982
RESEARCH
NOTES
AN11 REPORTS
199613 Statistik Wrbog. Nuuk: CrPrnlands Statistik. Viken, A., and I,. Krogh 1994 Et konkurransedyktig Nord-Norge. Strategisk nzringsliv. Center.
Reiselivsn;leringen.
Rapport
Submitted 7 November 1996 Resubmitted 6 December 1996 Accepted 3 1January 1997
Theories
No.
2. Alla:
analyse av Finnmark
nordnorsk Research
PII: SOlSO-7383(97)00034-O
of Modern and Postmodern
Tourism
Natan Uriely Ben-Gurion
University
of the
Negev,
Israel
This research note pays attention to the shift from the 70s theories of “modern” tourism towards the contemporary discourse of “postmodern” tourism. The findings suggest that, beyond the different notions regarding the nature of tourism, this shift involves a change in the style and form of theorizing within the sociology of tourism. The terms postmodern and postmodernism rcfcr, among other phenomena, to a new form of theorizing the contemporary historical moment (Denzin 1991:3). In this context, postmodern social theory reacts against grand theories and their tendency to conceptualize societies as totalities. Postmodern social theory is also characterized by its compromising nature which supports “both-and” rather than “either-or” statements (Denzin 1991:27, 151). This aspect of postmodern theory reflects the notion of the postmodernist logic as non-dualistic and anti-hierarchial (Lather 1991). Similarly, postmodernist systems of knowledge are less authoritative, less conclusive, and more pluralized than modernist systems of knowledge (Bauman 1987). The study of tourism cmergcd as a distinguished sociological subjectfield mainly during the 70s. In spite of the different conceptualizations of tourism, most of the students in the field were unified in their perceptions of tourism as a modern phenomenon. Nevertheless, the field was dominated by two competing viewpoints regardiyg the nature and meaning of the modern tourist experience. One side of the dcbatc took the form of social criticism, in which tourism was viewed as a symptom of modern decadence. This conceptual approach was represented by scholars who perceived the modern tourist experience as a trivial and superficial activity which involves a quest for contrived experiences (Barthes 1972; Boorstin 1964; Turner and Ash 1975). The opposing approach was primarily repM.I10 conceptualized the tourist experience resented by MacCannell (1973) as a mcamngful modern ritual \vhich involves a quest for the authentic. The polemic between thcsc t~vo perspectives was manifested in MacCanncll’s direct attack against the former approach. In this context, MacCannell referred to Boorstin’s outlook as a snobbish attitude rathel than an academic analysis which is based on empirical research (1973:600). His attempt to de-legitimize the competing viewpoint reflects the noncompromising and authoritative attitude \vhlch was associated above with modernist systems of kno\vledge. Furthcrmorc, Boorstin’s and MacCanncll’s theories shared the tendency of modernist forms of analysis to view socictics as totalities. In this respect, both standpoints have not
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND REPORTS
983
captured the existing variety in the practice of tourism and offered a total as a general type. It should be mentioned, portrayal of the “tourist” however, that the homogenizing depictions of the tourist experience were challenged in the late 70s by Cohen who proposed that “different kinds of people may desire different modes of tourist experiences” (1979: 180). Since the late 70s and the early 8Os, a growing number of scholars have addressed various tourism-related activities as expressions of postmodernist rather than modernist culture. Contemporary trends in tourism, such as the rise of small and specialized travel agencies, the growing attraction of nostalgia and “heritage tourism”, the flourishing of natureoriented tourism, and the increase of simulated tourism-related environments, are labeled as aspects of “postmodern tourism”. The sociological discourse of postmodern tourism consists of two theoretical frameworksthe “simulational” and the “other” postmodern tourism (Munt 1994). The simulational line of scholarship is focused around the analysis of “hyperreal” experiences and refers to simulated theme parks and other contrived attractions as typical postmodern environments (Baudrillard 1983; Eco 1986; Featherstone 1991; Gottdiner 1995; Lash and Urry 1994; Pretcs 1995). Conceptualizations ofthe “other”postmodern tourism stress the search for the “real” and point to the growing appeal of the “natural” and the countryside as postmodern expressions (Barrett 1989; Munt 1994; Poon 1989; Urry 1990). It seems as though the distinction between the “simulational” and the “other” dimensions of postmodern tourism follows the polarity noted among the earlier theories of modern tourism. While the “simulational” postmodern tourism follows Boorstin’s notion of “pseudo-events” (1964), the “other” postmodern tourism follows MacCannell’s argument regarding the quest for authenticity. Unlike the earlier notions of modern tourism, however, the “simulational” and the “other” dimensions of postmodern tourism do not derive from two opposing camps of scholars who challenge each other. On the contrary, some of the important scholars of postmodern tourism include both the “simulational” and the “other” dimensions in their complete portrayal of postmodern tourism (e.g., Urry 1990). Furthermore, unlike the former theories, the two dimensions of postmodern tourism construct complementary rather than contradictory sets of propositions regarding the nature of tourism. For example, Munt’s recent article on the “other” postmodern tourism begins with the statement.. . “I do not set out to challenge these ‘post-tourism’, but to consider, figuratively, the ‘other’ possibilities of postmodern tourism” (1994: 101). Munt’s statement reflects the compromising nature of postmodern theories which involve “bothand” rather than “either-or” attitudes. In addition, conceptualizations of postmodern tourism depart from the tendency of the earlier theories of modern tourism to homogenize the tourist experience as a general type. On the contrary, postmodern tourism is characterized by the multiplicity of tourist motivations, experiences, and environments. In this respect, the notion of a diverse and plural realm of postmodern tourism goes one step beyond Cohen’s (1979) proposition regarding the variety of tourist experiences. While Cohen proclaimed that different people perform different tourist activities, Feifer (1985) characterized the “post-tourist” by his/her enjoyment of moving across the different types of tourist experiences. Such conceptuaiizations which emphasize the multiplicity and flexibility of postmodern tourist experiences react against the tendency of modernist theories to view societies as totalities. In sum, this analysis suggests that unlike the polemic, authoritative, and homogenizing discourse of modern tourism, the discourse of postmodern
984
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND
REPORTS
tourism consists of compromising statements and stresses the multiplicity of tourist experiences. Thus, it is argued that while the theorizing of modern tourism during the 70s took the form of a modernist system of knowledge, the sociological discourse of postmodern tourism could be distinguished as a postmodernist form of theorizing. 0 0
Natan Uriely: Department of Hotel & Tourism Management, School of Management, 84105, Israel. Email Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. PO Box 6.53, Beer-Sheva
[email protected].
