Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chile]
On: 03 September 2012, At: 14:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: Kevin Meethan (2003): Mobile Cultures? Hybridity, Tourism
and Cultural Change, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 1:1, 11-28
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate
or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug
doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The
publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
Mobile Cultures? Hybridity, Tourism and
Cultural Change
Kevin Meethan
Department of Sociology , University of Plymouth, UK
This paper addresses the problem of cultural change in relation to tourism. It will
be argued that tourism research has tended to be theorised in terms of static models
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
11
12 Tourism and Cultural Change
encompassing and generalised on the one hand, yet narrowly dened and
particularisitc on the other that makes it so problematic (Eagleton, 2000: 32).
Culture, however dened, can also be used in an instrumental fashion as a
means of establishing and maintaining differences, perhaps for political or
economic purposes. For example, within the marketing of tourism, we see
culture being used in a paricularist way, to label and dene specialised or
niche markets often associated with the high arts, most typically associated
with the developed economies (Craik, 2001; Douglas et al., 2001; Hughes, 2000;
Fladmark, 1994; Lohmann & Mundt, 2002; Richards, 2001; Robinson, 1999).
Outside the parameters of the developed economies though, culture tends to
be both marketed and analysed in a different way.
Although the idea of high culture is not exclusively western (Eisenstadt,
1996; Picard, 1996) cultural tourism in terms of the less developed regions of
the world tends to be seen on the basis of their cultural exoticism or ethnic
difference (Harrison, 2000; Hitchcock et al., 1993; Picard, 1997).
Here culture is being used in a broad holistic sense as comprising a set of
values and beliefs, associated with differences attributed to national, regional
or local identity. Even within the domestic tourist markets of the developing
economies we nd similar processes at work (Ghmire, 2001). Partly to cater
to consumer demand (Beck, 2000; Du Gay & Pryke, 2002) culture is commodi-
ed and sold as difference. Such romanticisation of the primitive ‘other’ is
arguably rooted in forms of 19th century nationalism and colonialism
(Eagleton, 2000: 26) predicated on the premise that we live in self-contained
and enclosed societies that are naturally coterminous with the boundaries of
nation states. It is within these boundaries that we nd social solidarity, ident-
ity and tradition (Appadurai, 1996; Beck, 2000; Cohen, 1997). Culture then is
conceptualised as a collection of inherent, essential and authentic attributes,
which people simply possess, by virtue of the fact that they are located within
a bounded territory (Beck, 2000; Wicker, 1997). In a similar fashion, Welsch
denes this as the ‘traditional’ concept of single cultures which assumes that:
First, every culture is supposed to mould the whole life of the people
concerned and its individuals, making every act and every object an
unmistakable instance of precisely this culture … Secondly, culture is
always to be the culture of a folk ... Thirdly … every culture is, as the cul-
ture of one folk, to be distinguished and remain separate from other
folk’s cultures’ (1999: 194–195, emphases in original).
The spatial referent in this equation is important not only because tourism
14 Tourism and Cultural Change
relies on the commodication of place, but also because many analyses regard-
ing tourism and cultural change have tended to focus on the success or not
of cultures to maintain or reproduce themselves as if they are isolated con-
tainers within which, and only within which, the specic, essential and auth-
entic nature of a culture is manifest (see for example Archer & Cooper, 1998;
Burns & Holden, 1995; Fennell, 1999; Pearce, 1989; Ryan, 1991; Williams, 1998;
Youell, 1998). However much salience such ideological formations still have
at the level of actions and practices (a point I will return to below), at a theor-
etical level the essentialist positions they attempt to sustain have come under
criticism for a number of reasons. Most notably this is due to the challenge
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
model of culture. To begin with, we have the element of loss, a direct conse-
quence of the spread of modernity. In turn this is part of wider, historically
rooted discourses, which reify the past in terms of a nostalgic yearning for
innocence (Featherstone, 1991; May, 1996; Meethan, 2001; Miller, 1994; Papas-
tergiadis, 1997; Urry, 2002b). Hence pre-modern cultures as viewed as being
the repositories of the authentic and the natural (Frow, 1997). This assumption
which, although being powerful and pervasive, is really no more than a conse-
quence of viewing modernity as a condition characterised by a lack of auth-
entic social relations (MacCannell, 1992, 1996) where alienation ‘… is assumed
to be the quintessential modern condition’ (Miller, 1994: 73).
