Tourism as a Focus of Study Book Report

  • Length: 9 pages
  • Sources: 15
  • Subject: Recreation
  • Type: Book Report
  • Paper: #19888531

Excerpt from Book Report :

ethnic tourism and cultural tourism rather blurry?

The influence of mass tourism, which is an element of modern tourism, is mutually determined and frequent. Tourism is a phenomenon that is social and cannot be overlooked in studies of the up-to-date world, even if this detail has only come to be documented. In all sociological dimensions, tourism has a place from activity that is distinctive to the contemporary world system, and creates an variety of problems that are social (Gang, C. (2011)). These issues can be seen as a forecast of the historical movement from the contemporary to the postmodern. Ethnic tourism is inherently describes as a sort of tourism in which the principal enticement of the tourist encompasses a desire to meet and interconnect with persons that are considered traditional and exotic. Now, Hughes (1996) contends that cultural tourism "tends to be directed to trips when cultural resources are visited in spite of genuine inspiration. The expression is restricted, too, by a disappointment to include 'entertainment'. He categorizes those tourists who desire to "experience 'culture' in the impression of a separate way of life" as "ethnic tourism." However, the author also states that they do not think this distinction intensely productive, at least for their limited reasons here. The author then goes on to say that they have a selection of the definition that Stebbins (1996) exercises. He writes, "Cultural tourism is a kind of discrete significance tourism founded on the quest for and contribution in new and deep cultural experiences, whether artistic, knowledgeable, emotional, or mental." I personally think this to be a valuable meaning, as it includes an variety of cultural forms, comprising museums, galleries, festivals, style, historic places, creative presentations, and heritage sites, as well as any incident that transports one culture in interaction with another for the specific determination of that contact, in a touring condition. While this meaning highpoints the viewpoint of the tourist, an inclusive strategy to ethnic tourism necessarily comprises in addition to tourists the local suppliers of this unusual experience, as well as the dealers who support the collaboration between tourists and these local dealers. Taking into consideration these various factions directs to the assumption that ethnic and cultural tourism is not just a particular kind of interaction between hosts and guests', they are also essentially a complicated rise of ethnic associations, by means of useful suggestions for changing communications of ethnic distinction between locals.

With that said, according to Harron and Weiler (1992), they the distinction between ethnic tourism and cultural tourism can be somewhat blurry? However, I agree with this statement just might carry some weight to it. However, I agree with the article when it says that there are two main subjects which need to be involved when separating the two of them. I think that first; the previous have a tendency to be more closely attentive on a specific group of people whose exoticism is obviously kept as the major fascination for the tourist. Second, ethnic tourism more essentially involves putting people that are local 'on stage' view by the tourist, instead of just simply serving as background participants assisting the understanding. I concur with the article that Instead of just looking at actual tributes, famous natural wonders or even a local 'cultural milieu', the ethnic visitor comes specifically to see other people whose ways of life differ materially from that of back home. Therefore, ethnic tourism most prominently rely on the association among tourist and native, an encounter that is generally brokered by a third party as it turn out to be combined into the wider tourism industry.

As the article states, I think it needs to be understood that there are two attributes of this connection which are particularly significant from the traveller's viewpoint. First, the requirement for an foreign engagement requires that the affiliation among tourist and local be one that connects a large socioeconomic category. Indigenous tourists characteristically come from well developed and industrial regions; suppliers that are local, instead, seem to be 'Fourth World' subgroups that occupy a bordering monetary, political, ethnic and geographical view inside the nations in which they are set up. I think that generally, as the article mentioned, that ethnic tourists do think of themselves elite travelers who ignore the mass options whose affordability varies on the revenue split between emerging and industrialized worlds. Yet, the meeting among ethnic tourist and indigenous maybe even more fundamentally depends upon such a split up, since this visitor is chiefly looking for the difference that is exotic, even if one selects to travel economically on a restrained financial plan in order to cover up the revenue gap as much as conceivable Ringer, G. (2002). Second, the achievement of the association among the host and guest often varies on preserving legitimacy in the observation of the former. That is, the connection ought to emerge to the tourist to be unmediated and impulsive.

