![[ Murdoch University logo and link to homepage ]](/images/header/cs/logo/mu_logo_lhs_45.gif){kind=logo}
| SEARCH| MURDOCH| INDEX| PEOPLE |
|
|
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy |
|
|
Re-thinking and Re-conceptualising Social and Cultural Issues of Tourism Development in South and Southeast AsiaTrevor H.B. Sofield
Tourism Research Socio-cultural Impacts: the Emic Versus the Etic Approach Re-conceptualising 'Culture', Tradition' and 'Authenticity' in the Context of Tourism Adaptation to Tourism Ethnicity, Culture and Tourism References IntroductionTourism is the one of the most important industries in many Asian countries and the fastest growing industry in most of them. In 1997 there were more than 90 million international visitors to the countries of East and South-east Asia (WTO 1998). Current projections by the World Tourism Organization indicate that by 2001 out of a global total of more than 650 million international visitors one third will arrive at Asian destinations. These figures do not take into account domestic tourists - for example, while the China National Tourism Administration reported that China received 47 million overseas visitors in 1995, there were an estimated 290 million domestic tourists. In Indonesia, prior to the economic 'melt-down' which began in 1997, there were almost 4 million overseas visitors, but more than 50 million domestic tourists. These trends have generated concern about the socio-cultural, economic and environmental impacts on Asian societies and communities. Until recently most commentary was made from a western orientation assuming tourism as Caucasian with impacts perceived through western values-tinted spectacles (eg sex tourism in Thailand and the Philippines). In fact, in some Asian destinations, such as Thailand, Malaysia, and China, their Asian visitors greatly outnumber Caucasian visitors and domestic tourists greatly outnumber international visitors. In short, tourists are not homogenous yet many analyses are based on western perceptions of western tourists impacting upon Asian societies and purport to cover the entire canvass of tourism in Asia, when in fact they will provide only partial and segmented pictures. There is a similar misconception about host communities. They tend not to be passive unitary receptacles of tourism: they also are highly differentiated and often pro-active in adapting to different categories of tourists. What once may have been interpreted as adverse impacts caused by the secularism of modern western values introduced by (Caucasian) tourists may have a multi-faceted basis. The result is a need to re-conceptualise socio-cultural change arising from tourism and to re-examine many of the prevailing stereotypes about tourism's impacts. It is also imperative to examine tourism in the context of ethnicity, definitions of culture, and the state. There is a natural affinity between tourism and the nation-state in the sense that both have a profound interest in presenting the place as differentiated and unique, with boundaries around both geographical and socio-cultural space (Leong, 1989; Sofield & Li, 1998a). This is particularly true of multi-ethnic states and newly independent states which in the post colonial period may face the problem of trying to create a sense of and commitment to national unity where previously such a sentiment did not exist. Ethnicity has become 'more than a neutral social scientific term: it has become part of the way people factually and prescriptively see themselves and others ... historically constructed and re-constructed' (Wood, 1997, p. 7). International tourism plays a major role in this discourse and nation states will utilise the opportunities provided by ethnic tourism to objectify symbols and markers to meet political and policy objectives. This chapter explores some of the implications of tourism development and its socio-cultural impacts in Asian countries. Comments are framed against an outline of the four so-called 'platforms' of writings on tourism in order to provide some insight into the positions adopted by different researchers. Tourism ResearchTo quote one of the most eminent international tourism scholars, Jafar Jafari (1990, p.33): "There is no consensus on what tourism is and what it can do. Where once there were widely accepted notions that travel is broadening, that tourism is educational, - as Mark Twain wrote: "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - today, tourism as the "largest peacetime movements of people in the history of mankind" (Greenwood, 1972, p.81) can provoke passionate disagreement about its value, benefits, and impacts. It now means different things to different people." To put the development and growth of tourism in Asia into some perspective it is instructive to re-visit the four 'platforms' or orientation of tourism writings, research and commentary which have developed in the past few decades (Jafari, 1990). While there is an evolutionary characteristic to these four platforms, succeeding platforms have not replaced their predecessor/s and all continue to co-exist. The first, the advocacy platform, was originally occupied by those attracted to the economic prospects of tourism, which in the 1960s was proposed as the panacea to the problems of Third World underdevelopment (e.g. UNDP, 1960; IBRD 1966, OECD 1956). It was advocated for all developing countries but particularly those which were deficient in natural resources, such as small island countries. Tourism's importance to the economy rested in its capacity to be:
Such arguments remain but the advocacy platform has been bolstered in the past decade in particular by an increasing number of issues related to non-economic areas. These include arguing the case for tourism in terms of:
