Anthropology of Tourism BOOK

CHAPTER 3 The Future of Tourism Anthropology: New Problems, Old Solutions After the New Normal MAXIMILIANO E. KORSTANJE Department of Economics, University of Palermo, Larrea, Buenos Aires, Argentina ABSTRACT Unlike other disciplines, anthropology has evolved from ethnography and the concept of alterity as its tug of war. From its inception, anthropology has made efforts to emphasize reflexivity in describing exotic human worlds. In this context, the “Other” was primarily an object of curiosity and reflexivity, if not a mirror for the ethnographer. In line with this, tourism anthropology has focused on the relationships between hosts and guests. The turn of the century has shifted this focus while challenging the concept of alterity like never before. If the “Other” was a subject of curiosity for ethnographers, it is now seen as a potential enemy that needs to be scrutinized – if not eradicated. This essentialized “Other” raises a significant question for the future and the survival of tourism anthropology. The future of tourism anthropology relies on what it has to offer in the “new normal.” Just after COVID-19, the “Other” is not only feared but also denied. Anthropology of Tourism: Exploring the Social and Cultural Intersection. Maximiliano E. Korstanje and Vanessa GB Gowreesunkar (Eds.) © 2025 Apple Academic Press, Inc. Co-published with CRC Press (Taylor & Francis) 42 3.1 Anthropology of Tourism INTRODUCTION The title probably does not reflect this chapter’s content. New problems and old solutions are a term that denotes a paradoxical condition that anthropology faced in the past. Despite the updating of specialized literature, the so-called solutions left by the founding parents of the discipline remain effective and valid. Anthropology was born as a discipline orchestrated to help expand the understanding of non-Western culture, a political context of expansion and oppression widely known as “European colonialism.” The first ethnographers needed to be “there” to document the local habits and customs – of course, contrasting them to European values. In so doing, ethnographers brought innovative solutions for the problems of their epoch. Malinowski’s insights assisted S. Freud in affirming his theory about incest and kinship. At the same time, Durkheim’s advances have been based on the works that resulted from Pitt Rivers and Levy-Bruhl. Whatever the case may be, ethnographers created the notion of “the non-western Other” as a mirror of the modern (European) citizen. In time, not only the idea of alterity but also geographies have substantially changed. Nowadays, ethnographers debate the nature of global capitalism as well as its complex intersection with mobilities, consumption, and of course netnography. Whether in the colonial period, the Other was an object of curiosity, today it represents an object of fear. This is the main challenge posed by tourism anthropology to fix a shared agenda with other social disciplines. This chapter discusses the nature and future of tourism combining voices resulting from anthropology, sociology, and cultural geography to give readers an all-encompassing view of the issue. For the sake of clarity, the first chapter offers a conceptual approach to how the first anthropologists defined tourism as well as their main concerns, strengths, and weaknesses. The second section stands for the evolution of tourism anthropology revolving around its main valid instrument, ethnography. The adoption of digital technologies and virtual intelligence paved the way for new interrogations about the future of ethnography. The last section contains some trending themes that anthropology should approach as a shared agenda among academicians. Just after the 2000s, some hostile discourses against strangers or tourists have brought interesting mediations into the foreground. This chapter goes in the same direction which holds what some scholars lamented on the decline of hospitality – or in terms of Ritzer, “the rise of an inhospitable hospitality” – where the Other is negated (Ritzer, 2007; Korstanje, 2017). The Future of Tourism Anthropology 43 3.2 TOURISM ANTHROPOLOGY Valene Smith’s book Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism introduces readers to the philosophical quandary left by Dean MacCannell about the nature of tourism. Smith argues convincingly that tourism should be approached from an interdisciplinary manner, conceiving not only its different parts and sub-levels but also its axioms. Per her viewpoint, tourism activates a physical displacement that puts hosts and guests in the same environment. These encounters are far from being harmonious and peaceful; often, they are conflictive and the object of contest. As a form of leisure activity, tourism shapes personal life to provide a moment of relaxation and escapement while sublimating many deep psychological frustrations. This function very well escapes the control of the market, putting tourism as a social institution. Of course, Smith is not the first anthropologist to hold this axiom. In his seminal work, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, Dean MacCannell (1976) calls attention to tourism as the glue that