UNIT 8 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM I

Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Guest-host Interaction: Issues
8.3 Attitudes
8.4 Changes in Society
8.5 Acculturation Model
8.6 Language, Photography and Staged Shows
8.7 Let Us Sum Up
8.8 Clues to Answers

8.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this Unit you will be able to:
determine the areas of social impacts of tourism,
appreciate the relevance of analysing these impacts,
know the efforts made in understanding there impacts, and
have an understanding of the theoretical models that have emerged from the
studies conducted in the area of social impacts of tourism.

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Tourist, i.e., a temporary visitor in the terminology of sociology, leaves behind
lasting impacts. Certain impacts like the dollars spend are consumed or invested by
those hosts who earn them. At the same time language, attire, behavioural pattern,
etc. that come in the category of encounters, demonstration effect, etc. are not
consumed but often imitated by the host societies. The donor cultures leave their
lasting marks on the receiving cultures particularly if they are located in the third
world.
This Unit not only discusses the various theories propounded in regard to social
impacts of tourism but attempts to analyse the reasons behind them citing various
examples.

8.2 GUESTHOST INTERACTION : ISSUES

It was only from the 1970s that researchers got attracted towards what is now termed
as the sociology of tourism. Valine Smith, De Kadt, MacCannel and may other
scholars looked at various aspects from the impact of mass tourism to the impacts on
societies having tourists from other different structural societies. Erik Cohen
distinguished five major theoretical points of departure to the sociological study of
tourism, i.e., the sociology of:

stranger,

leisure,

hospitality,

travel, and

70
 religion.

Cohen further mentions six interrelated trends that can be distinguished in the
development of the sociology of tourism:
1) Critical attitude to tourism as a kind of aberration
2) Study of tourists as a product of (modern) society to the study of (modern)
society through tourism.
3) An etic attitude to emic, i.e., from outside to inside,
4) From concerned with individual psychological motives for tourism to a growing
preoccupation with tourism in the context of expressing significant social
symbols,
5) Giving up of general categories like tourist and tourism to a growing awareness
of the significant differences between a wide variety of types of tourists and
touristic processes. This includes the differential impacts on the host and their
environment, economy and society,
6) Shifting from general findings to studies devoted specifically to the
investigation of tourism as a field of enquiry in its own rights.
According to Pierre L. van den Berghe (Cultural Impact of Tourism, 1994), If
tourists are by definition not at home, they are strangers among strangers, and
indeed, frequently savour that mutual otherness as a key ingredient of the
tourism experience. Tourism inescapably involves contact between groups of
people who might otherwise not meet, and who differ on one or more dimensions
of social class, religion, language, ethnicity, or race. Tourism, thus, must be seen
as a special form of culture contact, of race and ethnic relations, and of the class
relations, all phenomena of central interest to sociologists and anthropologists.
Pierre has mentioned seven properties of tourist-host interaction which make it a
unique case of understanding social relations. These according to him are:
1) Asymmetrical interactions: These are because of the following two vital
dimensions:
a) The higher status of the tourists compared to the hosts not only in relation to
first world tourism in third world countries, but is also obvious in much
internal tourism within rich countries. According to him, though all tourists
are not wealthier than the locals but nearly all tourist-host interaction takes
the form of an unequal relationship between consumers of sights, spectacles,
and services, and those who provide these commodities either simply by
being there, making a spectacle of themselves, or by making a living from
tourism. Egalitarian interaction between tourist and host is rare.
b) Asymmetry of useful knowledge: This cuts across in the opposite direction to
that on the status. According to him, The host has the great advantage of
being on home turf and, thus, knowledgeable of local conditions, prices,
sights, services, and so on. That knowledge, pitched against tourist ignorance,
can be turned to profit. The tourist, on the other hand, faces the option of
either learning fast or being taken.
2) Ephemeral interactions: The tourist-hosts interactions generally are unlikely to
be repeated. This brings in an attitude of mistrust, cheating, and broken
contracts. According to him, both sides have limited expectations of each other
where immediacy of the exchange is considered the best substitute of non-
existing trust. In fact, both sides may express surprise when not cheated by each
other.

