The Tourist Gaze Theory by John Urry - Essay Example

The Tourist Gaze Theory by John Urry Introduction Over the years, the subject of tourism has been universal yet underrepresented in public discourse and the mere nature of tourism deprives it the merit of any serious discussion, particularly given the pervasiveness of other weightier issues today (Urry 2002, p.7); in other words, the familiarity of tourism inevitably diminishes its power making it appear unimportant. Nonetheless, the subject of tourism has recently started to be given attention in scholarly discourses, with a bunch of recent books examining the importance of tourism’s growing universality (Franklin and Crang 2001, p.6). One of these significant works, John Urry’s The Tourist Gaze, is a comprehensive thesis that approaches tourism as a framework for unearthing the broad social connections and links. This paper will endeavour to highlight the manner in which the tourist gaze thesis/theory has been critiqued by examining existing discourses on the subject of tourism and all other evidences of reactions on the subject matter of the tourist gaze theory. The tourist gaze theory revisited The central component of Urry’s theory is the perceived “tourist gaze”, that is, the alternative way of looking at the environment (Franklin and Crang 2001, p.8), which has aspects that prefigure the postmodern experience; in other words, Urry postulates that in order to gain insights into the tourist gaze, one must first understand the transition towards postmodernity. Whereas modernity is defined by rigid cultural differentiation both vertically and horizontally, postmodernity entails a decline in the barriers between cultures, partially due to the rapid growth of mass media (Fotsch, 2010). The theory contents that there is no single tourist gaze, because it varies by society, social group as well as by historical period (Urry 2002, p.1); this assertion underscores Urry’s point that tourist gazes are constructed through difference, that is, the gaze is constructed in relation to its opposite, the non-tourist kind of social experience. In that respect, the central idea in the tourist gaze theory is that the typical objects of the tourist gaze can yield invaluable information about the particular elements of society that they are contrasted with, thereby shedding light on what goes on in the normal society. This theory suggests that the process of identifying a tourist gaze entails examining the particular gaze alongside its otherness, especially because every gaze is unique to the fundamental class differences within the socio-economic strata. Overall, the tourist gaze originates from individual tourists’ view of the spectacular in the physical environment since individual perceptions help in shaping the reality that surrounds them (Sheller 2004, p.2); the desire to experience a different phenomenon that is different from the norm is what yields the touristic gaze. The tourist gaze thesis is significant in discourse, particularly because it proposes the use of deviance as a framework for interrogating the normal through exploration of the typical forms of tourism; thus, tourism is an important subject whose study can yield insights of normal routines that may remain invisible. Criticism of the thesis The content of the tourism gaze thesis has attracted mush criticism in the recent times with the growth of the tourism sector and the increased need to establish a general construct of tourism; the focus of criticism in the theory has been its focus on gazing rather than performing. Urry’s “tourist gaze theory” is an adaptation of Foucault’s theory of the Clinical gaze, and it makes a profound contribution to the knowledge of the tourist gaze; the theory that the tourist gaze is influenced by media is heavily supported by studies that have shown that tourists construct their gaze through the use of their cognitive senses. Critiques of the theory reach consensus that tourists seek for authentic experiences or at least that which is different from their usual lives or daily routine in their areas of work (Susanne & Thorn 2008, p.38). Nonetheless, Urry underscores the fact that purely authentic experiences are hard to come by nowadays due to the commoditization of the tourist experience through media (Fotsch, 2010). In other words, the present pervasiveness of media images in daily life has led the end of tourism as an authentic phenomenon thereby prompting the massive shifts in the tourism industry. The tourism industry has commoditized not only the environment, but also the entire tourist experience through the media by promoting the authentic otherness in the creation of stage-managed tourist attractions such as Disneyland in a culture of consumerism (Williams and Shaw 2004). Cohen supports Urry’s view that tourists today are not searching for authentic experiences parse, but merely the different; in that case, tourism leads to commoditization of specific areas in the local surroundings, thereby transforming ordinary cultural experiences into staged productions. In that respect, Cohen supports Urry’s theory that commoditization of cultural experiences is detrimental to authenticity in tourism gazes since tourists now are simply interested in that which presents a different experience from daily life (Cohen, E. 1988 p.372). The centrality of authenticity in the construct of tourist gazes has also been supported by studies that prove how staged cultural authenticity kills the genuine tourist search for authenticity finally. The tourist industry recreates the gazes that tourists expected to see beforehand by exploiting the power of vision to present a perception of ordinary culture as the otherness. Nonetheless, the theory has been criticized for being too passive to capture the full range of the tourist, particularly because the tourist gaze is built through multi-sensors or the sum of an individual’s senses and not just through the visual sense alone as assumed by Urry. In that case, the main criticism to the “tourist gaze theory” is that it is that the tourist gaze proposed by Urry is limited and does not offer a comprehensive range of tourist experiences. In other words, critiques of the theory content that Urry’s gaze metaphor does not permit the tourist to explore all the vast experiences that they can partake of when touring destinations. This contrary view of the tourist gaze theory insists that Urry’s metaphor of the tourist gaze should simply be regarded as the metaphorical tactic of the tourist performance; as the metaphor of a tourist’s performance, the approach will focus on the actual physical activity engaged in by a tourist in examining the tourist experience. Other critics have held that the theory is inadequate, particularly because the tourist experience is experienced through the actual body itself rather than through the visual sense as suggested by Urry. Rakic´ and Chambers, 2012 (p.1913) argue that the tourists connect with their physical surroundings by engaging themselves in the tourist experience itself thereby encountering the tourist experience with their whole bodies. Furthermore, to prove that the theory was limiting in the establishment of a general