Tourism, Diasporas and Space

Tim Coles, Dallen J. Timothy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134386574
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

Diasporas result from the scattering of populations and cultures across geographical space and time. Transnational in nature and unbounded by space, they cut across the static, territorial boundaries more usually deployed to govern tourism. In a vibrant inter-disciplinary collection of essays from leading scholars in the field, this book introduces the main features and constructs of diasporas, and explores their implications for the consumption, production and practices of tourism. Three sets of mutually reinforcing relationships are explored:

• experiences of diaspora tourists
• the settings and spaces of diaspora tourism
• the production of diaspora tourism.

Addressing the relationship between diasporic groups and tourism from both a consumer and producer perspective, examples are drawn from a wide spectrum of diasporic groups including the Chinese, Jewish, Southeast Asian, Croatian, Dutch and Welsh.

Until now, there has been no systematic and detailed treatment of the relationships between diasporas, their consumptions and the tourist experience. However, here, Coles and Timothy provide a unique navigation of the nature of these inter-connections which is ideal for students of tourism, sociology, cultural studies.

1 ‘My field is the world’
Conceptualizing diasporas, travel and tourism

Tim Coles and Dallen J. Timothy

Tourism, migration and mobility: a missing piece of the jigsaw?

The quotation in the title is inspired by a photograph in Alan Kraut’s (1982: 112) monograph The Huddled Masses: The Immigrant in American Society, 1880–1921. Dated circa 1900, the photograph depicts a scene in the departure hall of a German steamship company. Written in German and painted on the wall in bold Latin typeface for all to see, emigrants were offered this thought to reflect upon as they queued to secure passage on a Hamburg-Amerika steamer. In many respects, it encapsulates the themes and issues addressed by this book as well as the situation confronting the future émigré just prior to departure: the world of opportunities for travel and migration; the widespread reach and development of communications systems; spatially-extended communities linked by complex social networks articulated through major global nodes; for better or worse, new migrants’ experiences along the way and wherever they may finally settle; the possibility of return; and, finally, the unfolding impact of each of these (and other) aspects on the migrants’ identities as their journeys are recalled, appraised and acted upon.

Over a century has elapsed since the photograph was taken. Time and space have compressed; communications have become more straightforward, rapid and efficient not least through the Internet; and more extensive, intricate transnational social networks have emerged. As Urry (2000: 154) observes, ‘most societies are not nations, let alone nation-states’. Instead, the world is now characterized by the proliferation of ‘nation peoples’. These groups are defined by varying kinds and degrees of displacement and ambiguous location and, according to Urry, many may be regarded as diasporic. According to Mitchell (1997a: 534), ‘diaspora’ has been used by most scholars in a working sense to describe ‘the situation of a people living outside of their traditional homeland’. Barber’s (2001: 178) equally brief definition views diasporas as ‘communities that define themselves by reference to a distant homeland from which they once originated’.

The aim of this book is to explore the contemporary connections and relationships between diasporas and tourism. It focuses on diaspora tourism, or tourism primarily produced, consumed and experienced by diasporic communities. Here, the intention is to concentrate on the relationship between the diasporic condition and the production and consumption of tourism for diasporas themselves rather than diasporas as exotic Others to be gazed upon (Urry 1990). In particular, we focus on three sets of themes that are beginning to emerge in tourism studies of diaspora: namely, diaspora experiences of tourism; the spaces occupied by diaspora tourists; and the production of tourism for and by diasporic communities. The book attempts to bridge the disciplinary divide between diaspora and tourism. According to Edward Bruner (1996: 290), ‘the literature on diaspora and hybridity has on the whole neglected tourism, perhaps because tourist visits are thought to be temporary and superficial’. In his view this is a regrettable position because,

travellers such as migrants, refugees, exiles, expatriates, émigrés, explorers, traders, missionaries and even ethnographers may also travel for limited periods of time. To develop travelling theory, we need to know more about all patterns of travel (Clifford 1989), including tourism (Bruner and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1994).

(Bruner 1996: 290)

Irrespective of whether metaphors such as ‘travel’ and ‘journeys’ (cf. Clifford 1997) are deployed to unravel diasporic identities, diaspora studies has by and large bypassed tourism as a consideration in the mediation and sustainability of diasporic communities. While Bruner’s criticism places much of the blame for the estrangement squarely at the door of diaspora studies, tourism studies is equally culpable of having overlooked diasporas. To date, there has been just tacit recognition of the relevance of diasporic communities. This is notwithstanding their relevance as a key type of community and hence a basic constituency to be acknowledged in contemporary tourism management (Richards and Hall 2000: 2–3). Equally axiomatic has been the treatment of the distinctive cultural capital diasporas offer for commodification in place imagery and destination marketing (van Hear 1998; Richards and Hall 2000; Klemm 2002) and the role played by some diasporic migrants in servicing the tourism and hospitality sectors in cities as reserves of relatively low cost, non-militant, often unskilled labour (Eade 2000; Williams and Hall 2000a,b; Church and Frost 2004).

