Bachelor's thesis Gilles Mertz

Bachelor’sthesis

Whoisthetourist?Apostmodernsearchofanimaginaryfriend.

Courseofstudy:InternationalTourismManagement

Supervisor:Prof.Dr.DesmondWee

Submittedby

GillesMertzRegistrationnumber:H13204-001Karlsruhe,6thApril2016

Bachelor’sthesisGillesMertz

Page 1 of 40

A word of thanks

I would like to express my gratitude towards a bunch of

peoplewhocontributedindirectlytothisBachelor’sthesis First of all, I would like to thank all my donators whosupported me financially during the 3 years of my Bachelor’sdegree. These people includeMrs Yvonne Stroesser, Mr FernandDhur-Peters, Mrs Sonia Dhur-Peters, Mrs Solange Mertz-Thill aswellasMrJulienMertz.Likewise, I would like to thank the Ministry of Education of theGrandDuchy of Luxembourg for the financial aids I theygrantedme during the 3 years of study. I realised that studying withouthaving toworryaboutone’s financial situation isnot self-evidentand that a lot of money has been invested in my education, forwhichIamverygrateful. AspecialwordsofthanksthenIsendtoProf.Dr.DesmondWee who orientated me during all the years of my Bachelor’sstudiesandguidedmetofindthetopicsIamreallyinterestedin. Finally,IwouldliketothankKarlshochschuleforeverythingIhave experienced here during the last 3 years. I am grateful foreveryminuteIhavespenthereasstudentandcollaborator.


Page 2 of 40

Statutory Declaration

I herewith declare that I have authored the present thesis independentlymaking useonly of the specified literature. Sentences or parts of sentences quoted literally aremarked as quotations; identification of other referenceswith regard to the statementandscopeof thework isquoted.The thesis in this formor inanyother formhasnotbeensubmittedtoanexaminationbodyandhasnotbeenpublished.


Page 3 of 40

Abstract

This Bachelor’s thesis investigates the question why tourism, despites being a sothroughout acknowledged and recognizable phenomenon, still bears the notion ofblurriness.Henceforth,thisthesisisbasedaroundthequestionwhattourismisandwhothosetouristsare.Thefocustodothiswillbelaidonhometourismasanindeedspecialform of tourism category to underline the conceptual blurriness present in tourismstudies.Byarguingthattourismcannotbedefinedifperceivedinoneconceptwiththetourist,theauthor suggests toovercome tourismasametaconceptand to strictlynarrow theaction framework in order to reduce the tourism action framework as an accessgeneratingactivityinsideabroadermobilitiesscheme.Thisaccessgenerationfunctionsthrough imaginaries which are in this context used to describe tourism from apostmodernperspective.By reducing tourism to a proper action framework, the tourist is revealed to be adiscretionaryidentityconceptwhichneedstobetreatedwithmoredistanceinordertonot to blurry contexts theoretically. Correspondingly, the author argues to study thetouristasahumanbeingandnotunder theusageof such identityconcepts.Advice isgiventoavoidpre-conceptualisationofcontextsandratherengageinanunderstandingofthelatterbytakingintoaccountmultiplecontextsettingvariables.KEYWORDS:conceptualblurriness;hometourist;postmodernity;tourismspecificity


Page 4 of 40

Table of Contents

1.Introduction..................................................................................................................................51.1.Structure....................................................................................................................................................................51.2.Cognitiveinterest...................................................................................................................................................51.3.Researchgap............................................................................................................................................................71.4.Relevanceforscienceandindustry...............................................................................................................8

2.Scientificdiscourse.....................................................................................................................92.1.QuoVadistourism?...............................................................................................................................................92.2.Themetaconceptualisationoftourism......................................................................................................112.3.Thetourist:anempiricalsocialfactoranimaginaryfriend?..........................................................142.4.Thehometourist:aquestionableconstruct...........................................................................................162.5.Thetouristisadeadmetaphor.....................................................................................................................182.6.Tourismasanimaginaryaccesscreatingactivity................................................................................232.7.Imagininghometourism.................................................................................................................................272.8.Tourism&postmodernity..............................................................................................................................29

3.Conclusion..................................................................................................................................323.1.Mainfindings........................................................................................................................................................323.2.Answerabilitytowardsresearchquestion...............................................................................................343.3.Criticalreview......................................................................................................................................................343.4.Outlook:...................................................................................................................................................................36

Table of Figures

Figure1: Beatouristinyourownhometown?AdvertisementonAttractionVictoriaintheUnitedStates

p.16

Figure2: Myselfspottingthetourists

p.20

Figure3: Studentsspottingthe“tourists”(hereaGermancouple)

p.21

Figure4: AbrochureofThomasCook’stourswhichtranslatesintothecreationofanimaginaryplace.

p.26

Figure5: Beatouristinyourownbedroom? p.28


Page 5 of 40

Bachelor’s thesis

1.IntroductionThisBachelor’sthesis’scopeistoanswerthefollowingresearchquestion:

Whatcausestheconceptualblurrinessofthe“hometourist“andhowcanwespecifytourismasapostmodernphenomenon?

1.1.StructureTo start, this thesis does not bear any empiric study and is focused only on a theoreticaldiscussionabout the topicdecoratedby someempiricalexperience thatbearno scientificvalidity(i.e.experiencesduringmystudyabroadsemester).Hence,themainelementstoberegardedarealiteraturereviewandmyowninputs.AsstatedintheStatutoryDeclarationabiding§15par.8SPOnoothersourcesarebeingusedthantheonesindicated.Inthefollowingsectionofthischapter,Iwillelucidatemycognitiveinterestthatleadmetothe topic inquestionand to thecreationofmyresearchquestion.Next, Iwillexplore theresearchgapthatshallbecoveredorfilledbythisthesis.Then,Iwillrevealthescientificandpractical relevanceof the topic inorder todefine theaudience towhomthispapermightappeal.Themainpartofthispaper,theplotsotosay,iscomposedofeightsections.Eachsectionanalyses a certain topic that is related to the researchquestionwhichacts as theguidingthreadthroughoutthepaper.Thesectionscanbeseenasaprocesswhichwitheverystepanswerapartoftheresearchquestion.The final chapter consists of the conclusionhighlighting themain findings that havebeenmade through theprocess. Each sectionwill be resumedand a checkwill bemade if thepresentresearchquestionhasbeenansweredinasatisfactoryway.Asawrapup,Iwillendthis thesiswith a reflection of the findings and also give an outlookwhichmay serve forfurtherresearchpurposes.

1.2.Cognitiveinterest


Page 6 of 40

Ofmylast5semestersIhavespentalotoftimeonthequestionwhattourismisaboutandwhatthetouristisdoingwhenheisatourist.Seentheconstancyinmyfieldofinterest,IdidnothavetothinkalotaboutanadequatetopicformyBachelor’sthesis.TourismformeismorethaneverbeforeanunknownandindefinablephenomenonandIdoubtthateventhefindingsofthisBachelor’sthesisleadmetoaclearorsatisfyinganswer.Sofar,themoreIdoresearchontourism,themoreIdoubtitsexistence.However,thisisexactlywhatmotivatesmetostriveintothisdirection.In oneofmy first essays in this study program, I tried to analyse the difference betweentouristsandinhabitants.AtthattimeIcomparedandsynthetizeddifferentperspectiveslikeRobinson’s “emotional tourist” (Robinson: 2012) to understand how tourism is related towhatpeoplearedoingwithspace.However,theissuethatstruckmemostwastourismasa“fuzzyconcept”(Cohen:1974).Fromthatmoment,thisquestionhasbeenmymainfieldofinterest and I undertook some research about the conceptual issue of tourism. Tome itseems thatmore thanever this fuzziness is present inside tourismbut also in thehumancondition.In the follow-up I wrote another paper about cocreation. I apprehended that the humanbeingwhileheisatouristintheexperiencecreationprocesscocreateshis“Erlebnis”inthegiven circumstances. This leadme to the intermediary conclusion that everything tourismtriestodescribeishighlydependentonvariousfactorsandthatthereisnounilateralclaritywhenatouristbeginstobeatourist.Again,thefuzzinessdescribedbyCohenwasobviousanddisturbedmyunderstandingofthetouristandtourismasaphenomenon.My penultimate research topic treated the ontology of tourism. In that one, I mixedmyinterest in philosophywith the question ofwho the tourist is. By integratingmanyofmyfavourite philosophers aswell as tourism researchers, especially Tribe (1997) I formed anowndefinitionoftourismwhichI,spuriously,misinterpretedtobeanessenceoftourism.Toquotemyself:“Tourismcanbeseenasaphenomenonengagedinbyhumanbeingsandthenecessaryfeaturesthatneedtoexistforittobesaidtohaveoccurredincludetheactionofmovement(themovementbeingunderstoodasperceptionalaswellasspatialchange),theinteractionwithspaceandthereflectiononthesetwoactions.“(Mertz:unpublished,p.22).I called myself to attention that although I tried to overcome discretionary definitions, Icreatedmyownone,whichhence leadmyargumentationaboutontologiesadabsurdum.Furthermore,mydefinition is so vagueandgeneral that it couldbeapplied to any actionthatinvolvesmovement.However,somepartofthisdefinitionstillbearsvalidity,especiallywhenitcomestothe“perceptional”thatcanbetranslatedintothe“imaginary”whichIwillinvestigateinthisthesis.


Page 7 of 40

Being aware of my mistake, I undertook a critical analysis of my own epistemologicalposition. In the meantime, I glimpsed into Popper’s critics on Aristotelian essentialism(Popper: 1980, pp. 70). After this reflection process, I realised that seeking essences orontological truths cannot be the key to describe tourism as a phenomenon. Gradually, Ishiftedmyepistemologicalpositiontowardspostmodernitysincetheideabegantocallmyattention. I readBauman’sconceptofthefluidmodernity(Bauman:2000) inordertofindways to overcome the fuzziness in tourism. This then leadme to concepts such as Eco’shyperreality (1990) or Baudrillard’s simulacrum (1988)whichwe also treated as part of acriticaltourismclassatKarlshochschule.Nonetheless,themostinspiringsourceIglimpsedatisfromMacFarlene,whoexplainsthebasicsofpostmodernityina30minuteslongYoutubevideo (MacFarlene: 2014). Macfarlene deducts that postmodernity is “different from allprevious changeswhichwere fromworldview A toworldview B. Its very essencewas anattackonthepossibilityofhavingaworldviewormetanarrative,asitisoftencalled.It’stherealisation that the speedof change, especially inpoliticsor communications,means thattherecouldnotbeanysharedvision,eitherintheWest,ortheRest.”(Minute0:34–1:06).Thisideaofhybridismwasthestartingpointofinterestformetoputintorelationwiththefuzzinessintourism.Altogether, two specific conceptions of interest should be held back when reading thisthesis. On one hand, the question ofwho the tourist is in the sense of the blurriness hebringsalong.Ontheotherhand,theideaofpostmodernitywhichIseeasoneofthemostlogicalapproachestoexplainthetourismphenomenoninacontemporaryperspective.

