Ya hem os v isto e sto s testim on ios; querem os am ­ pliar ahora lo s datos con lo s referen tes a la corte cas­

Research on rural tourism largely mirrors the main theoretical directions that have shaped the anthropology of tourism, which I outlined above. Without reiterating them, in the following section I take a closer look at specific findings revealed by studies of rural tourism, in Europe in general and in Romania in particular, and I also touch on what I see as avenues that leave room for further enquiry.

A substantial and more recent body of research on rural tourism in various European countries comes from a policy and planning perspective and consists mainly of quantitative studies, meant to give an overview of tourism development (Kukorelli 2011; Przezborska 2005; Kizos and Iosifides 2007; Gosiou et al. 2001) and to investigate how tourism articulates with traditional branches of rural economy like farming and agriculture (Kizos and Theodoros 2007). Some of these texts are rather theoretical and normative, discussing the management of tourism in line with notions of sustainability and highlighting its potential for favourable outcomes (Armaiti•ne et al. 2006; Butler and Hall 1998). The problem with these studies, apart from their predominant focus on quantitative data, is an unquestioned use of notions like ÔcultureÕ, ÔnatureÕ, ÔheritageÕ or ÔtraditionÕ, that are at the heart of rural tourism development.

Although not so rife, there is, however, notable ethnographic research trying to understand precisely how these notions are defined and commodified, and to what consequences. The most prominent contribution to the anthropological understanding of local responses to tourism in Western European destinations came with a volume edited by Boissevain in 1996, which gathered research that was mostly based in rural areas. More attuned to the everyday experiences of local hosts, these studies highlighted the contradictions that often arise when societies have to adapt to tourism and change, while keeping their culture and environment ÔintactÕ in order to match the visitorsÕ gaze and fuel future tourism. Abram eloquently captures this conundrum, when she describes the French villagers she studied as faced with the paradox of Ôrepresenting themselves as old-fashioned in a wholesome way, yet not appearing to be backwards and ignorantÕ (1996:191), and portraying the region as a modern destination able to host Ôfashionable sportsÕ, but at the same time a place that was ÔunspoiltÕ and unchanged (idem).

More pessimistic views rest on the idea that rural tourism might, in a way, contain the seeds of its own demise. As destinations develop and attract a growing number of people, the cultural elements and the quality of the environment, on which much of rural tourism is based, is threatened (Boissevain 1996:8; Hall 2004:165). There were even some attempts at creating theoretical models to capture the evolution of a

touristic destination. Higham wrote about Ôrecreational successionÕ summing up studies that show that, as destinations develop, they attract different types of visitors. Tourists who are fond of a destination in its early days when it is still off the beaten path, gradually abandon it as it becomes more popular and more facilities are built. Ultimately, these places reach phases of stagnation followed often by decline (Higham and LŸck 2007:123). Apart from an overdevelopment of tourist infrastructure, localsÕ own wish to shed the negative stereotypes depicting them as backward, and to emulate the lifestyle of their ÔmodernÕ guests may also be responsible for the changes (Abram 1996:191).

A counterpoint to these concerns was brought by Black, who dubbed this process of imitation Ôthe demonstration effectÕ and argued that its scope was often overstated (1996). Drawing from fieldwork in a Maltese tourist resort, Black showed how locals were not readily emulating the lifestyle of their foreign guests, but instead they were rediscovering or inventing ÔculturalÕ activities that could be displayed to tourists eager to experience local flavour (1996:117). Indeed, more evidence seems to suggest that tourism boosts local pride and self-confidence and that members of local communities develop a heightened awareness of their natural and cultural assets (Boissevain 1996:7), often reviving or inventing cultural displays Ð in the form of celebrations, dances, food, architecture, or crafts Ð in order to enchant and entertain tourists (12). Taking into account the processual nature of social phenomena, it seems that more often we are actually witnessing a gradual transition from an initial desire to modernise and to discard all the material signs of peasantry, to an appropriation of the nostalgic tourist gaze introduced by tourists and a reassessment of ÔtraditionalÕ elements. A good illustration of this dynamic can be found in ZarkiaÕs study of tourism in the Greek island of Skyros, where modern aesthetics, coupled with a rediscovery of local features, gave birth to hybrid developments most visible in the architecture and interior decorations (1996:159-162) which became part of the local atmosphere appreciated by both tourists and locals. Similar evidence was brought by AbramÕs research in rural France as she showed how villagers adjusted and customised local practices in order to make them more accessible to tourists: celebrations became more performative (187) and cheese production was brought in line with EU health regulations43 _{(189). Her findings showed that by necessity, commodification did alter}

practices, but this did not make them less meaningful to the locals, nor did it make

