CRTO: Seminar Paper

Who is the tourist? A philosophical quest into the ontology of tourism.

Original by Gilles Mertz

ITM_4

Immatriculation Number : H13204-001

Professor in charge: Prof. Dr. Desmond Wee

 

Gilles Mertz

Page 1 of 24

In memoriam of my beloved grandfather, François Mertz, a great human being, whose death will ever be great loss for me. May my memories of you foster my existence, off that I become stronger and achieve big accomplishments through them. Thank you for everything. Requiescat in pace (05/03/2015)

Gilles Mertz

Page 2 of 24

Abstract   When talking about tourism, one has to be aware of the questions that have not been answered about the phenomenon. Tourism as a concept is used throughout practice and theory still resisting the problem that it cannot be hardly criticised by asking the question of ontology. The myriad classifications that have been created about tourism hitherto, i.e. dark tourism, adventure tourism or even local tourism, have not negated the fact that tourism is still not completely understood as a phenomenon. In this aspect, the inner paradox that exists in tourism has not yet been dissolved. We hence find ourselves in a position which leaves us with a lack of ontological knowledge of the concept of tourism. This ontological knowledge bases itself in the discrepancy that exists between our understanding of the term “tourism” and the actual practice of the phenomenon. A myriad of explanations from different epistemological backgrounds have been applied to explain tourism. Yet, none of them has ended in a clear ontological knowledge of the phenomenon. In this perspective, tourism can rather be described as something that outgoes our perception rather than a phenomenon we are fully aware and in control of. The direct implication of this lacking ontological knowledge is the terminological and conceptual senselessness of tourism. In the acknowledgement of the unexploited understanding of tourism ontology, this paper tries to work on the question what tourism is about by undergoing a philosophical and biological approach. In this aim, tourism is situated into our reality by analysing it through concepts such as metaphysics, dualism and constructivism. Finally, the ultimate goal of this paper is to rethink tourism from a bio-constructivist approach allowing to situate the phenomenon into a more human-centred framework. Key words: Tourism; Ontology; Philosophy; Constructivism; Biology;

Gilles Mertz

Page 3 of 24

Statutory  Declaration   I herewith declare that I have authored the present written assignment independently making use only of the specified literature. Sentences or parts of sentences quoted literally are marked as quotations; identification of other references with regard to the statement and scope of the work is quoted. The written assignment in this form or in any other form has not been submitted to an examination body and has not been published. Gilles Mertz

Gilles Mertz

Page 4 of 24

I would like to express my gratitude towards Jonathan Güssmann for his motivational and inspirational part, pushing me in the direction to have the courage to write on this topic. Furthermore, I want to thank him for the correction and feedback given concerning the initial structure of the paper. Next, I again highly appreciate Jil Jordy Ecker’s support for correcting the grammar and orthography of this, I admit, quite challenging and long paper. Thank you very much for your help.

Gilles Mertz

Page 5 of 24

 Table  of  contents   1. Introduction

1.1. What is tourism? Who is the tourist? ............................................... p.6 1.2. Research question ..................................................................... p.8

2. The problem of tourism ontology .......................................................... p.8

2.1. Theoretical incompleteness .......................................................... p.8 2.2. Consequences for tourism practitioners .................................... p.9

3. Seeking the roots of tourism ......................................................... p.11

3.1. Tourism and metaphysics ......................................................... p.11 3.2. The tourism definition ................................................................... p.12 3.3. Moving from dualism to constructivism ................................... p.15 3.4. Biological constructivism ......................................................... p.17 3.5. Tourism as a bio-constructivist construct ................................... p.19

4. Conclusion & Outlook .............................................................................. p.21 5. Bibliography .......................................................................................... p.24

Gilles Mertz

Page 6 of 24

1.Introduction  

1.1. What is tourism? Who is the tourist? When talking about tourism from a practitioner’s perspective, most members of the Western societies seem to be enlightened about. If you would randomly ask people on the streets, most of the people would know what you mean if you would speak about tourism. Tourism, for most of the people, is seen as the movement from home to another place in order to spend their vacation there, having fun, enjoying themselves. In very ordinary terms, Wikipedia describes tourism as follows: “Tourism is travel for recreation, leisure, religious, family or business purposes, usually for a limited duration. Tourism is commonly associated with international travel, but may also refer to travel to another place within the same country. “ (Definition on Wikipedia, Last Access 01.05.2015). This definition is in some way similar to the one of the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, who defines tourism as “the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business or other purposes.” (UNWTO: 1995) Etymologically spoken, the term “tourism” can be translated to a tool describing a circle or a tour. In his etymological analysis, Leiper states “In a sense, tourism intrinsically involves a circular itinerary in that tourists return to their point of origin, home.” (Leiper: 1983, p.277). In this aspect, tourism begins with the movement from home back to home. Hence, home is both the initiator as well as the end goal of tourism. From a practitioner’s point of view, tourism as a phenomenon appears to be clear.

Picture: Typical tourists?

(URL: https://universecityblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tourists.jpg) All those different definitions, as easy and comprehensible they might look, are, however, very vague. The research in the field of tourism has on contrary shown that the answers to the question of who is a tourist are rather vague and imprecise. Likewise, the definitions served by Wikipedia, the UNWTO and Leiper are indeed very questionable as they do not cover all aspects of tourism.

