Abstract
For decades, mass tourism has been a widely used term in tourism research, and it still has no clearly agreed definition and content. There has been growing interest among scholars to address mass tourism from fresh viewpoints. This article aims to analyse theoretically and reconceptualize the discursive practice of mass tourism as a socially constructed idea and its implications. Deterministic and flexible discourses of defining mass tourism were identified within the discussions on mass tourism. The first is grounded on the idea of homogeneous mass, while the latter concentrates on alternative interpretations of the phenomenon complementing its heterogeneity. Ideas of further directions of mass tourism research are discussed.
Keywords
Introduction
Mass tourism has been part of academic discussions for decades. However, conceptually it seems to remain an ‘ambiguous’ term, lacking a clearly agreed definition (Torres, 2002: 89), perhaps because its multidimensional character evokes different meanings for different people (Miller and Auyong, 1998: 11), and overall, the nature of tourism is multifaceted (Pearce, 1992). This suggests that there is all the more reason for scholars to pay attention to it. Instead, researchers have been more interested in focusing on the further segmented forms of tourism, which reflects the postmodern times in which the individuality is valued over the idea of mass. Nevertheless, better access to transport and economic capacity has made it possible to tap into a multitude of places (Hall, 2005), and levels of global air traffic are now four to five times higher than in the 1970s (ICAO, 2010, 2013). It would have seemed odd to have talked about masses earlier and highlight specialization at its expense in a time when mass tourism continues to be the way to travel for millions of people (Aramberri, 2001; Obrador Pons et al., 2009b; Wheeller, 1993). The situation is interesting, especially since large new markets, such as India and China, have begun to shape mass tourism (Singh, 2007) and the world order more extensively.
It has been widely acknowledged that the tourism demand and supply are becoming more independent, active, individual and flexible (e.g. Boissevain, 1996; Ioannides and Debbage, 1998; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2004; Poon, 1993; Swarbrooke and Horner, 2007; Torres, 2002), which is interpreted either as the end of mass tourism (e.g. Poon, 1993) or its change into more multiple forms (e.g. Ioannides and Debbage, 1998; Torres, 2002). These different interpretations suggest that the term mass tourism should be critically scrutinized and updated. Mass tourism is a used term in research, which implies it is still important in academic context. The way the researchers define it is an important issue, and it has serious implications. If terms such as mass tourism are not explained, comparisons between different forms of tourism do not have relevance, as it is not obvious to the reader exactly what is being compared or discussed. A good example of this possible controversy is the case of mass, alternative and ecotourism. Ecotourism has been regarded not only as being opposite to mass tourism (Walpole and Goodwin, 2000) but also as its variant (Weaver, 2001), or the separation between them is seen as blurred (Collins-Kreiner and Israeli, 2010). This kind of situation further affects how mass tourism is perceived: homogeneous or heterogeneous, static or dynamic.
The new critique towards mass tourism discussions urges a broader scope of mass tourism, exploring ‘the actual workings of mass tourism’ in order to reveal its complexity (Obrador Pons et al., 2009b: 11). The research community’s task is to be critical of its own doings and be at the forefront of analysing the changes. If researchers are stuck on past agendas, frameworks or using mass tourism (or any other term) almost as a truism, they may also be restricted from seeing things anew. The writings of the past (e.g. Boorstin, 1964; Turner and Ash, 1975) should be critically evaluated if used in contemporary situation. Researchers have the power to frame phenomena by making decisions on what and how to research (Tribe, 2006: 375). This knowledge is situated ‘to produce partial perspectives on the world’ (Rose, 1997: 308). The produced representations further continue to shape the phenomenon. Taking all this into consideration, social constructionism is a useful methodology for addressing mass tourism, as it demands the researcher to take a critical approach ‘towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the worlds, including ourselves’ (Burr, 1995: 3).
Representations and discourses have been important for tourism studies for a long time, but directing the focus on the construction of the idea of mass tourism in the context of academic knowledge has not been properly utilized. This article concentrates on the concept and its representations, acknowledging that they are historically and culturally specific (Burr, 1995: 3). The discursive practice of researchers in constructing and representing the idea of mass tourism is conducted in their writings. In constructionist methodology, things are given meanings through the never-ending process of use of language (Burr, 1995; Hall, 1997). The tone of the writing, its how and also its what, reveals the attitudes of the researcher towards mass tourism (see Miller and Auyong, 1998; see also Burr, 1995). The use of language not only constructs the world, but is constructed in itself (Potter, 1996). It is important to understand the way discourses map, construct and distinguish a world of (mass) tourism that is meaningful for us (Saarinen, 2004: 167). Particular interest is paid to the consequences of these practices (Hall, 1997), to the definition of mass tourism. In this regard, mass tourism as a category does not only construct the world but it is itself being produced in the writings of research.
