Tourism and Culture 

QUESTION 1: Tourism: Benefitting the Rich and Exploiting the Poor?

After reading the book Tourism, Power and Culture (except for the epilogue), are we left with the impression that tourism is one more way for the rich to take from the poor, or for the powerful to exploit the (significantly) less powerful? 

Ex1.

After reading Tourism, Power and Culture, I have come to the conclusion that generally, tourism is another way for the rich to take from with poor and for the powerful to exploit the significantly less powerful.

When reading the book, I could not help but think about how disproportionate the idea of tourism is. In order to be a tourist, and in this context, I am thinking of a tourist that travels for leisure to international destinations, you must have the financial means to do so. This notion of rich vs. poor happens especially in countries that their economy relies on tourism (i.e. Jamaica, Belize, etc.). Tourists are the focus of these economies and policies, therefore the industry caters to the tourists because this is where their profit comes from. Not only do tourists (the rich) become the focus of these economies and policies (as we saw in this week’s readings especially), but they also take from the poor in the sense that they take their land. Often tourists do this without thinking about it. The tourists may not directly be taking the land from the locals, like we saw in Chapter 9 this week, but the industry that caters towards tourists do so. I think this is an issue that most tourists don’t think about and it is time for this to change, and it is time that tourism is less about rich vs. poor and more about people and cultures.

Additionally, the notion of the powerful exploiting the significantly less powerful can be seen throughout the tourism industry and sector. For example, hotels in Negril Jamaica are the powerful, and they exploit their employees (considered to be the less powerful) because they pay them less than minimum wage (Sommer and Carrier, 2010). This is not uncommon in the tourism industry. It also happens in other activities catered towards tourists. As we have read throughout the book, there are activities that are run by locals but owned by massive corporations. These corporations again, exploit their employees in order to have the most profit from tourists and because the corporations believe they are providing jobs so that is enough. This is not the case. The locals employed by the tourism industry need to be compensated for their work and not exploited.

Sommer, Gunilla, and James G. Carrier. 2010. “Tourism and its Others: Tourists, Traders and Fishers in Jamaica.” In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, ed. Donald V. L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 174-196. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Ex2.

Through the readings in this course, it is evident that the tourism sector is unjust and takes money and other resources away from the poor. “Tourism uses disproportionate quantities of resources, degrades the coastal environment and is unjust socially and economically” (Sommer and Carrier 2010, 178). The tourism industry stealing resources from the poor was evident in the Stroma Cole reading and it is also evident in this week’s reading. The tourism sector always tries to make the resources available to them first and then the local people. When their actions are questioned, their defense is that they are creating jobs for the locals. In reality, the actions of the tourism industry raises the prices of resources and workers aren’t paid enough to compensate for the price increases. “Tourism tends to pay its workers less than the minimum wage, about US$30 per week. Some hotel workers are paid even less: a Negril local government official received reliable reports that one large all-inclusive hotel was hiring staff on the condition that they receive no pay for their first six months” (Sommer and Carrier 2010, 188). This is a clear case where the industry is taking advantage of the poor locals. These people work for wages that won’t even cover their basic human need, while tourists are having the best vacation experience. Hotels are able to take advantage of the locals because of their willingness to work in the tourism sector. The only people who are benefitting off these type of unethical activities are hotel owners. The people who already have money are purposely stealing from the poor to become even more rich. The economic benefits never do reach the poor because the industry doesn’t allow it. The main goal of the industry is to make the tourists happy while maximizing profit by exploiting the workers instead of the tourists. “The fishermen damage the environment by… not protecting the reef as they should” (Sommer and Carrier 2010, 188). The tourism industry is trying to preserve the waters for their benefits while blaming the fishermen for destroying the coastal waters. We all know tourism has a negative effect on the environment but the industry is trying to shift the blame onto the fishermen. If the fishermen aren’t allowed to fish anymore, they’ll lose their main source of income and the tourism sector will again benefit.