71
3) Segmented and instrumental interactions: According to him these interactions
are entered into for specific, limited and immediate purposes and they are not
expected to have far reaching or long lasting consequences. However, one can
question these hypotheses of Pierre in relation to impacts.
4) Vulnerability to faulty communication: Since these interactions are conducted
across linguistic and cultural barriers in the absence of mutually understood
norms and expectations in certain delicate matters they can generate
misunderstandings.
5) Cultural distance: This determines the barriers to interactions between the two.
6) Crude stereotypes: The interaction between the two takes place within the
framework of the perceptions of each side about the other.
7) Profitable and enjoyable interactions: According to Pierre, because the mutual
expectations are low and the interactions are carefully bracketed in both time and
space, they are found to be profitable and enjoyable.
Pierre has, thus, given a sketch of the structural conditions around and within which
the tourists-hosts interaction takes place. Within this Pierre suggests that the only
safe generalisation is that tourism never leaves a host society and culture
unchanged. In the gambit of tourist-hosts relationship we can take up a variety of
issues, like, attitudes, language, photography, stage shows, etc. which we will discuss
in the subsequent sections.

8.3 ATTITUDES
Attitude has become an important mentifact of modern society. The term has been
coined by Miriam Jansen-Verbeke to refer to the behaviour pattern of both guests
and hosts. Attitude expresses the degree of acceptability or irritation of the local
community towards the visibility of tourism-related activities affecting the quality of
life at a destination. Conflicts relate not only to costs like over pricing and space
constraints, but also to behaviour in the public domain. As tourism expands, public
space in the daily scenery and the community needs to cope with tourism generated
stress. A quantitative assessment of acceptance/irritation index is complex and not
always amenable to modelling. Social carrying capacity is very multi-dimensional.
For example, how do we estimate the number of tourists Delhi can carry? By the
number of rooms available, sites to see, recreational pastimes and the space for them,
shopping centres, etc? Or do we decide on the basis of the population vs. tourist
numbers? Do we use a season or an event?
We can see that these questions raise the issue of the dynamics of interaction, which
will determine a threshold of conflict. Interactive models to determine social
tolerance for tourism have been somewhat theoretical, but have some basis for
managing saturation of tourist destinations. People relate to places via socio-facts,
artefacts and mentifacts. Tourism businesses and tourists enter the domain of the
community at the same point and process their experience through socio-facts to
artefacts and mentifacts. Tourism authorities relate policy and planning through the
same prism of facts. These facts operate in a community structure and an
environment, both built and natural.
For example, India promotes tourism purely for economic reasons. Socially, it is
perceived as an elitist activity. The Government, whilst promoting the economic
elements, also views tourism as an elitist activity and raises taxes. Let us say this
argument appeals to those who are unemployed. Revenue from tourism will improve
the infrastructure and this will lead to the development of facilities and services that
will generate jobs. Yet there are those who work in other sectors and do not have the
same interest in encouraging the growth of tourism. They see tourists as idle, rich and
wasteful. Youth may enjoy the influx of tourists but the older generation would rather
have industry develop than tourism, because the demonstration of the lifestyle and

