Enfoque comunicativo: ¿Cómo enseñar la lengua meta?

Often, the links between slow travel and tourism and other types of travel and tourism are provided in the literature. For example, slow travel is linked with pilgrimage which represents “a paradigmatic form of slow travel” (Howard, 2012, p. 17). Slow travel and pilgrimage have many things in common, like simplicity, mindfulness and embodied experience as well as a quest towards one’s valued ideals. In addition, common characteristics for slow travellers and pilgrims is their desire for deeper and more authentic experiences in relation to oneself and the world (ibid.).

Further, similarities are drawn between slow tourism and volunteer tourism. One such case is a work exchange programme “Willing Workers on Organic Farms” (WWOOF) in Australia (M. B. Lipman & Murphy, 2012). The program envisages that travellers spend from four to six hours per day working in farms in exchange for food and shelter. One of the main benefits for the travellers is the opportunity to engage with locals, which

otherwise could be a problem as locals often treat tourists as outsiders. In addition to meeting and engaging with locals working outside the tourism industry, the programme also helps travellers to overcome other obstacles to slow tourism like using shared surface transport to access rural areas and facilitating “a more sustainable approach to tourism among those not explicitly interested in ‘slowness’” (ibid., pp. 84-85). Overall, reduced mobility, a shift in modal choice and engagement with local communities are considered to be the main areas where slow tourism and volunteer tourism overlap (ibid.).

Another example linking slow tourism and a community-based volunteer tourism is the Tribewanted project which “fosters a more sustainable travel experience both in terms of the visitors and the indigenous host community” (Gibson, Pratt, & Movono, 2012, p. 186). Tourists go to the island of Vorovoro, Fiji for a week or longer, live along indigenous people according to their customs, norms and rules, and participate in different volunteer activities. Instead of being just tourists, they become active tribe members and try to live as Fiji villagers do. Apart from the real tribe on the island there is also an on-line community that is involved in discussions and decision-making. The Tribewanted project was launched in 2006 and Vorovoro Island, which was not inhabited before that, has now become a real life “playground” for visitors and locals where they can see the direct consequences of the decisions they make in everyday life. It is suggested that the tourism experience in the Tribewanted project has many elements of slow tourism, such as staying in one place for a longer time, engaging with local culture, heritage, and people, authentic experience, bringing economic benefits to a local community and taking time to relax and recharge oneself (ibid.).

Parallels are also drawn between slow tourism and ‘wandering’ which is a slower way of moving through the world and also represents a more mindful approach not only to travelling but also to living (Tiyce & Wilson, 2012). The similarities between slow tourism and wandering are best described in the following passage:

[T]ravelling slowly, these wanderers consciously shape their experiences and timespace practices in ways that nurture and enhance their sense of well-being and the quality of their lives. They allow their journeys to unfold serendipitously, revealing in the detail and the surprise. They privilege the present, over the past and future, and more often follow timespace markers of nature, events and

experiences. These attitudes and practices allow for a slower pace of life and a life more meaningful, what they perceive as “the good life” (ibid., p. 125).

Although wandering is essentially different from slow travel (since wandering means going from one place to another without a definite destination or purpose), there are several aspects of wandering that are also relevant in slow travel: wanderers shape time and space in their own way; making conscious choices about where they travel. Wandering can be done by budget travellers carrying a tent, but can also be practised by wealthier travellers towing a caravan or driving a campervan. Wanderers are open to serendipity and adventure even if it means embracing uncertainty; and wandering and consequently slow travel provides ways of escaping rules and obligations of modern life that make people unhappy (ibid.).

Furthermore, the mobility aspect of slow tourism – slow mobility – is used to link it with hitch-hiking which represents an alternative form of mobility culture. It has been suggested that slow mobility and also hitch-hiking resists contemporary tourism mobilities (O'Regan, 2012). Although hitch-hikers do not associate themselves with the Slow movement directly, it is argued that hitch-hiking has the attributes of the Slow movement and contributes to its ideas since hitch-hikers resist “placelessness” and the loss of human interaction while at the same time appreciating the distance travelled and travel time (ibid., p. 139). However, there are doubts about whether hitch-hiking will contribute to the slow travel framework in the foreseeable future taking into account its negative image in contemporary western society, although it is acknowledged that hitch- hiking can contribute positively to reduced carbon footprints and travel experiences (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010).

In addition, implicit links between slow tourism and other types of tourism can be found in the literature. An example of this is antinomian travel, which is another type of budget travel performed by people visiting the island of Gavdos in Greece (Andriotis, 2012). The remote island is only accessible by ferry and most of its beaches have no electricity, running water or modern facilities making it a perfect place for those wanting to get off the beaten track and withdraw from their social milieu. In terms of their travel practices, antinomian travel is independently organized long-term travel with flexible schedules; its practitioners oppose materialism, mainstream activities and the established

norms of society and travel on a limited budget (ibid.). While antinomian travel is not implicitly linked with slow travel, both concepts overlap in many areas: antinomians are flexible in terms of their travel itinerary and timetable; they have anti-commercial attitudes and reject materialism; exhibit environmentally sound practices by trying to live sustainably and have a very strong sense of community and intense social interaction which can be explained by the abundance of time that antinomians spend communicating with each other (ibid.). However, antinomian travel differs from slow travel; for example antinomians have much less interaction with the tourism industry than any other types of tourists and do not have much interest in local culture. Among the reasons cited explaining why people engage in antinomian travel are going through a transitional phase in life, the economic crisis or societal alienation from the mainstream world. Many travellers have identified ‘escape’ as their travel push factor, be it a life crisis, or escape from society, a failed relationship or the material world (ibid.). The travel practices and behaviour of antinomians as well as their lifestyle resemble those of the hippies (ibid.).

Finally, there are also clear statements about the types of tourism that are not compatible with slow tourism. Many authors refer to slow travel and tourism as an antidote or antithesis to mass tourism (Conway & Timms, 2010; DELTA 2000 Soc. Cons a r.l., 2012; Gardner, 2009; Heitmann et al., 2011; Timms & Conway, 2011). To clarify, mass tourism is understood as “the production of industrially organized tourism that supports the movement of large numbers of people” (C. Cooper, 2008, p. 62). Mass tourism is characterized by the following indicators: highly seasonal tourism demand, middle and low class tourists from urban-industry areas, large number of tourists in relation to locals, spatial focus on a few areas within the destination, spatial concentration of facilities, exploitation of local values, behaviours, and languages; organization by international tourism operators, exploitation of natural resources, undifferentiated products, origin- packaged holidays, and a reliance upon developed generating markets (ibid.). Consequently all these characteristics are regarded as incompatible with slow tourism.