Description of Hospitality by Ramesh Sir

What is Hospitality?
Ramesh Raj Kunwar *
Abstract
This work has been fully based on review of several secondary sources,
conceptual and applied discourses on hospitality education, management
and research. The objective of studying this subject is to disseminate the
knowledge of hospitality in the academia. Many scholars of hospitality
across the world have produced different theoretical models, conceptual
insights, pragmatic approaches and experiential perspectives which
have become an impetus for understanding the hospitality as human
phenomena, hospitality and hospitableness, the hospitality industry, its
management, research, training and development as well as education
in this specialized field of service and experience economy. As a purely
academic discourse, the paper as a whole has been prepared by studying
the origin, history, conceptualization, dimensions, interactions, typologies
and neologism in hospitality. However, the present scholar could explore
varying opinions on nature and functional coverage of hospitality and
tourism, this study could identify many symbiotic relationships from
different perspectives. It is believed that this study will serve instrumental
for the learners, educators, researchers and professionals of hospitality and
tourism.
Keywords: hospitality, tourism, holy trinity, typology, neologism
Introduction
What is hospitality? This question has been raised by many scholars of hospitality
and tourism (Burgess, 1982; King, 1995; Jones, 1996a; Brotherton, 2013, Brotherton
1999; Ottenbacher, Harrington & Parsa, 2009; Selwyn, 2013). More recently Jones
(1996a: 6-7) has suggested that, “there is certainly no commonly shared paradigm
of what we mean by ‘hospitality’….Reference to the research literature would
indicate that there has been little or no discussion of what we mean by hospitality….
I would propose that the idea of hospitality research exists more in form than in
* Prof. Dr. Ramesh Raj Kunwar is the author of eight books on tourism and anthropology. He teaches tourism and
hospitality at various universities and colleges as visiting professor. Currently he is associated with Nepal Armed
Police Force (APF) Command and Staff College. He is the former Dean of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Tribhuvan University. Previously he was also the Dean of (the then) Royal Nepalese Military Academy, Kharipati,
Bhaktapur., Email: kunwardr@gmail.com
56 The GAZE Journal of Tourism and Hospitality (Vol. 8)
substance”. Also Taylor and Edgar (1996: 218, 215), in reflecting on the current state
of development of hospitality research, have pointed out: “An essential first step…is
to decide what the scope of hospitality research should be (and) if academic research
in hospitality is to develop satisfactorily it is our view that is must do so within a
coherent framework”.
They have contributed significantly to establish the universal significance of
these two disciplines in the present era of ‘service economy’ (Lashley et al., 2007)
and ‘experience economy’ (Pine & Gilmore,1998; see in detail Rijal & Ghimire, 2016,
pp.40-60). Due to such diverse contributions in this field, the entire specialization
of hospitality and tourism has received a broader basis to form the conceptual
knowledge and ideologies in these specialized disciplines. For example, Lashley and
Morrison (2000) write, “Our aim has been considered with reflecting insights into
the study of hospitality that encompass the commercial provision of the hospitality
and the hospitality industry, yet at the same time, recognize that hospitality needs
to be explored in private domestic settings… hospitality as a social phenomenon
involving relationships between people.” Hospitality has been considered as one of
the major players of the service economy as it contributes significantly the world
economy and this sector is the largest employer in the world next only to armed forces
(Ottenbacher et al., 2009, p. 269). Hospitality has been one of the most pervasive
metaphors within tourism studies, referring in one sense to the commercial project
of the tourist industry such as hotels, catering, and tour operation, and in another
sense, to the social interactions between local people and tourists, that is, hosts and
guests (Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007, p. 6).
Most of the people every where in hospitality sectors they refer to hospitality as
the friendly and welcoming behavior towards the guests. Frequently, such a friendly
and welcoming behavior may include sharing food, drinks and accommodation
with the realm of shared happiness resulting in the establishment and maintenance
of lasting relationships. In fact, the host-guest relationship serves as a power and
control measure. Being a host means having an element of power over the guest, and
vice-versa. In this respect, Selwyn (2000) has suggested that there is an exchange of
honor and the guest signals is the acceptance of the moral authority of the host. Cole
(2007) has attempted to discuss how hosting and rituals serve in domesticating and
controlling the strangers who penetrate the circle of the host home, hearth and social
world (p. 720). The hosts have control over the guests as they develop a dependency
postulate resulting in relationships lasting for life.
The view of hospitality has been supported by the arguments that it involves
complex relationships between providers and receivers in the locations of service
experienced (Di Domenico, & Lynch, 2007; Lashley, Lynch & Morrison, 2007; Lugosi,
2008, 2009). In these all discourses, the scholars tend to agree that beyond food, drink
Kunwar: What is Hospitality? 57
and accommodation, hospitality transactions involve the interpretation, articulation

and negotiation of identities, power relationships, property relations and space.
The contemporary hospitality industry is both multivalent and enormous as people
would argue the modern market based, commercial hospitality has ‘democratized’,
the practice of hospitality marketing it more ‘egalitarian’ in the sense that we are
all free to enter the market and buy whatever hospitality we want, wherever and to
what extent we want or consume it, Selwyn (2013) has argued. This scholar is of
the opinion that basic function of hospitality is to establish new relationships or to
promote already existing ones and it is achieved while making exchanges -- both
material and symbolic -- between hosts and guests (Selwyn, 2000, p.19).
On the other hand, Douglas (1987; cited in Lugosi, 2009, p. 398) has come up
with an anthropological approach to define the alternative prospective on hospitality
and hospitable behavior, which is quite similar to the works of Selwyn (2000) where
this scholar has argued that hospitality is a particular type of social practice in which
exchanges of goods and services, both material and symbolic are used to establish
new relationships or build existing ones. Truly hospitable behavior has a concern for
providing hospitality by entertaining, protecting and securing guests, added Ritzer
(2007). Another scholar has added that hospitable behavior is one dimension and certain
physical products (food, drink and accommodation) constitute the other dimension of
the service exchanges and it has other two dimensions too -- spatial dimension occurs
within a physical location or place and temporal dimension is manifested in types of
occasion the service has been rendered (Brotherton, 2013, p. 61).
A scholar has claimed that expectations, rules and resources exist for both
host and guest while performing the roles of ‘good host’ and ‘good guest’, both the
sides being contractually obligated and responsible to each other (Zlomislic, 2004).
This scholar has further added that hospitality is the name for providers’ relation
to the receivers, all transacted, ethically however it may go beyond invitation.
Sometimes, the providers may remain unprepared or prepared to be unprepared for
the unexpected arrival of guests. On top of all, hospitality is all about receiving or
welcoming beyond the concept of power, protocol or law. It is an opening without
the horizon of expectation where peace can be found beyond the confines of conflict.
In this respect, Caputo (1997, cited in Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007) has explained
that when the host says to the guest, “Make yourself at home”, this is a self-limiting
invitation. “Make yourself at home”, means please feel at home, act as if you were at
home, but remember, that is not true, this is not your home but mine. This reveals
that hospitality is being offered on temporary basis and it is quite similar with the
notion of tourism.
The focus of study in hospitality has shifted from simply the thematic
investigation of management of guest and host to as a significant means of

