Heritage Tourism in the Context of Globalization - Case Study Example

Heritage Tourism in the Context of Globalization: Challenges, Opportunities and Pitfalls Heritage tourism has become a flourishing activity in the world over that one would get the impression that post modern society is genuinely concerned with the past. However, there is skepticism about the nascent phenomenon of heritage tourism. Scholars are now making a bold attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff in this buoyant human activity.’ It seems that new museums are opening every week’ (Urry, 2002). There are around 1800 museums around in the world today and half of them had been started after 1971 is sufficient attestation of the hectic activity. Such frenzied pursuit is indeed curious and the raison d'être has been variously interpreted. Tourism as a subject of serious academic enquiry is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is in the 1990s that the tendency to boldly state the function of tourism and investigate the conscious and unconscious forces that foster tourism as an expression of a facet of human life became in vogue. During these period researchers working independently arrived at the nature of tourism as method of forming opinion on the nature of local people that the tourists visited. Moreover, the scholars also unearthed the social compulsions that make going to places as an essential ingredient of modern living and the pseudo-cultural experiences that are generated artificially to fuel the growth of a flourishing business activity. Many social scientists inspected "the use of tourism to make, re-make and/or de-make specific peoples, places or pasts." (Hollinshead, 2004, p. 25) The present study focuses on central ideas of four authors whose monumental contribution, to the understanding of the discipline of tourism, is a necessary backdrop for our learning of postmodern issues in tourism. They are AlSayyad N., Hewison R., Horne Donald and Dolan D. The authors are able to give a penetrating vision of the various aspects of post-modern heritage tourism. The Industry Sponsored d Heritage Tourism as a Fake Experience AlSayyad explores in his writing the heritage and tradition of tourism and contributes significant insights into the very notion of heritage. The planned tourism of today is apt only to give a fake experience of the authentic. Heritage today is created and propagated and it plays a major role in gaining national identity. He argues that 20th century has been a period of travel and tourism. Travel industry knows too well that it is selling only dreams. The industry knows that the tourists are too naïve to realize that he or she is treated to a fake experience. The old concept of tourism as a quest for knowledge, self-improvement and authentic experience is hardly found in today’s tourism. Instead, shopping, dining, wining and evening entertainment are becoming in many cases more important than the visiting of monuments. One of the appalling tragedies of postmodern tourism is the directed tour that a tourist is supposed to cover in a package. In the past travel was undertaken as a finishing school for a man of leisure and culture. Now the tourist is compelled to travel as a part of social norm and often the itinerary in such travels are unauthentic experience the tourist is forced to endure. Alsayyad (2001) calls it " sites of 'authentic fakery' such as Las Vegas or manufactured heritage theme parks of 'fake authenticity’. There are many such symbols of modern tourism, which can vie with any monumental heritage site of the past. In fact McDonald’s and Disney have more popularity as symbols of culture. In the era of increasing globalization Disney theme parks in many parts of the world stand for the weakened notion of statehood having been replaced by a plutocracy of the world governed by a multinational corporation. It is a paradox today that people travel to actual destinations for a virtual experience. Destinations could be Taj Mahal. Pyramids or the Great Wall of China but the experience is stage managed by recreational aspects of enjoyment rather than by the aspect of experiencing the past as a form of cultural finishing school of the mind. AlSayyad’s critique of postmodern tourism industry is shared by many other scholars of today. The post-modern theme park experience is the ultimate tourist experience of today. According to Craik (1997:93) theme parks are the ultimate ‘tourist bubble’. While it provides a safe, controlled environment of ‘sample, predictable forms of experiences, it nourishes only the peripheral aspects of the mind. Boniface and Fowler (1993; 7) tell us: We want extra-authenticity, that which is better than reality. We want a soupedup, fantastic experience. We want simulation of life ways, as we would wish them to be, or to have been in the past. As is clear, the travel industry knows it is dealing in dreams. There has been a big shift from the traditional attitude to tourism prevalent in Europe as a compliment to the education of the nobleman. Tourism is now the privilege of any one who has some dollars to spare and the industry is eager to cater to the new market that has emerged. Consequently many sights are now really seen as copy images of reality. According to Urry (2002) Niagara Falls is only a destination for experiencing commercial spectacle and kitsch sex. The experience gathered through media is vicariously experienced in exotic places. Often the typical English village experience, French Chateau, German beer garden and the African tribal life are faked productions of the imagination of the fertile tourism industry. In truth its relation to reality is only in the perception of the mind of the gullible tourist. However, many genuine tourists are disatififed with the pseudo- tourist experience provided by the industry and in their disillusionment look for alternate channels for exploring authentic experience of the sites. (Rojek, 1997;Tresidder.1999). According to De Botton (2002), travel does not live up to the expectation of genuine travelers. Factors that Blur the Factual Interpretation of Heritage. Many scholars have ventured into an examination of the barriers that prevent us from seeing and interpreting culture and heritage accurately. Hewison’s attentions have been directed into a meaningful enquiry into the practices, which are not compatible with culture in the postmodern tourism. In the past there was a dichotomy between culture and commerce. However, in the postmodern global culture of consumerism everything including culture has become a marketable commodity sold in packages like other products. Hewison (1991:175) vehemently disputes the present tendency to yoke together culture and commerce, as they are not synonymous: The time has come to argue that commerce is not culture, whether we define culture as the pursuit of music, literature or the fine arts, or whether we adopt Raymond Williams's definition of culture as 'a whole way of life.' You cannot get a whole way of life into a Tesco's trolley or a V & A Enterprises shopping bag. Hewison (1987) sees the heritage tourism industry as an artificial product imposed on people by marketing managers. He argues that there is manipulation of the people in the consumption of the cultural commodities from above. Hewison (1991:175) also sees the manner in which ‘heritage is gradually effacing history, by substituting an image of the past for reality”. The