Indigenous Tourism

Michelle Aicken, Chris Ryan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136395970
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

In a world characterized by an encroaching homogeneity induced by the growth of multi-national corporations and globalization, the causes of difference accrue new levels of importance. This is as true of tourism as in many other spheres of life – and one cause of differentiation for tourism promotion is the culture of Indigenous Peoples. This offers opportunities for cultural renaissance, income generation and enhanced political empowerment, but equally there are possible costs of creating commodities out of aspects of life that previously possessed spiritual meaning. This book examines these issues from many different perspectives; from those of product design and enhancement; of the aspirations of various minority groupings; and the patterns of displacements that occur – displacements that are not simply spatial but also social and cultural. How can these changes be managed? Case studies and analysis is offered, derived from many parts of the globe including North America, Asia and Australasia. The contributors themselves have, in many instances, worked closely with groups and organizations of Indigenous Peoples and attempt to give voice to their concerns. The book is divided into various themes, each with a separate introduction and commentary. The themes are Visitor Experiences, Who manages Indigenous Cultural Tourism Product, Events and Artifacts, Conceptualisation and Aspiration. In a short final section the silences are noted – each silence representing a potential challenge for future research to build upon the notions and lessons reported in the book. The book is edited by Professor Chris Ryan from New Zealand, and Michelle Aicken of Horwath Asia Pacific.

Chapter 1

Introduction: Tourist-Host Nexus – Research
Considerations

Chris Ryan

Introduction

The purpose of this introductory chapter is to examine the nexus of researcher and researched within the context of the relationship between tourism and indigenous peoples. It will be argued that three dimensions exist in this relationship, namely academia, the indigenous perspective and the imperatives of tourism. Subsequent to this there will be a definition of what constitutes an indigenous people derived from the United Nations. Finally the contributions of the different authors will be introduced, highlighting their subject matter and the ways in which they relate to each other and the themes identified in this introduction.

From an academic perspective there has been a growing interest in tourism and indigenous peoples, symbolised in part by the books edited by Butler & Hinch (1996) and Robinson & Boniface (1999). As will be noted from the bibliographic listing at the end of this book, of the total number of references approximately 40% date from the year 2000. It is also true to state that the perceptions of meanings associated with cultural tourism have changed considerably. One example of this is provided by Greenwood who, in 2004, reviewed his earlier writings of Hondarribia's festival, the Alarde using the words “Fourteen years later, I find myself not only more troubled by my own judgments but also by the professional stance that they imply. It is not that my critique of tourism's cultural impacts seems wrong, but I have now experienced the way I've researched and deliver this judgment to be professionally self-serving”(Greenwo0d 2004: 167). Similarly, one turn of the academic gaze is from the impacts of tourists to one that scrutinizes the perceptions of tourists. Bruner (1996: 171) tells the story of how tourists viewed two equally “legitimate” performances of the Indonesian Ramayana, but assessed each differently, and rating the second as being “like Miami Beach’ because of the location of performance-a Hyatt Hotel. In short, perception of performance had little to do with the nature of the performers, but to a sense of staging. In the experience of the author the same comments are made of Maori performances by tourists at the Maori Arts and Crafts Centre in Rotorua, even whilst the performances may be akin to those performed at the Aotearoa Maori Performing Arts Festival (Richards & Ryan 2004).

Indigenous Tourism: The Commodification and Management of Culture
Copyright © 2005 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 0-08-044620-5

Consequently the modeling of the relationship between native peoples and tourism has passed through several refinements, but for the most part remains dominated by an academic parameter based upon traditional European perspectives. Therein lays a potential problem in any analysis of this subject. In the EuropeadNorth American tradition, universities exist to generate and disseminate data, information and knowledge to and for all who can benefit from that process. Public funding of universities is predicated on that understanding, and it is because of that premise that concerns are expressed about possible departures from objectivity and open peer assessment in systems where private industry sponsors research, particularly perhaps in the field of drugs and medicine, but in other arenas also. Consequently, the researcher trained in an AmericadEuropean tradition who works in the field of indigenous tourism is continually reminded, if not mindful of, the fact that many indigenous societies are exclusive and not inclusive. Knowledge is transmitted to those who are initiated, and indeed, in some instances, only those from certain families may be potential initiates. The researcher is ever the outsider.