exploring and understanding the society. Many scholars have recognized that the
academia in management offers a utilitarian conception of hospitality which has
been widely criticized for its failure to address the social, cultural, political and
emotional dimensions of such transactions (Lashley et al., 2007; Lugosi, 2008, 2009).
Nevertheless, managerial concerns about the organization of service environment
and mobilization of resources are fundamental to the understanding of commercial
operations exchanging food, drink or shelter and host-guest interactions.
Other contributions of this field add that hospitality, as an art and science
embedded with welcoming gesture is manifested in offers of shelter, food, and drink,
combined with various levels of social interaction, which emerge in private, social
or commercial settings (Brotherton, 1999). Such transactions involve performances
of self and the reproduction of established social and cultural norms, but hospitality
may enable the construction of new alternative forms of sociality (Bell, 2007; Lugosi,
2009). Hospitality has a physical dimension -- the body is central to its production, for
example, in the preparation of food or drink or in the gestures that come to embody
hospitableness, and the multi-sensuality of food and drink places the body centrally
within its consumption. There is also a broader materiality to hospitality alongside
food and drinks, paraphernalia such as crockery, cutlery, drinking vessels, furnishings,
microwaves, kettles or cold-water dispensers shape social practice (Lugosi, 2014).
A central theme shared between tourism studies explores encounters between
people who are “strangers” to each other. This encounter involves the movements
of a mobile actor (the guest) into the home territory of a static host (Bell, 2009).
From a hospitality subject perspective, the seeds were first sown in discussions that
informed In Search of Hospitality edited by Conrad Lashley and Alison Morrison
in 2000. This gave birth to several other hospitality literatures such as, Hospitality
A Social Lens edited by C. Lashley, P. Lynch and A. Morrison (2007), Mobilizing
Hospitality edited by J. Germann Molz and S. Gibson (2007), The Sage Handbook
of Hospitality Management edited by B. Brotherton and R.C. Wood (2008), The
Origins of Hospitality and Tourism written by K. D. O’Gorman (2010), Extending
Hospitality: Giving Space, Taking Time edited by Dikeç Mustafa, N. Clarke and C.
Barnett (2009), Gary Alan Fine’s (2008) Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work
(update with new preface), and Key Concepts in Hospitality Management edited by
R.C. Wood (2013). All these literatures have shown that hospitality itself is the object
of the study and the other scholars who are from different disciplines such as cultural
theory, geography, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, theology, linguistics, applied
business and management who have made significant contributions to advancing the
understanding hospitality in commercial and non- commercial sector.
According to Lashley and Morrison (2000), hospitality requires the guest to feel
that the host is being hospitable through feelings of generosity, a desire to please and
a genuine regard for the guest as an individual. Hospitality is therefore more than
just about the host providing food and accommodation to the guest but also about
entertaining the guest. Entertaining is a good way to be friendly because it involves
the offer of a degree of intimacy, a share in the host home life. This motive, as well
as duty, can lead people to entertain those with whom their connection is essentially
official; it is as if they were saying, ‘Let’s not be merely business partners, we are
human beings as well’ (Telfer, 2000). ‘Entertainment’, originally refers to plays, music,
dancing or masks provided for the ‘guests’ enjoyment, but later became synonymous
with hospitality as it is today (American Heritage Dictionary, 1982; cited in King,
1995, p. 223). The roots of the word entertain mean a holding together, as in “the
human glue” holding together the social order.
Hospitality is vital in the services marketing context because it is the “service
enhancer” which would help providing added value to their core service provisions.
Eventually, this would lead to high level of customer satisfaction with the overall
services. Despite the importance of hospitality in creating “memorable staying
experiences” for hotel guests, there has been no reliable and valid measure that can
be used to evaluate the level of their foreign counterparts with respect to their levels
of expectations hotel hospitality.
Origin of Hospitality
The etymological roots of the term hospitality where identified as being Medieval
Latin “hospes” (guests); “hospitari” (be a guest); and “hospitabilis” (put up as a guest;
American Heritage Dictionary, 2007; cited in Ottenbacher et al., 2009, p. 265).
All modern words readily associated with hospitality are evolved from the same
hypothetical Proto-Indo-European root *ghos-ti which means stranger, guest and
the host is someone with whom one has reciprocal duties of hospitality (American
Heritage Dictionary, 2001; cited in O’Gorman, 2007, pp. 17-18). The word guest came
from the Middle English gest, evolved from Old Norse gestr, and from Old High
German gast, both come from Germanic *gastiz. *Ghos-ti also evolved to the Latin
roots hostis, enemy, army, where host (multitude) and hostile find their origin; hostia,
sacrifice, host (eucharistic). The combination of *ghos-ti and another Proto-Indo-
European root *poti powerful, gave the compound root *ghos-pot-, *ghos-po(d)-,
which evolved to the Latin hospes and eventually into hospice, hospitable, hospital,
hospitality, host (giver of hospitality), hostage, and hostel. The Greek languages also
evolved from the same Proto-Indo-European base, *ghos-ti gave the Greek xenos
which has the interchangeable meaning guests, host, or stranger. Traditionally, the
guest is the person with whom one has mutual obligation of hospitality. A guest is
also a stranger, and a stranger could well be hostile. Strangers are feared because
their intentions are often unknown and they can appear as bearers of magical and/
or mystical powers. The law or customs pertaining to the Ancient Greeks of offering
protection and hospitality to strangers is philoxeno. Literally ‘love of strangers’ is the
antithesis which is still in common English usage today in xenophobia (O’Gorman,
2007, pp. 17-18).
The literatures of hospitality show that hospitality implied a reciprocal
relationship which imposed certain obligations on the guest. Browner, as cited by
Santich (2007) has suggested that the Anglo - European world has adopted not only
the Latin word, but also the Latin concept of hospitality rather than the ancient Greek
concept (Browner, 2003; cited in Santich, 2007). `Hospitalitas’ in Latin means the
entertainment of guests, or hospitableness (Glare, 1973; cited in Santich, 2007). It
is derived from the word ‘hospes’ meaning either host or guest-guest in the sense of
visitor of friend, someone with whom the host has some ties and not necessarily a
complete stranger. In ancient Greek, hospitality is translated as `xenia’, derived from
`xenos’, meaning host or guest but more particularly a stranger, wanderer, refuge,
foreigner (Liddell, & Scott, 1983; cited in Santich, 2007). On the basis of this, Browner
has hypothesized that the Greek concept of hospitality is based on the primacy of the
guest (the obligation towards strangers), whereas the Latin concept which we have
inherited is based on the primacy of the host. ‘In the West, it is the role of the host the
matters, for he is the lord of strangers’ (Browner, 2003, cited in Santich, 2007, p. 51).
The commandment of religious bodies, the care of the sick, the desire to display
wealth, exchange goods and hear the news were all factors promoting hospitality.
Religious obligations and Christian institutions were prominent in the Middle Ages,
providing hospitality through hospices and monasteries. The term ‘Hospitallers’
was first applied to those whose duty it was to provide hospitum (lodging and
entertainment) for pilgrims (Selwyn, 2000, p. 24). The most noted institution of its
order called Knights Hospitallers, or Knights of St. John at Jerusalem, following the
1099 crusade (Burgess, 1982, p. 54-55). The Crusades consisted of several military
expeditions between 1095 and 1291 in which Christian powers attempted for regain
the Holy land from the Muslims (Fridgen, 1996:11). According to Ottenbacher et al.
(2009), The Knights Hospitaller is a charitable order…consisting of military monks
funded circa 1048 CE in some hospitals in Medieval Europe. Later on, they moved
to the island of Rhodes, and finally to Malta, establishing hospitals and hospices in
addition to fighting to defend and strengthen Christian interest. From the historical
context, thousands of pilgrims travelling to the holy places often expected the Knights
to protect and provide shelter throughout the journey (Partner, 1982; Ottenbacher
et al., 2009, p. 265). Hence, hospitality would appear to be a rather broad multi-
dimensional construct that extends beyond basic food and the shelter.
According to Nailon (1982, p. 137), the historical development of hospitality has
been summarized by Borer (1972), Taylor and Bush (1974) and Taylor (1977) for the
United Kingdom and by White (1968) for the United States. What emerges from the
literature has been summarized in Christian (1979; cited in Nailon, 1982, p. 137) as,
‘Hospitality throughout history has been centered around security, physical comfort
and psychological comfort [provided] to other by a host’ (Nailon, 1982, p. 137).
Throughout the world, commercial hospitality has developed in step with expanding
facilities for travel. First, the caravans following trading routes, then the stage coaches
followed by the railways and, more recently, travel by motor cars and air. The modern
hotel, originally established for nobility travelling in Europe, originated from the
hotel garni (rented elegant apartments) at the beginning of the last century (Medlik,
1972; cited in Nailon, 1982, p. 136).
Hospitality is not only defined just by its purity but also by its impurities. These
impurities referred variously to as the ‘strain of hospitality’ has been explored by
authors such as Ryan (1991), Mathieson and Wall (1982) and Smith and Brent (2001)
in their works on social and cultural dimensions of tourism and hospitality. These
scholars extend to social constructs that determine host-guest-relations including
those of xenophobia and neo-colonialism. The role of cultural arrogance and displays
of this by both hosts and guests provide a strong argument for the inversion that
occurs in the hospitality encounter/ experience of modern times (Sheringham &
Daruwalla, 2007).
Conceptualization of Hospitality
Classic definitions of hospitality suggest it as a social phenomenon with roots
in societies extending through thousands of years (O’Gorman, 2005; cited in Ritzer,
2007). The semantic definitions include those in dictionaries, thus hospitality
is the ‘friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guest and strangers’
(Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary, 1996) or ‘kindness in welcoming strangers or
guests’ (Collins Concise English Dictionary Plus, 1989). Variant terms, such as the
word ‘hospitable’ is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary (1970) in very similar
terms to ‘hospitality’ as ‘offering or affording welcome and entertainment to strangers
... of persons ... of things, feelings, qualities etc ... Disposed to receive or welcome
kindly, open and generous in mind or disposition. Hospitality operates on knife
edge, embodying its etymological origins, viz. Latin hospes, meaning friend as well
as enemy (Visser, 1991). Jochelson (1926; cited in Burgess, 1982, p. 50) observed
‘Hospitality often turns enemies into friends and strengthens the amicable relations
between groups foreign to one another’.
The hospitality elements may be represented conceptually as a package. An even
more elaborate presentation is made by Burgess (1982), who has observed the concept
as five points -- Service, Beverage, Accommodation, Entertainment and Food, within
a sphere of psychological and physiological comfort and security, which is itself
contained by a sphere of hospitable and social interaction. A full description of this

