Gatrell, Collins-Kreiner

Negotiated space: Tourists, pilgrims, and the Baha'i terraced gardens in Haifa
Geoforum 37 (2006)
Alderman, 2002
Alderman, D.H., 2002. Writing on the Graceland Wall: on the importance
of authorship in Pilgrimage Landscapes. Tourism Recreation Research
27 (2), 27–33.
Barber, 1993, p. 1
Barber, R., 1993. Pilgrimages. The Boydell Press, London.
Cohen, E., 1979. A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13
(2), 179–201.
Cohen, E., 1992. Pilgrimage Centers: Concentric and Excentric. Annals of
Tourism Research 19 (1), 33–50.
Cohen, E., 1998. Tourism and religion: a comparative perspective. PaciWc
Tourism Review 2, 1–10.
Collins-Kreiner, 2002
Collins-Kreiner, N., 2002. Is there a Connection between Pilgrimage and
Tourism? The Jewish Religion. International Journal of Tourism
Sciences 2 (2), 1–18.
Graburn, 1989
Graburn, N., 1989. In: Smith, V.L. (Ed.), Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology
of Tourism. University Of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford.
(Ooi et al., 2004;
Ooi, C., Kristensen, T., Pedersen, Z., 2004. Re-imag(in)ing place: from
Czechoslovakia to the Czech Republic and the Slovakia. Tourism 52,
151–163.
Petric and Mrnjavac, 2003
Petric, L., Mrnjavac, Z., 2003. Tourism destinations as a locally embedded
system. Tourism 51, 403–415.
Seaton (1999, 2002)
Seaton, A.V., 1999. War and Than-tourism: Waterloo 1815–1914. Annals
of Tourism Research 26 (1), 130–158.
Seaton, A.V., 2002. Tourism’s Final Frontiers? Visits to cemeteries,
churchyards and funerary Sites as Sacred and Secular Pilgrimage.
Tourism Recreation Research 27 (2), 27–33.
Smith, 1992;
Smith, V.L., 1992. Introduction: the quest in guest. Annals of Tourism
Research 19 (1), 1–17.
Urry, 2001
Urry, J., 2001. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary
Society, second ed. Sage, London.

765-778

765
abstract:
“This paper explores the inherent contradiction and conceptual conXict that arises when sacred sites are
marketed as secular for the purpose of promoting tourism. The question of conflict is further frustrated within
the context of Israel’s contested religious landscape and Israeli policy. Using a Lefebvrian framework, the
historical development of the Bahai Gardens in Haifa, Israel, the tourism board’s promotion of the site as
Haifa’s primary tourist designation, and the distinct spatial practices that have been used by both
constituencies are investigated. Further, the authors posit that the Bahai Gardens are multi-dimensional
spaces characterized by two diVerent socio-spatial processes and practices that co-exist—the tourist’s and
the pilgrim’s. These practices transform the holy site into a secular shared community asset. The paper
concludes with a discussion of the socio-spatial implications of the case and its broader implications
concerning the globalization of tourism and the eYcacy of developing “layered” Lefebvrian triad to try and
avoid conflict.
765
“In this paper, we investigate the case of Haifa’s Bahá’í Gardens and World Center to understand
place-specific practices that enable the tourist and pilgrim to negotiate a shared space, preserve
the religious integrity of the site, avoid religious conflict, and promote local tourism.”

this is also important for my approach because it may enable me to see what some of the
information needs are for the different users as well as to see what kind of models have already
been successfully developed that deliver or present religious/sacred sites in a way that everyone
can benefit and where there is little to no conflict taking place at the site itself.

If the sites can be presented physically in such a way, then perhaps information may be able to be
designed to serve these groups in a way that is modeled after this specific site or in a way that
takes advantage of specific structures that site offers to the users.

766
“The pilgrim and tourist are distinct actors in an increasingly recognized tourist industry niche
known as religious
travel (Collins-Kreiner, 2002). Pilgrimage is one of the wellknown phenomena in religion and
culture and it exists in all the main religions of the world. Historically, pilgrimage has been deWned
as “a journey resulting from religious causes, externally to a holy site, and internally for spiritual
purposes and internal understanding” (Barber, 1993, p. 1). Given this deWnition, it is evident that
pilgrimage is a distinct mode of tourism. To better understand the perceptions and expectations
associated with tourism, Cohen (1979) posits that no “general type” of tourist exists and that Wve
modes of tourism co-exist (see Table 1).”

