Issues of authenticity and commodification raise many questions about culture and its role in tourism (What is authentic culture? Should authentic culture be turned into a saleable commodity? Is it ethical to present something as authentic to tourists when it isn’t?) as well as the nature of cultural change (Do efforts to “preserve” culture render it static instead of allowing it to evolve? Is tourism responsible for cultural change, or is it simply one part of the wider process of globalization?).
Discussion topic: Can you think of an example of commodified culture in tourism?
Notes
1. Dean MacCannell, “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings,” American Journal of Sociology 79, no. 3 (1973).
2. Milena Ivanovic, Cultural Tourism (Cape Town: Juta, 2008), 121 (emphasis added).
3. Robert Shepherd, “Commodification, Culture, and Tourism,” Tourist Studies 2, no. 2 (2002): 185.
Sources
Cohen, Erik. “Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 15 (1988): 371–86.
MacLeod, Nicola. “Cultural Tourism: Aspects of Authenticity and Commodification.” In Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Participation, and (Re)presentation, edited by Melanie K. Smith and Mike Robinson, 177–90. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications, 2006.
Factors in Social Effects
Similar to the economic effects, there are some cases in which it is easy to see the direct effects of tourism on a community. This is particularly the case when tourism activities are developed in relatively isolated and undeveloped communities. For example, the development of tourism in remote Amazonian indigenous communities will bring a host of changes to their society. This might include the construction of new infrastructure to support tourism (e.g., roads or modern bathroom facilities) and the importation of new products for tourists’ consumption (e.g., bottled water), which might create further problems like package waste. It might require minor changes, such as in traditional patterns of dress (e.g., women covering their breasts), but it might also bring devastating consequences, such as diseases. Yet, in many cases, it may be difficult to separate what effects are a direct result of tourism and what would have occurred as a result of large societal changes. This is particularly the case when tourism activities occur in areas that are already well connected to modern, global culture. These destinations may be experiencing an erosion of local culture and unique social identities, but tourism’s contribution may be indistinguishable from the effects of multinational corporations and the global media.
The specific social effects of tourism at a destination, and the extent of these effects, will vary widely. The often interrelated factors that may determine these effects can include the type of tourists a destination receives, the quantity of tourists, the capability of the destination to handle these tourists, the spatial distance between tourists and local communities at the destination, and the type of interaction that takes place between tourists and local people. In addition, other factors might include the extent of similarities between tourists and locals, the origins of tourists, and the duration of exposure to other cultures.
Figure 9.5. Tourist information and guidebooks often highlight churches, temples, or mosques as tourism attractions and encourage visitation for historic and/or cultural reasons. As such, these sites may be perceived as open for tourists’ pleasure, as opposed to being a place with a specific function for local people. (Source: Tom Nelson)
The general typology of tourists discussed in chapter 2 (drifters, explorers, individual mass tourists, and organized mass tourists), may give us an indication of the quantity of each type of tourists a destination receives, the character of the destination, and/or the type of interaction that will take place between tourists and locals. Drifters and explorers typically arrive at a destination in relatively small numbers, whereas the categories of mass tourists account for large numbers of visitors at a destination. Thus, it might be anticipated that the larger quantities of mass tourists will have more effects on the local community at the destination than the smaller quantities of independent tourists. In some cases, this assumption might be accurate. For example, local residents in a small, emerging destination may be willing to welcome the drifters and explorers who seek to immerse themselves in the community and thereby have minimal negative impacts. In contrast, once that destination is “discovered” and increasingly visited by mass tourists who are less conscious of their impact on the destination, the community may begin to experience more negative social effects.
However, the number of tourists alone does not provide a complete picture. The character of the destination will affect its ability to handle the tourists it receives. In the example above, the emerging destination may have little infrastructure in place to accommodate even the slightest temporary increases in population associated with its tourism growth (e.g., overcrowding on local roads and public transport or at local restaurants and establishments). Tourists will be much more conspicuous, and local people may have little experience in dealing with outsiders. Consequently, the potential for incidences of culture clash is increased. In contrast, a well-developed tourism destination or a destination in a large urban area may be able to receive large quantities of mass tourists with little effect. The infrastructure is already in place to accommodate the demands of tourists without adversely affecting the needs of local people. Tourists may blend in to the existing population densities of the area, or they may simply be considered to have a normal presence in the community. Likewise, local people may be accustomed to dealing with tourists on a regular basis.