Gilles Mertz

Page 7 of 24

In a previous essay, I already tried to figure out in what lies the difference between a tourist and an inhabitant, talking about different spheres in which both roles are acting in. For that purpose, references have been sought to authors such as Cohen (Cohen: 1974), Robinson1 and Holden2 to receive a better apprehension for the tourism definition. The findings from this paper encompassed mainly that the tourist experience is highly individual rather than associable to stiff roles, as stated in Cohen’s classification. The tourist role can be associated to a changing context, for instance related to the change of spatial location. In this sense, the principle of role attribution and behaviourism had been used to explain a way of how tourism is created. Furthermore, what can be taken from that conclusion was a sense of constructivism being incorporated in the tourist role, with one perspective of tourism being that human beings for a large part invent the tourist role by themselves. Gradually the essay lead to the interim conclusion that the tourist role does not differ much from the inhabitant role and that tourism as a concept per se cannot be claimed to exist. Quoting myself some years back: “Finally, we should consider that a tourist is nothing else than a human being. This may sound logical, but we often forget this when trying to analyse a tourist’s behaviour. Every action emanating from a tourist is a human action. People do basically the same activities on vacation as they do when they are at home. For instance, they sleep, consume, breathe and interact.” (Mertz: 2014) This hypothesis is leading the term to a huge loss of its inner logical validity and legitimacy because tourists and inhabitants basically are the same actors in this game. Having this in mind, it is quite remarkable that the term treats an abstract concept which by its nature is, as Cohen already stated, very “fuzzy” (Cohen: 1974). Seen the discrepancy existing between the term and the actual practice of tourism, the question of how human actions can be defined as purely touristic still remains unanswered. Of course, the factor of spatial location and time involved in a location permit a first differentiation between a tourist and someone who has been living at a place for some time, certainly also due to the fact that locals are culturally bound in certain areas. The tourist however perceives this reality with a different perspective and not every person leaving his habitat to wander to another place is automatically a tourist. Having the subjective background of the author in mind, this paper continues on some of the ideas proposed in that essay by focusing on two main aspects: first, diving into philosophical realms with the theory of how we perceive our world, in German terms called “Erkenntnistheorie” or “Erkenntnis” (a term which will henceforth be used more often in this paper), we are going to investigate how tourism can be perceived as an actual concept. For this, we are trying to find a philosophical definition of tourism which might serve our debate on tourism. Second, going into a transition from philosophy to more tangible realms in terms of empiric knowledge, we are going to consider the tourist as a human being from a biological perspective. A biological system that, as previously mentioned, sleeps, consumes, breathes and interacts. 1 ROBINSON, M. (2012) THE EMOTIONAL TOURIST. IN: DAVID PICARD AND MIKE ROBINSON (EDS.) EMOTION IN MOTION: TOURISM, AFFECT AND TRANSFORMATION. FARNHAM: ASHGATE 2 HOLDEN, A. (2005) TOURISM STUDIES AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. LONDON ; NEW YORK, NY: ROUTLEDGE

Gilles Mertz

Page 8 of 24

1.2. Research question This leads me to the research question which shall be the main point of analysis in this paper: “Seen the discrepancy that exists between the term “tourism” and the actual practice of the concept, how can tourism be understood alternatively making use of a bio-philosophical approach?”

2.  The  ontological  problem  of  tourism  As tourism is enrooted in both, theory as well as practice, this section is going to analyse the ontological lack of tourism in both fields. Simultaneously, the consequences of the discrepancy between the phenomenon and the term will be explained.

2.1. Theoretical incompleteness Tourism as an object of study has found a major legitimacy in the scientific discourse with the growth of the tourism industry after the Second World War. From this period until nowadays, the industry has undergone an immense growth in terms of the amount of people who do tourism. Of course, the historical context with fast growing western economies and a raise of wealth and free time as well as technological progress such as the beginning of civil airline industries can be seen as stimulators for people’s motivation to do tourism (also see Holden: 2005, pp. 7 – 38 for the history of tourism). While people go on holidays on a larger scale, scientists recognised this special phenomenon more and more and started analysing it. Tourism studies since then progressed in the academic world and have presented lots of critical analysis. All those theories were created to help us getting a greater insight into the practice of tourism. Because tourism is a practical phenomenon rather practised physically than theoretically, the problem research faces when aiming to describe tourism as a phenomenon is that it cannot be explained as a natural science. Tourism studies are for the biggest part written by authors with a background in social sciences and humanities. Subsequently, tourism research is majorly done by qualitative methodology, while quantitative methodology is mostly being used for measuring the tourism flows. The qualitative research for tourism, however, bears in itself something very particular because it is making use of a methodology that is neither derived nor owned by the concept. This use of extra-disciplinary methodology has already been questioned by authors such as Alessandro P. Netto, who, for instance, claims that tourism as a study object is very often analysed from researchers with different epistemological backgrounds. In this regard, tourism is often analysed from backgrounds such as biology, architecture or administration (Netto: 2009, p.43) or even more from sociological or psychological viewpoints, what consequently leads to a metaphorisation of the term

Gilles Mertz

Page 9 of 24

rather than an ontological explanation of it. This leads to the fact that tourism can be seen in uncountable ways. Bauman for example finds the link between tourism and pilgrimage (Bauman: 1994), while MacCannell uses Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphor (Goffman: 1959) to analyse tourism (MacCannell: 1999). Further metaphoric connections exist to explain tourism, amongst others between tourism and economy, tourism and leisure, tourism and culture, tourism and psychology and so on and so forth. Graburn and Jafari have yet mentioned this extra-disciplinary need for tourism in their paper. Quoting them: “no single discipline alone can accommodate, treat or understand tourism; it can be studied only if disciplinary boundaries are crossed and if multi-disciplinary perspectives are sought and formed.” (Graburn & Jafari: 1991, p. 7-8) Without wanting to negate the usefulness of extra-disciplinary approaches for the understanding of tourism, what still is missing is the fact that tourism would necessitate an own methodology in order to be researched properly. For the moment, all we have in tourism studies can be seen as a modelisation, an approximation or metaphorisation of tourism. In this sense, Coles et al. claim that “the importance of tourism as a major contemporary economic, social, cultural, political and environmental phenomenon justifies the apparent de facto emergence of a distinctive discipline centred on the subject.” (Coles et al., 2009, p.83) Tourism by its hermeneutic meaning is for the moment solely an object of numerous scientific disciplines but not a discipline by its own. For this objective, it lacks an appropriate ontology, therefore bearing deficits in the epistemology and consequently not possessing an own methodology. In this regard, the danger is present that our theoretical understanding of what we term tourism could be all wrong.

2.2. Consequences for tourism practitioners Seen the danger for theory, what, we could ask, would then be the danger for the tourism practice? Evidently, what we perceive in our world does not seem as the collapse of the tourism industry. The tourism industry accounts for more than 100 millions of direct jobs in our global economy, representing around 9% of our global gross domestic product (UNWTO Tourism Highlights: 2014). In terms of economy, tourism is a reality that no one can negate. For this reason, tourism as an economic reality is highly accepted as a tangible practice in our world. Yet, again, what presents an economic reality does not necessarily cover the reality of what tourism is about. For sure, we have economic figures resulting from qualitative and quantitative analysis in the tourism industry. But these figures result of the assumption that the industry agreed on a definition of what tourism is about. In their “Collection of Tourism Expenditure Statistics” (UNWTO: 1995) the World Tourism Organisation agreed, for practical reasons of data collection, to define tourism as “the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business or other purposes.” (UNWTO: 1995, p.1).