REFERENCES Barrett,
F. 1989 The Independent Guide to Real Holidays Abroad. London: The Independent. Barthes, R. 1972 Mythologies. London: Cape. Baudrillard, J. 1983 Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e). Bauman, Z. 1987 Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity. Boorstin, D. 1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper. Cohen, E. 1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Types. Sociology 13:179-201. Denzin, N. 1991 Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary Cinema. London: Sage. Eco, U. 1986 Travels in Hyper-Reality. London: Picador. Featherstone, M. 1991 Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage. Feifer, M. 1985 Going Places. London: Macmillan. Gottdiner, M. 1995 Postmodern Semeiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life. Cambridge: Blackwell. Lash, S., and J. Urry 1994 Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. Lather, P. 1991 Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge. MacCannell, D. 1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Sociological Review 79:589-603. Munt, I. 1994 The “Other” Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the new Middle Class. Theory, Culture and Society 1l:lOl-123. Poon, A. 1989 Competitive Strategies for a New Tourism. In Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. l), C. Cooper, ed. London: Belhaven. Pretes, M. 1995 Postmodern Tourism: The Santa Claus Industry. Annals of Tourism Research 22: 1-15. Turner, L., and J. Ash 1975 The Golden Hordes. London: Constable.
RESEARCH
Urry,
J.
1990 The Tourist Sage.
Gaze:
Leisure
NOTES
AND
and Travel
in Contemporary
Submitted 25 November 1996 Resubmitted 18 December 1996 Accepted 31 January 1997
Site Selection
Criteria
REPORTS
985
Societies.
London:
PII:SO160-7383(97)00029-7
of the Small Trade Association
Penny M. Simpson Mary Lynn Wilkerson Northwestern
State
University
of Louisiana,
USA
Two emerging trends have created a tremendous opportunity for both small towns and businesses: the movement toward smaller meetings for industrial and trade associations (Serlen 1992) and the need for rural communities to diversify their economies through tourism (Edge11 and Edwards 1993). The opportunity lies in the inteRration of the two trends where businesses and trade associations hold their small meetings in rural areas. This integration has numerous advantages for both organizations and small towns. Small towns and rural areas are localities with fewer than 50,000 residents and “includes about 25 percent of the U.S. population and 90 percent of its natural resources” (Edge11 and Edwards 1993: lo), making rural areas an important component of the United States economy. The agricultural and small industrial base of many of these rural economies has eroded over the past few decades, creating the need for small towns to find new sources of revenue and to diversify their reliance on any one economic base (Edge11 and Harbaugh 1993). Experts agree that one viable way to achieve this objective is to tap into the $360 billion tourism industry (Schiefelbein 1992). Tourism dollars can provide an infusion of money into these economies and can significantly revitalize, di\-crsify, and stabilize a small town’s economy by bringing new money into the community and by creating jobs and business opportunities which may even influence migration patterns (Edge11 and Edlvards 1993; Schneider 1993). Moreover, tourism requires relatively little investment in resources because it “relies on an area’s cultural, historic, ethnic, geographic, and national uniqueness” (Edge11 and Edwards 1993: 10). One likely source of these tourism dollars for small towns is trade association small meetings, especially in view of the recent trend toward smaller meetings held closer to “home” and over shorter time periods to hold down costs and improve meeting effectiveness (Scrlen 1992). Such towns may be well positioned to satisfy the needs of small meetings because they generally have lower costs and better service than their big city counterparts. This is especially important bvhen considering that meeting planners view high cost as a major reason for selecting/rejecting a particular city for meetings (Marketing 1992). But before small towns can begin to capitalize on this strategic w-indow of opportunity, they must understand association and business meeting needs. As Clark and McCleused for selecting the city fi)r meetings ary (I 995:62) note, “. . . the process
