7 ms·

In one of David Foster Wallace's essays[0] I read when I was younger he said: > To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ig

In one of David Foster Wallace's essays[0] I read when I was younger he said: > To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience, It is to impose yourself on places that in all non-economic ways would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing. That has always stuck with me and made me realize the delicate and potentially destructive nature of being a tourist. [0] https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazine-1996-01-0007859.pdf https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazi... Edit: I misremembered which essay this quote was from. It is actually in a footnote on page 3 of this one http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf Leaving the original link up because it is still a great read about some of the potential horrors of mass tourism.

baxtr 7y ago
I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn. It’s probably difficult to measure but I bet that tourism is making the world a more peaceful place.
- chasingthewind 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it. I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. Both legally and practically speaking there are ample reasons both to limit tourism and to limit immigration in reasonable, fair, and thoughtful ways. Some resources are more limited than others. The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. Having an intelligent conversation about the practical limits of tourism and immigration is important and welcome. Demonizing those who want to experience different cultures, different climates, and different geography is completely unhelpful. I say this as someone who hates to travel and who cannot stand going to a tourist destination that's overflowing with people. But I refuse to demonize people that like or tolerate that kind of experience the same way I refuse to demonize people who are seeking a better life for themselves more permanently.
  - strken 7y ago
    There's a pretty obvious difference between someone fleeing to live in another country because they're in danger, and someone using discretionary income to visit a tiny area because they want to check it off on their bucket list.
  - mattlutze 7y ago
    > it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism It is a delicate and fragile thing to be sure. The culture of a place comes from the people born accidentally to it. The desire to see that culture drives people not of it to visit, and then maybe to relocate, but if they don't let go of their own cultures and assimilate, they will fundamentally change the culture that drew them there. Is this bad? It just means something changes -- it's up to the maintainers of the existing culture to decide how they want that culture to change. Free movement is beautiful, a border-less world idyllic, but it does mean abandoning regional differences as the world becomes one giant ice cream soup of Hard Rock Cafes and Le Pain Quotidien bakeries, Ei Group pubs and Wyndham hotels.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    > it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal epistemology. > I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we empathize for their plight. > The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that people are already fleeing. > I say this as someone who hates to travel Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)... maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something. It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall / walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre Dame and such.
- dsjoerg 7y ago
  To meet people, talk and learn is an obscure and rare form of tourism. How common do you think it is?
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    For me, it's normal. Why do you think it's rare?
    - GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
      tourism dollars wouldn't be concentrated right around tourist destinations if it were normal. Its not that its uncommon, its just a tiny fraction of total tourism.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      That's what a lot of people believe ("I'm a traveller, not a tourist" etc), but they practice it only in super superficial forms. The visit some museums, take some pics, talk to some locals, have a couple of adventures, and then they feel deeply emerged in the culture they still know nothing about (and don't really care to learn). Actual caring for another culture is not shown in some travel. It takes long (even life-long) devotion. And if it's more than one-two cultures, it's more of a sampling at a buffet, than any deep connection...
      - la_barba 7y ago
        Most people have two weeks of vacation a year. What other practical ways do you propose then?
        coldtea 7y ago
        Well, one can always start by learning the language, reading books, watching movies and listening to songs of said culture, studying the history, crafts, and traditions, and going there for multiple years on their 2-week vacations, not just as an one-off of off to the next destination. And if they're really serious, then proving it by putting skin in the game, not just a 2 week retreat: moving there, for example. Even the latter, hardcore thing, is not some elite suggestion. Millions have done it, including richer, middle class, and poor people, that were fascinated with another country / culture / lifestyle.
- brainless 7y ago
  The ones you are talking about are not "tourists" in my understanding, they are "travelers". From my experience there are way more "tourists" who just take paid bus rides, eat "restaurant local" and stay at the "5 star local". They are there to see, and make a tick in their mind. They are not even interested in talking. Tourism is not a small industry - we are talking about hundreds of million people globally. A tiny fraction is actually deeply interested in the culture.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
  I think that is a very dumb notion. It completely omits the part where people are very dumb.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn. If people really wanted to "meet each other, talk and learn" they could do it in their towns. Heck, in their neighborhoods. There are tons of stories there, people of different races, perspective, different political views, social backgrounds, etc. Even from different countries (immigrants etc). But you need to care and engage to do that. So instead, they "meet and talk" as tourists, ie. in some place they'll spend 10-20 days and seldom if ever go back, with people they'll never see, and don't really care about. And usually for trivial matters (since they don't share common causes or engage in some shared project, like they could with people in their home towns, so they just go for trivial stuff, and "aren't we all the same", etc). That is, if they even engage. Usually they'll just look for either the more exotic token people to photograph, or the more like-them people (e.g. young hobos) to hang around in some generic touristy-bar. Plus tons of photos and videos they "have to" take, that nobody looks again at or cares about.