Gilles Mertz

Page 10 of 24

We see that although the industry keeps working perfectly fine with this definition, it is still working under the curtain of uncertainty. The statistics resulting from these statistics might consequently be questioned, as the essential basis they are measuring, which is the tourist, is fixed as a mathematical constant. Analysis is done on a fundament that lacks evidence about the study object or the exact target group. Acting according to an economic paradigm, where the importance is focused on demand and offer, the industry does not seem to worry about this lack of evidence. But it should. As it is the case, new forms of tourism are popping up every year, with new terms being invented to classify the new objects into new subgroups. Mass tourism, ethical tourism, dark tourism, inbound tourism, international tourism, voluntourism, nature tourism, cultural tourism social tourism, local tourism or home tourism are only some of an abundance of expressions used for classification under the current tourism definition. Nowadays, the phenomenon of locals visiting their own home places as tourist destinations radically change the frameworks in which all of us see tourism. This form of tourism just totally ignores the definition offered by the UNWTO. It is controversial how inhabitants de facto adapt the role of a tourist as this is by the understanding of tourism mostly not foreseen. However, the answer of the practitioners towards these new phenomena always stays the same by simply introducing new classifications that can be called tourism. By this deed, the industry nevertheless created a paradox: the UNWTO definition does simply not work anymore. The definition offered does not cover the phenomenon anymore as the last one evolved over time. Something does just not work right between the definition and the phenomenon, as both are developing themselves in different directions and thus creating a discrepancy between each other.

Picture: An example of the classifications in tourism

(Source: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/finalscm-140106004959-phpapp02/95/creating-customer-loyalty-in-the-travel-and-tourism-industry-3-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1388969488 ; Last access 02/05/2015)

The direct consequence for the tourism industry is that they lose control over a phenomenon which they thought they would perfectly understand and be able to anticipate. It is just not the case. With the change and progress in cultures and societies,

Gilles Mertz

Page 11 of 24

the phenomenon that the industry understands as tourism has undergone a metamorphosis. Especially the progress in technologies and the change in some societies’ cultural practices have lead to new phenomena that are no longer under the control of the tourism industry. Accommodation is no longer only provided by the industry, but by new actors who popped up during the last years. With the use of online networks, companies such as Airbnb, CouchSurfing or Uber have risen and now challenge the old masters of the tourism industry. Mobility is becoming more complex as the internet bypasses the physicality of space. This leads to the possibility that people nowadays can see places without being there physically. In this sense, it is not only an economic change pattern that makes the industry losing its control over the phenomenon they define as tourism. It is the definition they use, their simplistic understanding of the phenomenon bearing a lack of accuracy and the inconvenience of the present culture to rethink the meaning of the term that leads to the loss of control. Unless the discrepancy of term “tourism” is not covered and its ontology not cleared, our contemporary understanding of the phenomenon with use of the current set of definitions from the practice and industry is incomplete. Hence, theory and practice stay in a hermeneutic discrepancy concerning the term and the phenomenon. Tourism is to its biggest part understood as a social or economic metaphor (Dann: 2002). Knowing this, we will need to go beyond the present scientific paradigms and try to look for tourism by starting from another base, for instance a philosophical base.

3.  Seeking  the  roots  of  tourism  Seen the problems that exist in theory and practice, the question is how to find alternative answer without using the same methodology used in the already existent state. In the aim to avoid further classifications and finally identify something about the essential nature of tourism, we need to change approaches in order to break the believes in which we are trapped for the moment.

3.1. Tourism and metaphysics In order to comprehend, or at least situate tourism in the scientific space, we will primarily have to look on tourism from a perspective going beyond purely empiric criteria. With this in mind, we should switch the approach and try to work on tourism by using philosophy. The power of philosophy, however little it is used in practice as in theory, can help us going beyond the curtains of what Kuhn once baptised “paradigms” (Kuhn: 1962). In this regard, I temporarily want to make use of the term “metaphysics”.

Gilles Mertz

Page 12 of 24

So, back in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant once stated that metaphysics, although not being able to reach the status of a scientific discipline, they would remain even if all the other disciplines would vanish from this planet in an all-devouring barbarism (Kant: 1781). On contrary to Kant’s conviction of metaphysics, we might not be able to state that tourism does have the same peculiarity owed to the reason that the term has only started to be employed with the beginning of organised travel tours as under Thomas Cook. Nevertheless, I want to continue in this Kantian thought and launch an analogy between both instances. In his work “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, Kant tried to establish metaphysics as a scientific discipline. In his progress, he came to the conclusion that scientific disciplines like mathematics and natural sciences are based on criteria, for example the unanimity of the researchers in one discipline on the study object. He concluded that this criteria is not given for metaphysics, as it is making no clear progress in its ontology and practitioners never can agree on what it is about. On our ontological issue with tourism, we can say that the case is somewhat similar compared to metaphysics. Tourism does not possess a clear phenomenal study object, the ontological of the term still being “fuzzy” (Cohen: 1974). Seen the insufficiency in analysing the phenomenon of tourism with an appropriate, conceptually consistent methodology, tourism has yet not reached the status of an own science. Therefore, we shall for now allow philosophy as our framework approach in order to analyse the ontology of tourism. With reference to Goethe’s Faust, our aim for now will be to recognize what tourism is about with the means of our whole Erkenntnis. Seen the difficulty of that objective, I believe that quoting Goethe’s Faust sums up the intention of this paper:

“Daß ich erkenne, was die Welt Im Innersten zusammenhält”3

Source: Faust: eine Tragödie. Author: J.W. Goethe

3.2. The tourism definition To find out what tourism is about, I would like to introduce a model similar to Descartes’ scientific tree (Descartes: 1651), which ought to help us as a tool of visualisation for our finding process. Descartes back then used the tree as a metaphor in order to visualise his perception of philosophy. (Descartes: 1644). Translated, he defined philosophy as a tree with the roots being the metaphysics, the trunk being physics and the branches emanating from the tree being the other sciences. Having this tree in mind, let us start with seeing if tourism possesses a branch in that tree. In other words, to understand tourism as a

