982
RESEARCH
NOTES
AN11 REPORTS
199613 Statistik Wrbog. Nuuk: CrPrnlands Statistik.
Viken, A., and I,. Krogh
1994 Et konkurransedyktig
Nord-Norge.
Strategisk
nzringsliv.
Center.
Reiselivsn;leringen.
Rapport
Submitted
7 November
1996
Resubmitted
6 December
1996
Accepted
3 1January
1997
Theories
No.
2. Alla:
analyse
av
Finnmark
nordnorsk
Research
PII: SOlSO-7383(97)00034-O
of Modern and Postmodern
Tourism
Natan Uriely
Ben-Gurion
University
of the
Negev,
Israel
This research
note pays attention
to the shift from the 70s theories
of
“modern”
tourism
towards
the contemporary
discourse
of “postmodern”
tourism.
The findings
suggest
that, beyond
the different
notions
regarding
the nature
of tourism,
this shift involves
a change
in the style and form of
theorizing
within
the sociology
of tourism.
The terms
postmodern
and postmodernism
rcfcr,
among other phenomena,
to a new form
of theorizing
the contemporary
historical
moment
(Denzin
1991:3).
In this context,
postmodern
social
theory
reacts
against
grand
theories
and their
tendency
to conceptualize
societies
as totalities.
Postmodern
social theory
is also characterized
by its compromising
nature
which
supports
“both-and”
rather
than “either-or”
statements
(Denzin
1991:27,
151). This aspect
of postmodern
theory
reflects
the notion
of the
postmodernist
logic as non-dualistic
and anti-hierarchial
(Lather
1991).
Similarly,
postmodernist
systems
of knowledge
are less authoritative,
less
conclusive,
and more
pluralized
than
modernist
systems
of knowledge
(Bauman
1987).
The study of tourism
cmergcd
as a distinguished
sociological
subjectfield mainly
during
the 70s. In spite of the different
conceptualizations
of
tourism,
most of the students
in the field were unified
in their perceptions
of tourism
as a modern
phenomenon.
Nevertheless,
the field was dominated
by two competing
viewpoints
regardiyg
the nature
and meaning
of
the modern
tourist
experience.
One side of the dcbatc
took the form of
social
criticism,
in which
tourism
was viewed
as a symptom
of modern
decadence.
This
conceptual
approach
was represented
by scholars
who
perceived
the modern
tourist
experience
as a trivial
and superficial
activity
which
involves
a quest
for contrived
experiences
(Barthes
1972; Boorstin
1964; Turner
and Ash 1975).
The opposing
approach
was primarily
repM.I10 conceptualized
the tourist
experience
resented
by MacCannell
(1973)
as a mcamngful
modern
ritual
\vhich involves
a quest
for the authentic.
The polemic
between
thcsc
t~vo perspectives
was manifested
in MacCanncll’s
direct
attack
against
the former
approach.
In this
context,
MacCannell
referred
to Boorstin’s
outlook
as a snobbish
attitude
rathel
than an academic
analysis
which is based on empirical
research
(1973:600).
His attempt
to de-legitimize
the competing
viewpoint
reflects
the noncompromising
and authoritative
attitude
\vhlch was associated
above with
modernist
systems
of kno\vledge.
Furthcrmorc,
Boorstin’s
and
MacCanncll’s
theories
shared
the tendency
of modernist
forms
of analysis
to
view socictics
as totalities.
In this respect,
both
standpoints
have not
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND REPORTS
983
captured the existing variety in the practice of tourism and offered a total
as a general
type. It should be mentioned,
portrayal
of the “tourist”
however, that the homogenizing
depictions of the tourist experience
were
challenged
in the late 70s by Cohen who proposed that “different
kinds of
people may desire different modes of tourist experiences”
(1979: 180).
Since the late 70s and the early 8Os, a growing number of scholars have
addressed
various
tourism-related
activities
as expressions
of postmodernist rather than modernist culture. Contemporary
trends in tourism,
such as the rise of small and specialized
travel agencies,
the growing
attraction
of nostalgia and “heritage
tourism”,
the flourishing of natureoriented tourism, and the increase of simulated
tourism-related
environments, are labeled as aspects of “postmodern
tourism”.