keeps society united. In a secularized society, the role of religion has receded to the private sphere, leaving a vacuum that is filled by leisure practices. Like the Totem in aboriginal cultures, which organize political life, tourism not only revitalizes frustrations but also avoids social fragmentation. The concept of staged authenticity helps us to think about tourism according to Goffmanian dramaturgy. The staged authenticity, as MacCannell notes, should be defined as a limonoid process where locals display their culture to captivate strangers who are in quest of novel experiences. These strangers (tourists) fall into a paradoxical (if not irreversible) situation. Although they are psychologically moved by consuming authentic experiences, they are finally met with a fabricated landscape. To some extent, this conceptual position accompanies the existing literature in tourism anthropology from its outset. MacCannell’s legacy, which oscillated between structuralism and post-Marxism, shed light on tourism as something other than an ideological apparatus of control, as classic Marxists adhere. For MacCannell, tourism represents a complex system of symbols, signs, and processes orchestrated to preserve the social order. Echoing Nash & Smith (1991), the tourist should be understood as an agent of change who connects two cultures. Tourism is mainly marked by a pan-human process aimed at engaging in a gift-exchange rite that is culturally rooted in a broader system. Such a gift-exchange rite is associated with the roots of Maussian giving-while-receiving logic. Having said 44 Anthropology of Tourism this, reciprocity plays a leading role in the host-guest encounter. The first anthropologists who theorized on tourism have been mainly worried about two important factors. First and most importantly, they initially defined tourism as a rite of passage that opens the doors to an acculturation process (for hosts and guests). As the maiden of European imperialism, travels earlier and tourism later not only connected two worlds but also are seen as the epicenter of colonization that preceded modernity. Hence, the impacts of tourism on local culture (if not the environment) occupy a central position in the imagination of the pioneering ethnographers (Korstanje, 2012). At the same time, anthropology first and social scientists secondly have traced back the origins of tourism to modernity. As John Urry eloquently observes, although touring is not strictly circumscribed to the rise of the tourism industry, the rise and expansion of modernity have created an aesthetic reflexivity where agents, merchandise, and landscapes are packaged and exchanged in a broader market. In this respect, this reflexivity marks not only the safe but also the unsafe (wild) places that are avoided by international tourists. Over the years, sociology has paid exaggerated attention to classic institutions, ignoring the role of mobilities as the leading paradigm of the new modernity (Urry, 2002b). Mobile society, mobile cultures, and mobile citizens are shaped by a much deeper cultural matrix that indicates what can be gazed at or not. It is not impossible to say that the concept of the tourist gaze is not only negotiated individually but also culturally enrooted (Urry, 2004). The modern transportation system has unilaterally created new mobile ways that escape physical displacements (Sheller & Urry, 2006). Virtual travels are today engaging with hypermodernity as well as the proliferation of global diasporas. This happens because there is a dissociation between corporeal travels (as he puts it) and the physical proximity of citizens (Urry & Lash, 1983). Echoing Putnam, Urry overtly recognizes this dissociation is mainly given by the co-presence of people which is widely drawn by digital technologies. This suggests that the question of mobility and intimacy should be at least reconsidered. The rapid expansion of tourism consumption has invariably led mankind to exhaust their non-renewable means of energy (Urry, 2002a, 2012, 2016). Eric Cohen (2004) defines tourism as a rite characterized by the presence of play, where subjects adopt new roles and experiential attitudes. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the recreational mode occupies a central position in the configuration of the tourist experience. Nelson Graburn sees tourism as a The Future of Tourism Anthropology 45 type of secular rite of passage (like graduations, obituaries, or births) where the subject is cyclically renovated into a new status. In this way, not only does it keep society united but also social institutions are legitimized by citizens. Applied research should contemplate not only the host-guest relations but also the hidden questions of power and politics that often remain obscured in ethnographies (Graburn, 2004, 2017). As the previous argument is given, Sagar Singh (2019) has explored the connection between modern tourism and love from an anthropological lens. Per his stance, the figure of love has been systematically overlooked in tourism studies. As an object of study, love seems to be very hard to operationalize. Rather, Singh agrees love should be seen as the cornerstone of tourism. Pilgrimage tourism