Development of Tour Uriely 2005

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