer of the good. But the contemporary ethical situation has difficulty both with Aristotle and Kant. Mill deals with 'The ultimate sanction of the principle of utility', and argues that all moral standards require a sanction or binding force that motivates moral conduct. Mill defines the principle of utility in terms of the maxim, 'The greatest good for the greatest number' (J. S. Mill, 1806-1873). As Aristotle and Kant before him have done, Professor Paul Weiss seeks to keep analysis and observation close together. According to Weiss, what is really most known to us is not that we are rational animals or agents of a principle of volition, but that we are human beings, characterized by a particular kind of wholeness called 'human nature'. 'Men make ethical judgments all the time.' The judgements and the human situation underlying and expressed in them constitute the 'ethical facts', which are at once the substance of humanity and the starting point for valid ethical analysis. The contemporary situation in the ethics of tourism sets up the conditions for human maturity in dealing with questions that offer opportunities to all men to recognize the power of human wholeness. Tourism development decisions that seek to achieve a better standard of living for the poor rural people, and that are based upon the principles of responsible tourism seeking to establish the carrying capacity of a destination and a sustainable development, can best be made in the context of human wholeness. Tourism developers and governments can seek the ethical basis for ecological imperatives that will guide the survival of the planet for our children's children.
Conclusion This paper set out to open discussion on whether philosophy, and that particular discipline within it known as Ethics could be of service to tourism policy makers, participants (tourists), students and professional practitioners as a framework for decision making. The paper sought to bring together an awareness of the concepts of philosophy, ethics, hospitality and tourism and to examine how an ethical framework might be considered that could influence feelings about tourism, and alter apprehensions about tourism development in the developing world, based upon a new paradigm of responsible and sensitive tourism.
316
Discussion Paper
The definition of tourism, which evolved in the examination of various definitions, was that of a megabuck business activity, based on an out of date paradigm. The examination of ethics as a framework for choice places the focus on a universal scale of first principles, based on rational or philosophical foundations. The first conclusion reached is that this is but a first step. Much more scholarly work needs to be done, and needs support from the industry. The second conclusion is, that if the basis for decision-making in tourism becomes that of ethics, then the potential to avoid ecocatastrophe is enormous. Tourism and hospitality could be the turning point in mankind's recognition of the biodiversity of creation; this life in us, in our world, in the universe that, however low it flickers or fiercely it burns, is still a divine flame that no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened. It is no longer a question of whether ethics can provide a new paradigm for tourism development or even when. The issue is how? The ethical basis for new paradigm construction is a case past making, and one that requires urgent individual action.
References Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book I. Ayer, A. J. (1980) The Central Questions o f Philosophy. Harmondsworth, London. Cohen, E. (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. In Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, McIntosh, J. and Goeldner, R. C. (eds), pp. 197-208. Wiley, New York. Coltman, M. M. (1989) Introduction to Travel & Tourism An lnternational Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, London. D'Amore, L. (1985) A third generation of tourism thinking: towards a creative conspiracy. Business Quarterly. School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Dean, B. M. (1986) An employment growth area: the tourism industry. Paper presented to the Conference on Unemployment, Dublin College of Catering, Ireland. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971) The Entropy Law and Economic Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Holloway, J. C. (1989) The Business o f Tourism, pp. 9-32. Pitman, London. Hunziker, W. (1951) Social Tourism: Its Nature and Problems. Alliance International de Tourism, Paris. Jafar Jafari and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1981) Toward a framework for tourism education and prospects. Annals o f Tourism Research 3(1), 13-34. Khun, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. In In Search o f an Evolutionary Paradigm for Future Research, Mannermaa, M. (ed.). Futures 23, 349-350. Lea, J. (1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World, pp. 11-14. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, London and New York. Lehman, P. (1963) Ethics in a Christian Context, pp. 23-25. SCM Press, London. Lundberg, D. E. (1990) The Tourist Business. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, London. MacIntyre, A. (1987) A Short History o f Ethics, p. 62. Routledge, London. McIntosh, J. and Goeldner, R. C. (1990) Tourism: Principles', Practices, Philosophies, 6th Edition, pp. 10-40. Wiley, New York. Mannermaa, M. (1991) In Search o f an Evolutionary Paradigm for Future Research. Futures" 23,349371. Moore, G. E. (1903) Principia Ethica, pp. 1-36. CUP, Cambridge.