1.3.ResearchgapThetopicofthetouristidentityorthequestion:“Whoisatourist?”(Cohen:1974;McCabe:2005, 2009)has alreadybeen treated in severalways.Hence, it doesnot really introducenewtopicinsidetourismstudies.McCabeforexamplearguesthat“theproblemwithallthedefinitions is that they are not able to account for or encompass the multiplicity ofexperiencesoftendesiredby travellers in their trips.” (McCabe: 2009,p. 32). Tribe (1997,2006)analysesthattourismdoesnothaveoneclearontology,seenthatthetermhas“morethanonestandardmeaning”(Tribe:1997,p.639).Moreexplicitly,heclaimsthatthe“wordtourism is problematic, because it is used in common parlance. As such its use is oftenpermissiveandimprecise,andthusitcanencompassavarietyofmeanings.Thetermseemsto be a different kind of term fromphysics or philosophy or economics.” (Tribe: 1997, p.639). In this regard, tourism is already largely embedded in the social language of theeveryday.This goesas far thatpeopleacquire tend todistinguish their activities from thetourismonesbecausetheyconnotenegativeaspectswiththeterm(McCabe:2005,p.91).InMcCabe’s opinion “tourist studies have overlooked the importance of the wider social


Page 8 of 40

discourse of tourism in shaping and defining individuals’ versions of their experiences.”(McCabe:2005,p.86).This leadstothatthetermtourismisusedpejoratively,asMcCabefurther claims: “the idea of a tourist has taken on a cross-cultural and cross-contextualideologicalsignificanceasapejorativetermwithimplicitpoliticalandmoralimplicationsinits use.” (McCabe: 2009,p. 40).While thewider social discourse conveysmoreandmoremeanings to tourism research seems to be slightly hanging to make precisions what theinitialformofdoingtourismmeans.InsidethisresearchgapIperceiveanotherproblem,whichistheformulationofconstructssuch as home tourism. In this, a person can be a touristwhile being a local.Minca et al.define this as one paradox present in tourism studies “in packaging place for travellers,localstendtoacquireakindofschizophrenicsubjectivity,scrutinizingthemselvesandtheirown homes from an outsider’s perspective. Locals often turn themselves into ambivalentobjects, and it is precisely this schizophrenia that strikes us peculiarly as modern andparadoxical.” (Minca & Oakes: 2006, p. 8). This thesis takes this paradox as a point ofreferenceinordertofindoutmoreaboutthespecificityoftourism.Iwillparticularlyfocusontheexampleofhometourismandrelatethefindingstotourismingeneral.Withthisinmind,Iseektofindalessblurryandmoremeaningfulexplanationforthe tourismphenomenon. Inaddition, Ialso try to findoutwho the touristsare thenandhowtheyarerelatedtothetourismaction.

1.4.RelevanceforscienceandindustryTourismscienceshaveconcentratedalotonconceptssuchasmotivation,authenticityandthe importance of place in tourism. With this topic, I would like to go a step back andconsider those topicwith low importance. By doing so, Imy aim is to find specificities intourisminordertoknowmoreabouttheactionframeworkoftheconceptinsteadoftakingtheconceptforgrantedandanalyseactionsinapreconceptualisedapproach.Thescientificrelevance of the topic can thus be resumed to broaden the conceptual perspective oftourism while also thinking out of the box in order to gain critical insights on thephenomenon.Furthermore,tourismpractitionersoftheindustrycanalsogainsomethingoutofthisthesis.In this sense, the same counts for the industry as for science. Knowledge is can result inpower.Themoreperspectivesweareabletocollectabouttourism,themoreweareabletocontrolthetourisminstrumentandgainpoweroverit.Atleast,weshouldunderstandwhatwehavetodealwithwhentalkingabouttourism.Thetourismindustryaccountsformorethan100millionsofdirectjobsinourglobaleconomy,representingaround9%ofourglobal


Page 9 of 40

grossdomesticproduct (UNWTOTourismHighlights: 2014). In2015, the industrygrewbyanother 4% which lead to 1.2 billion people travelling in the past year (Rifai, SecretaryGeneral of theUNWTOat the ITB Convention 2016). It becomes clear that ifwewant tokeepthisbusinessingoodshape,weneedtounderstandthedimensionsoutsideeconomicsonwhichthebusinessisbuiltupon.Wehenceneedtogobeyondmereclassificationsmadefor industrialpurposeswheretourismisaproductandfromthemind-setalsotreated likeone.Thisincludesclassifyingtourismintodifferentcategories.Whereasitmaybeusefulformarketing purposes, in order to understand the human being behind the tourist. In thisaspect, an understanding of the tourist could help companies and especially marketingdepartments to overcome challenges of “hybrid consumerism” (Leppänen & Grönroos:2009).SinceIwillinvestigateinapostmodernapproach,thisthesismightserveasafurthersourceof inspiration for marketing purposes. Salazar (2012) talks for example of the tourismimaginarywhichcanbelinkedtothesubjectofmyBachelor’sthesis:“thesubjectoftourismimaginarieshassomanypracticalimplicationsthatitoffersuniqueopportunitiestoopenupa constructive dialogue between tourism academics and practitioners. The freedissemination[…]betweentourismimaginariesandtheirbroadercontext,forone,canalsohelp people working in tourism to be much better prepared to recognize, identify andoperationalizetheimaginariesinwhichtheirbusinessissothoroughlyembedded.”(Salazar:2012,p.878).Inanutshell,thisthesismayhelptourismprofessionalswithadifferentiatedanalysis of their customers andhelp them to improve their services in order to serve thewell-beingofthelatters.

2.Scientificdiscourse

As theepistemologicalpositionbetweenauthorandthestudyobjecthavebeencleared, Iwill start the plot of my Bachelor’s thesis. Before continuing, the research question ispresentedonceagaininordertokeepupagoalorientedresearchprocess.Itstates:

Whatcausestheconceptualfuzzinessofthe“hometourist“andhowcanwespecifytourismasapostmodernphenomenon?

2.1.QuoVadistourism?Inordertounderstandwheretheconceptualblurrinessoftourismcomesfrom,letusstartwith the followingquestions: “What is theessenceof tourism?What is invariable?Which


Page 10 of 40

aretheattributesthatmustexistforustosaythatsomethingistourism?”(Netto:2009,p.56). In order to find the blurriness in tourism, let us start with an analysis of a commontourismdefinition.Iquote:“Tourismisasocial,culturalandeconomicphenomenonwhichentailsthemovementofpeopletocountriesorplacesoutsidetheirusualenvironmentforpersonalorbusiness/professionalpurposes.Thesepeoplearecalledvisitors(whichmaybeeithertouristsorexcursionists;residentsornon-residents)andtourismhastodowiththeiractivities,someofwhichinvolvetourismexpenditure.”(UNWTO:2014,p.1).Asstatedinthedefinition,thetouristandtourismaredifferentiatedastwoactionworkinginside one system. Tourism is seen as the action and the tourist is seen as the personforming part of that action. In other words, it means that tourism concerns what thesepeoplearedoing.However,nodetailsaregivenontheactivitiesneededorwhathastobedoneandinwhichframeworkithastobedonetobeconsideredasatourist.Moreover,thedefinitiondescribesthetouristassomeoneoutsidehis/herusualenvironment,foranygivenpurpose.Henceforth,thetouristisdefinedasapersonoutsidehisnaturalhabitat(whereverthat is), doing activities (whatever they are) as long as they include expenditure, whichindicatestheeconomicdimensionofthisdefinition.Genuinely,Idodoubtthelogicofthisdefinition.Ipresumablychoseitbecauseitshowsonepointthatiscommonlyacceptedintourismstudies,thatistoseetourismandthetouristasonecoherentconcept.Istronglyassumethatonelogicalpointinthisrelationshipbetweentourism and the tourist cannot be right. For instance, first, it tourism is perceived as anactionwhich concretelybearsnot suchablurriness seen that theaction isdefined to themovementofpeople.Then,theparticipantswhoaccessthismovementarecalled“tourists”whichstillislegitimateaslongasthoseparticipantsformpartofthatmovement.Butthen,third,itsaysthattourismhastodowiththeactionsthoseparticipantsareundertaking.Herecomesthetrickypoint:tourismasanactionhasalreadybeenaccomplishedyetexceedstoasupplementarysecondactionwhichtranslatesintowhatthepeoplewhoexecutedthefirstactionaredoingnext.Thismeansthat inaway,tourismbearsthepowerofdescribinganactionwhile also absorbing further actions that are related to the latter. In otherwords,tourismisdefinedasanactionandasadescriptorofactionspeopleareexecuting.Thislogic,inmyopinion,shouldbelookedatclosersinceitmightbethereasonwhyalotofblurrinessexistswithin tourism.Thestrikingpoint is that theconceptof tourismdoesnottakeaclearpositiontoitsaction-frameworkandovercomesthisproblembyreducingallitsactorstotourismderivativesthathenceforwardconstructthepreviouslynon-existentactionframework. In other words, tourism is not specific enough and, in order to providespecificity,thedefinitionisoutstrippedtosupplementaryactions.Theproblemherethusisamongstothers locatedinwhogivesmeaningtowhattourismis:theactionframeworkoftheconceptitselfortheoneexecutingtheactions?Asthepositionoftourismisnotcleared,


Page 11 of 40

we cannot knowwhat a tourism action actually consists in.We firstwould have to knowwhattourismistoknowwhatwemustbelookingfor.ThisissueremindsofwhatTribewrites:“tourismisgoingtobesubjecttoconfusionunlessacleardistinctionismadeamongthevariousmeaningsofthetermtourism.[…]Theproblemrequiringresolutionisthattheconceptoftourismisfoundtohavemorethanonestandardmeaning.”(Tribe:1997,p.639).Thesourceoftheproblemofthismultiplicityofmeaningsseemstobethat“doingtourismisbeingatouristbeingahumanbeing.”(Crouch:2012,p.35). Obviously, if every human action is to be distinguished from a tourism action, itbecomesextremelydifficult toattributemeaningtowhattourism is.Therefore, insteadofaskingwhat tourism is Iwould like to interpose thequestionwhatdoing tourismactuallymeans.

2.2.ThemetaconceptualisationoftourismThe verb “todo” in themeaningof anaction canbe replacedbyanyother action terms,suchastoeat,sleep,think,learn,contemplate,andsoonandsoforth.Inthisaspect,whatdoes itmeanwhensomebodytellsyouthathe isdoingtourismwiththeemphasisputontourism? If we consider tourism as the enablement of people to accessmovement, howcouldapersonputthisintoanaction?Surely,intentionshavebeenmade,amongstothersby Karagupta (2015) who writes about touring as the action undertaken by the touringsubject:“Touring,bydefinitionassumesasubjectoftouring,whoremainsfixedevenas‘he’[…] goes through different experiences or […] hemight himself change and yet hewouldretain something unchanged in his system to be the same subject of experience whotravels.” (Karagupta: 2015, pp. 106 – 107). In here, touring as a verb should however bediffered from doing tourism, provided that the first refers to an action of movementwhereastheseconddoesactuallynotbearthesamedescriptivepower.Ifdoingtourismisequal to touring, to do tourism would mean that the actor performs an action that hasalready ended. One logical sequel of this is that the person in the present moment isexecutinganaccomplishedactionofthepast.Respectively,themovementthattakesplacesafter access has been provided does not belong to tourism anymore. This consequentmovementimpliesdifferentactionsmostlywithprecisetermsdefiningthem.Wedonotdotourism,wedosomethingelsethatsomehowislinkedtotourism(whatevertourismis).Thisisabigdifferencetomakesincedoingtourismwouldmeanthattheactor isstrictlydoingtourismandwedonotknowwhattourismexactlymeans.Thus,onecriticalpointinhereisthe metaconceptualisation of tourism which reduces other actions to its touristiccomponent.


Page 12 of 40

Tomake this very abstract idea clearer, let us have a closer look at the tourism industry.Certainly, the reader is aware that there exist many forms of tourism and that “doingtourism” can includeawide rangeof activities, i.e. cultural tourism, gastronomic tourism,sportstourism,adventuretourism,spatourism,luxurytourismandsoonandsoforth.Intheindustry,butalsointourismstudies,tourismis“pinnedinorderedlatticesthrougheverfinersubdivisions and more elaborate typologies as though these might eventually form aclassificatorygridinwhichtourismcouldbedefinedandregulated.”(Crang:2006,p.64).Ofcourse,doingsohasnotbroughtanyconcreteresultsonthequestionwhatdoingtourismmeans.Letustakegastronomictourismasanexample.Imaginearestaurantsetting.Thequestionwouldbe:howcouldyoudifferentiatetheactionsthatpeopleundertakebetweentourismandnon-tourism?Inbothsettings,theactionsincludethatpeoplearesittingattheirtable,consume their meals and experience the gastronomic context. Some would argue thatwithin tourism the experience ismuchmore intense aswell as newexcitingwhereas thelocalmaybeusedtohis“local” foodandnotbeable toenjoyhisexperience in thesameelation.Thefactorofauthenticitymayalsoplayaroleinhere.Yet,Idoubtthatthereexistfactorsthatmaydistinguishsomeonedoingtourismfromsomeonenotdoingtourism.Forinstance,ifitisthelocal’sfirsttimeinthissamerestaurant,ishethenalsoatouristthere?Apparently, todistinguisha tourismactionofanon-tourismaction isnotaneasypieceofcake but indeed a very delicate undertaking. When talking about gastronomic tourism,mentioningthetourismpartappearstobeunnecessarysincetheactionsarenotrelatedtotourism but to gastronomy. Remember Crouch’s words: “doing tourism is being a touristbeingahumanbeing.” (Crouch:2012,p.35).Therefore,canyoutreatsomeoneeatinghispastaasatourist?Letusmovetoanotherexample,forinstanceculturaltourism.Here,thesameapplies:theconstructwhichcombinestourismwithculturalactionsactuallydependsmoreonthelatterthan on the first. Thismeans that themain action (if not the only) undertaken concernsculturalactivitiesandtourism, like in thepreviousexample,showstoberedundant in theculturaltourismconstruct.Notwithstanding, Ididnotchooseculturaltourismasarandomexample.A littledifferently,Crouch(2012)alsowroteaboutcultural tourism. Iquotehim:“Essentially, there is no cultural tourismas defined in the character of doing tourism […].Theremay be cultural tourism as a category needed by and for the industry to order itsservices.Theremaybeindividualswhoseekparticularkindsandcharacterindoingtourismthatcomesunderculturallabels[…]buttheseareparticularintereststhatemergewithinadeeperset[…]ofdoingtourismofanykind.Forthetouristasindividual,humanandculturalbeing, it is self-evident that all doing tourism is cultural practice, including itsperformativities”(Crouch:2012,p.28).


