What genre of tourism do these videos represent?

It is contended that both videos, and the individuals within them, represent the genre of ‘backpacker tourism’
– those who ‘strive more than the ordinary tourist to reach places and people which are “really” authentic’
(Cohen 2003, p. 97). They do this through efforts to actively immerse themselves with the local culture,
primarily by refusing the experience Urry (1990, p. 100) calls the ‘tourist gaze’ – ‘to see named scenes through
a frame, such as the hotel window, the car windscreen or the window of the coach’ – in favour for a more active
performative role in their travels. This can be seen in how both individuals in the videos place themselves at a
‘street level” and engage with the locals quite intimately, using techniques such as local language and spatial
proximity to facilitate this intimacy. While there is not complete immersion in their performance – for instance,
in the second video, an element of the tourist gaze is still present when Troy passively stares at the worker in the
rice farm from his place of privilege on the motorcycle – the individuals hardly represent the genre of ‘resort
tourism’ (Cohen 2003, p. 98), as they are relatively engaged and immersed in the local culture through their
efforts. In this sense, they can be said to represent backpacker tourism to the extent that they attempt to remove
the forms of separation between them and the local culture.

What kinds of tourist, in Cohen’s terms, are the people featured in both videos?

We argue that the individuals featured in both of the videos can be classified as experimental tourists – those
who ‘seek to participate vicariously in the authentic life of others’, but do not entirely ‘abandon modernity and
embrace the Other as their elective centre’ as an existential tourist would (Cohen 1988, p. 377). This is because
while both individuals refuse the tourist gaze and attempt to engage with the culture closely as discussed
previously, they do not entirely ‘switch worlds’ (Cohen 1988, p. 377), and still cling to some aspects of their
privileged modernity. Kyle, while performing actively as a tourist, does so for the sake of his video, and thus
can be argued to be helping to reproduce the tourist gaze in the sense that he is establishing a relationship of
mastery between the seer (those watching his videos) and the seen (the locals featured in the video), who cannot
see the seers in the return. In much the same sense, Troy does the same with his video, by filming his
performance with the local culture. To some degree, the very fact that Kyle and Troy record their performance
with a high-tech, presumably expensive camera means that they can never truly switch worlds, as the camera is
a representation of their modernity and thus separation from the traditional local culture.

What standards of authenticity do they seem to seek and be satisfied with?

It seems that Kyle and Troy both seek relatively high standards of authenticity, reflected in their efforts to
immerse themselves in the culture at a street level and refuse the ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry 1990, p. 100). To some
degree, it may be argued that Troy seeks a higher standard of authenticity as he engages with the local culture at
a more intimate level than Kyle, having actually entered the home of a local – but otherwise, they both seem to
seek and be satisfied with a somewhat high standard of authenticity. This reflects the argument above that Kyle
and Troy may be classified as experimental tourists, as they both appear to be ‘seriously concerned with the
authenticity of their experience’ (Cohen 1988, p. 378). This notion is evident in Kyle’s video particularly, as he
constantly promotes the street food over the food served in the tourist-focused restaurant food.

Which tourist has the higher standard of authenticity?

Authenticity, as Cohen (1988, p. 371) notes, is a ‘negotiable rather than primitive concept’. Thus, it is held that
neither Kyle nor Troy have a higher standard of authenticity over the other, in so long as they both perceive their
own experiences as “authentic” in themselves. To this end, assuming that both Kyle and Troy believe their own
experiences to be authentic, another type of authenticity may emerge if others come to judge their experiences in
the same way. Cohen (1988, p. 379) calls this phenomenon ‘emergent authenticity’.

How would you describe the “tourist gaze” in each video?

The tourist gaze, as noted above, is captured in the experience of ‘see[ing] named scenes through a frame, such
as the hotel window, the car windscreen or the window of the coach’. It is represented by separation, passivity,
and a seer who is unseen and invisible to the locals (Urry 1990, p. 100). Applying this to Kyle and Troy’s
videos, it is argued that the tourist gaze in both videos is relatively low. For Kyle, clear efforts were made to
reduce the presence of the tourist gaze, seen in his attempts to place himself at the “street level” and engage
actively and intimately with the stall keepers. Other than the fact that he is arguably reproducing this tourist gaze
in respect to his viewers and the locals as discussed above, his own gaze vis-à-vis the locals is relatively
reduced. For Troy, the tourist gaze is more evident, especially in the previously mentioned motorcycle clip. In
this clip, Troy stares at a local worker in the rice fields, from the privileged position of a moving motorcycle. In
this scene, a clear sense of mastery is established between the worker, who cannot see Troy and is busy toiling
in the hot weather, and Troy, who is being chauffeured around the farm and is free to gaze upon what he wishes.
Outside of this scene however, the tourist gaze was arguably reduced in the rest of Troy’s video, as he – like
Kyle – places himself at the “street level” of the locals.