3 That I may realize, what keeps the world together at its heart. (own translation)

Gilles Mertz

Page 13 of 24

phenomenon with an ontology, we have to go back to the basic elements that constitute tourism. Relatedly to the method used by David Hume (Hume: 1748) in the early beginnings of empiricism, we might first try to disassemble the tourism concept into the constitutive elements forming it. Nevertheless, by doing so, we will have to form another definition, which, unfortunately, is what we already criticised in the previous approaches of Leiper or the UNWTO. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the problem we are facing is not that tourism needs a definition. The problem encountered is the vagueness of the current tourism definitions towards the tourism phenomenon, consequently obscuring the actual phenomenon. While the phenomenon is developing its own dynamic, which is already interpreted in many hermeneutic directions, the definition of the real phenomenon has not quite advanced to the same stage causing theoretical and practical retards. This discrepancy can be seen in the phenomenon of so-called “home-tourism” at its utmost. Being aware of that, forming a definition is a step we cannot avoid. What has to be done is to keep the definition wide enough so that it permits to explain some basic assumptions of the phenomenon to know what tourism is elementarily about. Having said this, we will have to come up with a definition which considers tourism from a general perspective. Amongst such definitions, there is the one of Tribe, who already engaged himself in the topic of tourism philosophy for some decades. Accordingly, Tribe defines tourism as “an activity engaged in by human beings and the minimum necessary features that need to exist for it to be said to have occurred include the act of travel from one place to another, a particular set of motives for engaging in that travel (excluding commuting for work), and the engagement in activity at the destination.” (Tribe: 1997, p.640) In order for us to continue, I want to scrutinise his definition in order to modify it in some points. Hence, tourism is an activity or phenomenon, in which human are engaged. One minimum feature here is said to be the act of travel. Reading this, one should already develop a certain scepticism. Why should the act of travel alone be a factor for tourism? Looking on the examples of home tourism or even virtual tourism, travel should not be understood solely on a level of physical-spatial movement. In this sense, I would rather argue for the change of meaning of the word travel. Travel might be replaced by movement, movement being understood under the notion of spatial or personal change. Movement goes beyond simple travel, as it also takes into account other spatially related phenomena, such as commuting (which is ignored by Tribe), wandering or nomadism. Going on with Tribe’s definition, a second criteria for tourism is said to be motivation, excluding the motivation for commuting. For this, the definition itself is already restricting and vague, as it is defining commuting as an exemption of the act of movement, as previously mentioned. Moreover, motivation as such should not be seen as a definite criteria for tourism to happen. Take the example of a child who must join his parents on a holiday but who would rather stay at home with his friends. What choice does this individual have? Even if the child has no motivation at all to join his parents on the trip, he finally will have to. Automatically, he will be declared as a tourist on his vacation.

Gilles Mertz

Page 14 of 24

Therefore, although the individual has no motivation for the holiday, he will be a tourist. Motivation can thus not be seen as a clear criteria for tourism to happen, because its reach on tourism is not covering the whole range of tourist activities. The last criteria, which is the engagement in activity at the destination, can be left unaffected since human presence in space must be related to an engagement with it. Human beings are born in space, they cannot miss to engage with it. This is a philosophic and scientific position, which is underlined by the very most researches of human history. After the evaluation and modification of Tribe’s definition, I would suggest an own definition of tourism, based on the very basic facts that compose the phenomenon under what has entered our Erkenntnis for now. It states: Tourism can be seen as a phenomenon engaged in by human beings and the necessary features that need to exist for it to be said to have occurred include the action of movement, the interaction with space and the reflection on these two actions. After disassembling the content of the definition with Hume’s method, tourism can be subdivided into these 3 main aspects, which themselves can be subdivided into other different sub-aspects, like motivation, travelling, sightseeing, etc. Important for tourism to occur is the human action, meaning that tourism is related to an act first, an act of movement. Having said this, I also want to come back to Goethe, who in Faust also stated that everything begins with the deed: “Am Anfang war die Tat!” (Goethe: 1808, Chapter 6). Human action is a condition for tourism to happen. Therefore, tourism is firstly defined by action. The second criteria for tourism to be performed is the human engagement with space. By engagement with space I mean that human beings are born in space. Kant once wrote about the human capacity of Erkenntnis (Kant: 1783). In this text, he defines human thinking as framed. Human beings are not able to think outside some categories like space, time, quantity or causality. This conclusion he used then on metaphysics, dividing philosophy into the realms of numena and phenomena (Kant: 1781). Hence, human beings cognitively are bounded to space. A way of thinking around space is for the moment not accessible to our race. Henceforward, tourism is framed into the thinking in space and exists somewhere in the actual Erkenntnis of space. This means that tourism is unlike metaphysics something that exists in our spheres, something that can be analysed as it is perceivable. The third and maybe essential condition for tourism is the reflection about the previous two elements, which can only happen if an act is performed and its performance realised. With these two conditions fulfilled, the individual is able to realise a reflection on the action, making it possible to think about the phenomenon and understand it. It is here where we produce our differentiation between apples and pears, human and non-human, or, in our case, tourism and non-tourism.

Gilles Mertz

Page 15 of 24

The definition applied on tourism, the following process is the result: an act is performed (the travel). During its performance, we realize it. With the moment of realisation starts the reflection phase. In this reflection phase, other elements are associated to tourism metaphorically. Our understanding of tourism is then largely influenced by the last step of the process. In this viewpoint, we are able to claim that tourism is unlike metaphysics an actual phenomenon as we encounter something that is phenomenally perceivable and defined to a certain degree. This consequently allows us to interpret, analyse and evaluate the phenomenon, which has not been the case for metaphysics until now. The existence of tourism in an abstract perspective having been clarified, we now possess a direction in which we can subsequently situate the ontology of tourism.

