AHRBUCH

Author posting. This is the author's version of the work, not the one finally published.

It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. A very similar version was published in:

Jahrbuch fur Europaische Ethnologie, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 166-190

Three epistemological approaches to the study of tourism in Spanish social anthropology

Antonio Miguel Nogués Pedregal Universitas Miguel Hernández

amnogues@umh.es

Abstract

In this text the production of anthropological knowledge about tourism by Spanish social

anthropologists becomes the object of knowledge itself. To achieve this, the paper begins with

an anthropological description of tourism. Then a genealogy of tourism as an object of

phenomenological study is put forward, focusing on three epistemological moments that have

arisen between anthropology and the study of tourism in Spain. The analysis reveals that

discrete and dialectical analyses have been progressively abandoned and replaced by

contextual models in which dialogics and the continuum metaphor are present.

Keywords

Power, knowledge, epistemology, anthropology

Exordium

When space is claimed we call it ‘territory’. Territory always belongs to somebody: to an ethnic

group, to a squatters’ collective, to a youth gang, or, in the final extreme, to that unit of

production and administrative management of reality known as the State. When territory is

transformed by human beings into the object of desire, whether for aesthetic pleasure or for

physical occupation in the form of terraced farmland or for tourist accommodations, we call it

‘landscape’. Landscape is therefore, above all else, the result of human purpose sculpted with

the stuff dreams are made of: desire. Nowadays the complex set of socio-technological devices

that facilitate the transport, lodging and entertainment of certain social groups far from their daily

routine and also the various processes and practices induced by these mechanisms –

something which, for the sake of brevity, we call ‘tourism’– are among the main inciters of

desire, desire for landscapes and for times in which to enjoy them. My hope is that this article

will contribute to a better understanding of all this.

The article focuses on the relationship between social anthropology in Spain and the dense set

of activities that we have come to refer to with the generic term ‘tourism’. With a theoretical

framework that incorporates Foucault’s idea that power produces knowledge, it is worthwhile to

examine the results obtained to date and ask why this thing called tourism should continue to be

2

studied. This question could even be formulated in a much more instrumental and direct

manner: why would the social and human sciences want to study tourism? The approach used

here makes the production of anthropological knowledge about tourism the object of knowledge

itself. The paper begins with a concise overall description of tourism. Then a genealogy of

tourism as an object of phenomenological study in Spain is presented and the three

epistemological moments that have arisen in the relationship between anthropology and tourism

are discussed. An examination of this relationship shows a progressive abandonment of

discrete and dialectical systems of analysis and a shift towards more contextual models in

which the continuum metaphor and dialogics predominate.

Global tourism

I am aware that I add nothing new when saying that Tourism –yes, capitalised, as if it were a

proper noun that responds to no historical circumstances whatsoever, an instance of the

misplaced concreteness pointed out by Alfred North Whitehead– expressed in its most

extravagant modalities and denominations is a globalising agent of the highest order. All data

indicates that tourism is perhaps capitalism’s most sophisticated creation, because not only

does it consume places and territories, sculpt landscapes with the stuff that dreams are made of

–desire– and perpetuate relations of dependence, it also, in the expressive dimension,

produces meanings and brings about a “conversion of place through the meaningful mediation

of tourism space”, updating1 spaces and rhythms to conform to the principles of the global

market. Especially significant among these principles are the international division of labour by

territory and the deregulation of markets, which translate into an increasing demand for what is

called ‘residential tourism’, the de-seasonalisation of tourism and typological diversification of

holidays into shorter stays distributed throughout the year, the arrival of Internet and new

distribution and organisation models, and the presence of low-cost companies. And all of this

with new territories and ‘tourism products’ constantly appearing on the scene.

Because beyond traditional tourism modes or ‘tourism products’ (i.e. sun and beach tourism,

rural tourism, urban tourism, etc.), and also those considered alternatives (i.e. tourism products:

solidarity tourism, ecotourism, agrotourism, ethnotourism, native tourism, etc.), and even other

trends such as ‘dark tourism’ which organises trips to places where humanity has suffered

indescribable horrors (i.e. concentration camps, the sites of bloody battles or natural

disasters…), or kojo moe2 which I learned about while leafing through the Wall Street Journal,

these principles demonstrate that this way of moving economic capital that we call ‘tourism’ 1 This verb denotes a meaning that is non-essentialist, in contrast with verbs such as ‘transform’ or ‘change’. 2 “Unlike the tourists who visit the factories of Toyota Motor Corp. and other Japanese manufacturers, the ‘kojo moe’ crowd has little interest in the inner workings of the plants. They get excited by the maze of intricate piping around the exterior of a steel plant or the cylindrical smokestacks sending up steam. Wall Street Journal 24 January 2011.

3

makes it possible for any ‘place’ in the world to become a desirable tourist ‘destination’. Few

would doubt that this contributes to what we have taken to calling ‘globalisation’ –that

phenomenon that intensifies and, especially, gives evidence of the interdependence existing

between territories and their inhabitants at the planetary level, and in almost all the spheres of

life– reaching even areas in which the new communication technologies are not yet present.

This situation is illustrated well by the film “Chambre d'hôtes dans le Sahel” (58’) by the French

filmmaker Christian Lallier (2001): a documentary that shows a remote village in northern

Burkina Faso getting ready for the arrival of a solidarity tourism group and the promoters of the

initiative teaching the villagers how to manage room and board services, give guided tours and

produce handicrafts. More intense, and with a second part that invites reflection, is the

documentary “Cannibal Tours” (72’) by the Australian Dennis O’Rourke (1988). This film looks

at tourists on a luxury cruise that travels down the Sepik River through the tropical forests of

Papua-New Guinea. Or there is the more recent “Framing the Other: when strangers meet in

the name of tourism” (25’) made by Ilja Kok and Willem Timmers, of the production company I-

Camera-You, about the reconstruction of the Mursi people in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley as a

‘tourism product’. Actually, Survival International often denounces ‘human safaris’ in which, for

instance, Jarawa women and children (Andaman Islands) are made to dance for tourists

(http://www.survival.es/noticias/8028). These documentaries make good company for the story

“Le clou de la croisière” that Clastres published in “Les Temps Modernes” (1971). In this text

Clastres describes the mirages and deceits that conceal the transactions between those

seeking the authenticity of the exotic and those staging authenticity in tourist destinations. The

most extreme example of how tourism has penetrated the last corners of the earth is known as

‘first contact tourism’. This mode of tourism has found a new market niche in the regions of the

Pacific, especially Papua New Guinea. The situation is described in the documentary “First

Contact” (60’) produced by Indus Films Ltd. and shown in 2006 by British Broadcasting

Corporation Four (BBC-4). For about $8,000 the initiative’s promoter satisfies the curiosity of the

most intrepid adventurers, whose desire has been stoked by this suggestive invitation: “In the

era of global communication, advanced technology and high-speed travel, pockets of humanity

who have had no contact with the outside world remain. We will navigate blank areas to search

for tribes that have had limited or no contact with Westerners” (http://www.papua-

adventures.com/exploratory-expedition.php).