seems to be the point where both love and tourism ultimately converge. Since tourism consumption is based on unequal experiential reciprocity where persons are mediated by prices, love helps to offer a more humanized form of tourism. The classic literature (even in anthropology) has developed a biased definition of tourism, as strictly associated with ritual travel. However, these studies do not appreciate the role of spirituality in rites. This conception is part of a positive viewpoint where rites are seen as liminal acts of performance orchestrated to affirm previous beliefs. In this respect, science should forget spirituality, focusing attention on rites’ performances. For some reason, which is very difficult to pinpoint here, the anthropology of tourism has never been thought of as a subdiscipline, as some scholars claim, but also as an all-encompassing platform that helps understand tourism through an anthropological lens, which means using ethnography as the main method of study (Nash, 1996). This particularly interrogates us over two main problems. On one hand, a whole portion of work in tourism anthropology lacks ethnography as the primary methodology. Upon closer inspection, these publications allude to topics historically developed by anthropology (such as heritage, pilgrimage, or even the experiential nature of tourism) but they are centered on other qualitative methodologies that have nothing to do with ethnography. The opposite is equally true, as many ethnographers who have tourism as their main object of study ultimately select other journals related to tourism to make public their research or recent advances (Holden, 2004; Tribe & Xiao, 2011). On another note, there are some discrepancies as to what extent tourism is born at the zenith of modernity, or even if other ancient forms of tourism have existed in the past. Tourism anthropology – probably influenced by sociology – has mistakenly emphasized 46 Anthropology of Tourism the modern nature of tourism. To cut a long story short, some ancient civilizations and empires have created similar industries revolving around travels with two ends. Firstly, travel restores social ties while inviting citizens to return to their province to visit relatives. Secondly, and most importantly, by allows easier access to army forces in cases of rebellions or riots (Korstanje, 2017, 2023). 3.3 TOURISM ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY As debated in an earlier section, it is difficult to debate the future of the anthropology of tourism beyond its tug-of-war, and ethnography. The founding parents of the discipline adopted widely the concept of “being there” to live and understand the Aboriginals’ customs before their final disappearance. This romantic viewpoint comes from what Marvin Harris (2001) dubbed “Western ethnocentrism” which shaped modern ethnography. Harris acknowledges that the first anthropologists were mainly lawyers concerned with documenting local habits to avoid the cultural eradication accelerated by colonial expansion. To some extent, colonialism and anthropology are inevitably entwined. The invention of anthropological theory is based on the urgency of traveling (most probably to overseas territories) to cohabit with natives in a threshold of time. In doing so, ethnography played a leading role not only in describing local customs as well as their political institutions but also in interrogating Western culture. Mistakenly, ethnographers conceived history as a linear continuum marked by economic progress that gradually eradicated the pre-modern cultures in Europe. Likewise, as ethnographers believed, the aboriginal cultures will disappear for sure in other regions. Needless to say, this romantic argument, which successfully cemented the authority of anthropology in colonial circles, rested on deep ethnocentrism. Whatever the case may be, it is safe to say that anthropology and ethnography have illuminated the pathways of social science from its outset. The end of WWII associated with the dismantling of empires witnessed the rise of a new epoch characterized by the autonomy of former colonies. French ethnographer Marc Augé turns his attention to the cultural changes accelerated by the deconstruction process as well as globalization. He argues convincingly that the expanse of capitalist culture not only blurred all national borders but also changed substantially the concept of “being here The Future of Tourism Anthropology 47 or there.” In this way, ethnography as it was imagined by the founding parents of anthropology should set the pace for new emerging methodologies. At the same time, concepts such as “the Other, the alterity or Otherness” should be re-defined. In hypermodernity, one must confess that the idea of a geographical place has mutated into what Augé named the non-place. These non-places (which include airports, transport hubs, and shopping malls) are characterized by a lack of tradition and human solidarity (Augé, 2009, 2022; Korstanje, 2017). Of course, tourism seems not to be an exception. Some voices have alerted me on the importance of changing ethnography for new updated methods potentiated by digital technologies. Even ethnographers are now