The cautionary platform arose in response to the often uncritical assumptions and self-serving industry voices of the advocates of tourism and the fact that in some countries (eg. the Caribbean) tourism did not provide instant answers to development. This platform constituted a 'natural' home for concerned social scientists and a few economists who were more rigorous in their examination of the potential benefits of tourism than earlier enthusiasts. For any claim of the advocacy platform there have been counterclaims by the cautionary platform - with a fruitful dialogue between proponents "the exception rather than the norm" (Jafari, 1990, p.4). Cautionary writers are critical of the impacts of tourism and their views could be summarised as follows:
Since the polarised arguments of the advocacy and cautionary platforms have been concerned mainly with the perceived impacts of tourism, a third platform gradually developed in which alternative forms of tourism were suggested. The adaptancy platform favoured new forms of tourism responsive to host communities and their natural environments, socio-cultural environments, and man-made (heritage) environments (Jafari, 1990, p.5). Adapted tourism should be community-centred, employ locals, utilise local resources, be relatively easy to manage, be not destructive, and benefit host and guest alike. It is characterised as 'sensitive' tourism, is set in opposition to mass tourism and has been given numerous labels such as alternative tourism, green tourism, ecotourism, soft tourism, appropriate tourism, people-to-people tourism and so on. A major international organisation has been created to advocate adaptive tourism, the Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, which is based in Bangkok. However, as Butler (1992) noted, alternative tourism strategies have not been fully developed and economically they can never replace mass tourism. Increasing numbers are attracted to the promise of more rewarding experiential travel which alternative tourism offers but they remain a small fraction of the total. Furthermore, operators involved in mass tourism have appropriated many of the strategies and incorporated them into their present structures so that definitions based on differentiation have become increasingly difficult to sustain. Because the first three platforms represented only partial treatment of tourism, Jafari argues that the fourth, the knowledge-based platform, emerged to counter: i) the general focus of the advocacy and cautionary platforms on impacts of tourism; and ii) the focus of the adaptancy platform on forms of development, Increasingly, a number of observers of tourism considered that by studying tourism as a whole its underlying functions and structures could be understood and the resulting knowledge would foster the development of a body of theoretical constructs (Jafari, 1990, p.6). Where much of the work from the other three platforms is subjective, the knowledge based platform positions itself on a scientific foundation. It is research-based, multi-disciplinary, aimed at objective analysis, designed to maintain bridges with appropriate paradigms and knowledge from the other three platforms, but is more holistic in its treatment of tourism. Socio-cultural Impacts: the Emic Versus the Etic ApproachWhen we examine commonly held perceptions about the impacts of tourism, especially those which are adverse, we find that much of it is not knowledge-based but located in the 'Cautionary Platform'. Rhetoric often outweighs research. An example of this approach can be discerned from contents of "Contours", the journal of the Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism. Now in its eighth year it is a widely read and quoted source about the evils of tourism. However, few of its articles are written by serious researchers. Newspaper journalism is a common source of its often dramatised reporting. In a recent issue, for example, under a heading "Destroying Heritage Sites" it asserted that Nepal's temple towns which are "architectural and cultural marvels that today attract hundreds of thousands of tourists every year" are under threat (Contours, 1997, 7,7, p. 37). The impression is given that tourism is the responsible agent. However, the article itself notes that "graceful mud and brick homes with intricately carved wooden doors and windows are giving way to ugly concrete high rises to accommodate Kathmandu's 1.2 million population which is growing at the astonishing rate of 5.7 percent per year" (Contours, 7, 7, p.37). There is an acknowledgment that the people themselves want concrete homes and a government official is also quoted as saying that it is much more expensive to build and conserve traditional structures. It is the combination of population pressure, rapid urbanisation and increased building costs, not tourism, which is the cause. Tourism planners in fact are at the forefront in trying to conserve sites and buildings with heritage values and the Government has successfully obtained IUCN accreditation for seven World Heritage Sites in Kathmandu and an eighth site, Lumbini, the birthplace of Buddha, in the south of the country. Further, the United Nations Development Programme has provided more than US$1.5 million for its 'Nepal Partnership for Quality Tourism Project' (1994-1998) which has resurrected two heritage sites amongst other projects (Banskota et al, 1995; Sofield 1998). In this context it is instructive to note the comment of the Nepali Chairman of the Community Development Committee responsible for maintaining the World Heritage Site of the Svayambhu Buddhist stupa on the northwestern outskirts of Kathmandu. Western tourists who pay an entrance fee and a small fee for the use of the public toilets (provided by the Committee under the Partnership for Quality Tourism Project) are 'good tourists who dispose of their rubbish properly' but massive problems are caused by the thousands of Asian pilgrims who carry out all-night pujas (a religious ceremony which includes feasting), leave huge piles of rubbish lying around and use corners of the religious site or the surrounding wooded slopes for toileting. Further, as they pay no entrance fee they do not contribute to the upkeep of the site. The Site Warden also commented that pilgrims "have been a problem for years before we had tourism" (Sofield, 1998, p.19).] Private