Development of Tour Uriely 2005

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.008
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 199–216, 2005
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/$30.00
THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
Conceptual Developments
Natan Uriely
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Abstract: This paper identifies four noteworthy conceptual developments in the study of
the tourist experience: a turn from differentiation to de-differentiation of everyday life and
touristic experiences; a shift from generalizing to pluralizing conceptualizations; a transformed
focus from the toured objects to the tourist subjective negotiation of meanings;
and a movement from contradictory and decisive statements to relative and complementary
interpretations. Thus, it is suggested that contemporary conceptualizations of this subject correspond
to the so-called ‘‘postmodernist’’ theorizing in the social sciences. This turn in the
literature is evaluated while addressing past and future research. Keywords: tourist experience,
postmodernism, theoretical analysis. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Résumé: L’expérience touristique: développements conceptuels. Cet article identifie quatre
développements conceptuels notables dans les recherches au sujet de l’expérience touristique:
une réorientation de la différentiation à la dédifférentiation entre la vie quotidienne et
les expériences touristiques, un changement des conceptualisations pluralisantes à celles qui
sont généralisantes, une priorité transformée des objets visités à la négotiation subjective des
significations de la part du touriste et un mouvement qui s’éloigne des énonciations décisives
et contradictoires et se tourne vers des interprétations relatives et complémentaires. On suggére
ainsi que les conceptualisations contemporaines de ce sujet correspondent à l’élaboration
des soi-disant théories ‘‘postmodernistes’’ des sciences sociales. On évalue cette tournure
dans la littérature tout en considérant les recherches du passé et de l’avenir. Mots-clés: expérience
touristique, postmodernisme, analyse théorique. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to track and evaluate noteworthy developments in
the conceptualization of the tourist experience, which has been a
key research issue since its early days during the 60s. Generally speaking,
the academic interest regarding this issue concerns the existential
dimension of tourists’ valuations of their personal experiences. Specifically,
such analyses focus on tourism motivations and the meanings
that participants assign to their experiences in light of everyday life
in ‘‘advanced’’ industrialized societies. The subject is addressed in
numerous academic works carried out in various areas. Thus, an attempt
to provide a complete literature review is beyond the scope of
Natan Uriely earned his Ph.D. in sociology at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is
currently Senior Lecturer and the Chairman of the Department of Hotel and Tourism
Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105. Email
). His research and teaching areas include the sociology of tourism,
leisure and sport, with a special interest in theory.
199

200 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
this paper. Instead, the focus here is on identifying and evaluating
major developments in the conceptualization of the experience. Specifically,
by reviewing relevant literature across various topics, including
the definition of the tourist role, typologies, authenticity, postmodern,
and heritage tourism, four developments emerge: a reconsideration of
the distinctiveness of tourism from of everyday life experiences; a shift
from homogenizing portrayals of the tourist as a general type to pluralizing
depictions that capture the multiplicity of the experience; a
shifted focus from the displayed objects provided by the industry to
the subjective negotiation of meanings as a determinant of the experience;
and a movement from contradictory and decisive academic discourse,
which conceptualizes the experience in terms of absolute
truths, toward relative and complementary interpretations.
The current analysis suggests that these changes in conceptual
trends involve a change in the style of academic theorizing. The conceptualizations
derive from various theoretical frameworks, including
phenomenology (Cohen 1979; Uriely, Yonai and Simchai 2002), a
neo-Durkheimian perspective (MacCannell 1973), Goffmanian roletheory
(Wickens 2002), conflict and cultural criticism (Barthes 1972;
Boorstin 1964; Turner and Ash 1975), and a constructivist narrative-oriented
approach (Elsrud 2004), but without attempting to endorse any
of them. Instead, these are characterized and evaluated hereafter
according to another theoretical construct, that of the distinction between
‘‘modernist’’ and ‘‘postmodernist’’ forms or styles of academic
knowledge (Bauman 1987, 1992; Denzin 1991; Flax 1990; Frazer
1989; Hollinshead 2002; Ryan 2002; Uriely 1997). In line with this distinction,
it is argued that while the early theories comply with the
notion of modernist academic knowledge, contemporary conceptualizations
of the same correspond to postmodernist modes of analysis.
TOWARD POSTMODERNIST CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
As a broad cultural phenomenon, postmodernity refers to a particular
set of generalized developments that may constitute a new cultural paradigm
and social consciousness (Lash and Urry 1987; Rojek 1995; Urry
1990). However, postmodernity is also associated with diverse interrelated
phenomena that developed after World War II in varied spheres
of activity, such as art, architecture, sports, politics, cinema, tourism,
and science (Denzin 1991). Accordingly, the term is utilized by scholars
who grasp contemporary trends in tourism as manifestations of postmodernist
rather than modernist culture (Baudrillard 1983; Eco 1986;
Featherstone 1991; Fjellman 1992; Lash and Urry 1994; Munt 1994; Pretes
1995; Rojek 1995; Urry 1990). Similarly, the notion of ‘‘postmodernist
academic knowledge’’ or ‘‘postmodernist modes of theorizing’’ is
utilized by those who perceive recent developments in the social sciences
as reflection of postmodernity (Bauman 1987, 1992; Denzin 1991; Flax
1990; Frazer 1989; Hollinshead 2002; Ryan 2002; Uriely 1997).
Postmodernist forms and modes of theorizing are associated with a
variety of characteristics, including deconstruction, subjectivity, skepti-