concept is given in Burgess (1982, p. 50) that, ‘The outer, primary interacting element
is that of the social relationship fostered by the warm, friendly, welcoming, courteous,
open, generous behavior of the host, creating the hospitable social environment. This
supports and promotes the positive feeling of security and comfort created by the
physical structure, design, décor and location of the facility. Finally, the provision of
accommodation facilities to sleep, eat, relax and wash, together with the supply of
food, beverage, service and entertainment.’
According to Muhlmann (1932), hospitality represents a kind of guarantee
or reciprocity one protects the stranger in order to be protected from him. This
approach is closer to the ancient Greek concept of philoxenos (love of strangers) and
its antithesis of which is still in common English usage today: xenophobia (“a fear of
foreigner or stranger”).
Many gift exchanges and hospitality events today establish similar symbolic
bonds. The concept of symbolism is that we live in a social reality where things,
people, words, situations and actions are social objects used for representation and
communication. They are given meaning not by nature but by communities and
become understood and transmitted by experience and language. Symbols are central
to human social life in enabling people to learn, understand, communicate and enjoy
a satisfying relationship beyond more animal response (Burgess, 1982).
So far as evidential definitions of hospitality are concerned, those will precisely
arise from efforts to understand, interpret and utilize existing diverse documentary
source on hospitality to inform definitional processes in terms of theory building, or
more precisely in term of providing theoretical context. The evidential approach is
thus rooted in academic literature and seeks to locate and define hospitality within
the ‘real world’ of evidence. Nevertheless, attempts at the evidential definition of
hospitality provide a bridgehead into consideration of the theoretical sources that
have thus far come to inform research in the field (Brotherton & Wood, 2008).
Hepple, Kipps and Thompson (1990) have argued that hospitality consists of four
basic characteristics. Firstly, hospitality is behavior confessed by a host or a guest
who is away from home. Secondly, it is interactive in nature and involves personal
contact between the provider and receiver. Thirdly hospitality comprises of a blend
of a tangible and intangible factors. Finally, the host provides for the guest’s security,
psychological and physiological comfort.
Tideman (1983; cited in Brotherton & Wood, 2008; cited in Brotherton, 1999, p.
266) has made an observation that hospitality is the method of production by which
the needs of the proposed guest are satisfied to the utmost and that means a supply
of goods and services in a quantity and quality desired by the guest and at a price
that is acceptable to him so that he feels the product is worth price - a definition that
could be a description of almost any economic activity. This has been elaborated by
some scholars like Bell (2007, p. 91),van Keken and Go (2006, p. 58) and Wharton
(2007. p.111) have coined the term as ‘night time economy’, ‘entertainment economy’
and ‘repetitive economy’ respectively. In the same vein, Pfeirfer (1983; cited in
Brotherton, 1999, p. 267) has also put forward a definition of hospitality from a
strongly supply-side economic perspective; Hospitality consists of offering food,
beverage and lodging, or, in other words, of offering basic needs for the person away
from home. Jones (1996; cited in Brotherton & Wood, 2008; Brotherton, 1999, p.
267) has argued that hospitality is made up of two distinct services - the provision of
overnight accommodation for people staying away from home, and the provision of
sustenance for people eating away from home.
Cassee (1983; cited in Brotherton & Wood, 2000) has defined hospitality as a
harmonious mixture of tangible and intangible components - food beverages, beds,
ambience and environment, and behavior of staff. Later on, this definition has been
slightly modified by Cassee and Reuland (1983) to a harmonious mixture of food,
beverage and/or shelter, a physical environment, and the behavior and attitude of
people. These definitions speak about the creation of hospitality industry and:
consumption (Brotherton, & Wood, 2008).
According to Reuland et al. (1985:142), when a guest comes into contact with
an organization offering something like hospitality, three elements in the hospitality
process, which we describe as situations, can be distinguished. They can be represented
by three circles.
The three circles represent the following situations:
1) The situation of the Provider (Pr); this is the situation of the restaurant/hotel,
who realizes the direct contact with the consumer. The situation is controlled
by the instructions the waiter has been given by his chief, but is also influenced
by his own norms and standards and his (changing) temper.
2) The situation of the Receiver (Re); the guest enters the restaurant or hotel
bringing with him his own background and ideas.
3) The situation of the Transfer (Tr); in this situation, created by both the Provider
and the Receiver, the Transfer of hospitality is realized. This situation starts
when the Receiver comes under the roof of the Provider of hospitality.
In conclusion Reuland et al. (1985, p.146) suggest that good planning and
adequate (cultural) management are essential tools to prevent the cultural clash and
to find such a solution that hospitality offer and expectations are in harmony without
disturbing the cultural differences.
The act of hospitality involves ‘an action (a welcome), an attitude (the opening
of oneself to the face of another… and the opening of one’s door and the offering of
the space of one’s house to a stranger), and a principle (disinterestedness)’ (Jelloun,
1999). Telfer (2000) has associated hospitality not just with pleasing others but also
with the reciprocal motives of hoping to have the hospitality returned where the host
also seeks to benefit. Understanding hospitality refers to the understanding of the
dynamics in spaces of hospitality. M. Dikec (2002) has prioritized the opening of the
boundaries and giving space to the stranger for mutual recognition. These spaces can
be social, cultural, institutional, ethical and political where participants and engage
with and learn from one another. This opening of spaces, however, requires regulating
hospitality situations (Friese, 2004) in order to facilitate more enriching hospitality
experiences (Grit, 2004; in Lynch et al., 2011).
However, what Burgess(1982), Cassee and Reuland (1983) and Hepple et al.
(1990) have in common is their failure to adequately define hospitality per se. In
common with others, for example King(1995).They confuse hospitable behavior,
or hospitableness, with hospitality and fall into the trap of suggesting that one of
the important features of hospitality is making the guest “feel at home”(Brotherton,
1999:167).The nature and importance of the distinction between hospitableness and
hospitality will be addressed.
Brotherton’s (1999) definition of hospitality reflects a different perspective. But
this has been developed from evidence perspective. In his view, hospitality is “a
contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into , and designed
to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned through the provision of
accommodation, and / or food, and /or drink” (p. 268) This interpretation emphasizes
the exchange relationship, the process- giving and receiving, with the attendant
benefits and obligations. The phrase ‘to enhance mutual well- being of the parties
concerned’ refers both to the happiness of the guest and the inherent reciprocity in
the exchange (Santich, 2007). However, this relatively narrow definition has now
been challenged on a number of grounds (Lynch et al., 2011). Lugosi (2014) has
commented that firstly it stresses mutual well-being which ignores asymmetries of
power and the potentially oppressive nature of hospitality transactions. Secondly,
because of its managerial underpinnings, it focuses narrowly on provision which
does not address the importance of transactions, particularly issues surrounding
reward, compensation and reciprocity. Thirdly, it ignores the importance of social
interaction in hospitality and finally, its places excessive emphasis on food and drink.
Morrison and O’Gorman (2006) have offered the following more multifaceted
definition: ‘It represents a host’s cordial reception, welcome and entertainment of
guests or strangers of diverse social backgrounds and cultures charitably, socially