3.3. Moving from dualism to constructivism Having introduced some of the Western history’s most influential philosophical thoughts with Descartes, Hume and Kant, what must be done now in order to come to an understanding of the nature of tourism is an historical or time-contextual adaption of the explanation provided in our definition. One problem we are facing when using the previous authors is their dualistic “Weltbild”. As we know, Descartes distinguished the world in an inner and outside world, which lead him to a negation of the outer world through his Cartesian doubt. Hume, on the other hand, negated the importance of the mind in the Erkenntnis. Kant later distinguished the world of metaphysics called “Numenon” from the world of phenomena, with the first being a world existing independently from the human Erkenntnis and the second only being perceptible as a result of what the human Erkenntnis does with the Numenon. As it is the case, this dualistic approach has found its limits in the last centuries. Philosophical and scientific positions such as positivism or phenomenology have hitherto unsettled the Kantian Weltbild. Consequently, we need to adapt our state of mind in order to develop a clearer understanding of tourism. As far as we know for now, tourism is a phenomenon which occurs as soon as the human action of movement is perceived and reflected upon as such. However, in which context does this process happen? Our existence as human beings bounds us to a set of certain contexts in which we locate ourselves in. Camus once stated in his existentialist philosophy the “condition humaine” (Camus: 1942) - the human condition - meaning that we are only human beings set into a Sisyphean context called life. About the Erkenntnis, Camus once wrote: “I do not know if this world has a meaning that goes beyond itself. But I know that I do not know this meaning and that for the moment it is impossible for me to know it. (...) I can only know in human terms.” (Camus: 1942, own translation). Notwithstanding, Camus wrote his essay back then not as a constructivist verdict rather as an expression of his philosophic understanding. Yet, we can connect his idea of human limitedness to constructivism to explain that human knowledge is bound to the human condition. Human can only think in

Gilles Mertz

Page 16 of 24

human terms, but if these human terms are the only framework we can act in, how can we assume that there exists something as metaphysics somewhere out there independent from human cognition? To answer this question, I would like to introduce, complementary to the Cartesian, empiric and Kantian dualistic perspective, the constructivist philosophy approach. Constructivism is the philosophic idea that human knowledge is rather produced internally than perceived and acquired from an outer world. Ayikuro explains constructivism as follows: “constructivism is underpinned by a relativist ontological worldview that perceives reality as existing in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature, and dependent on their content on the individual persons or groups holding the constructions.” (Ayikuro: 2009, p.71). In this perspective, it presents a new dimension to our Erkenntnis as this one is not related to something that exists independently from human beings, such as Kant’s Numenon, but as a product of human thinking. We now are moving from dualism to a pluralistic and individual perspective of reality. What we term reality is constructed by us all, us all as individuals. Reality can thus be seen as a cognitive product emanating from ourselves and can take very different shapes between every individual. Applying this framework on our current definition of tourism, it changes the nature of the elements presented in our tourism definition. However, the process presented in the definition stays logically intact. In other words, the human action or phenomena that happen as step 1 of our process may as such not be influenced by this shift in conception. The human act of movement is a concrete reality in dualist as well as in the constructivist worldview. However, the way we perceive the action and how we reflect upon it in the paradigm of constructivism varies immensely. As a major consequence, the ontology of tourism will thus not be found in the phenomenon itself, but in how we perceive and reflect upon the phenomenon. The reflection process has appropriately gained even more relevance in the creation of tourism. With this shift in Erkenntnis towards constructivism, the question between false and true becomes fuzzy, with liminal approaches and classifications subsequently vanishing or losing relevance. Like for tourism, the reality we see us now confronted with is that every phenomenon can be differently and individually approached, making it impossible to find one absolute truth for a phenomenon. The green apple can be green for everyone, but the perception of intensity of the colour varies between every individual and furthermore between every moment in time. Subsequently, our Erkenntnis turns out to be gradual instead of liminal. Similar to what Miller states as “gradual consciousness” (Miller: 1969, p. 44-54) our Erkenntnis can be seen as gradual, changing from subject to subject and from moment to moment, making objects and constructs more or less real, depending on the context. This is important when we try to explain how ideas such as the tourist gaze (Urry: 2011) are constructed. What we can say for now is that we all perform tourism to a certain degree. However, it is exactly

Gilles Mertz

Page 17 of 24

this degree of reflection upon our action that makes us believe the difference between tourism and non-tourism.

3.4. Biological constructivism To see if the philosophic tourism definition makes sense, it will have to be measured with knowledge from other disciplines. As already written in chapter 2.1. by quoting Graburn and Jafari, tourism is an object of different scientific disciplines. In the further part, I will thus continue on elaborating the constructivist position by undermining it by drawing connections with the scientific discipline with biology. From a schematic viewpoint, we are now leaving the sheer realm of philosophical thinking in order to move to more evident ideas. Biology, the scientific discipline which examines life, can offer us further evident ideas to understand tourism and which can henceforth be compared to our tourism definition. Of course, other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology possess a validity for tourism as well. Nevertheless, I am not going to treat these ideas in this paper, this because of two reasons. First, a lot has been done in the field of sociology and psychology of tourism with what has earlier been stated as tourism metaphor. In another regard, biology offers one big advantage vis-à-vis the other disciplines, that concretely is physicality. Biology analyses the question of life and its constituents and therefore bears the advantage of more empiric means of measurement. In this regard, Miller already affirmed that it is less problematic for a biologist to define life than for a psychologist to define consciousness (Miller: 1962, p.42 - 44). Exactly this touch of evidence may help us to understand more about the ontology of tourism. In the same way it might tell us something about the tourism definition. Previously, we have talked about philosophical positions concerning the Erkenntnis. In all the debates that have been started, one aspect always shone through the numerous argumentations. You may call it existential condition like Camus, or you may call it categories of thinking like Kant, or you may just call it constructed reality, the main message is that human beings are just human beings and cannot think about something that does not fit into their structures. From a systems theory point of view, we all are just living systems, that function in certain manners. If we accept the idea that we are only living systems not able to think further than in human terms and categories, then we have to pay attention to the biological context that predetermines us all. This is exactly the reason why I believe that biology should in this context be used to explain tourism, owed to the fact that biology analyses life as its study object. Tourism, however, constructed and abstract as it is, is located in the context of life. Therefore, a lot can be derived from biology onto tourism.

