Greetings to everybody and thanks for enlivening this long due debate over
whether tourism is "good" or "bad" for local communities, cultures or
countries.
Concerns over negative impact dwell on the questionable long term
reliability of tourism as a resource which brings about rapid,
"uncontrolled" change and often environmental degradation. Economically,
it does provide jobs, it often creates its own infrastructure, and it is,
above all, a faster sources of revenue which is immediately available to
countries who "do not have exploitable resources" (another questionable
proposition). However, the downside of these economic "booms" in
countries or communities who do not have a voice in the decision making or
do not have a sufficient share in these profits is that much of the
revenue goes back to those who already have a good life by local
standards. This may vary from country to country, but overall, when the
chips are down, we very often find that in highly stratified societies,
this is the case. These conditions become worse when we look at
international stratification and mass "first world" tourism, such as has
happened in Cancun and possibly South Africa. Does the money trickle out
fast enough? when internal distribution is poor, it may be good for "the
country" but not for everybody and then, WHO is "the country"?
The other concern in Anthropology has been the decline or corruption of
local cultures as a result. Again the answer is perhaps not so simple.
Tourist attractions may themeselves serve as a buffer, as well as contact
zones where people do not have to interact with each other quite so
closely and at their own pace. Stereotypes may be reinforced or changed
over time within these zones and negotiations or quasi negotiations may
take place between hosts and guests in what is important. Perhaps the
best aspect of tourism in respect to culture is its indeterminacy. But
again, contexts in which the balance of power over these "intangibles"
such as "identity" systematically falls on people who already have the
power are cause for concern.
The third and last major concern I have heard comes from people from third
world countries themselves who perceive the concern of anthropologists
such as Mayberry-Lewis who simply says NO to Tourism in these
"Fourth World" communities, as another power trip on the part of the
colonial populations. "Who are you in ther first world to tell US in the
third world how or when to modernize? As fair as this question is, I
believe that as anthropologists or as people who have access to
information about a large variety of international examples, we have the
right and the duty if not just the need to distribute the information and
alert other people about potential problems.
whether OUR information is valid for others... well, I guess that is a
much larger philosophical/epistemological question than one can address
here.
So much for brevity. thanks for your attention.
cheers to all who get this far
Maria-Lydia Spinelli, PhD
Assistant Professor, School for New Learning
De Paul University,
25 East Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. USA
Tel. w. 312 362-5940; h. 708 383-4566
Fax. 312 362-8809
email:h. [log in to unmask]
w. [log in to unmask] edu
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|