el and Aspects of Societal Structure: A mparison of India and the United States singh Recreation Research, Centre for Tourism Research and Development, w, India theoretical studies in tourism depend on the methods of illustrative comparison ‘case study. The limitations of the case study approach have lately been discussed. the method of illustrative comparison, it does not allow deductive development of . To rectify this situation, and to overcome the lacunae in methodology that Dann al, (1988) and Nash (1996) complain about, the method of formal or systematic parison can be brought to bear on tourism in various societies. In such a study, this xr compares two large, complex societies — India and the USA ~ and looks at the fications of travel. It analyses the institutionalisation of travel in a modern (US) ‘a modernising (Indian) society, including aspects of societal structure that are .d in the language, and debates whether MacCannell’s (1989) argument that ism is a ‘modern ritual’ can be borne out. The paper concludes by looking at some the theoretical implications and discussing the practical implications of the study for lopment of tourism in India. ords: travel, social structure, institutionalisation, comparison, anthropol- Introduction In the social scientific study of tourism, description has frequently taken precedence over analysis and explanation (Dann ef al., 1988: 4). This is partly because social scientists have often not collaborated with each other and there has been little cross-fertilisation in theory and practice. When it comes to the social and cultural study of tourism, this is surprising and disappointing particu- larly because sociocultural anthropology, a discipline which has a tradition of eclecticism and inter-disciplinary as well as cross-disciplinary research, could have played a lead role in overcoming this obstacle. In contrast, it is sad to note that the methodological rigour that anthropologists have brought to sub-disci- plinary research in their own field is missing in tourism studies (see Dann et al., 1988; Nash, 1996, 2000). One is hard put to find an anthropological study of tour- ism that makes use of concepts informed by economic, psychological, political, and linguistic anthropology, although Graham Dann (1996) has made a valuable contribution in the last, a related field where there is a blurring of boundaries between disciplines (between ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics). The anthropologist studying culture, society and tourism is deluged by ques- tions that seem to have escaped the notice of others. What is the effect, for instance, of the introduction of cash by tourists in a cash-less society or community? (see ‘Adams, 1992) What is the relation between the economic and political structure of asociety post-tourism? What is the influence of tourist culture on the language of a tourism-generating society and vice versa? Is tourism a modern phenomenon (@ la 1368-3500 / 03 / 03 0209-26 $20/0 © 2003 S. Singh Current Issues in Tourism Vol. 6, No. 3, 2003210 Current Issues in Tourism MacCannell, 1989) or is it as old as civilisation? Such broad questions are rarely answered. Indeed, as Crick (1989) says, representations of tourism in the social sciences are all too often enervatingly similar to popular notions and images of the tourist: the ‘modern’ barbarian, a product of an ersatz culture. Selecting the approach Selecting the right approach is the key to understanding tourism phenomena. Most sociological studies in tourism depend on two social scientific methods — illustrative comparison and case study. Belatedly, the limitations of the case study approach have been realised: it is not especially useful in, for example, deductive development of theory. But the method of illustrative comparison, where the scholar is allowed to pick and choose cases that fit the generalisation, is even more misleading. As a result, there is no single coherent theory to explain the phenomenon of tourism. Typologies and definitions of tourism and tourists abound. It may be all right for some to advocate a spirit of ‘tolerance’ for the diversity of definitions (see Wang, 2000) and theories but finding a valid para- digm or theoretical framework in such a situation is a task in frustration. No wonder, then, that some scholars, as Crick (1989) notes, have been led to conclude that the social scientific study of tourism is in a state of crisis. Given the fact that tourism social science is dependent on paradigms borrowed from various social sciences and has no theory of its own, save the conceptions of leisure and kinesics, what can be done to. rectify the situation? To begin with, there is a need for ‘middle-range theory’ that compacts the various available concepts into an integral whole. The concepts of carrying capacity for tourism and the destination lifecycle fall in this category. However, as far as tourism-carrying capacity is concerned, it is a concept ridden with problems that reflect the lack of consis- tency of theory in tourism studies in general (Singh, 1999). As this article suggests, an application of the method of formal or systematic