Commodification Impacts on Tourism free essay sample

Marketing teams have developed â€Å"the dream vacation† for just about everyone, whether your interests lie in adventure travel, cruising, or wine tasting, your imagination (and perhaps your budget) is pretty much your only limitation. Along side this ever increasing number of vacation destinations a large body of research on the â€Å"tourist machine† also grows. Over time, the focus of tourism research has shifted somewhat from the basic sort of anthropological or sociological questions such as â€Å"why do people choose the destinations they do† and â€Å"how do the natives of these tourist destinations feel about their â€Å"guests†Ã¢â‚¬  to more of an environmental and cultural impact approach. The impacts commoditization on tourism is the focus of this paper. Commoditization, in terms of tourism, is the â€Å"packaging† and sale of an idea or story. What I mean by that is that what is being turned into a commodity is an â€Å"experience,† not a tangible product. For example, Commoditization of the past is the sale of tradition and/or history. Commoditization of culture is the sale of tradition and/or ritual. Many authors have written about the impact that tourists attention to a community’s ethnic identity has on that culture and have found that long-lost traditions are being revived and even new ‘staged traditions’ are being dreamt up in order to comply with the tourists’ growing demand for ‘authentic cultures’ (Cohen, 1988; MacCannell, 1999; MacDonald, 1997; Van den Berghe, 1994). Ooi (2002),when researching the contrasting strategies Denmark and Singapore have taken in tourism, coined three terms to describe some important issues that the commoditization of tourism has facilitated. Heteroglossia, refers to the conflict of commercial and cultural contexts in tourism; polyphony, highlights the ubiquitous voice of the authorities in managing the clashes of tourism and local culture; and the carnivalesque refers to the spheres of activities beyond the control of the authorities. These three concepts are loosely used as the foundation for this paper. Quite often a developing country’s last resort in its quest for economic growth is to venture into the tourism industry (Lea, 1988). Even if that country’s government enters into the tourism arena with the noblest of intentions, their desires to lure in foreign exchange, attract investments, increase income and employment levels, and to achieve general progress can force governments to base their decisions â€Å"on the wishes of the dominant actors in the industry; therefore they generally tend to favour the large-scale development of (multinational) tourism enterprises† (Roessingh, 2004). Growth of a tourism industry in a developing country is often a double edged sword. On the one hand, it is not uncommon for the growth to begin even before the government commits to supporting the venture, leaving its development up to the private sector (Dahles, 1999). This places the pressure of development initiatives upon the private sector and, while they are likely to gain income for their efforts they are no match for the large scale companies that will inevitably come knocking. This informal private sector contains small-scale, mostly self-built and unorganized, entrepreneurs. The formal sphere or large scale companies on the other hand, consists of large, capital intensive, well-structured, mostly multinational enterprises (Roessingh, 2004). On the other hand, these large enterprises often bring with them significant investments, knowledge, and technology and can therefore contribute more to the economic growth of the country it enters than their smaller competitors would. Because of their connections in the tourist markets, knowledge of the demands and standards of Western tourists and money to invest, these large multinational chain hotels, are at an extreme advantage over most local entrepreneurs. The ties to western tour operators that the multinational companies often have enable them to quickly obtain a monopoly position, leaving the local businesses to slowly wither and die. As if the obvious advantages had by the large companies were not enough to secure their position as â€Å"leader of the pack† it is not unheard of for psychological arfare to be a weapon of choice in the commoditization of tourism. Local entrepreneurs in Puerto Plata, Northern Dominican Republic, claim large tour operators tell tourists that it is better to stay in the resorts (rather than privately owned hotels) as leaving the confinement of the resort’s grounds could put them in at risk of being swindled or robbed. Its also common to hear that the food and wa ter outside the resort’s boundaries are unhealthy and unhygienic (Roessingh, 2004). The same sources also claim that they are being left off of tour operators lists and being told a variety of bogus explanations for the omission but are later finding out that the tour guides have received financial â€Å"incentives† to bring their groups to these large