Discursive practices through which mass tourism is constructed are the focus of this article: how it has been defined and represented, and what implications resulted. Discourse analysis is used loosely as a framework through which the discussions are interpreted and the identified discourses are presented in a conversational manner. Writings were approached open-mindedly and concentrated on what was written about mass tourism and how it was written (See Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Tuffin and Howard, 2001). The gaze of the researcher was directed at the general definitions of the phenomenon of mass tourism and on further identifications of its production, consumption and spatial characteristics, which stand as elements around which mass tourism evolves. Discourses represent the ways researchers have approached, written, studied and discussed mass tourism, or alternatively the ways knowledge and social practice are structured (Berg, 2009). In a Foucauldian style, discourses are considered broad sets of ideas and practices that frame and give meanings to the objects in discussion and hold power (Berg, 2009). However, there is no need to totally objectify mass tourism as its material presence can also be an active partner in these discussions. Two discourses, deterministic and flexible, were identified by analysing the similarities and differences between and within texts, and the functions of language (see Tuffin and Howard, 2001). Each of these discourses has a hegemonic way of addressing mass tourism.
In this article, scientific representations and definitions about mass tourism are critically scrutinized, highlighting it as a cultural and spatial phenomenon. This is a conceptual article drawing from works such as Crick (1989), Miller and Auyong (1998) and Saraniemi and Kylänen (2011). The discussions that serve as material have been accumulatively collected from books and journals during the analytical process. Known mass tourism classics were the starting point as they are still powerful, although somewhat aged (e.g. Cohen, 1972; Smith, 1977; Turner and Ash, 1975). The aim was to concentrate on the items that discuss what mass tourism is and define it in their own words. Additionally, the aim was to look at mass tourism from a geographical point of view, not from a specific theme such as sustainability, alternative tourism or management/development. However, some items related to these issues had to be included as to reflect the current state of dialogue.
Writings on mass tourism per se are surprisingly scarce, especially those that are interested in its conceptualization. It is common for researchers to use the term without defining it at all (Miller and Auyong, 1998: 13). There are studies on mass tourism with a specific framework, but writers often prefer to cite others than simply defining mass tourism in their own words. Mass tourism is sometimes ‘defined’ by a historical narrative of its development or by numbers demonstrating the role of tourism (e.g. Bramwell, 2004; Seckelmann, 2002). The term itself has often been replaced with others, such as sun and sand, mature, charter or package (e.g. Alegre and Cladera, 2006; Alegre and Garau, 2010; Andrews, 2011; Kozak, 2001). In these cases, it is difficult to evaluate what is meant by mass tourism in general. These characteristics of tourism discussions have led this material to be by no means exhaustive in terms of mass tourism research traditions. This article is more focused on the sociological, anthropological and geographical discussions of mass tourism, but that does not imply that other fields of study should not reconsider mass tourism. The selected fields form a rather coherent example of mass tourism discussions with similar perspectives or starting points to analyse. The analytical discussion offered in this article gives an insight into the variability and provides examples of how differently mass tourism has been constructed and defined through discourses. The aim has been to situate the term and get a hold on it.
The ‘Creating a grand story of mass tourism: deterministic discourse’ and ‘Stories of mass tourism(s): flexible discourse’ sections of this article are built around deterministic and flexible discourses. Deterministic discourse highlights mass tourism as a separable entity that has its own laws and restrictions affecting consumption, for example. The attitude is mainly judgemental, and mass tourism is often described as a common enemy. Flexible discourse illuminates the possibilities and multiplicity of the phenomenon, considering the contexts and multiple meanings of mass tourism reflecting the difference in understanding mass. The ‘Discussion: towards rethinking mass tourism(s)?’ section presents a discussion on implications for further research.
Creating a grand story of mass tourism: deterministic discourse
Mass tourism defined
Part of the discussion on mass tourism approaches it as an active force of its own, with its own rules applying to everyone and everything involved. Discursive practice of this kind can be seen as deterministic. Mass tourism is seen as a distinct form of tourism that can be separated from the others based on its linkage to mass production, mass consumption and mass tourist destinations. This stems from the historical notions of mass tourism as an inherently homogeneous phenomenon and renews the static sense of it. For example, Auliana Poon (1993: 32, 2003) argues that mass tourism only exists if four conditions are upheld: the holiday is ‘standardized’ and ‘rigidly packaged’, it is mass produced, it is mass marketed to an ‘undifferentiated clientele’, and it is ‘consumed en masse’ by tourists without consideration of local norms or culture. Mass is not only the quantitative notion here, but it also marks the quality of its different dimensions. This means that the way tourists practise mass tourism is seen strongly as being homogeneously characterized by its commercialism, sightseeing bus or beach (Cohen, 1972; Turner and Ash, 1975). According to Poon (1993), if the direction of change is towards more flexible and individual ways of travelling, this is always a change away from mass tourism, the replacement of which is named ‘new tourism’ rather than ‘new mass tourism’. Here we come to the very idea of mass tourism as seen by deterministic discourse: it is static and homogeneous by its very nature.