tourism entrepreneurs are also participating in the effort to preserve Nepal's architectural heritage, such as the owners of Dwarika's Hotel who have spent thirty years collecting the hand carved windows and doors from demolished buildings and have recently completed a new 60-bed hotel in Kathmandu, incorporating them. The entire hotel is designed around traditional features utilising original materials (Sofield 1998). The projection of outside values onto analysis of a particular situation (termed 'imposed etic' by Berry, 1990) may also result in less than profound understanding. Thus the use of becaks (tricycles) for taking tourists around the sights of Yogyakarta and Surakarta in Central Java has been put forward as evidence of the way in which tourism demeans locals and turns them into 'beasts of burden' for pleasure seeking tourists. But this is an etic approach which fails to be "processural, contextual, comparative and emic" (Cohen, 1979, p.31). Note the comments on becak use by R.B. Soemanto from the Engineering Department of the Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, in a survey of the 5,844 registered becaks in Surakarta Municipality: "Becaks are considered important in preserving cheap local transportation services. Their continued functioning is needed by the whole social strata of the community since all social levels at some time draw on their services. While tourists use the becaks for 'generalised sight-seeing', residents use the becaks for specific functional purposes. They are used (by them) to transport residents to friends and relatives, to take children to and from school safely, and so forth. ... (Tourist use is) very small by comparison (with local use) ... but highly valued because the becak drivers received higher charges from foreign tourists than from their local passengers. The drivers considered it an opportunity to get more income" (1995, p.35). In short, becaks were not 'invented' for tourism, were in local use before the advent of tourism, are only a small part of their use, and tourist use is viewed positively by the drivers themselves. The status of becak drivers is not high in Javanese society but that is as a result of Javanese values, not tourism. The emic approach provides a more positive perspective which may be regarded as perhaps more valid than comments based on 'foreign' western values (Berno, 1996). But there are also dangers in accepting only a local view of a situation. This is illustrated by another article in Contours about a group of India's tribal people, the Avidasis, staging a protest against 'outsiders' wanting to exploit their traditional lands, the forests of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, for tourism. A particular target for their ire was a resort in Karnataka which had been established by a well-known multi-national hotel chain inside a forest area from which they had been excluded. Contours quoted one of the movement's leaders, Professor B.D. Sharma, referring to the resort as "a den of adventurists thriving on five star culture ... exposing the forest to dangers which may result in the extinction of many animals .. (and that) ecotourism in the rest of the world has resulted in nearly 40% of the local community women being drawn into prostitution" (Contours, 7,7, p.15). The dilemma for environmentalist readers of Contours is the fact that the tribal people have engaged in exploitative uses of forest resources (especially hunting and swidden agriculture) which were destroying the flora and fauna, that they are engaged in a political campaign for self government (which has been continuing for more than a decade) rather than a specific fight against tourism, that the state government has declared the forest a national park based on sound conservation principles to protect the region's watershed and ecological values, and that the resort is involved in that conservation effort. The picture which paints tourism as the cause of the destruction of the traditional life of the tribal people is in this case both simplistic and misleading (Sofield, 1997). This is not to deny that tourism may not be destructive but rather that the factors to take into account in examining and attempting to evaluate the socio-cultural effects of tourism are numerous. Increasingly, tourism research has focused on the need to undertake much more detailed empirical case studies to elucidate the particular because the social class, ethnic group or community which is being studied will reveal different aspects about the nature of host-visitor relations. Generalisations must be approached cautiously. It is well established that people from different socio-economic strata and different gender are impacted differently by tourism, are exploited by it or are able to take advantage of it according to their circumstances. 'Within a single community a range of different impacts or responses may be recorded' (Hitchcock, King & Parnwell (1993, pp.7). For example, a recent field study of two mountain communities in Nepal by Sofield (1998) revealed that tourism development was in fact an inadvertent vehicle contributing to increasing class differentiation in village societies. Lodge owners, already having comparatively higher living standards than farming households, were drawing further apart as the recipients of government and donor agency assistance under tourism development projects. Even when projects were integrated into community development with specific action to strengthen backward linkages into the local economy, provide village water supplies and each household with toilets, the weight of the benefits accruing to the community fell to the lodge owners. In terms of returns for investment of time and labour and where the bulk of grants were spent, the lodge owners were perceived to be the major recipients of direct monetary and infrastructural benefits, with some villagers missing out completely on both accounts. For example, while all villagers would benefit from improved sanitation, the only ones for whom this was turned into direct