Discussion Paper
317
Pearce, D. (1991) Tourist Development, pp. 1-3. Longman, London. Przeclawski, K. (1973) Humanistic Foundations of Tourism. Institute of Tourism, Warsaw. Scheffler, I. (1971) The Language of Education, pp. 13-19. Cles Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Tourism Policy Forum (1991) Global Assessment of Tourism Policy. The George Washington University, International Institute of Tourism Policy, Washington, D.C. Wisdom, J. (1959) The Logic of God. In The Existence of God, Hick, J. (ed.), pp. 275-298. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. OUP, Oxford.
0278-4319/92 $5.00 + 0.00 © 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd
Towards establishing a new paradigm for tourism and hospitality development Joseph A. Hegarty Dublin College of Catering, Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin, E ire
Introduction In approaching a paper that attempts to address tourism and hospitality development issues philosophically, one runs the risk that readers are already fully familiar with the subject matter in hand and that one has nothing to say except what everybody knows. 'I want to urge you that one who has nothing to say except what everybody knows already may yet say something worth saying' (Wisdom, 1950). John Wisdom goes on to illustrate how this happens through two examples that beg the question, 'But don't we sometimes become unduly confident that what a man says is false because his argument is invalid and/or his premise false? And if we do then there are occasions on which it is worth saying to us a man may be right in what he says although his argument is invalid and/or his premise is false--a thing which everybody knows.' However, it is not sufficient simply to show that it is sometimes worth saying what everybody knows. It is necessary to bring out how, when, and why it is sometimes worth saying what everybody knows, and to bring out the several ways of doing this, which have the effect of informing people of what they may not know. Tourism is something that everybody knows: tourists; residents of destinations; operators of tourism businesses; practitioners; students; teachers; civil servants; and policy makers in governments, development aid agencies, and banks. All of these persons from tourists to policy makers bring various philosophical perspectives to bear on decisions about actions and value formations affecting or stemming from their roles. What has all this to do with tourism, hospitality or philosophy? In a bewildering and bewildered world, what is the point of talk, talk about tourism. The point is that talking about tourism and hospitality can influence the listeners' feelings about tourism, and can alter apprehensions about tourism and hospitality development in the developing world. One seeks here to open up a discussion that hopefully will help to illuminate the reality of tourism. This is one of the functions of philosophy--to illuminate reality. One does not seek to impose a set of philosophies either singular or diverse upon the complexity that everybody knows as tourism. International tourism and hospitality operates at present within a paradigm of profitdriven megabusiness, with allegedly scant regard for environment, community or culture. Khun (1962) used the term 'paradigm' to describe the set of achievements that a scientific community 'acknowledges as supplying the foundation of its future practice'. 309
310
Discussion Paper
They are achievements that "attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity', and are 'sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practioners to resolve'. After the publication of Khun's book, his critics observed that the concept was vague, and was used in several different meanings. Khun suggested a revised concept, which for the purpose of this paper, allows a very broad definition of a 'paradigm', i.e. 'A paradigm is the general mode of how things (in society and) in the community of tourism and hospitality educators and practioners are repeatedly being done'. Given the finiteness of the planet's resources, and the seeming insatiability of the demand, some dramatic rethinking of 'the ways things are done" needs to be developed. Such rethinking is referred to as a 'paradigm shift'. In between paradigm shifts a period of 'normal activity' is going on that keeps within the prevailing paradigm (Mannermaa, 1991). This paper proposes a paradigm shift in tourism and hospitality development through the assessment of some considerations that will affect the future role of tourism and hospitality in human development. It will attempt to establish some characteristics by which tourism might be recognized in tomorrow's society. Such considerations, if they are to rise above the merely economic supply and demand forecasting, must deal with tourism and hospitality as contributing to man's understanding of man, helping man toward his own human achievements, and the preservation of the planet, and cannot escape the problems and entanglements of philosophy. At the deepest level, this examination of tourism and hospitality development concepts needs to deal with the underlying paradigm, and to assess its value in a global and cultural context. At this level, philosophical awareness and ethical consciousness can contribute towards a paradigm shift in tourism and hospitality development especially in the developing world. Philosophical consciousness in tourism and hospitality is not yet a phrase of common occurrence in writings on the theories and practises of the discipline. There is an inherent danger that the use of such phrases may be no more than high sounding titles for generalized discussion about the aims and methods of tourism and hospitality provision. One wants to suggest that language of this sort has a proper and useful function in the tourism and hospitality debate. The bold use of phrases like, 'philosophical or ethical consciousness', 'the philosophy of tourism', 'the philosophical basis of tourism', may be used in pretentious sophistry, but they may be used also in genuine and propagative fields of enquiry. The essential factor is that the user stipulates the contextual definition of the term (Scheffler, 1971). This paper seeks to examine whether philosophy can be of service to tourism and hospitality policy makers, participants, students and practitioners as a framework for decision-making. This, in turn, requires an appreciation of the methods and findings of philosophy, as well as an appreciation of tourism and hospitality.