or commercially with kind and generous liberality, into one’s space to dine and/or
lodge temporarily. Dependent on circumstance and context the degree to which the
hospitality offering is conditional or unconditional may very’ (Lashley, Lynch, &
Morrison, 2007). Hospitality has been commonly defined as something related to the
friendliness, kindness and hospitableness (Thio, 2005).
Jones (1996) has suggested that there is certainly no commonly shared paradigm
of what we mean by ‘hospitality’ Reference to the research literature would indicate
that there has been little or no discussion of what we mean by hospitality. Also Taylor
and Edgar (1996), in reflecting on the current state of development of hospitality
research, have pointed out that an essential first step is to decide what the scope of
hospitality research should be, and if academic research in hospitality is to develop
satisfactorily it is our view that is must do so within a coherent framework.
Hospitality: Three Domain Approach
For the first time in the history of hospitality studies, Lashley (2000) developed
three domain approach, which are social (pp. 5-10), private(pp.10-12), and
commercial (pp.12-15). The effort of developing these three domains is aimed to
establish a width of definition of hospitality. Social hospitality can be defined as the
social setting in which hospitality and acts of hospitableness takes place together with
the impacts of social forces on the production and consumption of food, drink and
accommodation (Thio, 2005).
Certainly, there are important lessons to be learnt from the study of the social and
cultural domain of hospitality. First, different societies will have degrees of culturally
defined obligations to be hospitable. Some cultures will require individuals to meet
certain levels of expectation to offer hospitality to strangers. Thus, different societies
will be more or less predisposed to be hospitable to the stranger/tourist. Second,
obligations to offer hospitality to strangers changes over time. Increased contact with
visitors appears, particularly in commercial tourist contexts, to change obligations to
be hospitable. Familiarity, it seems, can breed contempt. Thirdly, it is possible to re-
introduce frontline hospitality and tourist staff to these obligations to be hospitable
through training and management practice (Lashley et al., 2007, pp.7-8).
According to Lashley, the inclusion of the social domain enables the understanding
of social settings in which acts of hospitality and acts of hospitableness take place
together with the impacts of social forces on the production and consumption of
food/ drink/ and accommodation (Lashley & Morrison, 2000). Additionally, the social
domain will rekindle the notion that in ancient, subsistence cultures, ‘beliefs about
hospitability and obligations to others were located in views and visions about the
nature of society and the natural order of things. So, social hospitality can be defined
as the social setting in which hospitality and acts of hospitableness take place together
with the impacts of social forces on the production and consumption of food, drink
and accommodation (Thio, 2005). Social Hospitality means observing hospitality in
a boarder social context (Lashley & Morrison, 2007). Furthermore, Lashley (2000)
has stated that the social context has an important role in the cultivation/ production,
distribution, preparation, and consumption of food and beverage because food habits
are culturally formed. In other words, in different cultures, there are different sets of
rules to be performed. For instance, in a typical wedding party, the food, decoration
and wedding dress are chosen to fit with the culture of the host.
The majority of social hospitality is provided on an occasional basis, on a fairly
small scale, and by the host or hostess themselves probably in their own home. In this
way each social hospitality experience would be a unique experience, which would
be customized or personalized for each guest. The commercial hospitality operation
would be a comparatively large scale (Lockwood & Jones, 2000, p. 161). Social
hospitality is essential supply led. It is the host or hostess who invites their guests to
stay for the weekend or to pop round for supper or who decides the food to cook and
the drink to serve. On the other hand, commercial hospitality is largely demand led.
It is customer’s decision as to where and when they are going to stay or what they are
going to eat or drink. This gives the customer a greater degree of choice of and greater
degree of control over the hospitality experience to which the commercial hospitality
provider must be able to respond. The private domain influences the more written-
about commercial domain of hospitality. Expectations formed in the home shape
guest demands outside of the home. The provision of in-room facilities can be seen
as satisfying these home-learned expectations.
Drawing on another perspective, many hospitality businesses are themselves
‘commercial homes’ (Lynch & MacWhannell, 2000). Commercial homes (Lynch,
2005) in guest houses, bed and breakfasts establishments, farm-stay properties and
small hotels in particular involve guests staying in the same dwelling as the host.
Lynch and MacWhannell provide a useful model for understanding the relationships
between paying guests and hosts depending on the degree to which they share
domestic private space. Although the interface between resident guest and host is at
their sharpest in the accommodation sector, pubs, inns and bars, and some restaurant
and cafe businesses have close links between the home and the commercial activity.
Many of these quasi-commercial firms can be described by the label ‘lifestyle’, run by
people who want to have more control of their lives, or who ‘like the life’, and ‘make
a reasonable’ living. Often the domestic setting is seen as ‘not having to work’, or
presents a business opportunity where their life skills, learnt in the home provide them
with an opportunity to ‘work at home’ (Lashley, & Rowson, 2005; cited in Lashley et
al., 2007). The overlap between the commercial provision within a domestic setting,
being paid to provide hospitality, is at the heart of the operator’s dreams.
The private domain of hospitality has provided the source to some interesting
studies over recent years. On one level, the domestic environment is an important
arena for learning about receiving guests and the obligations of the host. Half the
accounts of ‘special meal occasions’ (Lashley et al., 2005) were located in domestic
settings, and the language of domestic hospitality was used to evaluate hospitality in
commercial settings, ‘they made me feel at home’ for example, O’Mahony’s (2003;
cited in Lashley et al., 2007) has studied the profile of five leading restaurateurs in
Australia and suggested that learning about food and dining in the home was a
common source of motivation. In some cases, learning to cook with a mother or
grand-mother was an important source of skill. In other cases, the experience of
food and drink, and hosting, provided a source of inspiration that became invaluable
when they entered the restaurant business (Lashley et al., 2007).
The commercial domain of the hospitality literature is more specific in its
definition. Cassee sees hospitality as a harmonious mixture of tangible and intangible
components- food, beverages, beds, ambience and environment, and behavior of
staff ’ (Brotherton, 1999). This definition has been since modified to a ‘harmonious
mixture of food, beverage and/or shelter, a physical environment, and the behavior
and attitude of people. According to King (1995), commercial hospitality is ‘a specific
kind of relationship between a host and a guest in which the host understands what
would give pleasure to the guests and enhance his or her comfort and well-being
and deliver it generously and flawlessly in face to face interaction’. In the commercial
context the obligation to provide hospitality services is critically more important if
the organization’s service mission is to create “memorable experiences” (Ariffin et
al., 2011, p.341). Hemmington (2007, cited in Ariffin et al., 2011) identified five key
dimensions of commercial hospitality as host-guest relationship, generosity, theatre
and performance, lots of little surprises and safety and safety and security. Lashley et
al. (2005; cited in Ariffin et al., 2011) revealed that emotional aspects were found to
be much more influential than the quality of the food in creating memorable dining
experiences.
Telfer (2000) has claimed that commercial hospitality need not be inevitably
inhospitable, there are many examples of those managing hotels, pubs, coffee shops,
and restaurants who provide generous and warm feelings among their clients because
they recognize the key importance of customer experiences, and the need for these
to be genuinely felt. Conversely, Ritzer has made a powerful criticism of corporate
providers who ultimately prioritise shareholder interests above those of guests/
customers, employees, and other stakeholders (Lashley et al., 2007, p. 9).
However, commercial domain is clearly influenced by above mentioned social

