Observations on Dean MacCannell's chapter from the seminal book _The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class_. MacCannell proposes that tourism has become _the_ dominant method of mediating relationships in modern, (post)industrial society. One of the most central components to touristic relationships involve the understanding of certain spaces/places as "attractions" - what MacCannell proposes as a semiotic tripartite of tourist/sight/marker. How does this structural understanding (theory) of "attractions" interface with how you understand your navigation through the world and knowledge of it?
I thought MacCannell’s article was so true in every sense, of how if a tourist travels to certain places, there are predetermined attractions that are marked, or how many religious functions, people, transportations and others have became touristic functions. And how tourists are capable of finding attractions even if they are not marked, famous territories. Many of the places MacCannell mentioned in the reading are places I have visited as well, which seems ironic and funny since those are the places that all the tourists attracts to and further. Also the difference between its aura and rituals, how one object functions differently when it’s set in different environment and loses its ‘authenticity’ always seem to come up when talking about its value and meanings. As I understand it, every attraction seems to carry different meanings depending on who the audiences are, where it’s viewed, and more. But I guess that makes us question weather if the tourists are aware of its meaning or if that even matters when visiting these attractions.
MacCannell's theory of tourist/sight/marker is very interesting in terms of thinking about who and what guides my movements through my everyday and through my not so everyday. MacCannell describes the tourist attraction and the behavior around it as a universal code that makes up modern society. My first reaction is to stand up for myself and say I am the only one that guides my movements and actions, I'm not following these tourists traps, but then I ask myself what does it matter. Usually, people don't resist a sight becoming an attraction because it pulls in good money and people, so why should people resist following the already made attractions. Does it take away from an experience? If you don't go to these "attractions" and do something different, how are you going to talk about it, what are you going to compare it to? Thinking more about this theory of attractions I do question my everyday movements and how I got there. It is interesting to think about changing my movements and how that will change my knowledge of the world I know. I try to do things that are most convenient, but who is defining convenient? It is convenient that there is easy transportation set up to get to these "attractions" but as MacCannell pointed out, many tourists put in more effort and organization for this leisure activity of sightseeing, it becomes not so leisurely. Ultimately, attractions do teach us something about the culture and land just simply through the fact that there is an attraction there to begin with.
The author wants to look at the social system of public space for how it informs a notion of a collective identity. The article asks the reader to probe beyond visible public works and architectural monuments into the realm of how people act, interact, and use public space. He believes that by doing this it is possible to reconstruct this collective identity and interrogate the ideologies and moralities that form and inform the public spaces which this body occupies and reproduces. The author proposes a moral lens through which to look at the gesture of tourism. The moral tourist can bring a range of morality to the sight of tourism from respectful admiration to disgust. This range reflects a larger network of relations within society. As a product of modernity the contemporary tourist is blackmailed by the fact that their everyday authenticity is constituted by the collection and organization of fragments of the “exotic other’s everyday”. In this sense, the tourist wanders the interstices of “the real.” Having to identify in part with the other while being constituted through maintaining a different status of otherness. The problem of the tourist is that they are coerced by a sense of guilt or duty to pay homage to a societies value system through some ritual act. The tourist should not have to figure out what that is. Institutional mechanisms differentiate the sights from the formless by transposing the religious pilgrimage into the state and economic interests.
I felt a close connection with MacCannell’s observations on predetermined tourist obligations when visiting certain locations, such as Paris. This is something that many tourists experience, on marathon trips spent hitting as many sights as you can to simply say that you have visited this famous monument or work rather than deciding for yourself which sights are personally important to you. However, I feel that there is also a visible backlash against these popular sights, tourists unhappy with the commercialization of these sights and the crowds as MacCannell described as “sheep.” But in addition, I also feel that some tourists are going further, unhappy with the title of tourist as it now connotes the uneducated masses being shuffles donning jean shorts and sneakers digital cameras in tow.