monetary gain were perceived to be the lodge owners who could charge trekkers an extra one dollar per day because of the new toilets. The result was strongly divided communities, and sustainability was at risk. Re-conceptualising 'Culture', Tradition' and 'Authenticity' in the Context of TourismMuch of the research and debate on tourism development in Asian countries "has focused on whether its effects are beneficial or negative and whether they are developmental or anti-developmental." (Hitchcock, King and Parnwell, 1993, p.5). Increasingly a number of analysts of tourism development are querying the simplistic assertions of those from Jafari's cautionary platform that tourism is destructive of culture. Such criticism is characterised by the 'billiard ball model' (Wood, 1993). In this model the cue constitutes the interests of tourism (big business, investors, government planners, etc.). These are the forces behind the white ball (tourism) which strikes a static (red) ball, culture. The red ball can only move in the direction dictated by the white ball at a pace determined by the white ball: it has no control over its own movement. A limitation of this approach is that it attributes passivity to the host community, thus denying that community the capacity to respond creatively to the presence of tourism within its social space. Such critics attempt to proscribe change away from tradition and assert the destruction of pre-existing social structures and the degradation of cultural integrity and cultural pollution as due to the impact of the hedonistic, materialistic consumerism and demonstration effect of tourism. Under this rubric, as MacCannell (1994, p.163) stated: "anything and anyone that does not participate in 'authentic' (behaviour or artistic expression) can be classed as a "victim" of development, abject and inauthentic." Yet socio-cultural change is difficult to measure accurately and interpret objectively, and the use of terms such as cultural "degradation", cultural "corruption", loss of tradition and ethnicity, may defy rational measurement. Picard & Wood (1997, p.x) suggest that 'it no longer makes sense to conceive of tourism as a force external to contemporary societies, impacting them from the outside. What needs to be studied is how tourism has become institutionalised in different states and societies and how tourism alters incentives and opportunities for local actors in ways that unleash new and unique processes of change.' When culture is conceived of as static entity, lacking the dynamics of change, the actions, motivations and values of local community members are ignored. To respond to the tourist desire for souvenirs and exotic experiences, emphasis is placed on the production of "authentic native handicrafts", "traditional artefacts" and "traditional time-honoured ceremonies": but this very emphasis often results in a stultifying of natural creativity (MacCannell, 1994, p.161). And in any case, the criticism is made that because it is produced for the tourist it cannot be authentic, having lost its original purpose. Even that which faithfully reproduces the original is held to be not authentic: it is fake, it has lost its original significance and therefore demeans its makers because expressions of artistic creativity have been commoditised and modernised. To be authentic the object of examination for the touristic gaze had to take place with its traditional symbolism untainted by contemporary values, its meaning embedded in the society's heritage. To incorporate elements of external influence was not interpreted as a sign of creativity (which, one hastens to add, is the norm in the world of western art) but as evidence of 'neo-colonialism', of cultural degradation, of the artists demeaning their culture and being demeaned themselves in the process. Tourists often take part in this unconscious hegemony: they may describe a piece of Balinese or Makonde tribal art as being "just like a Modigliani", thereby denying the fact that it was the Italian artist who drew his inspiration from the indigenous art forms of Indonesia and East Africa. What such an etic approach overlooks is the fact that tourism cannot be isolated from many other aspects of culture, that in treating tourism as an exogenous force commentators run the risk of ignoring how tourism may become part of the local reality (Hitchcock et al, 1993, p.9). But as our understanding of the complexities of community responses to tourism develops, increasingly we find that many societies are in fact resilient and have exhibited a capacity to avert the dominance of the outside force; they have put tourism to work for them rather than working for tourism, and so have incorporated it into their social space. A crucial factor to emerge from studies of tourism development in Asian countries is that to survive (be sustainable) a system must be adaptable, incorporating elements of both continuity and change (Harrison 1996). Many social scientists (perhaps the best known of whom is Talcott Parsons) have considered adaptation as a defining feature of their concepts of social systems (Black, 1961). Adaptation may be described more or less objectively but when the impacts of adaptation to tourism are examined and said to be 'positive' or 'negative' the argument often becomes subjective, related "more to ideology than logic" (Harrison, 1996, p. 76). The studies also raise the question, particularly in considering socio-cultural factors related to sustainable development, of just what is to be sustained. An examination of the developmental processes at work in Third World countries has brought about a reconceptualisation of such key concepts as 'culture' and 'authenticity'. They stress that each generation redefines its heritage in response to new understandings, new experiences and new inputs from an ever-increasing range of contacts from 'outside', especially in the context of globalisation (Kymlicka, 1995). There is a "new diversity (of cultural expression) based relatively more on interrelations and less on autonomy" (Hannerz, quoted in