and cultural, and private or domestic domains of hospitality. It is important that those
studying hospitality recognize the interplay of both the cultural and domestic on the
commercial provision of hospitality. It is also vital that commercial providers develop a
more subtle understanding of hospitality so as to focus on building long-term customer
relationships. Successful hosts are able to engage customers on an emotional and
personal level, which creates feelings of friendship and loyalty among guests (Lashley
& Morrison, 2003).In course of analyzing hospitality, Lockwood & Jones (2000,
p.161) have authentically differentiated between social hospitality and the commercial
hospitality which they have portrayed in the figure given below. This differentiation will
make clear to understand social and commercial hospitality in better way.
Social hospitality Commercial hospitality
Supply led Demand led
Occasional Continuous
Small scale Large scale
Self-administered Administered by others
Non-dedicated facilities Dedicated facilities
Unique experience Repeatable experience
Personalized activity Economies of scale
Social experience Service experience
Not for profit Financial sustainability
Comparing social and commercial hospitality (Lockwood & Jones, 2000, p.161).
One immediate weakness which emerges from a cursory look at the list of
contributors is the overwhelmingly UK- Eurocentric focused nature of the authors
and their research. This should be really have been sub-titled ‘A UK Perspective’
since North America, Asia-Pacific and Australasia are weakly represented with the
exception of Ritzer’s McDonaldization of society thesis which North American (Page,
2003, p. 726).
Hospitality A Social Lens
This is another innovation of hospitality research and studies invented by Lashley
et al. (2007). In course of defining, describing and analyzing this concept Lashley et
al.(2007) write, in broader social science research, hospitality as a social phenomenon
has been inferior, marginalized and less heard. A conceptual development is the social
lens framework where the host-guest relationship is located at the core of hospitality.
The meaning of the host-guest relationship depends on the socio-cultural context.
The hospitality social lens (Lashley et al., 2007) explains wider relationships within
society, arguably looking at social relationship from an entirely different perspective.

It argues that the host-guest relationship is multi-dimensional and that hospitality
can be observed “as a mirror that reflects social norms, values, beliefs and ideologies”
(p.173). Dominant themes in explaining a host-guest transaction through a social
lens include a three-layered approach: first, commercial and domestic discourses,
second, dimensions of inclusion and exclusion, politics of space types and sites, and
laws and the third maps out of socio-cultural context (Causevic, & Lynch, 2009).
While summarizing the whole works of the book Lashley et al. (2007) have proposed
nine robust themes of hospitality, the dominant one being hospitality as human
phenomenon (the nexus is the host/guest transaction) followed by domestic discourse,
commerce inclusion and exclusion, laws, performance, politics of space, types and
sites and social and cultural dimension, all they form a hospitality conceptual lens.
Table 1: Hospitality social lens summary of themes
Host/Guest In some cases the role of authority is accepted by the hosts in
transaction other cases, the role of authority is not accepted.
Inclusion/ Certain strangers are welcomed and transformed into guests,
Exclusion certain strangers are not welcomed.
Laws Standards norms, principles and obligations defined though
the social and cultural settings.
Performance Symbolism of meaning authenticity and staged authenticity,
depicted through the host guest transaction.
Domestic Domestic settings, gender issues and practices observed
discourse through the transaction between the host and the guest.
Politics of space Boundaries which denote inclusion and exclusion, domestic
and commercial discourses.
Types and sites Forms and locations and their role in experiencing the host/
guest transactions as the core of the hospitality.
Commerce Commercial hospitality is only one among other social
Dimensions of host/guest transaction.
Socio-cultural Certain norms are constructed through the relationship
dimension between the host and the guests and the socio-cultural
contexts under which the relationship take place.
Source: Causevic, & Lynch (2009:126).
Table 2: Concepts of hospitality from hospitality: a social lens
Perspective Concepts of Hospitality Author
Anthropology Moral obligations defining social and cultural Cole

expectations about behavior as host guest intra-
tribal hospitality and reciprocity
Architecture Hotel space designed to create an ambience Wharton
of hospitality experiences-symbolism and
the rhetoric of hospitality adapts to address
developments in consumer expectations
Classics Historical insight into religious and cultural O’Gorman
obligations for hosts and guest in Greek, Roman
and early Christian setting
Culture Ethical hospitality-differences between powerful Sheringham
hosts and vulnerable guest-the widespread fear of and
global strangers Daruwalla
Cultural Use of bars, restaurants, clubs and boutique Bell
Geography hotels in the regeneration of city centre space-
role of hospitality experiences in establishing and
reinforcing lifestyle experiences.
Gastronomy Eating and drinking as focus of gastronomy- Santich
reflection on the acts of hosting and the manners
of being guests
History Multicultural evolution of the ‘hospitality O’Mahony
industry’ in the various colonial hotels and pubs
of Melbourne in the nineteenth century
Human Commercial control through looking good and Nickson and
Resource sounding right-hospitality experiences require Warhurst
Management selection and development of service staff who
sound and look the ‘part’ as defined by the brand
and the market it is supposedly servicing
Socio- Demonstrating how fast food restaurants Robinson
linguistics manufacture, control and process customers in and Lynch
a set of predicable processes shaping customer
tastes and expectations supporting Ritzer’s theory
Sociology Commercial home of the micro-business being Di Dimenico
operated as a guest house of hotel-represent a and Lynch
forum for both private and commercial acts of
hospitality
Sociology Component parts of the theory of Ritzer

