RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY

OF TOURISM

Erik CotNm"
Department of Sociology & Soaal Anthro0ology
The Hebrew Un;vers;ty
Jerusalem, Israel
and Faculty of Sociology
Unwers;ty of BieHefeld. Weet Germany

ABSTRACT

Cohen, Erik, "Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism," Annals of

Tourism Research, Voi. VI, No. 1, January/March 1979, pp. 18-3S.
Two principal general approaches to tourism are criticized. It is argued
against the tendency to over generalize, to propose universal models and
to conceive of the dynamics of tourism as a unilinear process. Instead, a
multiplicity of types, different typologies and a multilinear approach to the
dynamics of tourism should be favored. It is further argued that
conceptual schemes should be further elaborated, illustrating the
argument by an elaboration of MacCannell's fundamental concepts. The
article emphasizes the need for some basic problems in tourism research
to be reformulated; it proposes a strategy for research which, while
preserving theoretical pluralism and eclecticism, will safeguard
continuity and the ability to generalize by developing a common research
style for the sociology of tourism. Keywordo: tourism theory, research
methodology.

"Dr Erlk Cohen Is Associate Professor at the Oet:artrnemt of Soc;ology and Social Anthropology, the
Hebrew Umvorslty of Jerusalem, Israel Preeently (1978-1979), he ts doing research and teaching at 1he
Unworslty of Blelefeld, We~l Germany Dr Cohen has done sociological and anthropologcal reeearch m Israel
(kibbutzim, new towns, ethmc groul~l), Peru (urban anttlropology), the Pacific islands (tourIsm). anti Thailand
(tourism m hill tribes roglon) HIS present research Interests are tourism, expatriates, strangers, and social
ecology Dr, ~ ~s Annals' Associate Editor for Sociology

18 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

RESUME

Cohen, Erik. "'Pour repcnser la sooologie du tourlsme,'" Annals of

Tourtsm Research, Vol. VI. no. l. 3anvier/mars 1979, pp. 18-35.
L'artlcle fait la critique de deux faqons principales d'aborder le tourisme:
celle de g6n6rahser et de proposer des modifies universelles et celle de
voir la dynamique du tourisme comme etant un processus uni-lin6aire. On
devralt plutbt favoriser une diversit6 de types, diff6rentes typologies, et
une perspective muiti-lin6aire. On propose enfin 1'61aboration des cadres
conceptuels, en s'appuyant sur une exphcation des concepts fondath'en-
taux de MacCannell. L'article msiste sur le besoin d'6noncer de nouveau
quelques-uns des probl~mes de base dans le tourisme. II sugg~re enfin une
strategie de recherche qui. tout en conservant un plurahsme et un
6clecticisme theoriques, gardera la contmmt6 et la capacit6 de g6n6rahser
en d6veloppant un style commun de recherche pour la sociologle du
tourlsme. Mots clef: th~orie de tounsme, m~thodologte de recherche

INTRODUCTION

Not so long ago a sociology of tourism did not really exist--the several scattered
writings of early, mostly European sociologists, notwithstanding (Dumazdier 1958;
Knebel 1960); cultural critics, rather than sociologists, dominated the scene -- and
their approach to the tourist, his motives, his attitudes and his behaviour in the host
environment was mostly humorously critical (e.g.. Boorstin 1964; Mifford 1959). The
tourist has been portrayed as a superficial nitwit, easy to please as well as to cheat.
Isolated in the environmental bubble of tourist hotels, restaurants and other touristic
establishments, he was seen as an easy-going superficial creature, with only a slight
contact with, and even a slighter understanding of. his surroundings. Writers such as
Boorstin (1964) contrasted this image of the tourist with the heroic image of the
traveler of old, and the "lost art of travel" was bemoaned. Only a few early writers,
such as Sutton (1967), approached tourism from a neutral perspective.
The image of the tourist, as it emerged from the cultural critics, informed to a
considerable degree the early attempts of sociologists, including this writer's, to
formulate a sociological approach to tourism (Cohen 1972). Most of the earlier
sociological writings on tourism have been permeated by a distinctly critical attitude.
Perhaps the most extreme example of this kind of writing is presented by Turner and
Ash's book (1975).
This critical view of the tourist has been complemented by a sharp criticism of the
allegedly debasing effects tourism has on the culture, society, and environment of the
hosts. Beginning with the pioneering article by Forster (1964) a great amount of
literature has demonstrated the wide variety of problematic consequences which
tourism has had for various societies, most of them undeveloped or at an early stage of
development, such as the Pacific Islands (Finney and Watson 1975) or the Caribbean
(Bryden 1973:Perez 1973/4). These works indicated that, generally speaking, tourism
actually has a less beneficial economic impact on the host societies than has been
claimed by tourist promoters and developers, while the detrimental social and cultural
effects of tourism on the hosts had been underrated. Hence, as the UNESCO Report
(1976) noted, while economists were generally positively oriented to tourism as a