Reference

Sommer, Gunilla, and Carrier, G., James. 2010. “Tourism and its Others: Tourists, Traders and Fishers in Jamaica.” In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, edited by Donald V. L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 174-196. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Ex3.

After reading the book Tourism, Power and Culture, I have realized that tourism, while it may seem like a dream getaway, or an experience of a lifetime, will always involve a colossal power imbalance between the rich and the poor.

This power imbalance appears to be the most evident between the rich (people high in the tourism industry), and poor (the locals living near a tourist destination, and the low level workers within the tourist industry). Tourism is an industry full of excess and waste, that is geared toward tourists from around the world spending their hard earned money. The industry is extremely lucrative, giving the rich an easy route to become richer. One method the rich become richer in the tourism industry is by use of unethical resource management. The Sommer and Carrier article highlights this point, “Tourism uses disproportionate quantities of resources, degrades the coastal environment and is unjust socially and economically.” (Sommer and Carrier 2010, 178) The powerful elites and massive companies in charge of creating a tourist destination have the ultimate power of the designation of resources, and most often use this power in an unethical way. As was evidenced by the article by Stroma and Cole, companies requiring immense amounts of water were simply taking the water that the local people in the area relied on. Because of their huge water demands, local women of the area were forced to find water elsewhere to satisfy the local’s needs, not an easy task. The rich and powerful felt none of the negative effects of their resource demanding habits, but rather simply obtained more water for their hotels and resorts. The powerful people in this scenario used their power to gain more power through the unequal designation of resources.

Another way the rich exploit the poor is by means of unfair employment. Hotels in Jamaica pay their less powerful employees a fraction of what they should be paid. In a destination where the local economy relies heavily on the local tourism, companies claim that their efforts of building business there are making the lives of the locals and the country better as a whole. In reality, I think that as the less powerful are being exploited to work for less compensation, and that the money being made is going back into the pockets of the rich and powerful, rather than helping the local community and people. Ultimately, the powerful elites steal natural resources, and employ locals below minimum wage claiming to be improving the country and area, when in reality, they are lining their own pockets, without any thought for the poor.

Sources Cited:

Sommer, Gunilla, and Carrier, G., James. 2010. “Tourism and its Others: Tourists, Traders and Fishers in Jamaica.” In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, edited by Donald V. L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 174-196. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Cole, Stroma. 2017. “Water worries: An intersectional feminist political ecology of tourism and water in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia.” Annals of Tourism Research 67: 14-24.

QUESTION 2: Cultural Tourism and Its Effects

“[W]hat are the systemic effects of a form of tourism that stresses difference?” (Carrier 2010, 111). In the introduction to part 2 of the book Tourism, Power and Culture, James G. Carrier states that this question is raised in the chapter by J. Teresa Holmes (Carrier 2010, 111).

As Calvo-González and Duccini show in chapter 7, tourism in Bahia promoted Bahian uniqueness, using the notion of “Blackness” (e.g., “Black culture” and “Black religion”) in order to attract tourists. Chapter 8 by Holmes discusses the promotion of ethnic diversity in tourism in Belize.

Question

To rephrase the above question somewhat: Considering chapters 7 and 8, what are the effects of a cultural tourism that stresses difference?

Reference Cited

Carrier, James G. 2010. “Part 2: Tourism and Culture: Presentation, Promotion and the Manipulation of Image.” In

Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, edited by Donald V. L. Macleod and James G. Carrier,

107-114. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Ex1.

In Belize, difference is emphasised in the embracing of cultural diversity. This is evident in cultural tourism sites such as the Houses of Culture, which are aimed not just at international tourists, but domestic tourists as well (Holmes 2010, 163). As a result, Belizeans of different ethnic cultures are encouraged to learn about each other, recognize the differences between them, and learn to accept the differences as being part of what it means to be Belizean.