Page 13 of 40

Theinformationprovideduntilhereisevidenceenoughformetostatethatdoingtourismcan be seen as a quasi-pleonasm since the construction “to do… tourism” does not addmuchrelevantinformationtotheaction.IfIsayforexample“Iamgoingtodoski-tourism.”,Icanaswellshortenthesentencebysaying“Iamgoingtoski.”.Ofcourse,onemayarguethattourismcouldgiveahintaboutthelocationwheretheactionisundertaken.Incommonunderstanding, if one says to do ski-tourism it bears the connotation that the person istravellingtoanotherplacetorealisethisaction.However,Crouchstatesthat“doingtourismmayoccurafewdozenmilesfromhome;anditsperformativitymaybegentle,aslabelledin‘being lazy’; physical distancesmay ormay not be incurred during tourism. Everyday lifebrings its journeys. Everyday practices of living, negotiating, can yield surprise and theunexpected,as familiarsitescansuddenlyappearanew,uncertain.” (Crouch:2012,p.26).Accordingly, location and distances do not play a central role of where an action isundertaken,hencedonotbringmuchmoreclarificationtoanactionsothatonecanagainleaveout the term “tourism”. Likewise, the categoryof cultural tourism canbe seenas apurepleonasmifweconsiderculturetobe“thatcomplexwholewhichincludesknowledge,belief,art,morals,law,custom,andanyothercapabilitiesandhabitsacquiredbymanasamemberofsociety”(Tylor:1920,p.1).Withthesetwoexamples,Iwanttoshowhowtourismfunctionsasametaconceptandhowit conveysmeaning it does not possess over to other action. All in all, the encompassingnatureoftourismshouldbeseenwithacriticaleyesince“doingtourism”doesnotpresentaproperactionundertakenbypeopleinanyontologicalsense.WhatIwantedtodemonstrateare first thequasi-pleonasticdimensionof tourism, second thepower it canexerciseas ametaconcept. This is not newas Tribe (1997; 2006) alreadymentioned the issues that goalongwithtourismatseveraltimes.“Thewordtourismisproblematic,becauseitisusedincommon parlance. As such its use is often permissive and imprecise, and thus it canencompass a variety of meanings. The term seems to be a different kind of term fromphysicsorphilosophyoreconomics.Theseacademicdisciplinesdescribeparticularwaysofanalyzing the external world. However, tourism is the material of the external world ofeventsandso isthedatatobeexaminedratherthanthemethodofexamination.”(Tribe:1997,p.639).Therefore,tourismshouldbereviewedasaconceptthathaslastlybeenusedinaclassificationlogic:“Tourismresearchcarrieswithitasubtlepowertodefine:toskew:to objectify: to foreground some issues leaving others untouched: to legitimize somemethods castingothers to theperiphery: toprivilege somegroupswhile excludingothersandtotellstoriesinparticularisticways.”(Tribe:2006,p.375).Theworryingpointhowever is thatmany tourismstudies reduceotheractions to tourismwhichresultsinconceptsbeingpairedwithitareconsideredassecondaryactions,yetrevealtobetheprimaryones.Ithereforerejecttheideaof“doingtourism”asanactionitself,seenthatwithallthehybriditythatweencounterinactions,itisnotaccuratetostatethatthey


Page 14 of 40

all relate to tourism.To repeteMcCabe“It is simplynotacceptable to talkabout touristicexperiencesinaresigned,boredorblasémanner.”(McCabe:2002,p.72).Isuggestthatwereduce tourism to a clear action framework in order not to overpower the phenomenonwithmoredescriptionsthanitcanbear.

2.3.Thetourist:anempiricalsocialfactoranimaginaryfriend?

"Ifyouwakeupatadifferenttime,inadifferentplace,couldyouwakeupasadifferentperson?"

-TylorDurdon,FightClub

Henceforward, Iwill discard tourism in this section to focus the studyon the tourist. Thetourist,aswehaveseen,istobeseenastheexecuterofthetourismaction(whatsoeverthisaction is). Moreover, he conveys meaning to the tourism action framework as he worksovertimesothathisactionaretobeconsideredastourism.Authors likePicardarguethatthe tourist is an “empirical social fact” (Picard: 2002, p. 122). and I assume that thisassumptionisproneprovidedthatwedonotknowwhatthetouristdoes(itshouldbeclearby now that doing tourism does not count as an action) norwho he is. Let us thereforeinvestigatethequestionofwhothetouristis.Acommonapproachtoanalysetouristshasbeenbyusingtheapproachofmetaphorisationwhich is toset the tourist into relationwithotherconcepts inorder toexplainsimilaritiesbetweeneachother,broadenourvocabularytoexplainphenomenaandlegitimatehim/herassomethingthat is there.Dann(2002) indicates in thisaspect that“ofall themetaphorsused to capture the postmodern condition, none has perhaps been employed morefrequently than that of ‘the tourist’. […] From MacCannell (1989) and Urry (1990), thetourist became a centre of attention, not simply because (s)he represented a constituentelementofthelargestindustryintheworld,butratherbecauses(he)providedasociologicalunderstandingofthatworld.”(Dann:2002,p.6).Yet,muchofthetouristmetaphor isnotknown and it is noteworthy that a lot of links are sought between the tourist and othermetaphors inordertounderstandtheconcept:“muchoftourismtheorytodatehasbeenbased on metaphor […]. The tourist has been considered as sightseer (Urry, 1990), as astranger (Cohen, 1979), as a pilgrim in search of the sacred (Graburn, 1989;MacCannell,1989),asaperformer(Bruner,1994),andasachild(Dann,1989,1996).”(Dann:2002,p.7).The use of metaphors allows to overcome conceptual issues of the tourist by seekingsimilarities with other concepts in order to clarify the links between each other andembeddingthetouristintoourculturalunderstanding.Inthissense,thetouristcanbeseenas a usefulmetaphor to describe amobility phenomena through categorising the human


Page 15 of 40

being into portions of (more or less) measurable identities. This surely bears someadvantages,especiallyinpostmodernity,asDannstates:“underapostmodernethos,therewasrapidexpansionintheamountandtypeofmetaphor,aspeopletriedtocometotermswitha fast, flickeringand fleetingworldoverwhich theyappeared tohave little control.”(Dann:2002,p.5).However, theother sideof themedal is that puttingof thehumanbeing intometaphorsdoes not necessarily result in a more elaborated understanding of the human condition.Surelyitallowstounderstandcertainfacetsofbeing-in-the-world,buttheimmediateresultofmetaphorisationequalswhatisbeingdonewithtourismcategorisation.Theresultisthatourunderstandingofthemobilehumanbeingbecomesmorefragmentedintostaticliminalconceptsconnectedbetweeneachotherinsteadofdeliveringamoreholisticview.“Thisistheproblemofmetaphorsingeneralinthattheyarebaseduponalimitednumberofpointsofcomparisonbutthatsuchconnectionsorsimilaritiesmaynotbearfurtheranalysis.”(Knoxet al.: 2014, p. 266). For this reason, it is important to note that “tourism and moreimportantlytravelisincreasinglyseenasaprocessthathasbecomeintegraltosociallife.[…]everythingseemstobeinperpetualmovementthroughouttheworld.[…]Tourism,leisure,transport,business,travel,migrationandcommunicationarethusallblurredandneedtobeanalysedtogetherintheirfluidinterdependenceratherthandiscretely[…].”(Hannan:2009,p.107).Thepointisthatwhentalkingaboutthetourist,wediscretelyputanidentityonapersonand isolate the frameworkofhisactions inwhichweare interested.LetmequoteTribe to conclude this idea: “Tourism research carrieswith it a subtlepower todefine: toskew:toobjectify:toforegroundsomeissuesleavingothersuntouched:tolegitimizesomemethods castingothers to theperiphery: toprivilege somegroupswhile excludingothersand to tell stories in particularisticways. This is not to say that lies are being told abouttourism, nor is it sought to denigrate positivist or applied research: Bothmake significantcontributions to the developing canonof knowledge. Rather it is concluded that researchhasthegenerativepowertoconstructandtoframetourism.”(Tribe:2006,p.375).The argument to see tourism as an empirical social fact appears to be weak seen thattourists do not exist a priori but are constructed by the means of metaphors. Thesemetaphorsactasattributionsofidentities.However,whenweanalyseacontextorafield,weneedtoaskourselveswhoisthehumanbeingwearefacingbehindtheseidentities?Onthismatter, Iwant toquoteRobinson,whowrites: “In the contextof tourism studies […]much emphasis has been given to the tourist as a somehow separate and disconnectedcategory.[…]Inrealityitisproblematictoseparatethe‘being-ness’ofatouristtothebeing-nessofeverydaylife.Thereisinevitableoverlapbetweenournormativeexperienceofsociallifeandourexperienceasatouristproviding[…]alsoanontologicalcritiqueregardingwherethe being a tourist and the doing of tourism beings and ends.” (Robinson: 2012, p. 23).Therefore,IwanttogoagainstPicard’sassumptionthatthetouristisanempiricalsocialfact


Page 16 of 40

and rather say that the tourist isadiscretionarily created identity-concept, something liketheimaginaryfriendweallhadduringourchildhood.

2.4.Thehometourist:aquestionableconstructIn order to demonstrate the conceptual lacuna of the tourist, let us apply the notion ofhometourismonto it.Theconstructofhometourismonafirstglanceseemstocontainaparadoxseenthattourismistraditionallydefinedandunderstoodasamovementthatstartsfromanusual environment, veryoften calledhome, to anotherplacewhich is nothome.Applied on the tourist, the very notion of the “home tourist” destroys the idyllic idea ofseparated spheresandmakes thedescriptionof thephenomenonmorecomplicated thanbefore.Howcanonebeatouristintheplacehelivesat?Weedescribesthisstateofbeinginhis field research in Singapore: “Performing as a tourist by dangling a camera and takingpictures,beingaSingaporean‘rediscoveringSingapore’andbeingresearcherreflexiveoftheselfdoingtourismweredifficultjuxtapositions.”(Wee:2012,p.85).When using identity as a descriptor of human beings, we are subsequently creating theproblemofmultipleidentitieswhichincaseslikeWee’sleadtoanidentitiesparadox.Mincaand Oakes (2006) explain in how far this paradox bothers the modern individual: “inpackaging place for travellers, locals tend to acquire a kind of schizophrenic subjectivity,scrutinizing themselves and their ownhomes fromanoutsider’s perspective. Locals oftenturnthemselvesintoambivalentobjects,anditispreciselythisschizophreniathatstrikesuspeculiarlyasmodernandparadoxical.[…]Turningher[Veijola:1994]placeintoaviewableobject for others renders it impossible to experience as home. She becomes and insideoutsiderandanoutside-insider,aparadox.”(Minca&Oakes:2006,p.8).

