Slow Tourism: Wedding the Aesthetic to the Ethical
The discussion above suggests that while the experiential and symbolic aspects of consumption may be distinguished, they are not wholly separate from one another. This holds particular importance for ethical tourism in general and slow tourism in particular. Part of the appeal of consuming ethically is not simply the consequences of that consumption on others or the environment; it is also in the aesthetic value of feeling good. Put differently, part of the appeal of the product is the promise of feeling virtuous. Saving the environment, helping the poor, or achieving some kind of distributional justice become qualities associated with consumer products. Ethical tourism holds precisely this promise: Ethical tourists can not only have their holiday, with all the use and aesthetic values holidays include, but also do some kind of good in the world. By doing so, they can enjoy the additional experience, however temporarily, of feeling principled and moralistic. This promise that all good things can go together is often accepted uncritically. As Lisle (2010) puts it rather sarcastically, “not only does ethical tourism solve all the problems caused by mass tourism, it also makes you a better person and the world a better place “ (142). She and others (Butcher 2002; Hall 2007; Gibson 2010; Harrison 2008; Guttentag 2009; Vrasti 2010) criticize dominant mainstream approaches of ethical tourism, arguing they simply add the issue of ethics to existing tourism uncritically while reproducing social and economic inequality.
While this may overstate the case, ultimately at issue is whether and how these different but overlapping values fit together – or do not. Vrasti’s (2010) study of volunteer tourism raises precisely this issue of tying hedonistic pleasure to virtue. Interviews and observation of “voluntourists” to Guatemala and Ghana show that many became quickly disillusioned by the volunteer aspect of their trips and in many cases chose activities associated with hedonism (experience) over those associated with helping local communities (ethics). Here the slow tourism movement is similar to other areas of ethical tourism but also contains important differences. Predominant forms of ethical tourism such as sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism, ecotourism and volunteer tourism promise social, economic and/or environmental benefits as part of the product. These qualities are usually promised as additions to the usual desired components of a tourist product such as seeing a new place, learning about a different culture, and self-reflection. Aside from the added aesthetic of doing good, however, these hedonistic desires are not necessarily qualitatively different than mainstream tourism. Slow tourism, in contrast, makes additional aesthetic claims. Slow tourism promises to be intrinsically better than fast tourism. Only by traveling slowly can the traveler truly take in all that is on offer. The slow experience is superior to other forms of touristic experience, and has the added ethical benefit of avoiding the negative social, economic and environmental effects often associated with mainstream tourism. This aesthetic practice itself is simply asserted to be in harmony with these concerns.
Slow tourism is part of the broader slow movement discussed by Parkins and Craig that seeks to wed the aesthetic to the ethical. In addition to seeking pleasure and meaning through the mindful use of time, they claim there is an ethical dimension to slow because it relates to other people. In contrast, fastness, which is equated with individualism, precludes other people, places and time (2006: 4). Yet there is some reason to ask whether these two will always exist in harmony. In a recent article Slow Food USA President Josh Viertel (2012) raises precisely this issue. While originally formed as a protest social justice movement against the encroachment of substandard, American fast food, much of the subsequent growth of the slow food movement owes to the rediscovery of craft-made, locally-produced quality food, rediscovered cuisines and ingredients and above all, the simple pleasures of consuming good food and drink. A crucial element of the movement has been to link consumer and producer. Viertel, a former farmer who along with his wife sold his products in local farmers markets to foodies at high prices, points out he made just $12,000 a year doing so. Although more environmentally sustainable than dominant farming practices, much of the slow food movement prices out the poor and fails to provide a living wage for producers. Viertel suggests that much of the movement have come to focus on the pleasures of eating at the expense of addressing more difficult social questions: “Can you both fight for the farmer and fight for the eater, or do farmers and eaters have competing agendas?” (2012). Moreover, how much can slow food spread beyond the upper middle class who can afford it?
Similar questions are likely to emerge with respect to slow tourism as the activity grows. Although in its infancy, thus far the movement claims a simplistic relationship between its claims regarding aesthetics and ethics. Do they really coincide? Is that balance always likely to be present? Is slow tourism accessible to broad segments of the population or only to the most affluent? What are the carrying capacity limits to a slow destination, not simply from a sustainability standpoint, but also from an aesthetic one? Can slow tourism flourish on a large scale? Does it need to? Other practical problems also exist, and they can be best seen when compared to slow food and slow cities. Both of those movements have potential communities in place. Most slow food movements are community oriented and focus on the local. Slow cities are based on a community relationship as well. Tourists, however, are transient and their contribution to establishing community ties is time limited. They are also by nature outsiders. Will locals trust that they have shared interests?