McDonaldization are an anathema to spontaneous
hospitable behavior
Source: O’Gorman (2010, p. 4).
Later on, in course of theorizing hospitality, Lynch et al. (2011) have proposed
twelve different new areas of hospitality research which are: historical approaches
to hospitality, narrative hospitality, relationship between hospitality and immobility,
cartographies and specialties of hospitality and virtuality, hostipitality, ethics and
politics of hospitality, embodied hospitality, hospitality and materiality, researching
hospitality and inclusive hospitality.
Dimensions of Hospitality
The literatures have highlighted that hospitality is multilayered phenomena
(Lugosi, 2009). Hospitality is also multi-interpretable concept (Munsters, 2010).
According to Selwyn (2013), hospitality is multivalent and enormous. Hospitality
demonstrates that managerial, social scientific and philosophical approaches offer
a partial but important understanding of its different forms and dimensions. To
understand how it is social and commercial manifestation between the different
approaches to hospitality: the managerial or operational focus on how food and drink
provision emerges as a set of proposition for customers, the anthropological focus on
the social and cultural functions of hospitality transactions, and the philosophical
concerns about the ethical or historical principles that underpin and shape these
transactions (Lugosi, 2009).
Among the various scholars of hospitality, Brotherton (2003), O’Gorman (2007) and
Lashley et al. (2007) have developed the dimensions of hospitality which have become
the impetus for understanding hospitality in better way. According to Brotherton
(2003), the concept of hospitality involves an identification of where, why and when
hospitality occurs and what is included in it. This gives rise to four dimensions:
The spatial dimension deals with the where aspect and facilities exploration of the
locations and places hospitality takes place.
The behavioral dimension is concerned with the why aspect and concentrates
attention on the motives lying behind the provision of and the human processes
involved in its delivery.
The temporal dimension focuses on the when aspect or the incidence of hospitality.
This is essentially concerned with the notion of hospitality occasions.
The physical dimension identifies the physical features and products associated
with any given type of hospitality provision.
The combination or aggregation of these four dimensions constitutes the concept

of hospitality as, in total, they comprise all components of any given ‘hospitality
situation’. Therefore, they can be used, individually or collectively.
In addition to this, it is clear that a consideration of one or more of these dimensions
could be used as a vehicle to analyze hospitality chains and developments in the industry.
For example, combinations of these dimensions could be used as a basis to establish
the existence of strategic groups within the industry. The spatial dimension could
be used to analyze the changing pattern of locations and venues where commercial
hospitality is provided. The physical and/or behavioral dimensions could be used
to develop product/brand positioning maps, and the temporal dimension to reflect
changing patterns of time use, social trends and priorities, and their relationship to
changing forms of commercial hospitality provision (Brotherton, 2003).
The history of hospitality, according to O’Gorman, goes back to 500 B.C. to 500
A.D. generally referred to as the ancient world or classical world that emerged in
Greek and Roman Civilizations. The key influences affecting the attitudes towards
hospitality in the societies considered are: religious practices and beliefs, the
advancement of trade and commerce, transactional expectations, social status and the
household, a system of communication, and the fear of strangers. The evaluation of
outcomes leads to the identification of five dimensions of hospitality. The dimensions
are honorable traditions, fundamental to human existence, stratified, diversified and
central to human endeavors (O’Gorman, 2007, pp. 27-28).
Honorable tradition: The common features of the honorable tradition dimension
of hospitality are:
z The concepts of guest, stranger, and host are closely related;
z Hospitality is seen as essentially organic, revealing much about the cultural
values and beliefs of the societies;
z Reciprocity of hospitality is an established principle;
z Providing hospitality is paying homage to the gods- a worthy and honorable
thing to do – and failure is condemned in both the human and spiritual worlds
(O’Gorman, 2007, p. 8).
Hospitality is initially concerned with the protection of others in order to be
protected from others. Additionally within the ancient and classical words, often
reinforced by religious teaching and practice, hospitality is considered as an inherently
good thing to provide, without any immediate expectation of an earthly reward.
Fundamental to human existence: The common features of the dimension of the
fundamentalism of hospitality to human existence are:
z Hospitality includes food, drink and accommodation and is also concerned

with the approach to be adapted, for example welcoming, respectful and
genuine;
z Hospitality is offered and the extent or limitation of it is based on the needs
and the purpose of the guests/ strangers;
z Alliances are initially developed through hospitality between friends,
households and states, and are strengthened through continuing mutual
hospitality;
z Hospitality once granted between individuals, households, and states is also
granted to descendants and through extended friendships (O’Gorman, 2007,
p. 28).
Hospitality is a primary feature in the development of the societies that have been
considered. It is an essential part of human existence, especially as it deals with basic
human needs (food, drink, shelter and security). It is also clear that the concept of the
hospitality being based on meeting the needs that the guests have at the time, rather
than the type of people that they are, is already established.
Stratified: The common features of the stratification dimension of hospitality are:
z Development in the societies lead to the formal stratification of hospitality:
the codification of hospitality being based on whether it was private, civic or
business, and on the needs and purpose of the guest/stranger, and their nature
or status;
z Reciprocity of hospitality becomes legally defined;
z Civil and business hospitality develops from private hospitality but retains the
key foundations- treat other as if in their own home;
z Hospitality management, in the civic and business sense, is established as
being centered on persons responsible for formal hospitality, and also for
protection of guest/stranger and ensuring their proper conduct (O’Gorman,
2007, p. 29).
Hospitality has never been homogeneous. Since the earliest time, hospitality
provision is increasingly codified. As the societies become more sophisticated, the
codification of hospitality provides reference points for how to treat a range of guests/
strangers, according to a variety of criteria. Typologies of hospitality also become
apparent: private, civil and business/commercial.
Diversified: The common features of the diversification dimension of hospitality are:
z Places of hospitality were initially differentiated primarily by the existence, or
not, of overnight accommodation;
z Individual places of hospitality either offer associated services, or are located

near other places of hospitality;
z Originally places of hospitality were for the lower classes, who did not have
established networks of hospitality enjoyed by the higher classes;
z Increasing travelling among the higher classes created demands for superior
levels of places of hospitality (O’Gorman, 2007, p. 29).
The needs of the host and the guest have always varied; hospitality therefore
always had to be able to respond to a broad range of needs.
Central to human endeavor: The common features of the dimension of the
centrality of hospitality to human endeavor are:
z Hospitality is a vital and integral part of the societies;
z Shared hospitality is a principle feature in the development and continuation
of friendships and alliances between persons, between communities, and
between nations;
z Hospitality is the focus for the celebrations of significant private, civic and
business events, and achievements throughout life;
z Hospitality is also foreseen as a principal feature of the end of time (O’Gorman,
2007:30).
Since the beginning of human history, hospitality is the mechanism that has been
central to the development of the societies, at both the individual and collective levels.
Hospitality as Social Control
Brotherton and Wood (2008) have identified two dominant themes: hospitality as
a means of social control, and hospitality as a form of social and economic exchange.
Though the distinctiveness of the two themes is debatable, for example, social
exchange might be considered as a form of social control (Burgess, 1982; & Lugosi,
2009). However, the classification has become an important tool of social analysis as
has been viewed by Lynch et al. (2011).
Brotherton and Wood (2008) have emphasized the idea of hospitality being a
means of controlling the ‘other’ or ‘stranger’ which highlights how hospitality acts
as a powerful mediating social control mechanism. Historical analyses of hospitality
have represented ‘stranger’ as a potential of danger, civilized through the process of
providing hospitality (Selwyn, 2000). To elaborate this, Selwyn (2000) has added
that hospitality converts: strangers into families, enemies into friends, friends into
better friends, outsiders into insiders, non-kin into kin. Hospitality literature thus
also includes antonyms in this regard stranger/friend, inclusion/exclusion, welcome/
non-welcome, hospitality/inhospitality, conditional/unconditional, duty/pleasure,
morality/transgression, religiosity/bacchanalian, order/disorder and high/low (Bell,

