Imágenes, iconos y símbolos en el carnaval

Cheong and Miller (2000) find that power is everywhere in tourism, and they base this upon Foucault’s theory of power (Foucault, 1982 ‘The Subject and Power). Cheong and Miller challenge two ideas about tourists, power and inequality in tourism. A long held notion is that the negative social and environmental impacts resulting from tourism, are the fault of the tourist. Cheong and Miller state (2000, p. 371) “from the perspective of Western society, tourism is often understood as a product of the individual decisions of tourists”. Cheong and Miller (2000, p. 372) write that travellers are thought to be carriers of imperialistic power dynamics; socio- economic differences creating a power relationship between the traveller and the host

58

and “power as allegedly exercised by the tourist over other people”. This perspective of the traveller cannot be completely discounted because as discussed above, travel for leisure did begin with the upper class UK/European citizen and the creation of

‘otherness’ (Burroughs, 2009). Cheong and Miller show there is more to the narrative. Instead of the traveller as the sole carrier of suppressive power, they begin with Foucault’s premise that power is omnipresent as “there is power everywhere in tourism”. Other tourism researchers have also given their attention regarding power and tourism to the adaption of Foucault’s theory of power and the authentic gaze (Cheong & Miller, 2000; Hollinshead, 1999; Leiper, 2004; Urry, 2007).

For Cheong and Miller (2000) the basic premise is that society without power is not possible because “power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted ‘above’ society as a supplementary structure” (Foucault, 1982, p. 791). Foucault suggests that for this reason it is important to understand how power works, to undertake “the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to transform some or to abolish others (Foucault, 1982, p. 791). Foucault’s notion of power is fluid, in all people and all relationships and is therefore not only a “system of domination exerted by one group over another” (Foucault, 1978, p. 92; 2000, p. 372). It follows then that tourists have not exerted their domination over tourist

establishments, and tourist establishments have not only exerted their power over tourists. In the case of non-travel, it is not just the tourist decision not to travel, because of a low income or because they don’t feel like they can spend the money or take time off work, the story must be examined in more detail.

Although power exists everywhere and is exercised by everyone, an act of power, or power relationship most inevitably results in acts of repression and

exclusion (Foucault, 1982). Of particular interest to tourism is the idea of ‘repressive power’ including “rejection, exclusion, refusal, blockage, concealment, or mask” (Foucault, 1977, p. 194). In a power relationship people are ‘agents’ and ‘targets’ (Foucault, 1982). The target “is the subordinate actors in power relationships and exists in relation to the agents” such as tourists in relation to the tourist system (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 376). Agents also consists of ’the immediate social entourage, the family, parents, doctors etc..” (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 376). Foucault’s agents are accountable to repressive power (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 376) and occurs when the target does not conform to the agent.

59

Cheong and Miller (2000) write that Foucault has found various forms in which agents enact power or ‘repressive aspects’ to target; such as the ‘inspecting gaze’ whereupon the agent, within a role of ‘overseer’ (a prison guard or a teacher), observes the target and the action of the gaze induces the target to conform to normative behaviour. The authors explain the following:

Foucault’s agents perform their power via the construction and exertion of knowledge, normalising discourse (what is acceptable and not acceptable), and an ‘inspecting gaze’. ...’the agents construct the gaze as they observe the target. In this process, the target ends up internalizing the gaze to the point that he is his own overseer (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 378).

In consideration of the Foucauldian concept that power is everywhere and all people are the actors of power, Cheong and Miller (2000, p. 378) explore how power exists within the interactions between tourists and the tourist system to result in exclusion from travel they suggest the tourist is the ‘target’ and the ‘agents’ are reconceptualised in a tourism context as ‘brokers’. Brokers are defined as those who facilitate the industry of tourism, they are, “persons who in one way or another pay professional attention to tourism” (Miller & Auyong, 1998, p. 3). This category is divided into public and private brokers. Private brokers facilitate the services and products of tourism and the public brokers include “public servants...engaged in the governance and management of tourism” (Miller & Auyong, 1998, p. 3). Additionally Cheong and Miller (2000, p. 379) define further brokers categorisations as “social movement brokers, academic brokers, travel media brokers, and consulting brokers”2.

Cheong and Miller (2000) find the broker is not a neutral actor in tourism, they explain that:

given that tourists are targets, the Foucauldian agents of tourism power are composed of the various kinds of brokers...they compel the tourist to function in a certain way...brokers are not weak intermediaries...brokers do not serve a neutral role. Rather they intervene and constrain tourism activities generally for the sake of profit and public service (Cheong, 1996, p. 379).

2

‘Brokers’ are one part of a model created by Cheong and Miller, the BLT model refers to ‘Brokers, Locals and Tourists’. ‘Locals’ refers to people who live in or near a tourism destination yet are not facilitators of the tourism industry. The tourists in the BLT model are leisure/pleasure travellers.

60

The Brokers collaborate with other institutions to further their own interests, and “at any given time, divergent brokers in different professions align themselves around an issue. They discuss and negotiate how far development should proceed, what type of development is optimal” (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 379). In Australia, collaborations often take place between destinations and institutional organisations such as councils, or others are a part of government funded entities like Tourism Research Australia, Tourism Victoria or the Australian Tourism and Export Council (ATEC). At various stages of the tourist experience, brokers have the power to determine (exclude or include) the tourist. In the development stages of a tourist establishment, brokers decide who the ideal tourists will be (Cheong & Miller, 2000). The socio-economic characteristics of the target tourist/market will reflect the aims of the establishment. Here the brokers express power, because before the tourist books a holiday, decisions about the target tourist are already made.

The rules, symbols and norms for each tourist sector, or individual

establishment, are communicated to the tourist in brochures, other advertisements, and word of mouth; followed by interactions with the mediums that plan and book the holiday, such as travel agents, or travel websites. In the past, the travel agent was understood as the main resource for all travel knowledge. Before the advent of booking holidays online, the travel agent was the barrier between mere planning and actual booking of a holiday, consequently it is possible that the travel agents can “create and limit opportunities for tourists” (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 383).

These initial communications with institutional brokers result in tourists forming a mindset of conceptual accessibility about an establishment. They decide if they ‘fit in’ or relate to the images of the people in the brochures. For those who decide the establishment is not accessible, the brokers have potentially exercised exclusion in the form of repressive power.

The potential for exclusion does not end with non-travel. Power relationships between the broker and the tourist extend to the tourist establishment. Cheong and Miller (2000) discuss the ‘onsite brokers’, the employees who regulate the rules of the establishments and, using the example of park guards:

park guards watch over tourists to see if they litter; guides protect, oversee and educate them about how to act properly...subsequently, brokers as agents in a variety of guises constrain their movements, behaviours and even thoughts, and act as a powerful force in the system. (Cheong & Miller, 2000, p. 381).

61

Although the onsite broker can be an influencing force upon the tourist, it is not necessarily for a ruthless cause. The park ranger for instance serves a dual role of protecting the environment from the tourist footprint.

Concept 2 proposes that power is omnipresent in tourism (from service

providers to tourists) but the majority of meaning, symbols and rules of what it means to be a tourist, is largely constructed by the establishments, tourism stakeholders and official tourism organisations. Concept 2 proposes that non-travel, exclusion and inclusion in tourism, is in the hands of the brokers. Other tourism researchers have also highlighted this process of inclusion and exclusion from tourism, and have taken a further step toward a macro social tourism theory with emphasis upon the social construction of ‘place’. Exclusion/inclusion is played out in the production and reproduction of society and inequalities within tourist establishments.