NATAN URIELY 201
cism, anti-empiricism, intertextuality, and relativity (Bauman 1987,
1992; Denzin 1991; Flax 1990; Frazer 1989; Hollinshead 2002; Ryan
2002; Uriely 1997). The tendency to deconstruct modernist-like grand
theories is grasped as part of its skepticism and reaction against the notion
of a grand design of the social system. Thus, unlike grand theories
that conceptualize societies as totalities, postmodern theorizing
emphasizes diversity and richness of life (Denzin 1991; Frazer 1989;
Ryan 2002). The inclination of the latter to stress the role of individuals
to subjectively negotiate the meanings of their practices is related to its
notion of power. In this respect, power is positively perceived as a constitutive
activity rather than negative by (Frazer 1989). The compromising
nature of postmodernist discourse and its tendency to
conceptualize reality in terms of relative truths reflects its logic as nondualistic
and anti-hierarchal (Lather 1991). In this regard, Denzin suggests
that postmodern theories are characterized by a compromising
nature that supports ‘‘both-and’’ rather than ‘‘either-or’’ statements
(1991; 27, 151). Similarly, Bauman (1987) suggests that postmodernist
modes of analysis are less authoritative, less conclusive, and more pluralized
than modernist systems of knowledge. Accordingly, he refers to
postmodernist theorists as interpreters, whereas modernist thinkers are
referred to as legislators.
The attempt made above to clarify the distinction between modernist
and postmodernist theorizing would be incomplete without addressing
the controversy surrounding it in the social sciences. To begin with,
critics of the latter address the inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory
usage of the term postmodernism (Giddens 1987; Harvey
1989). In this context, the problematic utilization of this term is recognized
even by scholars who promote it. For instance, Bauman suggests
that ‘‘postmodernity means very different things to many different people’’
(1992:vii). Dissidents associate this ambiguity with over-free writing
in which ‘‘anything goes’’ (Antonio 1991; Hollinshead 2002).
Another point of criticism concerns the general idea that modernity
has already been replaced by postmodernity. This proposition is challenged
by Giddens (1990) who perceives both as two different forms
Wang (2000:16) refers to the distinction as an analytical device used
to characterize different phenomena of the same social order, thus prefering
‘‘late modernity’’ over postmodernity.
An objection to the distinction between modernist and postmodernist
theories is provided by Curry (1991) who suggests that this distinction
reflects an attempt of scholars to distinguish their work as
postmodernist, rather than on a fundamental turn from earlier theories.
In this context, he argues that postmodernist thinkers possess similar
limitations to those they associate with the so-called ‘‘modernist
form of knowledge’’. For example, postmodernist thinkers, such as
Lyotard and Rorty, are criticized for both being selective in their works
and for ignoring the intellectual complexity and the depth of earlier
theories (Curry 1991; Ross 1988). Thus, the attack of postmodernist
thinkers against the generalized and universalistic narratives of earlier
theories is directed back against their own work. A related challenge
to the distinction between modernist and postmodernist thought

202 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
concerns the supposedly innovative nature of the latter. In this regard,
Ryan (2002) notes that various aspects associated with postmodernist
thought, such as the emphasis given to the context, the stress of plural
reality, and the inclination for relativity were already seminal aspects
of the phenomenological perspective.
Other voices opposed to postmodernist views derive from neo-Marxist
and power-conflict perspectives with regard to the little attention
that the former give to power relations in general and to economic
and class relations in particular (Callinicos 1990; Hollinshead 2002;
Kaplan 1988; Morgan 1995). A related point of criticism addresses postmodernist
thought as a destructive perspective, which fails to elaborate
and transform new directions for political action or social reformation
(Best 1994). The inclination to remain solely negative is also criticized
with regard to the future of social sciences. In this context, it is argued
the attack of postmodernist thought on the basic assumptions of social
theory—including the quest for generalizations, unity of vision, and
continuity of knowledge—is not followed by sufficient alternatives for
structuring knowledge (Antonio 1991; Gitlin 1989).
This controversy in the social sciences requires an additional clarification
regarding the usage of the distinction between modernist and
postmodernist theorizing in the current analysis. In this respect, the
premise of this paper is that it is not necessary to agree with the postmodernist
perspective in order to use this distinction as an analytical
device. Similar to the position presented by Giddens (1990) and Wang
(2000), one might be aware of a collection of similar developments
that occur in various domains, including tourism or the social sciences,
but still disagree with the view that these developments involve
such an acute change that they justify the claim that postmodernity
has already replaced modernity. Accordingly, the distinction between
the two schools of thought applied in this paper does not reflect a
position that the latter has already replaced the former. It does, however,
assume that the depicted developments in the study of tourist
experiences are associated with a wider cultural development, which
is referred to in the literature as postmodernity. In addition, one
might agree with the notion of so-called ‘‘postmodernist culture’’ in
general, and ‘‘postmodernist forms of theorizing’’ in particular, and
still criticize these contemporary developments. Thus, it is possible
to utilize the distinction as an analytical device through which conceptual
developments of the tourist experience are characterized and
then challenged. In this context, by characterizing various conceptualizations,
the current analysis includes dichotomies based on generalizations.
Conceptualizations of the Tourist Experience
Developments discussed here exemplify the incorporation of postmodernist
modes of analysis in recent conceptualizations of the tourist
experience. Specifically, practices of deconstruction are illustrated in
the first two developments, which focus on the tendency of recent

