Face It: You Are Nothing More than an Obnoxious Tourist
- Posted by: Morgan Clendaniel
- on June 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It’s summer, and as you plan your vacations, you may be thinking it would be good to see some exotic part of the world. And you probably think you are an exception to the ugly American stereotype, that you respect different cultures and customs, and in general leave travel destinations exactly the same as you met them, except with a few more dollars of tourism money in the locals’ pockets. However, in the newly released Travel Issue of Lapham’s Quarterly, the author Simon Winchester argues that—no matter how conscientious you are, how many guidebooks you’ve read about which hand to shake with, how in touch with the plight of the world’s poor you are—you almost certainly make a place worse by traveling there.
We have an unceasing capacity to make ourselves nuisances, basically. Students of tourism science can and do construct elaborate theories from physics, of course, invoking such wizards as Heisenberg and the Hawthorne effect and the status of Schrödinger’s cat to explain the complex interactions between our status as tourist-observers and the changes we prompt in the peoples and places we go off to observe. But at its base is the simple fact that in so many instances, we simply behave abroad in manners we would never permit at home: we impose, we interfere, we condescend, we breach codes, we reveal secrets. And by doing so we leave behind much more than footfalls. We leave bruised feelings, bad taste, hurt, long memories.
While perhaps not that exciting a solution, Winchester argues that the best way to not leave a mark on distant cultures is not visit them at all. While there is very little room in that philosophy for any of the societal benefits of cross-cultural contact, it’s still worth a look to remind yourself that, no matter what steps you take, you are a problematically obnoxious tourist.
Winchester’s personal tale of realizing these truths is well worth reading, as it involves him being banned from a remote island for life for revealing an island secret in print. In fact, the whole of Lapham’s Quarterly bears reading. For those not familiar, the magazine consists mostly of historical readings on a theme, along with a few contemporary essays. History, they say, repeats itself (in fact, the Quarterly has a blog on that very subject), and it’s remarkable how pertinent things written centuries ago can sound in context.
DISCUSSION: 5 Comments
Lapham’s is awesome. This post, however, is an unfortunate gleaning of one quote from an interesting article to support an obnoxious headline. The title to Winchester’s piece, “Take Nothing, Leave Nothing” is also misleading because he does not seem to consider that he makes a living off the very stories he takes from places he visits. More importantly, (and Good, for that matter) is that there are hundreds of opportunities for visitors to contribute more to exotic travel destinations by participating in eco-tours and volunteer-travel-like expeditions that enrich a tourist’s view of a place while also giving back more than “a few dollars of tourism money in the locals’ pockets”. A short-sighted and seemingly, brash post about travel; I expect more, GOOD.
This article is obviously polarized in it’s presentation. To say that not travelling to other cultures at all is the best alternative is preposturous. I don’t do things that are inappropriate when I travel, and I know many others who don’t. Maybe we should sit in isolation in front of our computers for the rest of our lives, then we will make no negative effects on the outside world…or positive ones for that matter…
Many antiquated or ancient sites have decayed more since tourism became common than they did in the centuries before. The most obviously dramatic case is the Taj Mahal – which wasn’t even open to the public until a couple decades ago. It has aged far more since then than all the years prior. The Forbidden City in Beijing has a long front-to-rear gate orientation, and when I was there I couldn’t help but notice that this central corridor has smooth, shiny paving stones, wheras the paving stones to the side of the path (and especially in the wings of the palace) had a much coarser look to them.Point being; even if all you leave is footfalls, you’re still ruining it.Does this mean we shouldn’t bother seeing far off places, or that historical sites should be closed to the public? It’s a tough question with no “right” answer, but this I don’t feel can be denied; if you don’t have some kind of vested interest in the site – like an academic one, or maybe it’s in some way ancestral to you – maybe you should keep away. As the Mythbusters say; “You don’t need to do it – we’ve done it for you and took pictures”.
i can understand some basis for this article, and yet how is one supposed to gain perspective and understanding of the world around them if they merely stay put, in their corner of the world? Global interaction and cultural exchange is GOOD, if only done in a thoughtful and meaningful manner. All too often in tourism, the tourist expects something from the host country, not realizing that exchange is reciprocal. understanding this would hopefully turn such an “obnoxious tourist” into a thoughtful traveler willing to share thoughts and ideas with locals to gain mutual perspective. Especially in terms of traveling to third world countries, if one is to take Winchester’s advice, we will likely fall back into the alternative of staying at home in our comfortable ignorance of the world, all the while blindly throwing money at the worlds poor expecting that good be done with it “over there”. This, to me, is equally irresponsible as being the ‘obnoxious tourist’. It is being the obnoxious philanthropic ignoramus, which leaves just as bad of a taste abroad as their picture-taking presence would have left had they gone there. There are grey areas of tourism, like as one commenter suggested, the constant degradation of sacred sites just to take home that souvenir. But I feel that the blanket solution of staying home is extreme and irresponsible. Instead, make people aware of their impact, both environmentally and socially as tourists and urge exchange rather than one-sided expectation.
It’s easy to jump on this article for presenting a negative viewpoint, but what about the negative effect of tourists worldwide? Sure there are eco-friendly and positive experiences one can seek in traveling, but the vast majority of tourists are essentially not creating a give-and-take relationship with their desired destinations. I have vowed to never return to a “resort” on a tropical island again, but plenty of people continue to purchase their timeshares so that they can pollute, use, and economically (and environmentally) incarcerate indigenous peoples. Much of this is unintentional, as we all know, but ignorance is bliss, eh?Kudos for GOOD for presenting this viewpoint and the opportunity for us loonies to discuss it openly. Hopefully we can all find ways to help people throughout the world preserve their cultures and realize their unlimited potential without closing our borders and ourselves.[As a sidenote: Aldous Huxley's final novel, The Island, touches on Winchester's stance, among other themes. I highly suggest the read.]