The lighter version of mass tourism in this discourse could be its definition as a synonym for mass package tourism, that is, ‘the way the activity is organized (mass, standardized, low cost and controlled by tour operators)’ rather than an indication of ‘a form of tourism or a conceptual approach’ (Spilanis and Vayanni, 2004: 272). In this regard, mass tourism would be seized to a somewhat static idea of package tour. The discussion below on the changing nature of production, especially with regard to package tours and low-cost carriers urges us, however, to reconsider whether mass tourism can actually be diminished to simply standardized totality, package tourism or static for that matter.
Mass production, mass tourists and mass tourist destinations
The start of deterministic discourse was built around the cultural critiques towards the changing culture of travel to tourism and its Western democratization (e.g. Boorstin, 1964; Rivers, 1972; Turner and Ash, 1975). In this historical period of the 1960s and 1970s, the rapid growth of tourism was approached in a judgemental tone, implying that something was lost in this process: previously exceptional activity, characterized by hardship or even danger had become easy and comfortable (Boorstin, 1964; Turner and Ash, 1975). What is common in the writings on mass tourism within this discourse is how and where the reader’s gaze is directed. Deterministic discourse addresses the relationship between mass tourism and production, consumption and spatiality as being pervasive. The production of mass tourism is linked to Fordism, which is large in scale and controlled by tour operators. It is blamed for standardizing the product – the package tour – into something inflexible and cheap with a predetermined itinerary (Boorstin, 1964; Cohen, 1972; Enoch, 1996; Poon, 1993; Rivers, 1972; Shaw and Williams, 2004; Turner and Ash, 1975). It is the institutionalized character that leads tourists to be routinely dealt with by the companies catering to the tourist trade, transforming everything local into a standardized form (Cohen, 1972: 168–169). The restrictive power of the production is not to end here – it is considered to have a direct link to consumption, mass tourists and their possibilities. The very quality of mass tourism is to be culturally poor and commoditized because of the type of production and product, and this is seen to lead to the homogenization and standardization of tourist experiences at the expense of individualism (Boorstin, 1964; Poon, 1993; Turner and Ash, 1975). In fact, tour operators are given a parental role to protect the tourist from unfamiliar things (Boorstin, 1964). Orvar Löfgren (1999) has criticized and wondered about the reasons for this way of defining some experiences as ‘sublime moments of personal bliss or just another pre-packaged item from the tourist industry’ (p. 266).
Deterministic representation suggests that there are no choices left for mass tourists beyond whether to participate in mass tourism or not. They are blamed for that very choice, as they are easily guided and interested in the risk-free familiarity of the destination and the pleasures of sea, sun, sand and sex, with no interest in the local culture and the expectation that everything will be done to them and for them (Boorstin, 1964; Krippendorf, 1987; Poon, 1993; Rivers, 1972; Turner and Ash, 1975): they are observing without actually experiencing the novelty of the host country (Cohen, 1972: 169). The outsider’s view taken in this discourse to consumption suggests that mass tourists are interested in the wrong things, not fitting with the right way of travelling as a MacCannelian search of authenticity and the host–guest relationship in which culture and place are embedded in the exotic and the pristine. From these standpoints, it is no surprise that mass tourists have been treated as an inherently homogeneous group (e.g. Boorstin, 1964; Krippendorf, 1987; Rivers, 1972) or as ‘hordes of barbarians’ (Turner and Ash, 1975). Erik Cohen (1972, 1979) criticized the approach to tourists as a general type and demanded on the recognition of multiplicity of the tourist phenomenon. Although mass tourists have also been categorized as several types in some typologies (e.g. Cohen, 1972; Smith, 1977), they represent the other end of the continuum while the other tourist types occupy the more valuable end. The ‘organized mass tourists’ are bound by the group itinerary, and ‘individual mass tourists’ have some control over their time (Cohen, 1972: 167–168). These two types of mass tourists are addressed with the same tone of inferiority and are based on the same missing ideal of travelling as the search for the exotic being restricted by the ‘environmental bubble’ (p. 166). The tourist typology defined by Valene Smith (1977) continued with the similar idea of several mass tourist categories that represented the need for Western conveniences and the secondary role of the destination itself. These typologies have been criticized for being ‘incommensurable’ and for separating ‘fuzzy or overlapping’ phenomena without considering vast range of motivations, such as fun, relaxation, adventure and learning expressed by the different kinds of tourists (Crick, 1989: 313, 327–328). Smith (2001) has reacted to the changing role of tourism in moving from tourist types towards market terms, while considering the proportion of each tourism sector in contemporary tourism: mass tourism is given variation between special interest tours and charter tours, yet located on the other end of the continuum.
