7 UTOPIA OF THE HOST COMMUNITY
7.1 Fragmented Communities
Despite all the beautiful guidelines of community participation, the concept of community is very complex, problematic and overused. Keith Popple (2000, 2–4) argues that the whole concept is contested and does not really have a universally agreed meaning. The traditional view represents community as a place of warmth, intimacy and social cohesion (Popple, 2000, 2). German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1955) has infl uenced the dominant view of community with his division of community into two different kind of social relationships. One is based on friendship and affection – the other on the division of labor and contractual relations between isolated individuals. Community can be defi ned also in geographical, social, political, psychological and economic terms and vary in size, structure and
organization (Cole 2006, 89). In tourism literature, community is often understood as a population residing in local area which has common social characteristics and goals (Richards & Hall 2006, 302). This defi nition of community is suitable for the sociocultural analysis of tourism impacts in the coffee cultivating communities of San Ramón. These three communities are geographically restricted areas where all the population can be potentially affected by tourism.
As K. Crehan (1997) uses the term of fractured community, I see that the tourism communities of San Ramón had been fractured along the line of cooperative membership. In these three communities a division existed between people who were members of the cooperatives and those who were not. Tourism development was led by UCA San Ramón – Union of the Cooperatives – and in practice only the families that had a family member in the cooperative had been able to participate in the programme. Neither had all the members of the cooperatives actively participated in the programme, as in each community only 5–8 families were directly benefi tting from it.
This supports the very common argument in tourism literature; all the people in the communities are not hosts (see e.g. Swarbrooke 2002, 129).
In this study, the communities can be divided into three different groups of people; the fi rst group of cooperative members actively participating in the tourism programme, the second group of cooperative members that were not participating in the tourism programme and the third group of people who were not cooperative members. My informants who belonged to the third group referred to themselves as outsiders. They explained that they did not know much about the tourism as they had not had opportunity to participate in the programme. I would like to participate too and to make my house better... But they come to the houses of the people who are members of the cooperative, so I do not have a chance to get into the programme. (13FN.) Some comments referred that there had not been noticeable attempts to include the community members in the programme.
One woman expressed The bad thing is that they have their view-points, or whatever there, but they have never invited us to come to visit there. These things are just for them and for tourists. (4FN.)
In tourism impact analysis it is important to remember that all the social pathologies that are coincident with tourism development may not have tourism as their principle cause (Fagence 2003, 74). In this study it is central to notice that the division between cooperative members and non-members had already been clear before the tourism initiative. Similar divisions inside the communities had also occurred when aid organizations or NGO’s had only helped some people in the communities while leaving others without this aid. Therefore the tourism can be seen as a new factor that can either widen the existing division or at some level positively unite the community. In San Ramón these divisions had unfortunately become
One conversation at a local kiosk revealed different perspectives of tourism development in that particular community. This conversation included two girls working in the kiosk and one man actively participating in the tourism development. In the beginning of the conversation this man described how well the tourism programme had gone and how much all the people in the community liked tourism. He explained how they had planned to make the trails and viewpoints better, which would hopefully bring more visitors to their community. The girls listened to this and answered bitterly that the people involved with tourism had always claimed that tourism was good and nice for the community, but in practice nobody else other than them had been benefi ting from the programme. The girls had not felt involved in the tourism development in any way. One of the girls explained;
My grandmother cultivates coffee, but the tourists never go help her to collect the coffee, or with other things. She collects the coffee by herself, so it would be really nice experience for her if some tourists could go there and help her and she could also show them her work and her farm. The tourists never visit her! (14FN.)
The man answered to the girls that tourism had been very organized and that the families currently participating had been specially chosen and prepared.
He also pointed out that this girl’s grandmother was not a member of the cooperative and could not therefore participate. The girls stated how it would be fairer if more people could participate.
It is happy for your families that the tourists come, but they do not make us happy. They do not talk to us or do anything with us /.. / How does it help me or my grandmother if they are here?
/.. / We would be happy if they wanted to come to visit our families too and we could have some exchange with them too.
And they could play with the kids and help my grandmother.
Now we feel that we are not invited to the activities. (14FN.) During this debate the girls were not mentioning economic benefi ts of tourism but mainly emphasized their wishes to enjoy the company and friendship of the tourists. They found it unfair that only the cooperative members had been receiving the positive outcomes of tourism. The man’s answer to these strong statements was that the people currently involved with tourism had initially had an impression that most of the people in the community had not been willing to get involved with the tourism programme.