  - ivanhoe 7y ago
    And yet, people traveling somewhere will always end up having a broader life experience and better idea about the world outside, than those who don't travel anywhere... the best way to break prejudices and stereotypes on certain country/people is to visit it, even in a superficial, selfies-taking way...
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >And yet, people traveling somewhere will always end up having a broader life experience and better idea about the world outside, than those who don't travel anywhere.. Maybe, or maybe they'll just be as narrow-minded as before, judging the other place with preconceived notions, and thinking they now know it expertly too (just because they visited it as tourists). If we insist on traveling, I'd say the "best way to break prejudices and stereotypes on certain country/people" is to work there for a year, in a low/median-end job along with the locals at that (not in some expat enclave for the privileged with echo-chamber friends).
      - 7y ago
- afpx 7y ago
  You didn’t say where you’re from, but from where I’m from, the tourists don’t talk with the locals. In fact, most don’t speak the language. But, they sure do block the sidewalks.
- pastor_elm 7y ago
  >It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn It says mass tourist, not tourist. Mass tourism doesn't allow for meeting people and learning, expect maybe superficially with other mass tourists or wait staff.
- mantas 7y ago
  Eh. Nowadays it's mostly people partying with their countrymen they met far away from homecountry in hostels (where locals don't go) partying in touristy bars (where locals don't go) in touristy neighbourhoods (where locals don't live and rarely goes). On top of that, many people travel in groups and don't communicate with people outside of their group at all. Want that authentic experience? Go solo to barely visited places. But that's not what 90% (if not 99%) of tourists do.
- wasdfff 7y ago
  The 70 year old pensioner in Jesus sandals and socks is not looking to make any connection with any local but the concierge of the resort.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tempsy 7y ago
I enjoy traveling, and for too long I for whatever reason ignored the fact that I am part of the problem of overtourism, especially when I go somewhere during peak season (e.g. Europe in August) and get annoyed why there are people everywhere.
brightball 7y ago
I think that sums up how my friends living in Charleston feel about Ohio every summer.
mattlutze 7y ago
I took a trip to Lisbon a few years ago, and met a number of people who were quite conflicted but generally upset by the social cost of the money that tourist brought. People could less-and-less afford their rents, were less and less able to live in their cities on the salaries that did not increase to match the influx of disposable income in the popular municipalities. Dublin experiences this as well in the last few years, with all of our Silicon Valley companies and investment banks continuing to expand there and push out the long-term residents. To be a humble guest in a different land is difficult and often far from the approach most tourists take in their travels, to the detriment of both visitor and resident.
- wasdfff 7y ago
  In any case anywhere if there is demand prices will rise if supply won’t. Tourism is a paradox where suddenly you have demand but building enough supply to quench demand is often restricted for historic or cultural reasons, so ironically the locals who created this culture and history worth preserving are the ones who are pushed out of the limited supply as prices inevitably rise.
  - mattlutze 7y ago
    Well, this is what we're talking about. Some locations are beginning to consider options other than just accepting the inevitable.
irq11 7y ago
I’ve been looking for that quote in the referenced article, but I can’t find it. What page is it on?
- landonxjames 7y ago
  Ahh I misremembered which essay it was from. It is actually from a footnote on page 3 of this one http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
rconti 7y ago
I was in Norway last month, and SAS Airways has a bunch of travel slogans posted around airports, and my favorite was (paraphased) "Your reason for travel is our reason for making travel sustainable". They had several similar ones pointing out the irony in peoples' reasons for wanting to visit 'less touched' areas, and the need to preserve them.
dougmwne 7y ago
The world is dynamic and ever changing. Tourists are arriving to fulfill some fantasy they have of a place. Some unspoiled relic that sweeps them off to some distant past. When they get there, the fantasy is broken as they see the reality of the hordes of other fantasy chasers. So if you want to be a traveler instead of a tourist, you must first shed your preconceptions and expectations. You may need to go the the kind of places you've never dreamed of going. You'll need to go there ready to experience it as it is, instead of how you'd wish it to be. I went to Pisa a few years ago, mostly by chance. I thought I'd go take a look at that tower and was at first disgusted to see how the tourists had ruined the place. But then I looked again, rows and rows of people leaning, arms outstretched, askew, faces twisting into smiles. See what there is to see and you may yourself be changed, traveler.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >So if you want to be a traveler instead of a tourist That's the worst kind. It's basically a tourist + delusions of being different to the rest.
  - dougmwne 7y ago
    I'm definitely having more fun, so that's different.
    - mantas 7y ago
      Definitely having delusion of having more fun :)
impeachTheIdiot 7y ago
Sounds like one of those high school girls who bitches about other girls because she is jealous of their clothes, friends, etc...
ocschwar 7y ago
Here's a counter example: The floating islands of Lake Titicaca. The islands take a lot of work to maintain, they're actively dangerous to live on, and not especially comfortable. The islands continue to exist because tourists visit and pay enough for souvenirs to keep the islanders from moving onto dry land. Just one example.