What about the social and physical separation of tourist and locals?

Separation – both social and physical – is characteristic of ‘resort tourism’ (Cohen 2003, p. 98). While Kyle
made efforts to reduce this separation through immersion, his video still depicts a degree of social separation
between the locals and the tourist, as he travelled through a popular tourist spot and interacted with the locals
within the context of a commodified consumer-retailer relationship (although, as Cohen (1988, p. 373) notes,
commodification does not necessarily imply inauthenticity). There was also physical separation between Kyle
and the carts and motorcycles from which the locals were selling their products from. In Troy’s case, there was
slightly less social separation in his video, as his engagement with the locals was quite intimate. There was also
arguably less physical separation in Troy’s video also, as he spatially entered the house of the local family and
thus used his body as a medium to immerse himself in the local culture – an example of spatial politics.
However, it must be conceded that he did not engage in the work of the locals when viewing the farm – thus
suggesting there was still a degree of physical separation present between him and the locals.

Are we convinced by the tourists’ claims to have achieved immersion in the local?

It is argued that neither video was entirely convincing, primarily due to the reason that the video itself is a
reconstruction of the tourist gaze. While Kyle and Troy’s actions suggest that they have discarded the tourist
gaze in favour for immersion in the local, their video re-establishes the relation of mastery between the viewers
of the video (the seer) and the locals, who cannot view the viewers back (the seen). This notion is also captured
in the ability of both Kyle and Troy to ‘leave at any moment’, unlike the locals (Eriksen 2007, p. 101). That is,
while both Kyle and Troy are attempting to immerse themselves in local culture, they can easily board a plane
and leave the culture if they wished. This ability to freely enter and leave this ‘Other’ world (Cohen 1988, p.
377) thus questions their claims of achieving immersion in the local, as true immersion would likely entail
turning this ‘Other’ world into one’s new ‘elective centre’, from which there is ‘no exit’ (Cohen 1988, p. 373-
377).

Do you think that they have had an authentic experience?

As noted previously, authenticity is a ‘negotiable rather than primitive concept’ (Cohen 1988, p. 371). In this
sense, it can be argued that due to Kyle and Troy’s acceptance of their experience as authentic, they achieved a
level of authenticity which satisfied their respective needs.

Do you think it was “really” authentic?

In a sense, we believe their experience was authentic in the sense that Kyle and Troy both believed and accepted
their experience as suitably authentic for their expectations. While elements of the tourist gaze are present in
both videos (discussed above), this is not entirely antithetical to the notion that their experiences were authentic.
If it became generally accepted that their experiences were authentic despite being somewhat commercialised,
the videos may become representative of what Cohen (1988, p. 379) would call ‘emergent authenticity’.

What examples do you see of:

 Tourist performance?

o Kyle and Troy physically placing themselves at the “street level”. and engaging with the
locals.

 Mixed “cultures of tourism”?

 o The clash in Kyle’s video between the backpacker tourism of the food stalls and the resort
tourism of the restaurants.

 Staged authenticity?

o To some degree, the food stalls in Kyle’s video. While they were managed by local people,
the area where the food was served was a tourist hotspot; thus it can be assumed that the
experience as a whole was somewhat commercialised and “staged” by the locals in order to
increase tourist sales.

 Commodified or reified culture?

o The same as above.

 Emergent authenticity?

o Discussed above – the recorded experiences of Kyle and Troy, while influenced somewhat by
the tourist gaze, may represent instances of emergent authenticity if judged to be authentic by
others.

References:

Cohen, E 1988, ‘Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 15, no. 3,
pp. 371-386.

Cohen, E 2003, ‘Backpacking: Diversity and Change’, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 95-110.

Eriksen, T 2007, Globalization: The Key Concepts, Oxford, New York.

Urry, J 1990, The Tourist Gaze, Sage, London.