Clifford, 1988, p.17). Handler and Linnekin (1984) describe this as a shift from a 'naturalistic' to a 'symbolic' concept of tradition. The former assumes that tradition "is an objective entity, a core of inherited culture traits whose continuity and boundedness are analogous to that of a natural object" but in reality there is an "ongoing reconstruction of tradition in the present ... which is not natural but symbolically constituted" (Handler and Linnekin, 1984, p. 273). What is 'traditional' for one generation may be reshaped by later generations, and indeed different 'traditions' may co-exist; change in all societies is part of an inevitable and evolutionary process. Who then is to decide which of the traditions is authentic and is to be 'saved'? Harrison (1996) warns against academics imposing their ideologically driven views on societies and communities under their scrutiny, and Berno (1996) notes that the 'imposed' etic approach often involves judgemental statements about what is 'right' and 'good' for others. In Fiji the touristic element of vilavilairevo - fire walking, where tourism has been the source of its re-emergence (Sofield, 1992) is condemned by some as crass commoditisation with tourism as the perpetrator of the crime (e.g. Prasad, 1986). Yet while the magico-religious elements of former times may be absent, 'jumping into the oven' remains "an act of solidarity with one's community and an exhibition of loyalty and obedience to one's chief", thus reinforcing fundamental aspects of Fijian society (Stymeist, 1996, p. 16). An emic approach to fire-walking, focussing on actor-oriented, culture-specific values will reveal that the Fijian participants regard firewalking in a positive way. Contemporary Fijian fire walking may be regarded as 'reconstructed ethnicity' which is the maintenance and preservation of ethnic forms for the entertainment of ethnically different others (MacCannell, 1984). Such reconstructed ethnicity is not necessarily less authentic than 'natural' ethnicity. Adaptation to TourismSanger (1988, cited in Hitchcock et al, 1993) provides an example of the interface between tourism and traditional culture with an emic analysis of changes to the barong dance dramas of the village of Singapadu in Bali. Barong performances have been adapted in a variety of ways to suit touristic needs. They have been shortened from more than three hours to about one hour. They include new sequences and slapstick moments which transcend linguistic boundaries to enhance enjoyment for tourists. Women have been introduced to play females roles which traditionally only men had played. Trance sequences with kris (daggers) and the eating of live chickens have been omitted because of tourist disapproval. However, the villagers have not interpreted these changes in terms of cultural denigration (Sanger 1988). First, they have maintained the traditional prayers and offerings at the beginning of each performance and continue to treat the barong with great respect. Second, the oldest and holiest barong costume is not used for commercial performances so is not desecrated. Third, the villagers maintain that the barong likes to dance whatever the circumstances. Fourth, 'ownership' of the barong provides a resource which the villagers can utilise for much-needed cash income, and since the tourist revenue is distributed communally the charge of individual greed is inaccurate. Finally, the barong reinforces community solidarity in much the same way as the vilavilairevo of Fiji and Sanger records that during the monsoons the villagers miss the opportunity it provides to come together during the tourist season. In this instance, commoditisation of culture may be reversed and considered as a process of 'culturising commercialism' (Pere, 1980, p. 139), since local traditions have not been supplanted by the imperatives of the tourist trade but have been modified in culturally acceptable ways. 'Original' traditions now exist with 'new' traditions in the same time-space and "touristic culture is very much part of the reality" (Hitchcock et al, 1993, p. 11). Another example of the 'imposed etic' (Berry, 1990) may be found with reference to Bali as a whole, where numerous analyses have criticised tourism as a destructive agent of change (e.g. Boon, 1977; Francillon, 1989; Hanna, 1972; Maurer and Zeigler, 1988; Turnbull, 1982, Manuaba, 1997). However, the research of Picard and MacKean inter alia, both working independently in Bali over a twenty-year period, demonstrates that by using a more actor-oriented (emic) approach the inter-relationship between tourism change and culture change cannot be viewed as a 'one-way street'; the host communities adapt to and in turn modify the tourism which takes place within their social space. Picard has termed this "touristic culture": through tourism culture has been transformed into the main economic resource of Bali and by the same token Balinese culture has become a major bargaining point with the central Indonesian Government, tourism authorities and tourist operators (Picard, 1993, p.86). Picard has chronicled the way in which the Balinese elite responded to the imposition of a tourism development plan from Jakarta, which was based on an 'outsider' view of their culture, by defining and refining in a comprehensive way their own "Balinese-ness". Over a period of eight years from 1971 to 1979 they held a series of seminars under the joint auspices of the Directorate General of Culture and the Directorate General of Tourism which resulted in the formulation of the 'doctrine of cultural tourism' for Bali and the signing of an agreement between the two Directorates General. This established the Balinese Commission of Cooperation for the Promotion and Development of Cultural Tourism (Komisi Kerjasama Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Wisata Budaya) whose chief objectives were to:
i) increase and extend the use of culture for the development of tourism; and ii) to use the proceeds of tourism development for the promotion and development of culture. (Picard, 1993, p.88).