Figure1:Beatouristinyourownhometown?AdvertisementonAttractionVictoriaintheUnitedStates

(Source:http://attractionsvictoria.com/be-a-tourist/)


Page 17 of 40

Consequently,thenotionofhometourismdestabilizesthecommondefinitionoftourismassomething that happens outside of home. It also questions the character of what homeactually constitutes and what it is. As for McCabe, he notices that “a ‘tourist’ can becharacterisedbythefollowingfactors:throughtheactoftravelling,ormakingajourneythatstartsandfinishesinthesameplace.Irefrainfromstatingthatthejourneymuststartandendat‘home’becausepeoplecanbe‘tourists’withinoraspartofadifferenttypeoftravelexperience.”(McCabe:2009,p.32).Followingthisdefinition,hometourismisnotsomuchabout visiting home but about the location where one has departed from. This leavestourismtobeunderstoodinageographicalepistemologywithitsmaincharacteristicbeingphysicalmovement inacircularstructure. In this logic, tourism isnotnecessarilydifferentfromhomebutcanbepartofthecircle.HoweverIdoubtthatthecorrectnessofthis ideasince everymovementhas a departure and going to thebaker to getmybreaddoesnotnecessarily make me a tourist on my way. Movement is not restricted to the realm oftourismbutisanexistentialconditionofhumanlife.Miller(1969,pp.144-146)explainsthisexistential condition by making the comparison between a tree and a human being. Hearguesthatevenifthetreewouldhavethesamesensesashumansdo,itwouldnotbeabletoenjoythembecauseoneprimaryconditionofourexistenceismobility.Thisallowsustoperceiveourworldinathree-dimensionalspectrumwhileforthetree,itcouldnevermakeadifference between size and distance since it is always enrooted at the same spot. Itbecomesevidentthatunderstandingtourismasaphysicalmovementisnotthekeytoourproblem.Gradually,MavricandUrry (2012)escapethenotionof tourismasmovementandgo intothe direction of submitting it into the studies of mobilities. “No longer is it the study ofexoticplacesvisitedbypeopleforverydistinctandspecialperiodsoftime.Rather,tourismshouldbeseenasmorecontinuouswithothermobilities–overlappingandinterdependent.Moregenerallywehaveseenhowplacesaredynamic,movingaroundandnotnecessarely[sic]stayinginone‘location’.Placestravelwithinnetworksofhumanandnonhumanagents,of photographs, sand, cameras, cars, souvenirs, paintings, surfboards, and so on. Theseobjects extend what humans are able to do, what performances of place are possible.”(Mavric & Urry: 2012, p. 655). Urry’s logical response to the tourism dilemma is that“everybodyisatourist”(Sheller&Urry:2006).Inthislogic,itdoesnotmatterifthetouristisathomeornot,sincetourismistobecomprehendedasapracticeundertakeninamobileworld,asHannanexplains:“tourismnolongerexistsperse,but[…]needstobeunderstoodas a specific process within a wider ontological context, namely that of mobility ormobilities.”(Hannan:2009,p.111).Inthissense,onecanovercometheparadoxpresentinhome tourismby stating thateverybody canbe tourist and the ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry:2011)canbeappliedanywhereatanytime.Kargupta(2015)pointsintothesamedirectionwhensherevises:“InUrry’sinauguralstudy,itisclearthatwhatpostmodernismhasblurredisnot


Page 18 of 40

merely the importance, but also the very understanding and meaning of the practice oftouring, and the kind of experience it produces. […] Does ‘touring’ necessarily involvephysicaltravel,cantheactivitiesofbrowsingthetelevisionorsurfingtheinternetqualifyas‘touring’?“(Kargupta:2015,p.106).Definitely,tourismaspartofabroadermobilityandbeingpresenteverywheremorphsthelogic of dualisms thus reducing tourism into amoreholistic picture.Nevertheless, Crouchdisputes this suggestion: “To think that ‘People are touristsmost of the time’, suggestivetourism’s being somehow superficial, hugely mobile, fleeting of experience, is surelyeccentric (Lash andUrry1994: 259).Non-relationally considered conceptualizationsof lifeslices pursue their category-driven isolations and lacunae. […] But the complexity anddiversityisgreaterthanthis.AsCohenandTaylor(1993)adroitlyexpressed,escapecanbeanywhere,anytime.Ourbeing‘alltouristsnow’makesthewrongpoint:weallhaveopentous possibilities of being performative and becoming in a multiple holding on and goingfurtheranywhere,anytimeandanyhowinour living.[…]Thesimplisticcharacterrenderedto doing tourism misunderstands the complex and critical cultural work it can entail.”(Crouch:2012,pp.30–31).Bystatingthateverybodyisatouristmostofthetimes,Urry(andmanyothers) try todefendandmanifest tourismand the touristbothasone interrelatedconcept.Itsoundsgreatiftourismistobeunderstoodaspartofmobilitiesstudies,butthen,why are we still sticking to the idea of tourism and do not move beyond and studymobilities?I shareCrouch’spoint thatwecannotbe touristsmostof the time.However, I also shareUrry’sideathattourismistobeunderstoodasapartofagreatermobilityconceptandnotasametaconcepton itsown.Thisbringsmeback to the startingpointofmypropositionthesisinwhichIwillsplitthetouristfromtourisminordertostabilisethedebate.Withthissection, my message was to demonstrate that sticking to the idea that the tourist andtourismareinterrelatedconceptuallyinonesystemmaybemisguiding.TourismasIalreadyannouncedisnottobegrantedthestatusofametaconcept.Inadditiontothis,tourismisnot to be understood as a physicalmovement between preconceptualised places such ashome.Inordertoovercometheconceptualblurrinessoftourism,weneedtomovebeyondseeingtourismbeingrelatedtowhatthetouristsdo.Onewaytorealisethisistoabandonthetouristasanidentityconcept.ThisIwilldointhenextsection.

2.5.ThetouristisadeadmetaphorI have tried to show that if we do not split the tourist as being part from tourism, bothconcepts are able to reinforce each otherwith the consequence that tourism becomes ametaconcept exceeding to an action framework that surpasses its initial action. On this


Page 19 of 40

account,Iwouldliketomakeadefinitivesplitbetweentourismasanactionandthetouristas a lay identity concept. Doing so, I want to overcome the idea of identity and rathersuggest a focus on context analysis instead of concept analysis. Theoretically as well aspractically,thetouristidentityconcepthasbeenbroughttomanyofitslimits.Whileeffortshavebeenmadetoconnectthetouristconcepttoothermetaphors(Bauman:1996,Dann:2002),orbyundertakinganthropologicalanalysisoftourists,nobigpointhasbeenscoredyettoestablishthetouristasanempiricalsocialfact(Picard:2002).Hitherto, Ihavetriedtodemonstratethata touristcannotbeseenasanentitywithclearbordersofbeing.Atouristisanidentityconceptthatworksinsideaflow.Itdependsuponthe observer where in that flow he wants to see the tourist. However, seen theschizophreniaproblemthatgoesalongwithidentityconceptsnowadays,thisidentityflowisnot one-dimensional but constituted ofmultiple layers so that each one exists in parallelwiththeother.Also,theseidentitylayersarecreatedandco-created.Sinceeverythingisinflow and in constant change, the idea of something bearing an identity in the sense thatidentity equals state of being appears debateable. For Bauman it is clear that “the realproblemisnothowtobuildidentity,buthowtopreserveit[…].”(Bauman:1996,p.22)andthis knowledge of knowing that one cannot knowoneself holisticallymight be disturbing.Baumanexpressesthat:“livingamidstapparentlyinfinitechances[…]offersthesweettasteof'freedomtobecomeanybody'.Thissweetnesshasabitterafter-taste,though,sincewhilethe'becoming'bitsuggeststhatnothingisoveryetandeverythingliesahead,theconditionof 'beingsomebody'which thatbecoming ismeant tosecure,portends theempire's final,end-of-gamewhistle: 'youarenomore freewhen theendhasbeen reached;youarenotyourself when you have become somebody.' The state of unfinishedness incompletenessandunderdetermination is full of risk and anxiety; but its oppositebringsnounadulteredpleasure either, since it forecloseswhat freedomneeds to stayopen.” (Bauman: 2000, p.62). Accordingly, the formation of identity is “composed of silences, differences,discontinuities, breaks, and forgetting aswell, not only of clearly articulated itineraries intime and place.” (Veijola: 2006, p. 79). Contemporarily, identities possess a discretionarycharacterseenthereexistsanuncountablenumberofthem.IcanpersonallyrelatetothisphenomenonasIhappenedtohaveaveryakinexperience.Inorder to illustrate thediscretionarycharacterof identities, Iwilluse itasanexample.Theexperience took place during of my semester abroad in Lima in October 2015. At thebeginningofmy investigation, Iplanned toanalyse the tourist identity in this citywhere Iwas a foreigner first. I undertook a trip to the centre of Lima where I began to observemainlytouriststakingpicturesofthemainsquareinLima.IwasnotawareinthebeginningthatwhatIwasdoingwasattributingidentitiestothosepeople.Itookitforgrantedtoseemyselfastheobserverwhiletheyformewerethetourists,whichIidentifiedbyinterpretingtheir behaviour as “touristic” or by seeing their cameras dangling around their neck.


Page 20 of 40

Equipped with my iPad, I started to take pictures of the tourists taking pictures of theenvironmentwhen,suddenly,agroupofhighschoolstudentscametomeanddaredtoaskmeifIwasatourist.

Figure2:Myselfspottingthetourists(ownsource)

ThemomentumshockedmesinceIwouldnothaveexpectedit(furthermoreIwasawareofthehigh rateof criminality in Limaandaware thatwalkingoutsidewithmy iPadmaynothavebeenoneofmymostbrilliantideas).ButafteramomentofhesitationIengagedwiththeseinterestingpeopleandwetalked.Tounknotthesituation,theyexplainedmethattheywerehigh school studentswhowereorderedby their English teacher to look for touristsaroundtheplacetopracticetheirEnglishskillswith“tourists”,sotheirwords.Igottotalktotheir English teacher who toldme the exact same thing. The question that wakenedmyinterestwasthislittlefunfactthatIhadbeenlivinginLimaforsomemonths,yetthoselocalkidswouldstillconsidermeasatouristin(ormaybebecauseof?)thecrowdsoftourists.Inthesameway, I foundmyself takingphotographsofpeople that Iassumedtobe tourists.ForthekidsImustcertainlyhavelookedlikeatouristtakingpicture.Yet,themoreinterestingquestionherewasourunderstandingofthetouristconceptinthiscontext. Forme, the tourist was a person I chose to study because I wanted to look forspecific tourist behaviour, something thatmakes him as concept different from all otherconcepts.Fortheteenagers,thetouristwasapossibilitytoimprovetheirEnglishskills.Theyused the wording tourist in order to identify strangers with whom they could start an


Page 21 of 40

interactioninordertobenefitfromhis/herknowledge.Thetouriststhatwechosetoanalysewereprobablynotthinkingaboutbeingtouristsatthatmoment.Alltheyfocusedonwasthesightseeingandphotographingoftheplaceasifitwasapieceofarttocontemplate.Theiractivity was not tourism but contemplating, photographing or enjoying the atmosphere.Howthendared I termthemastourists, labellingthemas if theyweresomekindofalienracethathastobeanalysedanddissected?