NATAN URIELY 203
works to de-differentiate the experience from everyday life and to stress
its pluralized nature, respectively. The third involves the growing attention
that is given to the role of subjectivity in the constitution of the
tourist experience. The fourth concerns the shift toward a compromising
academic discourse, in which the tourist experience is conceptualized
in terms of relative rather than absolute truths.
De-differentiating the Experience. Early conceptualizations of the tourist
experience emphasize its distinctiveness from everyday life. For example,
Cohen (1972, 1979) refers to the quest for strangeness and novelty
as a key element and argues that. . . ‘‘tourism is essentially a temporary
reversal of everyday activities-it is a no-work, no-care, no-thrift situation’’
(1979:181). Similarly, Smith defines the tourist as. . . ‘‘a temporarily
leisured person who visits a place away from home for the
purpose of experiencing change’’ (1978:1). The notion of this experience
as contrary to the routine of everyday-life is also stressed in
MacCannell’s portrayal of tourism as a modern form of the essentially
religious quest for authenticity. In this regard, MacCannell argues that
while modern individuals perceive their everyday life as inauthentic,
‘‘authentic experiences are believed to be available only to those moderns
who try to break the bonds of their everyday experiences and begin
to live’’ (1973:159). The differentiation between everyday life and
tourist experience was also highlighted by Turner and Ash (1975) who
suggested that the temporary distance of tourists from their regular
environments allows them to suspend the power of norms and values
that govern their daily lives and to think about their own lives and societies
from a different perspective.
The notion of the tourist experience as disparate from the routine
of everyday life has been challenged since the 90s by scholars who
introduced the perspective of postmodern tourism (Lash and Urry
1994; Munt 1994; Urry 1990). The premise suggests that while the
modern era is characterized by processes of differentiation among
normative, aesthetic, and institutional spheres of social activity, the
postmodern condition involves processes of de-differentiation that
blur these distinctions. In this context, Lash and Urry (1994) conceptualize
the decreasing distinctions between everyday life and tourist
experiences as ‘‘the end of tourism’’. Specifically, they argue that
experiences that were once confined to tourism—including the enjoyment
of gazing at distant sights and the pleasure of engaging in aspects
of other cultures—are currently accessible in various contexts
of everyday life. In the era of mass media, for instance, attractions
can be enjoyed via video and virtual reality displays within the comforts
of one’s home. Similarly, the proliferation of simulated environments
might bring together multiple sites and sights from around the world
in one’s nearby theme park or shopping mall. Accordingly, many tourist-related
experiences are currently reachable without the necessity
for travel to separate destinations. Consequently, Lash and Urry
(1994) indicated a process through which people become tourists
most of the time, whether they are taking a vacation or conducting
daily activities.

204 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
A similar process of de-differentiation between tourism and the routine
of everyday life is delineated by Munt who argues that ‘‘tourism is
everything and everything is tourism’’ (1994:104). Specifically, he mentions
the growing tendency to combine a variety of activities, such as
adventure trekking, climbing, skiing, and mountain biking with tourism.
More significantly, he stresses penetrations, such as the proliferation
of ecological, archeological, anthropological, and scientific types
of tourism. In addition to the ‘‘intellectualization’’ he points out a
process of ‘‘professionalization’’ in the consumption of tourism. In this
context, Munt suggests that the separation of occupational professionalism
and the consumption of tourism are beginning to blur. With respect
to the penetration by occupational features, Munt mentions the
development of tourism codes of ethics by travel-related and environmental
organizations, such as Tourism Concern and Green Flag International.
At the same time, he describes the growth of outdoor training
programs designed for managers as an example of the incorporation of
tourism practices in the work and professional domain.
The notion of tourism/leisure and work as contradicting experiences
is also challenged by Ryan (2002) who points toward the invasion
of leisure and recreation-related aspects into the workplace of softwarebased
industries, including gymnasia, spas, showers, and skateboard
spaces. In another study, Ryan and Birks (2000) address the inclination
of business tourists to combine tourism pursuits, such as seeing friends
and relatives, attending sport events, or taking a holiday, during their
work-related trips. Similarly, the interaction between work and tourism
is extensively introduced in recent studies that focus on situations in
which work-related and tourist-oriented activities are combined
(Pizam, Uriely and Reichel 2000; Uriely 2001; Uriely and Reichel
2000). In this context, a typology of tourists who combine work and
tourist pursuits during their excursion is developed (Uriely 2001).
Based on the meanings that these tourists assign to their experiences,
four categories are depicted on a continuum from the most work-oriented
to the most tourist-oriented: ‘‘touring professional workers’’,
who are mainly oriented toward work-related purposes and engage in
tourist-oriented activities only as a by-product of their excursion; ‘‘migrant
tourism workers’’, who travel in order ‘‘to make a living’’ and
‘‘have fun’’ at the same time; ‘‘noninstitutionalized working-tourists’’,
who engage in work while traveling in order to finance a prolonged
trip; and, ‘‘working-holiday tourists’’, who perceive their work engagement
as recreational that is part of their tourist activities. In line with
these orientations, members of the two former types of tourists are referred
to as ‘‘travelling workers,’’ and members of the two latter ‘‘working
tourists’’ (Uriely 2001).
Pluralizing the Experience. As part of an attempt to capture the essence
of tourism, early conceptualizations were not concerned with the variety
of meanings and motivations. Thus, while different seminal theorists,
such as Boorstin (1964), MacCannell (1973), and Turner
(1973), proposed different conceptualizations regarding the nature
of the tourist experience in modern society, all of them presented
homogenizing portrayals of it as a general type. This scholarly inclina-