Accordingly, knowledge about this set of socio-technological devices, which for the sake of

brevity we call tourism, contributes to the current time and space production system, which is

the result of (1) the new communication technologies thanks to which “time and space are

organised so as to connect presence and absence” (Giddens, 1990:14) and which speed up

social relations, and (2) the accessibility (in terms of prices and schedules) and celerity of

transport (it is possible to leave Berlin or London at sunset, spend all night in a disco in Ibiza

and return home to sleep in the morning).Therefore tourism can be –and must be– explored

4

from the perspective of the social sciences and humanities as another mode used by economic

capital to intensify and make evident the interdependence existing among the earth’s

inhabitants. This idea, I repeat, is not new. It is in fact widely accepted among the researchers

who work in this field. This acceptance is due not so much to the critical assumption of its

implications but rather to the inertia imprinted on our analysis by the use of a literature that

addresses Tourism as an active agent.3 The use of the word ‘tourism’ as a grammatical subject

is a constant in the literature –at least in the texts that are most easily accessed and

recommended by the instruments (i.e. databases) and the criteria (i.e. impact factor) sanctioned

by the mantra “the global knowledge economy” or “academic capitalism” (c.f. Hoffman, 2011;

Wright and Rabo, 2010). It is a grammatical nuance that carries a two-fold paralogism. First of

all, it suggests that the extension of the different modes of tourism around the planet is a vehicle

for the intersection of local processes and global dynamics. For many this undisputable reality is

the demonstration that Globalization really does exist and is inevitable. And, secondly,

presenting tourism as a grammatical subject makes it a phenomenon independent of social

production and of its time and space dimensions. It is not in vain that in the literature the same

term is used to refer to both the social practices of the Spanish upper class in ritzy Cantabrian

destinations and those of the drunken masses of European youth on the Costa Brava. To

ensure a minimal degree of rigor, I believe we should not use the same term for both, although I

acknowledge that doing so facilitates the exercise in synthesis that all texts require. In any case,

this is something worth remembering, because it helps improve the precision of our analysis.

The most interesting thing about the paralogism of tourism as a subject is that it suggests that

tourism in Santander (Cantabria) and tourism in Lloret de Mar (Costa Brava) respond to the

same process and that their differences are only formal. This construction of tourism as a

‘misplaced concreteness’ leads, perhaps undesirably, to research findings helping to validate

this ideology, which we will call ‘globalism’. Globalism imagines that all human groups function

according to the laws of the free market, it defends the internationalization and expansion of

these laws to the local level, and, in short, it legitimises the dynamics of Globalization.4 In fact,

recognition by the scientific community of the intersection between the global and the local is

not yet part of the theoretical approach used to study tourism. This absence would explain the

predominance and persistence of static models for the study of tourism in the social sciences

(Meethan, 2003). This is why I believe in the necessity of giving tourism back its historical

3 It is also true, as shown decades ago by Mario Gaviria (1974), Antonio Mandly (1977), Dennison Nash (1978), Francisco Jurdao (1979) and Stephen G. Britton (1982), that tourism can be considered yet another historical agent of capitalism and that it is possible to develop a critical understanding of the agents that encourage and propitiate its planetary expansion. 4 Whereas internationalism advocates cooperation among peoples, globalism is associated with competition between territories and their inhabitants. While the adjective planetary refers to the physical extension of any phenomenon, the notion of global –as used by globalism– underlines the expansion of economic capital as opposed to other, more social dimensions.

5

nature: its character as a social product in the framework of the space and time coordinates that

give it meaning. One option is to study tourism not just as another set of induced dynamics that

take advantage of existing socio-technological devices to expand the capitalist version of

Reality, but also as a context where ‘culture’, construed as a process of signifying and treating

differences, occurs. To study it, in other words, as yet another name for Power.5

Furthermore, this non-intentional adhesion to globalism has brought about a tenuous and, shall

we say, curious epistemological shift illustrated by three moments in tourism studies.6 From the

study of the ‘tourism fact/object’ as an external phenomenon –agent– that induced particular

dynamics in the destinations or that allowed the constant relocation of economic capital

(moment A), we have come to see tourism, in its endless process of creating new attributes and

adjectives (i.e. ‘tourism products’: rural, urban, adventure, eco, ethnic, cultural, congress…), as

a vehicle for the knowledge of the Other and, especially, for the development of territories and

their inhabitants (moment B). I will give some examples.

Some initiatives that are very critical of tourism have appeared. Such initiatives include the

community-based tourism promoted by Spain’s Forum for Responsible Tourism, the various

initiatives falling within the concept of “pro-poor tourism”7 (cf. Duim, 2008), and the activist

tourism proposal put forward as a means to counteract the process by which ‘solidarity tourism’

was becoming less and less politicized (Gascón 2009). Interestingly, they all face a paradox.

Economic capital has been –and always will be, if we do not work together to remedy it–

avaricious of new market segments that can be ‘valorised’ by means of a process that

enhances their value or status, with a view to being used for tourism purposes. This is why the

launching of any set of human activities that are to take place in a time (Χρόνος - chronos) or

place (Τόπος - topos) different from the usual will end up being given the name ‘tourism’ and

therefore be managed and marketed according to the principles of the global market.

This linguistic battle gives rise to a paradox: any proposal that wants to distance itself from the

tourism practices promoted by this global market is in need of a label that distinguishes it.

However, by means of an objectivation process familiar to all of us (cf. Berger and Luckmann,

1966), the ideal existence of that label, the desire to obtain it and, especially, the verification

5 I define power as the capability to fracture reality by distinguishing certain facts from others (in such a way that they can be organised into cultural categories), to induce the connections among them (to make them meaningful), to maintain the stability of these connections (to provide continuity) and, in consequence, to orient or shape society’s practices (to give sense to social life). 6 In 1977 Jeremy Boissevain spoke of epistemological shortcomings shown by anthropology studies because “The effects of tourism are rarely convincingly distinguished from those of other contemporary forces for social change” (cit. in Crick, 1989: 335). 7 The term ‘pro-poor tourism’ (PPT) was used for the first time in 1999 in a report prepared by the UK’s Department for International Development (Duim, 2008:179).

6

process that confirms whether or not the practices follow the label’s code of conduct,8 are in fact

what formalise the practices and uncover their market potential. The Latin America Community-

Based Tourism Network (Red de Turismo Comunitario de América Latina) receives Internet

visitors at its Latin American Living Cultures Portal where it says its objective is “to foster

business opportunities with rural and indigenous communities of Latin America to improve their

living and working conditions”. In the current state of words and things –as Foucault might have

said--, looking for the solution to this paradox causes quite a few headaches but fortunately this

has not dampened anybody’s enthusiasm.

Accepting this impossibility, along with the growing number of persons who wish to travel and

learn about other people, is probably what has prompted the CVONGD (a Valencia-based

association of non-governmental development agencies) to develop a series of proposals such

as in-the-field training courses, solidarity tourism, volunteer work at international cooperation

projects, work camps, solidarity brigades or camps, solidarity holidays, responsible tourism”, all

permeated with a strong sense of solidarity, as shown by the exceptional video made by

Fundación Hazloposible (May 2010) (to see it, click on vídeo). In this framework of pragmatism

lies the explanation for initiatives such as those that connect fair trade to tourism; the efforts to

bring different spheres closer together, as undertaken by the Red Internacional de

Investigadores en Turismo, Cooperación y Desarrollo; and the search for new ways to

understand tourism, as promoted by the Fundación de Turismo y Cooperación, whose patron is

GEA, a group of independent travel agencies. There is also the Culture and Development

Strategy (Estrategia Cultura y Desarrollo) of the AECID (Spanish Agency for International

Development Cooperation) (Moragues, 2007), which is the philosophy that guides the projects

of the research group Cultura, turismo y (cooperación al) desarrollo – Culturdes (cf. Soler et al.

2010; Nogués et al. 2010).