Gilles Mertz

Page 18 of 24

To further link biology with the philosophy of Erkenntnis, we should refer to Maturana, who created an outstanding piece of work which by its conception can be used in myriad of explanations. For our issue, Maturana can help to explain the interrelation we have between the biological framework as living systems, the actions that happen within this framework, our Erkenntnis and the reflection about it. All in all, Maturana can help to draw the links between the elements and the context of our tourism definition. His book “The Tree of Knowledge” (Maturana & Varela: 1992) redefines the human existence by focusing on the aspects we have previously analysed in terms of philosophy and biology. Maturana opposes the idea of a dualistic Erkenntnis by providing the explanation of “structural determinism” (Maturana & Varela: 1992) as an idea which can be associated to system theory and constructivism. In this structural determinism, human beings, as living systems, are bounded to a set of rules, similar to Kant’s thinking categories. In his existential condition, the human being as a system possesses structural limits which he cannot undergo. Like in constructivism, reality is constructed by each individual, resulting in a pluralistic and highly individual “Weltbild”. However, this structural determinism is only a temporary state of being due to the fact that human beings are in constant interaction with their reality (Maturana & Varela: 1992). In this reality, other human beings exist, and by the interaction with these human beings, a structural coupling process takes place, which, biologically spoken, leads to a system adaption of the human beings involved in the process. Finally, reality is not only constructed, but highly mutable because human beings as living systems undertake a structural drift. This concept actually explains quite well the pattern of human life. During this time span, humans are born in a certain context and mutate over time as they interact with their environment. Humans are bound to their context until a new situation arises with that they can interact. With the interaction, the human being adapts and simultaneously changes. In this aspect, reality is nothing that exists per se as a static structure, but as a dynamic ever changing construct. One may forgive the following length of the quote, which resumes Maturana’s idea quite perfectly: “We do not see what we do not see, and what we do not see does not exist. Only when interaction dislodges us – such as being suddenly relocated to a different cultural environment – and we reflect upon it, do we bring forth new constellations of relation that we explain by saying we were not aware of them, or that we took them for granted. (...) The knowledge of knowledge compels. It compels us to adopt an attitude of permanent vigilance against the temptation of certainty. It compels us to recognize that certainty is not a proof of truth. It compels us to realize that the world everyone sees is not the world but a world which we bring forth with others. It compels us to see that the world will be different only if we live differently.” (Maturana: 1992, p.242 - 245) What can be perceived again is the notion of reflection in our tourism definition which has already played a huge role. Seen the context that has been constructed by now, we may in the following part discuss the implications of this context for tourism.

Gilles Mertz

Page 19 of 24

3.5. Tourism as a bio-constructivist construct “Tourism can be seen as a phenomenon engaged in by human beings and the necessary features that need to exist for it to be said to have occurred include the action of movement (the movement being understood as perceptional as well as spatial change), the interaction with space and the reflection on these two actions.“ This definition of tourism has been created in chapter 3.2. on the basis of a philosophical approach. Now, this definition has to prove itself in the framework of biological constructivism. Tourism, as we already explained, includes the action of movement, the movement being not strictly understood as spatial movement. By movement, what is meant as well is the adaption process of the individual towards a certain context. Equally, Maturana’s explanation of the structural drift explains very well this movement. When doing tourism, human beings undergo a movement based on the condition of energy. While being in the realm of this tourism process, their systems interact with the situation and adapt to the changing context. This simultaneously equals a change in their structural drift. Tourism from this perspective can be seen as a changing context stimulator, which leads the human being to a structural drift. As human beings per nature interact permanently with their environment, the second condition (following our definition) for tourism to take place is also guaranteed. The last step of the process, the reflectional part, is achieved as soon as the interaction takes place, meaning that the tourist interaction necessitates a minimum level of consciousness so that the Erkenntnis can take place. Taking this idea further, tourism can be seen as a mobility act that generates a huger amount of change towards the human being. This mobility introduces a stimuli to the person than is performing the movement. Tourists, in this sense, seek change and the act of movement in tourism generates it. The act of movement is although not only defined as spatial, as already said, but also or just as a change in perception. If a person reflects upon a movement and decides upon that reflection that he is a tourist, then he will consider himself as a tourist. This would mean that an inhabitant can easily turn into a tourist if he reflects upon the movement he does. This has also been stated in my previous essay. We become tourists as soon as we accept the tourist role and behave in this pattern. From a biologic-constructivist perspective, we become tourists as soon as we accept the new context and adapt to it. This idea can be employed on different touristic concepts, such as tourism motivation. Through movement, human beings generate change. After reflecting on it, some people might find pleasure in the idea of adapting to change situations, for various individual reasons. From an energetic point of view, this change might bring the person’s inner life into a sort of balance. Quoting back an old Roman aphorism saying “Mens sana in corpore sano” – a healthy man in a healthy body – tourism motivation may be understood in this

Gilles Mertz

Page 20 of 24

sense as a mobility generating stimulator for structural drifts. The person who does tourism intrinsically does so because s(he) is seeking some sort of balance. Coming to speak about the employability of the idea, let me connect it with the “tourist gaze” (Urry: 2011). Urry himself stated: “There is no single tourist gaze as such. It varies by society, by social group and by historical period. Such gazes are constructed through difference. By this we mean not merely that there is no universal experience that is true for all tourists at all times. There are many way of gazing within tourism, and tourists look at ‘difference’ differently” (Urry: 2011, p.3). Seeing the tourist gaze in the framework of the definition, a huge part of Urry’s theory can be found in the reflection part. If we agree with the new situation, everybody of us can employ a tourist gaze. Take an inhabitant who wants to show his foreign friends the place he lives in. In a lot of cases, we will show them the so-called beautiful spots of the city, which the inhabitant himself would rather not visit in his spare time (see La Rambla in Barcelona). With the structural coupling process taking place as his friends come to visit him as strangers, he adapts to the situation and employs for this reason a tourist gaze. Having also in mind the notion of gradual consciousness by Miller as well as the constructed reality, the tourist gaze can be stated as a gradualism in our way of perceiving reality. Only when the act of movement is fulfilled and the human being acknowledges this with his Erkenntnis and reflects upon it, only then can the Erkenntnis change into forms such as the tourist gaze which vice versa will have an effect on how the next acts of movement are performed. It is an interdependent, co-creative, constructed, structural limited yet constantly on-going process that is happening everywhere in human life. The phenomenon of tourism is hugely woven inside this framework. Nevertheless, the tourism process only functions this way if the act of movement is reflected upon as touristic. And in here we encounter that the 3rd condition of our definition matters the most in tourism. It is the reflection process in which our tourism understanding is born. It is how we reflect upon an experience that we classify it touristic or not. Tourism can thus be seen as a constructed and gradual evaluation of the act of movement. This means that going on vacation does not necessarily mean that one is a tourist if there is refusal to adapt to the act or to consider the act as such. In the same aspect, being at home and being a tourist does not represent a paradox if the person proceeds to an act of change in perception and employs for example a tourist gaze on the experience. Seen this sheer arbitrariness in which is decided upon people if they are tourists or not, the term remains highly disputable. With other terms relating to the act of movement, such as the voyageur, the commuter, the migrant, the nomad or the pilgrim, we should ask ourselves if our understanding of all these concepts actually make sense, or if there is not a common point in all of these as they involve the act of movement as well. The ontology of tourism cannot be found in the differentiation of the concepts, but in the act of reflection that creates the tourist as an instance of mobility. It is in this reflection step where the differentiation between home and strangeness, about self-identity and sense-seeking is built.