72
activities of tourists is culturally unacceptable to them. The tourist industry looks
only at the profits and the business opportunity and is not interested in the social
factors of carrying capacity. The tourists, on the other hand, wants friendly and
efficient service at a low cost; a respect for their culture and their ability to pay for
what they are consuming. They view their activity as an advantage to the destination
and, therefore, they expect tolerance from the hosts. Thus, a complex social
interaction is taking place at several levels.
Since the growth of tourism has also led to both quantitative and qualitative research
and the proliferation of journals, we now have the emergence of an accepted equation
to determine the impact of tourism.
Leisure Time + Discretionary Income + Positive Local Sanctions = Tourism
As industrialisation has grown, so has leisure time. As real incomes have increased
due to rise in wages, two income families and fewer children, plus retirement benefits
and discounted mass travel, discretionary income has increased. Ethical norms related
to work and leisure have also changed. Sanctions, which in the case of tourism imply
the social acceptability of tourism, have always been linked to motivation and the
type of tourism to be undertaken. Weekend escapes, second homes in resort regions,
city attractions like museums and theatres, outdoor recreation, long distance travel,
etc. have all come under social sanctions. For example, backpacking for young
people as a rite-of-passage is sanctioned by industrial society although it may not
have a positive local sanction. The sanction to singles cruises and packages may be
positive but not to sex tourism.
In a country like India, the promotion of both domestic and international tourism has
social sanction. Today every leading newspaper and news magazine has a travel
page; tour operators and travel agencies promote tourism as a part of the benefit of
rising incomes of the growing Indian middle-class. The nature of domestic tourism,
in terms of packaging destinations and activities, is similar to international tourism.
The first tourism policy in India, in 1980, stressed the positive social impact of
tourism in breaking down provincial and linguistic barriers, to help integration and
emerge with a strong national identity.
Mass Tourism has, therefore, broken all barriers, whether they are economic, social,
ethnic or political. Historical and Recreational tourism have had a long history. They
have often combined in the form of cultural tourism. Contemporary forms of tourism
have broadened the content of these three major types to include Ethnic tourism and
Environmental tourism. The host-guest impacts range from minimal to maximal,
depending on the number of tourists, their behaviour, their interaction with the hosts
and the stresses such interaction creates. The lack of guidelines to determine how
stressful any of these forms of tourism are likely to be must therefore be assessed
locally. However, when Governments or local elites promote tourism only for
economic gains, then it becomes difficult to differentiate the positive as well as the
negative social sanction to tourism.
The range of host-guest stresses can be estimated by the stage of tourism
development. What promised to be an activity of economic gain for the community
through a novel service like tourism, in time transformed into an activity that many
criticised for its seasonality, bargaining, currency value imperialism, and the transfer
of decision-making power to Central Governments. The economic support of
tourism, through the demand for souvenirs, gave a fresh life to dying arts and crafts.
Artisans who did not have other skills were brought into the tourism market through
shopping, since modern patterns of consumption had reduced the demand for their
products. However, the mass production of souvenirs introduced new methods of
production and commerce, which led to a greater exploitation of the artisans by
middlemen who controlled urban and export markets. Quality standards were not
improved and the value of hand made goods remained unfavourable when compared
with manufactured goods.

73
According to Pierre there are also several illustrations of hosts behaving abnormally
in the presence of tourists and this he believes is inherent in the nature of tourism,
i.e., outside the boundaries of normalcy for both the tourists and the hosts. He has
cited the examples of Latin Americans who make special efforts to be more punctual
with tourists then they would be with one another. In fact, this is often done to break
the crude stereotypes and preconceptions of the tourists. Another example of
conscious abnormal behaviour that he cites is of children in a Mexican town which
has seen massive growth in tourism. The children approach tourists in a plaintive,
whining voice to hawk their weavings as they have discovered that whining is an
effective strategy to promote sales by playing on the sympathy of the tourists.
However, the children immediately revert to normal, pre-tourist behaviour and break
into engaging bantering chatter when they are told to cut it out because the tourist
would not respond. Based on his study in 1990, he mentions that the adults for the
most part, find this behaviour disgraceful and undignified and try to stop it.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Discuss the seven properties of tourist host interaction mentioned by Pierre?

.

.

.

.

2) What is the role of attitude in guest-host relationship?

.

.

.

.