The sociological
discourse of postmodern
tourism consists of two theoretical
frameworksthe “simulational”
and the “other”
postmodern
tourism
(Munt 1994).
The simulational
line of scholarship
is focused around the analysis of
“hyperreal”
experiences
and refers to simulated
theme parks and other
contrived
attractions
as typical postmodern
environments
(Baudrillard
1983; Eco 1986; Featherstone
1991; Gottdiner
1995; Lash and Urry 1994;
Pretcs 1995). Conceptualizations
ofthe “other”postmodern
tourism stress
the search for the “real” and point to the growing appeal of the “natural”
and the countryside
as postmodern
expressions
(Barrett
1989; Munt 1994;
Poon 1989; Urry 1990). It seems as though the distinction
between the
“simulational”
and the “other” dimensions of postmodern
tourism follows
the polarity noted among the earlier theories of modern tourism.
While the “simulational”
postmodern
tourism follows Boorstin’s
notion
of “pseudo-events”
(1964), the “other” postmodern
tourism follows MacCannell’s argument regarding the quest for authenticity.
Unlike the earlier notions of modern
tourism,
however, the “simulational”
and the
“other” dimensions
of postmodern
tourism do not derive from two opposing camps of scholars who challenge each other. On the contrary, some of
the important
scholars of postmodern
tourism include both the “simulational” and the “other” dimensions
in their complete portrayal of postmodern
tourism
(e.g., Urry
1990). Furthermore,
unlike
the former
theories,
the two dimensions
of postmodern
tourism construct
complementary
rather than contradictory
sets of propositions
regarding
the
nature of tourism.
For example,
Munt’s recent article on the “other”
postmodern
tourism begins with the statement..
. “I do not set out to
challenge
these ‘post-tourism’,
but to consider,
figuratively,
the ‘other’
possibilities of postmodern tourism” (1994: 101). Munt’s statement
reflects
the compromising
nature of postmodern
theories which involve “bothand” rather than “either-or”
attitudes.
In addition, conceptualizations
of postmodern
tourism depart from the
tendency of the earlier theories
of modern tourism to homogenize
the
tourist experience
as a general type. On the contrary, postmodern
tourism
is characterized
by the multiplicity
of tourist motivations,
experiences,
and environments.
In this respect, the notion of a diverse and plural realm
of postmodern
tourism goes one step beyond Cohen’s (1979) proposition
regarding
the variety of tourist experiences.
While Cohen proclaimed
that different
people perform different
tourist activities,
Feifer (1985)
characterized
the “post-tourist”
by his/her enjoyment
of moving across
the different
types of tourist experiences.
Such conceptuaiizations
which
emphasize
the multiplicity
and flexibility of postmodern
tourist experiences react against the tendency of modernist theories to view societies as
totalities.
In sum, this analysis suggests that unlike the polemic, authoritative,
and
homogenizing
discourse of modern tourism, the discourse of postmodern
984
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND
REPORTS
tourism consists of compromising
statements
and stresses the multiplicity
of tourist experiences.
Thus, it is argued that while the theorizing
of
modern tourism during the 70s took the form of a modernist
system of
knowledge,
the sociological
discourse
of postmodern
tourism could be
distinguished
as a postmodernist
form of theorizing.
0 0
Natan
Uriely: Department
of Hotel & Tourism Management,
School of Management,
84105, Israel. Email
Ben-Gurion
University
of the Negev. PO Box 6.53, Beer-Sheva
[email protected].
REFERENCES
Barrett,
F.
1989 The Independent
Guide to Real Holidays
Abroad.
London:
The Independent.
Barthes,
R.
1972 Mythologies.
London: Cape.
Baudrillard,
J.
1983 Simulations.
New York: Semiotext(e).
Bauman, Z.
1987 Legislators
and Interpreters.
Cambridge:
Polity.
Boorstin,
D.
1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events
in America.
New York: Harper.
Cohen, E.
1979 A Phenomenology
of Tourist Types. Sociology
13:179-201.
Denzin, N.
1991 Images of Postmodern
Society: Social Theory and Contemporary
Cinema.
London: Sage.
Eco, U.
1986 Travels in Hyper-Reality.
London: Picador.
