An academic journal - the Journal of Sustainable Tourism - published piece claiming to be an analysis of an online discussion (on TRINET, an email list for academics interested in tourism) of an article I wrote. The editors asked me to write a response to the article, which I did promptly. They subsequently decided they did not want to publish a response, and instead asked for an article on the substance of growth / degrowth in tourism post COVID as part of a debate. I have agreed, and look forward to that.
However, I feel strongly they should have published a response to the article, both because they asked me to write one, and also because it was warranted given the loaded claims, inferences and assumptions in the original piece. I have made it clear to the editors that I feel it is unethical and against the spirit of open discussion to commission the response and then decide for whatever reason to change this decision.
I have produced the response below (as submitted to JoST) so at least there is a rebuttal of the claims available in print that I, or others involved in the discussion who have contacted me, can refer people to.
My original article is available here.
Higgins-Desbiolles's journal piece is here (although institutional access may be required).
Response to Freya Higgins-Desbiolles’s article
In 4th May I wrote a short, polemical article on the
online magazine Spiked-online titled ‘the War on Tourism’.[i]
The article was well received. Some disagreed, others agreed. This is normal.
Freya Higgins-Desbiolles has chosen to write an analysis of
a brief discussion of the article that took place on Trinet, the popular e-mail
list for academics with an interest in tourism. Higgins-Desbiolles’s
article uses comments from the e-mail list (in my view in
a partial way) to bolster its contentious claims. There is neither anonymity for,
nor consent sought from, list contributors (anyone can easily locate these
comments against individuals’ names on the list discussion or archive). The
paper is inaccurate and contains unfounded and pejorative assumptions and inferences.
However, as the Journal of Sustainable Tourism are publishing it I am, at their
invitation, responding briefly to the paper.
To be clear, Higgins-Desbiolles paper makes no substantive
points about the issues raised in my article which is solely on the value of
degrowth, especially in the middle of a pandemic where the tourism economy
faces disaster. Instead it attempts a discourse analysis, strong on caricature
and false inference, so that is principally what I am responding to here.
First, Higgins-Desbiolles reads a lot into me using the
’evocative metaphor of war’ - the article’s title is ‘the war on tourism’. In
fact she refers to it around 50 times. She may not be aware that is unusual for
authors to write their own titles for articles placed in magazines or
newspapers. I did not write the title. Literally no individual featured in the
debate, not once, used the ‘evocative metaphor of war’. (Besides, I had assumed
the ‘war’ was between COVID-19 and tourism, not the two schools of thought). I’m
not sure where this leaves a significant portion of her analysis.
Higgins-Desbiolles alleges the article is fighting a ‘culture
war’. I’ll pass over the inconsistency in her attitude to military metaphors. I
am a staunch opponent of ‘culture war’ style politics, as are the publications
I write for, Spiked-online included.[ii]
I have taken issue with the politicisation of culture in my books and talks (for
example, my keynote at ATLAS 2016 was titled ‘tourism’s culture wars’),
especially the sense in which alternatives to mass tourism are sometimes
invoked as a moral or political statement. This was the focus of the book the Moralisation
of tourism – to look at how aspects of lifestyle and culture had become
subject to a political contestation, and the cultural and political consequences
of this.[iii]
In a different context, this analysis is developed in Volunteer tourism: the
lifestyle politics of development, that I co-wrote with Pete Smith in 2015.[iv]
I would say that Higgins-Desbiolles views are far more in
the ‘culture war’ mould, as they, in my view, sometimes substitute moralistic
argument about cultural preferences - ‘mass tourism versus ‘responsible
tourism’ or ‘alternative travel’ - for politics. That is an argument for
another time.
Whilst ostensibly an analysis of an online discussion, Higgins-Desbiolles
repeats falsehoods about the publication that published my article. Spiked-online
is a socially libertarian magazine with left wing roots. Today it adheres to
Enlightenment values of free speech, popular sovereignty (support for Brexit), the
importance of economic and scientific progress and a universalist opposition to
identity politics of right and left. It includes articles from a range of
authors, including Marxists, conservatives, socialists, trade unionists, ‘Blue
Labour’, feminists, critics of feminism, environmentalists, critics of
environmentalism etc. Commentators and writers who contribute to Spiked-online
are often commissioned by national and international media. I am very proud to
write for Spiked-online occasionally. Many do, including at least one author Higgins-Desbiolles
cites favourably in her attack on the publication. It is a magazine that
features great journalism, commentary and analysis.
In the past Spiked-online have applied for and gained
project funding from the US Koch brothers’ charitable foundation to organise ‘free
speech’ related events in the US. Other beneficiaries of this foundation
include a programme called ‘how music unlocks discussions about race’ run by a
prominent Black Studies academic, the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers (money that has been used to provide lawyers for poor defendants), ‘Cut50’
(a project to reduce the rate of incarceration in the USA), the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), Families Against Mandatory Minimums (a group calling
for the end of mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes to reduce
incarceration for non-violent crimes) and campaigns promoting academic freedom.