8.4 CHANGES IN SOCIETY

Cultural changes have also been taking place at an accelerated pace. Tradition and
value systems based on customs are losing face in the modern world. The media has
played a significant role in globalising culture. Cultural homogenisation whilst
retaining cultural difference has become a major contradiction in tourism practice.
The tourist bubble has created a host-guest gap since it accentuates the different
economic and social standards demanded by guests and hosts. Prostitution, drug
abuse, alcoholism, money laundering, crime and homosexuality and paedophilia have
all added to the alienation of hosts from tourism. Strangers, temporary visitors and
floating populations or even the presence of the armed forces in a region accentuate
such social ills, although these would continue to exist without tourists. However, the
sanction that these activities have got under tourism makes them legitimate and over
ground even for other sections of the population that might not have openly sought
such activities. For example, the National Aids Control Organisation has reported the
presence of 7,000 male prostitutes on the beaches of South India servicing both
tourists and residents.

74
Insensitive behaviour by tourists towards religious shrines and symbols, towards
juveniles and towards local norms can turn tourism from a bridge of understanding
into a minefield of mistrust and hostility. On the other hand, hosts can also develop
stereotypes of tourists in relation to their wealth, lax morality, and they can treat them
as objects to fulfil their aspirations. The recent attacks on a few Japanese tourists in
India is an illustrations of how touts and cheats have collaborated in robbing and
cheating young Japanese travellers who do not speak much English and have no idea
of the social face of tourism in India despite their guidebooks clutched in hands.
Ethnic and Cultural tourism can be both an opportunity and an invasion of privacy.
Social stress emerges when the fine line between tolerance and outrage is crossed.
The staging of culture and the emergence of model cultures that have travelled the
world along with mass tourism are now perhaps the newest threat to the authenticity
of the tourists experience.
There is a new approach to the management of a tourist site to reduce social stress
through reconstruction of a historical past rather than to allow the tourist to pry into
the private spaces of peoples lives. But because of this has emerged the problem of
authenticity. Indonesia has a mini Indonesia park, Hawaii has a Cultural Centre, Fiji
has an Orchid Park, Thailand has a mini park and India has the Pragati Maidan, to
replicate architectural and cultural feature to be exhibited for tourists. Promoters of
model cultural centres feel that these reconstructions are more authentic than the
modern village or ethnic group. However, it is the museumified form of a culture,
which can only be presented to those who are on a fly-by-night itinerary and have no
inclination for the unsanitised version. Many tourists prefer the professional model to
the real host, who demands money to be photographed. The right to free photography
for tourists is another modern social issue, with the proliferation of photography.
To a host population tourism is a mixed blessing. On the one hand it provides a
commercial opportunity, develops entrepreneurship, creates an economic multiplier
and brings back to the forefront the heritage and culture of our roots that vanishes as
modernisation progresses. Tourists can become a physical and social burden,
particularly when their numbers increase, or their goals do not meet with social
approval and they do not accept or respect local norms. As the world becomes
smaller, the visibility of the tourist also increases. Typologies that describe tourists
according to their adaptability norms, like explorers, elites and off-beats, do not
necessarily explain how these typologies can reduce impacts, since we cannot deny
some types of tourists entry to our tourism sites.
On the Other hand in a mix of tourists, international and domestic and business
people demographics as well as adaptability norms play a role; the two cannot be
separated. Mass tourism is a continuous process and does not allow for time to
recover from the onslaught of tourist activity. Airports, roads and hotels are areas
where crowding is evident. Small towns and villages are locations where the irritation
of large tourist coaches becomes high. Tourist taxis travelling at high speeds do not
conform to the pace of local life. The commitment of tourists to local sanctions also
becomes less as they win prize holidays and incentives. They cross the threshold of
humanity to turn into the golden hordes. Tourist impact and local reaction have an
inverse relationship. Hosts can either restrict or control tourism to reduce the social
impact or they can restructure their culture to adapt to tourism. Both systems have
been seen as praiseworthy models. However, neither can control the demonstration
effect which is the tendency for a more economically primitive culture to initiate
the behaviour patterns of a more complex nature (Valene L. Smith, Demonstration
Effect, 1994). According to Dekadt (1979), tourists on vacation usually
demonstrate a standard of living that is considerably higher than their average level of
consumption at home during the rest of the year. The image they project of their
home society is thus distorted and further magnifies the great gap between their living
standards and those of the majority of the host countrys population.
Let us compare Indias two neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan. The former has an
unbridled Shangri-la image for the western, backpacking, hippie tourists of all ages,
who like the exotic location and the low cost of facilities. Bhutan did not want the