However it is important to underline that unlike the modes or modalities that adjectivize tourism

from the perspective of traveller motivations by describing it as solidarity tourism, rural or

cultural tourism, agrotourism, ethnic tourism, etc. as a way to segment demand and generate

market niches, most of the adjectives used in these more adaptive proposals qualify the

purposes and manners of engaging in tourism. Although these proposals may seem overly

complacent with the current state of affairs, they indicate, in my opinion, that we are now in

moment C of the relationship between tourism, the social sciences and the principles of

Christian humanism motivating some forms of international cooperation. This moment is 8 “BIOSPHERE certification, sponsored by Spain’s Institute for Responsible Tourism (Instituto de Turismo Responsible, ITR), recognises tourism establishments that have made sustainable management a primary aspect of their activity and are thus examples of the sustainability of the sector at the international level [….] It is a voluntary certification process based on the principles of sustainable development and specific criteria regarding the establishment’s environmental, cultural and socioeconomic conduct. It is awarded to establishments around the world.”

7

characterised by the evidence of ‘trans-’, which refutes the symmetry of the cause and effect

relationship, goes beyond the classical dialectical principle of contradictions being resolved in

successive phases and challenges the essentialist tone of certain analyses of tourism. A

dialogical approach (Ooi, 2002, Nogués 2012) to understanding the links that different tourism

modalities establish between local processes and global dynamics and that give shape to a

specific chronotope: a distinctive and precise world of intelligible sense.

A genealogy of the ‘anthropology of tourism’ in Spain

Since the mid 1990s, the number of studies conducted by social and human scientists on

tourism processes has increased all over the world. Hundreds of scientific journals, books,

conferences, seminars and articles examine the subject from various perspectives, disciplines

and in its different facets. Observations of particular aspects, detailed descriptions of the tourist

industry’s development and studies presenting attractive general overviews and new theoretical

approaches are pressing in on researchers from countless specialised sources. In this regard,

the situation of tourism studies in Spain is no different from in the rest of the Western world and

a direct connection can in fact be drawn. However, from a historical perspective, it does have

some distinctive characteristics which need to be pointed out in this article.

The anthropological study of the complex set of socio-technological devices that we now refer to

with the generic term ‘tourism’ has never been welcome at Spanish anthropology departments

and research units, and it has been quite defenceless against the despotism of the

commissions deciding which lines of ethnographic research would be followed in Spain.

Perhaps influenced by the caricatures by Boorstin (1972), Turner and Ash (1975) or

MacCannell (1976), who described tourism as a pseudo-reality, an invasion and inauthentic,

many anthropologists used similar categories to discredit the first ethnographic studies that

chose to focus on tourism. This curious paralogism not only reinforced the habit of disparaging

scientific texts on the topic,9 it also delayed reaching a certain anthropological understanding of

the local dynamics that at the time were shaping some nascent tourism settings in which the

rules of hospitality and sociability were being substituted by the laws that govern market

exchange.

All of this occurred despite the conclusions of the First Meeting of Spanish Anthropologists held

in Seville in 1974, which advocated “the collaboration of anthropologists in projects related to

social and economic development, colonisation, emigration and tourism” (Jiménez, 1975:39). It

is only fair to acknowledge that the situation was not much better in other countries, as became 9 In the early 1990s this author’s research was described as “a controversial allegation in favour of a supposed anthropology of tourism” (Association of Andalusian Anthropologists Bulletin, n.4, 1993:7).

8

evident when the few of us who were interested in the topic tried to examine the consequences

of tourist development in the rest of Europe. In the preface of his now classic book “Coping with

tourists”, Jeremy Boissevain (1996) also expressed surprise that there was so little information

about this aspect of Europe's social and cultural reality, and that the studies published primarily

addressed countries of the so-called Third World.

Nonetheless one fact invites reflection about this banishment and distinguishes the situation in

Spain from that of other countries. Precisely because the tourism industry is and has been,

since the 1960s, one of the main drivers of the Spanish economy, it is surprising that until well

into the 1990s there were so few anthropologists and sociologists who, removed from the

technocratic concerns that sought to compensate a negative balance of payments, decided to

study the local dynamics brought about by the presence of tourists. Also, most of the research

conducted was undertaken despite the unfavourable grant policies of public institutions and

private bodies, which did not exactly give priority to this subject among their various funding

areas.

Generally speaking, it is safe to say that in Spain, like in many universities around the world, too

much time has been lost in disquisitions about the positive and negative aspects of tourism, with

much effort going into elucidating whether tourism-related practices preserved or destroyed

whatever they touched, without ever coming to any conclusion.

For this reason the works that can be described as classics among the anthropological and

sociological inquiries into tourism are few and far between, and the context they met with was

not very conducive to continuation: the book by Costa-Pau (1966), the report directed by Mario

Gaviria (1974) on the neo-colonialism implicit in the use of quality spaces, the critical text by

Antonio Mandly (1977) on the real working conditions of hotel workers on the Costa del Sol, the

research by Pi-Sunyer on the Costa Brava (1977), the detailed study by Francisco Jurdao

(1979) in Mijas, the article by Jordi Estivill (1979) on the social repercussions of tourism in Lloret

de Mar, or the ethnography by Mandly (1983) on the world of values in Axarquía (Costa del

Sol). Following those early anthropological studies that showed a functionalist bias in terms of

field methodology (Nuñez, 1963; Smith, 1977), most of these contributions analysed the arrival

of the first tourists, examining them, logically enough, as external agents that altered the

cultures of the territories in which they appeared.

At some distance from those functionalist positions, socio-anthropological studies in the 1990s

began a second stage, this one characterized by a timid attempt to theorize and systematize the

tourism phenomenon through its distinctive characteristics. Among the works published in Spain

during those years we can highlight –errors and omissions excepted– the theoretical

contributions of Aguirre Baztán (1988a and 1988b), the texts by Nogués Pedregal (1992, 1995)

9

and, especially, those of Santana Talavera (1987, 1990), whose book (1997) brought visibility to

anthropology studies on the consequences of tourism in Spain. However, again, I believe this

scarcity of references should lead us to ask why this topic has been so infrequently studied in

the scientific-humanist disciplines (Mazón, 2001:37-45). I think we would find a good answer if

we were to examine Spanish research policies with regard to the already-mentioned Foucaldian

relationship between power and knowledge.

Meanwhile, tourism activity in this country has continued to rise steadily, to the point that Spain

has become the second-ranked country in terms of income from international tourism.

According to the most recent data published by the report “Cuenta Satélite de Turismo de

España, 2008-2011” tourism accounted for 10.8% of the GDP and 12.2% of employment in

2011. In fact, as of October 2013 Spain had received 54.3 million foreign tourists and had taken

in 52.5 billion Euros.

In this context the study of tourism has at last found a place for itself among Spanish university

studies and it is no longer surprising to hear about R&D projects or courses that explore the

production of distinctive socio-cultural dynamics from the perspective of anthropology and

sociology, or about seminars, lectures and conferences that are being held. One of the first

events to take place was the 4th Iberoamerican Anthropology Congress (Gran Canaria, 1987),

which was attended by international figures as important as Jafar Jafari and Dennison Nash,

among others. In 1996 the 7th National Conference of Anthropology Associations (Zaragoza)

dedicated, for the first time, a working table to the ‘anthropology of tourism’; since then every

conference held has offered a symposium on the subject. The 12th International Congress on

Iberoamerican Anthropology (Salamanca, 2007) looked closely at the interrelations of tourism,

culture and development –the publication would see the light in the series published by the

Institute of Anthropological Research of Castilla y León. And in 2009, the International Network

of Researchers in Tourism, Cooperation and Development (COODTUR) held its first event in

Vila-Seca (Tarragona), under the generic name ‘tourism, cooperation and development’.