In addition, some mass tourism destinations were developed specifically to spatially isolate tourists from the local community. In this case, large quantities of tourists may visit the destination, but they will be concentrated within designated areas. This is particularly applicable in the case of enclave resorts and self-contained hotel complexes, such as those characterizing many popular S destinations like the Dominican Republic, which were constructed separate from existing communities. The only local people who have interactions with tourists are those who are employed in the resort community. As such, the effects of tourism are largely spatially contained, and local people may be able to live their lives as they choose and experience relatively few negative consequences from tourism. However, the potential for positive social exchange between tourists and locals will also likely be lost.
The type of tourist will also affect the type of interaction between tourists and locals. These interactions typically fall into one of three broad categories. The first category is the most formal and clearly demarcates the difference between tourists as consumers and local people as service providers. In this case, interaction takes place as tourists purchase goods and/or services from local people from street stands, at shops, in restaurants, or within the hotel/resort complex. In the second category, the distinction between insider and outsider becomes more blurred as both tourists and local people visit and use the same facilities, including beaches, parks, restaurants, or other entertainment venues. This spatial proximity increases the opportunity for contact between tourists and locals but does not necessarily indicate that meaningful interaction will occur. Finally, in the third category, tourists—and in some instances locals—seek interaction for the purpose of talking to, getting to know, and exchanging ideas with the other. This might take place in a structured experience, for example, when tourists take a guided tour not only to experience a place but to gain from the perspective of a local guide. This can also be something far more intimate and personal, such as when a local person invites a tourist to his or her home for a meal.
As we have already seen, organized mass tourists are primarily motivated by relaxation and self-indulgence and less interested in experiencing the place visited. They are more likely to stay at large multinational resorts. Local people typically have very little presence at these resorts, with the exception of those who are employed by
the resort, due to financial barriers as well as physical ones. With a range of amenities available to them, these tourists have little need or desire to leave the resort. As such, their opportunities for contact with local people are extremely limited and most likely fall under the first category. Individual mass tourists and explorers may have greater interaction in the second category as they seek new places to experience outside of the resort/tourist areas. In addition, the nature of the destinations visited by explorers and drifters lends itself much more to this type of interaction. Because these destinations are less developed with tourism infrastructure, tourists will necessarily share spaces and facilities with local people. This automatically creates opportunities for interaction. Moreover, these tourists tend to be more interested in the experience of place, including experiences with people in the local community. Thus, they are most likely to seek out the type of interaction described in the third category.
The similarity or difference that exists between both the cultures and the levels of development for tourists and local people may also play a role in the type and extent of social effects from tourism. When tourists visit places where there are few major differences in cultural characteristics and levels of socioeconomic development, the potential for tourism to have distinct social effects is lessened. Tourists who have a similar appearance and patterns of dress and speak the same language as people at the destination are less likely to stand out as outsiders. Historically, this was often the case, as international tourism developed among the societies of Western Europe and North America. As people traveled within these regions, there was little evidence of social effects that would not have otherwise occurred within these societies. Yet, once these tourists began visiting new destinations in the less developed parts of the world, the social effects of tourism became far more apparent. In particular, the greatest social effects are likely to be seen in destinations where the local community is relatively small, isolated, and less developed both socially and economically.2
To some extent, the social effects discussed above are based on the assumption that the tourists who visit a particular destination are coming from similar regions of origin and therefore have a common culture. This is the case for some destinations. Based on the particular cultural influence, the destination begins to adapt and reflect that particular culture, as in the example of British tourists to Magaluf on Palma de Mallorca, Spain, discussed in chapter 3. However, destinations frequently receive tourists from different regions who all bring their own distinct cultural characteristics. This diversity of cultural patterns may weaken the influence of any one group of people on the destination, or it may simply reshape the destination in different ways.
Finally, one of the key differences between the impacts on tourists and locals is the duration of exposure to other peoples, cultures, and ways of life. The concept of acculturation is used to describe the process of exchange that takes place when two groups of people come into contact over time. Yet, this is rarely an equal exchange. One group is likely to have more of an impact on the other, and the second group will experience the greatest changes. Tourist-local interactions present an interesting case in acculturation. Although the potential exists for tourists to be influenced by what they experience at the destination, they are less likely to be affected and experience any real changes to their daily lives because each individual tourist experiences only short-term exposure to the destination culture. In contrast, local people experience sustained (at least for a portion of the year) exposure to tourists and their patterns. As a result, the local community is more likely to adopt these patterns and to experience more significant cultural changes.
