The struggle to define a person who engages with the tourism industry (tourist/traveller) is historically more an academic concern rather than an industry concern (Miller & Auyong, 1998, p. 3). Overall, in academic research, the traveller has been defined within a fixed dualism, in terms of a consumer and producer relationship (Larsen, et al., 2007). Already discussed above, at times the academic understanding has confined the traveller as a passive actor within the business of tourism; the tourist/traveller has also been defined as a facilitator of imperialistic values (MacKenzie, 2005). To this point the discussion has identified the actors in the construction of power in tourism and power in place. It has largely described a top down approach to power in tourism, rather than a bottom up i.e. the power of the traveller).
It is suggested that all people engage with the tourism system at some point in their lives and fulfil the role of performing the tourist, the traveller or the non-traveller (Cheong & Miller, 2000). They may also at some point be a tourism ‘agent’, or
‘broker’ (Cheong & Miller, 2000). In Australia, brokers come in the form of
overarching institutions such as service providers and Tourism Victoria, to the micro onsite brokers, such as tour guides and brochures. It was proposed that travel choices for people are largely constrained by brokers and this represents a large portion of the power relationship between tourists and the tourism system (Cheong & Miller, 2000). Or, as discussed in concept 2, where non-travel occurs from existing social
inequalities. However, in these explanations the experience of the traveller and potential agency has gone astray. At this point it is important to further explore Foucault’s concept that power is everywhere conveyed through people and mediated
66
by the ‘inspecting gaze’ (Cheong & Miller, 2000). The discussion must explore the travellers’ encounter with tourism.
A further body of research emphasises that the traveller continually re-
constructs the tourism discourse (Lean, 2012) set out by the brokers/constructors and as such the traveller has agency via ‘constructionism in action’. In conjunction with the process by which ‘people’ become ‘travellers’ and perform in place, they use agency in the tourism space to fulfil the primary motivation of travel and to transform, and fashion their identities. For instance, Adler’s approach to travel as art, can be connected to the widely accepted notion that the motivation to travel occurs from a need to transform the self. Lean (2012) and Adler (1989) both suggest that meaning making occurs in the process of travel that has the potential to result in ‘self-
fashioning’. Adler not only suggests travel is art, she uses the phrase ‘performed art’, therefore travel becomes an activity that is publically staged – and is a performance that is recognised by other people via acknowledged symbols of travel in the tourism discourse. By performing travel in a way that is recognised by others and in doing so, attempting a process of transformation and meaning making, Adler’s (1989) traveller is both a product of the tourism discourse but also striving to be a free agent.
Discourses of tourism may be fashioned and facilitated by constructors, yet travellers play an active role in re-constructing. The traveller is constructionism ‘in action’ (Lean, 2012).
Social science researchers believe the social being of today is particularly partial to re-construction (Edensor, 2001), they are post-modern subjects in an increasingly mobile world. Baumesiter (1991) states the post modern subject is defined by the ‘self’ as a consequence of post-modernity and freedom in mobility. Baumeister (1991, p. 6, as cited in Cohen, 2010, p. 119) contends that the “self dominates recent trends in our culture” and that development of the self is a significant narrative in “modern Western imaginations”.
Bauman (1996) further theorises these social and political conditions today as ‘liquid modernity’, this is explained by Heimtun as meaning “that the social order is mobile and flexible awaiting people’s way of constructing it” (Franklin, 2003, p. 205) and considers within this environment is a plethora of space for the traveller to find meaning, transform, construct and re-construct their identities. In liquid modernity, Adler’s (1989) traveller has found the ideal environment to perform where there are no clear spatial dimensions to understanding social life. Liquid modern societies
67
therefore have no flexible, hierarchical social order governing people’s lives, but each person has to deal with transformations and states of becoming (Franklin, 2003, p. 206). Liquid modernity is then about individualization and aesthetic reflection (Heimtun, 2007, p. 272).