baxtr 7y ago

I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn. It’s probably difficult to measure but I bet that tourism is making the world a more peaceful place.

chasingthewind 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it. I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. Both legally and practically speaking there are ample reasons both to limit tourism and to limit immigration in reasonable, fair, and thoughtful ways. Some resources are more limited than others. The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. Having an intelligent conversation about the practical limits of tourism and immigration is important and welcome. Demonizing those who want to experience different cultures, different climates, and different geography is completely unhelpful. I say this as someone who hates to travel and who cannot stand going to a tourist destination that's overflowing with people. But I refuse to demonize people that like or tolerate that kind of experience the same way I refuse to demonize people who are seeking a better life for themselves more permanently.
- strken 7y ago
  There's a pretty obvious difference between someone fleeing to live in another country because they're in danger, and someone using discretionary income to visit a tiny area because they want to check it off on their bucket list.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  > it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism It is a delicate and fragile thing to be sure. The culture of a place comes from the people born accidentally to it. The desire to see that culture drives people not of it to visit, and then maybe to relocate, but if they don't let go of their own cultures and assimilate, they will fundamentally change the culture that drew them there. Is this bad? It just means something changes -- it's up to the maintainers of the existing culture to decide how they want that culture to change. Free movement is beautiful, a border-less world idyllic, but it does mean abandoning regional differences as the world becomes one giant ice cream soup of Hard Rock Cafes and Le Pain Quotidien bakeries, Ei Group pubs and Wyndham hotels.
- core-questions 7y ago
  > it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal epistemology. > I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we empathize for their plight. > The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that people are already fleeing. > I say this as someone who hates to travel Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)... maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something. It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall / walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre Dame and such.
dsjoerg 7y ago
To meet people, talk and learn is an obscure and rare form of tourism. How common do you think it is?
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  For me, it's normal. Why do you think it's rare?
  - GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
    tourism dollars wouldn't be concentrated right around tourist destinations if it were normal. Its not that its uncommon, its just a tiny fraction of total tourism.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    That's what a lot of people believe ("I'm a traveller, not a tourist" etc), but they practice it only in super superficial forms. The visit some museums, take some pics, talk to some locals, have a couple of adventures, and then they feel deeply emerged in the culture they still know nothing about (and don't really care to learn). Actual caring for another culture is not shown in some travel. It takes long (even life-long) devotion. And if it's more than one-two cultures, it's more of a sampling at a buffet, than any deep connection...
    - la_barba 7y ago
      Most people have two weeks of vacation a year. What other practical ways do you propose then?
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Well, one can always start by learning the language, reading books, watching movies and listening to songs of said culture, studying the history, crafts, and traditions, and going there for multiple years on their 2-week vacations, not just as an one-off of off to the next destination. And if they're really serious, then proving it by putting skin in the game, not just a 2 week retreat: moving there, for example. Even the latter, hardcore thing, is not some elite suggestion. Millions have done it, including richer, middle class, and poor people, that were fascinated with another country / culture / lifestyle.
brainless 7y ago
The ones you are talking about are not "tourists" in my understanding, they are "travelers". From my experience there are way more "tourists" who just take paid bus rides, eat "restaurant local" and stay at the "5 star local". They are there to see, and make a tick in their mind. They are not even interested in talking. Tourism is not a small industry - we are talking about hundreds of million people globally. A tiny fraction is actually deeply interested in the culture.
pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
I think that is a very dumb notion. It completely omits the part where people are very dumb.
coldtea 7y ago
>I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn. If people really wanted to "meet each other, talk and learn" they could do it in their towns. Heck, in their neighborhoods. There are tons of stories there, people of different races, perspective, different political views, social backgrounds, etc. Even from different countries (immigrants etc). But you need to care and engage to do that. So instead, they "meet and talk" as tourists, ie. in some place they'll spend 10-20 days and seldom if ever go back, with people they'll never see, and don't really care about. And usually for trivial matters (since they don't share common causes or engage in some shared project, like they could with people in their home towns, so they just go for trivial stuff, and "aren't we all the same", etc). That is, if they even engage. Usually they'll just look for either the more exotic token people to photograph, or the more like-them people (e.g. young hobos) to hang around in some generic touristy-bar. Plus tons of photos and videos they "have to" take, that nobody looks again at or cares about.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  And yet, people traveling somewhere will always end up having a broader life experience and better idea about the world outside, than those who don't travel anywhere... the best way to break prejudices and stereotypes on certain country/people is to visit it, even in a superficial, selfies-taking way...
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >And yet, people traveling somewhere will always end up having a broader life experience and better idea about the world outside, than those who don't travel anywhere.. Maybe, or maybe they'll just be as narrow-minded as before, judging the other place with preconceived notions, and thinking they now know it expertly too (just because they visited it as tourists). If we insist on traveling, I'd say the "best way to break prejudices and stereotypes on certain country/people" is to work there for a year, in a low/median-end job along with the locals at that (not in some expat enclave for the privileged with echo-chamber friends).
    - 7y ago
afpx 7y ago
You didn’t say where you’re from, but from where I’m from, the tourists don’t talk with the locals. In fact, most don’t speak the language. But, they sure do block the sidewalks.
pastor_elm 7y ago
>It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn It says mass tourist, not tourist. Mass tourism doesn't allow for meeting people and learning, expect maybe superficially with other mass tourists or wait staff.
mantas 7y ago
Eh. Nowadays it's mostly people partying with their countrymen they met far away from homecountry in hostels (where locals don't go) partying in touristy bars (where locals don't go) in touristy neighbourhoods (where locals don't live and rarely goes). On top of that, many people travel in groups and don't communicate with people outside of their group at all. Want that authentic experience? Go solo to barely visited places. But that's not what 90% (if not 99%) of tourists do.
wasdfff 7y ago
The 70 year old pensioner in Jesus sandals and socks is not looking to make any connection with any local but the concierge of the resort.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tempsy 7y ago