Furthermore, in this third stage the literature available in Spanish has grown considerably,

thanks to the following translations published by Endymion: “Tourism: Passport to

Development?” by E. de Kadt (1992), “The Golden Hordes” by Turner and Ash (1991), and

“Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism” by V. Smith (1992). The publishing company

Melusina published Spanish translations of “The Tourist” (2003) and “Empty Meeting Grounds”

(2007), both by Dean MacCannell. And “L’impossible voyage. Le tourisme et ses images” by

Marc Augé (1998) was published in Spanish by Gedisa, while “Non sparate sul turista” by

Duccio Canestrini and Jeremy Boissevain edited volume “Coping with tourist” were published in

Spanish by Edicions Bellaterra in 2009 and 2011. Among the scholarly journals, of special

importance is the Spanish edition of “Annals of Tourism Research” published by the Universitat

de les Illes Balears (Mallorca, Spain), the journal “Estudios y perspectivas en turismo” of the

10

Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Turísticos (Buenos Aires, Argentina), the electronic

journal “Pasos: Revista de turismo y patrimonio” of the Universidad de la Laguna (Tenerife,

Spain), and “Cuadernos de turismo” (Universidad de Murcia, Spain), which is specialised in the

economic aspects of tourism, and the youngest journal, “Revista de economía, sociedad,

turismo y medioambiente” published by Septem editions (Spain).10 Among the works that have

appeared in anthropology and sociology over the last decade, mention must go to the volumes

“Sociología del turismo” (Mazón, 2001), “Cultura y turismo” (Nogués, 2003), “El encuentro del

turismo con el patrimonio cultural” (Santana and Prats, 2005), “Antropología y turismo”

(Lagunas, 2007), “Sociología del ocio y del turismo: tipos, planificación y desarrollo” (Latiesa et

al, 2009), the monographic issues of the journals “Archipiélago. Cuadernos de crítica de la

cultura” (no. 68, 2005), and “Política y sociedad” (nº 42, 2005) of Universidad Complutense de

Madrid, and the 405 texts appearing in the Dialnet database analysing the close instrumental

relationship between tourism, heritage and development.

With such a haphazard genealogy it is comforting to note that today few would question the

viability and good sense of the anthropological and sociological inquiries into social and cultural

processes taking place in contexts of tourism. For example, a search of Teseo, the database of

the Spanish Ministry of Education, which contains the doctoral theses defended in Spanish

universities since the first one, back in 1978, by Jurdao Arrones, reveals that there is increasing

scientific interest in questions related to tourism from social and cultural perspectives in Spain.

Search of 'turismo' plus the following terms in Teseo Academic years +socio* +socio*+cultur* +antropol*

1978 to 2000 18 9 5 2001 to 2013 127 74 20

Moreover, reducing the search of the term ‘tourism’ within the thesaurus to the codes of

‘anthropology’ or ‘cultural anthropology’ or ‘social anthropology’ or ‘sociology’ or ‘general

sociology’ the following data appears:

Search of the term 'turismo' by disciplines

Anthropology (510000) or cultural anthropology (510100) or social anthropology (510300)

Title Abstract 1978 to 2000 4 9 2001 to 2013 6 16

Sociology (630000) or general sociology (630300) Title Abstract

1978 to 2000 2 2 2001 to 2013 7 17

10 In Dialnet [http://dialnet.unirioja.es] there are 16 journals with the word ‘tourism’ in the title, and in Latindex [www.latindex.unam.mx] there are 40.

11

Coincidentally, the table indicates that anthropology and sociology show a similar degree of

interest in tourism studies, and also that the relevance of tourism in Spanish research centres

has increased. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that the increasing frequency of

theses containing “antropol*” indicates that tourism, as a reality, is very present in studies about

contamination and viral action.

This growing interest led to the creation in 2012 of the Inter-University Network of Post-

Graduate Studies on Tourism (REDINTUR) as a meeting place in which to share the different

aspects of teaching, research and projects related to tourism. Shortly thereafter, REDINTUR,

the Tourism Institute of Spain (TURESPAÑA) and the State Society for the Management of

Innovation and Tourism Technologies S.A. (SEGITTUR) signed a collaboration agreement to

form SICTUR. SICTUR is a system designed to disseminate scholarly research conducted on

tourism through the Internet. Its main purpose is to help improve scientific and technological

competitiveness in the field of tourism and to increase the efficiency of decision-making, by

making the scientific conclusions generated at universities and research centres available for

consultation by all agents involved in the tourism sector. According to the persons in charge of

SICTUR, “for the first time in Spain, members of the scientific community are generating and

managing an open database that can be accessed by any interested party and that contains all

types of scientific and research activity in the tourism sphere”. (http://red-

intur.blogspot.com.es/p/sictur.html). In December 2013 a simple search in this database for the

word ‘antropología’ produced 18 researchers and 5 research groups in the universities of

Santiago de Compostela, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, La Laguna, Seville and Universitas

Miguel Hernández. For the time being, however, we must still recur to international bibliography

to find out what has been and is being done in terms of ethnography and theoretical

contributions.

For this reason, although nowadays few people question the value and interest of

anthropological approaches to social and cultural processes in tourism contexts, it is worthwhile

to attempt a genealogy based on the way in which anthropology has looked at tourism. From a

dialogic position I would point out three epistemological moments, described at length below,

that are produced by the socio-political forces and interests at play in tourism contexts, among

(1) the macro-social conditions imposed by (a) the tourism industry (national and/or international

companies engaged in potentially neo-colonial practices), and by (b) the symbolic presence of

the mechanisms of ideological domination, which condition the desirable, and the mechanisms

of institutional domination, which condition the feasible (governments, city councils, the media,

associations of entrepreneurs, etc.); and (2) the possibilities arising from the micro-social level

which take the form of practices by different human groups that live in the same tourism setting

12

(the plurality of the ‘native’ society, along with, for example, the complexity of ‘foreign residents’

and the diversity of ‘migrant workers’).

Taken together, the three moments indicate a displacement of the focal point of analyses from

the discrete to the continuum, as seen in the progressive abandonment of the systemic

approaches with dialectic dynamics, towards topological metaphors in which process and

dialogics predominate. This displacement is related not to the ideographic or nomothetic nature

of the anthropological perspective, but rather to the way in which categories for scientific

reasoning are defined. During moment A anthropology approached tourism, paradoxically,

almost as if it were a phenomenon isolated from global processes. In consequence, tourism

was considered an external agent that somehow landed in territories uninvited, and this led to

field studies focusing mainly on the impact of tourism and on its socio-cultural consequences.

Tourism’s expansion to every corner of the earth and in diverse, often exotic, modes (rural,

sports, cultural, religious, adventure, backpacker, sexual, safari…), the generalisation of the

most extravagant routes and the popularisation of the most detailed guides, pointed to the need

to look at questions such as the development and ‘valorisation’ of endogenous resources:

especially with regard to culture. This process, marked by the submission of scientific

knowledge to efficiency criteria (Lyotard, 1979), constitutes a moment B, in which anthropology

concerns itself with its technical applicability to the field of tourism. Moment C would be that of

trans-disciplinarity. The blurring of the space and time differences between natives and tourists,

the arrival of new actors on the scene (e.g. ‘foreign residents’, ‘migrant workers’, or Erasmus

students), the new tourism modes that defy classification, or the appearance of low-cost airlines

result in studies on tourism turning away from phenomenological construction, adopting instead

a more contextual vision of tourism that also returns to the centrality of culture as a distinctive

object of anthropological knowledge.

