Within tourism there is widespread use of terms interchangeably; ‘cultural tourism’, heritage tourism’, ‘ethnic tourism’ and ‘arts tourism’ have become transposable in their usage “with limited consensus regarding whether or not people are talking about the same thing”
(Timothy & Boyd, 2003:5). Cultural tourism may be seen to encompass both heritage and arts tourism in that it includes not only the visiting of sites but consuming the way of life of those sites (Timothy & Boyd 2003; Richards 2001). The tourism at Wildebeest Kuil may be described as ‘special interest’ in that it:
…aligns more closely with the notion of serious heritage enthusiasts, who are earnest seekers of the past, whether for personal discovery, general education or to fulfil hobby-related needs. (Timothy, 2011:151)
147
While there is a cultural element in most kinds of travel, cultural tourism was recognised as a distinct product in the late 1970s when it became evident that certain travel was specifically geared toward gaining “a deeper understanding of the culture or heritage of a destination”
(McKercher & Du Cros, 2002:1; Tighe 1986). Initially considered a niche market for the educated, affluent tourist looking for something other than a beach holiday, cultural tourism has—since the fragmentation of the mass market in the 1990s—been recognised as a “high- profile, mass market activity” (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002:1). Heritage tourism has been hailed as a fast-growing form of cultural tourism (Prentice, 1994). The natural and built historic environment, artefacts, cultural traditions and identities constituting heritage have come to be considered as significant for tourism as for the passing down from one generation to the other (Prentice, 1993).
Heritage tourism may be defined as “a subgroup of tourism, in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the place’s heritage characteristics…” (Poria, Butler & Airey, 2001:1048). This definition was strongly criticised by Brian Garrod and Alan Fyall (2001) because the noted heritage characteristics were contingent on “tourists’ perception of their own heritage” (Poria et al. 2001:1048) thus excluding the position of those who supply the tourism experience. Alternative research makes a distinction between cultural and heritage tourism, arguing that the former focuses on the present while the latter focuses on the past (cf.
Moscardo, 2000). Another perspective questions the relevance of a distinction between heritage and cultural tourism, stating rather that the tourist is concerned not with assigned labels but a satisfying and enjoyable experience (Butler, 1997). The debate within the literature over the definition of terms suggests a tendency to become mired in rhetoric (Timothy & Boyd 2003; Fyall & Garrod 1998). In this study heritage characteristics are viewed not as solely conditional to tourist perceptions but include that which has already been defined as such under the national estate and that which is commonly accepted by locals. In truth, heritage tourism is “rather elastic” taken to involve a myriad of features including “museums, historic districts, re-enactments of historical events, statues, monuments and shrines” (Richter, 2005:257).
The study takes heritage tourism to fall under the rubric of cultural tourism which in turn may be described as similarly elastic. This elasticity is particularly evident in extensive definitions of ‘culture’ ranging from different approaches with varying interpretations and research
148
objectives. Working from an earlier suggestion to analyse the ways in which the concept is used and laying the foundation for the field of cultural studies, Raymond Williams (1976) identified three broad categories of the use of the term ‘culture’ which include: culture as “a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development”; as indicative of a group’s particular way of life; and as “the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity” (Williams, 1976:90). When considered a process culture is regarded as “a continuous, adaptable, ever-changing process of the ‘production of meanings’ which provides a framework for individual members of a group to make sense of themselves and their own lives” (Ivanovic, 2008:22). In this way, culture is seen to be influenced by a variety of endogenous and exogenous forces being naturally transformed through time. Culture as a product includes the manifestation of the various processes of production discussed above.
Tangible as well as intangible products are created, which include: artefacts, language, arts and crafts, architecture, inventions and myth to name a few (ibid).
Just as culture, the fundamental attraction in cultural tourism, is described as both a process and product, the sector may be defined in similarly bilateral terms. Firstly, the technical or
“site and monuments” approach to defining cultural tourism is derived from the product- based definition of culture with its focus on types of cultural products consumed by tourists and attractions visited (Bonink 1992, cited in Richards, 1996:22). The specificity of this approach proves useful in quantitative research whereby visitors are identified and tallied according to demographics (Richards, 1996). Secondly, the conceptual perspective, based on the process-based approach to defining culture, is concerned with “motives and meanings attached to cultural tourism activity” (1996:22). Attempts to integrate the product and process-based approaches have proven difficult (Ivanovic, 2008).