NATAN URIELY 205
tion was challenged by Cohen who proposed that ‘‘different kinds of
people may desire different modes of tourist experiences’’
(1979:180). In line with this premise, Cohen developed a typology of
five modes of tourist experiences that span between the quest for mere
pleasure on one end and the search for meanings on the other. His notion
of plurality is also the premise of other categorizations, aiming to
capture the existing variety in the practice of tourism (Cohen 1972;
Krippendorf 1984; Pearce 1982; Plog 1977; Smith 1978).
The emergence of typologies marks one step in the shift from essentialist
and unifying depictions of the tourist experience as a general
type toward an approach that stresses its diverse and plural characteristics.
Another step in this direction is carried out in recent studies,
which deconstruct well-established typologies by stressing the diversity
within each of the existing categories in these typologies. This trend
could be exemplified with regard to the four-fold tourist typology (drifter,
explorer, individual mass, and organized mass) which construct
the differentiation between noninstitutionalized and institutionalized
tourists, respectively (Cohen 1972). With respect to the latter, the existing
variety of experiences within the category of individual mass tourist
is revealed in a recent study of British holidaymakers in Chalkidiki, in
the region of Northern Greece (Wickens 2002). The study indicates
that these holidaymakers are akin to the individual mass tourist type,
but they are characterized by highly diversified patterns of interests
and activities. Accordingly, they are further classified into five subtypes
in accordance with dominant motivations: placing a strong emphasis
on the local culture, searching for sensual and hedonistic pleasures,
wishing for a romantic experience, questing for sunshine and hot climate,
and enjoying the familiarity provided in a destination to which
they return on an annual basis (Wickens 2002). Consequently, Wickens
suggests that ‘‘...future studies should focus on multiple types of tourism,
by identifying and examining the different micro-types, which are
specific to the study’s particular situation’’ (2002:849).
While Wickens’ study points toward the existing diversity among
institutionalized tourists, a recent study of Israeli backpackers in various
destinations stresses the multiplicity of experiences among noninstitutionalized
tourists (Uriely et al 2002). Specifically, this study reveals
that while most of the backpackers conform to the conventional forms
(length of trip, means of transportation, category of accommodation,
flexibility of the itinerary, etc.), they comply with the different modes
of tourist experiences suggested by Cohen (1979). While some were
mostly interested in mere pleasure-related activities and thus corresponded
to the ‘‘recreational’’ or ‘‘diversionary’’ modes, others pursue
profound meanings and conform to the ‘‘experiental’’, ‘‘experimental’’,
or ‘‘existential’’ modes (Uriely et al 2002). Based on these findings,
the study places doubt on the implicit inclination to couple
together external practices and internal meanings and to assume that
tourists who travel in a similar form share the same experiences. Moreover,
the study of these backpackers illustrates another dimension in
the growing notion of the tourist experience as a diverse and a plural
phenomenon. Specifically, while this study shows that different people

206 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
may engage in different experiences, it also points toward the existence
of multi-type individual backpackers who correspond to more than one
mode of experience across their backpacking biography or even during
a single trip (Uriely et al 2002). In this regard, this backpacker is
akin to Feifer’s (1985) earlier conceptualization of the ‘‘post tourist’’,
who enjoys the movement across different types of experiences in a
single excursion.
The Role of Subjectivity. The current notion of the tourist experience as
a diverse phenomenon is accompanied by another development in
which attention is shifted from the displayed objects provided by the
industry to the tourist subjective negotiation of meanings as a determinant
of the experience. This shift is evident in various studies, including
the conceptualization of authenticity, the emerging research area
of heritage tourism, as well as the typologies described above. With respect
to the latter, the further classification of institutionalized tourist
conducted by Wickens (2002) serves her attempt to stress the subjective
ability of these holidaymakers to assign different meanings to their
experiences. Specifically, by drawing upon Goffman’s (1961, 1967) role
theory, Wickens (2002) shows that while holidaymakers are committed
to the individual mass tourist role arranged for them by the industry
(the provided object), they choose to step out of it and assign themselves
to one of the subjective roles or micro-types, which shape their
experiences. Similarly, Uriely et al (2002) showed that while the Israeli
backpackers are committed to this form of tourism (which could be
grasped as a given object of tourism), they subjectively construct their
experiences in line with one or more of the modes suggested by Cohen
(1979). These further classifications of well-established typologies challenge
the position that the experience is solely shaped by the industry
and carried out by passive consumers. Instead, these deconstructions of
existing typologies stress the importance of the individual’s practice, in
which the subjective negotiation of meanings by the human actor is
illuminated. Clearly, this position is also noticeable with regard to
the multi-type backpacker (Uriely et al 2002) and the post-tourist
(Feifer 1985) who subjectively construct their personal experience by
taking fragments from different modes or products provided by the
industry and reassemble them as they choose.
The shift from the objects provided by the industry to the role tourist
subjectivity in the construction of experiences is well exemplified with
respect to the issue of authenticity. In this context, Wang (2000) identifies
two object-related notions of authentic experiences that exist in
the literature (objective and constructive authenticity) and introduces
a new approach (existential authenticity), which emphasizes tourists’
subjective activities. Objective authenticity is associated with the early
theorists, such as Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973), who share
a similar notion of authenticity despite their debate regarding the fundamental
quest of tourist in the modern era. Specifically, both Boorstin
(1964) and MacCannell (1973) apply a museum-like usage of the term
authenticity that stresses the originality of the toured object. In line
with this approach, authentic experiences in tourism are equated to
epistemological experiences of displayed objects which are found to

