982 RESEARCH J\'OTES

RESEARCH NOTES AND

AND REPORTS
REPORTS 11

I 996b Statistik A.rbog. Nuuk: Grnnlands Statistik.

Viken, A., and L. Krogh
1994 Et konkurranscdyktig Nord-Norge. Strategisk analyse av nordnorsk
na-ringsliv. Reiselivsna::ringen. Rapport No. 2. Alta: Finnmark Research
Center.

Submitted 7 November 1996

Resubmitted 6 December 1996
Accepted 31 January 1997 PII: SO 160- 7383 (97) 00034-0

Theories of Modern and Postmodern Tourism

Natan Uriely
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

This research note pays attention to the shift from the 70s theories of
"modern" tourism towards the contemporary discourse of "postmodern"
tourism. The findings suggest that, beyond the different notions regarding
the nature of tourism, this shift involves a change in the style and form of
theorizing within the sociology of tourism.
The terms postmodern and post modernism refer, among other phenom•
ena, to a new form of theorizing the contemporary historical moment
(Denzin 1991:3). In this context, postmodern social theory reacts against
grand theories and their tendency to conceptualize societies as totalities.
Postmodern social theory is also characterized by its compromising nature
which supports "both-and" rather than "either-or" statements (Denzin
1991:27, 151). This aspect of postmodern theory reflects the notion of the
postmodernist logic as non-dualistic and anti-hierarchial (Lather 1991).
Similarly, postmodernist systems of knowledge are less authoritative, less
conclusive, and more pluralized than modernist systems of knowledge
(Bauman 1987).
The study of tourism emerged as a distinguished sociological subject•
field mainly during the 70s. In spite of the different conceptualizations of
tourism, most of the students in the field were unified in their perceptions
of tourism as a modern phenomenon. Nevertheless, the field was domi•
nated by two competing viewpoints regarding the nature and meaning of
the modern tourist experience. One side of the debate took the form of
social criticism, in which tourism was viewed as a symptom of modern
decadence. This conceptual approach was represented by scholars who
pe rce ived the modern tourist experience as a trivial and superficial activity
which involves a quest for contrived experiences (Barthes 1972; Boorstin
1964; Turner and Ash 1975). The opposing approach was primarily rep•
resented by MacCannell ( 1973) who conceptualized the tourist experience
as a meaningful modern ritual which involves a quest for the authentic.
The polemic between these two perspectives was manifested in Mac•
Cannell's direct attack against the former approach. In this context,
MacCannell referred to Boorstin's outlook as a snobbish attitude rather
than an academic analysis which is based on empirical research ( 1973:600).
His attempt to de-legitimize the competing viewpoint reflects the non•
compromising and authoritative attitude which was associated above with
modernist systems of knowledge. Furthermore, Boorstin's and Mac•
Canncll's theories shared the tcndencv of modernist forms of analvsis to
view societies as totalities. In this r~spect, both standpoints ha{e not
982 RESEARCH J\'OTES
RESEARCH NOTES AND
AND REPORTS
REPORTS 22

captured the existing variety in the practice of tourism and offered a total
portrayal of the "tourist" as a general type. It should be mentioned,
however, that the homogenizing depictions of the tourist experience were
challenged in the late 70s by Cohen who proposed that "different kinds of
people may desire different modes of tourist experiences" (1979: 180).
Since the late 70s and the early 80s, a growing number of scholars have
addressed various tourism-related activities as expressions of post•
modernist rather than modernist culture. Contemporary trends in tourism,
such as the rise of small and specialized travel agencies, the growing
attraction of nostalgia and "heritage tourism", the flourishing of nature•
oriented tourism, and the increase of simulated tourism-related environ•
ments, are labeled as aspects of "postmodern tourism". The sociological
discourse of postmodern tourism consists of two theoretical frameworks•
the "simulational" and the "other" postmodern tourism (Munt 1994 ).
The simulational line of scholarship is focused around the analysis of
"hyperreal" experiences and refers to simulated theme parks and other
contrived attractions as typical postmodern environments (Baudrillard
1983; Eco 1986; Featherstone 1991; Gottdiner 1995; Lash and Urry 1994;
Pretes 1995). Conceptualizations of the "other" postmodern tourism stress
the search for the "real" and point to the growing appeal of the "natural"
and the countryside as postmodern expressions (Barrett 1989; Munt 1994;
Poon 1989; Urry 1990). It seems as though the distinction between the
"simulational" and the "other" dimensions of postmodern tourism follows
the polarity noted among the earlier theories of modern tourism.
While the "simulational" postmodern tourism follows Boorstin's notion
of "pseudo-events" (1964), the "other" postmodern tourism follows Mac•
Cannell's argument regarding the quest for authenticity. Unlike the earl•
ier notions of modern tourism, however, the "simulational" and the
"other" dimensions of postmodern tourism do not derive from two oppos•
ing camps of scholars who challenge each other. On the contrary, some of
the important scholars of postmodern tourism include both the "sirnu•
lational" and the "other" dimensions in their complete portrayal of post•
modern tourism (e.g., Urry 1990). Furthermore, unlike the former
theories, the two dimensions of postmodern tourism construct comp•
lementary rather than contradictory sets of propositions regarding the
nature of tourism. For example, Munt 's recent article on the "other"
postmodern tourism begins with the statement ... "I do not set out to
challenge these 'post-tourism', but to consider, figuratively, the 'other'
possibilities of postmodern tourism" ( 1994: IO 1). Munt's statement reflects
the compromising nature of postmodern theories which involve "both•
and" rather than "either-or" attitudes.
In addition, conceptualizations of postmodern tourism depart from the
tendency of the earlier theories of modern tourism to homogenize the
tourist experience as a general type. On the contrary, postmodern tourism
is characterized by the multiplicity of tourist motivations, experiences,
and environments. In this respect, the notion of a diverse and plural realm
of postmodern tourism goes one step beyond Cohen's (1979) proposition
regarding the variety of tourist experiences. While Cohen proclaimed
that different people perform different tourist activities, Feifer (1985)
characterized the "post-tourist" by his/her enjoyment of moving across
the different types of tourist experiences. Such conceptualizations which
emphasize the multiplicity and flexibility of postmodern tourist experi•
ences react against the tendency of modernist theories to view societies as
totalities.
In sum, this analysis suggests that unlike the polemic, authoritative, and
homogenizing discourse of modern tourism, the discourse of postmodern
984 RESEARCH
RESEARCH NOTES
NOTES AND
AND REPORTS
REPORTS 33