comparison would reveal how the roots of travel are embedded in the structure of a society (societal structure); this can be fruitfully investigated for developing or testing a theory of tourism. It is necessary here to select a theory (or theories) of tourism that seek(s) to explain the social phenomena of travel in their own contexts; that is by ‘things social’, pace Durkheim. The most widely recognised if controversial sociological theories and explanations of tourism are offered by MacCannell (1976, 1989) and Graburn (1983). Dennison Nash (1996) and Erik Cohen (1972) have also made some seminal contributions but have restricted their theorisation to accommodate facts. Taking up the first two theories, the more precise method of limited universe comparison is brought to bear on two societies - the USA and India — in an attempt to reveal the ramifications of travel and relevant aspects of societal struc- ture. Although the comparison will not take all aspects of societal structure and culture’ into account, a few carefully selected units of comparison will test these theories. Through comparison, some generalisations will emerge which will clarify how far (or whether) these theories are applicable. Inter alia, the paper would answer some critical questions asked by Crick (1989), who reported that the image of the tourist in the social sciences is no better than the popular image of the tourist. In conclusion, the implications for down-to-earth management of tourism and pilgrimage in India will be considered.Travel and Aspects of Societal Structure 2 Methods of comparison in the social sciences Comparison is one of the essential procedures of all the sciences and one of the elementary processes of thought (Evans-Pritchard, 1965a: 13). It is also elemen- tary that if some statements are to be made about social institutions they can only be made by comparison between the same type of institutions in different societ- ies. As far as societies are concerned, systematic comparison was first used by Herbert Spencer (in 1881 and 1882-83) and E.B. Tylor (in 1889) in sociology and anthropology, respectively. Later it was realised that the method of comparison employed in each of these studies lacked methodological rigour and was open to criticism (see Evans-Pritchard, 1965a). One of the useful lessons derived from this criticism was that the units of comparison should be of equivalent value and that the statistical use of comparison is not productive: it can pose questions but cannot give answers to these questions. It also established that, in comparison, oneis likely to come across both similarities and differences between the societies studied. Moreover, when this method is used, ‘little advance can be made unless each piece of research is done in relation to hypotheses, to confirm, reject or modify them’ (Evans-Pritchard, 1965a: 31; emphasis supplied). Accordingly, this study has taken up the hypotheses put forward by MacCannell (1989) and Graburn (1983), who have conceived of tourism as a ‘modern ritual’. Before a method is used, its limitations and drawbacks, if any, need to be considered. The method that will be employed here is one that has been recom- mended by authorities on the subject (for a fuller discussion see Sarana, 1975). The limitation of the approach is that it can give rise to a number of questions, all of which cannot be answered in a study of this scope. As the foregoing discussion shows, not all types of comparison are valid or desirable. But some structuralists and functionalists in anthropology and sociol- ogy are against comparative methods (or ‘the’ comparative method, as they put it) in general. The criticisms centre around three points. First, that cultures are not comparable at all because they must be viewed relatively. Second, that customs or social structures perform a function that is pertinent only in the culture in which they are found. And third, that comparison is not required because it is a waste of time and can be obviated by one well-chosen case or one well-done experiment. All three objections have been well tackled by Sarana (1975). Considering the position of the arch-relativists, Sarana has reminded us that extreme or arch-relativism, if accepted and practised generally, becomes an impediment in the development of any discipline. Attacks on the method of comparison in the name of functional integration are also myopic. The argument goes that the parts of a culture are functionally integrated. ‘Its implication is that to compare an aspect of culture with that of another means that both have been torn out of their respective cultural contexts’ (Sarana, 1975: 76). In some extreme cases this may hold good; but it can be overcome by a proper definition of the units and items of comparison and by making clear the level of abstraction at which one proposes to work (Sarana, 1975: 76). As Sarana points out, comparison of similar customs and social structures which perform different functions and vice versa will reveal more explicitly the nature and form of both. The third objection was voiced by Lévi-Strauss (1963: 288), quoting Durkheim, who stated: [W]hen a law has been