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
Culture as Practice
The rst step to resolving these problems is to reject the assumption that
cultures are idealised essences or entities that exist above and beyond the
actions of people (Barth, 1992; Clifford, 1997; Kuper, 1999; Papastergiadis,
1997), and to view culture as a continuous and hence always unnished pro-
cess of ux and change. The basis of such an approach can be found in recent
anthropological writing, which views cultural production as a process of gen-
erating or conferring meaning through symbolic forms (Abram et al., 1997;
Boissevain, 1996; Clifford, 1992, 1997; Hitchcock et al., 1993; Nash, 1996; Sah-
lins, 1993; van der Veer, 1997). Such formulations have much in common with
those employed within cultural studies, as well as sociology (Barker, 2000;
Beck, 2000; Hall, 2001; Storey, 1999; Tomlinson, 1999). Rejecting static and
place bound notions of culture as essence, such approaches focus on the
actions involved in the creation of knowledge and meaning which inform the
social practices of maintaining culture. In this sense, we can dene practice
as the actions that create and sustain a particular way of being in the world.
Cultural attributes that are not attributable to an innate essence that we pos-
sess by virtue of birth, but are learned and socialised. It is through forms of
practice, even at the most mundane level, that distinctions such as the division
of work, gender roles and so on, are created and maintained. Yet the social
signicance of practices is not simply waiting to be discovered, but has in
Freidman’s terms, to be conferred (1997: 74) which requires consensus. In turn
this relies on the acquisition of certain forms of knowledge about what is and
what is not of value, and this may also involve issues of power and subordi-
nation (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). In this sense, culture is conceived as a frame-
work or matrix of common values that provide general guiding principles for
action, and the ways in which these which are employed, often strategically,
according to material circumstances (see also Hitchcock, 1999). It is the sum
total, at any given time, of these forms of knowledge and practices that consti-
tutes a culture. In short, practice does not reect culture, rather, culture is the
outcome of a contingent set of practical actions. In this holistic sense we can
accommodate both ‘high’ culture, as well as the more mundane tasks which
constitute daily life. Because culture is always work in progress, an emergent
set of categories and practices, the ways in which people negotiate their pos-
ition, meanings and values are constantly being maintained and transformed
Mobile Cultures? 17
are dealing with an extension of the social realm into transnational spaces
where the collective resources, or cultural repertoire from which people draw
can incorporate a range of diverse elements from other places, as much
imagined and virtual, as corporeal and material (Hannerz, 1996; Miller &
Slater, 2000; Rapport & Dawson, 1998; Urry, 2000, 2002a). To think otherwise
is quite simply to ignore the ‘… intercultural import–export’ in which all
encounters are now enmeshed (Clifford, 1997: 23) and arguably always have
been. So it appears, at least on the surface, that what we are dealing with here
is a matter of ‘travelling cultures’ (Clifford, 1992, 1997; see also Rojek & Urry,
1997: 11; Urry, 2002b: 156), despite the the claim by Bauman (1999) that culture
is an outmoded concept for analytical purposes, and should be replaced with
notions of transience and mobility (see also Albrow et al., 1997; Urry, 2002a).
that being neither one thing nor the other, appear to belong nowhere (Rojek &
Urry, 1997: 11).
One of the more articulate models of hybridity has been provided by Neder-
veen-Pieterse (1995). He argues that although cultures can no longer be
thought of as exclusively territorial in their scope, locality is not diminished
in its importance for despite all the forms of travel and mobility, attachment
to place still has salience in people’s lives (see also Tomlinson, 1999). His
approach to this dual feature, mobility in the one hand and stasis on the other,
is to propose a dual model of culture. The rst, as a localised process, most
usually associated with the notion of cultures as ‘wholes’ dened by territory,
and the second, as a translocal process, a formulation similar to that by Sarup
(1994: 95) who similarly distinguishes between space-based action, that which
one can move from, and space-bound action, which is more limiting. How-
ever, these are not mutually exclusive, rather the rst is inward-looking, while
the second is outward-looking. To focus on hybridity is to focus on the dialec-
tical relationship between the two, the emergence then of hybrid forms then
is a combination of the xed local with the mobile translocal (Nederveen-
Pieterse, 1995: 61). Now in many ways this appears to t the case of tourism
well, the xed local combines with transient tourism to create a hybrid tour-
istic culture that can be illustrated by Figure 1.