Salvador presents a slightly different case of emphasising difference in tourism, one where the negative impacts of doing so are more evident. In Salvador, the ‘Blackness’ of the Bahia has been capitalised upon in tourism. On one hand, the emphasis placed on its difference means that the government has been willing to support the region’s tourism development. An image and identity revolved around something associated with inferiority was once a handicap, but was now seen as valuable. In the Pelourinhoneighbourhood, the colonial architecture is not remembered for its colonial history, but for the slave workforce that created these colonial cities (Calvo-González and Duccini 2010, 141) and would have otherwise been forgotten if not for the interest in maintaining and protecting the ‘Black culture’ associated with the region. The ‘Black’ people of Salvador are now more visible, with the government willing to invest in the preservation of their popular culture because of its tourism potential. On the other hand, the newfound importance placed on popular culture and tradition means that there is an active effort to ensure that they remain as they have ‘always been’. As we have learned, it is problematic to box groups and communities into these essentialised representations; it’s restricting and strips them of autonomy over their own culture as greater powers seek greater control. An example of this attempt to preserve unchanging cultural elements is SUTURSA requiring baianas to wear traditional attire in order to sell acareje in the streets. It was an effort to “promote and rescue” the traditional attire, but was met with complaints from the baianasthemselves, who found it troublesome (Calvo-González and Duccini 2010, 143). There is a tension in the desire to portray culture as unchanged because of the commercialisation that also emerges, which threatens that desire. In addition to the resulting boxing-in of culture, promoting difference also involves a clear understanding of what exactly sets this region/culture apart from others. As Calvo-González and Duccini (2010, 145) write, the ‘Black heritage’ that is considered so valuable in Bahian tourism does not have a clear meaning. Authentic Black heritage is thought of generally as ‘African’ – but Africa is culturally diverse, with many languages, religions, and cultures. Its diversity is disregarded for the sake of a simplified, more generalised understanding of the region’s ‘authentic’ and ‘ethnic’ roots. As part of this generalised understanding, Candomblé becomes ‘the’ Black religion, assumed to be the one that best represents the population, when in reality, there is a considerable number of Protestants as well (Calvo-González and Duccini 2010, 135). The emphasis on difference leads to the inclusion of certain cultural elements, but the exclusion of others that do not fit what the government & tourism leaders understand as ‘Black heritage’.

I think these readings show us that ironically, a cultural tourism industry that promotes difference can both erase (in Brazil) and embrace (in Belize) diversity.

Holmes, Teresa J. 2010. “Tourism and the Making of Ethnic Citizenship in Belize.” In Tourism, Power and Culture, edited by Donald V.L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 153-173. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Calvo-González, Elena and Luciana Duccini. 2010. “On ‘Black Culture’ and ‘Black Bodies’: State Discourses, Tourism and Public Policies in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.” In Tourism, Power and Culture, edited by Donald V.L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 134-152. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Ex2.

Reading both of these chapters was extremely interesting as they both brought up different perspectives. I found it really cool that in Belize, the differences they stress come about being ethically diverse. I think this is a great approach, and gives tourists the ability to interact with different cultures, people, and values while being in a single place. Through this, one can see that “Belizean culture is a bounded, unchanging unit that has been acted upon by the forces of globalisation” (Holmes 2010, 161). The effects of cultural tourism thus shine a light on the importance of promoting this diversity that their country holds, showing that differences are something to be proud of. Although they may be still commodifying certain cultures as a promotion of their tourism, they are doing so in a way that that they are “incorporat[ing] new and uniquely touristic modes of visualisation, experience and discourse into [a] long-standing process of cultural construction” (Holmes 2010, 155).

The article about Bahia, on the other hand, presents a different way of portraying culture. Their promotion of “blackness” is rooted in their slavery days, and continues to be used as a way to promote a unique culture that they hold. What bothered me about this article is that none of these people are the African slaves that were brought to Bahia in the first place, and all of these actions to keep their tourism running is on the basis of acting a certain way to promote a type of culture that is not so necessarily relevant to them, but rather to the public who is watching. The effects on cultural tourism thus stresses the difference of different parts of Brazil, where in Bahia you can experience this black culture. The author in this chapter states that: “As the notion of ‘real cultural experience’ is an important basis of cultural policies and is important for attracting tourists to Bahia, that experience needs to maintain its relation to ‘Africa’, to its ‘deep roots” (Calvo-Gonzalez and Duccini 2010, 146). However, how can they maintain authenticity of these people do not actually have that direct relation to Africa’s deep roots?