Tourism as ‘phenomenon’: the study of impacts

If we believe that words acquire and perpetuate their meaning through the use given to them,

and that words in turn are what determine the situations of speaking, we must agree that the

term ‘phenomenon’ as it has been used in the history of ideas, and is used currently, is highly

equivocal. If for some the phenomenon cloaks reality, for others it is the ultimate reality and for

a great majority, it is that through which reality becomes manifest. For Kant the phenomenon

becomes an object of experience and both the objects and the characteristics that we attribute

to them are considered given and pre-existent. This approach to things, if we set aside

considerations about the role played by intentional consciousness, is in fact the predominant

approach in scientific thinking.

13

So to say that tourism should be explored as something other than a phenomenon brings about,

in most cases, a puzzled look. Nuñez, a pupil of Redfield who had already mentioned tourism

as an agent of change in his 1940 Yucatan’s fieldwork, suggested that tourism should be

explored and understood within the general framework of the theory of acculturation (1963:347)

and it should therefore be conceived as a phenomenon to be studied. However, in these almost

eighty years of studies about the presence of tourists in so many places all over the planet, we

have learned that what we call ‘tourism’ is nothing if not a complex web of socioeconomic

processes ranging from the imaginary construction of destinations as places for recreation and

leisure, to practices tinged with neo-colonialism in the tourism industry, and passing through the

change in the structure of the ownership of land and local resources, the radical transformation

of territories, of the forms of social stratification, of the market and of modes of work, and of the

distribution of income. This complex network is both a field in which different types of capital are

exchanged and their composition, distribution and volume altered, and also a political-economic

arena in which to settle the differences between conflicting power groups, factions, parties and

interests. A complex whole with myriad facets and dynamics which, for the sake of convenience

or because of the very strong influence of other social sciences, we continue referring to and

treating as if it were a sole phenomenon: tourism.

The conceptual and textual manageability brought by the use of a single term, which in addition

comes from everyday language in which it has a very well-defined meaning and clear

connotations, becomes a linguistic trap that limits the possibilities offered by anthropology. If, in

contrast, these analyses were to be inserted into the theoretical corpus of the discipline,

maintaining the centrality of the study of culture and looking at how, for example, concrete

practices take on meaning through the desireabilities produced by the ideology of the tourism

industry’s version of development, then much more progress could be made towards

comprehending the whole. Too many of today’s ethnographic projects are still in moment A, and

they make use of approaches, paradigms and nomenclatures that follow the functional-

structuralist logic and treat tourism dynamics as if they were an element external to the societies

that receive tourists. Suffice it to say that even the use of the term ‘destinations’ –and even that

other term ‘receiving societies’– understands tourism contexts as elements that are subordinate

to the tourist action taking place independently, thousands of miles away.

It is quite understandable that at the beginning anthropology would focus on comprehending the

social and cultural processes triggered by the always asymmetrical relationship between ‘hosts’

and ‘guests’ (commodification, acculturation, transformation of places and creation of

landscapes, neo-colonialism and dependence, the construction of non-places, the production of

heritage, artisanry and gastronomy, cultural inventions, changes in social space and in modes

14

of stratification…).11 This construction of destinations only as pleasure peripheries, however,

reduces the anthropologist’s comprehension to the dynamics of the commercial interaction that

exists exclusively within the binomial ‘native-visitor’ and it analyses it using mercantile

principles, explaining, ultimately, social and cultural processes in terms of resistance to or

assumption of the imposed (via domination, imposition or manipulation).

This false duality transmits, in turn, the illusion of an internal social homogeneity to both groups

and to the interrelation between the two, which dispels from the analysis the component of

internal tension and conflict inherent in any social relationship (Nogués, 2012), or it favours the

maintenance of stereotypes that are the foundations of so many typologies of tourists. This

particular epistemological relationship with tourism explains the predominance and persistence

in the social sciences of static models (Meethan, 2003), such as the broadly-known analysis of

Mathieson and Wall (1982) or Jafari (1988), the semiotics of MacCannell (1976), the

essentialism of Greenwood (1977) in his explanation of the commodification of cultural

manifestations, or the irritating use of Doxey’s Irritation Index (1975, cit. Mathieson and Wall,

1982:138-139) as an analytical model with which to explain the social dynamics arising in tourist

areas.

This mutual exteriority with which anthropology looks at tourist-generating societies and tourist-

receiving societies means that many researchers are still caught up in questions related to the

definition of discrete categories of analysis or methodology. This leads authors such as Tribe

(1997), Ateljevic et al. (2005) and Coles et al. (2005) to argue that studies on tourism are in a

pre-disciplinary phase characterised by disagreements about the basics, a multiplicity of

approaches and knowledge that is casual and piecemeal.

The tourism and development binomial: from culture to heritage

It was not until the arrival of the current stage of capitalism, in which the chance for existence of

academic disciplines is governed by their exchange value in the world of goods and,

particularly, since the UNESCO declared 1988-1997 to be the “cultural development decade”

that the relationship between anthropology and those working the area of tourism actually

became closer. For Burns, this approach ratifies the propensity for applied studies shown by the

anthropological inquiries into tourism (1999:81).

11 Sociology has looked more into tourism practices as the product of a specific society (construction of the massive, alienation, cultural industry, displacement…) and into the interpretation of tourism travels as a structural variation of the sacred (vacuity, authenticity…). For a well-structured analysis of the most frequent topics arising in the social sciences in relation to tourism, see Crick (1989) and Burns (1999).

15

The introduction of a certain mode of culture as a key element in human development, along

with EU concern about the tertiarization of the economy and the resulting theory of the new

sites of employment, and the development of the cultural industry (Comisión Europea, 1998),

prompted the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) to take interest in the new possibilities that a

capitalised Culture offers (Nogués, 2002). Various international meetings addressed the

potential of what is known as ‘cultural tourism’: the conference held in April of 1999 in

Uzbekistan discussed how the enormous demand for cultural tourism could be very positive for

the preservation of cultural heritage. In 2001 the WTO published “Cultural heritage and tourism

development” and, in February of 2006, a conference was held in Jakarta about cultural tourism

and local communities.

The new-found interest in Culture shown by the tourist industry and the apparent situation of

theoretical stagnancy and thematic repetition shown by anthropologists would lead to a

lessening of the discipline’s rigidity and, finally, to contact between scientists and those

engaged in planning and executing tourism interventions, and this is what characterises

moment B. This collaboration, necessary in a service economy, is visible in the spectacular

proliferation of projects, the presence of techno-tropism in policy-making and experts that,

through a process aimed at drawing attention to ‘cultural resources’, seek to diversify available

‘tourism products’, to segment the market appropriately and to differentiate destinations,

distinguishing them from one another based on their particularities.

So, under a very particular techno-political definition of sustainability, which had already turned

Nature into Environment, this moment B witnesses the selection of certain cultural elements for

mutation into manageable resources. This leads to the existence of cultural heritage as a

“metacultural product” (García García, 1998). This is cultural heritage that when publicly

displayed obviates, or perhaps forgets, the historical circumstances that produced it (Abram,

1996) and which reduces the emancipatory interest that Habermas believed was the purpose of

all knowledge, to a technical interest in the management and control of resources. It is cultural

heritage that, turning to Eduardo Galeano, has gone from belonging to “those who have not art

but artisanry” to being an object of conspicuous consumption during leisure time, and an area

for the exchange of economic capital among experts.

This way of valorising heritage, as the insatiable demands of induced tourism become more and

more exclusive, breaks with the continuity of the production of cultural meaning and blurs the

edges of the idea of heritage, which perhaps was once discrete. When the term heritage is used

in tourism contexts, it can refer to any element whatsoever, no matter how strange, that serves

the local interests. Furthermore, these local interests, taking into account the process of

“conversion of place through the meaningful mediation of tourism space”, are increasingly

difficult to distinguish from the tourism industry’s own specific interests. The most clarifying

16

example of the broad use being made of Heritage (also capitalised) in tourism contexts are the

names of the innumerable routes that, far from any connection with the memory of the place

and recurring only to the evocative power or descriptive capacity of the chosen words, are

shaping the new tourism territories: in Spain, for example, there is now “the route of the sun and

the avocado”, “the route of Gothic-Mudejar style”, and “the route of Washington Irving”, to name

just a few (Nogués, 2012).