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH. Jan/Mar 197b 19

 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

relatively painless, quick, and labor-intensive avenue to rapid development,

sociologists and anthropologists, concerned, or perhaps overconcerned, with the
preservation of native cultures and societies, have in the past generally taken a
negative attitude towards the industry.
Partly as a reaction to the earlier work of social critics and sociologists, there has
been in recent years a sharp reaction against the accepted view of the tourist. This
reaction has been initiated by an incisive paper by Dean MacCannell (1973) and
continued in his subsequent book (1976). Graburn's (1977) paper, which views tourism
as " a sacred journey," argues similar lines. According to these novel approaches the
image of the tourist prevalent in the sociological literature, has been unwittingly
influenced by the image of the tourist which prevails in the society at large and is
expressed by such works as Boorstin's. MacCannell, in particular, claims that by
accepting the prevalent view of the tourist, the sociologist has confused the data of his
observation with his instruments of analysis, whereby an understanding of the deeper
cultural significance of tourism has been precluded. MacCannell opposes this
derogatory view of the tourist. His incisive analysis presents researchers with an
important and most original new approach to tourism: rather than the superficial nitwit
as popularly represented, the tourist is a pilgrim of the modern age. His journey is a
pilgrimage to the central symbols of human culture, the attractions, which in turn
represent Society, in a Durkheimian sense. The tourist's journey, henc.e, is nothing but
a payment of "ritual respect for society" (MacCannell 1973:589). The startling
conclusion of MacCannelrs analysis is that tourism is a modern functional substitute
for religion. For MacCannell, the modern tourist is not out for superficial enjoyment:
rather he seeks "authenticity," a motive which makes his quest essentially a religious
one. The fact that he rarely, if at all, achieves the experience of authenticity, results
not from the quality of the quest, but is rather due to the manipulations on part of the
tourist establishment to which he is subject. In touristically developed areas, the
tourist is caught in a covert, but all-embracing "tourist space." constructed by the
tourist establishment, in which authenticity is staged for the earnest but unsuspecting
seeker. His high motives are, hence, ultimately doomed to frustration. His
predicament resembles, in its futility, that of the existentialist heroes of Sartre's "'No
Exit."
MacCarmelrs analysis has certainly removed some of the obstacles to the
development of a more sophisticated sociology of tourism. Nevertheless.
MacCannell's work suffers weaknesses similar to those of his antagonists, in particular
the tendency to present a highly idealized global view of "the tourist." Without
denying the value of MacCannell's analysis one can not, therefore, subscribe to it
without reservation.
In the opinion of this writer, it is time to rethink some of the fundamental
approaches and positions in the sociology of tourism. By no means is this intended to
deny the value of earlier sociological or anthropological analyses of tourism or to claim
that their findings and conclusions were wrong. Nevertheless, it appears that
simplistic and global views of the tourist and of the impact of tourism on the host
societies prevents one from developing a more sophisticated approach to tourism, from
gaining a clearer understanding of the place of tourism in contemporary life, or from
ascertaining its possible role in advancing the less developed countries.
In the following, an attempt is made to clarify and define several of the critical

20 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

issues emerging from the recent work in the sociology of tourism. This attempt will
make use of some of the insights which this writer gained during his recent fieldwork
on tourism among the hill tribes of Northern Thailand. A detailed account of this study
appears elsewhere (Cohen 1979a and forthcoming). However. some of the more
general findings are highly relevant to the ongoing critical discussion.
This attempt at "rethinking" the sociology of tourism will relate principally to
four major topics:
1. the need to draw distinctions where in the past there were mainly generalities,
2. the need to further elaborate some of the promising concepts which recently
emerged in the field,
3. the need to reformulate some of the current problems in the field; and
4. the need to develop a research strategy for the sociology of tourism.

THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC

Two images have been prevalent in the sociology of tourism: an early one which
saw the tourist mainly as a superficial nitwit and a later one which sees in him the
contemporary pilgrim. Both suffer the same disadvantage: namely, they talk
about the tourist in general without taking into account the wide variety of touristic
phenomena reported in the literature (for summary discussions see Cohen
1972,1973,1974; Noronha 1977:4-9:Smith 1977:8-13). It should be noted that both
images of the tourist have, in the main, been derived from the American cultural
milieu. Boorstin's image is explicitly that of the American mass traveller, who at the
time of his writing dominated the international touristic scene. MacCannell's tourist is
implicity the " p o s t - m o d e r n " young American traveller, who was prevalent in the
turbulent times during which MacCannell conducted his rather unsystematic research.
It seems obvious by now that there is no point in search for "'the tourist." Rather,
there exist different types of tourists which are distinguishable by a wide variety of
characteristics. The problem is not, however, merely to establish a typology of
tourists; such typologies have been proposed by several writers, and Knox recently
even attempted to construct a "typology of tourist typologies" (Knox 1978:3). The
problem is rather to evolve a coherent way or ways to classify tourists so that the
classification is of both theoretical interest as well as empirical relevance. Since
tourism is evidently a multi-dimensional phenomenon, it would be senseless to search
for the typology of tourists as it is senseless to talk about the typical tourist. However,
this does not mean that for each empirical purpose at hand a special typology should
be constructed as has sometimes been the case (Noronha 1977:9). One of the most
fruitful theoretical approaches to the study of tourists is that emanating from Simmel's
and Schuetz's sociology of the stranger. In the analysis of the phenomenon of
strangeness and familiarity two main dimensions can be distinguished.

1. an interactional dimension, relating to the extent and manner in which the

stranger interacts with the host population,
2. a cognitive-normative dimension, referring to the manner in which the stranger
conceives of and relates to the host environment (Cohen, in preparation).

On each of these dimensions specific typologies of tourists can, and in fact have

ANNALS OF" TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 2]

 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

been, constructed. An example of an mteractional typology is the author's earlier

