Search

In response to a previously published paper on tourist rights by McCabe and Diekmann, it is argued that the distinction between social and mass tourism is blurred, that the ability to travel rests on existing power structures, and that rights to travel are highly contested. It is suggested, too, that it is necessary to consider the rights of residents in destination areas, that in travelling to destinations tourists also have obligations, and that there are times when the rights of tourists and the rights of residents (and of the state at the destination) may conflict. It is thus necessary to ask what obligations tourists incur, how they should be enforced, and by whom.

The focus of the paper is on tourism culture as it operates where commercial hospitality is on offer, especially at hotels and resorts in developing countries. It is suggested that three quite distinct perspectives can assist in helping us understand this aspect of tourism culture, which emerges where worker and tourist roles inevitably converge and interact. In themselves, such perspectives are not new, but they rarely seem to have been applied in the context of hotels and resorts. The first perspective, derived from the work of Homi Bhabha, conceives of tourism culture as hybrid in nature, operating in a ‘third space’ between tourist and ‘host,’ and directs attention to the uncertain and negotiated aspects of tourism culture. In the second, that of the socio-technical system, tourism culture is seen as an interface between, on the one hand, the formal operational rules and procedures designed to deliver an organisation’s mission and, on the other hand, the on-going and lived-in cultures brought into the ‘system’ by tourists and the hospitality providers. The third perspective, that of the total institution, derived from Goffman, focuses to the social and physical boundaries that separate the hotel or resort from the outside world and on the cultural practices that serve to further differentiate it and its population from the outside. It is suggested that use of these perspectives can further our understanding of the nature of tourism at different destinations and the ways hotels and similar institutions impact on both staff members and holidaymakers. As a consequence, they are theoretically, empirically relevant and politically important.

ContextThe notion of the periphery and its relationship to tourism is one that has been a source of debate for many years. The concept of a periphery obviously raises the question of peripheral to what, while the term is often used in a relatively negative context with respect to levels of development and/or influence on central government decision-making. What the term does raise of course is the extent to which location still matters at a time when physical, virtual, capital and human mobility is supposedly greater than ever before. The four contributions therefore highlight a number of key points and debates surround the relative importance or, and relationship between, location and tourist movement.The lead piece by C. Michael Hall, from the Pacific periphery of the South Island of New Zealand, is charged with the topic of does tourism consume place and therefore lead to the loss of the periphery, and perhaps some of the very qualities that attracted tourists to it in the first place. The first respon...

This Department has been specifically created to include findings of special significance and problem areas of subtle nuances in tourism research. Insightful contributions presenting the state-of-the-art, preferably from the developing societies, will be appreciated. It will also encourage scholars and authors to think against the grain, probing the consistency of theoretical notions and research trends whose heuristic value is all too often taken for granted. For details, contact Editor-in-Chief, Tourism Recreation Research, A-965/6 Indira Nagar, Lucknow, India, e-mail, trrworld@gmail.com

(2001). Tourism in Small Islands and Microstates. Tourism Recreation Research: Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 3-8.

Many islands are hugely popular tourist destinations, and islands regularly feature in tourism promotion. Such a high profile is not new, for tropical islands, especially, have figured prominently ...

Regina Scheyvens’ lead paper contains much of value, but there are problems with her critique of pro-poor tourism (PPT). The preamble, though, is acceptable: tourism obviously makes a major contribution to the economies of many less developed countries (LDCs), but this is the standard defence for most kinds of tourism. Equally evidently, the most strident advocates of tourism’s povertyalleviating qualities often come from (national and international) non-government organizations (NGOs), donors and aid agencies, though sometimes with academic support (Jamieson 2003). Noticeably, though, any necessary association of PPT with community-based tourism (CBT) has been specifically denied by PPT advocates, some of whom suggest that CBT is singularly unsuccessful in alleviating poverty (Goodwin 2006; Mitchell and Muckosy 2008). The ‘promise of PPT,’ then, is something of a misnomer, and many of the ensuing criticisms are most appropriately directed at development organizations and self-interested industry players who might be described as PPT’s fellowtravellers. In other respects, too, to take the ‘harsh realities’ in turn, the critique is flawed. First, is international tourism founded on inequalities? Unfortunately, this writer is misquoted as supporting this assertion; instead, it was argued that wealth disparities in destination societies ‘are often highlighted by international tourism’ (Harrison 2001a: 252), which is very different. In fact, most international tourism is within developed areas, where resident and tourist are more or less of equal status In LDCs, disparities in wealth are often more pronounced, but they invariably pre-existed tourism and (as in the Caribbean) enabled those with financial and cultural capital to advance the new industry (Harrison 2001b: 28-33). To deduce from this that there is somehow a logical connection between international tourism and wealth discrepancies in destination areas, and that international tourism is founded on inequalities, is inappropriate.

This comment agrees with several points raised by Jenkins (see pp. 87-91 of this same issue of Tourism Recreation Research) regarding tourism in the Third World, including the lack of consistent research. However, it disagrees, to some extent, on two interrelated counts: the extent to which tourism has contributed to development, and the way forward.