However, there are a number of problems here not the least being that of
accounting for the diverse range of activities encompassed by the label tour-
ism. First, there is no single unitary category of ‘the tourist’ both in terms of
origins, as much as the type of activity undertaken, in which case we would
then be dealing with a multiplicity of hybrid forms, which in itself calls the
utility of the concept into question. The second point is that it is people, not
cultures that travel, to think otherwise is to commit the error of assuming that
cultures are entities endowed the capacity to act. Third, as the forms of
mobility inherent in globalisation extend beyond travel for leisure, including
commodities, money and forms of media, then the logic of the argument must
extend it to cover all forms of movement. Perhaps one way to approach the
problem is to assume that, rather than being the exceptions to a rule, all cul-
tures are by denition hybrids (Nederveen-Pieterse, 1995, 2001; Urry, 2002b).
However, such a formulation reduces the complexity of global interaction to
a simple tautology that has no heuristic value whatsoever. A less strong pos-
ition can be made if we argue that some cultures are more hybrid than others,
but in order to argue that point, we would therefore have to delimit and dene
the constituent parts that go into their creation. In other words we would
need to specify which particular elements of a local culture were ‘authenti-
cally’ local, and which were ‘authentically’ transnational. If the logic of this
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
position is pursued, we can therefore say that hybrids can only exist if there
is some non-hybrid against which to compare them. Two examples can be
used to illustrate this point.
John Eade’s study of the changes to London as a result of successive waves
of migration nds that ‘Soho and Spitalelds, in particular, contains people
who are exploring a pick-and-mix world of hybrid identities that dees the
simplicities of homogenous identities and communities’ (2000: 181). Cultural
identity for these people then extends beyond the spatial limitations of their
immediate locale, linking them to their nominal homelands, in this case Hong
Kong and Bangladesh (see also Miller & Slater, 2000). By way of contrast, the
situation described by O’Reilly (2000), concerning the particular situation of
British expatriates living in Spain tells a different story. These are people who
consciously maintain their distance from Spanish society, by steadfastly refus-
ing to learn the language for instance, and tend to live a rather marginal exist-
ence. Although maintaining some aspects of their British identity, they also
at the same time attempt to distance themselves from their culture of origin.
What these examples point to are the ways in which forms of cultural identity
can be played out in situations where point of origin and the actual location
of those involved are not coterminous. In this sense they are then incorporat-
ing both local and translocal elements of the kind described by Nederveen-
Pieterse (see also Kraidy, 2002). In both these cases though what we see are
people both creating and maintaining forms of cultural identity that are cre-
ated as different in relation to a wider culture against which they can be com-
pared, if there is no centre, then there is no hybrid.
Hybridity then may only be variety of the subculture argument, a means
for recognising diversity while at the same time seeking to integrate it into a
whole (Albrow et al., 1997: 26). In other words, we would simply be retreating
into the position I criticised earlier, that of dening the local as unitary and
essential, and the translocal as that which is simply ‘outside’, ‘other’ and ‘in
between’. So rather than solving the problem of essentialism or transcending
boundaries as it may rst appear, hybridity, and for that matter creolisation
and other cognate terms simply confuses them. All cultures x boundaries,
indeed, they cannot be recognised as such unless this is so (Appadurai, 1996;
Bauman, 1999; Fardon, 1995; Freidman, 1995, 1997; Sahlins, 1993). We also
have to acknowledge that this mixing of cultural forms is as much a process
of absorption as anything else, as Signe Howell states ‘... the borrowing of
alien knowledge, and its adaptation to local needs, is going on constantly’,
and that such processes of indigenisation of alien knowledge occur as much
20 Tourism and Cultural Change
‘here’ and ‘there’ (1995: 165). In this sense, to take something and make it
‘ours’ is to exploit difference as a condition of group creation (Appadurai,
1996: 13).
There are then three qualications that need to be made at this point. First,
the concept of hybridity may be a useful metaphor, but has very limited utility
as a general analytical category from which to approach the wider issues of
globalisation and cultural change. Second, despite all the mobility of contem-
porary globalisation, locality does not simply disappear under its apparent
onslaught for as Freise and Wagner point out, ‘One does not have to assume
that there are no stable linkages at all, that everything is contingent and in
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
ux’ (1999: 113). Third, there is also a danger that, having rejected the idea
of culture as a static container, the unxed and the mobile itself may be roman-
ticised and valorised by assuming that stasis is reactionary, and ux ‘progress-
ive’ (Morley, 2000: 228–229; see also Sineld, 2000: 104). Bearing this in mind,
we need to follows Clifford’s (1997: 36) advice not to fall into the trap of
assuming that ‘nomadology’ is the name of the game.