With the decline of traditional social orders to govern the masses (such as religion) Bauman (2000) observes a breakdown of social networks and the individual has become some sort of free floating consuming entity, more like ‘nomads’ (Bauman, 1996; Franklin, 2003 cited in Heimtun, 2007, p. 272). Bauman (1996) utilises a metaphor of the tourist to study consumerism in this state of liquid modernity called the ‘tourist syndrome’ with three key themes.
First, because the traveller is impermanent, they have no need to create fixed bonds with place or people in their travels. They connect with people but are not bound to any rules or commitments, where “everyday norms are therefore suspended, the past and future do not exist and excessive behaviour is allowed or at least
tolerated” (Bauman, 1996, as cited in Heimtun, 2007, p. 273). Secondly, with no commitment to people or place, travellers consume place and achieve what they desired for their tourism experience, where the tourists “ move on when the place has been sufficiently experienced and consumed”. Lastly, “tourists’ relationships are frail. Tourism consumption is first and foremost about consumption of new experiences, they do not waste energy on getting involved with people” (Heimtun, 2007, p. 273). Not getting involved with people, is slightly at odds with the idea that tourism exists from the need to create social networks or belonging, that are no longer fulfilled in everyday life under the conditions of liquid modernity (Bauman, 1996; Heimtun, 2007). Heimtun (2007, p. 274) states that Bauman “fears its consequences as tourism offers only ‘fraudulent substitutes for the absent real thing’ (Franklin, 2003, p. 214). With this statement Bauman suggests travel is a fleeting experience and any bonds made with other social networks cannot be transferred to the person’s everyday life. Although this is a very valuable insight into the conditions that motivate the traveller (such as the increasing need to use the tourism space for transformation in liquid modernity) Bauman’s idea reaches an impasse at this point. The understanding that bonds made while travelling are ‘fraudulent substitutes’ suggests Bauman (1996) concurs with much past travel research which suggests tourism exists as a separate entity to the so called everyday life. Throughout this chapter it was identified that emerging tourism research contends this concept.
68
In concurrence with Bauman, Heimtun (2007) finds similar ideas regarding travel and the need for connections. In a study of single Norwegian women in middle age, Heimtun (2007) found travel is a space for reproducing desires in everyday life, such as a space for friendship and accumulating social capital from a shared
experience, by ”bonding with significant others and about social integration in everyday life” (2007, p. 271). These results confirm that travellers reproduce their need for social networks in travel, which is inherent in Bauman’s ‘tourist syndrome’.
Heimtun (2007) findings contest the notion that it would be a ‘fraudulent substitute’ for real social connections. The social connections sought and performed in the travel experiences of the Norwegian women were provisions for the everyday life. That is, the women reflected upon their travel experiences with their travel friends, it provided memories and a shared experience to draw on after travel, and perhaps informing any future travels. Along with travel providing the space for the
reproduction of social networks/community desired in everyday life, research has considered travel motivation to be based upon imaginings of travel for transition (White & White, 2004), identity or transforming self (Cohen, 2010, p. 119; Neuman, 1992, p. 182). A social constructionist perspective would hypothesize that
transformation is not only possible for humans but inherent in our nature because we are discursive subjects (Burr, 2003, 2005). This means our unavoidable engagement with the world results in new knowledge and ideas of ourselves and our place in society. Our identities are not fixed, but dynamic, according to place and time, indeed “Hall (1996) describes identities as temporary points of attachment to subject
positions constructed through discursive practices. Identity is constructed through difference, as the recognition of what one is not, in relation to the ‘Other’ “ (Cohen, 2010, p. 119).
While much of the knowledge that constructs our identities appears as ‘truth’ and is often taken for granted, travel is one space to manufacture transformation. When travelling, the person can imagine and pretend to be the other, their best self or alternative self. Also the traveller meets or observes many ‘others’ that compel them to position themselves in relation to this new knowledge. The traveller can also distinguish themselves as an ‘other’ because when they are the traveller, they are removed from their everyday role at home. Lean (2012, p. 156) writes this
69
alteration of a reality-confirming amalgam of roles, performances, relationships, expectations, objects, languages and symbols”.