NATAN URIELY 207
be genuine. Constructive authenticity is associated with those who challenge
the simplistic notion of objective authenticity and argue for a
more complex and constructive one (Bruner 1989; Cohen 1988;
Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983; Salamone 1997; Silver 1993). According
to this approach, displayed objects are considered to be authentic
not because they are inherently so but because of their construction
as such by tourists or service providers in terms of points of view, perspectives,
or powers. Therefore, authentic experiences and the authenticity
of displayed objects in tourism are considered to constitute one
another. While the early approach of objective authenticity concerns
the attributes of displayed object solely, the constructive perspective
highlights the role of people in the construction of attributes associated
with displayed objects. Yet, both perspectives share the position
that authentic experiences derive from visiting attractions provided
by the industry. Unlike both objective and constructive authenticities,
Wang’s (2000) existential authenticity has nothing to do with that of
the displayed objects. Instead, it corresponds to a potential existential
state of being, which is activated by the participant practices. According
to this perspective, tourists may feel that they themselves are much
more authentic when they engage in nonordinary activities, in which
they are more freely self-expressed than in daily life.
While the growing attention that is given to the subjectivity of tourist
experiences is clearly evident in the contexts of typologies and the
study of authenticity, a similar development seems to be instigated
within the study of heritage tourism (Poria, Butler and Airey 2003)
and urban tourism (Page 2002). In this context, Poria and colleagues
have recently challenged the inclination of previous studies to focus solely
on the supply of heritage attractions and its management (Crange
1999; Halewood and Hannam 2001; Hewison 1987; Garrod and Fyall
2000; Seale 1996). Instead, they suggest that individuals’ subjective perceptions
and behaviors are the core elements of heritage tourism experiences
and thus require emphasis. This point of view is also
highlighted by Ashworth (1998) who suggests that different individuals
perceive and encounter heritage spaces in different ways based on
their cultural background. Moreover, similar to Wang’s notion of existential
authenticity, Uzzell suggests that ‘‘museums and interpretive
centers can be seen as places where people come to understand themselves’’
(1998:16).
Toward Relative Interpretations. The question whether the distinction
made in the literature between modern and postmodern tourism reflects
upon concrete developments in the nature of the tourist experience
is a matter of intellectual debate. Yet, a comparison between the
early theories of modern tourism and later conceptualizations of postmodern
tourism reveals significant differences in terms of style and
form of theorizing. Specifically, it is suggested that while the former
conceptualize the tourist experience in terms of absolute truths, the
latter make use of concepts of relative truths. Thus, unlike the debates
between competing theories of modern tourism, the discourse between
different approaches of postmodern tourism is characterized
by compromising statements.

208 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
In addition to their tendency to homogenize the experience as a
general type, most of the early theorists were unified in their notion
of tourism as a modern phenomenon. Nevertheless, studies were dominated
by two competing standpoints in early days. One side of the debate
took the form of social criticism, in which tourism was perceived as
another example of cultural decadence in modern capitalist societies
(Barthes 1972; Boorstin 1964; Turner and Ash 1975). According to this
approach, the tourist experience was viewed as a superficial and trivial
quest for ‘‘pseudo-events’’ and artificial attraction. The opposing conceptual
approach was primarily presented by MacCannell (1973) who
conceptualized the experience as a meaningful modern ritual which
involves a quest for the authentic. The polemic between these two perspectives
was manifested in MacCannell’s direct attack against Boorstin’s
standpoint, to which he referred to as a snobbish attitude rather
than an academic analysis that is based on empirical research (Mac-
Cannell, 19731973:600). This attempt to de-legitimize the competing
approach illustrates the noncompromising style of discourse of the
early theories.
A change in the style and form of theorizing has been noticeable
since the late 70s and the early 80s, with the appearance of academic
publications that associate contemporary tourism-related practices
and experiences with postmodernist culture (Baudrillard 1983; Eco
1986; Featherstone 1991; Lash and Urry 1994; Munt 1994; Pretes
1995; Rojek 1995; Urry 1990). In this context, the term ‘‘postmodern
tourism’’ was utilized with regard to a variety of developments, including
the emergence of alternatives to the conventional mass tourism;
the flourishing of nature-related and environment-oriented holidays;
the growing attraction of nostalgia and heritage related sites; and the
growing quest for simulated and theme-oriented tourism attractions.
In spite of this inconsistency in the usage of the term ‘‘postmodern
tourism’’, it is possible to point toward two main developments associated
with the postmodern era: the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’
postmodern tourism (Munt 1994; Uriely 1997). The former is focused
around ‘‘hyperreal’’ experience and refers to simulated themeparks
and other contrived attractions as typical postmodern environments
(Baudrillard 1983; Eco 1986; Featherstone 1991; Fjellman 1992; Gottdiener
1995; Lash and Urry 1994; Pretes 1995; Urry 1990). Conceptualizations
of the ‘‘other’’ postmodern tourism stress the search for the
authentic and point to the growing appeal of the natural and the countryside
as postmodern expressions (Barrett 1989; Munt 1994; Poon
1989; Urry 1990).
The distinction between the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’ appears
to follow the aforementioned polarity within the earlier theories.
While the ‘‘simulational’’ development follows Boorstin’s notion of
‘‘pseudo-events’’ (1964), the trend toward the ‘‘other’’ is compatible
with MacCannell’s argument regarding the quest for authenticity
(1973). However, unlike the earlier notions of modern tourism, the
two dimensions of postmodern tourism do not derive from two opposing
camps of scholars. On the contrary, some of the important views
include both the ‘‘simulational’’ and the ‘‘other’’ dimensions in their