Figure3:Studentsspottingthe“tourists”(hereaGermancouple)(ownsource)

What strokeme in thatmomentwas that I considered other people as touristswhile formyself, I sawmyselfas “more local” since Ihadbeen living inLima fora fewmonthsandknewtheplacequitewell.Yet,evenwiththisbackground,Iwasthetouristforsomeotherpeople.MyidentitywasatplayinthiscontextandIpresumablyplayedmypart,notaloneby the fact of being there. I perceived that at places like that one, I was able attributeidentities as Iwished. This discretionary attribution, but also co-creationof identities at aplace reveals the importance of embodied activity. As actors in this contexts, everyonecontributestothecontextsettingandeveryonedecidesuponwhotheotheris.Forthis,allthat is needed is interaction, a gaze to the nice looking lady, taking a picture of themantaking a picture or engaging in a talk with students. And every interaction changes theidentitywelivewith.Onecansaythatwithinthismomentofbeingatthisplace, Ihappenedtohaveamoment“in which we redefine our lives – when a meaning or belief is put at a risk or we find


Page 22 of 40

ourselves reliving a memorable event. And in these moments we are disrupted,transformed.”(WatsonandWaterton.:2012,p.5).ItwasinthatmomentthatIrealisedthehybrid and hyperreal character of identities. Many identities could have been used todescribemybeing-at-the-placebackthen,butnonewouldhavebeenabletodescribethecontext in one adequate and describingway. Theway how I perceivedmyself and how Iperformedmyidentitywasnothowothersperceivedmyidentity.Seenthisgapthatexistswithin the identity concept, how canwe assume that applying concept-identities like thetouristcanbringusamorerelatedapprehensionofcontextslikemine?Iarguethatwehavetogetawayfromconcept-identitieslikethetouristandratherarriveatthestatetoanalysecontextsinwhichweplaceidentitiestothesecond-tier.Veijolasimilarlyclaimsthat“Indeed,onecould replacean ideaofa stablestateof identitywith thenotionofbelonging […] tomarkmodern identity formation.” (Probyn:1996,p.19 recitedbyVeijola:2006,p.79). Inthis regard, “Tourism is thus understood as a process of expanded social interactionwhereby self-identity has the potential for enlargement and growth through theengagement of the tourist with other environments, peoples, societies and cultures.”(Wearingetal.:2009,p.36).InrelationtoBauman’s(1996)ideathatbuildingidentityistobeseenasprojectwithoutanendIassumethatwecannotunderstandflowsofbeingbytakingconceptualsnapshots.Inother words, our being in the world as one consequent shape-shifting realm cannot beexplainedbystaticideassuchasidentity.Livingisadynamicaffairnotreducibletoconceptsand the big disadvantagewe are dealingwithwhen pre-segmenting our target groups astourist is thatwe stigmatise them into a lay identity-category.Accordingly, Crouch states:“Whatmaybe called the tourismmoment can conceal the variety anddiversity of thingsthatindividualsdowhentheyaretourists.Themomentisnotbounded,holisticallydistinct,separate,orofdifferentprocesses,performativitiesorfeelingsfromothersinliving.Delight,boredom,wonder across the interstices of living; andmuch that tourists do ismundane.Being a tourist or ‘doing tourism’ involves a multitude of part-related activities.” Thisdifferentiation of tourism practices (which I have argued are absurd) from mundanepracticesresultina“falsedivide,andtourismmomentsmergealmostseamlesslywithotherpracticesandtheirperformativities.”(Crouch:2012,pp.33–34).Itmightbemoreusefulforthis reason to explore identities inside a context instead of conceptualising researchcontexts. This would mean to frame the context very carefully in myriad aspects and toanalyse actions descriptively without classifying people first. The goal of such an analysiswouldbetounderstandthesituationalcontext,nottheconceptsthattranscendit.Untilhere,Ihaveevaluatedthetouristtobeaconcept,ametaphorandanidentity.Yet,noconvincingevidencehasbeenbroughtupthatwouldestablishthetouristasan“empiricalsocial fact”(Picard:2002,p.122). Inthisregard,statements like“[…]thetourist isonthemove.[…]heiseverywherehegoesin,butnowhereoftheplacesheisin.”(Bauman:1996


Page 23 of 40

p. 29) make the wrong point and do not help in answering who the tourist is. The onlyanswerIhavefoundonthisquestionuntilhereisthatthetouristisahumanbeing.Altogether,themainmessageIwanttoproliferateisthatwithinanalysingthetouristweareworkingwithadeadmetaphor.The tourist andhis look-alikes I consideras concepts thatmislead the analysis of the human condition. This being said, I propose to get rid of thetouristandhiskindandanalysethehumanbeinginempiricalunpreconceptualisedcontexts.Thiswouldconcretelymeanthat researchdoesnot focusonthetouristsanymore,butonplaceswithinwhichthegoalshouldbetodescribeandthenanalysethecontext.Metaphorsshouldnotbeexcludedbutkeptawayfromempiricalresearchaslongaspossible.Lastbutnot least, I would put the question of “Who is the tourist?” ad acta and reconduct theanalysisontourism.Wheneverweattributeidentitiestosomeoneitimplicatesarestrictionof the reality we alternatively could have explored. As Salazar would have it “Tourismoverlapswithpilgrimage,butalsowithbusiness,migrationandotherphenomena (Salazar2010b;SalazarandZhang2013).”(Salazar:2014,p.263).Aswehaveseen,identitiesinvolvetheproblemofschizophreniawhencollidingaswellasspecificitysincetheynowareexistinginparallelwithotheridentities,arecreatedco-creativelyandhyperreal.Selasibringsthistothepointinanalysingherselfwiththeidentityconceptofnation:“I'mnotmultinational.I'mnotanationalatall.HowcouldIcomefromanation?Howcanahumanbeingcomefromaconcept?” (Selasi: 2014, Min. 1:38 – 1:50). This said, I want to elucidate that I opposeidentity constructs that label the human being into slices of being and rather argue likeSelasi that“all identity isexperience” (Selasi:2014,Min.4:52–4:56)or, inBaudrillardianterms(Baudrillard:1988),thateveryidentityisasimulacrum.

2.6.TourismasanimaginaryaccesscreatingactivityFortourismbearssomeperceivablefactsthatIcannottackle(atleastnotinthisBachelor’sthesis)Iwillnowconcentrateonelucidatingthesefactsandhowtourismcanbegrantedacertain stability as a phenomenon. To recap Netto’s questions: “What is the essence oftourism?What is invariable?Which are the attributes that must exist for us to say thatsomethingistourism?”(Netto:2009,p.56).I previously have criticized the pleonastic character of tourism classifications likegastronomictourism.Now,Ihavetoreviseapartofthatassertion.Infact,Imustadmitthattourismdoescontainthenotionofaction.However,adifferencehastobemadebetweentourismasanactionandmetaconceptualisingthisaction.Furthermore, Iwouldsuggesttosplit the idea of tourism and the tourist into two separate concepts and analyse tourismoutsideofthetouristactionsphere.Ifwewanttounderstandtourismasanactioninsteadof itametaconcept,wemustassumetourismtobeanactionthatdoesnotoverextenda


Page 24 of 40

certain action framework. Perceived from this angle, tourism bearsmuch less conceptualfuzziness and one can explain some “essentials” that underlie tourism and from whichtourismcanbelogicallyderived.Thereupon,aftereverythingIconsidereduntilhere,Iarguethattourisminitscoreisformedbytheactionofgeneratingaccesstopeople.Thisaccesscanbegeneratedinvariousways:byopeningupnewpathstoalreadyexistingplacesorbycreatingnewplaces.Inthisregard,hometourism(orvirtual tourism)canbesurpassedasparadoxeswhenweconsiderspacenotonlyasaphysicalparameter.Spacecanindeedbecognitivelyconstructedandonthataccount,wecansaythatiftourismisaboutcreatingplaces,itcanhappeneverywhereandallthetime.Thismakeshometourismasaformofcreatingplacesandgeneratingaccesstothat place, to oneself or to others. Urry accordingly writes: “Also hugely important inmobilitypracticesis‘imaginativetravel’toplace.We‘travel’forwardintimetoplacesonlyknownthroughvisualimages,experiencinginone’simaginationinadvancewhatweimaginethe atmosphere of place to be. And we travel backward in time to places that possesshauntingmemories.”(Urry:2006,p.x).Thismakesthatthehumanbeings,eitherathomeornot,“arecreativeactorswhoplayakeyrole inmakingandremakingthemeaningsof […]places.”(Light:2012,p.60).Tourisminthisregardisanaccessgeneratingactivitytospace.The access generation is produced by bringing forward new places by using what manyauthorscallthe“imaginary”(Amirou:2012;Gaonkar:2002;Salazar:2012,2014).Gaonkarasonegodfatherofthesocialimaginary,explainsitasfollows:“Whatiscrucialhereisnotthathumanbeingsalwayseat, raise children, tinkerwith theestablishedways, and tell storiesbutthattheydosoinsuchavarietyofways.Thereinliestheholdofthesocial imaginary.Our response tomaterial needs, however technically impoverished, is always semioticallyexcessive.Weleanonnaturebutaresteeredbythesocialimaginary.”(Gaonkar:2002,p.7).Thisimaginaryisacreationaswellasawayhowweunderstandandthinkourenvironment.Inanextvolley,wehavetounderstandthattourismasanaccessgeneratingactivity,eitherphysically or imaginarily, did not fall out of the blue but can be tracked back to be an“orderingtowardstheworld”likeFranklin(2004)termsit.Toquotehim:"weshouldbegintoviewmoderntourismnotasmerelythewellingupofadeep-rootedstructuralelementofthehumancondition,[…]butassomethingthathadtobemadetohappen,thatbelongstoastoryofbecoming;[…]thatonceformedandunleashedontheworldittookonalifeofitsownasanordering,awayofmakingtheworlddifferent,awayoforderingtheobjectsofthe world in a new way – and not just human objects.” (Franklin: 2004, pp. 2 – 3).Concretely, Franklin explains how the need for tourism did arise and how the likes ofThomas Cook snatched the exact moment to make a business out of tourism. Indeed,Franklinstatesthat:“thesignificanceofCookwasnotonly intheorganizationoftravel. Inequalmeasuresitwasalsointhecreationofthisdesire,thearticulationofinterpellation:hehimself, and laterhis companywere in thebusinessofpersuasion;openingup theworld,


Page 25 of 40

placemakingthroughinterpretation,translation,producingguidesandinformation;creatingspacesoftourisminandthroughtechnologiesnotprimarilydevelopedforit, intownsandregions ill prepared for it, and even hostile to it and across barriers hitherto existing topreventit.”(Franklin:2004,p.17).FranklinthusinterlinestheimportanceoftheimaginaryinthecreationofthetourismindustrybysayingthatCookwasinthebusinessofpersuasionandcreatingdesires.Moreover,heattributestourismtobeopeninguptheworldwhichagaintranslatesintotheactionofprovidingaccesstocertainpathsandplaces.AsHannan(2009,p.111)wouldhaveit,tourismmustbeunderstoodasapartofabroadermobility.TourisminitsoriginalsensewasseenasprovidingaccesstoplacesandCookperceivedthatthisneedhasnotbeenfilledbyaconcretemeasureyet.Heconcretelyundertookameasureandperceivedthathecouldfill the existing lacuna by doing so. This action can be said to stand for what tourismrepresentsnotonlyasanindustrybutasanaction.Inaconcomitantstepitwaspossibletouse this lacuna in terms of economics which is why Cook formed a business generatingprofitsinmonetaryterms.Baerenholdtaccordinglymentionsthat“Ifplacesdidnotexistthetourism industrywould have to invent them.Or if places did not exist the touristswouldhave had to invent them. […] Without places to which to go tourism would seemmeaningless.”(Baerenholdt:2004,p.1).Tribemakesasimilarstatementbysayingthat:“Fortourismhasbecomea significant creator of forms in the contemporaryworld.At amicrolevel, tourism creates souvenirs and representations. It affects dress. It generates signageand interpretative clutter. It causes buildings (restaurants, terminals, accommodation,galleries) torise intobeingwiththeirexteriorarchitectureand interiordesign.Atamacrolevel,itscapespartsoftheworldintoseasides,skiresortsandwholetourismcitiessuchasLas Vegas.“ (Tribe: 2009, p. 3). Pretes (1995) for examplewrites about how Laplandwastransformed into Santa Claus land and how the whole place has been commoditised forChristmas (Pretes: 1995, p. 14). What can be deducted of this example is how tourismprovidesaccessbycreatingimaginariesandhowthisimaginarycanalsoleadstoaphysicalreshaping of a place, as Tribe says. In the case of Pretes, the imaginary of Santa Claustransformedthewholeplace(physicallyaswellas imaginarily) intoChristmas land.Hence,thepossibilitiesofimaginariesareonlylimitedbyone’sfantasy.