The tourism industry--defining tourism There is a tendency to think of tourism as a self-contained industry with neatly defined borders. If this were simply the case, it would certainly make the task of those attempting to measure tourism activity and plan the future of tourism easier. Conceptually, to define tourism seems a difficult if not impossible task. The classical picture of tourism is that of an individual traveller who can follow his personal impulses, wishes and ideas in the peaceful tranquillity of a lakeside hotel nestling between woodland
Discussion Paper
311
mountains at a destination of his/her choice. This destination area is operated by managers with a system approach to goal-directed profitability. This picture was worked up to a definition by Cohen (1972) who described the tourist as 'a voluntary, temporary traveller, travelling in the expectation of pleasure from the novelty and change experienced on a relatively long and non-recurrent round-trip'. Useful though this definition is, it does not account for the present day mass phenomenon of a social nature that can no longer be measured in terms of the individual either in the use it makes of time and space, or in its relationships with the production of goods and services. Tourism has become one of the major concerns of nations and of the international community. The concept of tourism is ephemeral. To define it precisely is a difficult if not impossible task (Holloway, 1989). D ' A m o r e (1985) explores the notion that tourism of the post industrial, information, learning or New Age Society is a Third Generation of Tourism Development. Professor Hunziker (1951) held, in one of the first attempts at a definition, that tourism is 'the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the travel and stay of non-residents, in so far as they do not lead to permanent residence and are not connected to any earning activity'. However ephemeral these definitions may appear, there are common elements that have been described by Dean (1986). From the individual tourist's point of view the tourist product is a set of activities that starts from the time of leaving home, includes everything that takes place during the period away from home and ends with the return. It is a bundle of services loosely linked together. From the point of view of the provider, each service is an entity in itself. What they sell is purchased by several different markets. Thus a hotelier, for example, provides a service to tourists, local businesses, wedding parties and other entertainment. Just how broad the tourist product is can be seen if it is recognized as having six main components. (i) Environment: (ii) Activities: (iii) Accommodation: (iv) Transport: (v) Services: (vi) Infrastructure:
The raw material of tourism that gives a tourist destination its particular appeal; it has natural, cultural and social elements. These are based upon and derive from the environment, e.g. trekking, rafting, mountaineering, sightseeing, fishing, horseriding etc. One must have a place to sleep and eat, There must be ways of getting to and moving around the destination. Those many services that support tourism: information services; health services; booking services; customs services and so on. Without roads, airports, telephones, telex systems, sewerage, etc., tourism cannot work.
This definition of tourism suggests that tourism covers much more than hotels, restaurants and access transport, the areas that are normally perceived as the tourist product. Przeclawski (1973) suggested that 'Tourism is the whole phenomena of spatial mobility connected with a temporary, voluntary change of place, rhythm and conditions of living, and coming into personal contact with the visited environmment/natural, cultural or social.' This definition reiterates the personal, individual focus of tourism. Lea (1988) points out the difficulty of arriving at a definition of tourism. Jafar Jafari and Brent Ritchie (1981) define it as 'the study of man away from his usual habitat; of the
312
Discussion Paper
industry which responds to his needs; and of the impacts that both he and the industry have on the host's socio-cultural, economic and physical environments'. McIntosh and Goeldner (1990) define tourism as "the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments, and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting the tourists and other visitors'. Pearce (1991) broadly concurs with these definitions. The implications of such definitions are fundamental to the question of, *what are the costs and the contributions of tourism to human development?' To date, this question has not been fully answered. One doubts whether indeed it has been fully asked, for this question is a philosophical question, a moral question, it goes beyond the immediate, to the important. International tourism and hospitality has grown by leaps and bounds. It has become a major force in the world. It affects economics, lifestyles, social, cultural and environmental aspects of man on earth. Its development has been in accordance with the economic laws of supply and demand, and the financial laws of rate of return on investment. There is little doubt about its role in foreign exchange earnings for many countries~ but in poor countries it is the most important factor in the balance of payments. Therefore, tourism and hospitality is more than a business--it is a full economic sector. Available statistics on tourism and hospitality jobs, sales, output, investment, tax revenues and other key economic statistics are testimony to the size and importance of the sector in national and international economics. With current expected employment of over 130 million people worldwide, and gross sales projected to reach U.S.