2007a, 2007b; Derrida, 1998, 200b; Selwyn, 2000; Sheringham & Daruwalla, 2007).
Telfer (2000) has explained that this management of strangers, involving two key
participants: the host and the guest, locates the act of hospitality within sociocultural
discourses. This, in turn, also contributes to the way individuals manage difference
(Cresswell, 1996; Lugosi, 2009). Amidst the ongoing debate regarding the evolution
of hospitality focusing upon the influence of commercial hospitality and the
contemporary nature of hospitality, attention has been drawn to the different domains
of hospitality-social, private and commercial (Lashley, 2000; Lynch, McIntosh &
Tucker, 2009).
Valene L. Smith’s (1977) influential collection Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology
of Tourism has established hospitality and the related concepts of hosts and guests
as a foundational structure to understand the social interactions between tourists and
locals in both commercial and non-commercial settings which shifted the focus of
tourism studies from tourists to the broader relational aspects of tourism. However,
with respect to the increasing commercialized nature of hospitality, Aramberri (2001)
has proposed local people and tourists to be described more accurately as ‘service
providers’ and ‘customers’.
Hospitality has often been used to control strangers and outsiders, and its giving
and receiving offers a way to negotiate potentially harmful relationships between
individual and groups (Candea & da Col, 2012; cited in Lugosi, 2014). The offer
of hospitality positions the provider as host and the receiver as guest, each with
obligations towards the other (Lashley & Morrison, 2000). Hosts have duties to
ensure the well-being of their guests, while guests have obligations to respect the
rules of the host and to reciprocate; both are subjugated to the hospitality transaction
and to the creation of a hospitality’s space (Derrida & Dufourmantelle 2000; cited in
Lugosi, 2014). The offering and acceptance of hospitality specifies and distinctions
between host and guest. In short, hospitality was and continues to be used to create
social ties and extend the scope and depth of existing ties through the articulation of
host- guest relations (Selwyn, 2000).
The writings of Emmanuel Kant (born in 1724-died in 1804), the humanist;
Jacques Derrida (born in 1930-died in 2004), the deconstructionist; and Emmanuelis
Levinas (born in 1906-died in 1995), the philosopher (Lynch et al., 2011; Gibson,
2003, 2006, 2007; O’Dell, 2007; Friese, 2004; Zlomislic, 2004; Cresswell, 2007; Laachir,
2007; Germann Molz, 2007) have recently inspired much philosophical deliberation
on the ethics and politics of hospitality. In these philosophical accounts writers have
used hospitality to reflect critically a boarder questions about citizenship, human
rights and the ethical treatment strangers. The philosophical and ethical implications
of hospitality and in particular Derrida’s challenging concept of ‘absolute hospitality’