On the other hand, this role of the researcher is not unique to tourism, and has been the matter of long debate in the field of anthropology. The conventional response of the anthropologist or ethnographic researcher is to seek means of immersion into a host people's society through various means, including marriage in some instances, so as to become an honored member of a cultural group. That status involves the role of interpreter and intermediary as the researcher writes about and explains a cosmology different to that of the dominant culture. This perspective is amply illustrated by the late T. G. H. Strehlow and his role of both recorder and advocate of Australian Aboriginals (Rowse 1999). Strehlow recognized this debt and role many times, for example writing:

[I] must… [acknowledge] what is by far my greatest debt-that which I owe to my old native friends who supplied me so liberally with their secret lore and admitted me to so many of their totemic rites.

Though born at Hermannsburg and thus “conceived” into the ratapa totem, I was only a very young newly-fledged University graduate when I returned to Central Australia in 1932. I was watched for 12 months before… the ceremonial chief finally decided to reveal to me his… ceremonies and to entrust his sacred myth and his song verses to my keeping… From that point onwards I was sure of the confidence of the remaining Aranda and Loritja totemic clan elders. – Songs of Central Australia (TGH Strehlow 1971: xiv).

Strehlow worked among the Arrernte and subsequently other Aboriginal peoples of Central Australia from the 1930s at a time when traditional ways were still strong, but under such threat that native peoples themselves feared for their extinction. The contemporary tourism researcher works under a different imperative of an emergence of, and new confidence among, such peoples, as is evidenced in land claims and statements of rights. Nonetheless, in many senses this, it is argued, creates a more complex research environment. Ryan (1997b, 1999a) is of the view that, in New Zealand, Maori occupy three worlds, the world of Maoridom, of Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent) and the world where the two worlds interact, while at the same time Maori society is traditionally tribal and not wholly homogenous in Maori eyes. Not to understand this is to fail to appreciate the importance of tribal, family, genealogy and attachment to place that exists not simply at an emotional level but within the very core of a person's being. The non-indigenous academic researcher thus has to immerse themselves in such worlds, but does so from an academic system where increasingly research assessment exercises require publication more frequently than was once the case. In cultures where time possesses the characteristics of seasonality and an awaiting of when time and circumstance are “right,” the regime of research funding born of perceived needs of transparency and accountability of and for research monies sits badly because of its constant demand for “output.”

The consequence is that there is a potential for indigenous peoples to be treated poorly by academic researchers; not necessarily through ill-intent on the part of researchers, but because of systemic differences between worlds. The indigenous person might well view the enquiry of the academic tourism researcher with a degree of cynicism, as the publication of a paper progresses career, but not necessarily promotes benefit for the host. Such a relationship fits poorly with the concept of gift giving in many indigenous societies where gifts are an exchange of mutual obligations and not simply the bestowing of a favour that seeks nothing in return. That progress is made, is because a series of mitigating circumstances exist with three domains; namely those of academia, the society of indigenous peoples and the imperatives of tourism. Briefly these circumstances can be described thus.

The Frame of Academia

A traditional role of universities is that of being a critic of society, and in the search for knowledge there lays an inherent questioning of why are things the way they are, and an inclusiveness of sources of information and knowledge. Consequently around the world universities have established centres, departments and/or faculties that are devoted to the study of marginalised groups, including those of indigenous peoples. Increasingly these are being staffed by members of those groups themselves. This is not always a comfortable process for either organisations or individuals as evidenced by New Zealand's Performance Based Research Funding exercise, where Maori and Pacific Island concerns and students were specifically itemised for mention in documentation released by the Tertiary Education Council with a re-affirmation that research in these areas could equal world best practice. The very specificity of such mention hints at a debate within academic circles relating to Indigenous People's interests and concerns within a traditional European academic domain of objectivity and measurement. How does that fit with traditional wisdom or an oral tradition? On the other hand parallels exist with other debates about the nature of empiricism, such as those pertaining to feminism as an example of a critical tradition, and in the application of post-modem analyses to contemporary society.

One facet of this process has been the emergence of sensitivities toward indigenous communities with the publication of guidelines and codes of ethics pertaining to academic research. One example of this is the guideline produced by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Studies (AIATSIS). This identifies a requirement for consultation, mutual understanding, respect of individuals and cultural property, involvement, benefits to communities, good faith and informed consent. Szynklarz & Firth (2004) illustrate the practicalities involved in implementing these principles in a paper describing research at Manyallaluk in Australia's Northern Temtory. Foremost, among respondents, were issues of shyness, poor English and a reluctance to discuss what is deemed to be private and cultural issues, the nature of which might determine who can speak about what. The conclusion drawn is that extensive planning and preparation is required before conducting research. Again, however, it is possible to overstress this requirement with reference to indigenous peoples-a requirement that appears to demarcate indigenous people as possessing difference that poses problems. The same issues exist within other marginal groupings in Western societies. Ryan & Martin (2001) discuss issues pertaining to research among strippers and it is noted that immersion into the world of strip bars was a pre-requisite to obtaining confidences, that even then, emerged partly by chance. Ethnographic work with homosexuals, football hooligans, gang members and others groups deemed “marginal” illustrate the same issues of not only trust but problems for the position of the researcher and the researcher's role as confidant, information source and reporter. Indeed Ryan (2004) even goes so far as to argue that these situations pose problems for ethics committees within academia that proceed on Weberian lines and the reality for many academic researchers is that these procedures potentially inhibit research.