proved by a well-performed experiment, this212 Current Issues in Tourism law is valid universally’. Again, Sarana (1975: 77) has been at pains to show that Durkheim, au contraire, was an acknowledged champion of the qualitative comparative method. He quotes Durkheim himself, who said that since social phenomena ‘escape the control of the experimenter, the comparative method is the only one suited to sociology’ (cited in Sarana, 1975: 77; emphasis supplied by Sarana). Itshould be pointed out that Lévi-Strauss isa different sort of structuralist. His structuralism derives from the concept of binary opposition as the basis of struc- ture, evidence of which he finds in language in general. A similar notion of structure can be found in tourism studies, as for example Graburn (1983) and others, who speak of structure and ‘anti-structure’, which forms the basis for their explanation of tourism as a ritual involving inversion. For structural-functionalists, ‘anti-structure’ is meaningless. As this author maintains, the concept of societal structure includes within itself all such ‘rules’ that allow inversion of behaviour. By societal structure (as a process) is meant the integrated functioning of various social structures to be found ina society suchas kinship structure, economic structure, political structure, religious structure, and so on (Sarana, 1976: 78). Thus, societal structure is the total structure of a soci- ety. It should not be confused with earlier definitions of social structure (e.g Radcliffe-Brown (1952), who said that social structure refers to ‘the network of actually existing social relations’), which did not account for multiplex relation- ships and latent functions of social institutions or cultural categories. To conclude, the method of comparison is well suited to the sociological and anthropological study of tourism, especially in elucidating the functions of insti- tutions and categories like religion, class and stratification and language. Comparison of totalities like societies, cultures or communities, in terms of their internal arrangement and functional inter-relation, to understand differences is ‘very valuable and . . . badly needed’ (Sarana, 1975: 76). Methodological issues This study will take up a modern (US) and a modernising (Indian) society. Modernity is defined in different ways by sociologists, anthropologists and economists. According to cross-cultural studies, however (see e.g. Nash, 1977; Singer, 1975), the process of modernisation — not ‘modernity’ per se is a univer- sal phenomenon that affects different societies and cultures differently. The strength of a culture or a societal structure determines to a large extent how it modernises and how much it modernises. The relationship between tourism and modernity has recently been explored by Wang (2000). However, Wang has not tested the theory with respect to a particular nation or nations. In fine, he has not used the method of formal comparison, although he has used the ‘method’ of illustrative comparison. Answering the question ‘why tourism? is the ultimate object of tourism stud- ies (Nash, 1984, 1996). As this paper will clarify, this last question cannot be answered in a way that holds good for all societies at all times. Indeed, tourism - defined briefly as ‘leisure travel’ — has been in existence in some form or the other in most, if not all, societies (Nash, 1984). However, according to MacCannell (1976: 13) tourism is a modern ritual ‘performed to the differentiations of {modern complex] society’ (words inserted by Graburn, 1983: 12). Put this way,Travel and Aspects of Societal Structure 213 this definition is almost tautological (modern tourism is a modern ritual performed to the differentiations of modern complex society). The question here is not whether tourism is a modern phenomenon but whether modern tourism is a modern ‘ritual’. (One is tempted to ask: What about tourism in general?) Here, one can only assume that MacCannell and Graburn know the difference between modern and pre-modern tourism and that they are deliberately restricting them- selves to modern tourism. According to Graburn’s interpretation, it appears that the hypothesis applies to all forms of tourism, and that is why Nash (1984) comes across strongly denying that this is a valid interpretation of tourism, which shows many facets that cannot be understood in such terms. The other question that springs immediately to mind, following this defini- tion, is — how modern must a society be for tourism to emerge as a ritual? Or, to rephrase it, what kind of modernity is required for tourism to become a ritual? And is it modernity only in the economic sense (standard roads and highways, efficient transport, adequate accommodation, high number of cars and tele- phones per thousand people, constant power supply, adequate communication facilities, high per capita income, low poverty levels, a five-day work week, good salaries) or in the social and psychological sense (high degree of literacy, motiva- tion to undertake leisure travel, differing wants and needs while on holiday — which can only be supplied by travel, and a desire to experience