As a manifestation of this new approach, Picard describes how the Balinese Regional Government launched the Bali Arts Festival in 1979 at the opening of a new Arts Centre in Denpasar. Since its inception this month-long festival has been regarded by the Balinese as evidence of the Island's cultural renaissance, yet "it would be mistaken to consider this event as primarily a tourist attraction as over the years it has proved so popular with the Balinese that they make up nowadays the major part of its public" (Picard, 1993, p.91). Many of the offerings at the annual Festival could not be termed traditional under the anthropological definition of something old, something performed in its traditional physical setting with its age-old values and purposes intact; but they are indisputably of Balinese origin, drawing upon the long continuous history of Balinese creative expression and as such they are authentically Balinese. Since Balinese tourism relies upon Balinese culture, if tourism were to destroy Balinese culture it would destroy Balinese tourism (McKean, 1992). The result is one in which the Balinese, having been compelled to define their cultural heritage, in the process have put tourism to work for Bali rather than the Balinese working for tourism. The key difference in the analyses of Picard and McKean lies in their emic approach, as distinct from the etic approach of many others. This conclusion recalls Wilson's (1981, p. 477) insistence that tourism analyses will benefit by "a thoroughly empirical research strategy which seeks hermeneutic understanding in terms of the knowledge possessed by the participants themselves - their definitions, goals, strategies, decisions, and the perceived consequences of their actions." It includes their "on-going symbolic construction of tradition and authenticity" (Wood, 1993, p.60). Ethnicity, Culture and TourismTourism has played a major role in the 'imaging' and 're-creation' of 'national cultures' and ethnicity in many Asian countries (Graburn 1997, p.210). Cultural heritage may be claimed and its ownership utilised to bestow legitimacy on those with the power and authority to present it in desired form to both insiders and outsiders. Nation-states in Asia have been active in devising tourism policies to support ideologically driven definitions and symbols of national identity and ethnicity. Richter (1989, p.44) suggests that the Philippines under Marcos was 'the classic case of using tourism development politically' in an attempt to add legitimacy to his regime. Leong (1989) also has an incisive study of Singapore and the way in which the Government has channelled its many different ethnicities into four official CMIO 'races' (Chinese, Malays, Indians, Others) and then portrayed ('manufactured') artificial stereotypes for tourism, the underlying political objective being the need to maintain harmony between its ethnic divides. Indonesia is another case in point where until the past two to three generations at most its many peoples considered themselves not as Indonesians but as Sumatrans or Javanese, or as smaller units such as the Redjang of Sumatra. Many Irianese still today do not consider themselves as Indonesians. The Indonesian Government has attempted to use tourism to present ethnic and cultural differences in benign, non-threatening forms to prevent communalism from getting out of hand (Kipp 1993). Taman Mini Indonesia (Beautiful Indonesia in Miniature), a theme park constructed just outside Jakarta by the Indonesian Government in 1975, is a manifestation of this policy. Each of the 27 provinces has a representative architectural pavilion or similar 'occupied' by different ethnic groups garbed in traditional dress. The park is aimed mainly at a domestic audience, and is promoted in Bahasa Indonesian tourism literature and school textbooks as the place to learn about all of Indonesia. Many more Indonesians than foreign tourists visit the park. It is ironic that Indonesia's largest ethnic minority, and the one which has been the focus of much communal violence and unrest, is not represented in Taman Mini Indonesia, its Chinese nationals. China provides another example of the involvement of the state in determining ethnic identity and presenting 'acceptable' manifestations of minorities cultures for tourism. It officially recognises 55 'minorities' who number about 100 million, a total which is larger than more than 75% of the countries of the globe although only one twelfth of China's population (Mackerras, Taneja and Young, 1994). Although their numbers are comparatively small, they occupy about 65% of China's total area. Their territories include much of China's border areas so the minorities enjoy a strategic importance well beyond their numbers (Mackerras 1994). Policy formulation towards the minorities is therefore bound up in foreign affairs, defence and national security, as well as economic development, education, health, social welfare and so on. The state in China has used tourism as a powerful tool to assist in bringing the minorities into the main stream by promoting and developing tourism activity based on their cultural heritage (Oakes, 1997; Sofield & Li, 1998a). Tourism policies and development have played a key role in China in assisting the state to manage the tensions generated between the Chinese Government's