urged to move to make ethnographies in faraway geographies (Bandyopadhyay, 2011). In the field of tourism, ethnography has been critically questioned because it affirms some mainstream values forged in the global North without real application in other political contexts. It is not simple to say that even two different ethnographers who visit the same tribe can reach contrasting outcomes. Plausibly, this suggests that ethnography aligns with a subjective viewpoint determined by the ethnographer’s inner world. The turn of attention to ethnographic knowledge has invariably led some scholars to question to what extent reflexivity and the recognition of ethnographers as embodied agents culturally conditioned in a particular position are important or not (Leite, Castañeda, & Adams, 2019). Another limitation lies in the fact that ethnographies are based on what A. Franklin (2007) termed it as “tourist-centricity.” These studies strictly focus on what tourists exclusively feel or experience, relegating other agents to a peripheral position. Besides, the recent COVID-19 outbreak has not only affected the industry but also has posed a serious dilemma on tourism epistemology: how to study tourism in a world without tourists? (Korstanje & George, 2022). The pandemic speaks to us of the problem of tourist-centricity as well as the unilineal gaze of ethnographers who see tourists as the only source of valid knowledge. The opposite is true; ethnographers are trained to dig on tourist journeys, leaving behind other types of displacements (Vannini, 2017). As Korstanje (2017) lamented, this is particularly more relevant in a world where a small portion of citizens are mobile. Although the number of flights and travelers is amazing, no less true appears to be that a whole portion of the global population remains in immobility. This leads us to think that the nature of mobility is in part ideological and oppressive in practice. Anthropologically speaking, ideology simply 48 Anthropology of Tourism works because the particular makes general. To put this bluntly, since we are educated to believe we have the right to travel, we normally move thinking all citizens in the world can do it. Far from this, only a few citizens in some global countries are legitimized to move freely (Korstanje, 2017; Tzanelli, 2018; Lapointe, 2021). Having said this, the recent COVID-19 pandemic showed two important aspects of mobilities. At first glimpse, the so-called right to travel can be canceled or derogated by the state when public safety is in jeopardy. Secondly and most importantly, in the new normal, the concept of travel has profoundly transformed (Korstanje & George, 2022). The digital technologies applied to virtual reality (VR) have successfully changed the ways of moving and traveling as never before. The question of whether virtual tourism has triggered a hot debate in recent decades is no less true than after COVID-19 an increasing number of cybernauts adopt virtual tourism as a common practice. Of course, this leads ethnographers to rethink the nature of ethnography, just now as an instrument that probably is not marked by physical displacement or the necessity of “being there.” Netnography is a term coined by R. Kozinets, used to denote an adaptation of classic ethnography to digital technologies. Since netnography still keeps its qualitative logic, it instrumentalizes a set of research practices and knowledge to make participant observations through digital communication environments (Kozinets & Gretzel, 2022). Netnography is today employed in many sub-fields and disciplines which include anthropology, sociology, psychology, media, and tourism studies as well. The method has proved some efficacy in studying hybrid professional communities, communal exchanges, and online rituals, rules, and practices. With the benefits of hindsight, these practices can be archived and stored in cyberspace to be uncovered by social scientists anytime (Kozinets, 2012). In the constellations of tourism and hospitality, netnography abrogates the urgency to find new collection methods that simplify the process in complex online platforms (Tavakoli & Wijesinghe, 2019). In consonance with this, Tavakoli & Mura (2018) hold that netnography should be defined as an emerging collection method inherently enrooted in cyberculture. In online communities, users simply leave behind their prejudices and constraints to express their genuine emotions. Although other classic methods are not enough to describe the subjects’ desires and expectations, netnography has not been widely accepted in tourism academia or recognized as a valid method in leading journals. As the authors go on to write: The Future of Tourism Anthropology 49 “Netnography in tourism could explore whether and how these particular forms of promotional material play a role in mediating visitors’ experiences. Virtual reality experiences represent another subject of investigation that netnography could tackle using Web 3.0. In this respect, netnographic approaches could shed light on tourists’ experiences of 3D virtual hotels and destinations, which are already popular in virtual worlds like Second Life. Moreover, netnography could provide additional