Untitled

150 development era
studies is still a specialist subject, its concerns are
again central to mainstream social science. However,
the old dilemmas remain. There may be
considerable agreement on economic and other
changes occurring in a society, or on the nature of
modernity or the role of tourism, but whether they
are perceived as progressive depends on the
observer's perspective. Ultimately, all debates about
development are about progress, and this inevitably
involves value judgements. Tourism, as an
agent of change, has frequently been proposed as a
means of development. Although there has only
been a tenuous link between the mainstream
tourism and development literatures, the underlying
issues are common to both.
See also: acculturation; community development;
economic development
Further reading
Harrison, D. �1988) The Sociology of Modernisation and
Development, London: Routledge. �An introduction
to the major theories of development and
underdevelopment.)
de Kadt, E. �1979) Tourism:Passport to Development?
Perspective on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism
in Developing Countries, New York: Oxford University
Press. �A collection of articles on tourism
in less developed societies.)
Sklair, L. �ed.) �1994) Capitalism and Development,
London: Routledge. �Discusses the nature of
capitalist development and some major economic
sectors in less developed and newlyindustrialising
societies.)
Waters, G. �1995) Globalization, London: Routledge.
�Reviews of recent perspectives on economic,
political and cultural globalisation.)
development era
DAVID HARRISON, UK
The development of tourism is divided into three
main eras. That of `craftsmanship' is characterised
by spontaneous development, and by scarce skills
and technological applications. The era of `Fordism'
is characterised by the search of profit,
through standardisation and mass production.
Finally, the `new tourism era' has seen tourism
transformed primarily by segmentation of
demand, flexibility of supply and diagonal
integration �see also market segmentation).
deviance
AMPARO SANCHO-PEREZ, SPAIN
Deviance can simply mean behaviour which
differs from the norm. However, the term is often
used in a context where deviant behaviour is
viewed as being undesirable. Hence, when applying
the term to tourism, two perspectives can be
identified. First, as for most people, holiday taking
is a period of behaviour which differs from that of
their daily lives, with tourism itself being a form of
deviant behaviour. Second, the actual behaviour
shown by some tourists may be termed deviant if
it involves activities such as drug usage, excessive
drinking of alcohol or using services of prostitution.
However, it should be noted that such
behaviour may not necessarily be criminal.
Definitions of deviancy and what constitutes
deviant behaviour require a consideration of what
are the norms in a given context, who or what
determines them, who abides by them and why. To
argue that deviance is defined by the norm, that
the legitimate posits the illegitimate is only a partial
answer. A sociological definition is that deviance is
a structured rejection of dominant norms, a revolt
against current patterns of power. Additionally
deviance may be associated with concepts like
marginality and liminality. Both these terms
relate to the place apparently subordinate peoples
might occupy in society, and the terms have been
applied to indigenous people, gangs, prostitutes,
females in general and tourists. The distinctions
between deviance, marginality and liminality thus
overlap. From one perspective, liminal and marginal
people are those found as being at the margin
of the dominant groups within society. However,
writers have emphasised processes rather than
social places, thereby defining marginality as a
construct of the interaction, the interface between
that which is the dominant set of norms and that
which is subordinate, while liminality is the state of
eluding classification, the slipping through the