The places where mass tourism occurs, such as mass tourist destinations, have been approached in deterministic discourse as inferior to other places or to what the place used to be like. Mass tourism’s role is seen as a destructive force that turns the previously valuable land into ‘pleasure peripheries’, purpose-built, artificially and sometimes hastily erected resorts or holiday towns offering the same product of the four S (Butler, 1980; Krippendorf, 1987; Rivers, 1972; Shaw and Williams, 1994; Turner and Ash, 1975), again standardizing the local (Cohen, 1972). Place differences are argued to be the basis of new tourism, not mass tourism (Williams and Shaw, 1998: 53). The same is seen to happen with the sights that mass tourism has helped to conserve. They have become institutionalized and as such no longer worth seeing (Cohen, 1972; Turner and Ash, 1975). These places and sights seem to have lost their very reason for their existence. There is a paradox embedded in these deterministic interpretations of mass tourist destinations. The idea that places of mass tourism lack original value highlights the misleading characteristic of the static sense of past and an outside viewpoint instead of seeing the new identities of these places (see also Aramberri, 2001; Obrador Pons et al., 2009a). Their popularity suggests that they have value beyond the overview of the researchers. Tourist studies might have so far ‘failed to grasp’ this attraction ‘in any meaningful sense’ (Knox, 2009: 146). John Urry (1990) reminds that distinctions between different places have been made also by the general public, as for some groups certain destinations became symbols of ‘mass tourism’ and inferior places. There seems to be a situation that goes hand-in-hand with deterministic discourse and the section of the general public that wants to be distinctive from the popular.
From alternative to mass
The deterministic discourse on mass tourism has achieved new power and direction from the issues of alternative tourism and sustainability since the 1980s (see also Butler, 1990; Clarke, 1997; Sharpley, 2000) by addressing alternative or new forms of tourism such as backpacking and ecotourism (e.g. Desforges, 1998; Shepherd, 2002; Welk, 2004). Mass tourism serves here as an opposite or a comparison to the tourism which is considered to be considerate to the local, economically friendly and non-commercial and which has a meaningful ideology. The lists of differences or continuums in which mass tourism is placed in order to represent the negative or milder extreme of the characteristic at hand highlight the hierarchical dualistic positioning between the bad and the other, good tourism (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003; Poon, 1993; Shaw and Williams, 1994, 2004; Weaver and Lawton, 2002; see also Butler, 1990), or at least they lead to the impression that something is missing from the mass. Mass tourism represents large-scale developments compared to small-scale alternative development (Bramwell, 2004; Gursoy et al., 2010), but sometimes, any activity beyond sun and sand is categorized as alternative, such as hiking and golfing (Baysan, 2001).
This discussion has further evolved and could be, at least partially, placed in the following flexible discourse, as there has been criticism within the discussion of the value-charged comparisons that they are inadequate and misleading (Butler, 1990; Clarke, 1997; Pearce, 1992; Sharpley, 2000). Mass tourism need not be unsustainable, as it is an issue for all tourism to consider (Lück, 2002; Sharpley, 2000; Weaver, 2000, 2012). The separation between mass and alternative tourists has been analysed to as being blurrier or more multidimensional, and the alternative forms of tourism per se are not homogeneous or without challenges (e.g. Collins-Kreiner and Israeli, 2010; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003; Reichel et al., 2007). However, the viewpoint has often been that alternative is gaining in popularity and is becoming institutionalized (Collins-Kreiner and Israeli, 2010; Reichel et al., 2007), which suggests that it is thinning in the process and renews the idea of the continuum. The challenge of continuing the deterministic discourse today, and especially the hierarchical categorization between mass tourism/tourists and other forms (earlier considered opposites), is seen in studies which begin with such a composition but have to reconsider their usefulness in the course of analysis and results which propose a more multidimensional setting (e.g. Gursoy et al., 2010; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003; McKenzie Gentry, 2007). Sometimes, the discursive practice of mass tourism is a wave-like process that does not necessarily prevent the whole idea of new being discovered, but on the contrary, it raises the question as to whether something different could have been achieved without the rigid framework.
At this point, it is worth addressing the term mass attached to tourism, but which also refers more broadly to society, culture and consumption in the social sciences. Its relevance has been questioned because it is considered to symbolize the homogeneous nature of tourists and their consumption style and leads the term, in today’s more heterogeneous situation, to become a misnomer (Singh, 2007). Theodor Adorno (1992: 67) sees mass as ‘baby food’, filtered and predigested outcome of processes that create uniform schemes, or as a basis for modern totalitarianism. This is all logical if we understand mass as a homogeneous entity that can represent all tourists, as the case has been in deterministic discourse. It also raises the question as to whether tourist behaviour, for example, can ever be considered homogeneous. What if we were to understand mass as something that appears to be homogeneous from the outside, without needing to be such on the inside? It is possible not to reduce consumption to the mass quality of the commodity but instead highlight the specificity of the item being purchased coloured by the relationship between the purchaser and the item, replacing the ‘vast morass of possible goods’ (Miller, 1987: 166, 188–190). Masses in the plural are also referred to as postmodern tribes that are heterogeneous fragments based on lifestyles and tastes, between which there is constant movement (Maffesoli, 1996). The two different ways of understanding mass lie in the background of the two discourses: ‘A large number of human beings, collected closely together or viewed as forming an aggregate in which their individuality is lost’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012). Updating the term, which is still very much in use, or perhaps addressing it as new mass tourism, is more useful than trying to introduce a new term. By continuing to use the term mass tourism, researchers should be forced to reveal how they understand mass and face the dynamic nature of it. The alternative way of understanding mass is discussed next.