References

Calvo-Gonzalez, Elena and Duccini, Luciana. 2010. “On ‘Black Culture’ and ‘Black Bodies’: State Discourses, Tourism and Public Policies in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.” In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, edited by Donald V.L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 27- 46. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Holmes, Teresa. 2010. “Tourism and the Making of Ethnic Citizenship in Brazil.” In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, edited by Donald V.L. Macleod and James G. Carrier, 27- 46. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Ex3.

After reading chapter 7 that discusses the “blackness” of Bahia and how it is used to help make the land distinctive to tourists, I noticed that using this method of creating distinction can cause issues in defining the terms ‘race’, ‘culture’, ‘ethnicity’ and ‘heritage’. Even reading this chapter, I got confused at times about the way the Brazilian government even intends to portray their population and culture. For the purposes of tourism, ‘Blackness’ is accepted and accentuated.

Brazil is a made up of many mixed racial individuals and the coloured people of Brazil don’t all share the same ethnic roots and heritage. The fact that there is miscegenation amongst the population made policy makers doubt the legitimacy of Brazil as a culturally united nation. Thus the ‘blackness’ that has been made a focal point of the Bahia region, has come to primarily describe the phenotype of the people. So, although most of the black population does not share the same origins, their outwards appearance and skin colour has classified them as a group and has been utilized as a means to draw attention to tourists.

This creates difficulty and problematizes the presentation of the ‘black culture’ and their traditions because historically these people have disparate backgrounds. Bahia struggles with maintaining the authenticity when displaying accounts of popular culture. The example of selling acareje and the strict rules around the procedures people must follow show the struggle of creating a uniform culture when it is a partial fallacy.

The authors explain that “as the notion of real ‘cultural experience’ is an important basis of cultural policies and is important for attracting tourists to Bahia, the experience needs to maintain its relation to ‘Africa’, to its ‘deep’ roots. But because there is no such thing as the “Africa”, the legitimacy of Bahian claims to African roots became a matter of dispute in which government personnel, scholars, black movement members, artists and religious people take part” (Calvo-González & Duccini, 146).

This is an extremely important issue because it would be a great shame to misrepresent or falsify the identity of the Brazilian population to tourists. Tourists arrive from all over the world to experience what they believe is an authentic presentation of the culture and people of the region, and will in turn develop their own thoughts, opinions and narratives about what they took away from the time they spent. In other words, “The debate thus ends up reproducing the blurring of ideas of race and culture that feature throughout Brazillian history, while at the same time feeding, as well as reflecting, contemporary debates on multiculturalism and the place that it has in the building of the nation” (135).

In opposition to the acculturation that cultural tourism has brought upon Brazil, cultural tourism has influenced the development of ethnicity in Belize. Since tourism has become such a vital part of the culture and everyday life of Belizeans, the tourism has consciously and unconsciously crept its way into the advancement of ethnicity as a ‘political substance’ or ‘condition of citizenship’ (Holmes, 155). The fact that Belize is so ethnically diverse is an important component of the Belizean national identity. The multi ethnic nation prides itself on being “a consciousness of rich hybrid cultural heritage”(156), and uses this as the anchor of ethnic tourism and consequently economic development.

Tourism and tourists have become such a pervasive external force in the lives of Belizeans, their presence has shaped the host culture and ethnicity into what it is today. It has been recognized that the host and the tourist cannot be fully separated. The national identity of Belizeans is not unchanging and has been greatly influenced by the tourism industry. Overall, Belizeans identify this influence and their ethnic diversity in a positive and progressive way in relation to tourism.