differences in culture or the search for ‘the Other’)? Modernity cannot be defined adequately by referring only to the economic factors but has to be defined with reference and in opposition to tradition (Singer, 1975). And some societies will remain traditional in one sense and modern in another. [It is to Wang’s credit that he (Wang, 2000) appreciates this distinction by using the term ‘Western modernity’. However, he applies the term ‘Eastern modernity’ ina very limited way to refer to countries like Japan and Singapore.] Thus, Indian society can give birth to Nobel laureates in such diverse fields as literature, physics and economics, Booker/Pulitzer prize-winning authors, produce Miss Universes/Miss Worlds, movies and movie directors that are labelled modernist, world class cars and other vehicles, sophisticated nuclear devices and nuclear power plants, satellites, world snooker and chess champions and many other ‘modern’ things and people — but still remain traditional in the main. There is, therefore, scope for making room for ‘modernising’ societies, which do not fall in this or that category. The logical question, if we make this assumption, is whether and why tourism arises in such societies. The answer depends on whether we think of tourism as only a modern phenomenon or are willing to accommodate leisure and pleasure travel such as that undertaken by the Romans, under the umbrella term ‘tourism’. It also depends on whether we think of tourism as a ritual or a social activity necessary for the maintenance and development of societal structure. To revert to MacCannell, if he has used modernity only in the economic sense, does it mean that Afro-Americans and Hispanics in the US are not ‘modern’ because they lack the amenities that the well-off White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) take for granted? Do Afro-Americans suddenly become modern if they acquire those amenities, or do they have to move up the social ladder as well? And does this not also involve a coming to terms with a different set of values and priorities, namely, those of WASPs? Thus, the importance of culture, including214 Current Issues in Tourism cultural conflict at various levels, cannot be under-rated or negated (Robinson, 1999), It is apparent that MacCannell has used the term in its social and cultural sense as well but it is not clear why he has largely ignored cultural and social conflict. A Preliminary Comparison Before a systematic comparison is made, it would be useful to look at some of the similarities and differences between the two societies, which will answer questions regarding the validity of the comparison. First, let us look at the similarities. To begin with, both India and the USA are large, complex societies. Second, both are republican democracies that are feder- ally administered. Third, like most large societies, they have a system of stratifi- cation that, at various points of time and in differing locations, has ranged from semi-rigid to rigid. Thus, certain parts of India knew republicanism over 2000 years ago, when the caste system was apparently not rigid and women had a higher status in society (Sharma, 1977: 83). In contrast, the system of stratification in parts of the USA, where Afro-Americans and Native Americans have been segregated, paralleled the rigid caste system (Quarles, 1964; Yinger, 1966) that later came into place in India. Third, both India and the USA accommodate a variety of sub-cultures or ethnic groups that differ in terms of, among other things, religion, language and race, so that they have been called ‘melting pots’ of races and cultures. Fourth, and this is most important, travel is an essential activity in both societies, under- taken for hundreds of years by their people, and is possibly ingrained in their character. In both countries, in other words, travel appears to be part of the way of life of the people. vata, Now let us look at the differences. The two societies are different in that India is a relatively new nation-state with a population that crossed the one billion mark in mid-2000, whereas the US is a nation that celebrated 200 years of exis- tence in 1975 and has an estimated population of just 275.6 million (US Census Bureau, 2000). Second, India has the history of a civilisation while the USA is admittedly part of a larger civilisation that has been called ‘Euro-American civili- sation’, In other words, the US is just a society. Third, the US is five times as large as India, and has greater per capita resources than India. The per capita income in the US is also substantially higher than in India. Lastly, the United States is widely held to bea modern society whereas India can only be acknowledged asa modernising society. Weighing the similarities against the differences, it is necessary to say a word about the differences. First, the last difference (‘modern’ versus ‘modernising’) has already been explained as natural ina diverse world. Besides, the US doesnot come up to expectations if by ‘modernity’ is meant an absence of poverty, illiter- acy and unemployment. According to the US Census Bureau (2000), in 1998, there were an