The tourist (drifter, backpacker) can be in search of an authentic experience, which can separate him/her from mass tourist. In the meantime, locals can "stage" some authentic cultural experiences, for commercial gains. So, the cultural interaction process can be reduced to a commercial level, without any genuine meaning/interaction.

1. Whenever I think "tourism", the first thing that comes to mind are the graffiti I saw written on walls in Cannes and Nice in Southern France: "tourisme = mort". They were, of course, protests against the subordination of life in those two cities to the tourist industry. I observed the graffiti while wandering around France as a student, mostly on a bicycle and camping - which is to say not using tourist facilities.

2. The second thing that comes to mind was a bomb explosion in the lowest station of a cable car in Chamonix, France: a protest against the environmental destruction likely to result from a proposed development high on a peak above that city (one which, btw, is a major tourist resort for climbing in summer and skiing in winter). At the time, I had been climbing in the peaks above the explosion and had to come down the mountains on foot, instead of using the cable car.

3. The third thing that comes to mind is the cheapening and prostitution of indigenous cultures to tourism - a phenomena resorted to because of the poverty of those communities - from which land and freedom was stolen - but much disputed among Native Americans in the United States (and elsewhere).

4. The fourth thing that comes to mind was the arrival of cholera in Lima, Peru, (and of a pandemic in South America) said to result from the dumping of human waste in its harbor by a tourist cruise ship.

5. One more thing that comes to mind is archeological evidence that the Mayans traveled as far north as Arizona in ancient times, apparently for no other purpose than tourism.

The perfectly understandable desire of people to discover other parts of the world seems to have been around forever. The problem is the subordination of such travel and discovery (like so many other human activities) to the profit-making of capitalism, i.e., the conversion of tourism into a "service" industry.

Los intercambios siempre son beneficiosos. Forman parte de la dinámica social y de los naturales procesos de hibridación que a largo plazo han marcado la transformación de las culturas. Evidentemente esto también podría traer consigo fricciones o problemas sociales que no estamos en capacidad de predecir o controlar en virtud de las propias diferencias normativas o no de las culturas en contacto. Sin embargo, los intercambios sirven precisamente para desarrollar éticas de convivencia indispensables en un mundo que dice ser civilizado, universal y de apertura a las diversidades existentes y para configurar espacios alternativos de confluencia.

Yetzabeth writes, optimistically, " los intercambios sirven precisamente para desarrollar éticas de convivencia". Unfortunately, whether that hope is realized depends a lot on the form and content of "los intercambios". Given that tourism has traditionally been a leisure time activity of those with enough money to travel, the interactions of wealthy tourists with locals have often been counterproductive to the objective of developing "éticas de convivencia". Before spending a year and a half in France as an undergraduate student from Antioch College, I - like all other students going abroad - had to take an anthropology course in "cross-cultural interactions" in which we learned about all the possible pitfalls and sources of unnecessary misunderstandings and conflict possible when individuals from different cultures interact. By the time I got to France in the early 1960s, American tourists were notorious for their arrogant expectations that others would speak English and impatience when confronted with mundane differences, e.g., the structure of toilets, senses of humor. Having learned of such problems in advance, I had no such problems, but heard lots of stories about them. Years later, as a professor accompanying students (who had had no such training) to the USSR, I observed precisely the same difficulties in adaptation that minimized the chances of conviviality. In short, without the kind of preparation for cross cultural interactions and open attitudes (which depend upon a whole history of non-xenophobic learning) - preconditions missing for far too many tourists - the likelihood of improved conviviality is limited.

Ciertamente, @ Harry Cleaver,necesitamos una reeducación ética que, de modo transversal, pueda ir consolidando ese tipo de valores. La propia dinámica destructiva a la que está sometida la cultura es un germen de cultivo para favorecer esos procesos.

Please forgive an essay. I can supply references at various points.

I have been travelling at times over the last 60 years and now live in my ancestral area, Cornwall, which is the major summer holiday region for the UK. I would begin this project by considering what value-system is being applied to evaluate ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Conventionally it is the wealthy nations that tour, and they may be dominated by a perception of cultural convergence, a crude modernist view of ‘progress’. This is an important belief to have in a nation populated by immigration, because it allows us to hope that all incomers can become equal citizens. However, as the World Values Survey demonstrates, it is a convenient but false assumption. Humans seem to have a universal moral capacity, but the definition, quantification and priorities of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are local to the discursive community.