I enjoy traveling, and for too long I for whatever reason ignored the fact that I am part of the problem of overtourism, especially when I go somewhere during peak season (e.g. Europe in August) and get annoyed why there are people everywhere.

brightball 7y ago

I think that sums up how my friends living in Charleston feel about Ohio every summer.

mattlutze 7y ago

I took a trip to Lisbon a few years ago, and met a number of people who were quite conflicted but generally upset by the social cost of the money that tourist brought. People could less-and-less afford their rents, were less and less able to live in their cities on the salaries that did not increase to match the influx of disposable income in the popular municipalities. Dublin experiences this as well in the last few years, with all of our Silicon Valley companies and investment banks continuing to expand there and push out the long-term residents. To be a humble guest in a different land is difficult and often far from the approach most tourists take in their travels, to the detriment of both visitor and resident.

wasdfff 7y ago
In any case anywhere if there is demand prices will rise if supply won’t. Tourism is a paradox where suddenly you have demand but building enough supply to quench demand is often restricted for historic or cultural reasons, so ironically the locals who created this culture and history worth preserving are the ones who are pushed out of the limited supply as prices inevitably rise.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  Well, this is what we're talking about. Some locations are beginning to consider options other than just accepting the inevitable.

irq11 7y ago

I’ve been looking for that quote in the referenced article, but I can’t find it. What page is it on?

landonxjames 7y ago
Ahh I misremembered which essay it was from. It is actually from a footnote on page 3 of this one http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf

rconti 7y ago

I was in Norway last month, and SAS Airways has a bunch of travel slogans posted around airports, and my favorite was (paraphased) "Your reason for travel is our reason for making travel sustainable". They had several similar ones pointing out the irony in peoples' reasons for wanting to visit 'less touched' areas, and the need to preserve them.

dougmwne 7y ago

The world is dynamic and ever changing. Tourists are arriving to fulfill some fantasy they have of a place. Some unspoiled relic that sweeps them off to some distant past. When they get there, the fantasy is broken as they see the reality of the hordes of other fantasy chasers. So if you want to be a traveler instead of a tourist, you must first shed your preconceptions and expectations. You may need to go the the kind of places you've never dreamed of going. You'll need to go there ready to experience it as it is, instead of how you'd wish it to be. I went to Pisa a few years ago, mostly by chance. I thought I'd go take a look at that tower and was at first disgusted to see how the tourists had ruined the place. But then I looked again, rows and rows of people leaning, arms outstretched, askew, faces twisting into smiles. See what there is to see and you may yourself be changed, traveler.

coldtea 7y ago
>So if you want to be a traveler instead of a tourist That's the worst kind. It's basically a tourist + delusions of being different to the rest.
- dougmwne 7y ago
  I'm definitely having more fun, so that's different.
  - mantas 7y ago
    Definitely having delusion of having more fun :)

impeachTheIdiot 7y ago

Sounds like one of those high school girls who bitches about other girls because she is jealous of their clothes, friends, etc...

ocschwar 7y ago

Here's a counter example: The floating islands of Lake Titicaca. The islands take a lot of work to maintain, they're actively dangerous to live on, and not especially comfortable. The islands continue to exist because tourists visit and pay enough for souvenirs to keep the islanders from moving onto dry land. Just one example.