Traveller, tourist and the ‘lost art of travelling’

Abstract

The opposition between tourists and travellers is generally assumed to be one of the most powerful dichotomies to structure tourism discourse. This chapter starts with the analysis the way scholars (Boorstin, Fussell) have originally reconstructed this dichotomy almost exclusively based on literary sources. After that, several attempts to problematize this earlier work are presented. First, the opposition is claimed to be integral to tourism on semiotical grounds (Culler) and not a reality but a discursive construction (Larsen et al.). Second, it needs to be empirically tested. Plog’s model suggests that there indeed exist two very different ‘psychograph types’, which function as opposite ends of a continuum. Third, scholars have developed alternative typologies. Some of these remind of the original dichotomy to a certain extent (Cohen), whereas others are far more elaborate (Pearce, Yiannakis, and Gibson). One important observation to come out of this kind of research is that scholars have increasingly become aware that tourists are not just types but complex beings. In the third section of this chapter, the power structures underneath this discourse are discussed: the historical and actual exclusivity of the label ‘traveller’ and the contested identity politics of the ‘new moral tourists’ (Butcher). To conclude, some twenty-first century trends relevant to the dichotomy are discussed. On the one hand, the ‘traveller’s’ dream to leave the beaten path is ubiquitous and heavily commodified in present-day discourse: in official branding strategies to deal with overtourism, in popular media, online, in the discourse surrounding niche tourism, such as urban exploration and dark tourism. On the other hand, there are phenomena showing awareness of the impossibility of this dream: pleas for local and slow tourism, the redefinition of authenticity, and digital-free travelling.