resorts. Being that so many of the resorts these days operate with an â€Å"all inclusive† policy, tourists staying at them have even less incentive to go offsite to local clubs, restaurants or shops. This ‘all-inclusive’ structure, forced the remaining destinations in the Dominican Republic to follow this new trend in tourism. This ultimately meant another setback for the local businesses in the Puerto Plata region, as this all-inclusive system resulted in a further loss of business for the small shops, restaurants and hotels (Roessingh, 2004). As a result residents often have no other options but to seek employment with the company that has put them and/or their neighbours out of business. Increasing competitiveness among small entrepreneurs is another widespread problem. Should a local entrepreneur somehow manage to keep their business afloat, their desperation can turn a small business into an uncomfortable environment. Local tour guides fight over tourists and shop keepers use high pressure sales techniques to â€Å"make the sale† before the customer leaves to go to the neighbouring store (Dahles, 1999). Most entrepreneurs would blame the government for their lack of opportunities within the tourism industry (Roessingh, 2004). Roessingh, in his study of small entrepreneurs in Puerto Plata, stated that the â€Å"Dominican government had to make far-reaching decisions to use land and financial means to develop this new industry at the expense of other sectors in the economy. Tourism policies implemented by this government have focused on attracting foreign investments, leaving the small entrepreneurs in the tourism industry without access to the necessary resources for development. By favouring the development of large resorts, financed by private investors, the government was able to attract large numbers of tourists and become an important tourist destination, but by ignoring the small entr epreneurs they have created a situation of economic dependency, frustration and confusion among the few local entrepreneurs that remain. Ironically, the port of Puerto Plata has been left to deteriorate to such an extent that it is no longer able to harbour large cruise ships. The disappearance of the cruise ship industry has meant a major loss of clientele for the small businesses in Puerto Plata. In what has been called â€Å"cultural tourism† local food, traditions, crafts, performances, and historical sights are packaged into â€Å"products. † Some say that local cultures are changed when they are transformed into â€Å"tourist-friendly† goods. Mass production of native arts or crafts, for example, strip away their originality, reduce their quality and rob them of meaning. This new â€Å"product† becomes part of the finely tuned tourism machine and is no longer dependent upon the hands of its creator. A decline in the number of skilled artisans who are unable to compete with mass production, is inevitable (Wyllie). While many cultural â€Å"impact studies† tend to depict tourism as ‘a force of social change coming to destroy territorial and local identities’ Lanfant (1995) argues for a more active approach, considering tourism as a driving force for cultural change. Others disagree that commoditization could be a catalyst for cultural change. Goffman (1959), for example, described in his theory on social behaviour what he calls the front-stage and the back-stage, as two different settings for everyday life social behaviour. He suggests that front-stage the performers (the locals) act in one way for their audience (the tourists) who believe this to be their ‘normal behaviour’, while on the backstage (at home, among friends, peers, etc. ) they express their ‘true feelings’ when the audience is absent. Yet a third perspective on the impact of tourism’s commoditization on culture is that of â€Å"involution†(McKean 1998). McKean sees this as a process by which economic necessity and or conservatism pressure a people into retaining their traditional methods of artistic expression so that tourism thrives. When a community is involved with the decision making of how to attract and maintain a tourist base and when they see financial benefit from their efforts to be accommodating hosts often they will shrug off inevitable inconveniences as minor irritations (Wyllie). Other researchers focus more upon the conflicts that can arise when a town or village becomes viewed more as a product then as a the home and birthplace of another people’s culture. Different values, behaviour patterns, language and so on, are all possible causes for conflicts between the visiting and visited. Also, the increasing number of tourists that locals are confronted with has been found to â€Å"provoke a stronger feeling of ‘identity’ among the residents, they idealize the past and blame the ‘intruders’ for changes. In this situation tourists are no longer seen as individuals from different countries, but as one group of ‘outsiders’. It becomes a matter of ‘us’ against ‘them’ (Pedregal, 1996). Social groups emerge with the development