classification of tourists into four major types, according to the extent to which tourists
expose themselves to the strangeness of the host society or encapsulate themselves in
the environment bubble of the home society (Cohen 1972). Smith's typology
(1977:8-13) represents a similar but more elaborate attempt on the same interacttonal
lines.
An example of a typology based on the cognitive-normative dimension could be
this author's more recent attempt to construct a phenomenology of tourist experiences
(Cohen 1979b) in which an attempt is made to reconcile the intrinsically opposed
positions of Boors(in and MacCannell concerning the nature of contemporary, tourism.
Five modes of touristic experiences are distinguished: the recreational, the
diversionary, the experiential, the experimental, and the existential. The several
modes designate the meaning which the touristic experience has for the tourist within
the context of his general attitude towards his society and the surrounding world. The
baste quest(on here is where the "spiritual center" of the mdividual is located. Insofar
as he still identifies with the cultural center of his society and finds no meaning in the
surrounding cultures, he will tend towards recreational tourism. For a tourist of this
type, who comes close to the one described by Boorstin. the tour is nothing but
recreation, through which he recuperates from the strains and tensions of his daily life,
but possesses no deeper meaning. However, many moderns, as MacCannell has
rightly emphastzed, are alienated from their society in daily life. This does not,
however, mean that they automattcally become "ptlgrims," seeking authenticity in
"the centre out there." as Victor Turner (1972) called the pilgrim's goal. Instead.
different modes of touristic experiences of the alienated individual can be
dtstmguished.
The diversionary mode is one in which the individual neither possesses a spiritual
center at home nor seeks for one abroad. Rather, the trip is for him a pure diversion, a
mere escape from the boredom and meaninglessness of routine, everyday existence
into the forgetfulness of a vacation (i.e. a literally "vacant," namely empty, time). The
further modes represent progressive steps towards the identification of the tourist's
experience with the pilgrim's. The experiential mode comes closest to MacCannell's
conception of the tourist. The tourist, aware of the fact that he himself is precluded
from having authentic experiences, basks in the authenticity of the life of others. The
experimental mode represents one further step: The tourist experiments with vartous
unfamiliar, alternative ways of life in the search of a new spiritual center. Finally, the
existential mode is represented by the tourist who has actually acquired a new,
"'elective," spiritual center, towards which he feels the same adherence which the
traditional religious pilgrim felt for the major centers of his religion. The journey of the
existential tourist to his elective spiritual center, is homologous in meaning to the
traditional pilgrimage. The elective center becomes the new center of his cosmos.
MacCannell could obviously argue against this typology on the ground that it
merely describes the superficial "phenomenological" characteristics of the tourist's
experience. He could claim that what on the surface appears to be mere superficial
recreation in fact has a deeper structural significance. He would find support for this
argument in Leymore's (1975) pioneering study on the deep structure of modern
advertisement in which it has been claimed that apparently superficial, even vulgar,
symbols relate to deep underlying themes of human life. One may reply that it is
essential to keep the phenomenoiogical and the structural levels apart. Their confuston
has indeed led to MacCannell's overgeneralizatton. It is one thing to discover by

22 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

analysis that a superficial experience might have deeper structural significance; it is

quite another thing to claim that this deeper structural significance actually motivates
every tourist--or, in MacCannell's terms, that every tourist essentially seeks
authenticity. A problem of general sociological significance is thereby obscured: the
conditions under which deep structural themes penetrate, so to speak, to the surface
and acquire motivational significance. Rather than postulating that all tourists are
modern pilgrims despite what they say or feel. one should look for the general societal
condmons which generate tourism in the experiential, experimental, and especially,
extstential mode.
The two kinds of typologies of tourists, the interactional and the cognitive-norm-
ative, are clearly mutually related. It is not, however, a one-to-one relationship. In any
concrete empirical study, tourists can be characterized in terms of each of these
typologies; indeed the relationship between them could aid in understanding the
nature and the dynamics of a specific touristic situation.
One of the consequences of this generalizing trend in the sociology of tourism has
been the tendency to deal either explicitly or implicity with one type of tourist: the
conventionalized or "institutionalized" modern mass-tourist; with the exceptions of
youth or drifter tourism which has recently attracted some attention (Cohen
1973:Mukerji 1978;Teas 1974;ten Have 1974;Vogt 1976), the many other kinds of
partial or full-fledged tourists (Cohen 1974) have hardly been discussed in the
literature. The specific processes and forms of institutionalization of tourist roles have
not been a focus of sociological attention. It appears, however, that contrary to the
general though implicit assumption, there is no single process of institutionalization at
work, which could give birth to a single, homogeneous, world-wide system of tourist
institutions. Rather, different types of tourist roles may become institutionalized in
different ways and are served by different systems of tourist institutions; the
phenomenon of mass-drifting (Cohen 1973) is a c l e a r example of such "parallel
institutionalization." Moreover, the nature of tourist institutions serving the same
type of tourist may differ considerably, depending on the wider institutional structure
of the host society. K e m p e r ' s comparative study reported in this issue of Annals
clearly demonstrates this point for conventional mass tourism, while ten Have' s (1974)
paper represents a detailed case study of the tourist-oriented institutions emerging in
response to mass-drifter tourism as a consequence of an " e n l i g h t e n e d " and tolerant
policy of the authorities in contemporary Amsterdam. But one needs more detailed
comparative studies to encompass the whole range of forms of institutionalization of
tourist roles and emergence of corresponding touristic institutions.
The tendency of sociologists towards generality is also reflected in their effort to
evolve a general model for the development of tourism in a destination area and for the
concomitant change in tourist-host relationships. Thus, Noronha (1977:17), in an
analysis of the literature, finds "... that tourism develops in three stages:
i discovery
ii local response and initiative, and
iii institutionahzed (institutionalizatton)."
True enough, Noronha points out that "... ff should be noted that there is no
historical inevitability in the stages Outlined above: no destination area must pass
through the three stages, or pass through them in the order mentioned, although the
great majority of tourist destination areas have done so" (1977:23-24). However, not

