Critically compare and Marxist and Weberian understanding of the role of tourism in

society

Introduction

The viewpoints of Marx and Weber provide different but complimentary insights on how
important tourism is to society (Svarstad et al., 2018). Both theories concentrate on class conflict
and rationalisation, but they analyse the social effects of tourism from distinct theoretical
perspectives. The subtleties and inconsistencies in their understandings are highlighted by this
rigorous comparison. Marxism, which has its roots in Karl Marx's works, places a strong
emphasis on how social phenomena are shaped by economic structures and class relations
(Allman, 2019). Marxists view tourism as a byproduct of capitalism, fueled by the desire for
financial gain and the exploitation of labour (Dantzler, 2021). Marxists contend that the tourist
sector reinforces class disparities by consolidating wealth and authority in the hands of capitalists
who own the means of production (Korstanje, 2016). Jobs in the tourism industry often have
poor pay, unstable working conditions, and little prospects for advancement, which contributes
to the proletarianization of the labour.

Furhtermore, Marxist theorists contend that by encouraging consumption and diverting the
working class from seeing their exploitation, tourism fosters false consciousness (Holden, 2016).
The attractiveness of popular tourist attractions and activities, which are often packaged and
promoted by large businesses, may serve as a distraction from the larger problems of social
injustice and economic injustice (Coe et al., 2019). According to this perspective, tourism serves
as a tool for ideological control, encouraging an appearance of happiness even while underlying
socioeconomic conflicts continue.

However, the Weberian approach, which is based on Max Weber's ideas, emphasises how
bureaucracy and rationalisation have shaped contemporary society. Tourism is seen as a
manifestation of the rationalisation process from a Weberian perspective, driven by the
determined pursuit of efficiency and the standardisation of experiences (Steffek, 2016).
According to Weberians, the tourist sector is an example of how contemporary life has become
routine and old and genuine cultural practises have been commercialised and packaged for public
consumption. The rise of rationalised institutions in the tourist industry, such as hotels, airlines,
and travel agents, is another point of emphasis for Weberian theorists (Bakardjieva, 2015). These
organisations establish formal processes and set standards for behaviour, giving visitors a sense
of predictability and control. This rationalisation may increase travel's predictability and
convenience, but it also runs the risk of homogenising and decontextualizing the cultures of the
places you visit, diminishing their authenticity.

Body
Despite these distinctions, there are areas where the Marxist and Weberian viewpoints on the
function of tourism agree. Both underscore how the tourist sector has the potential to be socially
unequal and stratified. Through class exploitation or the homogenization of cultural
manifestations, tourism may prolong power inequalities, according to Marxist and Weberian
views (Pieterse, 2019). Additionally, both viewpoints raise concerns about the capacity for
tourism to affect society by questioning whether it really advances social change or rather
strengthens preexisting systems.

According to Marxist theory, tourism is closely related to capitalist processes of production. The
business motive drives the commercialization of leisure and travel, which concentrates wealth
and power in the hands of those who own the means of production (Apostolakis 2017). Class
disparities are maintained through the capitalist class's extraction of surplus value from the
labour of tourist sector employees. The poor pay, job instability, and lack of bargaining leverage
experienced by workers in the tourist industry often reflect the larger dynamics of class conflict
present in capitalism.

The Weberian viewpoint, in contrast, focuses on the rationalisation and red tape within the
tourist sector. The rationalisation process, as defined by Max Weber, is the process through
which deliberate, effective methods are used in lieu of conventional, value-laden activities. This
shows up as standardised procedures in the tourist industry, such as hotel chains and flight
timetables (Holbeche, 2016). The economic structures of the tourist sector are shaped by the
need for efficiency and predictability, leading to bureaucratic systems that put efficient
operations ahead of unique experiences.

Furthermore, Marxist theory extends to the cultural sphere and emphasizes how ideology and
false awareness shape tourists' experiences. Offering short-term diversions from daily life, tourist
packages, and attractions may help the working class recognise their exploitation. This
manufactured joy fosters a fictitious feeling of comfort and deflects attention away from the
structural problems of class-based inequality (Crossick and Kasznska, 2016). The rationalisation
of cultural practises within the tourist sector is explored by Weberian philosophy. The
homogeneity of local cultures and the commercialization of traditional practices are frequent
consequences of the standardisation of visitor encounters. As cultural expressions are packaged
for mass consumption, authenticity is eroded, and tourist locations may start to resemble one
another, losing the distinctiveness that first drew tourists.

Additionally, Marxism emphasises the social processes that affect power relationships in the
tourist sector. Because of the exploitation of workers and local communities by capitalists and
the uneven distribution of income, interests of capitalists often take priority over those of
workers and local communities (Rioux et al., 2020). The expansion of multinational enterprises
and the relocating of native communities for the development of tourism are two further
examples of how tourism may worsen already-existing socioeconomic disparities. Weberian
analysis emphasises how rationalisation might change social relations in the context of tourism.
Interactions between visitors and locals may become impersonal due to the organised and
uniform character of tourism encounters (Su, 2015). The depth of cross-cultural connection may
be diminished if genuine meetings and meaningful cultural exchange are dominated by
commercial contacts. Despite having distinct emphases, both viewpoints mention the possibility
of social reform via tourism. Marxism criticises how tourism upholds uneven power structures
and class-based exploitation. To deal with these problems effectively, the economic system must
be transformed. However, according to Weberian analysis, rationalisation may result in greater
efficiency and convenience, which helps to influence social change by changing how societies
are structured and function (Su, 2015). However, cultural authenticity and personal autonomy are
often sacrificed during this transition.