insights into tourism providers’ experiences and challenges, which in turn could help tourism scholars to have a better understanding of both demand and supply. From a socio-cultural perspective, issues concerning avatar behavior, virtual identities, including gendered identities” (Tavakoli & Mura, 2019, p. 191). As the previous argument is given, Mkono (2016) says that digital platforms recreate the conditions for the appearance of more open-minded tourists (agents) who are aware of their own and others’ reviews and their impacts on local communities. The reflexive tourists move through three different capabilities: the interrogation of personal misconceptions, capacities, or limitations to embrace ambiguous situations, and self-criticism about their practices or behaviors. However, this method has some detractors and critical viewpoints which should be considered. For example, Jeffrey, Ashraf & Paris (2021) raise concerns about some practices that often disrupt users’ privacy or violate their right to privacy. In other cases, netnography is criticized as users are exposed (without their consent) in academic publications. The ephemerality of some media platforms poses a big challenge for those who use netnography as their primary method. The online gathered information has a temporal dynamic and may disappear for further consultation without prior notice. Furthermore, netnography sharply contradicts the nature and original goals of ethnography, which was created not only to observe but also to engage in reflexivity with the locals, a connection that can only be achieved by “being close with the observed community” (Wight & Stanley, 2022; Lugosi & Quinton, 2018). 3.4 THE FUTURE OF TOURISM ANTHROPOLOGY As debated in the current chapter, the expansion of colonial powers in the former 18th and 19th centuries and anthropology have been historically 50 Anthropology of Tourism intertwined. Ethnographers lingered on protecting or documenting aboriginal cultures in vias of extinction. The historical origins of anthropology as well as travel writing (as a modern literary genre) resulted from the colonial expansion conducted by European nations. In this context, ethnography is situated as a valid instrument to document habits, customs, and institutions that emanate from the aboriginal tribes. At the time, ethnography has set the pace for new emerging methodologies. The gradual decline of Empires, just after WWII finished, associated with a new process of deconstructionism, gave further empowerment to local voices. Thousands of migrants coming from former colonies flew to Europe and the U.S., populating and shaping modern metropolises. In a post-modern society, the concept of being here or there has been simply blurred. Having said this, some studies have alerted that the nature of ethnography should be at least reconsidered (Pool, 1991; Auge, 2009; Korstanje, 2017). Tourism anthropology is familiar with these knotty problems. The first anthropologists who took tourism as their main object of study were moved by reaching a consensus to offer an all-pervading definition of the activity. Based on the previous legacy given by the founding parents of the discipline, these studies were concerned with heritage consumption, tourist experience, (staged) authenticity, mass tourism, hosts’ and guests’ conflicts, and effects of the industry on local communities (Benthall, 1988; Graburn, 1980; Boissevain, 1996; Smith, 1980). But things have changed a lot today, with the rise of global risks and dangers that have put the industry in jeopardy, as well as the socio-economic crisis that hit the Western hemisphere in 2008, laying the foundations for a new radical understanding of tourism anthropology. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has raised the question of how one can study tourism in a world of tourists (Korstanje & George, 2022), while other studies have focused on the end of hospitality in the West. This happens simply because the “Other” is gradually being neglected, if not commoditized as a product of consumption. In the days of colonialism, “the Other” was represented as an object of curiosity, which aligned with the creation and proliferation of travel writings and romantic novels. To put it bluntly, the Aboriginal people have been seen as child-like subjects who needed to be re-educated according to Western cultural values. This position has been significantly altered, and the “Other” is now seen as an undesired guest (Ritzer, 2007; Hay, 2015; Korstanje, 2018; Korstanje & Seraphin, 2022). The “Other” is essentially radicalized as a potential enemy who can attack us anytime and anywhere (Korstanje, 2017, 2018). As a result The Future of Tourism Anthropology 51 of this, radical discourses mainly oriented to demonizing the stranger have emerged and become entrenched in modern politics. Just after the 2000s, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the “stranger” is feared and neglected. The terrorist attacks on New York City perpetrated in 2001 kicked off a new epoch where nobody feels safe anytime and anywhere. The doctrine of living with the enemy has cemented the media content, discussions, popular opinion, and even academic debates in