Four broad categorical designations of cultural tourism are identified by Bob McKercher and Hilary du Cros: tourism-derived, motivational, experiential, and operational (2002:3).
Definitions which place cultural tourism “within a broader framework of tourism and tourism management theory” are tourism-derived (2002:4). These include the views that culture forms the basis of attracting visitors and motivating people to travel (ibid; McIntosh &
Goeldner 1990), and that cultural tourism involves “interrelationships between people, places, and cultural heritage” (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002:4; Zeppel & Hall 1991).
Following the above, cultural tourists are believed to have travel motivations different to
149
those of other tourists and it is this motivation that is central to the definition of cultural tourism (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002).
The experiential designation of cultural tourism involves “experiencing or having contact of differing intensity with the unique social fabric, heritage, and special character of places”
(McKercher & Du Cros, 2002:4; Schweitzer 1999). Education and entertainment combine in this definition together with the hope that an observation of a cultural past may help the viewer to see the present from a different point of view and perhaps become a reflexive tourist. An operational approach is where cultural tourism is defined “by participation in any one of the almost limitless array of activities or experiences” (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002:5). In this definition, motivation, purpose and depth of experience seem less essential.
From the above it is clear that there are different types of cultural tourists. For some, the cultural tourism activity is central to their visit, for others the activity is supplementary, and still others are accidental cultural tourists, participating in a cultural tourism activity as incidental to their main trip. Most mainstream tourists who participate in cultural tourism activities do so as subsidiary to their trip; these are incidental, causal or serendipitous cultural tourists. Indeed, lesser-known destinations are likely to attract these kinds of cultural tourists.
The core, purposeful cultural tourism market, however, remains a niche market and the depth of experience differs in each of these examples (ibid).
Typologies encouraged by the above range of definitions are potentially harmful to heterogeneity in the sector. Richard Prentice (2005) states that the heterogeneous nature of heritage attractions is negated in such typologies as the ‘heritage sector’ or ‘heritage industry’
(cf. Hewison, 1987); incorrect inferences are possible, such as limitations of some sites attested to all. Broad typologies obscure the varied attractions available in terms of heritage tourism. In response to the above, Prentice (1993) proposes an extensive typology showing twenty-three different types of attractions and their potential subdivisions. Similarly, a heritage spectrum, advocated by Greg Richards (1996), suggests that there are different types of heritage landscapes which traverse a multiplicity of settings ranging from the natural to the urban. In this way heritage tourism shares characteristics with other types of tourism such as urban, cultural and eco-tourism. This sharing of characteristics demonstrates that tourism sectors are not mutually exclusive but rather that they tend to overlap.
150
The growth of cultural tourism in the early to mid-1990s is attested to changes in contemporary preferences for “quality, special interest markets, and experiential, rather than passive, activities” (Waitt, 2000:838; World Tourism Organization 1990). Niche markets, such as heritage and eco-tourism, have evolved out of “consumers’ reluctance to be treated as an undifferentiated mass” (Waitt, 2000:838; Urry 1990). Particularly since the 1980s, the popularity of heritage attractions became an established feature in tourism demand and promotion across the globe (Prentice, 2005). This has been attributed to several factors:
…an increasing awareness of heritage, an ability to express individuality through recognition of an historical environment or staged history, greater affluence, increased leisure time, mobility, access to the arts, the need to transcend contemporary experiences to compensate for their deficiencies and demands, and/or to fulfil psychological needs for continuity through an appreciation of personal family history.
(Waitt, 2000:838; Brokensha & Guldberg 1992)
Contemporary tourists are becoming more dissatisfied with tourist routes and attractions that highlight a grandiose and aristocratic heritage and are now turning to heritage landscapes of everyday peoples “to understand the human condition in the past” (Timothy, 2011:363). The growth of rural tourism has been described as emphasising “a centrifugal pull of interest away from centred cultures towards previously marginal peoples” (Hollinshead, 1992:44).
Such a turn may be reflective of heritage as a key component in the establishment and propagation of identities and a desire in Western society for authentic experiences (Hall, 1994:182; cf. chapters Three and Six). Now inextricably linked to tourism, heritage sites provide “the motivation for people to visit a country in the first place” (Millar, 1989:14);
however, this is not without its concerns. The following section describes impacts of cultural heritage tourism on localities and inhabitants and foregrounds arguments regarding the value of tourism in opposition to possible tangible and intangible damage it may cause.