75
social and cultural changes that were happening in Nepal. It closed their borders to
mass tourism and controlled the numbers as well as the amount of money to be spent
on a predetermined itinerary. Despite these controls, monks became materialistic and
began to accept money and gifts from tourists leading to their removal from the
tourists itinerary. Nepal saw tourism as a source of income, an export industry. It
promoted adventure activities as well as the historical and cultural form of tourism.
The Everest region became the highest garbage dump as a result. It promoted casinos,
dance bars and massage parlours to cater to the sleazy side of tourism. It turned a
blind eye to the trafficking of Nepali girls to brothels in neighbouring countries.
Under the guise of tourism, militants and terrorists made Nepal a base since it had
very relaxed rules for visa and entry of foreigners. However, Bhutans control and
Nepals restructuring were both models that did not succeed in reducing the social
impact of tourism.
If we are aware of these problems we have to develop a system of control that is
sensitive to the measurement of social impacts. The two illustrations given above
show a theoretical solution based on closure and incentive models. There are no
impact studies in both cases that would have been tailored to the specific impacts at
the destinations frequented by tourists. For example, should every destination be a
Shimla or Manali? How pervasive should the tourist culture or reputation as a
tourist destination be? What aspects of our lives, rituals, tradition and cultures can be
brought into the public domain? How will we define local colour and therefore
justify its exploitation? These are questions that need to be addressed.

8.5 ACCULTURATION MODEL

There is another side to the argument. Is the responsibility of social and cultural
change really to be borne by the tourist? Is the foreign tourist more to blame than the
domestic tourist? Are tourists the innocents who have to bear the burden of a world
where only the fittest survive?
The anthropology of tourism has attempted to discuss these issues under the
acculturation model. In this model, when two cultures meet, for any length of time
or connect through any process, each learns from the other through borrowing.
When the borrowing is symmetrical the results of the contact can be positive.
However, the duration of the contact, its demographics, the tourist profile, the
openness of the culture, etc. often make the encounter asymmetrical. The impact of
tourists on the society at the destination can have a chain effect in unforeseen and
unplanned ways. While tourists are individuals who have a limited exposure to the
hosts, tourism is a continuous activity. The hosts absorb the tourists values, needs
and attitudes much faster. Thus, tourism must bear some of the responsibility for
social impacts, since we often say that a destination has been spoiled by tourism.
This sentiment accepts the dilution of the natural or authentic appeal of the
location before tourists got there.
In post-colonial theory, in order to protect their cultural identity and play a role in
the world economy, tourism could be one way of forging new relationships between
countries which had only recently thrown off the colonial burden. In this model,
countries that have remained closed for ideological or cultural reasons, find
themselves promoting tourism as an avenue towards development. However, here the
encounter between the host and the guest is often unequal. Both carry their
civilisational baggage and their relations are defined by dependency rather than
interdependence.
Anthropology studies the impact of dominant cultures on subordinates and we can
state affirmatively that tourism does bear responsibility for its impacts. This is
because it has its own power base and rationale. Tourists are the representatives of
the alien culture and, therefore, will be judged as their mother culture is judged.