determination to maintain political stability under the Communist Party and attempts to find the appropriate mix of traditional Chinese culture, socialist culture and 'modern' culture (the latter necessarily incorporating western values and systems). The interface between politically driven goals of power and government, the preservation of a nation's cultural heritage, sustainable environmental values, and tourism development are problematic for many countries. In the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) these issues are fundamental not only to the place of tradition in a society which is modernising its economy at a rapid rate, but they also present very real challenges to the legitimacy of the Government. A primary cornerstone of the ideology propounded by the CCP since its inception in 1921 concerned the need to reject the cultural past as a whole and its replacement with a new Chinese socialist culture. Under this policy massive destruction of China's rich and varied built heritage occurred and there were sustained attacks on its cultural (living) heritage (Sofield and Li, 1998a). This totalistic iconoclasm, however, is at odds with the contemporary embrace of heritage as perhaps the major element of China's burgeoning tourism product. Because of its ideological sensitivity, the approach to heritage in its many forms has tended to be carefully controlled by the State; and its use for tourism has often been driven by ideological tenets of politics - in this case, socialism as defined by the Chinese Government. Yet in spite of the ambivalence and complexities which can be discerned in the attitude of the CCP to the past, tourism and its use of heritage continues to expand as the policies of the current leadership of China distance the CCP from its founding roots. It has used a vast and diverse array of symbols and markers, both for international tourism and domestic tourism, to pursue its objective of maintaining unity and claiming some aspects of its culture for all Chinese citizens regardless of ethnicity. Tourism utilises symbolism in many different ways, e.g. iconography (famous sites, buildings, people or places) to represent an entire country. In terms of imaging, the Great Wall of China is one of the most universally recognised icons of national identity for any country in the world, certainly ranking with the pyramids of Egypt, the Parthenon of Athens, the Eiffel Tower of Paris and the Basilica of Rome. For many tourists those five words (the-Great-Wall-of-China) are a synecdoche and encapsulate all that is Chinese, moving the symbol from the concrete (a wall built for military purposes) to the cultural history of that nation and its people. Globally the Wall as one of the wonders of the world symbolizes all humankind's heritage, the one man-made object visible, it is claimed (erroneously), from the moon and outer space. Touristically, it is a compelling symbol for visitation both by Chinese (akin to a pilgrimage) and by international tourists. Symbolically, it has elements of both the sacred and the secular (Sofield & Li, 1998b). However, the Great Wall, like a traditional Chinese multi-tiered cake box filled with abundant offerings, has many layers and numerous images conveyed by different representations at different times by different actors with different histories. The varied interpretations of the same symbol is contextual, and symbols are an inherent part of the socialization process of a culture (Norbert 1991). Tourism intervenes to take symbolism beyond the duality of signification and representation to a triadic relationship because of the insertion of a third factor - the interpretant presentation of sign and object. Each interpretation strives to present its own story, locked in combat for proclaiming the Truth, so that the reality of the Wall is a veritable whirlwind of myth and legend, historical fact and fantasy, obscured, obfuscated, dependent upon political power or drawing its vision from metaphysical poetry. Throughout time visitors to the Wall have carried with them preconceived ideas and images and the sign of the Wall has meant different things to them. Images are put in place of reality, as presentations of reality. The Wall is Urry's (1990) tourist gaze magnified and multiplied. Like bees to honey it attracts MacCannell's army of semioticians searching for the essence of Chineseness. Yet the Great Wall is a recent construction, its current 'imaging' by the Chinese Government at odds with its actual history. It is a representation of more than 150 different walls, constructed at different times stretching back over 2,200 years. The so-called Great Wall which is the object of the tourist gaze of the twentieth century is of relatively recent origin, having been constructed less than 500 years ago, and stretching for perhaps only one third of the mythical single great wall. Regardless of the historical record, however, in contemporary China, the Great Wall is an icon which constitutes a fusion of the authentic and the marker for both Chinese and international tourists. As Urry (citing Baudrillard) states: 'what we increasingly consume are signs or representations. ... This world of sign and spectacle is one in which there is no originality, only what Eco terms 'travels in hyper-reality' (1990:85). However, Urry argues that sites which have