The tourism-development dilemma
In the past half-century the tourism industry has evolved into “one of the world’s most powerful, yet controversial, socio-economic forces”; becoming progressively more democratised and growing in both scale and scope (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:1). The
151
promotion of tourism for the potential contribution to economic and social development has become an increasing focus in the developing world where development may be described as:
…a complex, multidimensional concept that may be defined as a continuous and positive change in the economic, social, political and cultural dimensions of the human condition, guided by the principle of freedom of choice and limited by the environment’s capacity to sustain such change. (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:6)
There is, however, a tourism-development dilemma faced by developing countries in the process of their entry into the global tourism industry and their pursuit of tourism as a development option (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). While potential local and national benefits may not materialise, profits are accumulated by multinational corporations and/or small local elites oftentimes at considerable social, economic or environmental costs. Often the inflow of foreign expenditure is dispersed among airlines, tour operators and travel agents (Nicholson- Lord 1997, in Inglis, 2000). The accruement of benefits in this way is not indicative of circumstances at Wildebeest Kuil. Of significance to the case study is the indication that reliance on tourism as a ‘silver bullet’ is “unlikely to reap significant and long-term benefits for the already marginalised” particularly if these communities are “fractured and inhabit environmentally vulnerable areas” (Chok, Macbeth & Warren, 2007:36).
The tourism industry is at the mercy of external forces; it is highly susceptible to inclement weather, natural disasters, political unrest, downturns in world and local markets, changing market trends, and competing market segments. Overdependence on tourism, particularly one type of tourism, is of concern. Many of the ≠Khomani San crafters of the Northern Cape, for example, have no employment external to selling crafts on the side of the road to passing tourists. Entrepreneurship aside, malnutrition, ill-health and high mortality rates in this community are of concern (cf. Grant, 2011). Economic endurance (supplementing the good health of individuals and communities) is better had in places with diversified sectors which include tourism, farming, manufacturing, and mining for example (Timothy, 2011).
Impacts of tourism
It is arguable that tourism is a destructive force; injurious to culture, trivialising art and craft, damaging the natural and built environment, generating social ills (such as prostitution and
152
drug abuse), and spreading “elitism, snobbery, consumerism and false get-rich-quick values”
(Sethi, 2005:102). Further implications include “inflation, overdependence, monetary leakage, a tendency to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and low wage earnings” (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009d:57). Indigenous populations have also been known to be removed from their lands, sometimes forcefully, due to government plans to use the site as a heritage tourism venue (Timothy & Nyaupane 2009a; Timothy 1999, 1994).73 The heritage tourism industry has been criticised as a producer of inaccurate and shallow views of the past and an overall mechanism of trivialising history (cf. Uzzell 1996; Hewison 1987).
Significant impacts in the context of heritage tourism are that of a socio-cultural nature;
Dallen J. Timothy describes a few as: “[t]he conflicting use of social space; cultural change;
cultural commodification; cultural theft; forced displacement; and disharmonious resident- tourist or destination-tourism relations” (2011:151).
Aspects of the above are discussed here in terms of their potential relevance to Wildebeest Kuil; the discussion will exclude features not significant to the case study. The conflicting use of social space at Wildebeest Kuil is constituted by vandalism and misuse of the site by the host community (cf. Chapter Four) counterpoised to the intended use of the site. In the heritage tourism sector in particular, the impact of tourist behaviours on destination residents/hosts could potentially cause changes in lifestyle, dress, culinary tastes, family relations and other cultural aspects; this is especially manifest in young people from host communities seeking to emulate the behaviours and consumption patterns of tourists as these have become markers of ‘the good life’ (Timothy, 2011).
In The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy laments the loss of meaning through the entertainment process of tourism of the once sacrosanct Kathakali dance and the effects of this on the dancers (1997:230):
73 An example of this are the ≠Khomani of southern Africa who were forced to leave their ancestral hunting and gathering grounds in what is now the Kalagadi Transfrontier Park (cf. Grant, 2011). While tourists are welcome to frequent the Park, the communities whose ancestors had made this area their home were shunned in favour of the protection of natural heritage. In 2002 this community was granted land in the Park (ibid).
153
The Kathakali Man is the most beautiful of men. Because his body is his soul. His only instrument. From the age of three it has been planed and polished, pared down, harnessed wholly to the task of story-telling. He has magic in him, this man within the painted mask and swirling skirts.