Tourism is not my subject, but I see that the TBL is a thoughtful tool for including social benefit in the analysis. But who defines benefit? If a traditional burial ground is the cheapest place to build a water purification plant, who decides? If a little-contacted community in Brazil or PNG declines contact, should the government enforce it? Dare we measure the good of the toured in their own terms? I suggest that at least we should explore their terms.

In your research I suggest that you declare your ‘goods’ at each stage; if there is room, consider local alternative valuations.

The vital point has been made that asymmetry of wealth makes the tourist the dictator of development, with the local government and national government complicit to varying degrees.

Another development, especially where tourism is intranational, is the settlement of those who enjoyed being tourists in the location. Cornwall has a population of about 500,000, half of whom have arrived since 1970. Apart from attractive scenery it has the lowest economic level and greatest area of industrial wasteland in all of UK counties. Belief in cultural convergence can lead to a belief that resident incomers bring the benefit of modernity. Indeed the power of mass communications and digital media makes the dominant culture accessible to children in the toured area. But it needs to be acknowledged that this is not ‘enlightenment’ of a backward people, but a missionary initiative in some ways parallel to the Australian government’s programme in the last century of removing aboriginal children to have them raised in White settler homes. The incomers may well be wealthy and will dictate the pattern of local development. I am reminded of the sad sight of overgrown paddy fields in Bali where tourism pays more per hectare and rice can be imported with tourist cash.

The incentive for tourism is contrast. A summer on a beach means not wearing collar and tie, not worrying about taxing the car and not having to get up for work. The difference may have positive attractions, charm. Incomers and tourists may want to get close to the local culture, may want photos of themselves joining the dances which were put on at the hotel after an excellent dinner of ‘international cuisine’. Or they may settle and imagine themselves accepted. A toured community will rapidly construct a mental category for them, but this is only acceptance as ‘other’. Does this matter? Incomers and some tourists seek ‘authenticity’. Recent work in Psychology on the power of intuition and the limits of cognition make ‘authenticity’ a concept to be examined and defined before it is used. I recommend an article by Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1995) on the construction of ‘heritage’. This article is also another strong critique of the concept of national culture as an accurate way of classifying how people see the world. In the case of tourism it may well be complex. Is the hotel run by the village, the nearest town, the dominant ethnic or economic group of the country, or an international chain? Where did that chatty taxi driver come from, and is he saying to you what he says among friends? Like many of us his choice of values is adjusted to each interaction. What might his wife say?

In short I admire the project and suggest that you try to identify the tourists and the toured, consider what their value-system represent as good and bad (does modernity equal good?), look at the constraints upon their dialogue caused by their power relations. Inevitably we come to research as outsiders, but in this case one side is far easier for us to empathise with than the other. It may well be that the toured have different evaluations according to their generation.

The subject is so vast, here is an angle I can contribute with. The host community have a distinct culture and values that is expected to be respected. Ex.: if you visit a religious culture place, or if some in some cultures the night time is for social interaction, party, and singing, the tourists can't rest because of the noise. If you (the tourist) want to visit my place (the host) , it is a "favor" given to you, a privilege. Today's culture of the tourists is influenced by economics and the idea that money can buy you anything, and that if you pay you are in a superior position. Sometimes, can be just too much, when tourists disturbs the local culture, ex. in Barcelona city; there may be no cultural conflict, but it is a life disturbance stress for the hosts. My main point have to do with the local history and interaction between hosts and tourists; some hosts they happily receive some ethnic people groups, and be reticent to other cultures based on their previous experiences. On the other hand the tourists have low awareness and sometime willingness to adjust and respect the local culture. It gets narrowed to a common value of respect, humbleness, goodness, or morality for both sides. But considering how much traveling and tourism exists already in the world, adjustments have been made in general for the hosts and tourists, and both cross-culturally accommodate to each other. It can be still a help to study the exceptions from the general flow, the particular situations where the cross-cultural interaction between the hosts and tourists is not beneficial and conflictual.