NATAN URIELY 209
complete portrayal of postmodern tourism (Urry 1990; Uriely 1997).
Furthermore, unlike former theories of modern tourism, both dimensions
generate complementary rather than contradictory perspectives.
For instance, Munt’s position regarding the ‘‘simulational’’ developments
is evident already in the first sentence of his work on the
‘‘other’’ postmodern tourism: ‘‘I do not set out to challenge these
but to consider figuratively the other possibilities of postmodern tourism’’
(1994:101).
CONCLUSION
The objective of this paper was to track and analyze conceptual developments
in the study of the tourist experience. In light of the ample academic
works regarding this subject and mainly its spread across several
subareas of tourism studies, an attempt to provide a complete literature
review was precluded in this paper. Thus, without claiming to capture all
of the developments in study of the tourist experience, this paper
identified four significant trends in its conceptualization: from differentiation
to re-differentiation of everyday life and tourism; from generalizing
to pluralizing portrayals of the tourist experience; from focusing
on the toured objects to the attention given to the role of subjectivity in
the constitution of experiences; and from contradictory and decisive
statements to relative and complementary interpretations.
In light of the first three conceptual developments the tourist experience
is currently depicted as an obscure and diverse phenomenon,
which is mostly constituted by the individual consumer. This perspective
regarding the nature of contemporary tourist experiences raises
several important issues that need to be dealt with by planners, managers,
and marketers. For example, the availability of various aspects
of the tourist experience in the routine of everyday life seems to
threaten future demands. In addition, the impact of practitioners in
the industry needs to be reexamined in light of the supposedly
increasing role of subjectivity. For instance, the possible constitution
of various experiences within the established category of individual
mass tourists (Wickens 2002) requires rethinking in terms of planning,
managing, and marketing resorts that host this tourist segment.
These, and other practical implications of recent conceptualizations,
need to be considered as important issues. Nevertheless, the analysis
carried out in this paper concerns mostly the consequences of the
four conceptual developments rather than on the practice of tourism
in real life.
By reviewing the four trends as a whole, it is argued that while the
early theories of the tourist experience complied with the so-called
‘‘modernist’’ form of theorizing in the social sciences, contemporary
conceptualizations of the same issue correspond to modes of analysis
referred to in the literature as ‘‘postmodernist’’ thought. In this
context, the association between postmodernist theorizing and practices
of deconstruction (Denzin 1991; Frazer 1989; Ryan 2002) is illustrated
in the first two developments, which emphasize processes of

210 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
de-differentiation. Specifically, the tendency of recent studies to de-differentiate
everyday life and tourist experiences deconstructs the early
definitions which emphasize distinctiveness. Practices of deconstruction
are also evident in the shift from generalizing toward pluralizing
depictions of the tourist experience, which involves two stages. In the
first, the early conceptualizations are deconstructed by the emergence
of tourist typologies. The second is manifested in recent studies that
deconstruct well-established typologies by stressing the diversity of tourist
experiences within each of the existing categories in these
typologies.
The third development presented in this study indicates how the
attention of researchers was shifted from the displayed objects to the
tourist subjective negotiation of meanings. This clearly illustrates
the inclination of postmodernist thought to stress the role of subjectivity
(Frazer 1989; Uriely et al 2002). The fourth development indicated
above—from debates that existed between competing standpoints of
modern tourism to the compromising nature of the discourse between
different interpretations of postmodern tourism—corresponds to the
nondualistic and anti-hierarchal intellectual attitude associated with
postmodernist modes of analysis (Bauman 1987; Denzin 1991; Lather
1991).
By utilizing the modernist/postmodernist dichotomy, this analysis
acknowledges that a general cultural change referred to in the literature
as postmodernity is underway, and that it affects various domains
of cultural activity, including the fashion of constructing knowledge in
tourism studies. Specifically, the analysis presented above suggests that
the depicted developments are not detached from a contemporary
trend in the social sciences addressed as ‘‘postmodernist thinking’’,
which is in itself a manifestation of a wider cultural change referred
to as postmodernity. Nevertheless, the modernist/postmodernist
dichotomy utilized in this analysis should not be grasped as a proposition
regarding the extent of change or competition that contemporary
conceptualizations introduce to the literature on the tourist experience.
Instead, it is suggested that contemporary conceptualizations of
the tourist experience introduce complementary extensions to the earlier
theories rather than a contrasting new approach that invalidates
them. For instance, the essentialist views of Boorstin (1964) and
MacCannell (1973) are included in Cohen’s phenomenological typology
of tourist experiences (1979), which is intersected with the differentiation
between institutionalized and noninstitutionalized tourists
(Cohen 1972) in order to create the recent subtypology that captures
the diversity among backpackers (Uriely et al 2002). In this process, later
conceptualizations seem to introduce additions rather than a contrasting
alternative to the logic of earlier works. In this respect, the
current analysis challenges the notion of postmodernist thinking as a
contesting and sharp departure from earlier modernist theorizing
(Bauman 1987, 1992; Denzin 1991; Flax 1990; Frazer 1989). Thus, it
is suggested that with regard to the specific trends in the literature
the term late modernist (Giddens 1990; Wang 2000) seems to be more
appropriate than postmodernist.

NATAN URIELY 211
The evaluation of the shift toward postmodernist or late modernist
theorizing in terms of its promises and threats to future research is required
as well. In this regard, one might appreciate the practice of
deconstruction, including the de-differentiating and the pluralizing
depictions of the tourist experience, for their rising sense of sensitivity
to the complexity and the diversity of tourism. Indeed, early generalizations
were not sensitive to issues such as gender-related or cultural
diversity. With respect to the former, for instance, Elsrud (2004) argues
against the lack of gender awareness in the literature although there is
so far no evidence suggesting a similarity between the ways in which
men and women interpret their tourist activities.
Similarly, most of the generalizing conceptualizations concern the
mind of the Western tourist, while ignoring other voices, whether
Japanese, Singaporean, or Brazilian (Elsrud 2004; Wang 2000). Thus,
pluralizing depictions of the tourist experience, which are sensitive to
gender or cultural diversity, seems to be appropriate for future research.
However, the inclination of earlier theories to generalize
and differentiate the tourist experience from the routine of daily life
is probably part of their attempt to capture the essence of the investigated
phenomenon rather than their lack of awareness of its
diversity. Such a modernist attempt to track the essence of a phenomenon
by generalizing is particularities aims to make sense of its diversity
rather than to deny it. By turning away from this fundamental
attempt of scientific practice, the recent deconstructions appear to
threaten the possibility of structuring future knowledge. In this respect,
the recent conceptualizations comply with the notion of postmodernist
thought as a destructive perspective, which fails to
elaborate sufficient alternatives for structuring knowledge (Antonio
1991; Gitlin 1989).
Therefore, in addition to their deconstruction in recent studies,
early conceptualizations of the tourist experience need to be reconstructed
in future studies. Specifically, further studies are encouraged
to redefine the current distinctions between tourist and everyday life
experience and to develop new typologies, which capture the logic of
contemporary variations. For instance, if work and tourism are currently
intertwined (Pizam et al 2000; Uriely 2001; Uriely and Reichel
2000), future studies should specify which types of work-related activities
are incorporated in contemporary tourist experiences. Questions
regarding the remaining similarities within institutionalized holidaymakers
or backpackers need also to be addressed in light of recent
studies, which stress the multiplicity of experiences that are available
within each of these conventional categories of tourism (Uriely et al
2002; Wickens 2002).
The postmodernist inclination toward subjectivity is another problematic
aspect of recent conceptualizations. First, it is suggested that
an approach that ignores the external opportunities or constraints imposed
on the individual cannot provide a complete depiction of the
tourist experience. Second, the focus on subjectivity could be seen as
a naive perspective, which assumes that tourism is an area of life that
facilitates a real freedom of choice. In contrast to this view, it is