tourism consists of compromising statements and stresses the multiplicity

of tourist experiences. Thus, it is argued that while the theorizing of
modern tourism during the 70s took the form of a modernist system of
knowledge, the sociological discourse of postmodern tourism could be
distinguished as a postmodernist form of theorizing. 0 0

Natan Uriely: Department of Hotel & Tourism Management, School of Management,

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84 I 05, Israel. Email
urielyn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il.

REFERENCES
Barrett, F.
1989 The Independent Guide to Real Holidays Abroad. London: The Inde•
pendent.
Barthes, R.
1972 Mythologies. London: Cape.
Baudrillard, J.
1983 Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
Bauman, Z.
1987 Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity.
Boorstin, D.
1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper.
Cohen, E.
1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Types. Sociology 13: 179-201.
Denzin, N.
1991 Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary Cinema.
London: Sage.
Eco, U.
1986 Travels in Hyper-Reality. London: Picador.
Featherstone, M.
1991 Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Feifer, M.
1985 Going Places. London: Macmillan.
Gottdiner, M.
1995 Postmodern Semeiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern
Life. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Lash, S., andj. Urry
1994 Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Lather, P.
1991 Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern.
New York: Routledge.
MacCannell, D.
1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.
American Sociological Review 79:589-603.
Munt, I.
1994 The "Other" Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the new Middle
Class. Theory, Culture and Society 11: IO 1-123.
Poon, A.
1989 Competitive Strategies for a New Tourism. In Progress in Tourism, Rec•
reation and Hospitality Management (Vol. I), C. Cooper, ed. London:
Belhaven.
Pretes, M.
1995 Postmodern Tourism: The Santa Claus Industry. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:1-15.
Turner, L., andj. Ash
1975 The Golden Hordes. London: Constable.
984 RESEARCH
RESEARCH NOTES
NOTES AND
AND REPORTS
REPORTS 44

Urry,J.
1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:
Sage.
Submitted 25 November 1996
Resubmitted 18 December 1996
Accepted 31 January 1997 PII: SO 160- 7383 (97) 00029- 7

Site Selection Criteria of the Small Trade Association

Penny M. Simpson
Mary Lynn Wilkerson
Northwestern State University of Louisiana, USA

Two emerging trends have created a tremendous opportunity for both

small towns and businesses: the movement toward smaller meetings for
industrial and trade associations (Serlen 1992) and the need for rural
communities to diversify their economies through tourism (Edgell and
Edwards 1993). The opportunity lies in the integration of the two trends
where businesses and trade associations hold their small meetings in rural
areas. This integration has numerous advantages for both organizations
and small towns.
Small towns and rural areas are localities with fewer than 50,000 resi•
dents and "includes about 25 percent of the U.S. population and 90 percent
of its natural resources" (Edgell and Edwards 1993: 10), making rural areas
an important component of the United States economy. The agricultural
and small industrial base of many of these rural economies has eroded
over the past few decades, creating the need for small towns to find new
sources of revenue and to diversify their reliance on any one economic base
(Edgell and Harbaugh 1993). Experts agree that one viable way to achieve
this objective is to tap into the $360 billion tourism industry (Schiefelbein
1992). Tourism dollars can provide an infusion of money into these econ•
omies and can significantly revitalize, diversify, and stabilize a small town's
economy by bringing new money into the community and by creating jobs
and business opportunities which may even influence migration patterns
(Edgell and Edwards 1993; Schneider 1993). Moreover, tourism requires
relativelv little investment in resources because it "relies on an area's
cultural,' historic, ethnic, geographic, and national uniqueness" (Edgell
and Edwards 1993:10).
One l ik clv source of these tourism dollars for small towns is trade
association ~mall meetings, especially in view of the recent trend toward
smaller meetings held closer to "home" and over shorter time periods to
hold down costs and improve meeting effectiveness (Serlen 1992). Such
towns may be well positioned to satisfy the needs of small meetings because
they generally have lower costs and better service than their big city
counterparts. This is especially important when considering that meeting
planners view high cost as a major reason for selecting/rejecting a par•
ticular city for meetings (Marketing 1992). But before small towns can
begin to capitalize on this strategic window of opportunity, they must
understand association and business meeting needs. As Clark and McCle•
ary ( 1995:62) note," ... the process used for selecting the city for meetings