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 23

 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

only is one hard put to imagine how an area could pass the stage of "discovery," for
example, after that of "institutionalization;" it is also obvious that Noronha proposes
a general model of unilinear evolution. Though he admits that exceptions may occur,
these do not suggest alternative general models. It is this assumption of unilinearity
which to this author seems problematic: insofar as a researcher encounters a system
which does not develop in the expected direction, he tends to consider it an exception.
Thus, Noronha, for example, notices that "..when developing nations have adopted
tourism as a strategy of economic development there are often instances when tourism
development commences at stage III, or by-passes stage II" (1977:24).
This author has a general predilection against unilinear models of social change
and a preference for multilinear ones (cf., Cohen 1976). Rather than search for the
model of transformation of tourist destination areas, one should try to discover differ-
ent types of basic dynamics. One important variable differentiating such types is the
manner in which tourism has been introduced into the area: the tourist system can
grow organically from within the area, or can be induced from the outside (Cohen
1972:180). Systems which have grown organically, tend to develop in the direction
proposed by Noronha. Systems which have been induced from the outside probably
manifest different dynamics: it is the initial stage in which the tourist facilities are
most comprehensively institutionalized. In this stage a wide gap still separates the
tourists from their unaccustomed hosts. The tourist facilities are managed by outsiders
with the locals having very little or no say in tourist affairs. This is particularly the case
in areas where a wide social, cultural and economic gap separates the hosts from the
tourists. Some South Pacific islands (e.g. Guam, Tonga or Tahiti) and some islands in
the Carribean can be used as the most blantant examples of the initial stages of
induced tourism. There are indication that an induced tourist system undergoes a
dynamics which is in some respects the opposite from the one characteristic of
organically growing systems: it becomes at least partly "de.institutionalized."
Whereas in organically growing systems, the center of control of the tourist industry
moves away from the host area towards ever farther and farther removed centres
(Forster 1964:Greenwood 1972), an induced tourist system reveals the reverse
tendency. As the local population and the government of the host country become
increasingly aware of the economic, social and political importance of tourism, they
attempt to take over the control of the industry or at least to play a more active part in
it, as was the case, for example, in Fiji. Moreover, as the local population becomes
more familiar with tourism and its opportunities, new initiatives start to spring up
around the tourist establishments. Hence, a situation develops whichin areas of
organic growth of tourist systems characterizes an early phase of touristic development.
Human relationships may undergo a similarly reversed process. At the early stage of
induced tourism, there is often a stark socio-culturai gap between tourists and the
hosts:hosts, being unprepared for the onslaught of large numbers of foreigners, are
unable to perform any but the most manual jobs in the tourist system. The lack of
knowledge of foreign languages and lack of familiarity with the tourists' customs, as
well as the general shyness characteristic of long-insulated populations, precludes any
meaningful social exchange between the tourists and the hosts. This too may change
with time. As more members of the native population become involved with the tourist
system and perform more active roles in it, and as some of them acquire some skills in
the foreign language and learn how to deal with foreigners, more personal contacts
may develop. All this, however, is yet a hypothesis. Only systematic research on the

24 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

differential dynamics of various tourist systems will show whether it is an adequate

one.

The sociological study of the dynamics of the tourist-host encounter has also
proceeded on general, unilinear lines. Thus, for example, Doxey (1976) proposes a
four-stage model for the development of the hosts' attitude to the tourist, ranging from
" e u p h o r i a " to " a n t a g o n i s m . "
The question here, as in the preceding discussion, is whether a generalized model
for the dynamics of host-tourist relationships should be proposed, or whether here too
one has to deal with different kinds of dynamics, which depend upon such factors as
how tourism has been introduced into the region (organic vs. induced growth), the
attitude of locals to outsiders prior to the introduction of tourism, etc. If tourism has
been induced from the outside, and if locals are initially xenophobic, a euphoric
attitude at the first stage can hardly be expected. Thus, among the hill tribes of
Northern Thailand, touring companies, originating in the city. often impose their
guests upon remote villagers. Though they might be remunerated for their efforts and
thus profit from the enterprise, the villagers are still often reluctant to provide
hospitality, particularly if, as among the Pwo Karen, religion teaches them to beware
of strangers. Suspicion rather than euphoria tends to characterize this stage. However,
as they get used to strangers, their initial suspicion might gradually turn into a more
benevolent attitude. At the other extreme, studies of communities with a long history
of tourism have shown that the process of attitudinal change does not necessarily end
with antagonism but might turn into one of indifference: in such places, as
MacCannell (1976:106) points out, "The local people...have long discounted the
presence of tourists and go about their business as usual .... treating tourists as part of
the regional scenery." Pi-Sunyer (1977:155) also found in the Catalan community he
studied that locals showed indifference or, at most, dislike towards tourists but only
rarely hated them. LaFlamme, in this issue of Annals reports a similar finding.
On the basis of the few detailed studies of host attitudes towards tourists, it
appears that there is no universal model which could do justice to their differential
dynamics under varying conditions. A careful comparative study of the host-tourist
relationships should lead to the formulation of several models of such dynamics.
The last, but perhaps the most important area of sociology of tourism in which
general models have been evolved, is that of the impact of tourism upon the host
society. This is a complex subject, yet, due to space limitation, only a brief discussion
is given here. Two contrasting models have been proposed in this field: (a) a
development model, according to which tourism breeds socio-economic change and
development, and (b) a dependency model, according to which tourism leads merely to
economic growth but leaves the underdeveloped social structure of the destination
area more or less untouched or even reenforces previously existing social
discrepancies (Perez 1973/4; Wirth 1976). Contrary to the state of affairs in most of the
previously discussed areas, a considerable body of information has already been
accumulated on the concrete consequences of tourism under varying conditions. The
controversy between the protagonists of the various models is essentially ideological
and hence has been only little influenced by the results of empirical research. The two
models do not really seem to be alternative general descriptions but rather polar points
of a continuum: in each concrete situation, it should in principle be possible to
establish whether tourism furthered development or dependency. A neutralization of

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 25

 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGYOF TOURISM

the controversy, complemented by a more systematic coupling of theory and empirical

research in this field could arrive at a most important result: the specification of the
economic, social and cultural conditions under which tourism generates development
and of those which instead lead to mere dependency. Some of the conditions which
make tourism an instrument of development can already be spelled out: in particular
the need for a slow pace of touristic growth, the need for local participation, the need
for the concomitant development of other branches of the economy, etc. These.
however, are only the most obvious conditions, touching directly upon the process of
introduction of tourism. Less known to researchers are the deeper structural
conditions, characterizing the host society on the one hand and the forces behind
tourism on the other, which facilitate or block the realization of these conditions. It is
here that the anthropological study of tourism, particularly if cast in a comparative
framework, could be most valuable.
ELABORATION OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In the recent theoretical literature on the sociology of tourism, the rudiments of

