‘Responsible’ tourism seems to have become a favoured term amongst the advocates of ethical tourism. I first came across it when interviewing a tourism officer from the WWF around ten years ago. It has also been adopted by many including eco-entrepreneur and academic Harold Goodwin – he even runs a Masters degree in ‘Responsible Tourism’ (note the emergence of such advocacy based programmes in the Universities in recent years).
Eco, green, community, responsible …. why all the prefixes? For 90% of tourists (written off as ‘mass’ tourists by the self-proclaimed guardians of ethical holiday making) these terms will not feature prominently in their vocabulary. Are they unaware, in need of enlightenment?
There is a circular character to the tourism debate - one ‘alternative’ tourism is promoted as good, ethical and new. Then, with a mixture of irony and cynicism, someone points out that it’s really just more of the same or, worse, complicit in spreading the net of modernity ever wider. Then a new term pops up to subtly address the shortcomings of the previous. So ecotourism for some is passé or ‘egotourism’, and needs a second prefix such as ‘community’, or to be replaced by ‘responsible tourism’.
The fixation with prefixes ( ‘prefixation’ ?) arises from an impulse to turn leisure activities into personalised moral identities. Personal behaviour has become subject to a critical and intolerant gaze on the part of more than a few writing on this subject. This problematisation of the personal, focusing on consumption and behaviour, has largely replaced politics.
For the responsible tourism lobby it has been decided a priori that ‘small is beautiful’, local beats national and mass package tourism is only for those lacking individuality and awareness of their deleterious impact on the planet. Real political choices on development (including the possibilities for transformative economic development) are written out in the moralistic language of responsibility. Before the question is even asked, certain things are deemed ‘responsible’, and, by implication, certain others irresponsible.
That is hardly in the spirit of open ended intellectual enquiry. Neither is it particularly responsible.
Eco, green, community, responsible …. why all the prefixes? For 90% of tourists (written off as ‘mass’ tourists by the self-proclaimed guardians of ethical holiday making) these terms will not feature prominently in their vocabulary. Are they unaware, in need of enlightenment?
There is a circular character to the tourism debate - one ‘alternative’ tourism is promoted as good, ethical and new. Then, with a mixture of irony and cynicism, someone points out that it’s really just more of the same or, worse, complicit in spreading the net of modernity ever wider. Then a new term pops up to subtly address the shortcomings of the previous. So ecotourism for some is passé or ‘egotourism’, and needs a second prefix such as ‘community’, or to be replaced by ‘responsible tourism’.
The fixation with prefixes ( ‘prefixation’ ?) arises from an impulse to turn leisure activities into personalised moral identities. Personal behaviour has become subject to a critical and intolerant gaze on the part of more than a few writing on this subject. This problematisation of the personal, focusing on consumption and behaviour, has largely replaced politics.
For the responsible tourism lobby it has been decided a priori that ‘small is beautiful’, local beats national and mass package tourism is only for those lacking individuality and awareness of their deleterious impact on the planet. Real political choices on development (including the possibilities for transformative economic development) are written out in the moralistic language of responsibility. Before the question is even asked, certain things are deemed ‘responsible’, and, by implication, certain others irresponsible.
That is hardly in the spirit of open ended intellectual enquiry. Neither is it particularly responsible.