$3 (three) trillion by 1992, tourism is the world's largest industry (Tourism Policy Forum, 1991), exceeding the defence industry, manufacturing, the oil industry and agriculture (Lundberg, 1990). Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries with gross sales expected to be maintained at an 8.7% growth through 1992. But when defining tourism, many people argue that it does not exist as an identifiable industry (Coltman, 1989). There are limitations to the levels of tourism development in environmental, social, cultural and economic terms. At present, mankind is living in a situation where it is no longer a matter of dispute whether environmental problems are real or not. This became evident to many people after the United Nations World Commission on Environment (also known as the Brundtland Commission, W C E D , 1987) delivered its report with the title 'Our Common Future' to the UN in 1987 and was focused on yet again at the Earth Summit in Rio last June. According to the Brundtland Commission, it is no longer correct to speak of energy crises, environmental crises, economic crises, development crises etc. They are only different aspects of the same crisis. Ecological and economic systems are connected to each other, and nations are bound together not only by economic, but also by ecological systems. In the past, people tended to be worried about the problems created in the environment caused by the various economic systems. At present the problem is more often than not reversed: the ever-worsening environmental damages have created a threat to the economic systems. From the viewpoint of nature, the production processes involved in human economies have had the following effect: humanity takes natural resources, transforms them into material products, uses (consumes) them, and finally sends them back to nature in the form of waste, thus increasing entropy in nature. As Georgescu-Roegen (1971) has pointed out, what man is doing in his economy is basically transforming material into
Discussion Paper
313
waste. Sustainable development in nature is setting limits to these processes, both to the input as well as to the output ends of the process. The threat of ecocatastrophes is created by the fact that mankind is reaching and to some degree has already reached these limits.
End o f the industrial era In many countries in the world, the era of the industrial society is coming to an end. Industrial society is dying, and with it the industriaI way of goal-setting, work organization and creation of economic, societal and cultural organizations etc. The relative importance of industrial production, as well as the share of people employed by industry, has been decreasing for a considerable time (Dean, 1986). This development is quite in line with the decrease in importance of agricultural activities during the period when the industrial economic mode took the leading position in society, i.e. the transformation from an agricultural society to an industrial one. The non-material economy, knowledge industries and service branches are becoming more and more important economic activities. Instead of centralized industrial giants, small high-tech companies often have taken the innovative and leading role in creating this new type of economy. This change means that the social and political institutions of industrial society also are facing ever greater pressures in the birth pains of this new society. Not only are the old conflicts of the industrial society of great importance, e.g. the conflicts between capital and labour. The gap between the rich North and the poor South, as well as the conflict between man's techno-economic system and the ecosystem of nature are much more important conflicts today. In dealing with these conflicts, particularly in the context of hospitality and tourism development, the old paradigm may not be an adequate response. Because of its historical commercial foundations and the predominance of small ownermanager type businesses, the profession of tourism and hospitality has experienced unnecessary difficulties in becoming established in an intellectual or academic sense. Nor has its role in the social and political life of nations been adequately assessed. A 1991 poll of 14 countries around the world measured the current perception of opinion leaders and policy makers relative to the economic contribution of tourism and hospitality and reveals a contradiction. The analysis shows that tourism and hospitality is far from being understood as the leading economic contributor to the world and national economies. Despite its real rank as the world's largest industry, public perception ranks it low (Tourism Policy Forum, 1991). It has suffered also from the lack of research capability and credibility that would derive from such recognition. One acknowledges that for some nations its economic value has been noted, sometimes at cost to its ecology.