estimated 71,551,000 persons living below the poverty level in the US. And in 1989, the Coalition for Literacy estimated that there were some 75 million Americans who could not read ‘adequately’ and quoted US News & World Report as saying that the literacy rate could reach a low of 30% by the year 2000 (Coalition for Literacy, 1989). The figures, in this case, speak for themselves.Travel and Aspects of Societal Structure 215 Second, the objection that India is a civilisation and, therefore, more than a society appears valid. But it can be pointed out that modern India does not include all those areas and regions that are a part of ‘greater India’, such as Nepal, parts of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Therefore, though a civilisation, it is, in the final analysis, a society that has been carved out of a civilisation. In this respectitis, like the US, a ‘part civilisation’. The first and third differences (differ- ences of area and a history of nationhood) are valid but then itis highly improba- ble that differences in size alone are relevant to a sociological discussion. In some cases, size does not matter. Considering these facts, one would expect that there are deeper similarities and differences between the two societies that analysis could reveal. As mentioned at the outset, this can be achieved by looking at the links between culture and travel or some aspects of societal structure of both societies. This would elucidate how travel is institutionalised in the two countries and allow us to make some generalisations and possibly offer some practical insights relevant to tourism and pilgrimage. The aspects of societal structure that will be taken up for this study are the links between travel and religion, stratification and national character and language. Is There a Single American or Indian Culture? Sociologically speaking, the idea that the two nations are ‘melting pots’ is not accurate. Political scientists, too, are aware of this. The concept of ‘melting pot’ conveys the message that America, for instance, is a mixture of many different nationalities and that the people’s strength comes from a combination of the special qualities of different minorities, all ‘melted down’ into a new ‘American’ culture (Edwards, 1979: 453). For decades this view was widely accepted. But then leaders of various minorities, including First Americans, began to argue that this was, in fact, not happening: In the words of one Chicano militant, ‘The United States has been anything but a melting pot, because the gringo has purposely segregated, separated, and relegated the non-Anglo to an inferior and degraded status. Melting pot has meant surrender of one’s past and culture to something euphemis- tically called American society and culture . . . (Edwards, 1979: 453). Thus, itis clear that cultural pluralism in the USA has not led to the formation of a unified, monolithic culture that can be called American. However, there is a sense in which we may speak of American culture or societal structure, which induces its people to behave in certain common ways, and share a common dream (‘the American Dream’) - that even recent immigrants want to realise. This does not mean that viewpoints regarding the paternalistic attitude of the White Anglo-Saxons towards Afro-Americans, Chicanos, Hispanics generally and First or Native Americans are wrong, articulation of which merely consti- tutes rhetoric (as MacCannell (1984) has termed it). In India, which is also home to a number of tribes and other minorities, a simi- larity can be easily seen. In India, too, intellectuals and those concerned with nation-building were accused of isolating tribes, by showcasing them in ‘anthro- pological zoos’, by observers and social workers like A.V. Thakkar (Vidyarthi,216 Current Issues in Tourism 1987: v). Eventually, it was decided that the utmost care would be taken in bring- ing the tribes into the mainstream to keep ‘predatory’ people ready to exploit the tribal people at bay. However, the decision to build reservations for tribes, as taken in the US, was scrapped in India. Despite the fact that similar issues arose in both India and the USA, the simi- larity ends here. In the USA, inits formative years, Native Americans were exter- minated and Afro-Americans exploited and abused. No attempt appears to have been made to assimilate them gradually into American society. In India, in contrast, the process of assimilation of tribes into the Hindu fold was a gradual social process that extended over hundreds if not thousands of years (Bose, 1941). Helping this process were wandering sages (rishis and munis) and Brahmanical scholars who travelled from forest to forest - home to most of the tribes — and wrote treatises on Indian philosophy and culture, known as the Aranyakas. At the same time, it must be added that acculturation was not a one-way process in India. While some tribes were gradually assimilated into the Hindu fold, many Hindu customs have tribal origins and some festivals like the Spring Festival are celebrated over a greater part of India (Bose, 1967). Similarly, there are myths and legends