This schism is reflective of a similar separation between tourism and migration. Although both talk to the same basic theme of mobility, as Williams and Hall (2000a,b) contend, tourism and migration as subject areas have been uneasy companions until recently. Put more emphatically, they argue that,

the largely discrete literatures on tourism and migration have, at best, served to mark out the core areas of their research concerns. The failure to conceptualize adequately and define their fields of enquiry has … [led to] very few attempts to disentangle the changing relationships between tourism and migration … [which represent] an increasingly important component of the new forms of mobility.

(Williams and Hall 2000b: 7)

According to Feng and Page (2000: 247), one of the reasons for the ring-fencing was that population geography and migration research were not valorized as key issues within the dominant tourism research agenda (cf. Hall and Page 1999; Shaw and Williams 2002, 2003). While more mundane, functional definitions conceptualized tourism as temporary or short-term migration away from home (Cooper et al. 1998: Hall and Page 1999; Shaw and Williams, 2002), paradoxically there was an unwillingness to engage in a more sustained, theoretical debate to explore the increasingly mutually implicated natures of tourism and migration in the late twentieth century. In this context, scattered populations of migrants were relegated primarily as the subjects for ethnic tourism and as travellers likely to undertake religious and secular pilgrimages practically as socio-cultural rites of passage (Shair and Karan 1979; Hudman and Jackson 1992; Park 1994; Vukonic´ 1996; Hall 2002; Jutla 2002; Olsen and Timothy 2002). Tourism was primarily portrayed as a lens through which visitors could gaze on exotic Other ethnic communities and indigenous groups (Urry 1990; MacCannell 1992; King 1994). Critical debates attended such issues as the authenticity and alleged perversion of local cultures in the face of pressure from tourists (Adams 1997; Wood 1998) and the ethnic politics of tourism development (Pitchford 1995; van der Berghe 1995; Callahan 1998; Jamison 1999; Wall 1999).

Détente has characterized the more recent relationship between tourism and migration. Of late, two collections in particular, have explored the interactions between tourism and migration at the turn of the twenty-first century (Williams and Hall 2000a; Hall and Williams 2002). One of their central messages is that globalization has stimulated new forms of travel, tourism and migration whose production and consumption are intricately bound together (Williams and Hall 2000b; Oigenblick and Kirschenbaum 2002). In one sense, they concur with Franklin and Crang’s (2001: 11) clarion call that ‘. . . tourism should search for links with other mobilities such as commuting, mobile labour markets, migration and Diasporas [sic]’. Notwithstanding, we would contend that, among these groups, diasporas have not been afforded the consideration that their status in contemporary transnational, global society would merit. Rather, they have been marginalized in recent discourses on tourism and mobility in favour of such themes as second-home ownership and retirement migrations (Williams et al. 1997; Tomljenovic and Faulkner 2000). The contributions presented in this book attempt to energize greater discussion about, and debate over, the connectivities between diasporas and tourism. Diasporas are complex entities. Almost inevitably, it is impossible here to review in any great detail the full intricacies and nuances of the discourses on diaspora. In what remains, we attempt to contextualize the subsequent chapters by offering an introduction to diasporas and their linkages with tourism consumption and production.

Towards conceptualization of diaspora

Diaspora is a word with long and rich historical lineage. For Helmreich (1992: 245), the etymology of word ‘diaspora’ may be traced back to the Greek word for ‘dispersion’ from the words for ‘through’ and ‘sow or scatter’ and originates in the Greek translation of the ‘Book of Deuteronomy’ in the Bible. Braziel and Mannur (2003) note that through its religious significance, the term was pervasive in medieval rabbinical writings about the Jewish diaspora and the predicament of Jews living outside Palestine.

Definitions and conceptualizations of diaspora are fluid and contested and have been the focus of considerable debate. Diasporas are groups of people scattered across the world but drawn together as a community by their actual (and in some cases perceived or imagined) common bonds of ethnicity, culture, religion, national identity and, sometimes, race. ‘Diaspora suggests a dislocation from the nation-state or geographical location origin and a relocation in one or more nation-states, territories, or countries’ (Braziel and Mannur 2003: 1). Several writers note the importance of the original point of dispersal, the ‘homeland’, as occupying a focal point in the mediation of diasporic identity (Safran 1991). For instance, Sheffer (1986: 3) regards modern diasporas as ‘ethnic minority groups of migrant origins residing and acting in host countries but maintaining strong sentimental and material links with their countries of origin – their homelands’. Although diasporic communities vary greatly, Cohen (1997: ix) contends that, irrespective of their historical trajectories and experiences, all ‘acknowledge that the “old country” – a notion buried deep in language, religion, custom or folklore – always has some claim on their loyalty and emotions’. Moreover, ‘a member’s adherence to a diasporic community is demonstrated by an acceptance of an inescapable link with their past migration history and a sense of co-ethnicity with others of a similar background’. James Clifford (1994, 1997), in contrast, warns of the problems of over-emphasizing origin and return. He draws attention to the extent of scattering; the lateral reach and complexity of intra-diasporic networks; and the geopolitical juxtapositions of diasporas. For him,

diasporas usually presuppose longer distances and a separation more like exile: a constitutive taboo on return, or its postponement to a remote future. Diasporas also connect multiple communities of a dispersed population. Systematic border crossings may be a part of this interconnection, but multilocale diaspora cultures are not necessarily defined by a specific geopolitical boundary.