I think as the article mentioned that it is significant, nevertheless, to understand that native ethnic units themselves aggressively work together in the ethnic experience of the tourist. This is done with a powerful state reassurance in expectations of growing local profits. Certainly, ethnic tourism is frequently endorsed by the state as a substance for financial incorporation and 'modernization' amongst isolated maintenance - concerned with populations who as yet donate little to state proceeds (Hiwasaki, L. 2000). I concur with the article, when it states that separately from anything monetary advantages they may originate from ethnic tourism (which are mainly marginal), however, I think that the ethnic groups can aggressively adapt their behavior, dress, ways of creation and usual practices so that it can be facilitated or else deal with the experience of the tourist. Although it has been normal for scholars to prospect these ethnic groups entirely as actualized victims of the tourism industry, they in fact actively struggle to uphold bias over their connections with tourists in so many different ways (Hiwasaki, L. 2000). Therefore, ethnic tourism might produce renovated perceptions of identity, position and tradition amid local groups, may lead to resourceful new appearances in art, and may help local groups oppose long-standing approaches of discrimination among the leading population.

Management with Ethnic and Cultural Tourism;'

I agree with the article that the issue of 'commoditization' had happened when culture and ethnicity, which were not initially observed as cost-conscious properties, were put into the economic system of the modern day, chiefly the capitalist financial system, as tourist commodities. The highlight of the capitalist system that is an urging power of transformation is the belief that "whatever that can be priced can be sold and bought" (Hiwasaki, L. 2000); neither for the case of tourism in general there is no case nor for ethnic tourism. I agree that throughout ethnic tourism, culture and ethnicity did become the straight purpose of 'commoditization.

Regarding commoditization and transformation, I think as the article talked about that there were people all over the world that identify the view that 'commoditization' arises from modernization and that this is an unavoidable and permanent fashion. With that said, the trend of modernization is set to increase all over every part of the human society even devoid of the influence of mass tourism (Greathouse Amador, L.,M. 1997). Mass tourism in ethnic and cultural tourism is mainly seen as an issue hastening the process of commoditization in cultural and ethnic tourism. Native peoples who have selected tourism growth through ethnic tourism do not have the option of rejecting modernization. The recognition of mass tourism throughout emerging ethnic tourism unavoidably presents modernization along with commoditization of the presenters' culture. The idea of change and obliteration of 'authenticity' through 'commoditization' is extensively documented. The issue of 'authenticity' and 'commoditization' are energetically inter-related, and provide a rise to diverse questions. I think as the article mentioned, for instance, tourists of ethnic tourism usually try to request the maintenance of authenticity to give a feel of exoticism, while administrations of emerging nations and some native peoples are ready to receive commoditization in arrangement to endorse modernization of their community.

The article does a splendid job explaining that in ethnic tourism management, a lot conflicts that are social usual come arise from the change of individual standpoints. Also I think that further, ethnic tourism management has some issues: the more tourists leap out to get the 'realism' of ethnicity as a tourist attraction, the more its 'commoditization 'extends and then 'authenticity' goes away (van den Berghe and Keyes 1984). These issues regarding 'authenticity' and 'commoditization' stand confuse and grave queries to ethnic tourism management.

The Sociological Implications of Ethnic Tourism

The article makes an enormous point behind the social background in which ethnic tourism has arisen, and where a lot of tourists are attracted to ethnic tourism, lies the worldwide historical trend of modernization. Some believe that the culture tourism can be thought of as the product of the modern as well. However, the article makes the point that the achievement…

Cite This Book Report:

"Tourism As A Focus Of Study" (2011, October 18) Retrieved January 24, 2017, from

"Tourism As A Focus Of Study" 18 October 2011. Web.24 January. 2017. <>

"Tourism As A Focus Of Study", 18 October 2011, Accessed.24 January. 2017,