SOCIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF TOURISM

SOCIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF TOURISM

In his review of the field, cohen, points out that the sociological treatment of tourism originated in Germany in the work of von wiese, and was future advanced by knebel, in the English speaking world, the late 1950 and 1960 witnessed the emergence of two opposing camps. One comprised critics such as boorstin. Who portrayed the tourist as a cultural dope manipulated by the establishment the other included writers like foster, who attempted to document the phenomenon empirically and without prejudice.

In the early 1970, the pendulum swung once more in the direction of the critics, notably in the works of turner and ash 1975 and young 1973 however, beginning whit macCannell’s (1973,1976) paradigm, amore sociologically profound and fruitful approach to the field was initiated, in that he, mere than any other, sought to rebut those portraying the tourist as a superficial nitwit by placing tourism in the context of a quest for authenticity, a topic which will be treated later.

Cohen (1984) also maintained that work on the sociology of tourism could be classified into four main issue areas: tourists themselves, inter action of tourist whit locals, the tourism system, and tourism impacts. A the same time, he concluded that the “sociology of tourism” had progress in the conceptualization of tourist and tourism, but this had not been substantiated by systematic empirical studies, these were often deficient in theoretical insight. As a result, one was often left whit either sociographic data of little relevance or unsubstantiated theoretical speculation. Many of these points are reflected in this article, but in order not go over identical ground, they are a placed within a different framework – that of the previously articulated general sociological perspectives. Several examples of such theoretical approaches are introduced and discussed here.

DEVELOPMENTAL (EVOLUTIONARY AND CYCLICAL) PERSPECTIVES.

Tourism has been treated at the macro - level or “from above” is several studies. In the tradition of grand theory, the emphasis in these works is placed primarily on the manner in which tourism has become institutionalized, rather than how individual participants are affected by it.

Many of these studies adopt an evolutionary approach. Thus Knebel (1960), for instance , contrast early and late forms of tourism along a continuum of polarized variables. So too do chroniclers of the social history of tourism when they describe the transition from the aristocratic grand tour to contemporary version of mass tourism. Even the critic Boorstin (1964) employs such a framework when he speaks of the development of tourism from traveler to tourist, by nostalgically suggesting that the way “we were” was far better than the way “we are”. For many, the principal institutional development is that tourism has undergone a process of industrialization (hiiller 1976) and internationalization (Lanfant 1980). According to these views, tourism usually begins on a small scale through the efforts of entrepreneurs. Later it becomes “nationalized” and internationalized, as powerful external economic

...