212 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
suggested that like all other social activities, tourism and leisure are
also subjected to processes of class, ethnic, or gender related domination,
which impose constraints on the degree of freedom associated
with the tourist experience. Such a power-conflict perspective is applied
by Hollinshead (2002) who criticizes postmodernist thought for
ignoring the power of the industry to shape the interpretation of heritage
sites in line with the historical view of specific interest groups.
Third, ignoring the displayed objects provided by the industry assumes
that differences in interpretations are related solely to the characteristics
of the individual tourist. Nevertheless, it is also possible to assume
that some objects or forms of tourism are open to a wider variety of
interpretation than others.
Thus, future research should not ignore the nature of the specific
visited object or the particular form of tourism as a determinant of
the subjective experience. For example, questions regarding whether
independent excursions may be experienced in more various ways than
organized tours, or if all museums are alike in terms of the variety of
experiences available in their visitation, are to be empirically addressed
in future studies. Moreover, future studies should focus on the nature
of the relations between the objects and the subjects that constitute the
tourist experience. Such an attempt is illustrated in a recent study of
backpackers’ narratives, which argues for a cyclic relationship between
the institutional discourse provided by the industry, the experience of
the tourist, and its impact on the individual’s experience of self-change
(Noy 2004). Specifically, Noy suggests that a narrative of self-change
might be linked to the exceptionality of a subjective experience, which
could not separated from the uniqueness of the visited destinations as
constructed by the institutionalized discourse of tourism. Yet, the latter
is continually reshaped through the subjective narratives of adventure
and self-change that backpackers communicate to each other or wouldbe
backpackers before, during, and after their trip.
The aforementioned shift from contradictory and decisive statements
to relative and complementary interpretations of the tourist
experience is another matter of concern that needs to be addressed.
In this context, one might grasp this development as an indication
of the liberal approach and the sense of modesty on behalf of contemporary
researchers. Nevertheless, it is suggested that the debates that
existed between the early conceptualizations of modern tourism stimulated
further studies which support or challenge one of the conflicting
aforementioned theories. In contrast, the inclination of current
scholars to avoid debates and to accept seemingly conflicting phenomenon
under the category of postmodern tourism is congruent with the
statement that ‘‘under postmodernism anything goes’’ (Hollinshead
2002:198).
In conclusion, the shift toward postmodernist or late modernist theorizing
in the literature on the tourist experience was considered in
this paper as a complementary extension of earlier theories rather than
as a sharp and contrasting departure from earlier modernist theorizing.
However, it was also suggested that further steps in this direction
might threaten the possibility of structuring future knowledge in a

NATAN URIELY 213
solid way and result in partial and inconsistent understanding of the
tourist experience phenomenon. Finally, the analysis carried out in
this paper focused only on changes in the style and form of theorizing
the tourist experience. Other important issues, such as the need for a
gender perspective or the attention that should be given to nonwestern
tourists, were hardly addressed in this analysis. The need to address applied
and recommended methodologies in the study of the tourist
experience is another important issue, which was beyond the scope
of this analysis.
REFERENCES
Antonio, R.
1991 Postmodern Storytelling vs. Pragmatic Truth-seeking: The Discursive
Basis of Social Theory. Sociological Theory 9:154–168.
Ashworth, G.
1998 Heritage, Identity and Interpreting a European Sense of Place. In
Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation, D. Uzzell
and R. Ballantine, eds., pp. 112–132. London: The Stationary Office.
Barrett, F.
1989 The Independent Guide to Real Holidays Abroad. London: The
independent.
Barthes, R.
1972 Mythologies. London: Cape.
Baudrillard, J.
1983 Simulation. New York: Semiotext.
Bauman, Z.
1987 Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity Press.
1992 Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Best, S.
1994 Foucault, Postmodernism and Social Theory. In Postmodernism and
Social Inquiry, D. Dickens and A. Fontana, eds., pp. 25–52. New York: Guilford
Press.
Boorstin, D.
1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper.
Bruner, E.
1989 Tourism, Creativity, and Authenticity. Studies in Symbolic Interaction
10:109–114.
Callinicos, A.
1990 Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cohen, E.
1972 Toward a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39(1):
164–189.
1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Types. Sociology 13:179–201.
1988 Authenticity and Commodification in Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 15:371–386.
Crange, M.
1999 Making Kingdom or a Quixotic Quest for Authenticity?. Annals of
Tourism Research 23:415–431.
Curry, M.
1991 Postmodernism, Language and the Strains of Modernism. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 8:212.
Denzin, N.
1991 Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary
Cinema. London: Sage.
Eco, U.
1986 Travels in Hyper-reality. London: Picador.

