Trekking activities involve mostly western tourists and are organised largely by ‘lowland’ Thais with little knowledge of hill societies. The guides that escort the tourists on the trek often have the role of information supplier to the inquisitive visitors and the information given about the hill peoples is often inaccurate, or loaded with prejudice and falsities that many Thais have of hill minorities. The treks can be seen to be part of a process of cultural change in the area, but we must remain conscious of the other processes that are resulting in this change as well as those caused by tourism development. Trekking guides often describe opium smoking as a ‘traditional’ part of Akha culture, and many trekkers engage in this activity during their stay in the village. In reality, opium smoking is usually the domain of aged men who smoke it to relieve muscular aches and pains. As Toyota discovered, young people would look down on the smoking of opium, but were beginning to take up the habit due to emotional pressures brought about by poverty. Trekking guides would often initiate sales of opium to the tourists, and villagers would become embroiled in the process, sometimes taking up the habit themselves. Trekking has also initiated a process whereby villagers become less engaged with their agricultural duties and more interested in the economic benefits to be accrued from tourists. However, it is mostly the guides and trekking agencies in Chiang Mai that benefit from the tourist’s funds, with the hill peoples’ seeing little monetary gain.
As many researchers are now stating in growing numbers of studies concerning the anthropology of tourism, and as Toyota also states in her study of trekking tourism, a “normative cost-benefit framework, which assesses whether effects are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is too simplistic if we are to analyse the dynamic process of socio-cultural change[.]” (Toyota, 1996:227) An analysis of the impacts of tourism on the cultures of Southeast Asia, should remain aware that culture is not a homogenous, bounded or static entity, and should follow the anthropological perspective, which now views culture as a “social construction which is negotiated, debated, created, and transformed in processes of social interaction. [Moreover, anthropologists] have become much more aware that tourism as a potential origin of change is part of other large-scale processes of modernisation and development.” (King, 1999:188) Viewing culture in this way we can see that the peoples of Southeast Asia are not inert recipients of tourism influences because they are able to adapt to the changes which are taking place, and can do this in myriad and individualistic ways. Toyota stresses the importance of recognising the host society as a responsive group. “If we only look at the people of the host society as a passive target of the strong penetration of the wider world, it might constrain our ability to see the fact that villagers are not just passive recipients of outside influences, but respond to new opportunities and constraints.” (Toyota, 1996:237)
Changes may be instigated through a process of acculturation, “when two cultures come into contact with each other one becomes somewhat like the other through a process of borrowing.” (Nunez, 1989:266) This process is usually asymmetrical (with hosts more likely to borrow to from their guests), and should not be isolated from other processes, such as modernisation, which is also contributing to change. In a similar vein, what may at first appear as a loss of traditional culture as a result of tourism and viewed negatively may be conditioned by other processes and interpreted in different ways. “Since culture is a product of interpretation, rather than a self-contained entity, its interpretation varies and depends upon whose perspective it is viewed from. In this sense the tourism setting can be understood as a crossroads of different interpretations.” (Toyota, 1996:232) Furthermore, a particular interpretation of culture can be the result of a particular motivation. For example, guides may present a misleading image of Akha people to the trekkers in order to benefit from opium sales. These interpretations and subsequent misrepresentations of culture offered to the tourists reflect the economic interests of the guides, who are part of the dominant social group. They are then reinforced, perhaps, by the preconceived notions that the tourist might take with them of what a hill tribe culture should be like. This process creates a misleading portrayal of hill minorities which is detrimental to their culture. A lack of understanding with regard to minority cultures can result in inappropriate development planning and implementation. An anthropological perspective could increase this understanding and would help promulgate the importance of indigenous knowledge in the development process.
In many other instances tourism has been criticised for introducing negative influences, such as consumerism, which is seen to result in an erosion of traditional values. The reality is of course much more complex, as is illustrated in Michel Picard’s study on cultural tourism in Bali, and in Philip Frick McKean’s research (also in Bali), which contends that tourism actually reinforces cultural traditions and can even “revitalize their social fabric and customs within the changed conditions wrought by the tourist industry.” (McKean, 1989:119) McKean purports that tourism is bringing about a process of ‘cultural involution’ in Bali, whereby as well as the occurrence of a modernisation process; tourism introduces new ideas and monetary benefits. However, the tourists still “expect the perpetuation of ancient traditions, especially in the performing and plastic arts, and would not visit in such numbers if Bali were to become a thoroughly modern island” (McKean, 1989:123). McKean goes on to argue that economic prosperity is seen to be based on cultural production, conflicting with the notion that culture is a static entity. This process, we could contend, would make the Balinese heavily dependent on tourism as a source of income, and indeed the devastating brutality of the Bali Bomb in October 2002 has dramatically affected the islands economy and visitor numbers have dramatically fallen. McKean states that the Balinese understand tourism to be an unreliable source of income and that this uncertainty encourages the conservation of social bonds. McKean’s argument is, of course, open to debate, but if tourism is actually resulting in a process of cultural production in Bali, then the impact it if having moves us away from the contention that tourism erodes traditional culture; it is in fact, helping to create it.