Furthermore, Marxism explores the idea of alienation with tourism. The term "alienation"
describes how people get cut off from both the outcomes of their labour and the larger society
process. Workers often feel cut off from the experience they helped create in the tourist industry.
Privatizing cultural and natural resources, whereby regional identities and traditions are
converted into tradable goods, exacerbates this alienation (Wearing et al., 2019). Local
communities may lose control in the face of the pressures of tourism-driven capitalism and
become passive viewers of their culture. Although Weberian analysis does not specifically
address alienation, it does provide insight into how tourist experiences are justified.
Disenchantment may result from the standardisation and predictability brought on by rationalised
procedures when unusual and genuine interactions become more commonplace. Tourists and
residents may feel detached from the cultural and social context of their encounters due to the
drive for efficiency and calculability.

Marxism looks at how the tourist sector is impacted by globalisation, which is fueled by
capitalist growth. Corporations often promote a standardised, homogenised form of culture that
can be readily sold to a worldwide audience in an effort to maximise profits. Local identities may
be lost as a result of this process, and customary ways of life may be abandoned in favour of
more lucrative attractions. Tourism experiences are shaped by the hegemony of global
capitalism, which also strengthens a global consumer culture (Wearing et al., 2019). A
comparable criticism is provided by Weberian analysis via the prism of rationalisation. By
rationalising tourism operations, it is possible to provide consistent, interchangeable visitor
experiences that cut across national and regional borders (Crossick and Kasznska, 2016). Due to
the prominence of uniform practises and experiences, this might lead to a feeling of
placelessness as tourist locations seem to blend together.

Marxists can argue that the persistent drive for profit in the tourist sector might result in
environmental harm. As virgin landscapes are turned into tourist resorts and attractions, the focus
on development and expansion often comes at the price of natural resources. Sustainable
practices may be neglected by capitalist interests in favour of immediate benefits, which
contribute to ecological imbalances and environmental injustices. The effects of tourism on the
environment may be better understood via Weberian analysis, especially in terms of
rationalisation. Standardised procedures and streamlined processes may emphasize efficiency
above sustainability, using resources excessively and creating waste. Encouraging a one-size-
fits-all strategy that ignores the distinctive biological conditions of many places, the bureaucratic
systems supporting tourism may unintentionally contribute to environmental damage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a critical comparison of Marxist and Weberian perspectives on tourism's social,

cultural, economic, and environmental elements offers a varied view on the subject. The Marxist
perspective, which is based on class struggle and capitalist exploitation, emphasises how tourism
encourages false awareness, maintains inequities, and degrades the environment. The Weberian
perspective, which emphasises rationalisation and bureaucracy, on the other hand, emphasises
experience standardisation, possible cultural homogeneity, and the disengagement from genuine
contacts. These viewpoints may have different theoretical underpinnings, yet they agree on other
things. Both emphasise the need of social reform and recognise the possibility for tourism to
deepen social disparities. They also shed light on how commercialised and globalised tourism
has become, with profit-driven interests often taking precedent over the preservation of regional
culture and the environment.

Both points of view also emphasise how crucial it is to think critically about how tourism affects
society beyond its obvious benefits. Tourism's multifaceted place in society is shown by the
interaction of economic institutions, power dynamics, cultural commercialization, and
environmental effects. Integration of different viewpoints is necessary for a whole
understanding, which recognises that tourism is not only a leisure activity but also a reflection of
larger society dynamics and ideals. These ideas from both Marxist and Weberian perspectives
may direct conversations on ethical and just tourism practises for the future as nations struggle
with the problems brought on by an increasingly globalised and linked world.
References

Allman, P. (2019). Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary
critical education (Vol. 3). Brill.

Apostolakis, A. (2017). The convergence process in heritage tourism. In The Political Nature of
Cultural Heritage and Tourism (pp. 1-18). Routledge.

Bakardjieva, M. (2015). Rationalizing sociality: an unfinished script for socialbots. The

Information Society, 31(3), 244-256.

Coe, N. M., Kelly, P. F., and Yeung, H. W. (2019). Economic geography: a contemporary
introduction. John Wiley and Sons.

Crossick, G., and Kasznska, P. (2016). Understanding the value of arts and culture: The AHRC
Cultural Value Project.

Dantzler, P. A. (2021). The urban process under racial capitalism: Race, anti-Blackness, and
capital accumulation. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City, 2(2), 113-134.

Holbeche, L. (2016). Influencing organizational effectiveness: A critical take on the HR

contribution. Taylor and Francis.

Holden, A. (2016). Environment and tourism. Routledge.

Korstanje, M. E. (2016). The rise of thana-capitalism and tourism. Taylor and Francis.

Pieterse, J. N. (2019). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman and Littlefield.

Rioux, S., LeBaron, G., and Verovšek, P. J. (2020). Capitalism and unfree labor: a review of
Marxist perspectives on modern slavery. Review of International Political Economy, 27(3), 709-
731.

Steffek, J. (2016). Max Weber, modernity and the project of international

organization. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(4), 1502-1519.

Su, X. (2015). Reconstructing tradition: modernity and heritage-protected tourist destinations in

China.

Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T. A., and Overå, R. (2018). Power theories in political ecology.

Wearing, S., McDonald, M., Taylor, G., and Ronen, T. (2019). Neoliberalism and global
tourism. Handbook of globalisation and tourism, 27-43.