such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata that are narrated in slightly differing renditions over a greater part of India (even among pre-literate people). Thus, although India as a polity is said to be a segmented one, ‘characterized by the existence of parallel ethnic structures, which are not always congruent or cumulative’ (Brass, 1975: 14), as a civilisation integrated loosely at various levels of societal structure its unity does not need attestation. Despite accusations from the Tamils, for instance, that north India has attempted to impose its language (Hindi) on the people of the south, the linguistic and other ethnic differences across this vast country have not been glossed over or subju- gated in the name of nation-building. All this is in contrast to the Anglo-conformity which appears to have been the goal of US society (Edwards, 1979: 453), where Afro-Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans and Native Americans have been treated ‘as if they were a colony’, a situation referred to as ‘internal colonialism’ (for a fuller discussion of internal colonialism see Kitano, 1974). The relevance of analysis If it is agreed, then, that neither India nor the USA have a monolithic culture, does it make sense to speak of the ‘institutionalisation’ of travel? It does, for two reasons: first, because there are certain residual values and behaviours that are important in the formation of societal structure; and second, because a civilisa- tion is not merely ‘a culture’. It has a variety of cultures bound together by politi- cal and/or religious structures. Civilisations give birth to orthogenetic towns and heterogenetic cities, i.e. towns that arise spontaneously out of the cultural and social needs of a civilisa- tion, and those that arise due to a variety of factors, including political or admin- istrative needs. It is these orthogenetic cities and towns that are the centres of civilisational culture. In India, there has been a history of such cities which attracted not only pilgrims but also musicians and craftspersons. The seasonal or permanentTravel and Aspects of Societal Structure 217 migration / travel of these people from rural to urban areas depended not only on political patronage of the arts and crafts but also on the rise and decline of regional cultures over the ages (Sharma, 1987). This includes differences in social mobility that were fostered by various political regimes. Religion and Travel India Hinduism is not merely a religion but a way of life that has evolved over the years. The centres of civilisation changed over the years but some gained wider popularity, attracting people from different kingdoms spread all over the coun- try. These centres find mention in the ancient and not-so-ancient scriptures, including the Mahabharata (circa 200 years before the present to 200 years in the present). Thus Kurukshetra in north India is mentioned as a holy place in the Pauranic literature that appeared after the Mahabharata but became specifically known in the Middle Ages and thereafter for the beneficial effects of a dip in the tanks/ reservoirs at the time of the solar and lunar eclipses. Cities like Varanasi and Ujjain, that were said to be designed on the basis of sacred astronomical patterns, were considered especially holy and attracted pilgrims concerned with different rites over their lifetimes. It should be noted that these places were espe- cially holy for the people of north, west and east India. For south India, places like Madurai and Rameshwaram were more popular. However, the priests in famous temples in the north were often drawn from south Indian sub-castes (Kumar, 1991; Singer, 1975). Some other holy places emerged during the time of the Moghul rule in India in the Middle Ages, such as the dargahs or shrines of Salim Chishti (near Agra) and Moin-ud-din Chishti (in Ajmer in the state of Rajasthan). These latter centres — like numerous others in India that emerged at that timé or later — attracted both Muslims and Hindus. In other words, travel to these centres was — and is — both sacred and secular in a sense. Itis clear from this that there is a sense in which one can speak of a ‘unity in diversity’ of Indian culture. And it is also clear that this unity is independent or largely independent of the political structure of Indian society. Pilgrimage was a popular form of travel in ancient and ‘feudal’ India and is still popular today. Indeed, it is both a personal and a social necessity. What about the unity amidst the diversity of cultures that America holds? While admittedly ‘forced’ upon Native Americans and emigrants from various European and other countries, American English (despite its variations in dialects and registers) is the language of the USA and itis there that one may find some reflections of American culture, to which we will return later. From the foregoing, it is clear that there is a decisive influence of religion on travel in India. The Hindu religion linked nature and culture. The topography of holy places and elements of nature such as rocks, trees, mountains, rivers and hot springs were held sacred or considered to perform a