Some feel the Koch brothers have also used their oil wealth extensively to
lobby for oil interests and promote free market economics, and I would definitely
agree that they have.
But so what? Why would Higgins-Desbiolles
regard this as in any way relevant to a brief online discussion on a short
article on tourism degrowth during COVID-19 ? Why not take up the article
itself rather than hint, entirely without foundation, that there is some sort
of nefarious agenda? My concern with degrowth is more with friends losing their
jobs in droves at Rolls Royce industries in my home town of Derby, and
relatives expecting post furlough unemployment, than it is with ‘Big Oil’. I
suppose I should at least be grateful to the reviewer of her article who asked Higgins-Desbiolles
to tone down the ad hominem attacks.
Higgins-Desbiolles criticises what she regards as the ‘binary’
view of degrowth versus growth put forward in the article. The purpose of a
polemic is precisely to set out the ‘poles’, to prompt a discussion. My article
does this concisely, briefly and fairly. It identifies a positive orientation
towards economic growth versus a critique of it, the latter exemplified by
degrowth.
These are simply different perspectives that, as I emphasised
in the Trinet debate, we need to discuss. One sees growth broadly as part of
the problem, the other, part of the solution. I do not dismiss degrowth, and in
my writing and accept that it raises some good questions. I do regard it, as a development
philosophy, as backward looking and, in the context of COVID-19 especially, an
overly cautious, conservative approach to development that would be a disaster for
many who derive a living from the industry.
Having objected to my ‘binary’ view, most of Higgins-Desbiolles
paper seems intent on pushing everyone into precisely that very binary. Take
the following excerpts:
‘Some within the tourism academy saw such extraordinary
circumstances [COVID-19] as a moment to reflect on the lessons from this pause
in tourism and travel and use it to spark reform and transformations that place
tourism on a more responsible and sustainable trajectory. Others within the
academy called for tourism academics to support the tourism industry in
developing recovery strategies that could reignite stalled economies and
restart tourism enterprises leading to a return to “business as usual” as soon as
possible.’
‘Arguably, the group of TRINET emails of May 2020 we might
call the “war on tourism” debate revealed a moment of truth in the tourism
academy suggesting two distinct and opposing schools of thought.’
‘In the tense and troubled context of the COVID-19 global
pandemic with its serious damage to travel, tourism and affiliated sectors, the
dispute concerning boosterism versus limits to tourism has erupted with renewed
vigour.’
‘A global pandemic of extraordinary impact on travel and
tourism resulted in a pivotal moment. With travel and tourism halted, sharp
dividing lines between calls to return to business as usual versus those that
would pause for reflection and reset became evident.’
In these quotes and in the analysis Higgins-Desbiolles not
only presents a binary, but ends up misrepresenting individuals by
superimposing the binary on people with varied views. In reality few ‘pro-growth’
academics are uncritical of the industry. Many would eschew the term ‘boosterism’
as an accurate description of their views. One can be pro-growth and
anti-boosterism (a term sometimes associated with short termism, a lack of
planning etc). Contrary to Higgins-Desbiolles binary worldview, it is quite
possible to be pro-growth and a critic of business practice or even capitalism
– in fact up until the last few decades this would have been largely assumed.
Contrary to Higgins-Desbiolles, academics
who are not of the ‘critical tourism studies’ school of thought are still
concerned with social justice. They may well view social justice - its meaning and how to achieve it –
differently from Higgins-Desbiolles.
The article contains much hyperbole and further misrepresentations.
Here are some examples:
‘Butcher’s article denounced a body of tourism work he
portrayed as hostile to the industry and as using
COVID-19 as an opportunity to attack it’. Nowhere in the article or anywhere
else did I suggest anyone was ‘using COVID 19 as an opportunity to attack [Higgins-Desbiolles
views]’. That is a pretty low and unfounded claim. As for ‘denunciation’, here
is the key passage in my article:
‘Though no one doubts that coronavirus is a disaster, rather
than redoubling efforts to help prospective recovery, some industry
commentators see the pandemic as a chance to hit pause, rewind a little, and
change the track. Reform is emphasised over recovery. And that reform often
looks forward to a diminished industry and lower levels of leisure mobility.’
This is just disagreement. There is no ‘denunciation’ here,
or anywhere else in the article. Neither is there a ‘Butcher agenda of
pro-industry boosterism’ with ‘followers’, ‘pressing’ itself ‘into the academic
domain’. It’s a bit more mundane than that – just some people with different
views.
Higgins-Desbiolles claims that her analysis ‘explains how
advocates of industry rapid recovery stand opposed to wider efforts to reform
tourism to be more ethical, responsible and sustainable’. This is not
explained. It is asserted. The assertion is contradicted by the views of many
pro-growth academics who absolutely would see themselves as ‘ethical, responsible
and sustainable’.