Stories of mass tourism(s): flexible discourse
Mass tourism(s) defined
Mass tourism is increasingly being addressed with a tone of possibility, acknowledging its dynamic character. This approach is termed flexible discourse, and it differs from the deterministic in many ways. In flexible discourse, mass tourism is seen as a loose umbrella term for or a multidimensional combination of many different popular and large-scale forms of tourism with diverse characteristics. It is referred to as an enduring modern worldwide phenomenon (Aramberri, 2010; Wheeller, 2003), which has an even larger domestic dimension (Aramberri, 2010; Ghimire, 2001). In fact, all tourists can be considered mass tourists since they are part of this mass leisure phenomenon (Sharpley, 2000). Mass tourism is seen to be moving towards global ‘mega-tourism’ (Wheeller, 2003: 230). India and China, as rapidly growing new markets, are referred to as engines of further growth and change (Aramberri, 2010; Singh, 2007), but also the blurring distinction between the alternative and the mass is identified, and their ability to form a mixture of activities through product diversification (Duval, 2004; Weaver, 2001: 110). Mass tourism has already been acknowledged as having been influenced by a growing interest in cultural tourism and nature-based tourism (Boissevain, 2000; McKercher and du Cros, 2002). The idea of alternatives replacing mass tourism is seen as misleading, as the scales of the phenomena are so different (Aramberri, 2010; Butler, 1990; Wheeller, 2003). The relationship between the new tourism described by Poon (1993) and mass tourism is not necessarily a dichotomy, but a relation where both adopt features (Honkanen, 2004).
Mass tourism is understood more flexibly as diverse motives and organizational features, the composition of which changes according to trip evaluated. For example, ecotourism could be a variant of mass tourism and not its opposite, because the tourists use the same core services during their trip, such as major airlines, mass-produced vehicles and large urban hotels (Weaver, 2001: 109). For similar reasons, other forms of travel, such as business, visiting friends and relatives and religious tourism, share a large number of features with more leisure and vacationing oriented mass tourism, allowing one to call them mass tourism, ‘even though they are not completely identical’ (Aramberri, 2010: 9). In this discourse, these international and national flows of tourists with diverse motives stand out as mass tourisms. The vision is that a new series of social encounters, interactions and patterns of production, reproduction and consumption have emerged as the ability to travel further, faster and cheaper has become easier (Hall, 2005; Schafer, 2000): In the future there will not be one simple model of mass tourism, but the fusion of forms – from neo-tribal youth cultures, to democratized cultural tourism, to seasonal and retirement migration, alongside forms of provision for these new urbanaciones, leisure facilities, local traders and large corporations. (Obrador Pons et al., 2009a: 170)
What lies beneath is the need to consider the idea of mass as quantitative (e.g. Burkart and Medlik, 1974; Divino and McAleer, 2010; Jenkins, 2007; Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003) describing the proportion of a population participating in tourism, the volume of a tourist activity or a very rapid growth in demand for international tourist trips and so on. Mass tourism can be interpreted as not being derivative of only one type of consumption, production or place. This means that mass does not need to be homogeneous, as different ‘tourisms’ create it in different combinations (See also Maffesoli, 1996). Mass tourism as large-scale activity stands out from the surroundings. As there can be no fixed numbers to define mass tourism, it depends on the viewer and the context as to how much is mass. It is best understood as a socially constructed concept in which mass does not inherently represent good or bad. For some, the presence of any touristic activity might already be a sight of mass, whereas others might not even pay attention to the other tourists. In some destinations, package tourism might be representative of the mass but in other place it might not be (see also Bramwell, 2004). On a larger scale, mass tourism can be seen as international flows of tourists that form more or less established connections between regions.
Production, tourists and destinations
The criticism of flexible discourse is directed at the former and current discussions of mass tourism, and especially the unjustifiably locked situation of polar opposites, by trying to contribute to its improved new knowledge (e.g. Aramberri, 2001, 2010; Butcher, 2003; Hazbun, 2009; Miller and Auyong, 1998; Obrador Pons et al., 2009b; Sharpley, 2012). Mass tourism is approached as a part of tourism that is taken seriously, instead of ironically (Obrador Pons et al., 2009b). The concept can be understood better, not through comparisons but by looking inside the very phenomenon and its possibilities, multidimensionality and fluid character.