Consequently, and perhaps specifically within tourism with its emphasis upon the importance of the experience as the core of the “product” and its embracing of “gazes,” there is an acceptance of complex understandings of issues pertaining to indigenous tourism. Researchers perhaps no longer seek for a meta-narrative, but rather embrace specificities that relate to time, place and context comprising host, tourist and location. The nature of the debate abounds with terms such as “commodification,” “hegemonies,” “politicisation,” “authenticity” and “authorisation.” Tourism is increasingly viewed not simply as a force for the creation of a stereotypical image of a marginalised people, but a means by which those peoples aspire to economic and political power for self advancement, and as a place of dialogue between and within differing world views. Thus, for example, native American Indian peoples can use casino revenues to reinforce systems of cultural integrity, Sami peoples achieve markets for traditional goods through events such as the festival at Jokkmokk and Australian Aboriginal people tell stories of the dream time as a counter story to colonial histories. At the same time, on governmental tourism boards and working parties, indigenous peoples claim a voice to secure greater or smaller degrees of political power as tourism acquires an increasing importance through its economic growth.

Again, all is not lost for the conventional academic researcher. Although it is not a complete picture and is one-sided, research into the attitude of visitors to sites of Indigenous people's culture is more accessible. Additionally such research may be important as an antidote to the optimism that seems to be expressed among many politicians that international visitors are “very interested” in the culture of others. Just what is the nature of that interest, and the level of that interest are important determinants in establishing the feasibility of possible tourism products based on the culture of Indigenous peoples.

The Society of Indigenous Peoples

First, a caveat! It is evident that any writing of the “society of indigenous peoples” represents a classification of homogeneity that fails to recognise differences important to peoples; be they differences of language, cosmology, culture, arts and heritage. Yet there are commonalities; one of which is the wish by those responsible for tourism promotion to capitalise upon the culture of people unique to a place and the images thus created. For example, National Tourism Organisations seek to identify assets specific to their own country, and while good hotels, restaurants, beautiful scenery and McDonalds might be found in any country, the Navajo, Larrakia and Te Arawa peoples are specific to a place; thereby in marketing terms, generating a unique selling proposition and images that support branding of that place. As will be discussed within the following selection of papers (e.g. Yamamura) this might be said to pose problems of commodification of art and culture, giving rise to what has been termed “airport art” as facsimiles of traditional art are shrunk to fit the suitcase of the international tourist. For indigenous peoples, however, contrary to much of what was initially written by academic researchers (e.g. as indicated by Greenwood in 2004), the issue is not so much an issue of a debasement of art, but who is undertaking the “copying” and the rights of that person. As Daniel (1996) has pointed out with reference to dance performances, dance, and indeed other arts, are exercises in creativity, of an expression of a performer's, painter's or carver's slull, inspiration and art. The multiple replication of, for example, a print, does not inherently diminish the original thoughts and designs. This is, of course, a complex question with many nuances. To what extent do the numerous reproductions of the “Mona Lisa” enhance or diminish the original, and people's reactions when perhaps they finally see the painting in the Louvre's art gallery?

From the perspective of an indigenous person, such arguments are perhaps even more complex. Art is not wholly an individualistic act, but the continuance of a tradition bequeathed by ancestors for social purpose, as is demonstrated by the panels in Maori meeting houses. Equally, art may possess something of the sacred; it is an expression of a person's being, of his or her life, and thus the aesthetic criteria used within Western tradition to critique a piece of art is not appropriate. What is appropriate within the eyes of some indigenous peoples, particularly those of Australasia, is whether the person has the “right” to use that art style. Consequently the reports of the Aotearoa Maori Tourism Federation (1994, 1995) define Maori art as essentially work by Maori inspired by being Maori, and hence the use of Maori designs by non-Maori persons is an appropriation of Maori “mana” or authority. The issue of authenticity as discussed in the academic tourism literature is perceived as being subsumed within a more important argument of “authorisation”-who authorises and for what purpose?