(Clifford 1997: 246)

Diasporic processes and communities are not always the outcomes of voluntary actions. Robin Cohen (1997: ix) acknowledges that ‘when applied to humans, the ancient Greeks thought of diaspora as migration and colonization’ but for several groups – Jews, Palestinians and Armenians notable among them – diaspora has had much more sinister historical connotations, signifying as it does a sense of group identity resulting from collective trauma, banishment and exile. Paul Gilroy (1993) underscores the horror and cruelty of slavery in mediating the black Atlantic diaspora (see also Bruner 1996). Cohen (1997: 27) points to the origins of the Armenian diaspora in trade and commerce, only for brutal treatment at the hands of the Turks to lead to their forced displacement from 1915 to 1916. A similar scenario, he contends, was played out by the Irish at the hands of the British as migration followed the famine of 1845 to 1852.

Based on comparative readings of diaspora histories, several authors have attempted to define diaspora not by any single meta-statement, but rather based on a series of common characteristics and principal components (Safran 1991; Cohen 1997; Shuval 2000). Safran (1991: 83–4) postulated six attributes that captured the essence of diasporic communities. Not entirely satisfied with what he terms ‘Safran’s desiderata’, Cohen (1997: 23) argued that there was too great an emphasis on the relationship between the diaspora and its homeland. Instead, he reworked the schematic principally to orientate it more towards the condition of the diaspora beyond the homeland; that is, in terms of scattering for aggressive or voluntarist reasons, the positive virtues of retaining a diasporic identity while abroad and the power of collective identity expressed not just with the homeland but also in the place of settlement and with co-ethnic members in other countries. The result was a definitional scheme for diaspora based on nine common characteristics (Box 1.1).

Box 1.1 Robin Cohen’s nine common features of a diaspora

1. Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions
2. Alternatively, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions
3. A collective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location, history and achievements
4. An idealization of the putative ancestral home and a collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation
5. The development of a return movement that gains collective approbation
6. A strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based on a sense of distinctiveness, a common history and belief in a common fate
7. A troubled relationship with host societies, suggesting a lack of acceptance at the least or the possibility that another calamity might befall the group
8. A sense of empathy and solidarity with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement
9. The possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism.

Source: adapted from Cohen (1997: 26).

This diagnostic is an idealized one and one which has been compiled by reference to several diasporas. As the listing is a composite, Cohen recognizes that not all the characteristics have to be evident in every contemporary diasporic grouping. Similarly, the exact assemblages and strengths of the characteristics will vary among different sub-groups and intra-diasporic constituencies. A similar logic is asserted by Judith Shuval (2000) with her definitional schematic (Table 1.1). Responding to a concern that diaspora ‘encompasses a motley array of groups such as political refugees, alien residents, guest workers, immigrants expellees, ethnic and racial minorities and overseas communities’ (Shuval 2000: 41), she proposes a general framework, the attributes of which are intended to allow robust and structured comparison between different types of diasporas. For her, diasporas may also be defined more clearly by reference to the characteristics of, and within, host society and its disposition(s) towards diaspora groups.

Beyond checklist approaches, Cohen (1997) proposes a five-fold typology of diasporas based on commonalities of experiences and the structural processes mediating diaspora. Victim Diasporas such as the Jews, the African diaspora, the Armenians and the Palestinians are typified by their forced and traumatic displacement from a territory, not least resulting from (nation-)state formation or denial. In contrast, Cohen (1997: 57) argues that Labour Diasporas, as exemplified by the Indians under British Rule, arise from scattering in pursuit of work. He notes, however, that not all groups who migrate internationally need necessarily be described as diasporas. The British are regarded as the quintessence of Imperial Diasporas. Like the Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, French and Germans, the British scattered to further their colonial ambitions. Similarly, Trade Diasporas refer to extended networks of merchants, traders and entrepreneurs who carry out their business by buying, selling, trading and marketing their goods and services over long distances. These are exemplified by the reach of Chinese traders in southern and east Asia and Lebanese merchants in West Africa and the Americas. Finally, Cohen (1997: 127) proposes Cultural Diasporas as an attempt to address the postmodernists’ fascination with the ‘collective identity of homeland and nation [which] is a vibrant and constantly changing set of cultural interactions that fundamentally question the very ideas of “home” and “host”‘. For Hague (2001: 145), a cul...

Table of contents

• Cover page
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Tourism, diasporas and space
• Contemporary geographies of leisure, tourism and mobility
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1: ‘My field is the world’ conceptualizing diasporas, travel and tourism
• Part I: Diasporic experiences of tourism
• Part II: Settings and spaces for diaspora tourism
• Part III: Mobilizing diasporas for tourism