of the commoditization of tourism. Again, as previously stated, conflict between members of the host community can also arise due to competition for the tourist dollar. With regard to the commoditization of tourism’s impact on the environment, that it pollutes and disfigures, corrupts traditional cultures, and overburdens local resources is, simply put, common knowledge or is it? Some believe that too frequently the arrival at this conclusion is founded largely on emotion, prejudices, and preconceptions (Hughes, 2002). Hughes states â€Å"precious little science has been brought to bear, largely because there is precious little science available. † He also proposes that this data deficiency â€Å"acts either to silence the environmental side of the tourism-environment debate, through lack of factual information with which to contest the quantitative facts of economic importance, or to marginalize it to the untrustworthy domain of â€Å"emotion† and â€Å"prejudice. In an effort to construct environmental indicators for tourism Furley, Hughes, and Thomas (1996) recommend that indicators be developed using three categories. These indices were corporate, national, and site or destination specific. By defining a comprehensive inventory of characteristics for each category it might be possible to maintain a more objective view of tourism’s effects. Paradoxically, The exponential growth of tourist numbers and their spread to previously remote regions has brought attention to the potentially harmful character of â€Å"nature-based tourism. The more popular a tourist destination becomes, the more likely it is that it will be degraded due to heavy visitation, which in turn may diminish the quality of the experience. Goldsmith (1974), in an effort to define the level of use before a decline in the user’s recreational experience, identified four categories of carrying capacity: physical, ecological, economic, and perceptual. This unusual research perspective, it seems, is more concerned with the decline in the tourist’s experience than the declining state of the destination’s environment, even though the spread of tourist-made tracks has shown significant negative impact in these areas (Hillery, 2001). What about the impacts commoditization has on the tourist itself? Some have suggested that commoditization has little impact on the tourist due to cultural ignorance, inevitably leaving them with lower expectations of authenticity (Wyllie). Urry (1990), on the other hand, gives today’s tourist consumer slightly more credit and feels that tourist may be returning to the â€Å"Grand Tour† concept in which travellers seek more than pure indulgence and prefer an actual â€Å"experience. Should this be the case, perhaps tomorrow’s tourist will tread more softly upon our earth than today’s. How has commoditization impacted tourism? Simple. The planet, once explored by very few, has become the â€Å"backyard† of anybody with a passport and the means to travel. Large corporations have invested readily available capital in research and development of this increasingly popular â€Å"commodity† and have become the â€Å"backyard bully. † By promising significant financial gain or incentives to the governing bodies of developing countries the bully obtains control over the destinations caretakers. Even the most savvy of caretakers are vulnerable to the might of the corporation and can ultimately lose any real control over their country that they originally had. Once the bully has the governing bodies â€Å"in their back pocket† they are free to saturate the destination with foreign owned interests (hotels, restaurants, tour guides, etc. ). Eventually, the never ending capital at the bully’s disposal is used to eliminate one local business after another creating a monopoly for themselves. This monopoly forces the once independent locals into a position of dependency. Locals will eventually depend upon the hotels and restaurants to employ them, not so that they may thrive or prosper from the sharing of their homeland, but simply so that they may feed their families. In an effort to control the â€Å"culture† which attracted the tourist to the destination in the first place, the bully begins to manufacture it. They mass produce artifacts and recreate rituals that once had significant meaning to it’s disciples reducing them to mere â€Å"dinner theatre. † Eventually all originality and charm are drained from the tourist destination, making each one indistinguishable from the next. The intimacy once enjoyed by the tourist and the locals is all but lost, robbing both parties of a genuinely enriching cultural experience. The bully does not believe in intimacy or genuineness he only believes in volume. Conflict is encouraged by the commoditization bully. Conflict between the locals and their government, and conflict between the locals themselves. Although it is widely accepted that conflict can be good, I would have to ask what good can come from conflict manipulated by a third party who’s only interests are self serving?