Tourism and Indigeneity in the Arctic

Arvid Viken, Dieter K. Müller, Arvid Viken, Dieter K. Müller

• Publisher: Channel View Publications
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781845416119
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Hostelería, viajes y turismo

This is the first book to exclusively address tourism and indigenous peoples in the circumpolar North. It examines how tourism in indigenous communities is influenced by academic and political discourses, and how these communities are influenced by tourism. The volume focuses on the ambivalence relating to tourism as a modern force within ethnic groups who are concerned with maintaining indigenous roots and traditional practices. It seeks to challenge stereotypical understandings of indigenousness and indigeneity and considers conflicting imaginaries of the Arctic and Arctic indigenous tourism. The book contains case studies from Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia and will be of interest to postgraduate students and researchers of tourism, geography, sociology, cultural studies and anthropology.

Part 1

Conceptualizing Arctic Indigeneity and Tourism

1Indigenous Tourism in the Arctic

Dieter K. Müller and Arvid Viken

Indigeneity and Tourism

This book is about indigenous tourism in the Arctic. The term ‘indigenous’ is employed not to designate a natural category, but rather as an academically constructed term to describe peoples who are not organized into self-determined national states, yet represent culturally or ethnically distinguishable groups – normally minorities – within a state dominated by a majority people. Because of their cultural uniqueness, indigenous groups tend to be of interest to tourists and those organizing tourism. Uniqueness means difference. Tourism is basically founded on differences – different natures, cultures and geographies. Although uniqueness and difference are realities, indigenous groups are also celebrated in stories around the world, or in the academic realm, in discourses that circulate among the public and academics. Thus, there is not just one way to interpret a culture, but numerous interpretations that are based on different ontologies, epistemologies and discourses. One of these discourses is about indigenousness, indigeneity and ethnicity, and how these phenomena and concepts entangle and reflect other discourses. Indigenousness and indigeneity represent perspectives that are products of time and space. Throughout the previous century, the focus has been on civilization, primitivism, particularism, assimilation and so on related to indigenous peoples (Butler & Hinch, 2007). The previous decade’s focus has shifted from the situation of indigenous groups to the indigeneity of all distinct cultural groups or peoples. These discussions are also important for the way that indigenous tourism is understood and practiced, as will be discussed in this and the next chapter.

Related to the discussion concerning who is indigenous and what is indigeneity, are questions both about the indigenous groups’ self-determination, autonomy and separate institutions and regimes, as well as those about groups’ integration into national state systems and market economy. Implicit are questions of power, participation and public acceptance. Indigenous groups have a particular position in the United Nations system. In this context indigenous peoples are usually defined as follows:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2013: 6)

The dominant philosophy is that indigenous groups shall be treated both as special and as an integrated part of national states. Most Arctic indigenous groups, therefore, are part of the welfare state regarding education, health and social services, and in some countries, are given special rights to land and natural resources. But as minorities, they tend to be forgotten, neglected, counteracted or marginalized. For Nordic countries, northern tourism is not a matter of indigenous control. In Norway, for example, indigenous tourism is handled by a half-public destination marketing organization (DMO), and politically is principally a marginal activity (Viken, 2016). In Sweden, attempts to create an independent Sami DMO have been abandoned. As a result, indigenous tourism is not necessarily a strong and emancipating industrial or societal development factor. This issue will also be discussed in this chapter, as a frame for the book as such.

Indigenous tourism is part of a larger tourism picture. Tourism is a phenomenon that is a product of and a contributor to the global economy. It is a market economy with its ups and downs. In earlier times, tourism was strongly influenced by national politics and regulations, such as taxes on outbound travel, license requirements for businesses and regulations for travel. In many countries, air traffic control was state run and strictly regulated until the 1990s, and in some northern regions, regulations tied to subsidies still exist. Though tourism in the Arctic is by no means a new phenomenon, the penetration of northern space by infrastructure is in many cases rather recent and accessibility is still expensive (Lundgren, 2001). Public sector involvement is hence often significant, not least since tourism development is expected to be a remedy for economic and social problems (Hull, 2001; Jenkins et al., 1998).