Culture as Strategy
It must also be recognised that assertions of cultural distinctiveness are
assertions made perhaps, in the face of what appears to be the disempowering
processes of globalisation, as much as the exploitation of the possibilities for
new cultural forms that globalisation offers us, for as Clifford remarks:
… when every cultural agent (especially global capitalism) is mixing and
matching forms, we need to be able to recognize strategic claims for
localism or authenticity as possible sites of resistance and empowerment
rather than of simple nativism (1997: 183).
There are then also instances where cultural formation, rather than proceed-
ing in the direction of a greater mixing, seems to be heading in an opposite
trajectory of essentialism. The anthropologist Karsten Paerregaard notes, in
his study of rural–urban migration in Peru, that the migrants tend to localise
and essentialise their identity as a means of demarcating themselves from
other urban inhabitants: ‘Whereas we deterritorialize and deconstruct culture,
they territorialize and essentialize it’ (1997: 252; see also Medina, 2003: 365).
Just as fast as social theory is opening the box of culture, ‘others’ it would
seem, are just as quickly closing it up again. What is at work in these instances
is a self-conscious deployment of difference. As the cases above make clear,
to claim that one is a member of a hybrid culture is ‘ … an act of self-denition’
(Freidman, 1997: 81; see also Bauman, 1992; Hall, 2001; Hoogvelt, 2001; Jami-
son, 1999; Waters, 1990). What we should also add to that is that whereas in
theoretical terms we can discard essentialism as an outmoded and misguided
approach, this is not the way it is perceived by many of those caught up in
the complex array of cultural interchange that is occurring. It would also be
misleading, for to do so would also be conating culture as practice and cul-
ture as an analytical category (Wicker, 1997: 42–3).
One way of approaching this particular problem is to distinguish between
what Grifn has termed the intrinsic and instrumental uses of culture (2000:
196; see also Eade, 2000: 4–6). As an intrinsic quality, culture refers to forms
Mobile Cultures? 21
tinction, rather than a loss of it. Silverman’s account of tourism in the Sepik
river region of Papua New Guinea (2000) provides an interesting example
here. In terms of the production of tourist art or souvenirs, he notes that
whereas tourism has created a demand for certain items, many of which are
non-traditional, this has not resulted in any degradation to the production of
objects for their own use:
Men, for example, refuse to peddle bull roarers or proper bamboo utes,
male cult objects that must remain concealed from women … objects that
resemble ritual items differ from sacra in nonvisual ways that are that
are unknown to most tourists and buyers (2000: 114).
Here we nd people actively engaging in the tourist encounter for their own
economic gain, while at the same time being able to reconcile the needs of
the tourists with their own cultural practices. As Freidman (1995: 87–88)
argues, global cultural processes are best considered as ‘… positioned prac-
tices such as assimilation, encompassment and integration in the context of
social interaction’ (see also Hendry, 2000; Mathews, 2000; Sahlins, 1993; Teo &
Li, 2003). In this sense, their actions are strategic (Oakes, 1997; Rodriguez,
1998; Sjöberg, 1993; Wilkinson, 2000). In other words, what is occurring is a
struggle to control the practices of cultural production and reproduction in
the light of changing circumstances. In other cases this can also involve com-
plex legal arguments concerning intellectual property rights (see Howes,
1996), as much as serving the political ambitions of the nation state
(Hitchcock & King, 1997; Picard, 1996) or the tourism industry.
If this is accepted, then it follows that the focus of enquiry should be the
processes of authentication, through which specic social practices and forms
of knowledge are institutionalised and authorised as being legitimate
expressions of a culture (Spooner, 1986; Wood, 1997). It is these processes of
cultural invention that serve to demarcate and differentiate between people.
Neither should we perceive this as a threat, for it is precisely the processes
involved in the localising or indigenisation of cultural forms that are the sys-
tematic conditions of maintaining cultural distinctiveness (Wood, 1997: 19).
The fact that cultural give and take has always been with us is beyond doubt,
and many studies in addition to those cited above have drawn attention to
these processes and the effects that occur when cultures come into contact
with each other. Various aspects of both material and non-material cultures
are borrowed, decontextualised and recontextualised, according to localised
22 Tourism and Cultural Change
needs, and it is through such processes that they become an accepted part of
a given culture.
we are seeing occurring across the globe are mobility and hybridity, replacing
stasis and purity as the dominant metaphors around which we appear to be
organising our response towards the global issue of cultural change.