Physical relocation can enable transformation, however it is suggested that the relocation cannot be separated from the person’s everyday life. There is a tension between the idea that tourists today have agency (no fixed bonds or permanency) and that travel choices cannot not exist in a cultural and social vaccum, because we are ultimately discursive subjects.
The assertion that a traveller has the agency to choose and reconstruct their tourism experience is hindered by the constrictions of their socialisation. That is, research suggests travel choices are continually informed by an individual’s
socialisation. Lean (2012) confirmed the significant role of socialisation in research that explored the voices of midlife single women in Norway, their travel stories and how they identified the social construction of their travel choices. Lean (2012) found that the prior-travel experiences informing travel choices are unique to each
participant’s social and cultural composition. This included the primary and secondary socialisation from social relationships, families and friends and the associated “values, attitudes, experiences and socio-economic position of parents” (p. 157). The quandary is then, the agency to transform self and re-construct tourism spaces, meets the
counter argument that people can rarely make choices outside of their ‘habitus’. As opposed to Foucault’s concept of power where the individual has little agency, Bourdieu offers a similarly bleak yet more hopeful framework. Bourdieu (1986) sees the individual as existing within a habitus, a ‘cultural field’ - the
institutions, knowledge, resources, and discourses that determine an individual’s life chances. According to Bourdieu (1986), within this system the individual can be active yet mostly and inevitably detained, therefore the system is inherently unequal and reproduces itself: “For Bourdieu, people did not live their lives according to freely made choices or strategies, but rather, under the constraints of the habitus and the objective conditions of social life” (Reed-Danahay, 2005, p. 56). According to
Bourdieu, the individual, though mostly trapped in their cultural field has the potential to move freely with the tools of social, cultural or symbolic capitol.
The habitus can be identified within a second key theme regarding travel motivation. Lean’s (2012) research suggests travel choices are made so as not to challenge normative behaviour, and thus live in accordance with the habitus. Normative behaviour is explained by Lean as, the “roles, routines and
70
performances...and their associated expectations and sanctions for failure to comply. These played a critical role in establishing the thinking, behaviours and realities that travel presented the opportunity to transform” (Lean, 2012, p. 158). In performing travel, the traveller is then governed by what would be thought of as acceptable behaviour. For instance, wellbeing travel is reported from many sources to be
patroned primarily by females. Voigt, Brown and Howat, (2010) found domestic spa tourists within Australia are predominantly female (61%). Further, a survey conducted by Intelligent Spas (2006) found an even greater discrepancy between group numbers with 78% of females participating. This demonstrates both the acceptability and normative behaviour of women taking care of themselves and being concerned for wellbeing, and also it is not a normative masculine behaviour for a man to visit a spa and receive a pedicure, facial or mud pack. In tourism it may be that gendered norms are performed in travel choices.
So far the discussion has identified that the agency and power of the traveller is questioned by 1) the power of brokers to inform the travel experience, and 2) Bourdieu’s habitus and the quandary regarding an individual’s potential to make free choices. The next quandary of agency is, 3) the role of dominant ideologies in the construction of socialisation. The main position of this thesis stems from this tension about how much power or agency anyone has to decide if they want to travel, and what sort of travel they may want to partake. It will be suggested and discussed throughout this thesis that travel choices are a product of the discursive self; an individual who is a product of their social and cultural life and inescapable dominant narratives, but at the same time is not static or passive.
In Lean’s study (2012, p. 158) it was found that as a part of secondary socialisation, discourses (texts, images, symbols and knowledge) in the public realm play a part in the construction of travel choices including, “representations of travel to certain places/destinations and in general” via all forms of media, magazines,
brochures, television, the internet and “conversation and other travellers’ accounts, which may include stories of transformation through travel”.
With all these influences informing travel choice, avoiding the dominant tourism discourse created by brokers is almost inescapable. Lean (2012, p. 152) summarises the process of travel choice and motivation as the process where individuals “embark upon a physical travel experience with a perception of travel based upon their socialisation, personal experiences and the various social institutions
71
to which they belong (Rojek & Urry, 1997). Motivations grow out of roles, routines and thinking within the home environment that draw upon social constructions of place, fantasy, imagination, representations, family heritage”.