Throughout my life I've tended to resist greatly what I understood as the prescribed "attractions" within my world. Not wanting my experiences to be mediated by the experts or institutional powers, I usually have prefer alternative attractions, such as alleyways, coffee shops, thrift stores, and public parks. This brings me back to one of my first posts regarding the everyday and tourism and my obsession of becoming a part of the everyday of whatever locale I reside. When I was young I experienced many of these attractions as described in the reading. When visiting New York my parents dragged me to the Statue of Liberty, FAO Schwartz to play the huge piano, Central Park, Broadway, among others. We lived near St. Louis growing up and class field trips consisted of going to places like the Arch, the Riverfront, Cahokia Mounds, and different Lewis and Clark historical sites. All of these places fulfill some if not all of the criteria for an attraction. Cahokia mounds has the social reproduction. The town surrounding it is named Cahokia. The Statue of Liberty and the Arch win in the mechanical reproduction with many surrounding stores selling memorabilia anything from from hats to postcards, to whole volumes explaining the history of both attractions. When visiting the Statue of liberty my sister and I both purchased these cheapo headband deals that made us look like we were miniature live Statues of Liberty. Most of these places have special signage contextualizing the monument and creating a narrative for viewers. Naming and framing. I think the Statue of Liberty and the St. Louis Arch are exceptional examples of the cultural rituals to experience the attraction. These two you are able to actually go inside and up either via stairs or elevator. This is the ultimate ritual of experience the cultural attraction. Maybe because of this childhood with parents, who did what seemed to be the proper thing to do, that brought their children on these cultural pilgrimages to these sites, I become skeptical towards the legitimacy of these prescribed "attractions". The framing, prioritizing, and lifting of these monuments made it seem to almost phony. So it lead me to, as a young adult tourist to travel with more of a spontaneous exploratory spirit; not willing to pay or waste half or a full day to see any attraction (with the exception of Art Museums).
One of McCannell's points that I found most interesting was "no one is exempt from the obligation to go sightseeing except the local person,". We all have the desire to visit attractions and be tourists when we are visiting new places. It seems futile to go on a vacation and not visit popular attractions. McCannell uses the word "obligation", channeling how we feel compelled to visit attractions, to trudge through what countless numbers of other tourists have gone through before us. I too get this feeling when I visit new places. If I don't get a chance to see the attractions characteristic of my chosen destination, I get a sick, guilty feeling like I'm cheating myself out of something good or have an irrational argument with myself saying, "how dare you not take advantage of every opportunity in a a place you may not be in again!" Crazy? Maybe. But it seems we have been conditioned to think in such a way, to fear the social consequences of not participating in tourism. In regards to the "local" who seems to evade this obligatory feeling, I can relate to this person, too. Living in Chicago, there are countless museums and tourists sites, but do I feel the need to visit them? No. I am a Chicagoan, therefore I have the knowledge of these places already ingrained in my Chicagoan DNA. Another interesting aspect of this article was McCannell's mention of Walter Benjamin. In one of my art history classes last year I read an article about Benjamin's theory of art object's authenticity and art being based in ritual. I was quite confused by Bejamin's article at the time, but McCannell boiled down his ideas into something I was able to comprehend. Society produces the importance of artwork, not artwork itself. Additionally, the concept of authenticity is very interesting. It is only after the first copy of something has been made that a work becomes authentic and has value. I find it funny that once someone deems something worthy of a reproduction *then* it is truly important. So then who comprises this authoritative body?
My favorite part of this article was the discussion of framing , prioritizing and lifting. The idea of dating an object or a place to get some sort of data or scientific proof that a "sight" is important or historically relevant Is ridiculous and empowering. Proof of importance seems like such a strange idea in the creation of an attraction. when we realize how attractions change with time and popularity. Importance is relative and I think It is interesting to realize that a relative idea can be lagitamised by science. After the lagitamization of a sight the architecture of importance around an object is interesting. The idea of a gallery fits in to the hyper reality of the idea of the attraction. Art is infused with the system of honoring objects by framing and elevating them. The idea of disguising or emphasizing value has always been interesting to me. How does one make valuable things invisible and forgotten places honorable and attractive? I think this question is a definition of how we affect the world.