Certainly we have a situation that is more uid than in the past, and tour-
ism, involving as it does the mass and temporary movement of people, exemp-
lies the changes and challenges of such mobility. The processual nature of
cultural change, involving the dynamic interplay of the global with the local,
the general with the particular, may involve forms of assimilation or resist-
ance, and may also involve forms of indigenisation through which ‘outside’
elements become incorporated into local cultures. In many ways these pro-
cesses are neither new nor unique, but clearly the scope and pace of change
is of a new intensity. However, the examples I have given also indicate that
origins and locality are still important elements around which a sense of ident-
ity can be constructed. This seems to me to cast doubts on the stronger claims
that the condition of globalisation is one where everything, and indeed every-
body, is mobile and owing. However, that does not in itself rule out the
possibility that we are faced with a situation where hybrid forms of culture
and identity are emerging such as appears to be the case where recognisable
minority populations are involved. Therefore it must be acknowledged that
the current conditions of globalisation, with mobility and transience to the
fore, allow for a much greater degree of mixing and interchange than was
possible in the past and which clearly involves the transient mobility of tour-
ism. But to draw from that the conclusion that hybridity, or whatever cognate
term we use, is a general condition of global mobility is I think, not proven.
Indeed it would appear that hybridity only has salience only if it is self-con-
sciously practised as such. The articulation of a culture as hybrid or creolised
is both a claim to collectivity and also to particularism, which in turn marks
and delimits the acceptable boundaries of what it is to be ‘other’ and ‘hybrid’.
The transgression of boundaries may well dissolve the old certainties, but by
so doing erect others in their place. If we accept that this is a general feature
of culture, in the sense of cultures as bounded systems of knowledge, then
the focus should be upon the processual nature of cultural formations that
seek to link the general to the particular.
However, these new forms of culture and identity are different in a number
of ways to those that preceded them. First, they are not necessarily cotermi-
nous with the nation state, indeed they often involve forms of identication
that attempt to bridge an imaginary or removed homeland with the more
localised and specic places and conditions in which people are located.
Mobile Cultures? 23
acting, also certain material goods not cultures that travel, as cultures are not
entities endowed with the capacity of agency. Yet each act of travel is also an
act of transformation. Culture as lived experience consists of patterns of social
relationships – for all their imaginary components – that need to be realised
in practical actions, and these actions are always circumscribed by the specic
conditions of localities.
The idea of hybridity then, fails I think, to recognise the inherently pro-
cessual making and remaking of culture. Hybridity can only have salience if
it presupposes that cultures are xed and essentialised, otherwise it would
not be possible to identify the elements that, in combination, create the hybrid.
Those who claim a hybrid identity are doing so as a self-conscious act of
positioning in relation to a wider set of values perceived as dominant. At the
same time we also have to recognise that within any culture there will always
be some element of essentialism at work. But perhaps it is not after all, essen-
tialism that is the problem, rather it is a case of recognising that essentialism
may in fact be the mechanism through which cultures are dened in the rst
place. The point here though is the essentialism at work here is not that of
the theorist, but rather that of the agent, so there is a need then to distinguish
between the usage if culture as an analytical category, and the use of culture
to achieve strategic and instrumental ends.
Certainly forms of culture do span what were previously thought of as self-
contained and relatively isolated realms of culture and knowledge, and even
time. These new spaces created as much, it needs to be said, by the operation
of global economics as by forms of knowledge and ways of acting, exhibit a
dual character. Anchored on the one and to the specicities of localities, at
the same time they extend to other more abstract notions of collectivity and
identity. In this way they encompass both the universal features of a culture –
dened in terms of a delimited set of knowledge and practices – and its parti-
cular manifestations as lived experience. Cultural change cannot simply be
accounted for in terms of a shift from one state into another. Rather, it needs
to be seen in processual terms that focus on the ways in which cultural forms
and practices become indigenised and transformed, the realisation of value
systems in terms of practical actions that are continuously being deployed,
which seek to link the general to the particular. To return to one of my opening
comments, in terms of cultural change tourism is not the starting point, rather
it is a manifestation of social, economic and cultural phenomena that are now
being played out on the global stage in complex forms of interaction, within
which tourism is one element among others.
24 Tourism and Cultural Change
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Kevin Meethan, Department of
Sociology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
(K.Meethan@plymouth.ac.uk).
References
Abram, S., Waldren, J. and MacLeod, D.V. (eds) (1997) Tourists and Tourism: Identifying
with People and Places. Oxford: Berg.