Picard’s analysis of cultural tourism focuses on the idea that “[f]ar from being an external force striking a local society from without, tourism…proceeds from within…Therefore, instead of asking whether or not Balinese culture has been able to withstand the impact of tourism, we should ask how tourism has contributed to the shaping of Balinese culture.” (Picard, 1997:183) Picard also states that the tourism process should be conceptualised in able to understand it more deeply, so in the case of Bali, he argues that “the ‘touristification’ of Balinese culture should be considered within the context of the ‘colonisation’ of Bali and its subsequent ‘Indonesianisation’”. (Picard, 1993:72) He goes on to chart the conceptualisation process of Balinese culture, and then notes that as soon as it was constructed people began to fear that it would disappear and it became something fragile that should be protected. In this process there has been involvement from the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture, which has begun to define Balinese ‘culture’ within a concept of a national ‘Indonesian’ culture. This has led to a lack of involvement from Balinese representatives in development planning, such as the Master Plan for the Development of Tourism in Bali. Picard criticises this plan as one which was preoccupied with generating foreign exchange and was not mindful of the Balinese context. “Thus, Balinese culture is now being sifted and sorted into those elements appropriate for the national culture, which are supported and financed and therefore re-vitalized, and those closely tied to Balinese ethnic identity which are undermined” (King, 1999:203). Furthermore, “Balinese culture, having been Balinesed, has recently been ‘touristified’, ‘folklorized’, and ‘Indonesianized’, and Balinese ethnic identity ‘provincialized’ (Picard, 1996:198). This manipulation of ‘culture’ is directly related to the economic benefits to be gained through tourism development.
Tourism is often viewed as one of the main threats to culture, but it is very difficult to separate the effects of tourism from other processes. The Indonesian government has sought to promote mass tourism on the island of Bali in their five year development plans. The Balinese authorities also stated their ideas and requirements for promotion of tourism; for them, ‘cultural tourism’, was the most suitable. However, the Balinese have remained conscious that tourism brings with it modernisation and this is somewhat feared. “Tourism in [Balinese] eyes appears at once as the most promising source of economic development and as the most subversive agent for the spread of foreign cultural influences on Bali” (Picard, 1993:85). So, there is an obvious dilemma regarding tourism in the Balinese context, as a result, if tourism were seen to be destroying Balinese culture then Bali would begin to lose its appeal. So tourism has become an integral part of Bali and has encouraged the Balinese into being more interested in promoting their culture than trying to assess the impacts that it may have created. The Balinese context does indeed demonstrate the importance of viewing culture as a fluid entity and thus shows the need for increased participation from local people in the planning and management of development projects to ensure that it is appropriate to local needs.
By looking at the conceptualisation of culture in various Southeast Asian contexts, it may be easier to understand the relationship between tourism and cultural change. In addition, an understanding of this relationship could help ameliorate some of the less desirable impacts that are taking place, as either a result of tourism or as a result of misrepresentation of minority cultures by majority groups. Anthropologists could be useful in the acquiring and distribution of this knowledge. As has been discussed, it is too simplistic to argue that the effects of tourism are ‘good’ or ‘bad’; furthermore, it is also difficult to differentiate between the effects of tourism and the effects of other processes. Many studies have focused on the adverse socio-cultural effects, such as Bird’s study on the Malaysian island of Langkawi, which celebrates ‘tradition’, a concept viewed as containing no external or essentially ‘Western’ elements. Culture here is seen as something that should be preserved almost like a museum piece and not a symbolically constituted concept. Interestingly, much of the tourism in Langkawi is from ASEAN countries and so many cultural traits are shared. We should not assume that tourism is strictly Caucasian. Indeed, King argues that “I do not see much evidence that, tourism, rather than other processes of change, is as yet having a generally detrimental influence on Malaysian cultures” (King, 1993:114) As the Balinese context has shown, and as appears to be happening amongst the hill minorities of Northern Thailand, the tourists are interested in seeing an image of what they perceive to be a ‘remote’ culture. Cultural tourism is interested in experiencing this ‘remoteness’ by being involved in what is seen as a ‘traditional’ practice. This may concern watching Balinese ceremonial performances and Akha ‘traditional’ dances, or smoking opium, which is seen as a ‘traditional’ healer, and a substance perceived to be synonymous with the Akha way of life.