Page 26 of 40

Figure4:AbrochureofThomasCook’stoursthroughEurope.Thebeginningofintentionalaccessgenerationto

abroadpublic,launchingthebeginning(?)oftourism.(Source:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/06/article-2288930-1879E90F000005DC-234_306x483.jpg)

Evidently,thedesiretogoplaceshasalreadybeenaphenomenoninpre-industrialeras,likewiththeGrandTourduringthetimesof theRenaissance (Holden:2005)or, ifwegobackfurther,with the nomads or pilgrims. Similarly, in those times of pre-industrial travel thequestion how to access a place also prevailed. If it was not by oneself that the travelingperson could travel, he related to the person that provided the access to the place hewanted to go. In this sense, the act of providing access to space precedes the industrialnotion of tourism. Could we then claim that tourism has always been there in humanhistory?This is indeeddifficult tosay. Iwouldgoso far toassumethat theact toprovideaccesstospacehasexistedbeforeCookperceivedthelacunaofoffer.Still, it isdifficulttofindananswertothequestionifinpre-industrialtimespeopleundertooktourism.Forsomelike Franklin argue that tourism only arose with the development of the railways andnationalism leading to a greater desire of belonging. To quote him: “Nationalism andmodernismunderminednotreinforcedthecontrastbetweentheworldoftheeverydayandaworld beyond.” (Franklin: 2004, p. 13). Like Franklin already said, Cook createdphysicalaccess through technologies not primarily developed for it. But that is not all. With hisstorytelling,heintentionallyinsertedanimaginaryplaceintothephysicalplace.Thereinlieswhat can be seen as the aforementioned core characteristic of tourism (at least in theindustrialeraanduntilnow)whichisthecreationofaccessbysocialimaginaries.Wearingetal. describe that “Central to the Western tourism enterprise is the cultural power toconstructthetouristspacewhileensuringthatthereisenoughofthelocalculturepresent(in a sanitized form) to excite and titillate. In thisway hegemony ismaintainedwhile theexotic(Other)cultureispackageandsoldasaviableandvaluablecommodity.”(Wearinget


Page 27 of 40

al.:2009,p.55).Ascanbeseeninfigure4,thiscommoditisationofspaceiswhatCooktriedto achieve with his social imaginaries. Through the imaginary, he wanted to manifestabstractspaceassomethingtotouch,feelandhave.Obviously,socialimaginariesoccurinothereventsthantourism,anothergreatexampleistobe found sports like football. Yet, tourism uses the social imaginary to cover one specificdesirewhichFranklindescribesas“theextensionofbelonging,theprospectoftakingupaplaceinthenewnationalculturesthatbeckonedthem[thepeople].”(Franklin:2004,p.22).Theactionofaccesscreationisundertakenprimarilyasanendandnotasamean.Certainly,inaneconomicsetting,theendistomakeprofitsandtherefore,inthiscase,tourismasanactionistobeseenasamean.Buttheactionframeworkoftourism,letussaytheessentialof tourism, is to create access by bringing forward new places constantly. Cook createdtourism in the formthathe intentionallycreatedasocial imaginary tocover thisdesireofbelonging.Inthisregard,tourismdoeshavealegitimatestandingasanindustrialaswellaspost-industrial practice because it intentionally provides imaginary access to space. Thesespaceorspacesare,asWearingetal.state,”spacesofmovement,destination,experience,memory and representation. They are also spaces of desire, fantasy, creativity, liminality,reordering and enchantment. Increasingly, too, tourism is about the spaces of the virtualand the imaginary. By conceptualizing tourism and the tourism experience through atheoreticallensthatsituatestheinteractiveandenvelopingspacesoftourismatthecentreoftheanalysis,itsoonbecomesevidentthatthereareimportantandintangibledimensionstospaceandthespatialstructuringoftourism.”(Wearingetal.:2009,p.10).

2.7.ImagininghometourismWhatismoretothesocialimaginaryintourismisthateverybodycanengageinthisaction.Inotherwords,everybodyisabletowrapastoryaroundaplaceandpresentittoothers.Bydoing so, the author of that story creates a proper access to the social imaginary whichenables his audience to shift perspectives and access the physical world with a differentimaginary.Thisshift inperspectivewillchangethewholeexperiencesettingofthehumanbeing at the place. This makes the tourism action, at least on a first instance, a verydemocratic tool.Adams (2005)explainshowthepower relationshipsbetween imaginariesfunctioninhisfocusstudyonAlor.Iquote:“thegenesisoftouristicimagesdoesnotsimplyentail the projection and amplification of authoritative outsiders’ visions, but ratherillustrates how images of place are negotiated, sculpted and re-sculpted in a complexdialogue between local aspiring entrepreneurs, anthropologists, national tourismbureaucrats,andintrepidtravelers.”(Adams:2005,p.126).“FromtheAlorcase,onemightdeducethattouristicimagesemergeandevolveashybridforms,fusionsofhistorical,local,andvisitorimagery.”(Adams:2005,p.129)”.Ofcourse,wehavetotakeintoaccountthatin


Page 28 of 40

practice,democracyismostlythebestcasescenarioandthatinmanycases,authoritiesorindustriescanusetheirpowerpositionstoenforceandmaintaintheirimaginary.Having said that, home tourism must not necessarily be perceived as a paradox sincetourism is not about a person living at a place. Home tourism rather concerns that thepersoninchargeinventsanewimaginaryandconsequentlyaccessestheplacehequalifiesashishomeinadifferentapproach.Inpractice,thiscouldhappenwheneverafriendalientotheplacewouldvisitthisperson.Consequently,ifonepersonofferstogiveanotherpersonaccesstohisimaginary,wecouldtalkabouttourism.Ifthispersondoessoinordertogainaprofit, we can talk about the tourism industry. Accordingly, talking about home or notbecomes redundant since the localwhen creating an imaginary escapeshis sphereof thelocalandbecomesan“outside-insider”asMinca&Oakes(2006,p.8)wouldhaveit.Whenanalysinghometourism,Iwouldthereforenotgosofartolookforidentityconceptssuchastouristorlocalbutratherstartfromtakingintoaccountthattheconcernedmobilepersonshave generated and shared their access to that space through a tourism imaginary. It isworth analysing the context as such without restrictions in order to gather as manyinformationaspossibleinsteadofpredeterminingtheresearchonaconcept.

Figure5:Beatouristinyourownbedroom?

(Source:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/509243/Student-convinced-family-trip-around-Asia-despite-never-leaving-bedroom)

For this reason, Iwould suggest to see tourism, amongstmany other perspectives, as anactionwhichconcerns the inventionof imaginaryplacesandprovidesaccess to thatsameplacetooneselfand/orothers.ThisinventionofplacesfitsinsidethemobilityparadigmofMavricandUrryanditvalidatestheirideathat“tourismshouldbeseenasmorecontinuouswithothermobilities–overlappingandinterdependent.Moregenerallywehaveseenhow


Page 29 of 40

places are dynamic, moving around and not necessarily staying in one ‘location’. Placestravel within networks of human and nonhuman agents, of photographs, sand, cameras,cars, souvenirs, paintings, surfboards, and so on. These objects extendwhat humans areable todo,whatperformancesof place arepossible.” (Mavric&Urry: 2012, p. 655). Thisperformancesofplacearenotonlypossible inthephysicalworld,butcantakeplaceevenmore in the imaginary, as to be seen in the case of the girlwho never left her bedroom(Figure5).Inthiscase,Baumanistobequotedaccordinglyasheexplainsthat“Powercanmovewiththespeedoftheelectronicsignal-andsothetimerequiredforthemovementofitsessential-ingredientshasbeenreducedtoinstantaneity.Forallpracticalpurposes,powerhasbecometrulyexterritorial,nolongerbound,notevensloweddown,bytheresistanceofspace.”(Bauman:2000,pp.10).Thisindeedpostmodernapproachmeansthatmobilityisnotrelatedtophysicalparameters,butextendstohappenasacognitiveconstructmadebythehuman being. The extension of power by an interconnected world shows how strongimaginaries can become without needing to provoke much physical movement.Consequently,Gehmannmightbe stated: “All thispresupposesmobility,either inadirectway of physicallymoving consumers to those (former) sites or in an indirectway, in thatthosesitesaremovingtome,theconsumer,achievedviamediadevices.”(Gehmann:2015,p.77). Even if thegirl nevermanaged to leaveherbedroom,by creatingan imaginaryangeneratingaccesstoit,sheconvincedherrelativesthatshewasbackpackingthroughSouth-East-Asia.Shecreatedherimaginaryplaceandgeneratedaccesstoitviatheinternet.

2.8.Tourism&postmodernitySo far, Ihaveshownthat tourism is theaction thatgenerates forwardsspaces imaginarilyand physically and provides access to the aforementioned places.With the notion of thesocialimaginary,IhavetriedtodemonstratethecreativedimensioninvolvedintourismandhowpeoplelikeThomasCookhaveidentifiedthepotentialofthisactionandinitiatedoneofthe greatest industries of our planet. To further establish the idea of the imaginary, I amgoingtodrawalinktopostmodernconsumptionsincetourismasaconsumptionofphysicalbutevenmoreoftheimaginaryfitsperfectlyintothelogicofpostmodernity.According to Amirou (2012, p. 333) everything can be transformed into a consumablenowadays.Tourismproducts,hestates,aremarketingproductslikeanyothers,whichiswhywetalkaboutthetourismindustry.Forhim(p.348),itisclearthatthepostmodernsocietytransformstherecreationalserviceintorepresentationstobemerchandisedandconsumed.This transformationofobjects intoconsumables ismade feasibleas inpostmodernity“wefindanemphasisupontheeffacementoftheboundarybetweenartandeverydaylife,thecollapse of the distinction between high art andmass/popular culture, a general stylisticpromiscuity and playful mixing of codes.” (Featherstone: 2007, p. 64). Amirou (p. 337)


Page 30 of 40

similarlyarguesthattourismmorphsrealityandfantasy.Wecantranslatethisontotourism,becausewhat is beingdone inhere is instillingplaceswith an imaginary that renders thephysical place consumable. Appropriately, imaginaries are cognitive constructs that arecreatedinordertoinstilmeaningtothephysicalworld.If tourism is about place creation, the opposite side is about place consumption. Thisconsumption of place according to Featherstone’s understanding of postmodernconsumption“mustnotbeunderstoodastheconsumptionofuse-values,amaterialutility,butprimarilyastheconsumptionofsigns.”(Featherstone:2007,p.83).Indeed,weconsumenot only the physical place but the social imaginary underlying it.Obviously, physical andimaginary space are interdependent and need to be seen contextually. Nevertheless,throughtheimaginaryitbecomespossibleforapersontoabsorbthestorybeingtold.Thisabsorption process can likewise be understood as shopping as Bauman interprets:“ If'shopping' means scanning the assortment of possibilities, examining, touching, feeling,handlingthegoodsondisplay,comparingtheircostswiththecontentsofthewalletortheremainingcreditlimitofcreditcards,puttingsomeoftheminthetrolleyandothersbackontheshelf-thenweshopoutsideshopsasmuchasinside;weshopinthestreetandathome,at work and at leisure, awake and in dreams.” (Bauman: 2000, p. 73). According toAramberri, this “shopping” has taken over the logic in tourism. For him, as he seesaccommodation as part of tourism (which it is because it provides access to place), hecriticizesthat“Thetheoreticalstudyoftourismcannotadvancebyignoringthatmillionsofhumansseemassconsumptionaspartof theirpursuitofhappiness.” (Aramberri:2001,p.757). For Hall, “The fundamental question is not why we want to engage in leisure andtravel. The question is why have so many people increasingly come to believe thatconsuming suchmobilitywill somehowmake themhappier and improve their life?” (Hall:2012, p. 68).Wang could give an answer to that question, as he sees tourism as “a de-routinization of consumption. De-routinization is a necessery experience of peakconsumption. Peak consumption is unusual consumption. […] Tourism is, in essence,characterizedbyabreakofroutineandeverydaylife.”(Wang:2002,p.290).Postmodernityhas thus transformedus all into consumerswho shop all the time, like Bauman says. Fortourism, it becomes clear that it is a phenomenon that falls under the practice ofconsumption.Thisconsumptionofimaginariesistobeunderstoodaspostmodernsincewearedealingwith imaginaries that are immaterial, changeall the timeandare replacedbyone another, like in Baudrillard’s (1988) vision of the simulacra. After Featherstone “Thetriumphofsignifyingcultureleadstoasimulationalworldinwhichtheproliferationofsignsand imageshaseffacedthedistinctionbetweentherealandthe imaginary. […]Consumerculture forBaudrillard iseffectivelyapostmodernculture,adepthless culture inwhichallvalueshavebecometransvaluedandarthastriumphedoverreality.”(Featherstone:2007,p. 83).With thismorphingof art of reality, people now “movebetween the real and theimagined world with educated ease, and the power of the imagination cuts through the


