The Nature and Future of Tourism

A Post-COVID-19 Context

Maximiliano E. Korstanje, Babu George

• Publisher: Apple Academic Press
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000565546
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

This book focuses on the tourism industry in conjunction with the impact of COVID-19 from the perspective that it is both negatively impacting the industry while also offering an opportunity to rise from the ashes. The volume offers a new conceptualization and theorization of tourism, suggests new research methods, offers parallels with other crises (such as 9/11) to better understand the current one, and suggests futurist and innovative strategies. This book offers a wide range of topics on how a pandemic can impact customer satisfaction and the tourism industry.

CHAPTER 1 A New Conceptualization of Leisure

ABSTRACT

Over years, sociology, and anthropology have systematically overlooked the important role played by leisure to regulate the different conflicts and cleavages happened in society during the working days. A young Norbert Elias acknowledged the importance of leisure not only revitalizing social frustration but socializing the mainstream cultural values of society. This chapter interrogates furtherly on the different academic waves which have focused on the problem of modern leisure. From different angles, each one has limitations and notable advances in the field. We start the chapter with a historical and conceptual insight on ancient leisure. The efforts devoted to this chapter aims to validate that tourism should be understood as a form of leisure. In the successive sections, we dissect critically the main theories in leisure research laying the foundations to a new agenda for the years to come.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The etymology of the term leisure comes from leisir (French) which means free time. Although Ancient Greeks used the term Scholé (σχoλή) to signal to leisure time, the connotation was not the same-nor the meaning over the years-. Scholé was originally reserved to a free time dedicated to contemplation, not necessarily to entertainment. For some reason very difficult to precise here, the word gradually derives in Latin from Scholé to Schola where we obtain finally the words scholar and school. This happened because education and escapement were inextricably intertwined in the Greek culture (Balme, 1984). During the era of the Roman Empire, schola mutated to otium, which was a term reserved only to the leisure time as well as the needs of play or evasion (Toner, 2013). In some respect, otium (leisure) was symbolically opposed to negotium, a term limited or exclusively used to the daily businesses (Kyle, 2012). As Korstanje (2009) puts it, no matter the time or the culture, the leisure accompanied the history of sedentary societies-even ancient empires-from their inception. Over the centuries, leisure played a crucial role not only because it keeps the society united, but also because the mainstream cultural values of society were venerated and accepted. The leisure and event management were key factors for Roman Emperors and authorities to keep their legitimacy over society. In public baths, celebrations, travels, banquets or the well-known gladiator combats, the cultural values that made from Rome an empire were culturally replicated-if not reaffirmed. Anthropologically speaking, any lay-citizen, regardless of his or her status or wealth was proud to be roman, to belong to a privileged and educated civilization while differentiating her or himself from barbarism (Korstanje, 2009).

In this backdrop, the present chapter discusses critically the main theories, schools, and thinkers who focused their attention on the connection between leisure and society. From Norbert Elias to Erich Weber-only to name a few-without mentioning Frederic Munné, who have systematically conceptualized the leisure as a space of evasion where the day-to-day psychological frustrations are regulated and sanitized. Scholars who paid their attention to leisure were scornfully undermined by other academic waves simply because the idea of free time not only was erroneously associated to emotionality but also because it was negatively thought as the opposite to the western rationality. Positive sociology and anthropology overlooked historically the importance of leisure in the structuration of the social bondage as well as modern politics (Wynne, 2002; Rojek, 2013; Kelly, 2019). What is more important, leisure has changed its meaning according to culture and time (Kelly, 2012). To fill this gap, the current chapter, which is vital to follow the rest chapters in this book, unearths the seminal and empirical contributions of authors who have devoted their life to expand the current understanding of leisure. The first introductory section explains the main contributions and limitations of Frederic Munné, a well-known expert who has devoted his efforts in the study of leisure as well as Weberian tradition, a vital conceptual corpus that illuminated the paths of scholars since the inception of the discipline. Even if Munnè’s texts have been never translated into English, his legacy is of vital importance to develop the present chapter. He has reviewed not only the history of leisure but also launched to find a catch-all definition of the phenomenon. Secondly, we explore the anthropological nature of leisure, discussing the main theories and authoritative voices such as Weber, Dumazedier, Rojek, Elias, and Dunning. Each author keeps his own definition of leisure, but all they shared a similarly-minded thesis. Leisure plays a leading role in enhancing social reciprocity, keeping people together under the same rules and social norms. The third section re-conceptualizes the commonalities and differences between tourism and leisure. While some authors toy with the belief that tourism and leisure are inextricably intertwined, others go in the opposite direction holding that tourism should be framed as a sub-field of leisure studies. Lastly, we review in-depth the intersection of leisure in a hyper-globalized world, without mentioning the risks and problems of consumerism today. In the final section, some remarks about the crisis, as well as the next challenges to face in leisure studies, are carefully discussed.