Europe and the US (Sluka, 2009; Altheide, 2022). This raises a more than interesting (vexed) question: how will anthropology move in this hard context? The re-invention of the “Other” appears to be for sure one of the challenges posited in tourism anthropology in the years to come. But this is not the only one. Not surprisingly, some of the challenges of tourism anthropology in the 21st century encompass social conflicts in developing nations as well as radicalized (terrorist) groups (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2009; Putova, 2018), the negative impact of mass tourism and sustainable practices (Aramberri, 2001; Stronza, 2001), radicalized discourse against foreigners and geopolitical tensions (Korstanje & George, 2022; Mostafanezhad, Cheer & Sin, 2020), the construction of updated epistemologies and methodologies that preserve the reflexivity between ethnographers and key informants in society 4.0 (Burns, 2004; Dann, 2005; Erikssen, 2010), the role given to hosts and guests in virtual tourism (Chambers, 2009), without mentioning discussion given to the right of traveling (Bianchi, Stephenson, & Hannam, 2020), human rights violations (such as human trafficking) (Cole & Eriksson, 2010), space of macabre or dark consumption (Stone, 2011), and safety-security in tourism (Korstanje & Seraphin, 2020). Needless to say, all these trending topics make a valuable agenda for the years to come, an agenda that should be set and negotiated by scholars. 3.5 CONCLUSION In sharp contrast with other social sciences, which toy with different objects of study such as rules, behavior, or simply territory, anthropology makes the “Other” as well as “reflexibility” its cornerstone. From its outset, anthropology and ethnography have devoted efforts to deciphering alterity as a mirror of the social constituency. Having said this, tourism anthropology has historically explored the concept of host-guest relations 52 Anthropology of Tourism through the lens of ethnographic fieldwork. But times have invariably changed, and today ethnographers come across several conceptual and epistemological problems that deserve to be discussed. The present chapter not only puts the problem of alterity in the tapestry but also the future of ethnography as a main method in tourism anthropology. If the figure of the “Other” occupied a central position as a form of entertainment (e.g., in forms of travel writing or novels), nowadays it has been transformed into an object of fear and mistrust. The turn of the century has brought many unseen risks and threats, which include terrorism and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The doctrine of living with the enemy inside is wreaking havoc on the social scaffolding. Hence, some voices have lamented the gradual decline of hospitality in the West. Last but not least, tourism anthropology has much to say in an ever-changing world (or at best in the new normal) where the game between hosts and guests has been substantially shifted. KEYWORDS • • • • • • decline of hospitality ethnographers human rights violations reflexibility social scaffolding tourism anthropology REFERENCES Altheide, D. L. (2022). Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump. London: Taylor & Francis. Aramberri, J. (2001). The host should get lost: Paradigms in the tourism theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 738–761. Augé, M. (2009). Non-Places: An Introduction to Super Modernity. London: Verso Books. Augé, M. (2022). A Sense for the Other. In A Sense for the Other. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bandyopadhyay, R. (2011). A photo ethnography of tourism as neo-colonialism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 714–718. The Future of Tourism Anthropology 53 Benthall, J. (1988). The anthropology of tourism. Anthropology Today, 4(3), 20–22. Bianchi, R. V., Stephenson, M. L., & Hannam, K. (2020). The contradictory politics of the right to travel: mobilities, borders & tourism. Mobilities, 15(2), 290–306. Boissevain, J. (Ed.). (1996). Coping With Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism (Vol. 1). New York: Berghahn Books. Burns, G. L. (2004). Anthropology and tourism: Past contributions and future theoretical challenges. Anthropological Forum, 14(1), 5–22. Chambers, E. (2009). Native Tours: The Anthropology of Travel and Tourism. Long Grove: Waveland Press. Cohen, E. (2004). Contemporary tourism trends and challenges. In Tourism: The Nature and Structure of Tourism (pp. 351–365). London: Routledge. Cole, S., & Eriksson, J. (2010). Tourism and human rights. In Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (pp. 107–125). Wallingford, UK: Cabi. Comaroff, J. L., & Comaroff, J. (2009). Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dann, G. (2005). The theoretical state of the art in the sociology and anthropology of tourism. Tourism Analysis, 10(1), 3–15. Eriksen, T. H. (2010). The challenges of anthropology. International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 1(3), 194–202. Franklin, A. (2007). The problem with tourism theory. In I. Altejvic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 131–148). Oxford: Elsevier. Graburn, N. (1980). Teaching the anthropology of tourism. International Social Science Journal, 32(1), 56–68. Graburn, N. (2017). Key figure of mobility: The tourist. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 25(1), 83–96. Graburn, N. H. (2004). Secular ritual: A general theory of tourism. In S. Gmelch & A. Kaul (Eds.), Tourists and tourism: A reader (pp. 23–34). Long Grove: Waveland Press. Harris, M. (2001). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Hay, B. (2015). Dark hospitality: Hotels as places for the end of life. Hospitality & Society, 5(2–3), 233–248. Holden, A. (2004). Tourism Studies and the Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge. Jeffrey, H. L., Ashraf, H., & Paris, C. M. (2021). Hanging out on Snapchat: disrupting passive covert netnography in tourism research. Tourism Geographies, 23(1–2), 144–161. Korstanje, M. (2012). Reconsidering cultural tourism: an anthropologist’s perspective. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(2), 179–184. Korstanje, M. (2017). Mobilities Paradox: A Critical Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Korstanje, M. (2018). Terrorism, Tourism, and the End of Hospitality in the West. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Korstanje, M. E. (2022). Tourism imagination: A new epistemological debate. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(2), 199–211. Korstanje, M. E., & George, B. (2022). The Nature and Future of Tourism: A PostCOVID-19 Context. London: CRC Press. 54 Anthropology of Tourism Korstanje, M. E., & Séraphin, H. (Eds.). (2020). Tourism, Terrorism, and Security. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Kozinets, R. V. (2012). Marketing netnography: Prom/ot (ulgat) ing a new research method. Methodological Innovations Online, 7(1), 37–45. Kozinets, R. V., & Gretzel, U. (2022). Netnography. In D. Buhalis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing (pp. 316–319). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lapointe, D. (2021). Tourism territory/territoire (s) touristique (s): When mobility challenges the concept. In Progress in French Tourism Geographies: Inhabiting Touristic Worlds (pp. 105–116). Leite, N., Castañeda, Q., & Adams, K. (2019). The Ethnography of Tourism: Edward Bruner and Beyond. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Lugosi, P., & Quinton, S. (2018). More-than-human netnography. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(3–4), 287–313. MacCannell, D. (1976). The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mkono, M. (2016). The reflexive tourist. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 206–219. Mostafanezhad, M., Cheer, J. M., & Sin, H. L. (2020). Geopolitical anxieties of tourism: (Im)mobilities of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2), 182–186. Nash, D. (1996). Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Pergamon. Nash, D., & Smith, V. L. (1991). Anthropology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 12–25. Pool, R. (1991). Postmodern ethnography? Critique of Anthropology, 11(4), 309–331. Půtová, B. (2018). Anthropology of tourism: Researching interactions between hosts and guests. Czech Journal of Tourism, 7(1), 71–92. Ritzer, G. (2007). Inhospitable hospitality? In Hospitality (pp. 129–140). Abingdon: Routledge. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226. Singh, S. (2019). Rethinking the Anthropology of Love and Tourism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Sluka, J. A. (2009). The contribution of anthropology to critical terrorism studies. In R. Jackson et al. (Eds.), Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda (pp. 138–155). Abingdon: Routledge. Smith, V. L. (1980). Anthropology and tourism: A science-industry evaluation. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 13–33. Smith, V. L. (Ed.). (2012). Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stone, P. R. (2011). Dark tourism: Towards a new post-disciplinary research agenda. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 1(3–4), 318–332. Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 261–283. Tavakoli, R., & Mura, P. (2018). Netnography in tourism–Beyond web 2.0. Annals of Tourism Research, 73(C), 190–192. The Future of Tourism Anthropology 55 Tribe, J., & Xiao, H. (2011). Developments in tourism social science. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 7–26. Tzanelli, R. (2018). Cinematic Tourist Mobilities and the Plight of Development: On Atmospheres, Affects, and Environments. Abingdon: Routledge. Urry, J. (2002a). Consuming Places. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2002b). The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage. Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5), 25–39. Urry, J. (2012). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. Abingdon: Routledge. Urry, J. (2016). Mobilities: New Perspectives on Transport and Society. Abingdon: Routledge. Urry, J., & Lash, S. M. (1993). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. Vannini, P. (2012). Ferry Tales: Mobility, Place, and Time on Canada’s West Coast. Abingdon: Routledge. Wight, C., & Stanley, P. (2022). Holocaust heritage digilantism on Instagram. Tourism Recreation Research, 1–15.