I also found MacCannell’s article very true and relatable in how tourism is an almost predetermined activity. Marked attractions are a must-see regardless of how personally significant they are to the person. The problem that MacCannell brings up is the tourists’ problem of getting around to all of the sites and attractions they feel obligated to see. Enter the ritual or pilgrimage of the tourist. It seems that if a “must-see” is unfortunately not seen by the tourist that they feel left out or robbed, that a component of their pilgrimage is missing deeming their trip incomplete. I also found it interesting the aspect of “institutionalizing the rights of outsiders” or those that are not directly connected to the “operation” or activity. MacCannell uses the example of the courtroom, The New York Stock Exchange, or even watching men make pizza crusts to illustrate how all men have become equal “before the attraction.” I never realized how many everyday things cater to the “tourist” in all of us and how we long to get the insider’s perspective.
MacCanell indicates that tourist attraction is the representation of modern social structure and moral order. I agree that when I think about the sightseeing of Liberty statue. International tourists want to see it because it is regarded as a symbol of America, and usually related to the concepts of freedom and democracy (without the perspective of local people, they know that through education, mass media, or any kind of source of knowledge). When they are desired to appreciate the statue and view it in awe, it implied that they approve the powerful exisiting of America and the idea of liberty. The tourist guidbooks, as "social material", also enforce our desire and motivation to see this attraction. I know that not everyone agrees with America's international status and democracy. But so much wonder and sense of satisfaction always appear around the statue. This scene implies that most tourists at least accept the international structure and morality of Aemerica. After reading MacCanell's article, for me, this ritual and phenomena seems to be the reinforcement of the ideology and mainstream value. Visiting Liberty statue also become an inevitable agenda for every tourist when visiting New York. When I was there, I really felt a mandatory urgency to see it in the one-day group tour because we thought we must to see the most "significant" attraction. MacCanell cites Goffman's description of this "sight sacralization" and "ritual" as, "extensive ceremonial agenda involving long string of obligatory rites." In addition, during the vocation in New York, we alwyas know that most people on the street are tourists becuase " no one is exempt from the obligation to go sightseeing except the local person."
This article has forced me to take quite a cynical look at everything around me. I'd agree that most of my touristic activities have been centered around "sights". I too have been on a marathon tour in Europe; I spent 10 days in Italy, taking in as much as I could, stopping at every "sight". This experience for me, though incredible at the time, has left me with a story, and a handful of photos. Why? Because my entire experience was fabricated for me. It's all a formula. The plane, the hotel, the elongated packets of sugar, even the sunset is something programmed into your day. My fondest memory from Italy was a spontaneous trip into a small neighborhood in Florence. I had literally stepped on a pamphlet for a free classical concert, and decided it was a perfect way to spend my last night in there. It was one of the most beautiful things I have ever experienced. And I owe the entire memory to an act of spontaneity, to jumping off the beaten tourist path. So many feet have walked through Florence. So many pictures have been taken, poems written. What makes my individual experience special in that world? It was only when I let go of the idea of having to see all the sights, that I actually began to see the city for what it was.
This article also left me with many questions. One of them being...
Do we, as Americans, rally around our own "sites" because they hold such deep meaning and strength for us, or because the rest of the world applies such meaning and strength to them? The Statue of Liberty is one of the first "sites" my ancestors saw, as they arrived in America. Is her great presence on our shores symbolic only to us because of people like my Great-Grandparents? Or does it actually represent a sense of Liberty, of American law and morality, to us on it's own?