In some places, tourism has even been unwanted or banned in indigenous communities due to anticipated negative impacts. Nowadays, this seems strange as tourism is part of the economy and seen as a path for development. Such shifts can be related to the neoliberal turn in society, and a view of the economy as a free space for entrepreneurs, investors and every person. Therefore, it is argued that indigenous and ethnic groups and their interests have been commercialized. We shall elaborate on this perspective and its potential impacts.

This chapter is a presentation of the geographical area, and of the chapters in the book, whereas the next chapter gives a more thorough discussion of vital concepts and perspectives.

The Context of Indigenous Tourism in the Arctic

The Arctic is not a homogenous region when it comes to social, economic and political issues as the comprehensive overviews provided in the first and second volume of the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR, 2004, 2015) powerfully demonstrate.

Arctic tourism cannot be understood without acknowledging the colonial practices and particular political economies related to the areas’ history and presence as resource peripheries. In fact, it can be argued that it is exactly these relationships and their maintenance that construct the Arctic as a place worth visiting (Müller, 2013b).

Indigenous peoples are distributed all over the Arctic region; however, as Figure 1.1 indicates, they are seldom a majority. The opposite applies only in Greenland and in Nunavik and Nunavut. All these regions are, however, among the least populated areas of the Arctic. In the remaining parts of the Arctic, indigenous populations are outnumbered by non-indigenous populations, who, in some cases, have been present for hundreds of years. Furthermore, in the Nordic parts of the Arctic and western Siberia, besides Alaska, and in the most populated regions of the Arctic, indigenous populations seldom amount to more than 10% of the total population. Though European and partly Russian Arctic populations are in decline, this is not the case in North America where many indigenous groups are in fact increasing in numbers (AHDR, 2015). This, of course, creates distinct challenges in different parts of the Arctic where tourism is not only a means to create employment for the growing population in the American Arctic and in Russia, but it is also a means to attempt to hinder a further decline in population numbers. Additionally, tourism development implies not least an effort to offer employment for women in order to counteract skewed gender patterns.

The Arctic economy is traditionally based on three pillars (AHDR, 2004, 2015). First, large-scale resource extraction has been a major force behind interest in the north and has traditionally also been a major reason for infrastructure provision. Secondly, traditional activities have been another important part of the economy. And finally, transfers from southern governments have brought about public sector employment and various forms of support to northern residents. However, resource cycles repeatedly put pressure on Arctic labor markets as do economic crises and shrinking public spending (Clapp, 1998; Müller, 2013a). The demilitarization of the region after the cold war has further caused declining investment in the region. Hence, increasingly private entrepreneurial activities are anticipated in order to sustain and create new livelihoods in the region. In this context, it is important to realize that preconditions vary across the Arctic region. The Nordic parts of the Arctic are rather densely populated and have vibrant cities featuring institutions of higher education, a cultural life and a variety of public and private services (Keskitalo et al., 2013). Moreover, they are accessible by airplane, by car and sometimes even by train. In contrast, remote regions of Siberia and North America largely lack these assets, which then presupposes different preconditions even for tourism development.

Figure 1.1 Indigenous population in the Arctic regions 2010 (Source: Nordregio)

Though tourism in the Arctic is not a new phenomenon, interest has recently increased, as manifested by a growing number of scientific publications (Grenier & Müller, 2011; Hall & Saarinen, 2010; Lemelin et al., 2013; Maher et al., 2011; Müller et al., 2013; Viken & Granås, 2014). In this literature, it is forcefully argued that recent tourism development in the Arctic is because of a growing awareness of Arctic issues. Climate change, vanishing sea ice, a renewed race for Arctic resources and new potential transport routes are some of the reasons why Arctic issues are covered in the media. Arctic tourism is hence sometimes depicted as ‘last chance tourism’ (Lemelin et al., 2010). Still, some Arctic areas are relatively difficult to reach and the costs of getting there and being there are high (Hull, 2001; Lundgren, 2001). However, some Arctic destinations like the North Cape, the Icehotel in Kiruna, the Santa Park in Rovaniemi and the Gulf of Alaska have developed into mass tourism destinations regardless of these issues (Müller, 2015), while other regions are hardly visited and sometimes strive for increased development. As a consequence, the north is increasingly constructed as an international tourism space comprising not least a touristic wilderness (Pedersen & Viken, 1996; Saarinen, 2005).