214 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
Elsrud, T.
2004 Taking Time and Making Journeys: Narrative on Self and the Other
among Backpackers. Lund: Lund University Press.
Featherstone, M.
1991 Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Feifer, M.
1985 Going Places. London: Macmillan.
Fjellman, S.
1992 Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America. Boulder: Westview Press.
Flax, J.
1990 Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in
the Contemporary West. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Frazer, N.
1989 Talking about Needs: Interpretive Contests as Political Conflicts in
Welfare-State Societies. Ethics 99:291–313.
Garrod, B., and A. Fyall
2000 Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27:682–708.
Giddens, A.
1987 Structuralism, Post-structuralism and the Production of Culture. In Social
Theory Today, A. Giddens and J. Turener, eds., pp. 195–223. Stanford CA:
Stanford University Press.
1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gitlin, T.
1989 Postmodernism: Roots and Politics. Dissent 36:100–108.
Goffman, E.
1961 Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
1967 Interaction Ritual. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gottdiener, M.
1995 Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern
Life. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Halewood, C., and K. Hannam
2001 Viking Heritage Tourism: Authenticity and Commodification. Annals of
Tourism Research 28:565–580.
Harvey, D.
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hewison, R.
1987 The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London:
Methuen.
Hobsbawn, E., and T. Ranger
1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hollinshead, K.
2002 Playing with the past: Heritage Tourism under the Tyrannies of
Postmodern Discourse. InThe Tourist Experience, C. Ryan, ed., pp. 172–200.
London: Continuum.
Kaplan, A.
1988 Introduction. In Postmodernity and its Discontent , A. Kaplan, ed., pp. 1–9.
London: Verso.
Krippendorf, J.
1984 The Holidaymakers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel.
London: Heinemann.
Lash, S., and J. Urry
1987 The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
1994 Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Lather, P.
1991 Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern.
London: Sage.
MacCannell, D.
1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.
American Sociological Review 79:589–603.

NATAN URIELY 215
Morgan, W.
1995 Incredulity Towards Metanarratives and Normative Suicide: A Critique of
Postmodernist Drift in Critical Sport Theory. Sociology of Sport Journal
30:25–43.
Munt, I.
1994 The ‘Other’ Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the New Middle
Class. Theory, Culture and Society 11:101–123.
Noy, C.
2004 The Trip Really Changed Me: Backpackers’ Narratives of Self Change.
Annals of Tourism Research 31:78–102.
Page, S.
2002 Urban Tourism: Evaluating Tourists’ Experience of Urban Places. In
The Tourist Experience, C. Ryan, ed., pp. 112–136. London: Continuum.
Pearce, P.
1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. International Series in
Experimental Psychology (vol. 3). Oxford: Pergamon.
Pizam, A., N. Uriely, and A. Reichel
2000 The Intensity of Tourist–Host Social Relationship and its Effect on
Satisfaction and Change of Attitudes: The Case of Working Tourists in Israel.
Tourism Management 21:395–406.
Plog, S.
1977 Why Destinations Rise and Fall in Popularity. In Domestic and International
Tourism, E. Kelly, ed., pp. 26–28. Wellesley: Institute of Certified Travel
Agents.
Poon, A.
1989 Competitive Strategies for a New Tourism. In Progress in Tourist
Recreation and Hospitality Management (vol. 1) C. Cooper ed. London.
Belhaven.
Poria, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey
2003 Claryfing Heritage Tourism: A Distinction between Heritage Tourism
and Historic Places. Annals of Tourism Research 30:238–254.
Pretes, M.
1995 Postmodern Tourism: The Santa Claus Industry. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:1–15.
Rojek, C.
1995 Decentering Leisure Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Ross, A.
1988 Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Ryan, C.
2002 Stages, Gazes and Constructions of Tourism. In The Tourist Experience,
C. Ryan, ed., pp. 1–26. London: Continuum.
Ryan, C., and S. Birks
2000 Passengers at Hamilton International Airport. Unpublished Report for
Hamilton International Airport. Hamilton: University of Waikato.
Salamone, F.
1997 Authenticity in Tourism: The San Angel Inns. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:305–321.
Seale, R.
1996 A Perspective from Canada on Heritage and Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 23:484–488.
Silver, I.
1993 Marketing Authenticity in Third World Countries. Annals of Tourism
Research 20:302–318.
Smith, V.
1978 Hosts and Guests. Oxford: Blackwells.
Turner, V.
1973 The Center Out There: Pilgrim’s Goal. History of Religion 12:191–230.
Turner, L., and J. Ash
1975 The Golden Hordes. London: Constable.

216 THE TOURIST EXPERIENCE
Uriely, N.
1997 Theories of Modern and Postmodern Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:982–984.
2001 Touring Workers and Working Tourists: Variations Across the Interaction
Between Work and Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3:1–8.
Uriely, N., and A. Reichel
2000 Working Tourists in Israel and Their Attitudes Toward Hosts. Annals of
Tourism Research 27:267–284.
Uriely, N., Y. Yonay, and D. Simchai
2002 Backpacking Experiences: A Type and Form Analysis. Annals of Tourism
Research 29:519–537.
Urry, J.
1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies.
London: Sage.
Uzzell, D.
1998 Interpreting our Heritage: A Theoretical Interpretation. In Contemporary
Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation, D. Uzzell and
R. Ballantyne, eds., pp. 11–25. The Stationary Office: London.
Wang, N.
2000 Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Wickens, E.
2002 The Sacred and Profane: A Tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research
29:834–851.
Submitted 17 November 2003. Resubmitted 14 April 2004. Accepted 29 June 2004. Final
version 01 July 2004. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Ning Wang