construct of tourism, these counter-criticisms have argued that other senses such as taste and touch equally have a profound impact on the tourist experience yet the tourist gaze theory was only reliant on the visual sense. Urry has also been criticized for applying the term “tourist gaze” loosely or arbitrarily, thereby yielding further confusion in the conceptualization of tourism since he contradicts himself in his construct; for instance, while Urry remains highly critical of the attempts to universalize the tourist gaze, his construct is singular, which implies a universalization of the tourist gaze. This is just one of the many examples of inconsistencies in the theory, which suggests the numerous contractions inherent in the construct; nevertheless, the claim to authenticity as the source of a pure touristic experience is yet another attempt to universalize the tourist gaze. The implication of this criticism is that Urry’s construct comes off as too diffuse and generally haphazard in nature since the arguments put forth are not unified in the end and too many ends are left unresolved or half developed. The theory has been criticized for proposing that authenticity has lost meaning in the postmodern tourism due to the diminished difference between the ordinary and the extra-ordinary; critics are concerned about how the postmodern tourist enjoys the multiplicity of tourist games if they no longer distinguish work and leisure. According to these criticisms, if the tourist finds everything a spectacular then it would implies that the difference implied by Urry between everyday experiences and the spectacle collapses inevitably, thereby raising concerns about the clarity of the construct. In addition to that, other critics have argued that the tourist gaze thesis was too simplistic and naïve in specifying the tourist experience since tourists are considered to be active and reflective beings and a visual perception alone is not sufficient to offer them the deeper connection they need. This criticism underscores tourists’ need for a much deeper connection that goes beyond the mere visual experience prescribed by the tourist gaze theory; in other words, tourists need to connect with the entire physical environment through the rest of their senses. In that case, the tourist must immerse their whole bodies into the tourist spectacle or experience to gain a comprehensive perception of the vast touristic experience through all their bodily sensations. In this respect, tourism can be understood as a commoditized pleasurable experience that is perceived through all the senses thereby creating a much more powerful touristic experience that goes beyond the mere visual perspective of the tourist gaze. The senses of a tourist combine to create a powerful tourist adventure that tourists will both expect and connect with through their senses, thereby visualizing the otherness within the ordinary culture of the local community. The tourist gaze theory suggests that the varying social classes determine the multiple gazes of tourists, thus, the individual visual tourist gaze of each tourist is heavily influenced by their position in the socio-economic strata. According to Urry, the tourist gaze captures the tourist experiences and represents what the tourists expect to find on their travels (Fotsch, 2010); in other words, the theory suggests that tourist’s expectations influence the tourist gaze. A performance approach to conceptualizing tourism is considered better than the metaphor of a tourist gaze because it allows for the establishment of concrete understandings of the shifts in the global tourism market. Critics of Urry’s thesis content that the tourism experience is always shifting and tourists are seeking different authentic experiences, and still, different tourists often experience the tourist experience in different ways since they utilize all their various senses to experience the differences in their environment. For instance, whereas some tourists may simply be passive observers of an event, others may actively participate in the experience thereby incorporating all their senses; this implies that the tourist experience encompasses not only the visual sense, but also the physical, cognitive, and intellectual sensations. Conclusion The tourist gaze thesis has received much praise and criticism in equal measure, particularly given the reawakened interest in the establishment of a body of literature that is dedicated to the subject of tourism after years of neglect due to what has been termed as the subject’s lack of merit of serious scholarly scrutiny. The theory proposes a way of conceptualizing the touristic experience as that which is opposite of the norm, or the otherness of experienced reality, thus, underscoring the essence of authenticity in tourism. However, the concept presupposes that the ease of accessibility of spectacles in everyday life due to the effect of a vibrant and ubiquitous media has killed the component of authenticity in the touristic experience. The postmodern tourist, aware that there is no such thing as a purely authentic tourist experience, does not seek the authentic anymore, but merely looks for what is different from the norm in the culture of the local community. This has given rise to the commoditization of specific areas in the local surroundings, thereby transforming ordinary cultural experiences into staged productions. In that respect, commoditization of cultural experiences is detrimental to authenticity in tourism gazes since tourists now are simply interested in that which presents a different experience from daily life. Generally, the theory has been criticized for its perceived simplistic, diffuse, and contradictory assumptions that further limit its application in defining the vast touristic experiences. The theory is considered insufficient or limiting because it cannot define the vastness of the touristic experiences adequately while only relying on the visual perception yet tourists explore their environments with all their senses by connecting with their environment through performance. References Cohen, E. (1988) ‘Authenticity and commoditization in tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (3) 371-86. Rakic´, T. and Chambers, D. (2012). Rethinking the consumption of places. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 1612–1633. Franklin A., and Crang M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist studies 1(1) 5–22 [1468-7984]. Susanne, R., & Thorn, A. (2008). Authenticity in Tourism. Available at: http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/14387690/Master_s_Thesis_Sofie_Thorn__Susanne_Rous.pdf Sheller, M. (2004). Returning the Tourist Gaze: Caribbean Gender and Racial Encounters. Available at: http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/67/1/Returning%20the%20Tourist%20Gaze%20Caribbean%20Gender%20and%20Racial%20Perspectives.PDF Urry, J. (2002). The Tourist Gaze, Second Edition, London: Sage. Fotsch, P.M. (2010). Confronting the Tourist Vision. Available at: http://www.politicsandculture.org/2010/08/10/confronting-the-tourist-vision-2/ Williams, A. M. and G. Shaw (2004). Tourism and Tourism Spaces, London: Sage. Read More