sacred function by the Hindus, who gave them a unique status. Thus, like ancient and modern travel to spas, this form of travel had a salutary effect on the individual and, in this sense, can be equated with tourism.218 Current Issues in Tourism But there were other factors such as the Vedic (derived from the Vedas, ancient sacred texts) conception of the ‘stages’ of life that gave birth to Hindu travel. These stages or ashramas were: brahmacharya (bachelorhood), grihasthashrama (family life), vanprasthashrama (gradual giving up of family life in favour of life in the woods) and sannyasa (complete renunciation of worldly ways). Travel to and stay at holy places was specially encouraged in the last two stages, although pilgrimages were recommended and undertaken in all four stages. All four ashramas were associated with different purusharthas or virtues / duties. Dharma was associated with all four stages (Singh, 1985). Dharma, contrary to naive translations, is not just religion. It is religion and more: it is duty and observance of right values, right conduct and right speech. It is the essence of the culture’s values. Dharma has many attributes — dhriti (contentment), kshama (forgiveness), dama (control), astyeya (not to steal), saucha (cleanliness), indriya nigrah (control over the senses), dhir vidya (wisdom and education), satyam (truth in speech and deed) and akroadh (absence of anger) (Sharma, 1987). Thus, social structure was spelt out by a system of stratification (varna), lifecycle stages with accompanying rites of passage (ashrama) and obser- vance of core values in speech and behaviour (dharma), given in one composite Sanskrit word varnashramdharma. Of the purusharthas, some were associated more with a certain stage of life. [There is a contestation of meanings in the interpretation of Sanskrit words, partly because Vedic Sanskrit differs from classical Sanskrit (Bharadwaj, 1982) and partly because Sanskrit words changed meaning with the context and level of discourse.] Thus, kama (work and realisation of sensual desires, from which is derived the kamasutra — literally, ‘aphorisms on kama’) and dama (earning of reli- gious merit and material gain) were linked almost exclusively with grihasthashrama. So, it implied that an individual could undertake two types of rituals or/and pilgrimages: for material gain and for religious merit. Those who obtained both were superior in both worldly ways and spiritually. There was, thus, both a secular and sacred aspect to pilgrimage. The secular aspect of pilgrimage included the absence of any restrictions on any caste as regards travel to holy places, with the possible exclusion of the untouchable castes in pre-modern India. The process of institutionalisation of pilgrimage and travel in Indi strengthened well overa 1000 years ago when Adi Shankaracharya’s re- Hinduism led to the formation of the Order of Ten Names (Bose, 1967) and the pan-India pilgrimage circuit, namely, Badri-Kedarnath in the north, Dwarika in the west, Jagannath Puri in the east and Rameshwaram/Shringeri in the south. These pilgrimage centres remain popular with the Hindus of various sects, denominations and regions even today. The Order of Ten Names, as the name suggests, was a Hindu Order that insti- tutionalised travel of scholars who gave up all their affiliations — family, caste or region — and took up a name that did not reveal their caste or other background. These ‘wandering mendicants’ were thus released from their social obligations as well as their caste privileges and travelled all over India preaching non-ortho- dox Hinduism at a time when religious orthodoxy was again on the rise (Bose, 1967: 7).oa Travel and Aspects of Societal Structure 219 There are well over 100 other pilgrimage centres among the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists in India. Some prominent Hindu centres are Rishikesh, Haridwar, Gangotri, Yamunotri, the five kedars, the five badris, the five prayagas (confluences of rivers), Vaishnodevi, Amarnath, Jwalamukhi, and Jageshwar in the Himalayas, and Varanasi, Prayaga (Allahabad), Gaya, Mathura and Vrindavan in the north Indian plains. Functions of pilgrimage Pilgrimage is not only instrumental in achieving personal salvation according to Hindu belief but also performs a societal function (Singh, 1992). Pilgrimage serves to highlight the unity among the diversity of cultures / ethnic groups to be found in India. It focuses activity in those areas of social life that bring people, speaking different languages and hailing from different places, together. And it connects people at the local, regional and all-India level: --- pilgrimage . . . or the acts of propitiating the gods or one’s ancestors in holy places all over India, have bound together the whole country by a deep sense of cultural unity . . . (Bose, 1967: 8) v Thus, pilgrimage in India is not just about religion: itis about the celebration of culture at various geographic and social levels, which gives a broader meaning to the term desha—which can mean anything from one’s’ group of villages’, to one’s ‘region’ (e.g. Maithili-speaking area in the state of Bihar or Western