Gilles Mertz

Page 21 of 24

In the viewpoint of the structural drift, we find further opposition against the term. We actually are never on a tour. Every action we take puts us further in our structural drift. You can never go back to the same place again because the notion of a constantly changing environment and our usage of time limit the concept of “doing a tour a going home to the same place”. The human being, even when categorised as a tourist, is caught in his state of being. His gradual consciousness of the environment and the action of movement co-create his experience at one point in his existence. There is no tangible return to previous experience. Only by using memories can the experience be relived to a certain extent, but never in its first and unique way. Time frames are essential for human beings. The trip begins and ends at one place during two differing points in time. Time therefore is actually, theoretically spoken, the biggest opponent of the idea of tourism. No two trips to one place are the same, everything changes, everything flows. To sum up, the tourist role is mainly created by the reflection on the act of movement. It is at this point where one should start to investigate how tourism is created. In the realm of constructivism, tourism can be seen as a cognitive creation of human beings. This does nevertheless not mean that it is a purely abstract phenomenon when looking at the consequences that the phenomenon brings with itself. By perception, one can identify the masses of people being tourists in places like Venice, Barcelona, London and many more. Seen this paradox between the lack of ontological knowledge and the concrete affects tourism seems to have on our planet, we should limit the notion of tourism to a certain amount of aspects instead of overusing it in the industry and theory. By doing so, what would be the consequences in this case for theory and practice? We might find an explanation which suits to the phenomenon and which is able to explain aspects such as the paradox of home tourism. In this perspective, one can look back about what has already been written by Hannam, when he writes about the end of tourism and the beginning of nomadology (Hannam: 2009, p.101). Maybe, the answer of all the tourism studies cannot be found in the study of tourism, but in the study of concepts such as mobility, place, home and identity? The direct consequence for tourism in this case would be the end of tourism. Every tourist would finally be considered as a constant traveller. Seen some of the contents of this paper, this does not sound wrong at all. Anyhow, there exist many more tourism theories that could be analysed in the realm of biological constructivism. Nevertheless, it would omit the scope of this paper to analyse every single of these theories. But seeing the shift in perception and in reflection that has taken place since the instauration of tourism, it would be pleasant to see more touristic concepts associated to the presented ideas.

4.  Conclusion  &  Outlook  In this paper, the aim has been formed to analyse the ontology of tourism by undergoing a philosophical approach. We identified that tourism as a concept possesses a certain own dynamic of understanding which does not cover the actual phenomenon anymore. Whilst

Gilles Mertz

Page 22 of 24

analysing the definition stated by the UNWTO, we encountered the discrepancy that exists between this apparently general understanding of tourism and the actual practice of it. Differentiation between who is a tourist or not turned out to be unclear. We hence perceived that tourism possesses no clear ontology, epistemology and methodology and is hence only a object of study from various other scientific disciplines, such as sociology or psychology. The direct consequences for theory and practice have been named, the biggest danger being that we are discussing about a phenomenon that varies greatly from our current understanding. This consequences can be seen in the various definitions and explanations that exist about tourism. In theory, tourism is explained from many different epistemological backgrounds. However, the object of study is ontologically not clear and all the interdisciplinary sciences do not manage to find a clear explanation for tourism that covers most of the aspect of other disciplines. In practice, the phenomenon of tourism is evolving with the evolution of our so-called tourists, which is simultaneously enlarging the gap between the understanding of the phenomenon and the actual practice. In the main part of the paper, philosophy has been introduced into the discussion of what tourism is about. The aim of this was to find a different explanation for the tourism phenomenon by setting up a more general definition based on the basic factors that create tourism. The definition that came out states: “Tourism can be seen as a phenomenon engaged in by human beings and the necessary features that need to exist for it to be said to have occurred include the action of movement (the movement being understood as perceptional as well as spatial change), the interaction with space and the reflection on these two actions.“ In the follow-up, the definition has been integrated in the theory of Erkenntnis, including dualism and constructivism. Tourism compared to metaphysics turned out to be an actual phenomenon, which provides the concepts with some more inner validity. Next, the definition has been set in the context of bio-constructivism with Maturana’s notion of structural determinism playing a huge role in the performance of tourism by human beings. Analogies between tourism and human as living systems have been sought, which, in the end, appeared to be the explanation of tourism by a different epistemological background again. The problem appeared once more that the tourism definition could not be proved right by using a proper touristic methodology. Thus, the problem of tourism ontology has not been fully answered in this paper. In the realm of bio-constructivism, the question if tourism can be framed as an actual phenomenon, differing it from other forms of movement acts such as pilgrimage or commuting, stays disputed. This raises the question if tourism is to a large part not only constructed by our imagination? As discussed, the word only emerged with the start of organised travelling in the 19th century and should also be seen as an expression of liberty or opportunity societies have acquired in that time. So, the understanding of tourism as travel for leisure is something that only has existed for about 200 years. Yet, the understanding of the phenomenon has barely changed since then. Theories trying to explain parts of the phenomenon always ended up in taking the tourist for granted. In the other cases, the phenomenon is explained by the use of various scientific disciplines.

