Cultural analysis of tourism change

Another body of critical tourism research draws on the cultural turn that took place in tourism research in the 2000s (e.g. Aitchison 2000; Ateljevic et al. 2007, 2011; Hannam &

Knox 2010). Critical tourism studies (CTS) have adopted poststructural methodologies from the social sciences. They reject grand theories in their analysis and do not consider materialist and institutional perspectives as sufficient. Importantly, this stream of research regards tourism not solely as an economic activity but emphasizes cultural and symbolic power in their analyses of tourism ethics and justice (Aitchison 2000, 2005). In attempting to work towards a more just tourism economy, these poststructural studies draw attention to economic actors, identities, and encounters in tourism. For instance, gender relations are a source of difference in local communities that tourism economy has failed to appreciate sufficiently (Tucker 2007; Pritchard & Morgan 2000). These studies have also focused on examining the uneven power relations in host–guest relationships in tourism communities. Local hosts but also tourists have agency in developing just and sustainable forms of tourism (see e.g. García-Rosell et al. 2007; Höckert 2018).

The described shift from material to cultural analysis is a move from conceptualizations of social justice to an ethics of care (Smith & Duffy 2003). What is ethical or just is not a matter of a universal and context-free theory but a question of relations and encounters between individuals. Smith and Duffy (2003) write:

“Since difference ethics requires us to recognize and respond on a very personal level, this ethical relation to the other cannot be spelled out in formulaic terms, in codes or regulations or in the apportioning of rights and duties. Like an ethics of care, it requires us to be aware of the needs of others and to embody this awareness in our actions. It is, then, an ethic for the individual tourist rather than a means of regulating the tourist industry or tourism development” (p. 113).

The quote illustrates the logic of why with the incorporation of poststructural methodology the analytical focus of critical tourism studies has moved its focus away from the economic organization of tourism. Political economy-focused scholars have accused critical tourism studies of being insufficiently critical. Bianchi (2009) notes that

“whilst this [CTS] has perhaps resulted in a more nuanced appreciation of the social and cultural dimensions of power manifest in tourism (particularly into its dominant discourses and representative frameworks), the emphasis on the latter at the expense of production and material aspects of tourism and mobility, has meant that tourism often appears detached from the forces of structural power that characterize twenty-first century capitalism and globalization” (p. 484).

It is argued that while ‘critical tourism studies’ has sought a new focus of tourism analysis, these poststructural perspectives have moved their analytical focus away from the local economic relations on which tourism economy operates (see Bianchi 2009; Debbage &

Ioannides 2012; Gale 2012; Salazar 2017). The same happens when ‘responsible tourism’

is treated as the way to implement sustainability in tourism destinations (e.g. Goodwin

& Francis 2003).

However, within CTS some researchers have addressed the implications of poststructural analysis of tourism governance and policy research. For instance, Aitchison (2005) points out that studies informed by the cultural turn should not forget the social context in their analysis. She warns against ignoring material aspects in poststructural research on tourism (especially in the context of research on tourism and gender) and argues for positioning studies in the social-cultural nexus. To work towards ethical tourism economy, it is necessary to pay attention to “the ways in which systemic economic power serves to oppress subaltern groups” (p. 213). She explains that incremental transformations in tourism economy take place over a period of time and in different places, and are not initiated top-down by an authority. With similar aims, Jamal and Camargo (2014) propose a joint framework of justice and an ethic of care to advance theorizing and development of ‘just destinations’ (p. 23). The authors (2014) write that

“Principles based solely on Rawls’s theory of justice and fairness are inadequate because its discourse of distributive and procedural justice is predominantly rights-based and economically oriented toward capitalistic values that favor political liberalism, privilege reason and eschew emotion, as feminist critiques also note.“(Fraser, 2003) (p. 24).

Jamal and Camargo call for “performative resistance to a globalized culture of consumption and market capitalism” (p. 27). Here, virtues and values related to local tourism relations such as plurality, voice, social action, political agency, democratic participation, inclusiveness, tolerance, and valuing difference can help to create just destinations.

The poststructural perspective on tourism economies has also been applied through actor–network theory (ANT) (e.g. Franklin 2004; Jóhannesson 2005, 2012; Ren et al. 2010;

Van der Duim et al. 2017). ANT studies have highlighted how tourism knowledge is always relationally constructed by a multiplicity of actors. Tourism is a meeting place of multiple and interfering values (Van der Duim et al. 2017). Jóhannesson (2012) importantly points out the implications that such a poststructural network approach has for studying tourism actors and their economic agency. He states that

“With regard to research on entrepreneurship, a relational approach such as ANT provides a way to trace the ways different motivations and drives for action interweave throughout the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurs who strive for a certain kind of lifestyle rather than for economic gains are not perceived as deviant and at the same time people are not described as robots programmed to follow a universal economic logic or disempowered victims of cultural institutions. It follows that economic logic is not thrown out with the bathwater as economic gains surely are important for most entrepreneurs to some extent. Instead of choosing beforehand between sets of explanatory variables to cast light on entrepreneurship, it has been argued that it is more fruitful to trace the work through which these emerge in each case. Endorsing a view of reality as multiple implies that there ‘is no general world and there are no general rules.’ (Law, 2004, p. 155, original italics)” (p. 193).

Jóhannesson (2012) notes that research should not expect tourism actors to share aims in tourism development. Thus, searching for “overarching concepts that undeniably are often desired by policy-makers” (p. 193) may not be effective when attempting to actualize change in tourism economy as these may not meet the reality of tourism practices in the destination. Van der Duim et al. (2017) explain that a relational ANT approach enables viewing the existing complexity as ‘matters of concern’ rather than issues that can be quickly fixed through tourism policies.

To sum up, the above review of tourism research on sustainability well illustrates how the current critical takes diverge in their views on how heterogeneity is produced in tourism economies. The perspectives focused on (regional) economic development rely on inclusive and participatory models of capitalist development, critical tourism studies (CTS) draws on cultural analytical perspectives while critical tourism geographies draw on political economic approaches when studying how to create new, more just and sustainable development paths in tourism economy. Although tourism geography takes offer valuable critical knowledge on tourism production, they seem to offer little guidance on how to actualize changes in tourism economies in practice. On the contrary, part of CTS and its cultural takes seem to lose some of their critical rigour when engaging closely with

perspectives on tourism actors. While all the approaches bring in some valuable knowledge that can be applied to enhancing sustainability in tourism destination economies, it seems little dialogue exists between these theoretical approaches.