According to Rebecca Torres (2002), the recognition of ‘the ability of Fordist modes of production and consumption to become highly specialized and flexible, while retaining a mass scale’, continues to fail (p. 93). In the flexible discourse, the focus is targeted at the changing and complex nature of tourism industry and consumption: the changing packages of the large Fordist tour operators for more specialized tastes (Urry, 1990: 49) in the form of ‘sun-plus’ products, instead of ‘sun-lust’ (Bramwell, 2004: 24); intertwined Fordist and neo-Fordist elements in the industry and consumption (Bramwell, 2004; Ioannides and Debbage, 1998), and increasingly segmented clientele (Torres, 2002). It has also been stated that mass tourism production in one mass destination can be much more varied, including companies of various sizes, some of them specialized and not all concentrated only on tourism (Bastakis et al., 2004; Bramwell, 2004; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003; Leiper et al., 2008). Package tours are represented to have changed into integrated products that consist of complex complementary services and unique features, reducing the basic package to include only accommodation and airfare, and in some cases food (Aguiló et al., 2005; Aguiló Perez and Juaneda, 2000; Torres, 2002). The whole concept of the package tour has become blurry, especially in terms of standardization: due to the many package travel product options on the Internet (Bramwell, 2004). For example, low-cost airlines are identified to offer highly standardized scale-economy air travel products, but tourists can build their independent travel arrangements around them (Josephides, 2003 cited in Bramwell, 2004: 16). The whole idea of production in mass tourism gets new meaning in flexible discourse, especially in relation to the consumption.
In the flexible discourse, organization and consumption do not have a deterministic relationship. Even though the charter tour and marketing are standardized, they do not have to standardize tourists (Löfgren, 1999). No matter how well planned and packaged a tour is, it does not prevent the tourist from having personal, unique and strong experiences (Löfgren, 1999; Rojek, 1993; Selänniemi, 2001; Wright, 2002). Tourists are seen as active producers of their own experiences (see also Ateljevic, 2000; Rakić and Chambers, 2012), which is blurring the boundary between production and consumption. Mass tourists are also considered to have more power because the new packages are more flexible and they can control their time and actions during the trip (Honkanen, 2004; Jacobsen, 2000; Swarbrooke and Horner, 2007; Torres, 2002). The decisions made by tourists are not viewed as inferior in flexible discourse, and this might lead to a deeper understanding of their motives – mass tourism can not only be educational, aesthetic, novel and adventurous but also be fun, social, entertaining, familiar and hedonistic, just like all forms of tourism, including the same obstacles of achieving authenticity (e.g. Collins-Kreiner and Israeli, 2010; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003, 2004; Obrador, 2012; Obrador Pons et al., 2009a; Wright, 2002). This draws attention to the continuum and mixture of motivations that exist inside mass tourism, which reflects its heterogeneity. For this reason, the predetermined frameworks should also be critically evaluated as they might be one reason why some things are prevented from being discovered. The concept of the ‘post-tourist’ (Feifer, 1985) might reflect the contemporary mass tourists if we want to address them as individuals who know about the many tourism choices available, can participate in different kinds of trips and whose one trip may include different or even opposite elements. This kind of conceptualization recognizes the fluid nature of travelling and does not shackle mass tourism to any particular type of trip or tourist. The term or even the role mass tourist is, however, better used in the plural than the singular. After all, the mass refers to a large group of tourists, and this leads mass tourists to only exist in plural meanings.
Mass tourist destinations are seen as valuable places in flexible discourse. Kevin Meethan (2001) feels that ‘it is crucial to the understanding of tourism as a socially constructed and meaningful activity’ to understand ‘the processes whereby tourist spaces are both created and maintained’ (pp. 13–14). Edward Relph (2000: 617–618) has acknowledged that the placeless thesis was easier to develop in the 1970s as the world seemed more clearly as a set of polarities, but nowadays places should be viewed from their own starting points. For Obrador Pons et al. (2009a), mass tourism is not ‘a free floating phenomenon that is imposed on destinations and has nothing to do with the place where it occurs’ (p. 163). Attention has been directed at the familiar, social, embodied and everyday aspects of mass destinations and their consumption (e.g. Andrews, 2005, 2011; Diken and Laustsen, 2004; Obrador, 2012). However, we should be careful not to link mass tourism only to the framework of familiarity, and instead go beyond it and understand the whole variety of mass tourism. The destinations and their industry should be seen rather dynamic (Torres, 2002), adopting features from new tourism, for example, through different kinds of activities (Honkanen, 2004). Their continuous need to change, reflecting the consumption, is acknowledged (Agarwal, 2002; Urry, 1990), but even destinations offering sun and sand are not consigned to the rubbish dump (Aguiló et al., 2005; Claver-Cortés et al., 2007). The spatiality of mass tourism should not be (conceptually) restricted to the hotel resort, because more and more tourists, including those on package holidays, venture beyond, interested in natural, cultural, heritage or rural sights, leading to a more active and heterogeneous roles of mass tourists (e.g. Aguiló et al., 2005; Bardolet and Sheldon, 2008; Baysan, 2001; Bramwell, 2004; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003; Löfgren, 1999; Torres, 2002). Mass tourism in the Mediterranean has expanded ‘beyond the beach’ through the ‘diversification of the tourist experience’ (Obrador Pons et al., 2009b: 2). This also suggests that the functional destination that tourists experience could be understood as a collection of places visited during the trip and might offer a better framework for the fluid and dynamic character of the spatiality of mass tourism. Major cities in Europe could also be labelled as locations for mass tourism (Agarwal, 2002; Klemm, 2002; Papatheodorou, 2003) and possibly many others, if research takes a flexible viewpoint.