Page 31 of 40

materialtotheextentthatwecanneitherrelyonthemerelyobservable,northediscrete.”(Robinson:2012,p.23).To synthetize, tourism abides to postmodernity because it instils physical places withimaginaries, which equals the idea of commodification of sites that is so common inpostmodernity. Those imaginaries are consumed by human being. Going further, one cansynthetize the creationand consumptionof imaginaries and talk aboutaprosumption (orcocreation) process taking place here. Indeed, inside every context the human beingcontributestothecreationoftheimaginaryasheinstallsinithisideas.Sinceprosumptionisaverybroadtopiconitsownandnotthematterofthisthesis,Icanunfortunatelynotdivefurther intothetopic.Whatshouldberetainedfromthissection isthattourismbearsthepower of creating imaginaries by injecting signs and symbols into places and thatpostmodernconsumersalsobring forward imaginaries that theycreateoutof thetourismimaginaryandthemselves.Tourismbesidesworkinginsidemobilitiesthusalsoworkswithinhyperreality(Eco:1990)sinceimaginariesareneverabsolute,butalwaysappearing,shiftingand vanishing.Wang accordinglymentions the term “hyperconsumption” to describe thisstate since “the limits of what is not accessible and consumable in technological or inculturaltermsmustbeforevertranscendedinordertosatisfytheurgefornewandchangingexperiences.”(Wang:2002,p.290).Hence,theimaginariescanbeseenasa“masterpieceofbricolage” (Eco: 1990, p. 12) as every co-created imaginary is assembled out of differentsimulacra.Thisnotionofbricolageindicatesthesamecreativeartisticdimensionthatgoesinhandwithpostmodernity,asAmirouandFeatherstonealreadypointedout.


Page 32 of 40

3.ConclusionInordertoconcludethisthesis,letmefirstreiteratemyresearchquestioninordertorecapwhatthisallhasbeenabout.Itstated:

Whatcausestheconceptualblurrinessofthe“hometourist“andhowcanwespecifytourismasapostmodernphenomenon?

Theconclusionisstructuredinthefollowingway.Tostart,Iwillbrieflyreviewwhatfindingshave been made by this thesis. Next, I will check if these findings match the researchquestionandhaveansweredthelattercomprehensively.Whatwillfollowisacriticalreviewofmyfindingsandmyprocedure.Finally,therewillbeanoutlooktreatingfurthertopicsofinterestrelatedtothisthesis.

3.1.MainfindingsI started this thesiswith theanalysisofa common tourismdefinition to revealwhere thefuzzinessoftheconceptcomesfrom.Withthisinmind,Ifoundoutthattourismasanactionbearstheprobleminthat ittranscendstotheactionsofwhatpeopledoinafurtherstep.The strikingpoint thus is that theconceptof tourismdoesnot takea clearposition to itsaction-framework and overcomes this problem by reducing all its actors to tourismderivatives. I quoted Tribe (1997) who accordingly wrote that tourism as a term bearsvariousmeanings.Hence,itisdifficulttodefinewhattourismis.Next,Iinvestigatedwhatdoingtourismactuallymeans.BydoingsoIdeductedthattourismfunctions as a metaconcept, which means that it exceeds its action framework to whatpeopledowhileinreality,peoplearenotundertakingtheactionoftourism.Ishowedwiththeexamplesofgastronomicandculturaltourismthattourismclassificationsareredundantsincetheactionframeworkconcernsbarelytourismbutisrelatedtootheractions.Nevertheless,peopleareconsideredtobetouristsinsteadof“gastronomists”whichiswhyIcontinued to analyse the existence of the tourist. I opposed Picard’s (2002) idea that thetouristisanempiricalsocialfactandanalysedtheusageofmetaphorsinidentityattribution.Seen the existence of numerous identities, I deducted that puttingmetaphors on humanbeings ends up in fragmenting our perception on our being-in-the-world. I revealed howresearch uses metaphors to preconceptualise research contexts which lead me to theconclusion thatPicard’sassumptionof the touristbeinganempirical social factcannotbe


Page 33 of 40

right. Consequently, the concern has been declared on how a human being can be aconcept?(Selasi:2014).ThisquestionItriedtoanalysewiththeconstructofthehometouristwhichIfoundtobeanodd one. I demonstrated that applying identities onto human beings goes alongwith theparadox mentioned by Minca and Oakes (2006) that happens when a local becomes aninside-outsiderwhenbeingatourist.Thisnotionofschizophreniaistoberelatedtoapplyingstatic identities onto dynamic being-in-the-world. Consequently, I integrated tourism intothe mobility paradigm by Macric and Urry (2012) and Hannan (2009) by concomitantlyreducing theargument thateverybody isa tourist (Crouch:2012).On thisaccount, I setadefinitive split between the tourist as an identity concept and tourismas an action to beseeninsideabroadermobilityconcept.Asaresultofthisquestion,Ianalysedtheconceptofidentitytounderstandhowthetouristasanidentityconceptisattributedontopeople.Ifoundoutthatidentitynowadaysistobeseen as an unfinished project (Bauman: 1996) and that identities are static constructsapplied onto dynamic being-in-the-world. Furthermore, identities turned out to bediscretionary as well as depending upon the eye of the observer, which I tried todemonstratewithmyexperience inLima.Thereupon, I concluded that the tourist is tobeseen as a dead metaphor and that we should concentrate on keeping context analysisunpreconceptualisedifweseektounderstandthehumancondition.AsstatedbyRobinson(2012)itisdifficulttoperceivewherebeingatouristbeginsandwherebeingahumanends.IhavereiterativelythismessagebyquotingCrouch(2012,p.35)whomentionedthat“doingtourismisbeingatouristbeingahumanbeing.”This being said, I explained home tourism as an action which concerns the invention ofimaginaryplaceswhileprovidingaccesstothatsameplacetooneselfand/ortoothers.Fromthisperspective,apersonwhoattributestheconceptofhometohisplacecanpresenthisplace by creating an imaginary of it and transmit this imaginary so that he or othermayaccessit.Thisresultsinthattheinside-outsiderofMincaandOakes(2006)isnotaparadoxbutismadeaparadoxifweconsidertheimaginariestobeso.WiththeexampleofthegirltravelingthroughAsiafromherbedroomItriedtodemonstratehownowadaysweareabletoempowertheseparadoximaginaries.Lastly,Iwantedtoturnmyattentiontothelinksbetweentourismandpostmodernity.Itriedto describe how the imaginary is to be seen as a simulacrum functioning in hyperreality.Withthislogic,Iwantedtoshowhowimaginariesareproducedandconsumedandhowthisphenomenon canbe seen as amorphing insidepostmodernprosumption. Reality and artare mixed and imaginaries are commoditised to be consumed. Imaginaries are in thatperspectivesseenasan intangiblecognitivelyconstructeddevicewedevelopedwithinour


Page 34 of 40

existenceashumanrace.Evidently,Idonotarguethatthesestatementsareexhaustive.Infact, I would have written much more about postmodernity and why our contemporarygenerationsarepostmodern.Yet,Ididnotduetothelimitedscopeofthisthesis.

3.2.AnswerabilitytowardsresearchquestionWhatcausestheconceptualblurrinessofhometourism?Principally,thereisonemainfactorcausingtheblurriness,whichistoseetourismandthetourist as one concept, a metaconcept so to say. If tourism is seen in what people doanywhere at any time, then it becomes difficult to understand tourism as a clear action.Unlesstourismisconceptuallysplitintothetouristandtourism,itwillbedifficulttodefinetourism as a phenomenon due to the simple fact that the tourist as an identity conceptalways adds immeasurable complexity to thewhole discussion. It is incredibly difficult toanalyse the human being by reducing him as a concept. Therefore, the discussion aboutwhattourismisaboutandwhata“touristicaction”isbecomesincrediblyabsurd.Howcantourismbespecifiedasapostmodernphenomenon?Tourism is postmodern in so far that its action can be delimited to opening up doors toimaginaries. This process of access generation is intangible and to be accessedmainly bycognitiveconstruction.Theimaginariesthemselvesareseentofunctioninhyperrealityduetothefactthattheyfunctionoperativelywhereoneimaginaryisreplacedbyanother.Thismeansthatthereisnooriginalimaginary.Everyimaginary,everytimeonegeneratesaccessto a place, the person or people in charge open a new imaginary: a new simulacrum.Tourismcanassuchbeunderstoodasworkinginsidehyperreality,thustopostmodernity.

3.3.CriticalreviewLikeinthepostmodernmind-set,Iopposetheconceptoftruths.Inmyopinion,ourwholeworldisconstitutedofperspectives.Theyarewrittendown,filmed,memorisedorsavedinanyotherform.Eachonebearsitspointofvaliditywhileeachoneisalwaysdeterminedbytheperspectivewhichanalysesthem.Onthisaccount,Iwouldliketoswitchperspectivesinthiscriticalreviewandreflectthecontextsofmywriting.Afterall,thefindingsofthisthesisareinnopointmeanttobeseenastruthbitasaperspective.


Page 35 of 40

I have toadmit that adaptingapostmodernperspective, I dugmyself awholewhichwasquitedifficulttoescape.Postmodernitybearsanenormouscomplexityandcanbeseenasaworldviewwhosemainaimistomessupanyperspectiveandleavenothinginitsstructures.IagreewiththatpointonaccountofthatImyselfwantedtodeconstructthestructuresoftourism as I oppose the common understanding of it. This may have resulted in that Ideconstructedtoomuchandleadsomeofmyargumentationitselfintoblurriness.Although,thishas initiallybeentheproblemIattemptedtoresolve.AsMacFarlenesays“It isof thenatureofpostmodernitythatitisfullofhybrids,ironies,quirky,contradictory,inconsistent,multidisciplinary, multifocal, multilevel, multicultural. (MacFarlene: 2014, Minute 20:56 –21:16). I appears that a lot of these charactermatchwith what has beenwritten in thisthesis.Moreover, I recognised that many authors, amongst others Bruner (2005) and Edensor(2006, 2012), oppose the postmodern idea. Edensor for examples opposes the idea thatsignsarefreefloatingandcanbeextractedoftheirculturaltocirculatefreelyamongstmanycultures (Edensor: 2012, p. 555). However, how then explain that buildings like the EiffelTowerareconstructedallaroundtheplanet,forexamplereproducedinLasVegas?Bruner(2005,p.5)rejectstheideaofpostmodernitystatingthat“Thereisnosimulacrumbecausethereisnooriginal.Performancesfortouristsarise,ofcourse,fromwithinthelocalculturalmatrix,butallperformancesare“new”inthatthecontext,theaudience,andthetimesarecontinually changing (E. Bruner 1984b; 1986a). To put it another way, performance isconstitutive.” (Bruner: 2005, p. 5). He is right to some extent, especially in a modernworldview.Postmodernconceptslikehyperrealityandthesimulacrumcanbeavoidedinthissense, ifweconsiderperformancestobehappening inuniquesituationsonatimeline.Tomake long things short: we do not have to integrate the postmodern worldview if wedescribeourbeing-in-the-worldaswhatishappeninginourconsciousness.Theideasofthesimulacrumcaneasilybereplacedwith the ideaofautopoeisis (Maturana:1992),creativedestruction (Schumpeter:2005)or justbyaccepting changeasanaxiomofourexistence.Nevertheless, I have to state that the postmodern worldview is a helpful perspective. Ithelps to explain and to undergo so many static concepts that in modernity are stillprevailing,i.e.identityformationandtruth.Inthisregard,weareatleasttheoreticallyabletocriticizeidentity.Notwithstanding,weshouldallbewareofthatpostmodernityisonlyamovement.AsBrannrightly states: “All there is, is people believing things about their temporal location andpersuadingothers. Thequestionproposed, ‘What is Postmodernism?’, runs thedangerofpositingasabeingwhat isonlyamovement -andmovementsare to thehuman intellectwhatinertiaistomaterialbodies,arelativemotionwithoutaninnateforce.”(Brann:1992,p.7).AndIassumethatwecanusethismovementtobeawareofourposition insidethe


Page 36 of 40

world, this is thateveryoneofus inevery singlemoment in timehasaperspectiveofhisownreality.Seenthemultiplicityofrealitiesthereexist,noonecanclaimhisimportance.Inspiteofmypreferenceforapostmodernapproach,onemightofcoursealsoarguewhyIchosetodefinetourismasanaccessgeneratingactivity.Obviously,manyotherphenomenaworkwiththeconceptofaccessand itmightbedifficult toclaimthat tourism isauniquephenomenoninthissense.Evidently,Ihadtodefendthispositioninordertokeepacertainstringencytothetopic.Otherwise,Iwouldhavegottenofftrackwithoutbeingabletotreattourismatall.Duetothenarrowscopeofthisthesis,Iindeedcouldnotcreateasufficientargumentationtoopposethetouristasanidentityconcept.Inasamemanner,Icouldnotrefute tourismasaproperactionconcept.But that is foranother time then. In theend, Ihavefoundananswerfortheblurrinessintourismandshownthatpostmodernityexists(ifnot evenprevails!) the tourismphenomenon. In how far thismight be the casemight befollow-upquestions.