Ethics---a framework for choice The term 'ethics' and the term 'morality' are derived respectively from the Greek and Latin words for custom and habit. The word 'ethics' is derived from a Greek root 'ethos' which originally meant 'dwelling' or 'stall' (Lehman, 1963). The Latin translation given to this word was 'mos' from which the word 'morality' is derived. Lehman records 'that the
314
Discussion Paper
term was first applied not to h u m a n beings but to animals'. H e continues, 'It was obvious to men that animals needed to be put s o m e w h e r e for shelter and protection. Thus the germinal idea in the word is the stability and security provided by a 'stall' or "dwelling' for animals'. The verb root eiotha means 'to be a c c u s t o m e d to' or 'to be wont to'. Hence the relationship between stability and custom was a kind of elemental datum of experience. It was really the primary office of custom to do in the h u m a n area what the stall did for animals: to provide security and stability ( L e h m a n , 1963). Thus ' c u s t o m ' or 'behaviour" was the original m e a n i n g of 'ethics', as well as that of 'morality'. But in the subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t of philosophy, a distinction came to be made b e t w e e n 'ethics' and 'morality'. Thus, morality generally refers to a set of beliefs about what one ought to do, how one should behave, whereas ethics or moral philosophy refers to the rational or philosophical foundations of such principles. Etymologically therefore (from the point of view of a study of the origin of language), ethics means the science of the customs and habits of man, or m o r e precisely, the science of h u m a n behaviour ( A y e r , 1980). (There are o t h e r sciences of h u m a n b e h a v i o u r also, such as sociology, political theory, history and psychology.) Ethics, h o w e v e r , studies h u m a n b e h a v i o u r from a special point of view, namely from the point of view of its g o o d n e s s or rightness. A thing is said to be g o o d when it possesses a value either as an end in itself (intrinsic goodness) or as a means towards such an end (functional or instrumental goodness), and it is said to be right when it is straight or according to the rule. To say, then, that ethics is c o n c e r n e d with the g o o d n e s s or the rightness of h u m a n b e h a v i o u r is to say or mean that it is c o n c e r n e d with the value that h u m a n b e h a v i o u r possesses in view of some end or ideal at which man aims. and with the rules or general principles by which h u m a n behaviour is to be directed if this end is to be attained. At this stage, the following questions arise: why does anything possess a value at all'? A n d why do we distinguish between that which is an end-in-itself, and that which is merely a means towards such an end? A n d , is tourism a means or an end'? Briefly, what do we m e a n by these terms? F u n d a m e n t a l l y , a thing is said to possess a value when it fulfils a certain function. M o r e o v e r , and this is essential, this function is always a function in relation to man. Thus, a blade is a g o o d blade in the measure that it shaves well, a pen is a g o o d pen if it writes well, a watch is a g o o d watch if it keeps time accurately, and so on. This 'is precisely what is m e a n t when saying that objects are instrumentally good: they are g o o d when they effectively carry out or answer to the intentions of man. As means to an end. however, such objects are incapable of being intrinsically good. H o w does one know what is intrinsically g o o d ? The answer is that one cannot fail to recognize the p r o p e r t y of intrinsic goodness when c o n f r o n t e d with it. In this context, its properties are similar to the c o n c e p t "quality'. M o o r e (1903) takes it as the things that ought to exist for their own sake. Propositions concerning what is intrinsically g o o d as contrasted with what is g o o d only because it is a means to something intrinsically g o o d are susceptible neither of p r o o f nor of disproof. This is because "good' is the name of a simple, unanalysable property, which M o o r e calls ' n o n - n a t u r a l ' , because it cannot be identified with any natural p r o p e r t y ( M o o r e , 1903), Aristotle identifies only man as intrinsically g o o d because man is the only end-inhimself. H e n c e , to treat man as a means rather than as an end-in-himself is to treat him as an objective and never as a man. The g o o d of man is defined as the activity of the soul in
Discussion Paper
315
accordance with virtue or, if there are a number of human excellences or virtues, in accordance with the best and most perfect of them. 'What is more, it is this activity throughout a whole life. One swallow does not make a summer, nor one fine day. So one good or short period does not make a man blessed and happy.' (Maclntyre, 1987). Immanuel Kant notes that Greek ethical theory does not sufficiently show the relationship between man's end (happiness) toward which all things tend and for the sake of which all things exist, and the actual experience of the individual who is supposed to live by the ethical demand. Greek ethics has been so preoccupied with the ethical end or goal as to give insufficient attention to the ethical subject, the actual doer of the good. But the contemporary ethical situation has difficulty both with Aristotle and Kant. Mill deals with 'The ultimate sanction of the principle of utility', and argues that all moral standards require a sanction or binding force that motivates moral conduct. Mill defines the principle of utility in terms of the maxim, 'The greatest good for the greatest number' (J. S. Mill, 1806-1873). As Aristotle and Kant before him have done, Professor Paul Weiss seeks to keep analysis and observation close together. According to Weiss, what is really most known to us is not that we are rational animals or agents of a principle of volition, but that we are human beings, characterized by a particular kind of wholeness called 'human nature'. 'Men make ethical judgments all the time.' The judgements and the human situation underlying and expressed in them constitute the 'ethical facts', which are at once the substance of humanity and the starting point for valid ethical analysis. The contemporary situation in the ethics of tourism sets up the conditions for human maturity in dealing with questions that offer opportunities to all men to recognize the power of human wholeness. Tourism development decisions that seek to achieve a better standard of living for the poor rural people, and that are based upon the principles of responsible tourism seeking to establish the carrying capacity of a destination and a sustainable development, can best be made in the context of human wholeness. Tourism developers and governments can seek the ethical basis for ecological imperatives that will guide the survival of the planet for our children's children.