To help understand the changes that are taking place, the anthropological perspective makes use of a variety of factors that should be taken into account to better comprehend the processes that are taking place. The anthropologist’s role is thus one of “advocate and…informed critic – to point to inequalities generated by tourism development, advise governments and communities on how to reach agreements on aims and objectives, and suggest other modes of achieving economic development [.]” (King, 1999:197) King also states that in order to assess whether tourism in Malaysia was culturally corrosive he found it was “necessary to begin to build up a broader picture of tourism there; the scale of tourist activity; the length of stay; whether tourist sites are physically concentrated or dispersed; the kinds of activities available in the country and the sorts of tourists who go there.” (King, 1999:195) These factors must also be considered when planning for the changes that are taking place as a result of tourism development. Anthropologists purport that effects change over time, so “what was considered deleterious at one time may be considered beneficial at another, and vice versa.” (Hitchcock et al., 1993:6) This is particularly evident in the Balinese context, wherein there has been a transformation of culture over time which is intimately linked with tourism development. Similarly, anthropologists believe it is necessary to be aware of the kinds of tourism that are promoted according to particular contexts and they view the scale of tourism as an important factor in determining levels of change. Crucially, as has been an underlying theme of this discussion, it is difficult to differentiate the effects of tourism from other processes e.g. modernisation, urbanisation and industrialisation, it thus becomes problematic when talking about the ‘negative impacts of tourism’, because other processes are usually occurring in conjunction with tourism and tourism development.
It is within the contextual variations of these issues that I believe the role of anthropologists to be most useful. Anthropologists often have deep knowledge of particular contexts and will usually be able to give sound advice to development planners on which course of action may be most suitable. Mckean’s findings, which have been previously discussed, were influential among Balinese policy makers, who then used income from tourism to sustain traditional cultural acts and also invested in the promotion of cultural events. Of course, there is no one better than the people themselves to decide what is best for them and when, but an anthropologist can act as a medium for the views of indigenous peoples and the officials and planners who could be directing their future. The anthropological perspective places importance on the value of indigenous knowledge. “[It is important] to understand…local perceptions, views and ideas. This is not for the purpose of preserving them in the celebration of ‘tradition’…but of using them constructively and adapting development interventions to them, rather than dismissing them as ‘irrational’ or as ‘obstacles’ to change.” (King, 1999:213)
In this essay I have discussed the impacts of tourism on the cultures of Southeast Asia, with particular emphasis placed on the way culture is perceived and theorised. I have shown that many anthropologists still view tourism as having either positive or negative effects on Southeast Asian cultures, and I have also presented Toyota’s case study which tries to move away from the normative cost-benefit framework when assessing the effects of tourism. Essentially, this discussion is concerned with the way culture is viewed and I have tried to present the recent debates by anthropologists that culture is a socially constructed entity, which is subject to negotiation and processes of social interaction. As King states, “it is extremely difficult to evaluate whether or not there has been cultural deterioration or improvement on the basis of the assumption that there is an objectively determined entity which we designate as ‘traditional’ culture. (King, 1999:192) As tourism is one of many processes leading to socio-cultural change in the region, it is difficult to separate and attribute the effects to particular processes. The anthropological perspective brings increased understanding of the concept of ‘tourism’ and of ‘culture’ as well as awareness of local needs, contextual variations and the driving processes of change. Tourism is not a unitary phenomenon and culture is not a static entity, their evaluation thus requires increased research and deep insight from anthropologists, who are in a position to understand and to plan for the changes that are occurring, and will continue to occur across the Southeast Asian region.
3200 words.
Bibliography.
Graburn, (1983), ‘The Anthropology of Tourism.’ ‘Annals of Tourism Research.’ 10.
Hitchcock, M, King, VT and Parnwell, M ‘Tourism in South-East Asia: Introduction.’ Routledge: London.
King, VT (1999), ‘Anthropology and Development in Southeast Asia.’ Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
McKean, P, (1989), ‘Towards a Theoretical Analysis of Tourism: Economic Dualism and Cultural Involution in Bali.’ In Smith, V.L. (ed), ‘Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology of Tourism.’ (second edition) London: Blackwell.
Nunez, T (1989), ‘Touristic Studies in Anthropological Perspective.’ In Smith, V.L. (ed), ‘Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology of Tourism.’ (second edition). London: Blackwell.
Picard, M, (1993), ‘Cultural tourism in Bali: national integration and regional differentiation.’ In Hitchcock, M, V King and M Parnwell (eds), ‘Tourism in South-East Asia.’ Routledge: London.
Picard, M, (1996), ‘Cultural Tourism, Nation-Building, and Regional Culture: The Making of Balinese Identity.’ In Picard and Woods (eds), ‘Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies.’ University of Hawaii Press.
Toyota, M (1996), ‘The Effects of Tourism Development on an Akha Community’, In Parnwell, M (ed), ‘Uneven Development in Thailand.’ Aldershot: Avebury.