Travel offers a space for self-change or transformation, it is suggested travel choices and motivations are based on the social construction of self combined with imaginings of travel based upon the mostly accepted discourse of tourism. It is debated to what degree any true and lasting transformation can occur as “some argue that travel simply reinforces existing ways of seeing and acting in the world,
supporting prejudices, misguided/’false’ representations” (Lean, 2012, p. 152). Some researchers are approaching the traveller as a subject of a post-modern - and as discussed above - increasingly mobile world. Researchers suggest that liquid modernity offers a perfect conceptual social condition to construct and re-construct the self. This is why some critical tourism researchers and sociologists (e.g. Heimtun, 2007) see travellers as reproducing society either by replicating desires and/or
perpetuating social divides in the performance of roles. From this perspective the tourist has little, if any agency in travel.
Travelling allows temporary respite from the everyday and provides an environment where the traveller can imagine (before, after and during travel) the purpose of travel. This is true of both general travel experiences that offer a pause from responsibilities, or travel with a particular purpose such as eco-tourism,
adventure travelling or travelling for wellbeing. In each of these contexts the purpose of travel chosen, states something about the individual’s values (e.g., action person; eco-friendly; wellbeing focused). By performing the chosen travel role, they construct a version of themselves and have the opportunity to re-construct their identity. The quandary with agency suggested then, is travel choices are first determined by the socialisation of each individual, so the traveller and the citizen in general has a difficult time making any choices which are not a product of their socialisation. The tourist appears to have little agency to escape the dominant discourses that govern how to participate in tourism, including determining who does travel, who does not, and how travel is performed in place.
72 Conclusion
This chapter has explored if existing tourism literature addresses how non- travel occurs. Analysis of the literature has determined power and the reproduction of inequalities play a role in both driving and constraining travel participation. Four concepts have been proposed to explain the process.
First, non-travel is determined by existing social inequalities, such as low income and socio-economic status. Non-travel occurs at certain stages of the life cycle, such as the single, older and working. Literature looks beyond poverty to explain non-travel and considers the concept ‘social exclusion’ as a multi-dimensional process determining non-travel. The second concept of power determining non-travel in the literature was Cheong and Miller’s (2000) adaption of Foucault’s ‘repressive power. They state the brokers of the tourism industry (tourism organisations, service providers, government stakeholders etc.) can include or exclude potential customers. The potential tourist is constrained to travel based upon the brokers creating
destinations and establishments to attract the ideal customer and exclude others. The third concept of non-travel focuses upon the role of the tourist and the brokers combined. Urry (1995) suggests tourism is used as a stage by tourists to perform social life and consequently reproduce social inequalities in tourism. The stage is constructed by the etablishment/service provider and reconstructed by the tourist - including creating the desired setting for the desired tourist, and excluding others (Edensor, 2001; 2004; Soja, 1989). Soja (1989) warns of the dominant political and ideological practices can be concealed in place - the power concealed in the
construction of a preferred reality by the tourist and the broker. The fourth concept highlights a small body of literature that questions the level of agency tourists have to transcend the power of the tourism industry when making travel choices. Bauman (1996; 2000) sees the traveller as a free floating consuming entity, not bound by an ‘industry’ or stage. Conceivably contrary to Bauman, Lean (2012) suggests a further way agency is expressed by tourists is through performing the stage. According to Lean (2012, p. 158) travel choices are shaped by first and secondary socialisation and the “roles, routines and performances...and their associated expectations and sanctions for failure to comply representations of travel”. Both Adler (1989) and Lean (2012) suggest tourists use the tourism stage for meaning making, to transform and fashion their identities and therefore are re-constructing rather than performing.
73
This body of literature highlighted the tourist may have agency to transform self and re-construct tourism spaces, rather than be constrained by tourism. The counter argument however is that people can rarely make choices outside of their