76
Who are likely to be most influenced by the impact of tourism? Innovation theory
suggests that cultural and social changes will be introduced and legitimised by those
who hold a position of authority or prestige in the community. Thus, political and
social leaders also bear the responsibility for social changes, both good and bad. The
other group that will be innovative will be of those who are marginalized. In most
feudal and traditional societies, it will be women, youth and socially excluded groups
who will use the alien cultural norms to move up the social ladder. Tourism services
will attract such groups in the early stages but in its full-blow form, the social impacts
will no longer remain positive. As an individual becomes socially mobile there is an
adaptation or internalisation of the mainstream social ethic that dilutes the
progressive interaction created through tourism.
At a more mundane level, the relationship between hosts and guests is an
instrumental one, not one based on kinship ties or other affective ties. It is not
mediated by the psychological space or even the democratic space we allow to our
peers, our neighbours and friends or even those we identify by a common nationality.
As the social and cultural distance between host and guest increases, through long
haul tourism, the likelihood of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and stereotyping
will increase. Hosts and guests do not form a natural community. The economic
push to tourism and the market orientation of the contact between host and guest
ensures that commercial relations will outweigh any real acculturation.
Let us illustrate this with a common criticism of a tourist visiting India. Immigration
and Customs procedures are seen as unfriendly. Will the tourist see this as a first
hand experience of Indians as suspicious people? This will depend on how much
space we are willing to give the social basis of the site or attraction we are visiting.
Will the Indian tourist visiting the United States and U.K. judge the American or
British people by their visa and immigration staff? Then why should they in return
judge Indians by their officials? Will the tourist judge Indian society by the touts, the
beggars and the cheats they encounter, despite warnings and notifications to the
contrary, in their search for rock bottom prices for extending their spending power?
Would they look for similar services at home? If not, then why do they do so here?
This is an issue related to the instrumentality of tourism. Should we judge a tourist by
the fact that he or she exploits the free hospitality of village folk? Should we deny the
powerless and the poor to represent their culture, without the market values that
tourism encourages? In fact, one would have to take into account such issues while
dealing with tourism impacts.
We may fruitfully look at the Theory of Orientalism by Edward Said. He looks at
the discourse of domination that created the image of the Orient in Western eyes.
However, it applies quite legitimately to the powerless hosts experiencing
asymmetrical portrayals of themselves by the powerful tourists generating countries.
Tourism promotions are a good illustration of this facet of the socialisation between
host and guest. At the pre-decision stage tourists are lured by advertising;
travelogues; catalogues; brochures; magazine articles and newspaper articles. At the
audio-visual level they are enticed by travel films and videos as well as travel
programmes on television. Coffee table books, photo essays, paintings, lectures and
novels further engage the prospective tourists attention. Once engaged, the tourist
will buy a guidebook, go to a party or event, a trade fair or exhibition, all of which
have a socio-linguistic or semiotic basis for representation.
An interesting study of brochures promoting tourism to India shows that a tourism
landscape uses the destination as a take off point to show:
a) landscapes and monuments, artefacts and cuisines, modes of transport and scenic
views,
b) most of them picture tourists or anchors that stand in for tourists,
c) a few picture locals as a part of the scenery, and
d) a few show tourists interacting with locals who are not in the same social position
as themselves.

77
In the visuals of local people cultural markers like costume, jewellery, etc. to add
authenticity to the destination. One can cite here, e.g., the well known booklet which
has a colourful Rajasthani girl to promote tourism to the state, with perhaps a camel
in the background.
Let us look at the travel writer as well as the electronic media. The current trend in
travel writing is to evaluate a destination on the basis of personal experience. It
compares favourably with the word of mouth promotions (or otherwise) of family
and friends. The electronic media uses the critical function in a metaphorical way as
for example the BBC Holiday or the Lonely Planet rough guide. In all these forms the
image of local people is positive when they are portrayed as welcoming, smiling,
speaking the same language, friendly, and hospitable. The commentator is neutral
when he or she shows local people as going about their daily lives or as passive
observers of the tourists activities, as a bystander. The negative image is to show
them as hostile, revolting, laid back, exploitative, noisy, dirty and poor. This imagery
indicates that for the tourist the experience of tourism is no longer a discovery but a
package, insured and reimbursable if the expectations are not realised. Therefore, the
issue of social impacts becomes critical in evaluating the tourism phenomenon.