These are all practical questions that have yet to be sufficiently answered, but in addition to those there are also deeper ethical issues here. Most basically, to claim that the slow tourism producer and consumer possess an identity of interests is naïve at best. Most of the authorship of the slow tourism movement has come from the tourist, or at least in their name. At issue is how travelers should travel, what they should consume, and the pace at which they do so. What is assumed in all of this is what is good for the tourist is good for the tourism provider. Or, at the very least, no one seems to have asked the provider which ethical concerns are most important to her. Like much of ethical tourism, there is a presumed solidarity claimed between the slow tourist and both the tourism provider and larger host community. But this solidarity is potentially one way, and is dependent on the desirability of particular host market. This is also true with respect to which destinations are deemed as sufficiently slow to attract slow tourism. If slow tourism shares patterns of other tourism markets, the fragility of destinations due to tourism being a positional good remains a concern. Part of the sustainability ethic refers not just to protecting resources but also maintaining livelihoods over the long term. Some (Matos 2004; Conway 2010) have argued that various destinations can rebrand themselves as slow markets, giving some voice to stakeholders, but how far this can go – both in terms of giving a voice to the host community and whether slow tourism can move from being a niche tourism product to a true political and social movement – remains unclear.
ท่องเที่ยวช้า: ความงามการจริยธรรมแต่งงาน สนทนาข้างต้นแนะนำว่า ในขณะที่อาจแตกต่าง ด้านสัญลักษณ์ และผ่านการใช้จะไม่แยกออกจากกันทั้งหมด นี้มีความสำคัญเฉพาะการท่องเที่ยวด้านจริยธรรมทั่วไป และชะลอการท่องเที่ยวโดยเฉพาะ น่าดึงดูดของการบริโภคอย่างมีจริยธรรมไม่เพียงผลกระทบของปริมาณการใช้ที่ผู้อื่นหรือสิ่งแวดล้อม มีค่าความงามของความรู้สึกที่ดี ใส่แตก น่าดึงดูดของผลิตภัณฑ์เป็นสัญญาของความรู้สึกที่ดีงาม บันทึกสิ่งแวดล้อม ช่วยคนจน หรือบรรลุธรรมขึ้นบางประการเป็น คุณภาพที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสินค้าอุปโภคบริโภค ท่องเที่ยวจริยธรรมถือสัญญานี้ทุกประการ: จริยธรรมนักท่องเที่ยวสามารถไม่มีวันหยุดของพวกเขา มีค่าทั้งหมดใช้และสุนทรียะ วันหยุดรวมถึง แต่ยัง ทำบางชนิดของดีในโลกนี้ โดยการทำเช่นนั้น พวกเขาสามารถเพลิดเพลินกับประสบการณ์เพิ่มเติม แต่ชั่วคราว รู้สึก principled และ moralistic สัญญานี้สิ่งดีสามารถไปด้วยกันมักจะยอมรับแต่โดยดี เป็น Lisle (2010) ทำให้มันเป็น sarcastically "ไม่เพียงแต่ไม่ท่องเที่ยวจริยธรรมแก้ปัญหาทั้งหมดที่เกิดจากการท่องเที่ยวโดยรวม ยังทำให้คุณเป็นคนดีและโลกดีกว่า" (142) เธอและคนอื่น ๆ (เขียง 2002 Hall 2007 กิบสัน 2010 Harrison 2008 Guttentag 2009 Vrasti 2010) วิพากษ์วิจารณ์วิธีหลักสำคัญการท่องเที่ยวด้านจริยธรรม การโต้เถียงก็เพิ่มปัญหาจริยธรรมทางธุรกิจการท่องเที่ยวที่มีอยู่แต่โดยดีขณะทำความไม่เท่าเทียมกันทางสังคม และเศรษฐกิจ While this may overstate the case, ultimately at issue is whether and how these different but overlapping values fit together – or do not. Vrasti’s (2010) study of volunteer tourism raises precisely this issue of tying hedonistic pleasure to virtue. Interviews and observation of “voluntourists” to Guatemala and Ghana show that many became quickly disillusioned by the volunteer aspect of their trips and in many cases chose activities associated with hedonism (experience) over those associated with helping local communities (ethics). Here the slow tourism movement is similar to other areas of ethical tourism but also contains important differences. Predominant forms of ethical tourism such as sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism, ecotourism and volunteer tourism promise social, economic and/or environmental benefits as part of the product. These qualities are usually promised as additions to the usual desired components of a tourist product such as seeing a new place, learning about a different culture, and self-reflection. Aside from the added aesthetic of doing good, however, these hedonistic desires are not necessarily qualitatively different than mainstream tourism. Slow tourism, in contrast, makes additional aesthetic claims. Slow tourism promises to be intrinsically better than fast tourism. Only by traveling slowly can the traveler truly take in all that is on offer. The slow experience is superior to other forms of touristic experience, and has the added ethical benefit of avoiding the negative social, economic and environmental effects often associated with mainstream tourism. This aesthetic