“While the pilgrim and tourist have been constructed as either a “religious traveler” or
“vacationer”, respectively
(Smith, 1992; Cohen, 1992), they are often linked to one another in a shared space—in this case
the Bahai Garden. Despite diVerences in the perception and experiences of the tourist and pilgrim,
religious tourism emphasizes the interdependent nature of the two actors and the social
construction of a site as simultaneously sacred and secular (Poria et al., 2004).”

767—this is a very important quote, and I think that it helps to critically define some of the very
essence of what I will be working with
“Differentiating between pilgrims and tourists is an important conceptual feat when trying to
unlock the
socio-spatial dynamics of tourism and pilgrimage landscapes. That is, attempting to differentiate
between the two experiences and perceptions of the landscape in the same location is essential as
each group’s place experience is unique and determines their performances and practices. In
terms of the “landscape”, pilgrimage landscapes are the result of the interrelationships between
people and place as no place is intrinsically sacred (Alderman, 2002). Consequently, pilgrimages
and their attendant landscapes are socially constructed spaces that undergo what Seaton (1999,
2002) calls sacralization—a sequential process by which tourism attractions are marked as
meaningful, quasi-religious shrines. For this reason, a conceptual and practical tension between
the pilgrim and tourists exists within all “visitor”-centered landscapes as boundaries between
tourism and pilgrimage have blurred (see Graburn, 1989). The tension subtly alters the lens—or
Urry’s (2001) notion of the “gaze”—though which each constituency views and experiences a
shared material and symbolic landscape. In this sense, the tourist’s gaze and pilgrim’s gaze are
unifed at a single location—yet how each views the site (or sight) varies greatly (Urry, 2001). In
this study, we consider how these two disparate constituencies of
travelers negotiate a shared space and have developed distinct spatial practices to preserve the
integrity of each
set of activities.”

so at least two different groups are viewing the same space and seeing it in very
different ways. Their perspectives are formed and informed, at least, by different
cultural and religious expectations and these are supported and framed by an array of
texts. Thus, these two different sets of users will have vastly different information
expectations and demands of the space, and they will likely want different kinds of
depth to the text which are provided.

767
“To understand the spatial dynamics of religious tourism in Haifa and how conXict is avoided or
mitigated, we
propose using Lefebvre’s trialectic or triad (Lefebvre, 1991) (see Fig. 1). The triad is composed of
three sociospatial parameters—representations of space (space or conceived geographies),
representational spaces (place or lived geographies), and spatial practice (policies, activities,
rules, and structures) (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre’s work is especially useful as we believe it
recognizes the equality of space, place, and practice.”

I am not sure about this; it seems to be moving away from what I am interested in. However, I
think it is important to include it here just in case I need it for later.

“the Lefebvrian framework is unique as it enables geographers to escape the simple binaries of
space-place by asserting that spatial practices and discourses have the capacity to create
compartmentalized experiences that transcend the lived and planned and from which new
meanings and places are derived (McCann, 2002).”

770
tours given by non-Bahai
no Bahai community present locally
they buy up real estate, but they do not establish themselves on the political scene

so this is a clear, self-disciplined and self-limiting approach by the specific religious community. A
key question is, can or will all such religious organizations limit or discipline themselves? It is
unlikely, because of the monotheistic nature. The Baha'i are also very interested in non-conflict, so
that provides even more motivation for their decisions there. And it is interesting that they
specifically decide to limit their actual physical presence in the area.

771
“As Table 2 demonstrates, the experiences of the pilgrim and tourist are unique. Moreover, the
timing of the upper and lower garden visitor access points, scheduled tours, and pilgrim events are
structured to avoid interaction between the groups. According to a knowledgeable Haifa resident,
tours are not given Wednesdays until after noon in order allow all of the internal gates to be
opened so that pilgrims may ascend and descend the stairs. With respect to tourist activities,
tourist activities have been parsed into three separate activities—the Upper and Lower tours and
public viewing areas. As a result of the diVerent activities, movements, and scripts, it is evident
that the garden space is a negotiated one that is deWned by and through the practices and
performances of two specifc groups—pilgrim and tourist. For each, the meaning—as holy site or
secular garden—differs. The separation of the tourist and pilgrim experience at the Bahá’í Gardens
is unique as it has been
accompanied by a strategic deployment of a secular and religious discourse depending on the
audience.”

This could potentially provide a model for the information which is available as well—it could be
created specifically to suit the questions, interests, and concerns for the tourist, the pilgrim, and
the heritage visitor. Instead of attempting to generate information which will satisfy all three in
one shot, it is entirely possible to have different levels and kinds of information available digitically
to each group for that specific site.
Naturally this raises the question of regulation and information control, and what or how do you
manage multiple sects from arguing over theological divides in content when discussing the
specifics of a religious site, etc. That kind of information could potentially generate more conflicts
if people saw/ read information which they saw as heretical or problematic or offensive. So how do
you avoid presenting that kind of stuff and sparking off conflicts simply because group A read
information for group B and didn't think that information should be present? How do you deal with
monotheistic pricks?