Conclusion This paper set out to open discussion on whether philosophy, and that particular discipline within it known as Ethics could be of service to tourism policy makers, participants (tourists), students and professional practitioners as a framework for decision making. The paper sought to bring together an awareness of the concepts of philosophy, ethics, hospitality and tourism and to examine how an ethical framework might be considered that could influence feelings about tourism, and alter apprehensions about tourism development in the developing world, based upon a new paradigm of responsible and sensitive tourism.
316
Discussion Paper
The definition of tourism, which evolved in the examination of various definitions, was that of a megabuck business activity, based on an out of date paradigm. The examination of ethics as a framework for choice places the focus on a universal scale of first principles, based on rational or philosophical foundations. The first conclusion reached is that this is but a first step. Much more scholarly work needs to be done, and needs support from the industry. The second conclusion is, that if the basis for decision-making in tourism becomes that of ethics, then the potential to avoid ecocatastrophe is enormous. Tourism and hospitality could be the turning point in mankind's recognition of the biodiversity of creation; this life in us, in our world, in the universe that, however low it flickers or fiercely it burns, is still a divine flame that no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened. It is no longer a question of whether ethics can provide a new paradigm for tourism development or even when. The issue is how? The ethical basis for new paradigm construction is a case past making, and one that requires urgent individual action.
References Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book I. Ayer, A. J. (1980) The Central Questions o f Philosophy. Harmondsworth, London. Cohen, E. (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. In Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, McIntosh, J. and Goeldner, R. C. (eds), pp. 197-208. Wiley, New York. Coltman, M. M. (1989) Introduction to Travel & Tourism An lnternational Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, London. D'Amore, L. (1985) A third generation of tourism thinking: towards a creative conspiracy. Business Quarterly. School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Dean, B. M. (1986) An employment growth area: the tourism industry. Paper presented to the Conference on Unemployment, Dublin College of Catering, Ireland. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971) The Entropy Law and Economic Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Holloway, J. C. (1989) The Business o f Tourism, pp. 9-32. Pitman, London. Hunziker, W. (1951) Social Tourism: Its Nature and Problems. Alliance International de Tourism, Paris. Jafar Jafari and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1981) Toward a framework for tourism education and prospects. Annals o f Tourism Research 3(1), 13-34. Khun, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. In In Search o f an Evolutionary Paradigm for Future Research, Mannermaa, M. (ed.). Futures 23, 349-350. Lea, J. (1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World, pp. 11-14. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, London and New York. Lehman, P. (1963) Ethics in a Christian Context, pp. 23-25. SCM Press, London. Lundberg, D. E. (1990) The Tourist Business. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, London. MacIntyre, A. (1987) A Short History o f Ethics, p. 62. Routledge, London. McIntosh, J. and Goeldner, R. C. (1990) Tourism: Principles', Practices, Philosophies, 6th Edition, pp. 10-40. Wiley, New York. Mannermaa, M. (1991) In Search o f an Evolutionary Paradigm for Future Research. Futures" 23,349371. Moore, G. E. (1903) Principia Ethica, pp. 1-36. CUP, Cambridge.
Discussion Paper
317
Pearce, D. (1991) Tourist Development, pp. 1-3. Longman, London. Przeclawski, K. (1973) Humanistic Foundations of Tourism. Institute of Tourism, Warsaw. Scheffler, I. (1971) The Language of Education, pp. 13-19. Cles Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Tourism Policy Forum (1991) Global Assessment of Tourism Policy. The George Washington University, International Institute of Tourism Policy, Washington, D.C. Wisdom, J. (1959) The Logic of God. In The Existence of God, Hick, J. (ed.), pp. 275-298. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. OUP, Oxford.