1.2 FREDERIC MUNNÉ (AN INTRODUCTORY READING)

One of the risks in approaching an all-encompassing definition of leisure seems to be associated to the conceptual framework, one adopts in such a task without mentioning the knowledge fragmentation that divided academicians even to date (Stebbins, 2011; Henderson, 2011). This point led Frederic Munné to review a more than interesting and landmark book, where he discusses the ebbs and flows of each school which has pinned out leisure as their main object of study. Unfortunately, the book Psicosociologia del Tiempo libre (psycho-sociology of leisure), a seminal project authored by Munnè was originally written in Spanish, and never translated to English. Because of this, our efforts are intended to present his argumentation as clear as possible alternating their texts in dialog with other authors. Frederic Munné is a cultural theorist-born in Barcelona Spain-who has extensively focused on the intersection of leisure and free time in the societal order. Based on the premise that leisure should be defined as a political (intermixed) act that leads man to a philosophical contemplation, he argued convincingly that any agent debates between two contrasting tendencies, the needs of adopting rules (enhancing its own security) and the liberty which is proper of human nature (moving towards an unknown place). Combining the two tendencies, leisure engages with a sentiment of compensation that starts a much deeper process of revitalization. As Munnè in his text reminds, four academic schools widely systematically approached leisure: The German School, the Soviet school, the French school, and the American school. Each one maintains their commonalities but conserving serious discrepancies with the rest. The German school is mainly based on a critical approach centering on the advances of anthropology whereas the soviet school paid attention to the preliminary remarks of Karl Marx. Contrariwise, French, and American schools adopted the functionalist paradigm that helps understanding leisure as foundational institution mainly oriented to alleviate the social frustrations that normally place the harmony of society in jeopardy (Munné and Codina, 2002). In a landmark book, entitled Psicosociologia del Tiempo libre (psychosociology of leisure), Munné (1980) goes farther and presents an erudite review of the theories revolving around leisure. In his viewpoint, men move in quest of their freedom but paradoxically they are never free. They are constrained to the societal rules that precede them, or so to speak, the preceding rules that were there earlier they are born. Neither the absolute freedom nor the absolute duty exists in the community. Echoing David Riesman-in his book the Lonely Crowd-, Munné holds that societies gradually evolved to an inner-directed man towards an Other-character typology where the self is previously determined by external forces, such as journalism, mass media, and the peer’s esteem. The quest for discoveries and visiting exotic places are certainly characteristic of societies based on a society directed to the Otherness. The inner-directed personality impels the individualism and self-contemplation (i.e., Puritanism) while in the other-directed society the self is determined by the opinion of others (capitalism). Travels, explorations, and discoveries are possible in Other-directed societies. In view of this, leisure encompasses the three basic components, originally described by Erich Weber, regeneration, compensation, and idealization. While regeneration refers to the physical needs to relax and escapement, compensation only is possible when the idealized goals are reached. The idealization, complementarily, follows a spirit of contemplation that takes place when the person reaches a state of self-fulfillment. Having said this, leisure combines functions of preservation and revitalization with play. In modern capitalism, leisure takes a different meaning associated with consumption, a right or simply a time/space for relaxing purposes. Munné coins the term bourgeois leisure to denote the rise of a new practice where the spiritual contemplation is placed in the dust of oblivion. In fact, the philosophical free time linked to the urgency to understand the world sets the pace to a new leisure form psychologically motivated by the consumption and evasion. This externally-designed form of recreation-far from emancipating or educating-oppresses the lay-citizen as never before. Of course, the bourgeois leisure was the target of classic and neo-Marxist scholars who exerted a radical and caustic view of leisure as an instrument of indoctrination, discipline, and control orchestrated by ruling elite to keep the power in its hands. There is a type of new leisure widely commercialized, commoditized where money-exchange and profitable relations prevail. It is important to mention here that the modern man pays to experience a moment of leisure. The worker spends (if not waste) his money (surplus) while capital-owners offer an infrastructure of consumption orchestrated to build a road towards the pseudo-happiness (alienation). At the bottom, in Munné account, modern tourism represents a commoditized version of leisure. Last but not least, he makes finally a bridge between Erich Weber and Dumanzedier, alerting on the risks and problems of modern leisure. As we already reviewed in the introductory chapter-in MacCannell’s works-leisure situates as the antithesis of labor, but-at the same time-reproducing the oppressive institutions that cement the authority of capitalism over the workforce.