Techno-tropism has a direct effect on this anthropology that looks mainly at the business

aspects or, at least, those aspects that are most applicable to the tourism industry according to

its particular version of sustainability (Hughes in Tribe, 2006: 367). This does not exactly

facilitate the critical (not necessarily negative) thinking that characterises the discipline, since it

forgets too many socio-political realities and gives preferential treatment to certain histories;

this, in turn, helps to preserve the current state of affairs. If this line of sustainability is to be

maintained with regard to culture and its valorisation for purposes of tourism, we will have to

acknowledge what García Calvo, with his usual lucidity, said about why the pyramids of Egypt

need for us to go see them: “To be real, and to really stay real, you have to move capital, my

friends: money is the reality of all realities; and things that have not managed to become money

in one way or another can start considering themselves alive and mysterious. They have

missed the chance to really realise themselves and will be condemned to non-existence”

(2005:29-30).

Moment C: the evidence of trans-.

Many authors have looked closely at this mode of managing the historic process that we call

‘globalisation’ and they all coincide in certain essential aspects: that the new communication

technologies are compressing the coordinates of time and space, that the internationalisation of

production and of exchanges are separating the Economy from Society (both capitalised) and

are putting the role of the State in a secondary position, and that the increase of socioeconomic

inequalities and the ‘democratization’ of transports are bringing about large population

movements. The convergence of the new uses of space and time, the disappearance of society

as a system that carries meaning, and the permeability of geopolitical borders, give rise to an

inevitable interculturality that demands a radical change in the way the social sciences attempt

to comprehend, among other things, this complex of activities and practices that, I repeat once

again, for reasons of convenience, we reduce to a single term ‘tourism’.

The decomposition of the categories traditionally used to analyse social life make it necessary

to move from a social language to a cultural language in which we can find the source that will

make our surroundings scientifically intelligible to us. In today’s context of de-socialisation and

of political vacuum, it becomes necessary to shift to a paradigm in which ‘the’ cultural prevails,

as argued by Touraine (2005), for the appearance of a subject who is conscious of himself, who

17

affirms himself by fighting against that which alienates him or which prevents his own

construction, and for the constitution upon a cultural base of communities that speak up to

demand their rights. The conjunction of these two processes make it likely that in tourism

contexts new individuals will appear (immigrants who are looking for work in the tourism sector,

entrepreneurs who are looking for new territories in which to open a business, or residents who

are looking for a quality place in which to retire, among others) who gradually create new social

groups that end up blurring the ones we know (temporary workers, residents, neighbours,

tourists, summer holidaymakers, visitors) (Nogués, 2012).

In this regard, it was perhaps the book edited by Boissevain (1996) that showed

ethnographically for the first time that the use of concepts such as ‘hosts’ or ‘guests’ reduced

the socio-cultural multiplicity and the range of interactions that unfold in tourism settings.

Especially now, when many of these so-called ‘receiving societies’ are also ‘tourist-generating

societies’, the tourism-related activities are so thoroughly consolidated that tourists do not just

have an ‘impact’; their seasonal presence actually forms an integral part of these societies.

Puijk (1996) in Norway and Abram (1996) in France emphasise this aspect when they describe

the interactions between tourists in Henningsvær and the fishermen who go there to work

during cod season, or when they describe how, in the department of Cantal, the descendents of

emigrants who visit to tour the area are not called tourists by the locals. Or the Costa Blanca,

where at the beginning European immigrants were viewed as tourists and not neighbours, and

whose prolonged presence has a direct influence on the social, cultural, economic and political

transformation of the villages in which they reside (Aledo, 2005; Giner, 2007). In fact, the study

of the continuum formed by European immigrants and tourists in the Mediterranean is yet

another expression of the transnational movements that characterise modernity (Urry, 2000:26-

32).

At the ethnographic level, this radical swerve in the validity of discrete thinking affects the

observation and organisation of field work. In the process that goes from the market square –

around which the city grew–, to the huge superstores on the outskirts of town, passing through

the supermarket and the larger hypermarket, the gathering places and consumption patterns of

wealthy countries have been updated. Starting with a large distributor of consumer goods (e.g.,

Carrefour) that acts as a driving force, large shopping centres are built and filled with the most

popular clothing manufacture and distribution groups (e.g. Inditex: Zara, Pull&Bear, Massimo

Dutti, Oysho), franchises from the casual food sector (e.g. Pans&Company in Spain), large film

distributors and exhibitors (Filmax) and cell phone providers, along with other businesses and

restaurants that have a certain ‘local’ flavour.

The proliferation in cities of this commercial formula, true cathedrals for the socialisation of

recreation and consumption, along with the economic reactivation of some cities’ historic

18

centres –sometimes resignified as Open Shopping Centres–, and advertising’s tendency to

present normal actions as ‘leisure activities’ (going for a walk, going shopping, going on outings,

riding a bike, etc.), make it difficult to clearly identify and distinguish between tourist practices

and recreational practices. While recurring to concepts such as ‘recreation’, ‘leisure’ or ‘free

time’, which in anthropology are viewed as both ethnocentric and vague, perpetuates the central

theoretical role of certain academic disciplines in the new areas of study (leisure, tourism,

consumption, population movement,…), their perspectives can enrich the study of topics that

are more anthropological. For example, the current identification of bank holidays (the days on

which a significant event or person is commemorated) as a time for rest has worn away much of

the original ecological-cultural meaning of the holiday, yet it has also updated that meaning,

making it a marker of the new economic-cultural rhythms that find expression in weekends, long

weekends and vacation periods (Nogués, 2009).

In addition, the diversification of consumption that is taking place in tourism settings, in the form

of different ethnic restaurants and shops selling various forms of artisanry, has the effect of

localising the global and in a certain way it serves to counter a hyper-industrial society tending

towards gregarious conducts and generalised loss of individual consciousness (Stiegler, 2004).

This diversification, whether motivated by the resurgence of tradition, by the desire to save a

culture, or simply as a sales strategy, has repercussions on the relations between tourism

practices, the more material and concrete versions of culture, and studies of this subject from

the vantage point of the social sciences. The connection that becomes evident, for example, in

the use that is made in tourism settings of culture, heritage, gastronomy and artisanry, is so

close that some authors have trouble establishing a clear boundary between tourism and

culture (Rojek and Urry, 1997:3; Richards, 2001). This is yet another example of how the study

of tourism, as a set of sociohistorical practices that produces material and immaterial spaces

(Chadefaud, 1987), cannot be reduced to the analysis of specific econometric parameters, and

it underscores the need to study the generation of tourism space as a carrier of meaning, in

terms of production and interpretation.

This shift from the phenomenological to the cultural characterises moment C, and it is prompting

many authors, from a variety of perspectives and each emphasising different aspects, to be

more concerned with the study of culture in tourism contexts than with the study of the set of

practices we call tourism.

Conclusions

Today’s global reality means that the problems currently faced in scientific research are, almost

by default, transdisciplinary in nature (Hëllstrom in Coles et al., 2005:1) and thus require new

metaphors that allow a dialogic- and continuum-oriented vision of happenings and processes. In

these pages I have outlined the three epistemological moments, consecutive in origin but now

19

simultaneous, that have marked the relationship between anthropology and the study of

tourism. The sequence of moments traces the shift, in theoretical terms, towards the continuum,

and in terms of contents, towards ‘the’ cultural, understood as the set of practices that give

meaning to and take on meaning in group life.