several promising conceptual frameworks can be distinguished (cf. Cohen 1972, 1973,
and 1974; Graburn 1977; MacCannell 1973 and 1976; McKean 1977; Nash 1977; Smith
1977). The most incisive and promising attempt, in the opinion of this author, is that by
MacCannell which is based on the complementary concepts of " s t a g e d authenticity"
and "tourist space." But this conceptual framework should be much further elaborated
to facilitate its application to the empirical study of tourism in a wide variety of
concrete situations. The following short exercise in elaboration is intended to illustrate
its inherent possibilities. The distinctions and additions made here are largely derived
from an attempt to analyse the aforementioned data from Northern Thailand on the
lines proposed by MacCannell.
For MacCannell, the tourist establishment tends invariably to create
non-authentic tourist spaces for the benefit of the unsuspecting tourist who tends to
accept them unreflectively as "'real." Thereby " s t a g e d authenttcity" is invariably the
consequence of touristic development. However, not all kinds of empirically observed
touristic situations fit into MacCannell's scheme. It is necessary to distinguish, on the
basis of MacCannell's approach, between four types of touristic situations as
presented in table. 1.
Table 1
Types of Tourlstle Situations
Tourlst~s Impression of Scene
Real Staged
Real (I) Authentic (3) Denial of
Authenticity
(Staging
Suspicion)
Nature
of Scene
Staged (2) Staged (4) Contrived
Authenticity
(Covert (Oven
Tourist Space) Tourist Space)
26 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979
 ERIC COHEN

Distinctions between two dimensions of touristic situations can be made: one, the
nature of the scene which the tourist enters, and two, the tourist's impression of the
scene. On the first dimension, a distinction is made between real scenes (those which
have not been manipulated by the hosts or by the tourist establishment in order to
create a false impression) and staged scenes (those which have been so manipulated).
On the dimension of tourist impressions one may also distinguish between two kinds of
impressions: the impression that the situation entered is a real one and the impression
that it has been manipulated or staged by the hosts or the tourist establishment. In
MacCannell's analysis, it is precisely this second dimension which is missing;
MacCannell implicitly assumes that tourists always take the situation as necessarily
real or authentic.
The distinctions made here result in four types of touristic situations:

1. Authentic: This is a situation which is both "objectively real" as well as

accepted as such by the tourists. This situation is encountered outside "tourist
spaces," e.g. on off-the-beaten-track tours, taken by young, authenticity-seeking
tourists.
2. Staged authenticity: This is the situation described by MacCannell, in which the
tourist establishment stages the scene for the tourist, but the tourist is not aware
of the staging and therefore accepts it as real. The tourist establishment is
interested in presenting its contraptions as real and, therefore, makes efforts to
keep the tourist unaware of the staging. This author proposes to call this situation
one of "covert tourist space."

3. Denial of authenticity: Here the reverse from situation 2 occurs. The scene is
"objectively real." However, the tourist, who has learned from some dire
previous experience that apparently authentic situations have been purposely
manipulated to mislead the visitor, doubts its authenticity. He develops a
suspicion that he has been taken in, when in fact, this has not been the case.
Thus, for example, in Northern Thailand, some tribal villages which are frequently
visited by tourists are regarded by some young authenticity-seeking tourists as not
" r e a l . " They feel the village has been constructed for the benefit of the tourists,
with people dressed up as tribals, whereas in fact they are ordinary Thais.
The situation o f " denial of authenticity" is of particular theoretical interest, since
it represents the feedback effects of previous touristic learning on the tourists'
approach to new situations.
When Boorstin published his book (in 1964), the existence of what he called
"pseudo-events," the substitution of contrived events for real ones in American
popular culture, had not yet penetrated the consciousness of the broad masses of
American consumers. Hence, he could have assumed that the general travelling
public was not yet aware of the manipulations which tourist attractions undergo to
make them more attractive to the mass tourists. Since then, however, a general
process of touristic sophistication has taken place. Travelers have become
prograssively more aware of the manipulations to which the sights they are visiting
had been subjected. Once they realized that they have been "taken in" on one
occasion, they will tend to be more circumspicious on the following ones. Some
tourists, particularly the younger authenticity-seeking ones, may develop a general
tendency to disbelieve what they see or are told, even if this is "objectively
ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 27
 RETHINKING TIlE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

authentic." This attitude of "staging suspicion" is, in a sense, complementary to

MacCannell's "staged authenticity."
4. Contrived: This is a situation in which the scene is admittedly staged by the
hosts, or the tourist establishment, and the tourist is conscious of the staging. This
author proposes to call such a situation one of "overt tourist space." A good
example of such overt tourist space are model villages, such as villages which have
been especially established to show the tourist the traditional way of life of a people
which has either disappeared or been adulterated. Another example might be
staged performances of traditional dances or rituals, which are produced especially
for tourists, in settings and in times which are admittedly not the original ones.
The typology enables one not only to classify and compare different kinds of
touristic situations, but to outline typical processes of change of such situations.
MacCannell discusses mainly the process of transition from type (1) to type (2): the
staging of authenticity and the emergence of covert tourist space. This elaboration
enables one to conceptualize a complementary process of "touristic denouement"
(a transition from type 2 to type 4): the process through which the staged nature of a
touristic situation is uncovered or exposed by growingly sophisticated tourists, and
covert tourist space is, contrary to the intentions or wishes of the tourist
establishment, turned into overt tourist space.
This discussion illustrates how important concepts, proposed but not systematically
developed by sociologists of tourism, can be usefully elaborated. At the present
junction, more continuity in the sociological study of tourism, through further
elaboration and empirical testing of existing conceptual frameworks, would serve
the development of this field better than the constant proliferation of ever new
approaches.

REFORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS

MacCannell has rendered an important service to the sociology of tourism by

arguing that the image of the tourist emerging from sociological writings is nothing
but the prevalent popular view of the tourist in society which the sociologists have
unwittingly accepted as being "objectively" correct. In doing so they have turned part
of the problem to be examined into an instrument of their investigation. One must not
agree with the consequences which MacCannell draws from his insight in order to
appreciate its importance. In fact, a similar state of affairs has emerged in an adjoining
area. namely the study of the impact of tourism on the host society, culture and
environment. There exists a wide-spread popular viev~ that tourists are a major factor
of socio-cuitural and environmental change, who by their very presence and behaviour
as well as by the demands which they make upon the hosts, often effectuate a
wide-spread and primarily negative transformation of their destination. This view
prevails particularly in the areas from which tourists originate, where people are aware
of tourism, but not of other factors of change in popular destination areas: it is often
not shared by the people of the area itself, whose own attitudes to the consequences of
tourism are often left unexamined. The popular view, however, has a feed-back effect
upon the tourists themselves. Tourists, particularly the more sensitive ones, have
developed what could be called a "bad touristic conscience." They often feel guilty of
their own activity because they feel that they destory the very place which they came to
visit. This view of the impact of tourism has also long been naively accepted by

28 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

sociologists and anthropologists (UNESCO 1976). Indeed, only recently have they
begun to draw a distinction between the popular view of the tourists' impact, and the
actual consequences which tourism had for the host situation. As recent research has
shown (cf. McKean 1976). these consequences are neither necessarily as "negative."
nor as pervasive as the popular view would have them. Boissevian, in particular, has
recently drawn our attention to the fact that the tourists' impact on the host situation
has been exaggerated. He claims that, in the sociological literature, "...there is
generally a failure to distinguish the social and cultural consequences of tourism from
other developments taking place in the society concerned..." (Boissevain 1977); thus
changes which have in fact been caused by other factors are attributed to tourism. The
problem is particularly vexing since tourism often develops rapidly in those areas
which are also affected by other processes of change. It is therefore important for the
investigator to reformulate his problem and to distinguish two quite separate
questions.
First, the actual role of tourism in the process of change in the destination area
should be considered. Tourism is usually only one of a congeries of exogenous factors
which impinge upon an area. The task of the investigator is, in the first instance, to
deal with the difficult empirical problem of assigning relative weights to each of these
factors, including tourism, in effectuating specific changes in the destination area. But
an even more difficult and theoretically more engaging problem is to grasp the manner
in which these various exogenous factors, tourism included, interact with one another in
producing change in the local situation. In particular, one should examine whether the
effects of tourism are reinforced by the presence of other factors of change or are
ameliorated by these factors and conversely, whether tourism reinforces or
ameliorates the impact of other factors. There is also the problem of compatibility
between the factors themselves. Does tourism facilitate or contravene the activity of
other factors, and is the development of tourism reinforced or blocked by the presence
of the other factors? Tourism is admittedly, as Forster (1964) already pointed out, a
"process." but not an isolated one. It should, hence, be studied within the broader
context of the processes of change in the destination area. Such an approach is
particularly appropriate in situations where tourism has recently penetrated into newly
developing regions in conjunction with a variety of other forces of "modernization."
Second, concerning the impact of tourism, the subjective evaluations of the
different parties involved should be considered. This includes the tourists themselves
as well as different groups in the population. One should clearly distinguish the impact
which is determined through a sociological analysis from the ideas people have about
the impact. One should also keep apart the distinctive evaluation of the various parties
concerned, such as the tourists, the touristic entrepreneurs, various groups in the host
population as well as that of the researcher himself.
Though the researcher's evaluation may be based on an "objective" sociological
analysis, his, like everyone else's is necessarily based on values, priorities and
attitudes. The question is w h o s e are those values, priorities, and attitudes? Are they
those of his profession or those of his society, of the tourists or of the hosts? This
question is particularly pertinent since, though sociologists might claim to be speaking
in the interest of the host population; as Boissevain (1977:535-6) has recently pointed
out, a discrepancy very often exists between their evaluations of the impact of tourism
and that of the population. Hence, not only should the evalution of the hosts be
presented separately from that of the researcher, but the causes of the discrepancy
ANNALS OF' TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 ~-9
 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

should be investigated as well. In the first instance, it should be asked whether the
discrepancy is due to a difference in the respective perception of facts or merely to a
difference in the values, priorities and attitudes according to which the commonly
accepted facts are evaluated. Such an approach may be of practical relevance. If it
turns out that the discrepancy is due to a differential factual analysis, the hosts may be
made aware of what the researcher considers his more correct analysis and asked to
reconsider their evaluation. A similar procedure could in principle be followed with the
other parties in the situation: tourists, entrepreneurs, planners, etc. This procedure
will enable one to pinpoint the source of the "conflicts of tourism." i.e., whether the
discrepancies in evaluation are primarily due to and depend on differences in the
perception of facts, which once straightened resolve the discrepancies, or whether
they are due to a difference in values. In the first instance, the practitioner is
confronted with a mere problem of communication; in the second, however, he faces a
"political" conflict.
People's percepnons and evaluations not only follow interaction; they also shape
it. How people perceive a situation and their role in it will hence influence their
behaviour. The sociological and even anthropological literature on tourism has not
fully considered this point. Too much was imputed to the participants in the touristic
process, tourists, entrepreneurs, and hosts alike; but their preceptions, evaluation and
the bearing of these on their behaviour were too little investigated.
There is an ever more widely felt need among students of tourism (Noronha
1977:9-10; Pi-Sunyer 1974 and 1977; S[nith 1974), that problems should not be stated
exclusively in etic, but also, and in some instances predominantly, in emic terms (from
the point of view of the participants in the touristic situation). The point of departure
for any emic analysis should obviously be the emic definition of the " t o u r i s t . " which as
Noronha (1977:19) pointed out. has not been taken account of in sociological
definitions and typoiogies of the concept. In fact. as yet little is known about the
manner in which tourists are emically defined, a problem of much interest in areas of
recent tourist penetration, such as the hill tribe area of Northern Thailand or some
outlying Pacific islands.
On this author's experience in Northern Thailand. the way people conceive of the
visiting strangers whom we call " t o u r i s t s " is vital for the understanding of thetr
attitudes towards them. The same point emerges from Leach's (1973) discussion of
tourism among the Trobrian islanders. Lacking a term for " t o u r i s t " in their language,
they simply called them soldiers (in Pidgin English), the outsider role which the
newcomers most closely approximated. The consequences of such an ethno-classifi-
cation are obvious. This kind of emic analysis was carried one step further by
Pi-Sunyer (1977), who descirbed the changes which the natives' image of the tourist
historically underwent, and which, in turn, is closely related to their attitude towards
tourists. As yet, there is no full ethnographic account of tourism, no study which
renders the process and the manner by which tourists become incorporated in the
cosmology of a people and the changes which the arrival of tourism brought in that
cosmology.
TOWARDS A RESEARCH STRATEGY
A careful reading of the recent spate of literature on tourism leaves one with an
uneasy feeling of a certain dualism. On the one hand, there is a large number of
specific empirical case studies whose full theoretical implications are often not fully
spelled out. On the other hand, there is a body of theoretical writings whose empirical
basis is often meager. Further efforts should be directed in the first instance to fill up
30 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979
 ERIC COHEN

this gap between abstract theory and empirical research.