1.3 DISCUSSING THE NATURE OF LEISURE

In 1899, the Norwegian American economist Thorstein Veblen published a trailblazing treatise under the title of the theory of the leisure class. In his work, he argues convincingly that society is structured according to two different-if not opposing-strata: productive and leisure classes. On one hand, he is interested in developing an all-encompassing theory that explains human evolution since the feudal period to industrialism. In so doing, he finds that the ruling elite often manipulates and disposes of the means of production situating itself as an unproductive class. The figure of pecuniary emulation serves to transfer status to the privileged group where high-status members reserve the right to consume-without working. Instead, the working class is doomed to be exploited by the upper classes. In this way, the leisure class is represented by members who look to retain high-status positions while controlling the manufacturing surplus. Examples of the professions, which take part in leisure class, are warriors (soldiers), Priests, scholars, and politicians (Veblen, 2017). Of course, Veblen-though widely criticized by his literary style-was observant of the American lifestyle and its propensity to mass-consumption. Let’s explain to readers that in his development, the notion of leisure has a pejorative connotation that today is not shared with other academicians.

One of the most authoritative voices in the leisure studies was German scholar Erich Weber. He interrogated furtherly the bourgeois leisure stressing on the needs of education which re-channels the personal drives to constructive-not destructive-situation. Per Weber, the organization of free time depends on the possibilities of the self to convert his vital space in a rewarding experience. Hence leisure should be understood as a human platform towards self-achievement (Weber, 1969). Weber’s argumentation coincides partly with Joffre Dumazedier, who called the attention that sociology needs to understand leisure as a vital force of societal structuration. Probably influenced by the positivism of Durkheim’s legacy, French sociology relegated the leisure to recycle bin of the intellectual tradition. The capitalist industrialism has been notably expanded, in which case, the lay-worker seems to be subject to countless deprivations. Meanwhile, leisure has been increased to guide the new free time of workers. He starts from the premise that the modern man is motivated to dispose of his life as he wants. To wit, leisure follows some liberating trend that gradually leads to hedonism and self-gratification (Dumazedier, 1967, 1999). Norbert Elias and Erich Dunning (2008) stress that leisure is inextricably interlinked to the evolution of Western capitalism. As a controlled version of wars, leisure activates the cooperation and loyalty as vital forces of in-group formation but at the same time, it ignites a state of rivalry or confrontation with other groups. Centering their analysis on hooliganism and sports, Elias, and Dunning explain that the mode...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1. A New Conceptualization of Leisure
• 2. Towards a Theory of Tourism
• 3. Tourism as a Rite of Passage
• 4. The Relevance of Ethnography to Study Tourism Fields
• 5. Tourism, Conflict, and Conflictivity: Is Tourism Part of the Problem or the Solution?
• 6. Tourism After 9/11: The Day Everything Suddenly Changed
• 7. Is Hospitality Dying? In Robots We Must Not Trust
• 8. The Impact of COVID-19 in the Tourism Industry: End or Rebirth?
• 9. Robots and Tourism: Hospitality and the Analysis of Westworld, HBO Saga
• 10. Gazing the Far Skies Beyond the Earth: Space Tourism Prospects
• 11. A Community-Centered Vision for Inclusive Tourism
• 12. Could Information and Communication Technologies Be the Hope for Third World Tourism?
• 13. The Lingering Quest for Authenticity in Tourism: Is Authenticity Really Dead?
• 14. Complexity, Uncertainness, and Tourism: Tourist Consciousness
• Conclusion
• Index