8.6 LANGUAGE, PHOTOGRAPHY AND STAGED

SHOWS
Though the tourist-host interaction, in most of the cases, is based on language
barriers. Language has its impact in many respects. On the one hand, the tourists may
pick up some very essential, greeting or courtesy form, they have neither the time or
wish to go for learning host destination languages. Tourists even prefer guides and
escorts who are fluent in their own language and at many destinations this has led to
an increase in learning foreign languages. The hosts have reasons to go in for this
exercise as effective communication can bring more money. There are cases in India
where even small children have picked up different European languages, like, Italian,
French or German. Kovalam, Jaisalmer and Pushkar, etc. are destinations that can be
cited as examples. To what extent tourism is changing the language is a very
specialised area of research and more studies are required in this area.
McMannell Dean in his researches on staged authenticity has dealt with the impact
of photography in tourism. It has been found that in certain cases tourists do not want
to visit and observe which they are not able to photograph. In many cases
photography, for the tourist, has become a validation of the tourist experience. The
search of the tourists is for the authentic, natural and real and at many destinations
this has encouraged staged authenticity. How real is this staged authenticity will
remain a question mark. The tourism industry keeps defending the staged authenticity
whereas the tourism activists and in some cases the host population opposes it,
claiming it to be a distortion of the real. In many cases photography is seen as a
blatant invasion of privacy of the hosts and rightly so. This varies from culture to
culture and of course the photographing of purely private rituals and acts like those at
a cremation ground may develop into an hostile interaction. It has also led to the
demanding of money by the hosts in many cases. Once payments are demanded, it is
something, which is posed to the photographer, and there will always remain the
difference between the natural authentic and the posed.
Tourism also has an impact on the life styles, fashion, dress, etc. at the host
destination which may not always be positive.
Pierre has observed that, Far from destroying local cultures, tourism more
commonly transforms and revives them. Of all forms of outside contacts and
modernisation that affect isolated local cultures, tourism is probably the least
destructive, precisely because it imparts a marketable value to cultural diversity.
One has, however, difficulty in accepting this viewpoint. Had there been no negative
impacts of tourism, one would have gone along with Pierres viewpoint but these

78
negative impacts are too strong to be ignored. Valene L. Smith (Demonstration
Effect, 1994) has listed certain negative economic and socially disruptive impacts
that are attributed to the demonstration effect. For example, tourist become the role
models of affluence and leisure to the young people in under developed countries.
Economically and even socially it may not be feasible to match these models but the
desire for it often encourages crime or even breaking up of social relationships. In
fact, demonstration effect is a touristic phenomenon and has to be studied more.

Check Your Progress 2

1) What do you understand by demonstration impacts?

.

.

.

.

2) Why should you study the social impacts of tourism?

.

.

.

.

8.7 LET US SUM UP

Impacts on society and culture vary from destination to destination depending on the
nature of tourism, strengths and weaknesses of the destination, attitudes of the host
communities, etc. and yet at the same time there are certain common effects, which
have been identified by researchers in this area. This Unit familiarised you with
certain viewpoints on the issue. Pierre has made a very interesting observation that
the only safe generalisation is that tourism never leaves a host society and culture
unchanged. To what extent this change is acceptable? To what extent this change is
beneficial?, etc. will again depend upon the strengths and weaknesses of the host
society. Unfortunately, many third world destinations have no choice of their own in
this regard because of the strength of the dollar economy.

8.8 CLUES TO ANSWERS

Check Your Progress 1

1) Pierre has mentioned seven properties which have been discussed in Sec. 8.2.
2) Attitudes vary in tourism and they can be analysed from different angles.
Attitudes of the hosts of the tourists, of the industry, etc. For details see Sec. 8.3.

79
Check Your Progress 2

1) In Sec.8.4, we have discussed the definition of demonstration effect.

2) It is important to study social impacts of tourism so that one may have a deeper
understanding of the changes that have occurred, are emerging or would emerge
as a result of tourism at any given destination.

80