The phenomenological orientation of the study of tourism's impacts, a characteristic of moment

A, prevented critical approaches from uncovering the mechanisms by which a certain mode of

development resulted in extensive exploitation of territories and of the cultures that inhabited

them. This situation led to moment B, during which, out of the necessity created by the very

order of words and things, a union was formed between some scientists and some promoters of

tourist activity. This union led to an increase in the number of studies about the uses of cultural

heritage and sustainable development through tourism. However, transnational mobility has

weakened the categories used for framing reality and, as a result, it has also weakened

analytical categories. This makes it difficult, in moment C, to continue thinking about the

phenomenon of tourism, at least as it is understood in rich countries, as we have done while

using functional models. Only through a renewal of our ideas can the social scientific study of

tourism escape from its theoretical and ethnographic autism.

Thanks to anthropology’s holistic and comparative perspective, its treatment of socio-cultural

processes, and its consideration of the diverse forms of intentional consciousness that intervene

in the intercultural relations found in tourism contexts, this field of study can be helpful in

understanding this opposition existing between the sensible and the intelligible. This is one way

to answer, albeit anecdotically, the question posed by Pearce thirty-two years ago about why

there is no necessary correspondence between the difficulty researchers experience when

trying to define a term such as tourist, and the clarity of that image in everyday usage (1982:33).

Because the adjectives so glibly used by the tourism industry itself, although they tend to ratify

the disappearance of the phenomenon, cannot be allowed to become the masks that conceal

from researchers the elements making up this complex set of practices and activities that, for

the sake of textual convenience, we agree to call ‘tourism’.

References

• Abram, Simone: Reactions to tourism. A view from the deep green heart of France. In

Jeremy Boissevain (Hg.): Coping with tourists. European reactions to mass tourism

(Berhahn Books). Oxford 1996, S. 174-203. [Spanish edition: Lidiar con turistas

(Edicions Bellaterra). Barcelona 2011, S. 223-257]

• Aguirre Baztán, Ángel: El turismo como restauración psíquica. In: Anthropologica NF4

(1988a), S. 15-28.

• Aguirre Baztán, Ángel: Turismo, in: Diccionario temático de antropología, 1988b, S.

676.

20

• Aledo, Antonio: Los otros inmigrantes. Residentes europeos en el sudeste español. In

Modesto García-Jiménez / José Férnández-Rufete (Hgg.): Movimientos migratorios

contemporáneos (Universidad Católica de Murcia). Murcia 2005, S. 161-180

• Ateljevic, Irena / C. Harris / E. Wilson und F. Collins: Getting entangled: the art of

reflexivity in the ‘new’ tourism research. In: Tourism recreation research, NF30/3 (2005)

S. pp. 9-21.

• Augé, Marc : L’impossible voyage. Le tourisme et ses images (Éd. Payot et Rivages).

Paris 1997. [Spanish translation: El viaje imposible. El turismo y sus imágenes. (Gedisa

Editorial). Barcelona 1998]

• Berger, Peter / Luckmann, Thomas: La construcción de la realidad (Amorrortu editores).

Buenos Aires, 1991 [1966].

• Boissevain, Jeremy (Hg.): Coping with tourists. European reactions to mass tourism

(Berghahn Books). Oxford 1996. [Spanish edition: Lidiar con turistas (Edicions

Bellaterra). Barcelona 2011]

• Boorstin, Daniel: The image: a guide to pseudoevents in America (Atheneum). Nueva

York 1972.

• Britton, Stephen: The political economy of tourism in the Third World. In: Annals of

Tourism Research NF9/3 (1982), S. 331-358.

• Burns, Peter: An introduction to tourism & anthropology (Routledge). London 1999.

• Canestrini, Ducio: Non sparate sul turista (Bollati Boringhieri). Torino 2004. [Spanish

edition: No disparen al turista (Edicions Bellaterra) Barcelona, 2009]

• Chadefaud, Michel: Aux origines du tourisme dans les pays de l'Adour. Du mythe a

l'espace: un essai de géographie historique (Département de géographie et

d'aménagement de l’Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, et Centre de recherche

sur l’impact socio-spatial de l’aménegament U.A. 911 – C.N.R.S). Pau 1987.

• Coles, Tim / David T. Duval / C. Michael Hall: Sobre el turismo y la movilidad en

tiempos de movimiento y conjetura posdisciplinar. In: Política y sociedad NF42/1

(2005), S. 85-99.

• Comisión Europea: La cultura, un recurso para las regiones (Oficina de Publicaciones

Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas). Luxemburg, 1998.

• Costa-Pau, Manuel: Turistes, sirenes i gent del pais (Ariel) Barcelona 1966.

• Crick, Malcolm: Representations of international tourism in the social sciences: sun,

sex, sights, savings, and servility. In: Annual Review of Anthropology NF 18 (1989), S.

307-44.

• de Kadt, Emanuel: Tourism. Passport to Development? Perspectives on the social and

cultural effects of tourism in developing countries (World Bank, Unesco und Oxford

University Press) Oxford 1979. [Spanish edition: Turismo. ¿Pasaporte al desarrollo?

(Endymion) Madrid 1992].

21

• Doxey, George: A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and

research inferences. In: The impact of tourism. Proceedings of the Travel Research

Association (6th Annual Conference) 1975, S. 195-198.

• Duim, René van: Exploring pro-poor tourism research: the state of the art. In: Henk de

Haan / René van der Duim (Hgg.): Landscape, Leisure and Tourism; Socio-spatial

Studies in Experiences, Practices and Policies (Eburon Academic Publishers) Delft

2008, S. 179-196.

• Estivill, Jordi: Lloret de Mar. Destruccions i resistencies d’un poble en mans del turisme.

In: Papers. Revista de Sociología NF10 (1979), S. 175-201.

• García Calvo, Agustín: ¿Qué falta les hará a las pirámides de Egipto que vaya yo a

verlas? In: Archipiélago NF68 (2005), S. 29-31.

• García García, José Luis: De la cultura como patrimonio al patrimonio cultural. In:

Política y Sociedad NF27 (1998), S. 9-20.

• Gascón, Jordi: El turismo en la cooperación internacional (Icaria-Antrazyt). Barcelona

2009.

• Gaviria, Mario: España a go-gó. Turismo charter y neocolonialismo del espacio

(Ediciones Turner). Madrid 1974.

• Giddens, Anthony: The consequences of modernity (Stanford University Press).

Stanford 1990.

• Giner i Monfort, Jordi: El quotidià desconegut. Europeus a la Marina Alta. In: Revista

Valenciana d’Etnologia NF2 (2007), S. 59-72.

• Greenwood, Davydd: Culture by the pound. An anthropological perspective on tourism

as cultural commoditization. In: Valene Smith (Hg.): Hosts and guests: the anthropology

of tourism (Basil Blackwell). Oxford 1978, S. 129-138. [Spanish edition: Anfitriones e

invitados. Antropología del turismo (Endymion). Madrid 1992, S. 257-279]

• Hoffman, Steve: The new tools of the science trade: contested knowledge production

and the conceptual vocabularies of academic capitalism. In: Social

Anthropology/Antropologie Sociale NF19 (2011), S. 439–462.

• Jafari, Jafar: Función y estructura del turismo: algunos aspectos antropológicos sobre

el turista y su mundo. In: Anthropologica NF4 (1988), S. 31-49.

• Jiménez Núñez, Alfredo (Hg.): Primera reunión de antropólogos españoles

(Universidad de Sevilla). Sevilla 1975.