This issue is expressly shown by The Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation – Wall of Shame web site that specifically rejects: (a) eco-tourism because it does impact on sacred sites; (b) tourist commodities based on Australian Aboriginal designs that are made by non-Aboriginal peoples; and (c) the appropriation of Aboriginal designs by non-Aboriginal graphic artists. The Dumbartung have taken their resistance even further by, for example, demonstrating at locations where the author of “Mutant Message Down Under,” Marla Morgan, gives promotional talks on the premise that she has not simply misinformed audiences about Aboriginal culture and rites but has done so for personal gain.

Yet there is another side to this coin. From this perspective of the indigenous belonging solely to native peoples, it would almost be impossible for non-indigenous researchers to write about the affairs of indigenous peoples. But such writing does appear, and is made possible only through the active co-operation of the societies being reported upon. Complex nuances are at work in these processes. First, most indigenous peoples retain strong concepts of hospitality, and, as with gift giving, hospitality often entails an acceptance of mutual and reciprocal responsibilities. Indeed, in the tribal histories of many Maori tribes, the breaking of the protocols of hospitality legitimises acts of ufu or revenge. The academic researcher can and does utilise such a tradition and one pre-requisite of this is that due recognition of information sources must be given. It is thus essential to both parties, the researcher and researched, that due acknowledgement must be given in any academic writing, and hence any author must establish the policies of the tourism journals in which he or she wishes to place their writing prior to submission in this respect. Second, increasingly the intermediaries through which a researcher may make contact with those he or she wishes to study are increasingly better educated and indeed may be tertiary educated. Hence there is a better understanding of the role of the academic researcher and the wish to acquire and disseminate information and knowledge. Two consequences flow from this. First, there is a respect among many indigenous peoples for “knowledge,” which might be said to acquire its own patina of sanctity. There is respect for the process of knowledge acquisition, which is perceived as requiring its own sacrifices. The role of academic researcher can thus be appreciated from this perspective, particularly if the researcher shows respect for informants. Second, indigenous societies are, to state the obvious, societies in a process of change. Impacted by dominant societies within which they have been, for the most part, dislodged and marginalised, the need for adaptation through which they retain core values but work out a modus operandi in a new world is an imperative important for their longer term survival. It is also the way in which they can contribute to an enrichment of the wider society, providing for it alternative voices and perspectives that challenge and cause reflection. This author lives in an Australasian context where the relationship between a dominant society (that is itself emerging from a past colonial subservience by which it no longer calls itself European) and its own indigenous peoples is complex, tense but notably enriching, particularly perhaps in the case of New Zealand. Australian Aboriginal peoples from different tribes and their Maori counterparts have recognised that tourism and the advocacy platform it provides is important in achieving recognition for both culture and claims. The danger of “cultural” tourism is that it classifies and categorises product into an enterta...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Photographs
• List of Tables
• Contributors
• Preface
• 1 Introduction: Tourist-Host Nexus — Research Considerations
• Section A: Visitor Experiences of Indigenous Tourism
• 2 Visitor Experiences of Indigenous Tourism — Introduction
• 3 A Phenomenological Investigation of Tourists' Experience of Australian Indigenous Culture
• 4 Understanding the Nature of the Marae Experience: Views from Hosts and Visitors at the Nga Hau E Wha National Marae, Christchurch, New Zealand
• 5 Balanda Tourists and Aboriginal People
• Section B: Who Manages Indigenous Cultural Tourism Product — Aspiration and Legitimization
• 6 Who Manages Indigenous Cultural Tourism Product — Aspiration and Legitimization
• 7 An Evaluation of Sustainable American Indian Tourism
• 8 Community-Based Tourism and the Marginalized Communities in Botswana: The Case of the Basarwa in the Okavango Delta
• 9 Limits to Indigenous Ecotourism: An Exploratory Analysis from the Tl'azt'en Territories, Northern British Columbia
• 10 Public Sector Initiatives for Aboriginal Small Business Development in Tourism
• Section C: Events and Artifacts
• 11 Events and Artifacts
• 12 Limiting Tourism and the Limits of Tourism: The Production and Consumption of Tourist Attractions in Western Flores
• 13 Dongba Art in Lijiang, China: Indigenous Culture, Local Community and Tourism
• 14 What and Where is the Indigenous at an Indigenous Festival? — Observations from the Winter Festival in Jokkmokk, Sweden
• Section D: Conceptualization and Aspiration
• 15 Conceptualization and Aspiration
• 16 Reconciliation Tourism: Challenging the Constraints of Economic Rationalism
• 17 To Experience the “Real” Australia — A Liminal Authentic Cultural Experience
• 18 Conceptualising “Otherness” as a Management Framework for Tourism Enterprise
• 19 Concluding Words
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index