3.4.Outlook:Onbasis of this thesis,manymore interesting subjectmight be investigated.Of course, Iwouldbegladifanybodywouldcontinuemyideatoanalysetourismasanaccessgeneratingidea and try to explain how this access is co-created and how it does occur within theindividual. How does the creation of imaginaries allow ourselves to steer into differentexperiencesorstatesofbeing?Asecondtopicofinterestmightbetoconsiderwhenpeoplechoosetocreateidentitieslikeinthetourist’scase?Inthisregard,whyaresimilarphenomenalikewatchingtelevisionnotundergoing a process of identity formation like in tourism? Why are we talking abouttourists but not about “televisioners”whenwe attribute towhat people are doing. Sincebothconceptsundergodifferentritesdepassage, itwouldbe interestingto findoutwhatfactorscontributeto identityformation. Is it thefactthattelevisionersstayathomewhiletouristminglearoundandareeasiertobespotted?Anotherinterestingtopic includespowerrelationof imaginariesindifferentcontexts.Whohas the power to inscribe imaginaries, how is this power generated and what are thecontextual consequencesof thispowerenforcement?Relatedly, are thereanydifferencesbetweenimaginarieswhereindustriesarepresent?Howdoesthe“Autostadt”inWolfsburgdifferfromatourismspotlikeParisorBarcelona?


Page 37 of 40

Bibliography

Adams,K.M.,2005.Thegenesisoftouristicimagery:PoliticsandpoeticsinthecreationofaremoteIndonesianislanddestination.TouristStudies4,115–135.Amirou,R.,2007.TourismeetpostmodernitéLesmétarmorphosesdel'authenticité.Espaces,n°245.In:Amirou,R.,Houellebecq,M.,2012.L’imaginairetouristique.CNRSéditions,Paris.Andrews, H., 2009. Tourism as a 'moment of being'. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of theFinnishAnthropologicalSociety,34,5–21.Arramberri,J.,2001.THEHOSTSHOULDGETLOSTParadigmsintheTourismTheory.AnnalsofTourismResearch28,738-761.Bærenholdt, J.O.,Haldrup,M., Larsen, J.,&Urry, J.,(Eds.)2004.Performing touristplaces.Aldershot:Ashgate.Baudrillard, J., 1988. Simulacra and Simulations. In: Selected writings, ed. Marc Poster,StanfordUniversityPress,pp.166–184.Bauman,Z.,1996.Frompilgrimtotourist–orashorthistoryofidentity.Questionsofculturalidentity,pp.18-36.Bauman,Z.,2000.LiquidModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Bruner,E.M.,2005.Cultureontour:ethnographiesoftravel.TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.Campos,A.C.,Mendes,J.,Valle,P.O.do,Scott,N.,2015.Co-creationoftouristexperiences:aliteraturereview.CurrentIssuesinTourism1–32.Cohen,E.,1974.Whoisatourist?Aconceptualclarification.In:TheSociologicalReview22(4).Crang,M.,2006.CirculationandEmplacement.In:Minca,C.,Oakes,T.(Eds.),2006.Travelsinparadox:remappingtourism.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Lanham.Crouch,D.,2012.Threadsandmomentsofspacetimesindoingtourism,19-37.In:Smith,L.,Waterton, E., Watson, S., 2012. The cultural moment in tourism, Routledge advances intourism.Routledge,London ;NewYork.Dann,G.,2002.TheTouristasaMetaphoroftheSocialWorld.In:Dann,G.,2002.Thetouristasametaphorofthesocialworld(Ed).Cabi.


Page 38 of 40

Eco,U.,1990.Travelsinhyperreality:essays.HarcourtBraceJovanovich,SanDiego.Featherstone,M.,2007.Consumercultureandpostmodernism,2nded.ed,Theory,culture&society.SAGEPublications,LosAngeles.Edensor, T., 2006: Sensing Tourist Spaces. In:Minca, C., Oakes, T. (Eds.), 2006. Travels inparadox:remappingtourism.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Lanham.Edensor, T., 2012. Tourism and Performance. In: Jamal, T., Robinson,M. (Ed.), 2012. TheSAGEHandbookofTourismStudies,Sage.Franklin, A., 2004. Tourism as an ordering: Towards a new ontology of tourism. TouristStudies,4(3),277–301.Gaonkar,D.P.,2002.Towardnewimaginaries:Anintroduction.PublicCulture,14(1),1–19.Gehmann, U., 2015. Facets of Mobility. In: Sonnenburg, S., Wee, D., 2015. TouringConsumption.SpringerVS,KarlshochschuleInternationalUniversity,Karlsruhe.Hannam,K.,2009.TheEndofTourism?NomadologyandtheMobilitiesParadigm.In:Tribe,J.(Ed.),2009.Philosophicalissuesintourism,Aspectsoftourism.ChannelViewPublications,Bristol,UK ;Buffalo,NY.Hall,C.M.,2012.Consumerism,TourismandVoluntarySimplicity:WeAllHavetoConsume,but dowe Really Have to Travel SoMuch to be Happy?. In: Singh, T. (Ed.), 2012. Criticaldebatesintourism,Aspectsoftourism.ChannelViewPublications,Buffalo.Holden,A.,2005.TourismStudiesandtheSocialSciences.London;NewYork,NY:Routledge.Kargupta, S., 2015. Spectral Touring. In: Sonnenburg, S., Wee, D., 2015. TouringConsumption.SpringerVS,KarlshochschuleInternationalUniversity,Karlsruhe.Knox, D., 2014. The Secular Pilgrim: Are We Flogging a Dead Metaphor? In: Knox, D.,Hannam,K.,Margry,P.J.,Olsen,D.H., Salazar,N.B.,2014. IsTouristaSecularPilgrimoraHedonistinSearchofPleasure?TourismRecreationResearch39,235–267.Leppänen, H., Grönroos, C., 2009. The hybrid consumer: exploring the drivers of a newconsumerbehaviourtype.SvenskaHandelshögskolan,Helsinki.Light,D.2012:TakingDraculaonholiday.In:Smith,L.,Waterton,E.,Watson,S.,2012.Theculturalmomentintourism,Routledgeadvancesintourism.Routledge,London ;NewYork.Mavric,M.,Urry, J.,2012.TourismStudiesand thenewMobilitiesParadigm. In: Jamal,T.,Robinson,M.(Ed.),2012.TheSAGEHandbookofTourismStudies,Sage.


Page 39 of 40

Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J., 1992. The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of humanunderstanding,Rev.ed.ed.Shambhala ;Distributed intheU.S.byRandomHouse,Boston :NewYork.McCabe,S.,2002.TheTouristExperienceandEverydayLife.In:Dann,G.,2002.Thetouristasametaphorofthesocialworld(Ed).Cabi.McCabe,S.,2005.“Whoisatourist?”:Acriticalreview.TouristStudies5,85–106.McCabe, S., 2009. Who is tourist? Conceptual and theoretical Developments. In: Tribe, J.(Ed.), 2009.Philosophical issues in tourism,Aspectsof tourism.ChannelViewPublications,Bristol,UK ;Buffalo,NY.Mertz,G., unpublished.Who is the tourist? [SeminarPaper], Karlshochschule InternationalUniversity.Miller, G.A., 1969. Große Psychologen. Translated from English by Ulla Prümm. Wien,Düsseldorf.Econ.Minca, C., Oakes, T. (Eds.), 2006. Travels in paradox: remapping tourism. Rowman &LittlefieldPublishers,Lanham.NettoA.P.,2009.Whatistourism?Definitions,TheoreticalPhasesandPrinciples.InTribe,J.2009. Philosophical issues in tourism, Aspects of tourism. (Ed.) Channel View Publications,Bristol,UK ;Buffalo,NY.Pelt,J.-M.,Rabhi,P.,2014.Lemondea-t-ilunsens?.Fayard,Paris.Picard,D.2002.TheTouristasaSocialFact.In:Dann,G.,2002.Thetouristasametaphorofthesocialworld(Ed).Cabi.Popper,K.R., 1980. FalschePropheten:Hegel,Marxunddie Folgen,6.Aufl. ed,DieoffeneGesellschaftundihreFeinde.Francke,München.Pretes, M., 1995. POSTMODERN TOURISM The Santa Claus Industry. Annals of TourismResearch,Vol.22,No.1,pp.1-15.Robinson,M., 2012. The emotional tourist. In: Picard, D., Robinson,M., 2012. Emotion inmotion:Tourism,affectandtransformation(eds.),Farnham:AshgateSalazar, N.B., 2012. Tourism Imaginaries: A Conceptual Approach. Annals of TourismResearch39,863–882."Salazar,N.B.,2014.ToBeorNottoBeaTourist:TheRoleofConcept-MetaphorsinTourismStudie. In:Knox,D.,Hannam,K.,Margry,P.J.,Olsen,D.H., Salazar,N.B.,2014. IsTourista


Page 40 of 40

SecularPilgrimoraHedonist inSearchofPleasure?TourismRecreationResearch39,235–267.Schumpeter,J.A.,2005.Kapitalismus,SozialismusundDemokratie.UTB,Stuttgart.Sheller,M.,Urry, J,2006.Thenewmobilitiesparadigm.EnvironmentandplanningA38.2,207-226.Tribe,J.,1997.Theindisciplineoftourism.AnnalsofTourismResearch,24(3),638-657.Tribe J.,2006.The truthabout tourism. In:PERGAMON-ELSEVIERSCIENCELTDANNALSOFTOURISMRESEARCH,33(2),pp.360-381.Tribe, J. (Ed.), 2009. Philosophical issues in tourism, Aspects of tourism. Channel ViewPublications,Bristol,UK ;Buffalo,NY.Tylor, E.B., 1920. PRIMITIVE CULTURE RESEARCHES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OFMYTHOLOGY,PHILOSOPHY,RELIGION,LANGUAGE,ART,ANDCUSTOM.LondonUrry,J.,2006.Preface:PlacesandPerformances.In:Minca,C.,Oakes,T.(Eds.),2006.Travelsinparadox:remappingtourism.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Lanham.Urry,J.,2011.Thetouristgaze,3rded.ed.SAGEPublications,ThousandOaks,CA.Veijola, S., 2006:Heimat Tourism in the Countryside. In:Minca, C.,Oakes, T. (Eds.), 2006.Travelsinparadox:remappingtourism.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Lanham.Wang,N.,2002.TheTouristasPeakConsumer.In:Dann,G.,2002.Thetouristasametaphorofthesocialworld(Ed).Cabi.Watson, S., Waterton, E. 2010b. Reading the visual: representation and narrative in theconstructionofheritage.MaterialCultureReview,71,84-97Wearing,S.,Stevenson,D.,Young,T.,2009.Touristcultures:identity,placeandthetraveller.SAGE,Delhi ;London.Wee,D. 2012. Touringheritage, performinghome. In: Smith, L.,Waterton, E.,Watson, S.,2012.Theculturalmoment intourism,Routledgeadvances intourism.Routledge,London ;NewYork.

Documents

Bachelor's thesis Gilles Mertz