Tourism Anthropology

Tourism Anthropology The field of tourism anthropology is a complex set of research agendas and interests. Social anthropology and cultural anthropology are related to the field of tourism anthropology, which understands human interaction and the meaning of its processes. Tourism anthropology is largely dominated by the use of an ethnographic research method, in contrast to sociological and other approaches used in the field of social sciences. This type of anthropology requires the involvement of various traditions and paradigms or points of view related to the field of anthropology and the ability to place them in tourism knowledge. There are two views of the cultural modification process that have been developed in the field of tourism anthropology. This is a crucial issue that demands not only the attention of anthropologists, but also their opinions. In this field, there are at least two critical approaches, namely based on acculturation theory and based on the assumption of cultural commodification. The first study of tourism anthropology was written by Nunez (1963). In this work, the relationship between tourists and hosts is approached from an acculturation perspective. Changes in culture are the result of the resilience capacity of local cultures and the intense pressures caused by tourism. Nunez's work can be connected to traditions in the anthropology of acculturation. Herskovits and Bastide emphasized that the process of one culture dominating another culture does exist, almost always in the same form and theology. In line with this work, during the development of the anthropology of tourism, there have been several consequences or consequences of this theory, which maximize tourism pressure as a factor that modifies local culture. (MacCannell, 1976; Nash, 1977; Graburn, 1980; Boorstin, 1992). Erik Cohen (1974), based on a sociological approach, emphasizes the importance of tourism as a research object. Cohen's work is characterized by an approach that views tourism as an object of various relationships, such as hospitality, on the context of the location in which it occurs. Cohen articulates Mauss's related concepts of sociability and consequence-taking as explained by Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner. Graburn (1977) and Nash (1977) discuss approaches to the relationship between sacred/tradition and profane/modern. Based on this view, while tourism seeks cultural and subjective experiences of change, which simultaneously offers elements of the sacred, such extreme commodification is irreverent. In general, regarding the issue of cultural change, anthropologists continue to think critically about the influence of tourism. The framework of this vision could also include the classic collection organized by Valene Smith (1977), Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism. Across all the works in this collection, there is a clear critical bias towards tourism as domination. In several works, researchers familiarize themselves with the view that tourism has a major influence on cultural change, as stated by Sahlins (1972). According to Sahlins, the possibility of one culture being modified by another culture is like a two-way street: influencing and modifying can occur on both sides. From this perspective, Steiner and Reisinger and Cole developed an approach that sought to overcome both the perspective of total domination of one culture over another culture and the perspective based on commercial interests that were always detrimental and without reaction from the local culture. The authors view tourism as a new era of colonialism to continue and accelerate the production of inter- and intraregional inequality. On the other hand, the author advocates the positive role of tourism in developing destinations, which allows reducing inequality and is effective in development through proper planning. What is at stake is the concept of tourism and the academic tradition of anthropology. The group that defines tourism as colonialism is anchored in the political anthropology of Marxist Eric Wolf (1982). In contrast, groups advocating tourism rewards are anchored in several economic theories that emphasize the potential of globalization. In relation to the conception of tourism, one of the most significant approaches was stated by Peter Burns, who stated that tourism can be seen as "part of a broad social process in a complex and interconnected world, illustrating the nature of the value system that underpins the modern world". According to this perspective, tourism is presented as an emblem of time and therefore a privileged field for understanding the contemporary world. This is the fundamental reason why Burns (1999), among others, considers tourism analysis to be important. There are many discussions in which tourism anthropology develops and articulates concepts in tourism theory. Some of these areas have already consolidated production and made important contributions, whereas others remain relatively unexplored. According to MacCannell although these studies have a certain eclecticism, they emphasize that, to attract tourists, there is a need to build a positive, descriptive and stereotypical image of a particular destination. The problem of cultural change is against the background of local identity (Li, 2000), tangible and intangible heritage and its diverse manifestations (Knox, 2008). This approach usually begins with Frederik Barth's (1998) theory of ethnic groups and their ways of functioning, and addresses both community customs and other groups. It is worth noting that most work in the field of tourism anthropology has dealt with groups considered to be ethnic, especially indigenous groups. A theoretical field within the anthropology of tourism that remains largely unresearched. mobility in the current stage of globalization which received attention from sociologist John Urry (2000) – illustrates this aspect. In the anthropology of tourism, special emphasis can be placed on the contributions of Salazar (2010) and Salazar and Smart (2011). Refers to cultural and group mobility and its meaning for the construction of identity, subjectivity and interaction in tourism. However, there are a variety of issues that still lack a collection of important analyzes in terms of mobility. There are few productions that demand attention from the anthropology of tourism such as religious pilgrimage and sports tourism. In many of these areas, the contribution of tourism anthropology, given the nature of the questions it proposes to investigate, could be of central value to the emerging discussions and to the understanding of tourism itself. It is hoped that in the future, these fields will benefit from development and receive attention from researchers in the field of tourism anthropology.