John Dietrich on MacCannell
Dean MacCannell attempts to define almost every area of social behavior that could ultimately be categorized as tourism, almost to the degree of the explanations becoming markedly obvious. The analyzing at times goes to the extreme of explaining common human behavior that has no need for a deeper definition beyond what the action taken simply is. For example, on page 123 he discusses “the double-take”, which as we know is simply taking a second look at a sight, object or person because of a possible past recognition. Actually going to the trouble of constructing a diagram that pinpoints the exact moment of realization and defining it as “the double-take” is taking the level of study too far without offering any relevant greater understanding. That said, what I found most valuable in MacCannell’s studies was that he offered a vast array of reasoning for why people seek out a tourist experience, the thought behind why they may decide on one type of experience rather than another and the differentiation of the value of a particular experience. What the book does is provide a much greater list of questions to be asked if one is determining how to create a tourist production or experience that is understood, appreciated and valued by the widest range of viewers, spectators or audience. Raising the question of what a tourist is ultimately seeking out is significant: leisure, authenticity, comfort, quality, knowledge, and should the first step in the development of a tourist experience.
The question is, how do I satisfy the expectation of every tourist that may be participating in a particular experience, and can I? What may be missing from the reading is discussing the different approach to tourism from the aspect of social status. The objective of tourism in the lower class versus upper class, and perhaps the distinction of experience between the two at different points in history. Yes, the book does differentiate somewhat, the budget traveler versus the luxury traveler, but understanding “who ventures where” can be very enlightening and where do those lines cross. Obviously, every level of social class can visit the Eiffel Tower, on the other hand, whom can afford to go to Paris? Another area to consider when understanding tourist expectation and experience is popular reaction to something. For example, when Picasso created a particular painting, his intention & purpose could have many definitions from personal expression to social statement and the reaction to that work by the public in 1920 could be completely different from that of a viewer in 2007. All of this based on the changes in society and culture and the actual society from which the viewer comes, (American versus Ugandan, Jewish versus Muslim). In order for the tourist to receive the greatest understanding and appreciation for the experience, how much information needs to be provided him/her as part of the experience, if any. These are several notions that I found the reading to evoke, yet could stand to discuss further. Concepts such as “Tourist/ Sight/ Marker” and “Front region/ Back Region” are important to understand but often the surface definition is simple where as exploring the many different examples of them can be much more valuable.