Leisure and Tourism Are Primarily Symbols of Social Identity and Status - Assignment Example

2. ‘In Today’s Consumption Culture, Leisure and Tourism have become Primarily Symbols of Social Identity and Status.’ What Arguments may Support or Contradict this Notion. Individual and group identities are often classified within the ambit of social standing and status. Social identity and status do qualify to be considered multidimensional concepts, which include within their scope entities like personal and social values, individual and group attitudes, collective heritage, social traditions and popular myths (Henderson 2001). A whole range of these factors may act as a cohesive force that unites the individuals and groups and endows them with a sense of belonging in the world in which they live (Smith 1991). Perceptions pertaining to social standing and status may sometimes happen to be fluid, which may evolve over time, influenced by dominant or popular traditions and values. Still, there is no denying the fact that the individuals affiliated to the same social standing do share a common lot of beliefs and values that enable them to recognize themselves as having a unique status, which may be real or imagined (Anderson 1991). Hence, social identity and status mostly correspond, irrespective of the cultural, racial and ethnic disparities within a society. This correspondence of social identity and status sans economic and demographic disparities portends multifarious ramifications for the tourism industry the world over. Social identity and status are the concepts, which are many times not directly observable or discernable, but inferred from various ways and patterns of group expression, tourism and leisure qualifying to be one important manifestation. Going by this fact, many nations and tourist destinations are vying with each other to come out with tourism management policies and strategies, which have notions of social identity and status incorporated and adjusted within them (Henderson 2001). Such tourism strategies have observable and coveted economic, political and social agendas embedded within. Thus, the concept of tourism, and the old and new perceptions pertaining to it often portray narratives associated with unique symbols of social identity and status. The concept of tourism and leisure had the notions of social identity and status amalgamated with it at the very time of its conception in the early 19th century. Thorstein Veblem in his acclaimed work ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of institutions (1902)’, meticulously elaborated on the concept of leisure and tourism being intricately associated with social entities like wealth and status. According to Veblem (1902), the middle and working class in most of the developed countries have the tendency to amass such commodities and experiences as cherished by the upper class. Leisure and tourism qualify to be two such experiences. The dynamics of association between tourism and social identity exhibit a distinct mechanism. During the first industrial revolution in the early 19th century, the demarcation of social classes in the developed economies was blurred (Veblem 1902). This was a cause of concern for the upper classes as it challenged and diluted their status quo in this new scenario (Veblem 1902). Thus, it became imperative for the upper classes to exploit their influence to come out with a new idea or scheme of life that embodied a hitherto unknown ideal of decency (Veblem 1902). Tourism and leisure certainly constituted an integral aspect of this new ideal of decency. The wealthy travelled to flaunt their wealth. Once such notion regarding tourism and leisure percolated down to the lower strata of society, their arose a need for conforming to this cherished code, which looked on access to leisure and tourism as being tagged to one’s social identity and status. This gave way to the identification of tourism and leisure with social identity and status for the times to come. The working class felt a dire need to align with this new code, in appearance if not in actuality. The lower strata of society in the pre-modern world well understood that the identification of an individual or a group with a class status was not essentially based on one’s actual wealth, but on one’s acumen for assuming social appearances through a deft manipulation of the symbols associated with the ways of the upper class (Veblem 1902). The middle class resorted to travel and leisure to display its upward mobility. While the lower classes moved on to adapt to or at least mimic the travel habits of the affluent, the upper classes responded by giving way to new patterns within the realm of tourism and leisure, which preserved their essential status. This not only gave way to segmentation in the tourism and leisure industry, but also made it a symbol of social identity and status. Such commoditisation of tourism conclusively associated it with the notions of social identity and status. Irrespective of the fact that tourism became accessible at the advent of the 20th century, it was never able to divest itself of the tags of social identity and class. As per Peter Osborne (2000), “Tourism in general often follows the itineraries and simulates the comforts of the rich and privileged of earlier generations and remains haunted by their values (40).” Largely it is not a surprise and is quiet understandable. Irrespective of the ubiquity of democracy and egalitarian ideologies, the societies around the world have not been able to divest themselves of class identities and status. So tourism, being a part of such societies was destined to emerge as a symbol of social identity and status. The advertising and marketing strategies contrived by the important stakes in the tourism and leisure industry contributed much towards establishing tourism as a symbol of wealth and affluence and in turn indicative of one’s social identity and status. These campaigns capitalized on the popular perception that those individuals and groups who fail to match or exceed the levels or types of consumption considered relevant to their class were bound to be exposed to jeopardizing social consequences (Veblem 1902). Since the onset of 20th century, such tourism and leisure related marketing strategies become sharper, more aggressive and focused. These campaigns largely succeeded in firmly establishing the perception that consumption of tourism, leisure services were all about wealth and upward mobility, and any neglect of the consumption of such services of certain quality and quantity stood to be a symbol of social and economic failure (Veblem 1902). Such post-modernist consumption oriented societies being primarily about economic climbing, never hesitated from engendering a sense of discontent in the individuals and groups incapable of consuming leisure (Veblem 1902). Osborne (2000) aptly summarizes this phenomenon by declaring that, “The market required the production of consumer need, which in turn required convincing individuals that their lives were deficient and in need of fulfilment. It demanded a subjectivity that was continuously dreaming of being other then itself- a yearning for some authentic, free or happy existence somewhere in a distance more imaginary then real (58).” Language stands to be the most important source, as far as the identification of dominant socio-economic trends is concerned. The reification of class and status related segmentation of the leisure and tourism industry is most visibly enshrined within the scope of language (Snow 2008). Class and status distinctions within the realm of language, as far as tourism is concerned, is deftly represented by the disparities existing between the terms ‘traveller’ and ‘tourist’ and their interpretations (Snow 2008). A majority of the scholars and experts do agree that the term ‘traveller’ signifies the upper class individuals endowed with the means and the ability to afford the freedom to decide as to which destination they prefer and for what time will they reside at a place (Snow 2008). ‘Travellers’ are always considered to be affiliated to an elitist notion of time, money and taste (Snow 2008). On the contrary, the term ‘tourist’ since the advent and popularization of the modern concept of tourism, is considered to represent individuals hailing from middle or working class, who are mostly deficient in time and money. Consequently, they are not deemed to have the discretion to appreciate and understand their travel experiences (Snow 2008). They are considered to be driven by a base herd mentality, as far as their ability to relish tourism and leisure activities are concerned (Snow 2008). The ‘tourist’ is considered more interested in flouting one’s ability to consume leisure. Hence, they subscribe to formulaic and pre-packaged travel experiences (Snow 2008). The travel experiences of a ‘tourist’ are regarded to be superficial and commercial. Hence, this commoditization of leisure and tourism has nudged the entire experience of travelling into the arena of social identity and status. The status driven commercialization of tourism and leisure becomes more complex, once one enters the niche segments. In a post-modern context, experts like Roberts (1990) tend to profess that with the segmentation and diversification of the notion of culture, leisure and tourism do not qualify to be authentic criteria for identity formation. There is no denying the fact that in the current scenario, the definition of youth within the parameters of age, group affiliations, security levels and stability expectations has undergone a drastic change (Roberts 1997). These broad based changes along with the influx of gender and race consciousness, somehow the status-oriented perception of leisure has become more vague and smoky (Roberts 1997). The young people in the 21st century desist from adhering to the identity groups of the yore and prefer a more catholic, multifaceted, splintered and variegated approach towards leisure (Roberts 1997). Still, it would be utterly naive to deny the fact that in the consumer driven societies, every commodity, service and leisure experience eventually comes down to money. Leisure rarely comes free and ultimately it is always one’s paycheck, which determines as to what predictors would determine one’s leisure pursuits and consequently one’s social identity and status. The era of lifestyle sports has certainly tried its best to popularize alternative values like anti-competiveness and personal freedom, yet the infrastructure and venues requisite for these activities are not devoid of monetary or budgetary considerations. Such leisure activities have largely diluted race or ethnicity oriented identity quests, but are no doubt bound by pecuniary and status driven identity politics (Wheaton 2004). Various protest movements like punk and rock music that raised their head in the last 15 years, with the agenda to annihilate all commercially managed leisure activities and a conservative notion of associated identity and status, ironically ended up becoming a product themselves (Hebdige 1981). Not only were these movements very much ascribed to the constraints and modalities of consumerism, as much as the ideas they intended to shatter in the first place. One can always resort to the history and dynamics of these movements to add credibility to the egalitarian and accessible moorings of these movements. Yet, the current reality is that these leisure activities ultimately failed to resist the loyalty and allegiance of one class or other, which not only appropriated them within their identity dynamics, but also subjected them to the transforming influences of consumerism and commoditization. Currency tags constitute an inalienable aspect of every leisure activity in the present times, irrespective of its rebellious or radical origins. Of course, these currency tags eventually metamorphose into symbols of social identity and status. In today’s consumption culture, it is next to impossible to segregate any leisure activity or tourism from the constraints imposed by purchasing power of the consumers. Economics is as much a reality in the present times as a quest for democratization of tourism and leisure pursuits. One simply cannot ignore the fact that fiscal status definitely endows an individual or a group with an identity facet, if not a complete identity. Monetary power is seldom expressed in a crude and blatant way. In fact, it manifests itself through the choices one makes regarding various aspects of one’s life. Leisure is an integral aspect of human life, and social identity and status do affect choices in this aspect, and in turn cannot help getting affected by them. Total Words: 2,000 Works Cited Anderson, B 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, London. Hebdige, Dick 1981, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, Routledge, New York. Henderson, Joan 2001, ‘Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 219-235. Osborne, Peter 2000, Travelling Light: Photography, Travel and Visual Culture, Manchester UP, Manchester. Roberts, K 1997, ‘Same activities, different meanings: British youth culture in the 1990s’, Leisure Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-15. Smith, AD 1991, National Identity, Penguin, London. Snow, Rachel 2008, ‘Tourism and American Identity: Kodak’s Conspicuous Consumers Abroad’, The Journal of American Culture, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., HighBeam Research, viewed 5 December 2009, Veblem, Thorstein 1902, The Theory of Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Macmillan, London. Wheaton, B 2004, Understanding Leisure Sports: Consumption, Identity and Difference, Routledge, New York. Read More