772
“Fundamentally, the divergent spatial practices of the pilgrim and tourist are a function of their
perceptions and
how these perceptions have been shaped—or socially constructed—by the city tourism board and
the Bahá’í themselves to produce speciWc meanings. For the pilgrim, the meaning of the place is a
personal, spiritual, and religious one. Yet, the experiences and perceptions of both groups are very
similar insofar as the experience of the outsider at visitation sites—in essences the‘tourist
experience’ is similar (Turner and Turner, 1969, 1978; MacCannell, 1973; Cohen, 1979, 1992,
1998). Hence, modern ‘tourism’ echoes many themes of pilgrimage including the search for an
“authentic” experience (MacCannell, 1973). In this sense, the tourist is as a secular pilgrim on a
quest for a “meaningful experience” out of the ordinary and beyond the everyday experience.
Hence, the tourist and pilgrim share similar perceptions concerning the “spaces of
representation”—the
gardens as a planned development. Yet, these shared perceptions rapidly diverge as each group
engages in very specific, scripted, and bounded activities and negotiates the shared garden space.
The result is a multi-layer experience whereby the spatial practice, sense of place, and activity
space (i.e., scale & scope of spaces of representation) of the tourist and pilgrim are very different.”

774
“The explicit attempt to distance the tour and the tour guides from the religion and any personal
linkage to the gardens is an important one and mirrors the broader Bahá’í policy to avoid potential
conXict.”

secular visitors get a secular narrative & secular aesthetics

775
Baha'i have different kinds of access—to the whole space; they usually visit for 3 or 9 days

776
“To avoid conflict and promote dual use of the space, the Bahá’í have engineered a complex of
practices and performances in space and time that allow visitors to eVectively experience and
negotiate the sacred site. Likewise, the strategy preserves the sacred nature of the site for
pilgrims and enables the municipality to leverage the economic beneWts vis-à-vis tourism. In the
end though, Bahai Garden practices are an interesting response to the politics of religion in Israel
and the inherent de jure and de facto limitations placed on “outside” religions by the state and the
nationalist ethos of its residents. Moreover, the practices observed at the terraced gardens
demonstrate the ability of emerging (or established) minority communities to co-exist and develop
mutually beneWcial socio-spatial relationships within the context of the majority culture group.”

“Religious conflict and the resulting social conflict may be reduced or mitigated through bifurcated
spatial practices. While no doubt the case of the Bahá’í in Haifa is unique, the basic stratagems
developed by the World Center and its staV can be applied to a variety of socio-spatial contexts.
Beyond religious sites, the socio-spatial dynamics of potentially controversial secular or ethnic
sites may be altered using similar techniques. Insofar as the strategy developed in Haifa is
successful (particularly in the conflict laden Israel), a strategic deployment of Lefebvrian principles
holds real promise. In the end, the Haifa case demonstrates the importance of developing
placebased strategies to reduce (or prevent conflict) as well as promote the development and
expansion of infrastructures.”

I would have to agree that this is a fascinating approach to using a space and being
conscious/attentive to the multiple perspectives and constructions which users are bringing to the
site while remaining in integrity with the religious vision of the founders of the site.

777
“the Bahá’í have successfully navigated the contentious politics of religion through the strategic
social construction of the gardens as a pseudo-secular site. This secularization of this sacred site
has been
accomplished in part by the city of Haifa’s adoption of the gardens as a city icon and primary
vehicle for the regional tourism industry. Additionally, the official Bahá’í narrative concerning the
aesthetic—not sacred—nature of the gardens supports the city’s tourism narrative.

In practice conflict is avoided by separating the tourist and pilgrim experience. These events do
not occur in the
same time–space and the outsider knowledge of the Bahá’í pilgrim experience is strictly limited. As
the multi-dimensional Lefebvrian triad suggests, the experiences and perceptions of both the
pilgrim and tourist constituencies are united—but their divergent practices, movement, and
directionality shape their sense of the place, its meaning, and personal (even spiritual)
significance.”

It is also interesting that the experiences have been intentionally separated, that the two groups
do not mix.They have also been able to work with the local community so as to avoid conflict and
they bring money to the local community without trying to specifically dominate that space.

The Baha'i also are willing and encourage others to see their site in a way that differs from their
own view. This is a good thing, too.