But these days he has become unviable. Unfeasible. Condemned goods… In despair he turns to tourism. He enters the market. He hawks the only thing he owns. The stories that his body can tell. He becomes a Regional Flavour.
In the Heart of Darkness74 they mock him with their lolling nakedness and their imported attention spans. He checks his rage and dances for them. He collects his fee.
He gets drunk. Or smokes a joint. Good Kelala grass. It makes him laugh. Then he stops by the Ayemenem Temple, he and the others with him, and they dance to ask pardon of the gods.
Roy’s postcolonial critique of tourism in Kerala highlights a disempowerment of the host in relationship to their guests. This is counterpoised to Tim Edensor (2000) who refers to the constructedness of the tourist’s role in the performance as not altogether in charge of its direction. Cara Aitchison cites an example of elder Masai women who perform dances for tourists that were traditionally performed by young women; “[w]ith many young women having migrated from the rural villages to urban centres in search of full-time employment, the villagers are reluctant to forego the potential income from tourists” (2001:143). Aitchison questions whether these women are ‘corrupting their stories’, as Roy implies, or
“transforming history into heritage to develop a living through ‘the world’s fastest growing industry’” (ibid). She concludes that the not entirely scripted performance is enacted by both host and guest, neither of whom maintains complete control. The above highlights that while the nature of the host/guest relationship is subject to critique it is not simply unalterable but rather vulnerable to changing contexts (cf. Van Beek & Schmidt, 2012). It is yet to be seen what host/guest relations will emerge out of Wildebeest Kuil.
Cultural theft, another key impact of heritage tourism, describes the pilfering of historic artefacts and/or the misappropriating of indigenous culture by outsiders (Timothy, 2011).
These ‘souvenirs’ represent either a kind of bourgeois acquisitiveness in an effort to possess a piece of history or experience for oneself or a more practical source of income (Timothy
74 Roy’s reference to Joseph Conrad’s (1986) novel of the same name alludes to similar themes in the African context as explored by Conrad and others.
154
2011; Ivanovic 2008). To the traveller wishing to keep the souvenir for themselves, the object often acts as a kind of talisman, upon sight or touch, able to conjure up the best moments of the tour and carrying within itself the memories of the traveller and the sights, smells, sounds and experiences of the place (Inglis, 2000). The illicit trade in ancient artefacts continues to be widespread and growing (Timothy, 2011). The management at Wildebeest Kuil have expressed a concern regarding the possibility of some of the smaller and easily transportable rocks being removed by opportunists for profit should the centre close down and the site be left unattended (Fieldnotes, June 2011). Interestingly, this is an inversion of the argument that heritage tourism endangers sites and heritage objects. In other words, the above implies that it is because of the on-going custodial role played by the McGregor Museum at Wildebeest Kuil that the heritage resource remains protected.
A main cause of disputes between marginalised indigenous groups and dominant elites is that:
[b]ecause indigenous people in general had established habitation prior to present-day dominant elites— a key aspect of Indigeneity— they are then the hosts, not the hosted, within the state in which they find themselves embedded. Yet… those dominant states see themselves as ‘hosts’ who tolerate these surviving indigenous peoples. (Hall &
Fenelon, 2009:34)
Perhaps it is because of an abiding sense of having to ‘tolerate’ the indigenous that dominant groups feel justified in appropriating their cultural iconography.75 Residents and host communities may participate in the tourism industry out of necessity and with a measure of ill-feeling (Timothy, 2011). Depending on personal encounters with the industry and tourists, individual attitudes towards local tourism may vary. Studies on host community attitudes to tourism show that reactions differ according to variables such as economic levels before tourism in the region, the level of tourism development, the degree of economic dependence
75 Controversy arose in recent years surrounding the use of American Indian concepts in sport. The Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves baseball teams along with the Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs football teams have been under pressure from Native American groups to change their names. These groups have threatened to take legal action against “what they feel is an insulting use of their heritage” (Timothy, 2011:155).
New Zealand Maori attitudes to tourism have similarly been “critical of the way they are stereotyped into guides, entertainers, carvers, and as components of the natural scenery” (Maori Tourism Task Force 1968, cited in Timothy, 2001:155). The implication is that they are taken to exist as cultural heritage resources with the sole purpose to serve the tourism needs of their country (cf. Hall 1994; Hall & Zeppel 1990; Cossons 1989).