Albrow, M., Eade, J., Dürrschmidt, J. and Washbourne, N. (1997) The impact of glo-
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
In K. Olwig and K. Hastrup (eds) Siting Culture: The Shifting Anthropological Object.
London: Routledge.
Freise, H. and Wagner, P (1999) Not all that is solid melts into air: Modernity and
contingency. In M. Featherstone and S. Lash (eds) Spaces of Culture: City, Nation,
World. Sage: London.
Frow, J. (1997) Time and Commodity Culture: Essays in Cultural Theory and Postmodernism.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ghimire, K. (ed.) (2001) The Native Tourist: Mass Tourism within Developing Countries.
London: Earthscan.
Grifn, K. (2000) Culture and economic growth: The state and globalization. In J. Ned-
erveen-Pieterse (ed.) Global Futures: Shaping Globalization. London: Zed Books.
Hall, S. (2001) The Multicultural Question. Milton Keynes: Pavis Centre, Open Univer-
sity.
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. London: Routledge.
Harrison, D. (2000) Tourism in Africa: The social and cultural framework. In P.U.C.
Dieke (ed.) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa. New York: Cogniz-
ant Communication Corporation.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Poli-
tics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hendry, J. (2000) The Orient Strikes Back: A Global View of Cultural Display. Oxford: Berg.
Howes, D. (1996) De-commodifying Indianness. In D. Howes (ed.) (1996) Cross-Cultural
Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. London: Routledge.
Hitchcock, M. (1999) Tourism and ethnicity: Situational perspectives. International Jour-
nal of Tourism Research 1 (1), 17–33.
Hitchcock, M., King, V.T. and Parnwell, M.J.G. (eds) (1993) Tourism in South East Asia.
London: Routledge.
Hitchcock, M and King, V.T. (eds) (1997) Images of Malay – Indonesian Identity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hollinshead, K. (1998) Tourism, hybridity and ambiguity: The relevance of Bhaba’s
‘third space’ cultures. Journal of Leisure Research 30 (1), 121–156.
Holton, R.J. (1998) Globalization and the Nation State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Hoogvelt, A. (2001) Globalization and the Postcolonial World (2nd edn). Basingstoke: Pal-
grave.
Howell, S. (1995) Whose knowledge and whose power? In R. Fardon (ed.) Coun-
terworks: Managing the Diversity of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Hughes, H. (2000) The elusive cultural tourist. In M. Robinson, P. Long, N. Evans, R.
Sharpley and J. Swarbrooke (eds) Expressions of Culture, Meaning and Identity in Tour-
ism. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.
Ifversen, J. (2002) Europe and European culture: A conceptual analysis. European
Societies 4 (1), 1–26.
Jamison, D. (1999) Tourism and ethnicity: The brotherhood of coconuts. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 26 (4), 944–967.
Kraidy, M. (2002) The global, the local and the hybrid: A native ethnography of glo-
calisation. In S. Taylor (ed.) Ethnographic Research: A Reader. London: Sage.
Kuper, A. (1999) Culture: The Anthropologist’s Account. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
26 Tourism and Cultural Change
Levenstein, H. (1998) Seductive Journey: American Tourists in France from Jefferson to the
Jazz Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lohmann, M., and Mundt, J. (2002) Maturing markets for cultural tourism: Germany
and the demand for the ‘cultural’ destination. In R. Voase (ed.) Tourism in Western
Europe: A Collection of Case Histories. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
MacCannell, D. (1992) Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. London: Routledge.
MacCannell, D. (1996) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (2nd edn). New
York: Schocken Books.
Martinez, D.P. (ed.) (1998) The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture: Gender, Shifting Bound-
aries and Global Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, G. (2000) Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012
Ritzer, G. (2000) The McDonaldization of Society. New Century edition. Pine Forge Press:
Thousand Oaks.
Ritzer, G. and Liska, A. (1997) ‘McDisneyization’ and ‘Post Tourism’: Complementary
perspectives on contemporary tourism. In C. Rojek and J. Urry (eds) Touring Cul-
tures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. London: Routledge.
Robertson, G., Mash, M., Tickner, L., Bird, J., Curtis, B. and Putnam, T. (eds) (1994)
Travellers’ Tales: Narratives of Home and Displacement. London: Routledge.
Robinson, M. (1999) Cultural conicts in tourism: Inevitability and inequality. In M.
Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conicts. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Rodriguez, S. (1998) Fiesta time and plaza space: Resistance and accommodation in a
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:37 03 September 2012