Marxist sees the danger of capitalists captains of industry hijacking history and heritage. The forces of competition will be compelled to distort and tamper heritage and history in order to achieve audience target figures dictated by the industry (Hewison, 1987). The danger is heritage tourism might become mere entertainment. So, in Hewison’s perception history and heritage will be promoted on the basis of what sells, not based on what is history and truth. The interpretation of history and heritage as what sells is an unacceptable to Hewison. The problem of Hewison’s rigid stand is the lack of interest of contemporary people to what is authentic and historically accurate. While what is academically true may not make any impact on the visitor would endanger the whole enterprise by having no takers at all as the visitors have not come for a lesson in history. Lack of hard evidence seldom distresses the public at large, who are mostly credulous, undemanding, accustomed to heritage mystique, and often laud the distortions, omissions, and fabrications central to heritage reconstruction. (Lowenthal.1998, p249.) Need for Collaborative Approach to Tourism The arena of tourism is in sixes and sevens with contending theories and opposing purposes. There are also the practical concerns of viability. Donald Horne (1992) has suggested the need for a healthier, more catalytic, intelligent approach to tourism. He calls for an integrated approach to tourism in active collaboration between the stakeholders, the governments and the regional and national industry. He dreams of the creation of a ‘cultural gene bank’ properly showcased to stimulate and inspire the viewers. Tourism is increasingly accepted as a tool to articulate who a population is and what ought to be celebrated in a place (Horne, 1992), it is absolutely essential to construct a map of tourist sites and artifacts that represent particular societies. This cartography could become the voice of the marginalized. As the nineteenth and early twentieth century literature trumpeted imperialism (Said 1993:84), the post colonial tourism can be used to further trumpet the glories of the Raj or it can also serve as a crique to the Raj.The positional superiority of the western forms of tourism management may not take into consideration what a tourism site should communicate and might opt for the essentialism which is often the constrains of a business. (Hollilnshead, 1997) points the dangers of Euro centric approach to tourism which tend to admit the Western and North American view of everything as the canonical view of our lived past and present. It is in this context that Horne argues for an integrated approach to tourism involving the governments also. The emerging states from the colonial past may not have the resources or know how to set up their heritage sites. The lure of tourism and the tendency to sell the spots to corporates might jeopardize the opportunity to use the heritage site as a tool to communicate their ethnicity and past. The lack of resources and know-how thus might further entrench a Euro-centric tourism across the impoverished regions of the world. Risks of Cultural Franchising in the Globalized Context The system of franchising is a western invention and is widely used in the United States, Western Europe and to some extend in Australia. These countries are similar in culture and the system has worked well. When it comes to franchising in cultural matters it is doubtful the system will work on a basis of mutual advantage in the case of countries, which are culturally and economically different from the west. Will franchising drown the recipient in the overwhelming weight of the superiority in wealth and know-how? Will the interests of the local people be protected? These are questions with international ramifications. There are many scholars who see the risks of neo-colonialism in various masks. One of the fears that is felt about globalization is the fear that it is the old imperialism in a new form. The tendency to franchise heritage sites and museum has an inherent danger, the danger of the use of cultural institutions for different purposes. A heritage site might forget the very historical reason, which made it one and might give priority to other interests. This danger has engaged the attention of Dolan. Some times the decision to preserve a heritage site as it is denies the local people the opportunity to progress like other people. It is wrong to assume that the local people everywhere would like to be fodder for the avid visitor’s taste for photography. Dolan (1999) feels that many local people would like to be the part of mainstream life with McDonalds and hypermarket for leisurely shopping experience. Conclusion Tourism is the result of the longing to experience difference. It is an enriching experience. Different heritage sites developed due to the cultural diversity the world has always experienced. Globalization has given a global idiom to all forms of tourism including cultural tourism. The economic potential that tourism gives is a challenge, an opportunity and a pitfall. The plethora of literature that the academia the world over churns out is an indication that heritage tourism in the globalized context has captured the attention of scholars. The divergent views that are heard all over the world would eventually help in framing a concerted action plan to accommodate the diverse interests of the peoples of the world. ========================================================= Works cited. AlSayyad, N. (2001) 'Global norms and urban forms in the age of tourism: manufacturing heritage, consuming tradition', in AlSayyad, N. (ed.) Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism, London: Routledge, pp. 1-33. Boniface, P. and Fowler, P.J. (1993) Heritage and Tourism in 'the Global Village', London: Routledge Botton de, A. (2002) The Art of Travel, London: Hamish Hamilton. Craik, J. (1997) 'The culture of tourism', in Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (eds) Touring Cultures, London: Routledge D. Dolan, ‘Cultural franchising, imperialism, and globalisation: What’snew?’, Museology and Globalisation ICOFOM Study Series ISS 29, ed. LindaYoung, Canberra, 1998, pp. 34-40. Michael Hall and Hazel Tucker (2004): Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations. Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Page Number: 25 Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline, Methuen: London. Hewison, R. (1991) 'Commerce and culture', in Corner, J. and Harvey, S. (eds) Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 162-177. Hollinshead, K. (1997) 'Heritage tourism under post-modernity: truth and past', in Ryan, C. (ed.) The Tourist Experience: A New Introduction. London: Cassell, pp. 170-193. Lowenthal, D. 1996. The Heritage Crusades and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press; London. Rojek, C. (1997) 'Indexing, dragging and the social construction of tourist sights', in Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (eds) Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 52-74. Said, E.W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism, London: Chatto & Windus. Tresidder, R. (1999) 'Tourism and sacred landscapes', in Crouch, D. (ed.) Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge, London: Routledge, pp. 137-148. Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, London: Sage, 2nd edn. ================= Read More