43

Regulations specified that wooden containers used in processing and storing cheese, which were partly responsible for its flavour, had to be replaced with stainless steel ones.

tourists lose their interest. The changes helped the articulation between the ÔtraditionalÕ economy and the new tourist economy, which, as Abram showed, was welcomed as it sustained part of the local production. Some of the theoretical concerns outlined above are also reflected in my research as I observed and tried to explain both ÔmodernÕ pursuits and displays of ÔtraditionÕ and ÔauthenticityÕ.

Finally, there are also changes brought by tourism that have no direct bearing on the tourist demand and that have been reported in a more hopeful tone. These are studies that show how tourism has the potential to alter gender norms and empower women (Pujik 1996:224, Sharpley and Vass 2005). Since womenÕs work traditionally revolved around the house, they are often the ones who run the guesthouses, achieving more independence and gaining more satisfaction than they regularly had from farm work (Nilsson 2002:12-13).

Turning to the various uses and definitions of ÔnatureÕ, we find similar dilemmas as in the case of ÔcultureÕ. According to Bender, the discourse about the ÔconservationÕ of the landscape is as an Ôattempt to ÒfreezeÓ the past, an attempt to make it something that can be excavated, packaged, presented Ð something over and done withÕ denying Ôthe reality of an on-going historical processÕ (1992:736). Although fixity might be promoted on a discursive level, empirical realities show a different picture. The recreational value of landscapes is instrumental and even if theoretically it is distinguished from the aesthetic one Ð which is disinterested and centred on the object for its own sake, Ôphenomenologically it is difficult to separate our aesthetic experiences from recreational onesÕ (Brady 2003:23). Tourists may be lured by images of picturesque landscapes and they may relish gazing at the scenery, but at the same time they enjoy using the environment for various leisurely pursuits. Indeed, evidence from the UK discussed by Butler et al. shows that over the past two decades there was a shift in the type of activities tourists pursue in rural areas. People started to move away from pastimes such as walking, picnicking, fishing, sightseeing, boating, visiting historical and cultural sites and festivals, horse-riding and farm based visits, that were Ôrelaxing, passive, traditional, low technological, and mostly non-competitiveÕ, to pursuits that are more Ôactive, competitive [É] fashionable, highly technological, modern, individual, and fastÕ, including trial biking, off-road motor vehicle riding, orienteering, survival games, hang gliding, parasailing, and jet boating (1998a:9-10). It seems, then, that the challenge that tourism entrepreneurs face is twofold. They must create cultural displays and enable tourist experiences that can reclaim a link with the past, while managing

their own aspirations for change and ÔmodernisationÕ and responding to the varying demands of tourists.

In spite of its centrality to the tourist experience, a somewhat neglected aspect in the study of tourism is the commodification of hospitality. A distinctive feature of rural tourism is that tourists are often accommodated in localsÕ homes. The frequency and variety of their visits and the commercial underpinning of the relations challenge customary notions of hospitality, as hosts start to adapt their norms and behavior to this new situation (Zarkia 1996:163). At the same time, much of the advertising discourse regarding homestays in a village is built on idealised images of warm and ÔtraditionalÕ hospitality. Interesting questions emerge regarding the ways in which hosts and guests negotiate and work out new forms of hospitality. I explore this in more detail in Chapter 5.

There is also need of further enquiry into the local responses to the legal framework of tourism. Selwyn notes in his ÔPostludeÕ to BoissevainÕs edited volume that most studies in the collection recognise the role of policies and EU regulations without going into many details (Selwyn 1996b:253). He suggests that future research should pay closer attention to the regional, national and international administrative frameworks (idem). Indeed, research that takes into account policies tends to belong to the quantitative type that I mentioned earlier and there is little ethnographic data on how people experience these normative frameworks. Particularly when state institutions are attached to idyllic myths about the countryside, the risk is that their conservative policies may hinder processes of modernization and development pursued by the locals (Harris 2005:425). Finally, most ethnographic research echoes BoissevainÕs volume, trying to find out how do locals cope with tourism, showing some concern for the ÔdamageÕ that too many tourists may bring. In my fieldwork I discovered that an equally pertinent question is how do locals cope without tourists? What happens when tourists are no longer plentiful and the accommodation offer exceeds the demand?