• Jurdao Arrones, Francisco: España en venta. Compra de suelos por extranjeros y

colonización de campesinos en la Costa del Sol (Ayuso). Madrid 1979.

• Lallier, Christian : Chambre d'hôtes dans le Sahel. Film produced by Gédéon

Programmes, ARTE France, 2001.

• Lagunas, David (Hg.): Antropología y turismo. Claves culturales y disciplinares (Plaza y

Valdés). México D.F. 2007.

22

• Latiesa Rodríguez, Margarita / García Ferrando, Manuel / Álvarez Sousa, Antón (Hgg.):

Sociología del ocio y del turismo: tipos, planificación y desarrollo (Universidad de

Granada). Granada 2009.

• Lyotard, Jean-Françoise: La condición posmoderna: un informe sobre el conocimiento

(Cátedra). Madrid 1989 [1979].

• MacCannell, Dean: The tourist. A new theory of the leisure class (Schocken Books).

Nueva York 1976. [Spanish edition: El turista (Melusina). Barcelona 2003]

• MacCannell, Dean (1992) Empty Meeting Grounds. The Tourist Papers (Routledge).

London 1992. [Spanish edition: Lugares de encuentro vacíos (Melusina). Barcelona

2007]

• Mandly Robles, Antonio: Costa del Sol. Retrato de unos colonizados (Campo Abierto

Ediciones) Madrid 1977.

• Mandly Robles, Antonio: Estudios antropológico-social sobre aspectos relacionados

con el turismo en la provincia de Málaga: la comunidad tradicional andaluza en el reto

de la urbanización (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Tesis Doctoral 1983.

• Mathieson, Alister / Geoffrey Wall: Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts

(Longman) London & New York 1982.

• Mazón, Tomás: Sociología del turismo (Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces).

Madrid 2001.

• Meethan, Kevin: Mobile cultures? Hybridity, Tourism and Cultural Change. In: Tourism

and Cultural Change NF1/1 (2003), S. 11-28.

• Moragues Cortada, Damián: Turismo, cultura y desarrollo (Agencia Española de

Cooperación Internacional) Madrid 2007.

• Nash, Dennison: Tourism as a form of imperialism. In: Valene Smith (Hg.): Hosts and

guests: the anthropology of tourism (Basil Blackwell). Oxford 1978, S. 33-47. [Spanish

edition: Anfitriones e invitados. Antropología del turismo (Endymion). Madrid 1992, S.

69-91]

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel: Cambio socio-cultural en una comunidad tradicional:

el caso de Zahara de los Atunes – Cádiz. In: Anuario Etnológico de Andalucía 1991

(Junta de Andalucía) Sevilla 1992, S. 37-47.

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel: Antropología y turismo rural: una contingencia

necesaria. In: Gazeta de Antropología NF11 (1995), S. 66-70.

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel: Culture, deals and profitable meanings. In: Ullrich

Kockel (Hg.): Culture and economy: contemporary perspectives (Ashgate). Hampshire

2002, S. 147-163.

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel (Hg.): Cultura y turismo (Signatura Ediciones). Sevilla

2004.

23

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel: Ocio y tiempo festivo: del trabajo de sol a sol a la

imperiosa necesidad de vacaciones. In: Salvador Rodríguez Becerra / Clara Macías

Sánchez (Hgg.): El fin del campesinado: transformaciones culturales de la sociedad

rural andaluza en la segunda mitad del siglo XX (Fundación Centro de Estudios

Andaluces), Sevilla 2005, S. 195-218.

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel / Cristina Soler-García / Eva Caballero-Segarra

(2010): “Turismo y (cooperación al) desarrollo: qué papel desempeña la cultura en esta

relación”. In: I Congreso COODTUR - Red Internacional de Investigadores en Turismo,

Cooperación y Desarrollo (Universitat Rovira i Virgili), Tarragona 2010, S. 90.

• Nogués-Pedregal, Antonio Miguel (Hg.): Culture and society in tourism contexts

(Emerald Group Publishing Limited). Bingley 2012.

• Nuñez, Theron: Tourism, tradition and acculturation: weekendismo in a Mexican village.

In: Ethnology NF2/3 (1963), S. 347-352.

• Pearce, Philip: The social psychology of tourism behaviour (Pergamon Press). Oxford

1982.

• Pi-Sunyer, Oriol: Through native-eyes. Tourists and tourism in a catalan maritime

community. In: Valene Smith (Hg.): Hosts and guests: the anthropology of tourism

(Basil Blackwell). Oxford 1978, S. 149-155. [Spanish edition: Anfitriones e invitados.

Antropología del turismo (Endymion). Madrid 1992, S. 281-300]

• Puijk, Roel: Dealing with fish and tourists: A case study from northern Norway. In:

Boissevain, Jeremy (Hg.): Coping with tourists. European reactions to mass tourism

(Berhahn Books). Oxford 1996, S. 204-226. [Spanish edition: Lidiar con turistas

(Edicions Bellaterra). Barcelona 2011, S. 259-285]

• Richards, Greg (Hg.): Cultural attractions and Europan tourism (CABI Publishing)

Wallingford 2001.

• Rojek, Chris / John Urry (Hgg.): Touring cultures. Transformations of travel and theory

(Routledge) London 1997.

• Santana Talavera, Agustín: Transformaciones de una zona pesquera: el turismo en el

municipio de Mogán (Gran Canaria). In: Actas del IV Congreso Iberoamericano de

Antropología (Cabildo de Gran Canaria) Canarias 1987.

• Santana Talavera, Agustín: Turismo, empleo y dependencia económica. Los cambios

en las estrategias de las unidades domésticas en dos poblaciones pesqueras. In: Eres

(Antropología) NF 2/1 (1990), S. 25-38.

• Santana Talavera, Agustín: Antropología y turismo. ¿Nuevas hordas, viejas culturas?

(Ariel). Barcelona 1997.

• Santana Talavera, Agustín / Llorenç Prats Canals (Hgg.): El encuentro del turismo con

el patrimonio cultural: concepciones teóricas y modelos de aplicación (Fundación de El

Monte). Sevilla 2005.

24

• Smith, Valene (Hg.): Hosts and guests: the anthropology of tourism (Basil Blackwell).

Oxford 1978. [Spanish edition: Anfitriones e invitados. Antropología del turismo

(Endymion). Madrid 1992, S. 281-300]

• Soler-García, Cristina / Eva Caballero-Segarra / Antonio-Miguel Nogués-Pedregal:

Cultura, turismo y desarrollo, o cómo la cultura se diluye con el patrimonio en los

contextos de desarrollo. In: IV Congreso Internacional de Patrimonio Cultural y

Cooperación al Desarrollo (Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico). Sevilla 2010, S.

389-394.

• Stiegler, Bernard: El deseo asfixiado o cómo la industria cultural destruye al individuo.

In: Le Monde Diplomatique NF104 (2004), S. 24-25.

• Touraine, Alain: Un nuevo paradigma para comprender el mundo de hoy ( Paidós)

Barcelona 2005.

• Tribe, John: The indiscipline of tourism. In: Annals of Tourism Research NF24 (1997),

S. 638-657.

• Tribe, John: The Truth about Tourism. In: Annals of Tourism Research NF33 (2006), S.

360-381.

• Turner, Louis / John Ash: The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure

Periphery (Constable) London 1975. [Spanish edition: La horda dorada (Endymion)

Madrid 1991.

• Urry, John: Sociology beyond societies. Mobilities for the Twenty First Century

Routledge). London 2000.

• Wright, Susan / Annika Rabo: Introduction: anthropologies of university reform. In:

Social Anthropology/Antropologie Sociale NF18 (2010), S. 1-14.