The contextual nature of mass tourism
To conclude the flexible discourse, it is pertinent to sum up its main contribution that underpins all of the above: the way it understands and accepts the contexts in which mass tourism takes place. These are the starting points from which to evaluate mass tourism instead of comparisons. This means forgetting the idea of the homogeneous or static nature of the phenomenon and the search for the exotic and an authentic other as the only right guideline for tourism. Despite concentrating solely on rapid globalization, mass tourism can be considered mainly a regional issue that has ‘regional and local idiosyncrasies’ (Obrador Pons et al., 2009a: 163). The recognition of the local being able to use foreign influences for their own purposes makes visible the micro-stories of local practices (Hazbun, 2009: 214, 218) and sensitivity to the different nationalities and backgrounds of tourists shapes the understanding of the phenomenon (Baysan, 2001). To recognize that mass tourism takes place in a society, culture and place at a certain time leads to the acknowledgement that it has histories and geographies (Obrador Pons et al., 2009a). The previous host–guest model does not consider this complexity of interactions (Aramberri, 2001). Mass tourism needs to be further evaluated in these diverse contexts in order to better understand it.
Mass tourism is accepted to be about the delivery of services commodities, neither of which can be inherently blamed for or characteristic of mass tourism alone (Aramberri, 2001, 2010; Sharpley, 2009, 2012). From this perspective, tourists are the customers, and the destinations and the local populations, among others, are service providers (Aramberri, 2001: 746; Sharpley, 2012: 60). The role of producers, overall, is seen to satisfy the customers’ needs rather than modify their behaviour (Sharpley, 2000). The production is not seen to happen in isolation of economics, politics and technology – it is part of the global or regional market systems that affect the relationships between different tourism actors and it has problems such as leakages (Anton Clavé, 2012; Aramberri, 2001; Bastakis et al., 2004; Britton, 1991; McKenzie Gentry, 2007). Mass tourism is tied to the same rules as any other sector of the economy.
Democratization is considered a characteristic of consumption in mass tourism, that is, its accessibility to a wider population, ‘regular people’ (Connell and Gibson, 2004). This leads to an important further recognition that tourists do not perceive foreign countries as ‘social scientists or ethnologists’, but ‘they project their wishes, illusions and fantasies on the regions that they visit’ (Henning, 2002: 170). Overall, tourist motivations are seen to be much more varied than the unrealistic expectations of tourism commentators based solely on cultural authenticity (Crick, 1989: 327–328; Sharpley, 2000), and the contexts in the form of phase of life and travel party are understood to shape the purposes and actions of tourism, from families to young partygoers, to name but a few (Klemm, 2002; Obrador, 2012). This highlights the importance of seeing mass tourism, and tourism overall, as something that is done by normal people and with different contextual motives.
Mass tourism is considered to be ‘all about the place – although not in the narrow organic sense’, with encounters of both the familiar and the exotic (Obrador Pons et al., 2009a: 163; see also Andrews, 2005, 2011). The urge to go beyond the material and stereotypical is evident. Salvador Anton Clavé (2012: 217) suggests scrutinizing mass tourist destinations as spaces that advance competitiveness and which are influenced by multiplied leisure and lifestyle-related mobility that creates urban structures. The idealized notions of pristine nature or an unchanging culture do not serve as right framework in which to analyse mass tourist destinations, or any other (tourism) place (see also Knox, 2009). There are reasons why tourists visit these places (Knox, 2009: 146), and for this reason, the researchers need to have more sensitivity in their analysis of the mass destination itself, from the inside. Although coastal resorts have been identified as being the most stereotypical mass tourist destinations, we cannot reduce the mass tourism phenomenon to only these places. Instead, space should be given to evaluate what mass tourism is from perspective of different places. It is in these contexts that mass tourism takes place, and they offer a good framework for analysing the phenomenon.
Discussion: towards rethinking mass tourism(s)?
This article started by considering mass tourism as a multidimensional concept leading to the evocation of different meanings for different people (Miller and Auyong, 1998). This thought provides a good starting point for (re)thinking mass tourism, and the very reason why mass tourism should be addressed properly in academic research. In this study, mass tourism has been understood as a socially constructed idea that continually receives new meanings in discussions, according to the selections made by researchers. The researchers have preferred to deal the changes in tourism with new and more segmented ways of dividing tourism rather than by rethinking mass tourism in general. As a term, it possesses great historical weight and has been used almost as a taken-for-granted truism. The accepted perspectives and attitudes, however, continue to shape the phenomena through representations. There has been a growing amount of critique aimed at the role and style of researching mass tourism, demanding new research on it (e.g. Aramberri, 2010; Hazbun, 2009; Obrador Pons et al., 2009b; Sharpley, 2012). This article urges us to reconsider that mass tourism is still a relevant term, but it has to be conceptually revised to meet the demands of today, in order to be worth using. In this way, academics are forced to face the dynamic and fluid nature of this tourism phenomenon and how they understand mass: homogeneous or heterogeneous.