The methodological problem in the field of tourism is similar to that encountered
in other fields of applied sociology. Strictly speaking, there exists no "sociology of
tourism," in the sense of a separate field of sociological theorizing, just as there exists
no "sociology of sport" (Ball 1975:39). Instead what goes under this rubric is an
apphcation of general sociologtcal theories to the special field of tourism. If there is a
unity to the field, it does not derive from the existence of a general theory of tourism,
but rather from a set of common empirtcai characteristics marking off touristic from
other types of social phenomena. The boundaries, however, between tourism and
adjoining fields are by no means crisp: rather, there exists a wide range of transitional
phenomena (Cohen, 1974).
The complexity and heterogeneity of the field of tourism suggests that there is no
point in searching for the theoretical approach to the study of tourism, just as there is
no point m searching for the conceptualizatton of the tourtst. Rather, a pluralistic
and even eclectic research strategy is advocated. The many different em-
ptrical problems can only be tackled by utilizing a wide range of concepts and research
instruments derived from a variety of sociological and anthropological "schools" and
theories. Moreover, like in other fields of applied sociology, the most fruitful work in
the sociology of tourism will be accomplished by a skillful blending of different
approaches for the elucidation of specific problems.
An advocacy of theoretical pluralism and electicism, however, does not
necessarily mean that the study of tourism should proceed in a purely a d hoc manner.
On the contrary, the very manifoldness of. possibilities makes it necessary, and even
imperative, to strive consciously for continuity in empirical research and for
generalization of theoretical insights gained from single studies. How are continuity
and generalization to be achieved under conditions of theoretical pluralism and
manifoldness of empirical problems? This should be achieved primarily through the
development of a research style, which, despite all the variety of approach and subject
matter, deals with the problems in a similar m a n n e r . T h e principal attributes of the
desirable style emerge from the preceding discussion. Research in the sociology of
tourism should be processual, contextual, comparative and emic:
1. P r o c e s s u a l Tourism is a complex process or perhaps congeries of specific
processes. There are philo-genetic processes of touristic penetration, development and
decline in a given area, and orth-genetic processes involving the generation and
execution of individual touristic trips. Though the processual nature of tourism is
generally granted, longitudinal (diachronic vs. synchronic) studies are few (e.g. Cohen
forthcoming; Forster 1964; Greenwood 1972; Packer 1973; Pi-Sunyer 1973; and Nash
in this issue). It is understandable that not every study can be longitudinal. But even
static (synchronic) studies can and should take a processual perspective by clearly
recognizing that the snap-shot picture they render is only that of a stage in a
continuous process and can be analyzed and understood only within the context of that
process.
2. Contextual: Tourism is a process which takes place in a wide-ranging
geographical, ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political context. One of the
most serious drawbacks of specific studies in the field of tourism has been that this
context is only rarely fully specified. The sine qua non of any continuity or
generalization in the study of tourism, however, is a full specification o f the

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 31

 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

circumstances under which the process takes place. The importance of such a
specification also emerges clearly from the preceding discussion of the clo~e
inter-relationship between processes of touristic penetration and other processes of
social change. The principal question which sociologists of tourism would have to
answer in the future is, which of the multitude of contextual circumstances in which a
kind tourism is embedded is of primary importance for its analysis. Attention may be
paid, among other things, to the characteristics of the tourists themselves, of the
touristic institutions, of the general institutional framework of the destination area (as
e.g. analysed in K e m p e r ' s contribution to this issue of Annals,) or to the deeper social
and cultural characteristics of the host society analyzed.
3. Comparative: The current writing on the sociology of tourism suffers from a lack
of an explicit comparative perspective. Highly interesting analyses of specific touristic
situations can rarely be used for a more general analysis because they have not been
set in a comparative framework. Research projects within which several touristic
situations are compared are admittedly rare (Packer 1973; Peck and Lepie 1977;
Pi-Sunyer 1977; Reiter 1973 and Kemper in this issue). However, even if the research
design involves only one particular case, it is still implicitly part of the comparative
study - that of similar projects conducted by other researchers. Research on tourism
could be considerably advanced if researchers would take explicit cognizance of the
comparative context. There are several respects in which this could be done: in the
definition of the research problem; in the selection of the research site; in the
definition of the variables; and in the description of the general characteristics of the
ecological and social setting in which research has been conducted. Regard to the
comparative context on part of researchers conducting case studies would greatly
advance secondary comparative analysis.
4. Emic: It emerges from the preceding discussion that it is not sufficient to study
the touristic process from the outside; one has to recognize that the emic perspective
not only forms, in Pi-Sunyer's (1974) term, a " s e p a r a t e reality," but is also of
consequence for the external manifestations of touristic processes. The emic
perspective of the different parties participating in the touristic process should hence
be given explicit recognition in the research design.
The strategy of research proposed here aims at cutting a middle way between a
presumptuous attempt to create a monolithic (generalizing) "theory of tourism"
and the piece-meal, ad hoc investigation of discrete empirical problems. While
recognizing that tourism is not a theoretical subfield of sociology, and that many and
diverse theoretical approaches can be applied to its investigation, one should
nevertheless aim at establishing a common style of investigation through which that
continuity in research and generalization of findings will be facilitated. This should
result eventually in closing the gap between theoretical treatises and empirical case
studies, a discrepancy which marks the current state of affairs in the sociology of
tourism. [] []
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ball, D.W.
1975 A Note on Method in the Sociological Study of Sport. In Sport and Social
order. D.W. Ball and J.W. Loy, eds. pp. 39-SI. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison
Wesley.