practice itself is simply asserted to be in harmony with these concerns. Slow tourism is part of the broader slow movement discussed by Parkins and Craig that seeks to wed the aesthetic to the ethical. In addition to seeking pleasure and meaning through the mindful use of time, they claim there is an ethical dimension to slow because it relates to other people. In contrast, fastness, which is equated with individualism, precludes other people, places and time (2006: 4). Yet there is some reason to ask whether these two will always exist in harmony. In a recent article Slow Food USA President Josh Viertel (2012) raises precisely this issue. While originally formed as a protest social justice movement against the encroachment of substandard, American fast food, much of the subsequent growth of the slow food movement owes to the rediscovery of craft-made, locally-produced quality food, rediscovered cuisines and ingredients and above all, the simple pleasures of consuming good food and drink. A crucial element of the movement has been to link consumer and producer. Viertel, a former farmer who along with his wife sold his products in local farmers markets to foodies at high prices, points out he made just $12,000 a year doing so. Although more environmentally sustainable than dominant farming practices, much of the slow food movement prices out the poor and fails to provide a living wage for producers. Viertel suggests that much of the movement have come to focus on the pleasures of eating at the expense of addressing more difficult social questions: “Can you both fight for the farmer and fight for the eater, or do farmers and eaters have competing agendas?” (2012). Moreover, how much can slow food spread beyond the upper middle class who can afford it? Similar questions are likely to emerge with respect to slow tourism as the activity grows. Although in its infancy, thus far the movement claims a simplistic relationship between its claims regarding aesthetics and ethics. Do they really coincide? Is that balance always likely to be present? Is slow tourism accessible to broad segments of the population or only to the most affluent? What are the carrying capacity limits to a slow destination, not simply from a sustainability standpoint, but also from an aesthetic one? Can slow tourism flourish on a large scale? Does it need to? Other practical problems also exist, and they can be best seen when compared to slow food and slow cities. Both of those movements have potential communities in place. Most slow food movements are community oriented and focus on the local. Slow cities are based on a community relationship as well. Tourists, however, are transient and their contribution to establishing community ties is time limited. They are also by nature outsiders. Will locals trust that they have shared interests? These are all practical questions that have yet to be sufficiently answered, but in addition to those there are also deeper ethical issues here. Most basically, to claim that the slow tourism producer and consumer possess an identity of interests is naïve at best. Most of the authorship of the slow tourism movement has come from the tourist, or at least in their name. At issue is how travelers should travel, what they should consume, and the pace at which they do so. What is assumed in all of this is what is good for the tourist is good for the tourism provider. Or, at the very least, no one seems to have asked the provider which ethical concerns are most important to her. Like much of ethical tourism, there is a presumed solidarity claimed between the slow tourist and both the tourism provider and larger host community. But this solidarity is potentially one way, and is dependent on the desirability of particular host market. This is also true with respect to which destinations are deemed as sufficiently slow to attract slow tourism. If slow tourism shares patterns of other tourism markets, the fragility of destinations due to tourism being a positional good remains a concern. Part of the sustainability ethic refers not just to protecting resources but also maintaining livelihoods over the long term. Some (Matos 2004; Conway 2010) have argued that various destinations can rebrand themselves as slow markets, giving some voice to stakeholders, but how far this can go – both in terms of giving a voice to the host community and whether slow tourism can move from being a niche tourism product to a true political and social movement – remains unclear.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..