Pahari- speaking area in the north Indian Himalayas) and ‘nation’ or country. Moreover, pilgrimage in India entails the notion of ‘work’ as for instance, strenuous walk- ing in the mountains (Singh, 1992; see Gothoni, 1991) or moving along roads by prostrating oneself for hundreds of miles (Bose, 1967: 8). This is in contrast to the concept of leisure travel or tourism, which implies ‘non-work’. To relieve the tension of work, collective expressions of obscenity or lewd songs (see Evans-Pritchard, 1965b) are entirely within the expectations of Indian if not American society. (It is another matter that not all pilgrimages entail such behav- iour on the part of pilgrims.) Religion, after all, is not only about the sacred: it is about maintaining a balance between the sacred and the profane: sometimes the profane assumes the form of profanity. This also clears up some of the confusion about the behaviour of tourists and pilgrims (see e.g. Ichaporia (1983) and Pfaffenberger (1983)). To come back to the functions of pilgrimage, regional pilgrimages also some- times involved symbolic exchanges of economic value, especially among tribes and tribal people where there were considerable differences in ecological types and, hence, agricultural or horticultural productivity (Singh, 1992). By this means, a regional or national identity was fostered and developed. A final point that needs to be made here is that the secularisation of institution- alised travel in India has received a further impetus in modern India, with the Constitution of India declaring that all its citizens are equal and have a right to equality of opportunity. The Preamble to the Constitution further declares that India is a secular nation. The form this secularism has taken has not been a move- ment of the state away from religion and religious values altogether: rather, ithas ‘meant, in practice, that all religions are supported equally by the state. In this last220 Current Issues in Tourism feature, the Indian situation is not different from that obtaining in the USA, as we shall see. USA Religion has had a dominant influence on American society. This is evident to even a layperson from the American motto: ‘In God We Trust’. From the socio- logical and historical viewpoint, the influence of religion can be traced back to the time of the formation of American society in the 17th century. For the 17th century colonist, everything was the product of the intent of some mover. Ordi- nary events that followed an ordinary course, of course, were not particularly meaningful. Otherwise, however, life was full of signs and portents which indi- cated the direction of events and the intentions of the forces at work in the world (Handlin, 1963: 79). The colonists explained everything in terms of a familiar dichotomy. Some actions were the products of evil impulses derived from dark desires within people or from the machinations of a real Devil; other incidents were the mani- festations of good impulses emanating from God and evidence of his divine benevolence (Handlin, 1963: 80). Looking at their new world, full of dangers to salvation (Native Americans were considered ‘devilish beings’), the colonists explained the predicament of their common situation in terms of ‘God’s inscruta- ble Providence’. God’s Providence was the key to understanding the personal experiences of the colonists and the history of their settlements (Handlin, 1963: 80). These beliefs led to the formation of the American world-view in the seven- teenth century. In this vision, which unfortunately was not shared by Afro-Americans, the whole way of life was evidence of a particular design. A will larger than their own had shaped their careers. What else could explain the migration and settlement of what appeared to be a chosen few in America? After all, not all who travelled to America arrived there. Some colonists were able to describe their errand to the wilderness with sophistication: The New England Puritans knew that Divine Providence had led them toa new Canaan . . . The wilderness was evil and did conceal ruinous tempta- tions. But that was precisely why the chosen people had been exposed to it, to do battle with Satan under terms that would demonstrate the glory of God, whose envoys they were. There they would build a virtuous society that would be a model for the whole world . .. (Handlin, 1963: 82). This world-view and the expression of a sense of conviction in a mission remained for a couple of generations of settlers (later called Americans). By 1680, a third generation arrived which did not lose the sense of mission as much as transformed it in some degree: for them the wilderness spelled ‘opportunity’ This view of America asa land of opportunity was and continues to be shared by immigrants and gave birth to ‘the American Dream’. Travel to distant parts of the American continent and beyond began around this time, with the gradual expansion of the frontier westwards. These were the explorers, precursors of the modern-day ideal-type ‘existential’ tourist (see Cohen, 1972). The spirit of travel was thus gradually institutionalised and there developed, to paraphrase Max