32 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC COHEN

Boissenvain, J.
1977 Tourism and Development in Malta. Development and Change 8:523-538.
Boorstin, D.
1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in American Society. New York:
Harper.
Bryden, J.
1973 Tourism and Development: A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, E.
1972 Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39(I):164-182.
1973 Nomads from Affluence: Notes on the Phenomenon of Drifter Tourism. Inter-
national Journal of Comparative Sociology 14(1-2):89-103.
1974 Who Is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review 22(4):527-
555.
1976 Environmental Orientations: A Multi-dimensional Approach to Social Ecology.
Current Anthropology 17:49-70.
1979a The Impact of Tourism on the Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand.
lnternationales Asienforum. 10.
1979b A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13:179-201.
Forthcoming, Hill Tribe Tourism. In Highlanders of Thailand. W. Bhruksasri and
3. McKinnon, eds.
In preparation. Strangeness and Familiarity.
Doxey, G.V.
1976 A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants: Metholody and Research
Inferences. In The Impact of Tourism, pp. 195-208. Salt Lake City: The Travel
Research Association.
Dumazdier, J.
1958 Vers une sociologie du tourisme. Repertoir des Voyages, 11.
Finney, B.R., K.A. Watson, eds.
1975 A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East.West Center.
Forster, J.
1964 The Sociological Consequences of Tourism. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology 5:217-227.
Graburn, N.H.H.
1977 Tourism: The Sacred Journey, In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of
Tourism. Valene Smith, ed. Pp. 17-31. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Prgss.
Greenwood, D. J.
1972 Tourism as an Agent of Change: a Spanish Basque Case. Ethnology 11:80-91.
Kneblal. H.J.
1960 Soziologische Strukturwandlungen im modernen Tourismus. Stuttgart: Enke
Verlag.
Knox. J.M.
1978 Resident-Visitor Interaction: A Review of the Literature and General Policy
Alternatives. Paper at PEACESAT Conference, "The Impact in the Pacific."
ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH. Jan/Mar 1979 33
 RETHINKING THE SOCIOLOGY OF TOURISM

Alternatives. Paper at PEACESAT Conference, "The Impact of Tourism in the

Pacific."
Leach, J.W.
1973 Making the Best of Tourism: The Trobriand Case. In Priorities in Melanesian
Development. R.J. May, ed. Pp. 357-361. Port Moresby: Research School of
Pacific Studies, Umversity of Papua-New Guinea.
Leymore, V.L.
1975 Hidden Myth. New York: Basic Books.
MacCannell, Dean
1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.
American Journal of Sociology 79(3):589-603.
1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.
McKean, Ph. F.
1976 Tourism, Culture Change, and Culture Conservation in Bali. In Changing
Identities in Modern Southeast Asia. D.J. Banks, ed. Pp. 237-248. The Hague:
Mouton.
1977 Towards a Theoretical Analysis of Tourism: Economic Dualism and Cultural
Involution in Bali. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith
ed. Pp. 93-107. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mifford, N.
1959 The Tourist. Encounter 13(4):3-7.
Mukerji, Ch.
1978 Bullshitting: Road Lore among Hitchhikers. Social Problems 25(3):241-252.
Nash, D.
1977 Tourism as a Form of lmperalism. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of
Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 33-47. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Noronha, R.
1977 Social and Cultural Dimensions of Tourism: A Review of the Literature in
English. New York: World Bank. Draft Copy.
Packer, L.V.
1973 Tourism in the Small Community: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Development
Change. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Peck, J.G. and A.S. Lepie
1977 Tourism and Development in Three North Carolina Coastal Towns. In Hosts
and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed. Pp. 159-172.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Perez, L.A.
1973/4 Aspects of Underdevelopment: Tourism in the West Indies. Science and
Society 37:473-480.
Pi-Sunyer, O.
1973 Tourism and Its Discontents: The Impact of a New Industry on a Catalan
Community. Studies in European Society 1:1-20.
1974 Tourist Images: A Separate Reality. Paper, Annual Meeting of the American
Anthropological Association.

34 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979

 ERIC C O H E N

1977 Through Native Eyes: Tourists and Tourism in a Catalan Maritime

Community. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith, ed.
Pp. 149-155. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Reiter, R.R.
1973 The Politics of Tourism in Two Southern French Communes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Smith, V.L.
1974 Eskimo Perceptions of Tourists in Four Alaskan Communities. Paper, Annual
Meeting of the American Anthropological Association.
1977 Introduction. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. V. Smith,
ed. Pp. 1-14. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
1977 (ed) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press
Sutton, W.A.
1967 Travel and Understanding: Notes on the Social Structure of Touring. Inter-
national Journal of Comparative Sociology 8(2):218-223.
Teas, J.
1974 I Study Monkeys - What Do You Do? Youthful Travelers in Nepal. Paper,
Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association.
ten Have, P.
1974 The Counter Culture on the Move: a Field Study of Youth Tourists in
Amsterdam. Mens en Maatschappij 49:297-315.
Turner, L. and J. Ash
1975 The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery.
London: Constable.
Turner. V.
1972 The Center Out There: Pilgrim's Goal. History of Religions 12(3):191-230.
UNESCO
1976 The Effects of Tourism on Socio-Cultural Values. Annals of Tourism Research
4(2):74-105.
Vogt, J.W.
1975 Wandering: Youth and Travel Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research
4(1):25-41.
Wirth, A.J.
1976 Massentourismus und abh~ngige Entwicklung; Kritik der herrschenden
Theoreme zum Tourismus in der Dritten Welt. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Marburg.

ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Jan/Mar 1979 35