Featherstone,
M.
1991 Consumer
Culture and Postmodernism.
London: Sage.
Feifer, M.
1985 Going Places. London: Macmillan.
Gottdiner,
M.
1995 Postmodern
Semeiotics:
Material
Culture
and the Forms of Postmodern
Life. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Lash, S., and J. Urry
1994 Economies
of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Lather, P.
1991 Getting
Smart: Feminist
Research
and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern.
New York: Routledge.
MacCannell,
D.
1973 Staged Authenticity:
Arrangements
of Social Space in Tourist
Settings.
American
Sociological
Review 79:589-603.
Munt, I.
1994 The “Other”
Postmodern
Tourism:
Culture,
Travel and the new Middle
Class. Theory, Culture
and Society 1l:lOl-123.
Poon, A.
1989 Competitive
Strategies
for a New Tourism.
In Progress
in Tourism,
Recreation
and Hospitality
Management
(Vol.
l), C. Cooper,
ed. London:
Belhaven.
Pretes, M.
1995 Postmodern
Tourism:
The Santa
Claus Industry.
Annals
of Tourism
Research
22: 1-15.
Turner,
L., and J. Ash
1975 The Golden Hordes. London: Constable.
RESEARCH
Urry,
J.
1990 The Tourist
Sage.
Gaze:
Leisure
NOTES
AND
and Travel
in Contemporary
Submitted
25 November
1996
Resubmitted
18 December
1996
Accepted
31 January
1997
Site Selection
Criteria
REPORTS
985
Societies.
London:
PII:SO160-7383(97)00029-7
of the Small Trade Association
Penny M. Simpson
Mary Lynn Wilkerson
Northwestern
State
University
of Louisiana,
USA
Two emerging
trends
have created
a tremendous
opportunity
for both
small
towns and businesses:
the movement
toward
smaller
meetings
for
industrial
and trade
associations
(Serlen
1992)
and the need for rural
communities
to diversify
their
economies
through
tourism
(Edge11
and
Edwards
1993).
The opportunity
lies in the inteRration
of the two trends
where businesses
and trade associations
hold their small meetings
in rural
areas.
This integration
has numerous
advantages
for both organizations
and small towns.
Small
towns and rural
areas
are localities
with fewer than 50,000
residents and “includes
about 25 percent
of the U.S. population
and 90 percent
of its natural
resources”
(Edge11 and Edwards
1993: lo), making
rural areas
an important
component
of the United
States
economy.
The agricultural
and small
industrial
base of many of these
rural
economies
has eroded
over the past few decades,
creating
the need for small
towns to find new
sources
of revenue
and to diversify
their reliance
on any one economic
base
(Edge11 and Harbaugh
1993). Experts
agree that one viable way to achieve
this objective
is to tap into the $360 billion
tourism
industry
(Schiefelbein
1992).
Tourism
dollars
can provide
an infusion
of money
into these
economies and can significantly
revitalize,
di\-crsify,
and stabilize
a small town’s
economy
by bringing
new money into the community
and by creating
jobs
and business
opportunities
which
may even influence
migration
patterns
(Edge11 and Edlvards
1993; Schneider
1993).
Moreover,
tourism
requires
relatively
little
investment
in resources
because
it “relies
on an area’s
cultural,
historic,
ethnic,
geographic,
and national
uniqueness”
(Edge11
and Edwards
1993: 10).
One
likely
source
of these
tourism
dollars
for small
towns
is trade
association
small
meetings,
especially
in view of the recent
trend
toward
smaller
meetings
held closer
to “home”
and over shorter
time periods
to
hold down costs
and improve
meeting
effectiveness
(Scrlen
1992).
Such
towns may be well positioned
to satisfy
the needs of small meetings
because
they generally
have lower
costs
and better
service
than
their
big city
counterparts.
This is especially
important
bvhen considering
that meeting
planners
view high cost as a major
reason
for selecting/rejecting
a particular
city for meetings
(Marketing
1992).
But before
small
towns
can
begin
to capitalize
on this strategic
w-indow of opportunity,
they must
understand
association
and business
meeting
needs. As Clark
and McCleused for selecting
the city fi)r meetings
ary (I 995:62)
note, “. . . the process