Whenever I discover a new “attraction” I am overwhelmed by the possibilities for new adventures. At the same time that the binary exists between fine attractions and garbage heaps, there also exists a binary between excitement and fear of the unknown. There are many aspects of traveling and tourism that reinforce the structure between the tourist and the sight and the marker, but it has been my experience that the unknowns can delineate a different kind of relationship. I personally try to deviate as much as possible from traditional tourist patterns, both theoretically and geographically, because for me that initiates an unmovable wall that stands between the attraction and my personal experience. Maybe it’s a force of habit, but when traveling with my family, we usually try to discover new places or meanings ourselves with help from friends or locals. With a complete and total disregard for the “recommended” our trips tend to feel more authentic, and rife with the figurative “garbage heaps.” For example, one of my favorite “tourist” destinations is Key West. With some luck and a lot of perusing we stumbled upon a bevy of local eateries and markets, my favorite of which is called “Blue Heaven” a backyard restaurant with chickens that strut happily on the tin roofs and even our table. For some reason, instead of associating Key West with conch shells or the “Southernmost Point” I have generated my own appreciation and understanding through places like Blue Heaven. I think because it is rooted so heavily in tourism, that fact repels me further from the typical and my misguided wanderings brings me closer to the unique experiences that tend to fill up my matrix. This way the trip or attraction can become authentic to me, even if that perception is severely skewed. Yet the unknowns can be exciting or even a little dangerous, but that is what most strongly shapes your experience. And, for what its worth, when I go to my favorite deli on Duval Street I pay the “local price”.
Response to: Dean MacCannell- "Sightseeing and Social Structure”
After reading MacCannell’s theory of "attractions" I have been thinking about how practically every aspect of my environment is mediated through some kind of marker or delineation of territory: from welcome to keep out. These signs effect the way I understand my surroundings and therefore effect the way I navigate through the world. This chapter also called my attention to the ways people commonly behave in public places. Yesterday during a passing period I noticed that as soon as students exited their classes cell phones were immediately by there ears. This everyday occurrence brings to question how connected or disconnected we are… I found MacCannell's examples of negative sightseeing especially interesting. These attractions expose tourists to an angle of society that most try to ignore. Taking a tour of polluted rivers, uncontrolled garbage, and the like, raises controversial questions about class and race that might not be reflected in a tour of city monuments. A scheduled sequence of stops in an Appalachian community or an inner city ghetto can radically alter one’s established perspective. Personally, I would love to take a tour of ‘the 10 top polluters in action’ but unfortunately it only lasted during earth week in 1970. The relationship between the modern tourist and the native land/people are not so different from the early days of tourism also known as imperialism. Imperialism and tourism go hand in hand. When colonists forged through the ‘wild frontier’ beautiful spectacles of nature gathered attention from settlers. Many of these picturesque sights that were documented through paintings and now these exact locations have become tourist attractions. Some of these paintings even show dark native tribesmen lurking in the hills peering down on the white settlement outlined in a sublime glow. Today’s tourism continues many of the degrading stereotypes associated with the ‘primitive’ native. “Western sprawl has engulfed these vibrant cultures and only way for them to really survive is to play the stereotype: entertaining tourists in a spectacle of culture that doesn’t exist anymore (or never existed).
Throughout this article i kept thinking about the short trip i took to washington DC a few years back for spring break, to join a war protest. I had arrived early in the morning, and joined the large group of protestors. While walking around, and seeing DC, although i had not thought of my trip as being one for sightseeing, as much as the purpose of joining others in a social action, this was not an action that had as much local value as national. We were not there to join fellow residents of the Washington DC area in protest to change a current local social stuggle, and as i walked around i saw the many tourist sights: Police on Horses, the lincoln memorial, etc. The time spent there was very limited but as we drove around, and got lost a bit, i noticed the surrounding area of all of the monuments, and government building, neighbohoods, with houses that completly contrasted the clean white massive buildings i had always thought of as what washington DC was, actually community. While it was a beautiful thin to see Americans from across the country here to protest, it is interesting to note how comfortable we all felt and commited to being there, when there are so many things going on, and possibly things a few miles away that could use the support of all of these people here, but maybe we cannot feel commited to these things because we would feel like an outsider.
Great anecdote Cara - this issue of scale and mobility will continue to be an important aspect of our discussions, especially as we begin to look at notions of authenticity.