been made into attractive spectacles are not necessarily inauthentic, but rather that there is no one simple 'authentic reconstruction of history'; instead there are various kinds of interpretation and reinterpretation with their own validity (1990:156). A visit to the Great Wall, in whatever form, is an example of Nuryanti's "individual journey of self-discovery" coupled with, for the Chinese, a re-affirmation of the Chinese-ness of the participant observer. Thailand represents an opposite case to China in the context of its ethnic minorities. Its hill tribes live in strategically sensitive border areas but whereas the Chinese Government has a deliberate policy of engaging its minorities in various forms of tourism, the growth in hill tribe tourism has developed outside official Thai Government planning. The Thai Government has attempted military intervention to assert its control in the past, although it now appears to accept that tourism could provide the means by which the hill tribe ethnic groups could be assimilated (Deardon and Harron 1992). However, it still demonstrates little interest in sanctioning, preserving or promoting ethnic cultural diversity. As with the Great Wall, however, it has reconstructed its past (inaccurately) with the excavation and remaking of the ancient capital of Ayutthaya and (more accurately) Sukothai, originally for farang (foreign) tourists, but now making a significant contribution to the Thai perception of their own nation, identity and cultural history (Phillips 1992). Conclusions Concluding comment is pointed at the need for more research undertaken with greater objectivity and incorporating local perspectives on leisure and travel and the place of tourism within the social space of receiving communities. The stereotype of the decadent western tourist bringing cultural degradation and environmental pollution in his/her wake is overly simplistic and the place and role of domestic tourism in development and change needs urgent attention. The 'billiard ball model' with its deterministic uni-directional assertion about the impacts of tourism needs to be replaced with a more sophisticated model based on our new perceptions of culture, heritage, authenticity and tradition as processes rather then static objects. Resilience and adaptation with concurrent benefits to host communities may be more prevalent than negative reactions to tourism but the current state of research does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn about how the relationship between host and guest, resident and tourist, is translated into particular behavioural patterns and forms of social interaction and how, or indeed if, these encounters change tourist and resident images, views and prejudices. Tourism to Asian countries will continue to grow but there is a major mismatch between the resources devoted to this sector in comparison to most other sectors (Sofield, 1995) despite the fact that in many Asian countries it is in the 'top three' in terms of generation of foreign exchange, creation of employment and the multiplier effect. As arguably the world's largest industry it requires much more multi-disciplinary effort and research if its effects in Asian countries are to be understood, adverse impacts minimised and positive outcomes enhanced. ReferencesBanks, D.J. (ed.) 1976 Banskota, K., Sharma, B., Neupane, I. & Gyawali, P. 1995. A Rapid Assessment of the Quality Tourism Project. Kathmandu: CREST. Berno, Tracy 1996 Berry, J.W. 1990 Black, M. (ed) 1961 Boon, J.A. 1977 Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J., and Wall, G.
(eds) 1996. Butler (1992) Butler, R and Hinch, T. (eds) 1996 Clifford, J. 1988 Cohen, Erik, 1979 Contours, 7, 7, 1996.
Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, Bangkok Resorting to Tourism: Cultural Policies for Tourist
Development in Australia. Sydney: Allen &
Unwin. Tourism and the Hilltribes of Thailand. In: Weiler, B. & Hall, C.M. (eds.) Special Interest Tourism, pp.95-104. London: Belhaven Press. de Burlo, C. 1996 de Kadt, E. 1992 Eco, Umberto (1986) Travels in Hyperreality. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Francillon, G. 1979 Francillon, G. 1989 Graburn, Nelson H.H. 1997 Greenwood, D. 1972 Handler, R and Linnekin, J. 1984 Hanna, W.A. 1972 Hannerz, U. 1986 Harrison, D. 1996. Hitchcock, M., King, V.T. & Parnwell, M.G.H. (eds.)
1993 IBRD 1966 Jafari, J. 1990 Kipp, Rita 1993 Kymlicka, W. 1995 Leong, Wai-Teng, 1989 MacCannell, D. 1976 MacCannell, D. (1994). Mackerras, C. 1994 Mackerras, C., Pradeep Taneja & G. Young 1994 McKean, P. 1976 McKean, P. 1977 McKean, P. 1982 Maurer, J.L. and Zeigler, A. 1988 Norbert, Elias (1991) The Symbol Theory, London: Sage Publications Nuryanti, Wiendu Oakes, Timothy 1997 Pere, B. 1985 Phillips, H.P. 1990 Picard, M. 1993 Picard, M. and Wood, Robert E. (eds) 1997 Richter, Linda K. 1989 Sanger, A. 1988 Soemanto, R.B. 1995 Sofield, T.H.B. 1992 Sofield, T.H.B., (ed) 1995 Sofield, T.H.B. 1997 Sofield, T.H.B. 1998 Sofield, T.H.B. and Li, Fung Mei S. 1998a Sofield, T.H.B. & Li, F.M.S. 1998b Sofield, T.H.B. and M. Sri
Samiati Tarjana (eds.) 1995 Stymeist, D. H. 1996 Turnbull, C. 1982 Urry, J. 1990 Weiler, B. & Hall, C.M. (eds.) 1992. Wilson, D. 1981 Wilson, D. 1993 Wood, R.E. 1993 World Tourism Organisation 1998 Yamashita, Shinji, Din, Kadir H., & Eades, J.S.
(eds.) 1997 |
||||||
