politics of tourism

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 4^th 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 2^nd. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/02/archives/no-growth-has-to-mean-less-is-less-growth.html

Thursday, 20 August 2020

How to Save Our Universities

The UK think-tank Cieo published a report titled How To Save Our Universities written by academics Phil Cunliffe and Lee Jones. I wrote about it on Spiked.

Tuesday, 14 July 2020

Why degrowth just won't do after COVID-19.

I wrote this on degrowth on the Good Tourism blog, published by David Gillbanks.

Thursday, 2 July 2020

The vital importance of being in the pub

I wrote this on the reopening of pubs post lock down.

We should celebrate the reopening of the hospitality sector. It is the very engine of our sociability.

Monday, 22 June 2020

Baden-Powell’s legacy should be celebrated, not toppled

In response to the toppling of statues, I wrote this.

Thursday, 7 May 2020

Should We Decolonise Geography ?

I wrote this for the excellent Areo magazine.

Wednesday, 6 May 2020

The Importance of Democratic Control over Immigration

I wrote this for the blog 'UK in a Changing Europe'.

The War on Tourism

This dramatically titled piece caused a debate. I've been pleasantly surprised at how much support it had, although perhaps the reality of the COVID and post - COVID economy has made people think carefully about the claims of the travel degrowth advocates.

Trade Unionists Must Stand Up For Freedom of Speech

I wrote this.

Friday, 16 August 2019

The War on Wrongthink academics

I wrote this in Spiked on the Trade Union backed campaign to get a lecturer sacked for right wing views.

Wednesday, 3 July 2019

Brexit: working class revolt or middle class outlook?

It has become the norm for Remain backing academics to assert that an association between lower social class / poverty and voting Brexit is a 'myth'. Danny Dorling and other prominent academics argue this line.

It may not be the whole story by any means, but it is no myth. And in trying to deny this, these academics have created a narrative of their own that is very misleading. I wrote this to try to demystify the basic class / Brexit debate.

Here's the piece.

Thursday, 16 May 2019

The merits of lecture capture

Universities are currently introducing ‘lecture capture’ – lectures will be recorded and made available to those unable to attend or who may want to review the class.

It has been met with a high degree of criticism from staff. Many fear that attendance will fall – students will stay at home and watch the video. Most of us know that a good lecture ideally involves ‘being there’ – the chance to engage with the lecturer and with other students during and perhaps after the class. It is about being an active part of an academic community, rather than an adjunct to it.

Many classes are flexible, involving lecturing alongside questions and discussion. Granted, this is very difficult given the large lecture sizes that many deal with. Nonetheless, the flexibility to teach as one sees fit is very important. It would be a backwards step if lecturers felt constrained in any way by the technology.

Yet the right for students to not be recorded is a part of the policies that are being introduced. Muting individuals within a class at their request is awkward. Will some students simply stay quiet?

Will a lecturer feel as free to broach a controversial topic? Will they be prepared to go out on a limb and present a new argument considered left (or right) field? Will they be prepared to deviate from the schedule when they might otherwise feel it is justified by current events to do so? Will they feel brave enough to simply to turn off the lecture slides and run some key issues raised by the class?

Having spoken to many staff about this – partly in my role as a union representative and partly out of professional interest – the majority of staff admit that they will change the way they teach.

Whilst the problems are real, they do not lie with lecture capture. The real issue, and culprit, is university culture itself. The consumer model of education now prevalent promotes two things that are likely in practice to encourage lecturers to adapt when using the technology.

First, lectures have increasingly become part of a formal ‘delivery’ of an academic ‘service’ tied in to a pseudo contractual relationship between fee paying ‘consumers’ and their ‘providers’. The language of ‘learning outcomes’ that are in some cases compulsory and ‘mapped’ to specific classes and assessments doesn’t help. Students are socialised into seeing higher education as an overly formal ‘delivered’ product with clear specifications.

Second, and also a part of the consumer model, universities are no longer spaces where free thought and free speech are guaranteed. The wider political climate in which disagreeable ideas and words are sometimes associated with offence and psychological damage is manifest in numerous speech codes, codes of conduct and zero tolerance policies. The existence of such policies – whilst they are seldom invoked – may make lecturers think twice before repeating a personal anecdote that illustrates a point, stating a strong view they hold or cracking a slightly risqué joke. Issues related to trans rights, religion and #metoo are amongst those where strong opinions or certain words can be taken as a breach of university policy, even when no law has been broken and when there is no intent to cause offense. Hence a growth of self censorship and a certain conservatism in the classroom are likely outcomes when lectures are captured.

There is much to be said for treating the lecture and seminar space as a sacred space for the lecturer and his or her students, one where a lecturer can cultivate an intellectual relationship with students, defined by mutual trust and openness. Ideally, staff should feel confident to play devil’s advocate, to change tac and to use humour as they see fit. The lecture room should be their space, where they can exercise their autonomy in imparting knowledge and in which they can hone their craft.

Hence that universities don’t provide guarantees that captured lectures can’t be invoked in student complaints or disciplinary proceedings is a problem. The argument that they will more likely provide evidence in favour of a lecturer subject to an accusation does not reassure. The issue is the importance of trust in the lecture room, a trust that is already undermined by the twin assumptions that education is the ‘delivery’ of ‘learning outcomes’ and that staff and student codes of conduct are in fact needed to mediate the lecture room and the university as a whole.

So the issue is not lecture capture, but the conservatism that is encouraged through our consumerist and therapeutic model of education. In order to get the most from lecture capture, we need to refound the lecture itself as an arena for the cultivation of knowledge rather than simply its delivery, and as a sacred space where trust rules over fear.

Jim Butcher

This blog also features on the Times Higher blogs: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/lecture-capture-risks-breaking-sacred-trust-lecture-hall