She writes: ‘Critical theory is a body of work that seeks to
diagnose the problems of current society and identify the nature of the social
change required to secure greater justice, equity and empowerment. It holds a
belief in the efficacy of social action for social change to achieve
emancipation and well-being. The debate
sparked by the “war on tourism” piece is a debate about the very legitimacy of
efforts to pursue such an agenda in tourism thought and practice.’
This assumes that an opponent of degrowth would be against
‘justice and equity’. That they may see achieving justice and equity
differently to the modern social justice movement is ruled out. Higgins-Desbiolles
places herself on the moral high ground in a borderline Manichean struggle, a
position from which criticisms are interpreted as an affront to those seeking a
better world from those who do not care much.
I don’t want to take up the substantive issue of degrowth
here as it is not the issue addressed in the Higgins-Desbiolles article.
However, I do want to take the opportunity to begin to question the notion,
implicit and often explicit in her article, that degrowth, as she represents
it, has a monopoly on ethical reflection and moral concern for others.
Higgins-Desbiolles’ cites Arundati Roy’s views resetting the
economy (in her article) and Jane Goodall’s opposition to modern ‘industrial
agriculture’ (in the Trinet discussion) as exemplary figures in the degrowth debate.
Goodall is a died in the wool, unapologetic Malthusian,
recently claiming that: ‘All these [environmental] things we talk about
wouldn’t be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500
years ago’.[v]
The world population 500 years ago is estimated between 420 and 540 million
— 6.7 billion fewer people than today.
Certainly, Goodall’s opposition to industrial agriculture –
cited favourably by Higgins-Desbiolles in the Trinet discussion as yielding
lessons for ‘industrial tourism’ post COVID-19 (a comment that did not make the
cut in her discourse analysis) - would necessitate a population billions
smaller than currently. This is more misanthropic than radical.[vi]
Roy has strongly opposed industrialisation and development projects
in India, in particular the Sardar
Sarovar Project. One Indian environmental historian has said regarding this that:
‘Ms. Roy's tendency to exaggerate and simplify, her Manichaean view of the
world, and her shrill hectoring tone, have given a bad name to environmental
analysis’.[vii]
Certainly, Roy’s rejection of the damn and other large scale development
initiatives, on principle, is worth challenging given the prospective
benefits of the damn for potable water supply, irrigation and electricity
generation.
And so too with tourism. Higgins-Desbiolles critiques of
some of the problems attending tourism growth (and economic growth more
generally) seem to condemn growth per se. Critiques of capitalism or
‘big business’, in the absence of the class based movements of the past to
transcend it, seem to have morphed into critiques of growth itself. This
was noted as far back as 1967 by civil rights activist and socialist Rustin Bayard,
in an article that rings true today. Rustin cites favourably social democratic
theorist and Foreign Secretary in the UK Labour government of the time, Anthony
Crosland, as mirroring his own view:
‘My working‐class constituents have their own version of the
environment, which is equally valid and which calls for economic growth. They
want lower housing densities and better schools and hospitals. They want
washing machines and refrigerators to relieve domestic drudgery. They want
cars, and the freedom they give on weekends and holidays. And they want
package‐tour holidays to Majorca, even if this means more noise of night
flights and eating fish and chips on previously secluded beaches—why should
they too not enjoy the sun? And they want these things not … because their
minds have been brainwashed and their tastes contrived by advertising, but
because the things are desirable in themselves.’[viii]
A truly radical approach would be to celebrate the growth of
tourism as liberating and progressive, and propose that can be done
differently – more democratically and equitably. My contention is that a socially
progressive tourism that can better address equity would involve more, not less
growth, and more, not less, tourism. That is worth thinking about and debating
in good faith.
END
[i] Butcher.
J (20200 The War on Tourism. Spiked-online Available at: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/04/the-war-on-tourism/
[ii] By
way of a clear example, see Furedi, F. (2014) Culture War: the narcissism of
minor differences. Spiked-online. Available at: https://www.spiked-online.com/2014/02/12/culture-war-the-narcissism-of-minor-differences/
[iii]
Butcher, J. (2001) The Moralisation of Tourism. London: Routledge
[iv]
Butcher, J. (2015) Volunteer Tourism: The Lifestyle Politics of International
Development. London: Routledge
[v]
Cited in Alberro, H. (2020) Don’t blame overpopulation for the climate crisis.
City Metric. March 24. Available at: https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/don-t-blame-over-population-climate-crisis-4920
[vi]
Note also that Goodall’s claim that industrial agriculture is responsible for
increasing the risk of pandemic disasters is entirely spurious. Modern
industrial societies have witnessed fewer pandemics and, in spite of massively
increased populations, fewer pandemic deaths even in absolute terms. This is in
no small part due to a modern, hygienic food system, transport, markets and
refrigeration – in other words what Goodall condemns as ‘industrial
agriculture’.
[vii] Guha,
R (2000) Perils of extremism, The Hindu, 17 December
[viii]
Cited in Rustin, B. (1976) No Growth has to mean Less is Less. New York Times
May 2nd. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/02/archives/no-growth-has-to-mean-less-is-less-growth.html