Gilles Mertz

Page 23 of 24

With constructivism and post-modernity perspectives having been included in the scientific discourse, tourism as a constructed phenomenon can actually be better understood. In this aspect further investigation is certainly needed. In the end, tourism as a phenomenon does not possess a major point which strongly differs from other acts of movement. Consequently, the concept in the understanding of the term does still not possess an own ontology. Going back to the definition we found about the elements constituting tourism, the question arises if tourism does represent an actual concept. What if tourism is not the object of research we should aim for, but rather the elements that constitute it and that it has in common with concepts such as the traveller, the commuter, the wanderer and others? Following the definition of this paper, tourism starts with an act of movement and is elaborated by Erkenntnis and reflection upon the movement. Apparently, there already exist other terms and concepts which cover mobility in similar aspects, such as the ones named before. From an ontological point of view, the action of movement possesses a stronger validity then tourism because the act of movement is unleashed from aspects such as social role attribution. For instance, the act of movement does not possess the connotation of time included, as the act of moving must not only be related to a duration. Moving or being mobile here makes more sense than touring, as it describes a constant on-going process whilst tourism focuses on the geographical idea of returning to a place. In this aspect, the term of travelling certainly is more related to the act of movement than tourism is. Travelling is a state of mind, as the person who wants to stop the action can settle down and become a non-traveller in that sense. A tourist on the other hand can settle down and will still be considered as a tourist. We see again that tourism is strongly related to a social role. Focusing on this role attribution again, one question can be asked on this: What is the sense of this role attribution for individuals and society? Is it a protective factor that generates the tourist role? Is it a method gain evolutionary advantages amongst the other people being on travel? These are questions that can be followed up in further research for sure. To close this discussion, let us finish by what can be retained from this essay for future studies about the tourism phenomenon. First, everyone should come to an end of creating lists that differentiate types of mobility or types of tourists. The only result this generates is that the phenomenon becomes more complex without leading to any clear knowledge about the actual phenomenon. Personally, I would wish that tourism studies become more human centred, first explaining basic concepts like mobility which, overall, is the common link between tourists, travellers, pilgrims, nomads, commuters and so on and so forth. Consider tourists as human beings, when analysing them, not as tourists. In the end, as mentioned with Maturana, life is not a tour, but a constant path of change. Releasing tourism from its social role and analysing the human being and his actions behind could be a first step into a clearer understanding of the phenomenon.

5.  Bibliography  

Gilles Mertz

Page 24 of 24

AYIKURO, M. (2009) EPISTEMOLOGY, ONTOLOGY AND TOURISM , IN: TRIBE, J. (ED.) (2009) PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN TOURISM, ASPECTS OF TOURISM. CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS, BRISTOL, UK  ; BUFFALO, NY. BÆRENHOLDT, J. O., HALDRUP, M., LARSEN, J., & URRY, J. (2004). PERFORMING TOURIST PLACES. ASHGATE PUBLISHING LTD.. CAMUS, A. (1942) LE MYTHE DE SISYPHE, IN: MATAGNE ET AL. (2012) PERIPATON ... EN SE PROMENANT... EDITIONS BINSFELD, LUXEMBOURG, P.562 - 566 COHEN, E. (1974) WHO IS A TOURIST? A CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION. IN: THE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 22, P. 527 - 555 COLES, T., HALL, C.M., DUVAL, D.T. (2009) POST-DISCIPLINARY TOURISM, IN: TRIBE, J. (ED.) (2009) PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN TOURISM, ASPECTS OF TOURISM. CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS, BRISTOL, UK  ; BUFFALO, NY. DANN, G. (ED.), 2002. THE TOURIST AS A METAPHOR OF THE SOCIAL WORLD. CABI, NEW YORK, P.1 - 17 DESCARTES R. (1644) LES PRINCIPES DE PHILOSOPHIE , IN: MATAGNE ET AL. (2012) PERIPATON ... EN SE PROMENANT... EDITIONS BINSFELD, LUXEMBOURG, PP. 311 – 321 GOETHE, J.W. (1808) FAUST. EINE TRAGÖDIE. (URL: HTTP://WWW.DIGBIB.ORG/JOHANN_WOLFGANG_VON_GOETHE_1749/FAUST_I_.PDF ; LAST ACCESS 08/05/2015) GOFFMAN, E. (1959). THE PRESENTATION OF SELF IN EVERYDAY LIFE. GARDEN CITY, NY, ANCHOR HANNAM, K. (2009) THE END OF TOURISM? NOMADOLOGY AND THE MOBILITIES PARADIGM, IN: TRIBE, J. (ED.) (2009) PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN TOURISM, ASPECTS OF TOURISM. CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS, BRISTOL, UK  ; BUFFALO, NY, P.101-113 HUME, D. (1748) AN ENQUIRY OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, IN: MATAGNE ET AL. (2012) PERIPATON ... EN SE PROMENANT... EDITIONS BINSFELD, LUXEMBOURG, PP. 219 - 220 KANT I. (1781) KRITIK DER REINEN VERNUNFT, IN: MATAGNE ET AL. (2012) PERIPATON ... EN SE PROMENANT... EDITIONS BINSFELD, LUXEMBOURG, PP. 219 - 220 KUHN, T.S., HACKING, I. (1962) THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO  ; LONDON. LEIPER, N. (1983). AN ETYMOLOGY OF “TOURISM”. ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, 10(2), 277-280.MATURANA, H.R., VARELA, F.J. (1992) THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: THE BIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, REV. ED. ED. SHAMBHALA  ; DISTRIBUTED IN THE U.S. BY RANDOM HOUSE, BOSTON  : NEW YORK. MERTZ, G. (NOT PUBLISHED) TWO SPHERES? WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN A TOURIST AND AN INHABITANT AND CAN A TOURIST BECOME AN INHABITANT?, ESSAY, KARLSHOCHSCHULE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. MILLER, G.A. (1969) GROßE PSYCHOLOGEN. TRANSLATED FROM ENGLISH BY ULLA PRÜMM. WIEN, DÜSSELDORF: ECON. NETTO A. P. (2009) WHAT IS TOURISM? DEFINITIONS, THEORETICAL PHASES AND PRINCIPLES, IN TRIBE, J. (ED.) (2009) PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN TOURISM, ASPECTS OF TOURISM. CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS, BRISTOL, UK  ; BUFFALO, NY. NOVELLI, M. (ED.) (2005) NICHE TOURISM: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, TRENDS AND CASES. ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM. TROELSTRA, A. S. (1991). HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, 150. TRIBE, J. (1997). THE INDISCIPLINE OF TOURISM. ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, 24(3), 638-657: WORLD TOURISM ORGANISATION (1995) UNWTO TECHNICAL MANUAL: COLLECTION OF TOURISM EXPENDITURE STATISTICS (URL: HTTP://PUB.UNWTO.ORG/WEBROOT/STORE/SHOPS/INFOSHOP/PRODUCTS/1034/1034-1.PDF ,T LAST ACCESS 01.05.2015) URRY, J. (2011) THE TOURIST GAZE, 3RD ED. ED. SAGE PUBLICATIONS, THOUSAND OAKS, CA.