Two different positions on mass tourism have been identified in this study as deterministic and flexible discourses. Contemporary mass tourism does not appear as a clear definition but, rather, the idea of it is constructed by these discourses and result in two separate mass tourisms. The two discourses identified were presented in chronological order, reflecting changes in both tourism and research, but they do coexist, even within a single piece of research. For example, the research setting might be constructed in a deterministic manner, but the results have indicated a flexible discourse to be more suitable on the issue. The deterministic discourse is the classical way of defining mass tourism with a judgemental and restrictive tone. Mass tourism is a separate, distinct form of tourism leading to a grand story that refers to a static view that mass tourism is inherently about a homogeneous mass, driven by the forces of production, and as soon as some flexibility or individuality appears, it ceases to be mass tourism. This further homogenizes mass tourism and suggests it is diminishing in today’s situation. In this discourse, mass is seen from the outside, instead of getting an inside look. Mass tourism represents a certain style of doing tourism instead of different styles representing mass tourism in a dynamic manner depending on the context, which is the case in the flexible discourse.
The flexible discourse, on the contrary, discards the idea of homogeneous mass and reflects its contextual nature and inner diversities by heading for inside views. Mass tourism is historically contingent, and the previous hegemony around it is no longer applicable in the 2010s. Recognition of the flexible and individualized production and consumption of mass tourism discards the idea of clear universal laws. Mass tourism is considered more of a loose umbrella term for different kinds of large-scale and popular tourism segments. Mass tourism is a role taken by or given to one or several types of tourism, and these together come to represent mass. As such, mass phenomena are visible and are highlighted from their surroundings, whether this means the numbers of tourists in one place, the direction of flow of tourists from one country or as a more visible role in the media, but they are not necessarily homogeneous. Individuals, forming diverse groups and segments on a larger scale, can be considered to make the mass, and they are not mere puppets of the producer; rather, they customize the behavioural and spatial content of their trips. This democratization can be seen to have further individualized mass tourism, and rather than being predetermined, it is, instead, seen to offer possibilities. Flexible discourse presents itself as powerful opening lines, new approaches and critique, which are well justified. It is still too early to tell whether this has a revolutionary influence on the totality of mass tourism research.
What implications do these two discourses have for the research community? If they are both to coexist in the future, it should be clear to the reader which of these mass tourisms is being referred to. Additionally, these choices have implications for the theoretical understanding of tourism, especially as global tourist culture, and the relationships between production, consumption and spatiality. The deterministic discourse might be applicable to some situations, and the flexible discourse does not mean that mass tourism becomes an irrelevant term, as it consists of different segments that researchers can concentrate on, as they have already. All the more reason to discuss the meanings and theory of mass, but the difference is that it should be viewed from within the phenomenon without painting it as an entity in its own right. Instead, it should be seen as something formed dynamically according to the context and having permeable borders, rather than something that is fixed.
This study has indicated that there is a need to continue addressing changing mass tourism and its definitions in order to achieve more up-to-date scholarly interpretations of it. Implications for further research are related to who is defining mass tourism, from what perspective(s) and how, including both theoretical framework and attitude. Tourism professionals outside academia might offer different, interesting views on mass tourism that are worth considering. As they work inside mass tourism and with tourists on a daily basis, their role is naturally closer to normal tourists, as they do not have the weight of academic theories on their shoulders. Their potential in evaluating the phenomenon has been undermined, especially as their views, when analysed theoretically by a researcher, might have implications for the industry and destinations in order to straighten the stereotypes of mass tourism preventing tourism actions or development.
How is mass tourism defined in different cultural and spatial contexts, including the researcher’s own position? A Chinese tourist might define and experience mass differently to a Northern European tourist, not only due to different scales of their countries’ population density (in the context of ecotourism Wen and Ximing, 2008). Mass tourism research would benefit from finding out how the experiences and physicality of tourism are intertwined with the previous knowledge and socially and culturally constructed meanings (e.g. Rakić and Chambers, 2012). The discussion about mass tourism should not be left in the air; instead, it should be situated in spatial, cultural, social, economic and historical contexts to achieve better understanding (as suggested or conducted by Andrews, 2005, 2011; Baysan, 2001; Hazbun, 2009; Obrador, 2012; Obrador Pons et al., 2009b). What kinds of tourism form mass tourism in a particular setting and what are the reasons behind their popularity? The global or international tourism culture is also of interest. What is the researcher’s own position in terms of viewing mass tourism in addition to the research setting – receiving or sending culture or both? Are the researcher’s views based on research or do they have experience in the field? Finally, attention should be paid to the selected frameworks and scales, and how they contribute to the ways researchers interpret the material and findings. In many ways, it is worth rethinking mass tourism and its research.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. Jarkko Saarinen, Antti Honkanen, Päivi Kymäläinen and Joni Vainikka have also given constructive comments on previous versions of the article. An initial draft of the paper was presented at the 2010 annual conference of ATLAS in Limassol, Cyprus.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.