Indigenous tourism has to be seen in the context of a changing Arctic vacillating between traditionalism and modernity. As argued above, resource extraction and military activity have certainly brought modernity to Arctic regions and though such industries can be seen as important preconditions for tourism, they compete for land use, labor and attention (Müller, 2011, 2013a). Hence, in many Arctic states, even members of indigenous populations have alternatives in terms of employment, education and lifestyles. They can stay or leave the area and their career is not contingent upon traditional activities (Leu & Müller, 2016). Thus, tourism is not the only option for making a livelihood and even indigenous peoples have the opportunity to avoid active involvement in tourism. Instead, tourism is a career choice for others; it is an economic decision, though it sometimes relates to expectations and the desire to disseminate knowledge about culture and history as well (Müller & Kuoljok Huuva, 2009; Tuulentie, 2006).

It is against this background that this book has been developed. While tourism development is feared by some as an intruder and a threat to indigenous culture, it is embraced by others as an opportunity to support indigenous livelihoods and to enable people to stay in their peripheral homelands. We think that this dichotomy is too simplistic. It reifies stereotypes of indigenous peoples as targets rather than as agents of development. Hence, not least in a welfare state context, indigenous people may choose the livelihoods they desire although this has to be done within a complex ethnopolitical context where ample expectations regarding the indigenous populations are voiced (Müller & Kuoljok Huuva, 2009; Müller & Pettersson, 2006; Tuulentie, 2006; Viken & Müller, 2006). Hence, this book aims at contributing to a more comprehensive debate on the nexus of tourism, societal change and indigenous people.

The Book’s Profile, Authors and Chapters

Part of the criticism directed toward writings about indigenous peoples, particularly from people from the south, is that the authors of these works tend to be representative of the colonial sphere, even in the era of postcolonialism. They seek a real decolonization of academic writing, and for a more prominent place for alternative voices (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015). It is argued that it is the colonial perspectives, epistemologies and discourses through which indigenous groups tend to be observed and analyzed. Thus, indigenous tourism tends to be run, and academically analyzed, by representatives or ancestors of the earlier colonizers. With respect to the Arctic indigenous community, the notion of the North American Arctic still dominates public thought and scientific imagination and has led to the construction of a stereotypic image of the Arctic as remote, isolated and backward (Keskitalo et al., 2013). Moreover, definitions of the Arctic are usually based on physical features like the tree line (Müller, 2013b). This causes the Arctic to be depicted as a natural region and mainly neglects the long-term presence and impact of people, particularly indigenous people, on Arctic landscapes. This also applies to tourism. As Viken (2013) claims, hegemonic structures imply that the narrative of polar tourism is constructed by scholars outside the Arctic, sometimes leading to peculiar accounts of problems and challenges. But also within the industry, the Arctic is mainly constructed as a wilderness, sometimes neglecting or obscuring the role and presence of indigenous peoples (de la Barre, 2013; Grimwood, 2015; Johnston, 2011).

Most of the contributors to this book live and work within the Arctic. However, only a few of the authors can claim to represent indigenous groups. Thus, some of the above criticism can also be applied here. And certainly, ontologies and epistemologies of the West are applied in the analyses. However, there is a difference from the critics’ views concerning Africa and Asia; the indigenous groups analyzed are Western, and more or less modernized. It still, however, can be said that the contributions are made from outside an indigenous ontology and epistemology, if such entities exist. Moreover, though the ambition of the book had been to be circumpolar, the final result has a clear focus on the Nordic countries and the Sami. This mirrors the current scientific debate on indigenous tourism, which seems to be more prominent in the European part of the Arctic and, of course, also the professional networks of the editors who both work at universities in the European Arctic. Nevertheless, the bo...