Box 9.3. Experience: Life around Tourism
I’ve lived in different parts of the country over the years, but most recently, life brought me to a small town in Alabama. It’s a one-stoplight town with a dollar store, and that’s about it. It was a good location for us, since my husband’s commute to Mobile in one direction was about the same amount of time as my commute to Gulf Shores in the other. The town itself is definitely not on any tourist map, but the county it’s in is very much shaped by tourism, with destinations such as Gulf Shores and Fairhope.
Gulf Shores is the primary destination with its location on the Gulf of Mexico. I work for a local real estate company that manages approximately sixteen hundred properties in the area, mostly houses and condos that are used for vacation rentals. It’s a pretty laid-back, warm-weather destination, where the beach is the main attraction. It is far less commercialized than other popular southern coastal resorts, like Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. There isn’t much in the way of big hotels. In fact, there are only a handful of hotels on the beach at all. Most of the restaurants are independent and locally owned as well. Tourists who want to eat at one of the well-known chain restaurants have to drive ten or twelve miles north of Gulf Shores to Foley.
Fairhope is a very different type of destination in the county, located just off Mobile Bay. It’s an attractive small town that has become a center for the arts. A local committee is dedicated to making works of art available to the public by placing them around town along a walking trail. The downtown business district is made up of art galleries, high-end boutique shops, and nice restaurants. Some tourists will visit for the day just for these things, but the town also attracts visitors for the monthly art walks and the many different art shows, fairs, and festivals that they host over the course of the year.
You quickly learn the in’s and out’s of living and working around here. Summer is the big season, when we get a steady supply of families coming for a week. During this time, I know it’s a good idea to leave for work early in the morning and to take back roads. I definitely avoid State Route 59 on Saturdays from late morning on; most tourists come Saturday to Saturday so traffic is always heavy. If I want to go out to eat for lunch, I need to make a reservation. Otherwise, it’s going to take longer than my lunch hour with the increased wait times to get a table and to be served. In the winter, Gulf Shores sees a smaller number of snowbirds who come down from the north and stay for maybe a month, maybe three or four. Because of these tourists, the place doesn’t “shut down” like some other summer destinations. Business is obviously slower, and some stores and restaurants change their hours of operation. A few places close their doors for a while: Jake’s Steakhouse and Grill puts out a sign that reads “Gone fishing, eat at Bubba’s (Seafood House),” which is next door and has the same owner.
Some of these things associated with the tourism industry can be an inconvenience when it comes to living in and around this area. But, in the end, I like life here. I appreciate the type of destinations we have; they are places I would like to visit if I were a tourist. I’m able to enjoy the same amenities as the tourists who visit for a week or a winter, whether it is the beach, the nature trails, the art galleries, the shopping (even if it’s just window shopping when I can’t afford the upscale boutiques), the fresh seafood, and more. I would actually prefer to live in Gulf Shores. Since much of my time is spent there with work and other daily activities, I would love to be closer and cut down on my commute time. There’s not much difference in the cost of living across the county. In fact, the primary disadvantage to living in Gulf Shores is not related to tourism at all: the cost of home ownership is considerably higher due to its coastal location and risk of hurricanes.
I had a friend who grew up in Gulf Shores once point out to me that they—the locals—had done something amazing with the tourism industry. They somehow managed to convince tourists to come in large numbers during the most uncomfortable (hot and humid) time of the year. This means that the locals are able to make a living off of the tourists during the season when they didn’t really want to do anything outside anyway. Then, once the summer ends, the masses go home, and the locals are free to enjoy the beach, the town, and all of the other tourism resources during the best parts of the year!
—Nancy
Knowledge and Education
In comparison to the economic and environmental effects of tourism, there is relatively little knowledge about the social effects. Because the private sector is typically most concerned with economic effects, it has traditionally done little in the way of assessing the potential social effects of tourism development. If a private sector developer does undertake any form of assessment, it is most likely mandated by the public sector at the local, regional, or national scale.3 The public sector may have a greater stake in ensuring the social well-being of its population; however, it too has often neglected to consider the social effects.
Although these social effects may seem to be distinct from the economic ones, they are interrelated. In particular, a successful tourism destination, which is often judged on economic criteria, depends on the support of the local community. These are the people who will have to deal with the consequences of tourism. If the local community is concerned about the negative social effects of tourism, they will not support its development. Moreover, if the local community experiences these negative effects, they may actively undermine or sabotage the tourism industry. While it is extremely difficult to predict what will happen as tourism develops at a particular destination, there is nonetheless a clear need for both the public sector and the private sector to investigate and understand what consequences might emerge from tourism in that place.
An Introduction to the Geography of Tourism Page 28