may shed light on social relations and encounters between strangers in various
contexts
Related to the hospitality/stranger theme is the idea of difference management
which links hospitality with social issues concerning inclusion and exclusion (Foster,
& Hagan, 2007), welcome and non-welcome (Naas, 2003), tolerance and conflict
(Zlomislic, 2004). Kant (1957) also has emphasized the idea of ‘universal hospitality’
being necessary to enable peace and world citizenship. However, while Kant conceives
hospitality to be conditional with guests conforming to acceptable behaviors,
Derrida (2001; cited in Lynch et al., 2011) contrasts it with the idea of unconditional
hospitality. This has led to discussions regarding hospitality as an ethic as well as the
way in which hospitality governs social relations. Jelloun (1999; cited in Lynch et al.,
2011) has thus concluded that hospitality moves from difference management to an
acceptance of strangeness and difference. This has further led to discussions upon
hospitality and racism, hospitality and treatment of asylum seekers, hospitality and
deportation, hospitality and the Internet, and hospitality and the homeless. Thus, the
idea of ‘how we might live with difference’ relates to the transformation of human
prejudice and the enactment of liberal values (Valene, 2008) by creating a hospitable
city through cosmopolitan hospitality (Yeoh, 2004; Dines & Cattell, 2006; cited in
Lynch et al., 2011). This, as such, focuses upon the theme of hospitality as an ethic.
The intersection between hospitality and mobility explains the questions of
hospitality and social control. Hospitality is premised on the mobility of the visitor, the
stranger, the exchange student, the tourist or the asylum seeker. However, hospitality
also entails immobility as it connotes slowing down, resting and stopping for a while
(Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007). Thus hospitality involves both movement and
stillness, as well as the dialects of social control and resistance as hospitality may
entail enforced immobility as well as voluntary mobility and stillness.
Bell (2007b; in Lynch et al., 2011) has focused upon the contribution of
commercial hospitality to the cityscape, has pointed to the social significance of
mundane moments of hospitality in daily life determining the ethics of social relations.
Bell (2007a) has drawn attention to the mediating role of built environment, in the
affordance of daily hospitality. Thus, apart from host-guest metaphor, hospitality
also has examined human and non-human relationships, including divine-human
relationships, terra-human or human-animal relationships which also open up new
possibilities for thinking about the relationship between humans and machines.
Hence, hospitality accentuates social ties. Strangers are converted into friends by
the process of providing hospitality. This eventually contributes to the way individuals
manage difference. Focus, today, has shifted from tourists to the broader relational
aspects of tourism. The theme of hospitality goes further as an ethic. This is because
hospitality moves from difference management to an acceptance of strangeness
and difference. Its ideas appear relevant in various social issues as well concerning
inclusion and exclusion, tolerance and conflict, racism, treatment of asylum seekers,
homeless, etc. through the transformation of human prejudice and enactment of
liberal values. Therefore, hospitality entails social significance where people could
not just manage differences but even accept them.
Hospitality as Social and Economic Exchange
Various definitions and descriptions of hospitality have shown the diffusion of the
ideas of exchange and reciprocity into hospitality. Economic and social exchange has
been reflected in the idea of exchange in relation to ‘mainstream rational economic
theory’ (Shilling & Mellor, 2001; Scott, 1995), recent ‘rational choice’ and gift exchange
(Mauss, 2002; cited in Brotherton, & Wood, 2008). The ethical economy, as described
by Lazzarato (1997), is concerned with ‘an ethical surplus’. The ethical economy is
motivated by an accumulation of social recognition led by sharing and generosity to
acquire peer respect (Arvidsson, Bauwens, & Peitersen, 2008; cited in Lynch et al.,
2011). There have, however, been discussions upon hospitality and hospitableness.
There are many dualisms in hospitality: social/economic, gift economy/capitalist
economy, nostalgia/real. While hospitality is hoped to embody the real: real people,
real values (Featherstone, 1987; Kroker 1985; cited in Lynch et al., 2011), hospitality
as economic exchange locates hospitality as part of capitalist economy with a concern
for profit realization.
Reciprocity in hospitality has been conceived by Sahlins (1965; cited in Brotherton
& Wood, 2008) as unidirectional, balanced and even negative. For Jelloun (1999),
hospitality does not always imply reciprocity and Bolton (2009) has described it as
creating ‘a distorted relationship’. Thus paradoxes have been highlighted in Lynch
(2007) referring to a commercial and highly regulated setting made to entice the guest
to consume in free will but which may instead create a loss of free will. Sheringham
and Daruwalla (2007) have also drawn out that while ‘the other’ is symbolically
elevated, s/he is also subject to domination by the host and by the rules of being
a guest. Lashley et al. (2007) as such prefer the term ‘transaction’ which has been
referred to as ‘altered state’, ‘a liminal space’ and the ‘time out of the everyday’ which
hospitality brings. This transaction also focuses upon the interchangeability of the
host-guest roles during the hospitality interaction. Lugosi (2008, & 2009) has drawn
attention to the guest-guest relation in hospitality with guests taking on roles of hosts
in relation to other guests.
Many studies have challenged the host-guest relationship in the context of
commercial hospitality. Aramberri (2001) has suggested ‘service provider-consumer’
relationship to give greater emphasis to the economic rather than social side of
the exchange. Hospitality, as such, can be recognized through a variety of motives
and ethical positions such as commercial hospitality, ulterior-motives hospitality,
reciprocal hospitality and genuine altruistic hospitality.
Hospitality organizations have served to surface broader social themes. They
have been used to highlight labor issues such as poor working conditions (Orwell,
1993; Ehrenreich, 2001; Wood, 1997; cited in Lynch et al., 2011), work-group behavior
including conflicts (Whyte, 1948), and the significance of emotional labor (Hochschild,
1983). According to Hoschschild (1983, p.7), He uses the term emotional labor to
mean the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily
display; emotional labor is sold for a wage and therefor has exchange value. Emotional
labor is implicit or explicit requirement within a job specification to control personal
emotional responses and manage or manipulate the emotional well-being of customers
or client as a significant aspect of many jobs in the industry (Hochschild, 1983).
Hospitality and the related roles of ‘host’ and ‘guest’, thus serve as powerful
metaphors to understand the dynamics of control and exchange that shape economic
and social life in an increasingly mobile world.
Apart from just providing and receiving service, hospitality is also concerned with
economic exchange for profit realization. Hospitality thus, becomes a ‘transaction’,
an interaction, which brings the ‘time out of the everyday’. Hospitality is associated
not just with pleasing others but also with the reciprocal motives of seeking benefit
focusing upon mutual recognition. Besides the ‘host-guest’ approach, the ‘service
provider-consumer’ relationship also gives emphasis to the economic side of the
exchange. Hospitality has even surfaced broader social themes like poor working
conditions of labors, work-group behavior including conflicts and the significance
of emotional labor. Hence, hospitality serves to understand the social and economic
dynamics of control and exchange.
The Hospitality Business
While reviewing the work of Lashley and Morrison’s (2000) book and Brotherton’s
(1999) article, Slattery (2002) comments the three-domain approach explicitly
excludes essential features of the industry so that what is left is a denuded and sterile
conception of commercial hospitality and hospitality management that is portrayed
as a poor relation to the hospitality available in the social and private domains. There
are three levels of context, which are necessary for understanding the business and
when incorporated, render the three-domain approach redundant for understanding
the industry and therefore redundant as a basis for teaching and research in hospitality
management (Slattery, 2002:23).Nailon (1981; Hepple et al.,1990:307) stress that the
hospitality industry is a business. The importance of the financial component in many
types of non-domestic hospitality, for example, hotels, motels, restaurants and wine
bars is clear. This is how Slattery made an attempt to establish his own concept on
hospitality which cannot be ignored in this study. Accordingly, Slattery proposed three
different contexts: the industry context, the corporate context and the venue context.
The industry context: The hospitality industry is comprised of commercial
organizations that specialize in providing accommodation and/or, food, and/or drink,
through a voluntary human exchange, which is contemporaneous in nature, and
undertaken to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned (Brotherton,
& Wood, 2000). Based on this review, it begs the question – Are there any areas of
agreement that would support the nation that hospitality literature, there seems to be
some level of agreement that hospitality industries are those that are providers of food,
beverage, accommodation, entertainment, leisure, attraction, or some combination
of those. Second, many of the simplistic dimensions, such as tangibility, degree of
labor intensity, service technology, and so on do little to differentiate hospitality-
related industries from other service industries (Ottenbacher et.al., 2009).
Based on this , it begs the question – Are there any areas of agreement that
would support the nation that hospitality literature, there seems to be some level of
agreement that hospitality industries are those that are providers of food, beverage,
accommodation, entertainment, leisure, attraction, or some combination of those.
Second, many of the simplistic dimensions, such as tangibility, degree of labor
intensity, service technology, and so on do little to differentiate hospitality-related
industries from other service industries (Ottenbacher et al., 2009).
This industry is represented in every country in the world and is diverse and
complex. It encompasses a range of free-standing hospitality business and is also
a component of a wide range of venues whose primary function is not hospitality
(Slattery, 2002).
Slattery further writes, as hospitality venues develop in size and complexity they
include common place activities that do not fit with the three- domainers’ conception
of hospitality. For example, most mid-market, up-market and luxury hotels have
facilities to meet demand for conferences and health clubs. Similarly, cruise ships,
theme parks, motorway service areas and multi-leisure centers have integral
components that fall outside the scope of the three- domainers’ definition. A vivid
example is from Las Vegas where there are 29 venues, each with more than 100 rooms
(Slattery, 2002).
Hospitality companies also have progressively undertaken the management of
leisure venues that include hospitality. The range of natural activities managed by
hospitality companies extends beyond the minimal of renting rooms and selling
meals and drinks as they seek to identify and supply facilities to meet the progressive
growth in diversity of customer demand. Hospitality is an integral part of leisure

venues and it devalues them to strip out the hospitality. For instance, in the UK bingo
market the game itself is regulated to be virtually margin free (Slattery, 2002).
The corporate context: As economies develop, so the hospitality industry
consolidates and chains of hospitality businesses replace unaffiliated venues as the
key operators in the industry. In the UK, for example, between 1985 and 2000 quoted
and unquoted hotel chains grew room stock by 59 per cent, adding a net average
of 5300 rooms per year. They now account for 56 per cent of UK hotel rooms and
the growth is continuing (Slattery, & Roper, 1986; Hotel and Catering Research
Centre, 2001; in Slattery, 2002). Consolidation is occurring throughout the range
of hospitality businesses and is the most significant long-term development in the
structure of the industry (Slattery, 2002).
When the unit of analysis is the hospitality chain, then the corporate management
of the business becomes central and an array of priorities emerge such as the
performance of the chain and the conception and management of hospitality brands,
which have no part to play in the social and private domains. Two other examples
illustrate the divergence. First, corporate executives manage hospitality portfolios
and this involves chain supply management. There are eight chain supply variables
with which they juggle: market level profile, configuration of facilities profile, size
of venue profile, affiliation profile, chain length profile, chain size profile, country
profile and city profile (Slattery, 2002).
According to Slattery, there is no reference in the book to the corporate context of
the hospitality business and there is no evidence that the three-domainers recognize
the centrality of the corporate context to the understanding of the hospitality industry.
The corporate context has no parallel in the social or private domains, and the more
attention that is given to its realities, the less relevant is the three-domain approach
(Slattery, 2002).
The venue context: Within the hospitality industry all hospitality events occur in
specific venues while the diversity of supply profile of the venues creates the condition
for a diversity of hospitality experiences. There are two features that constrain the
three-domainers’ understanding of hospitality venues; the first is there insistence that
hospitality is about providing accommodation, food and drink (Slattery, 2002).
Spaces of Hospitality
This is another important aspect of hospitality studies developed by Bell (2009).
In applying a spatial analysis and mapping sites of hospitality through the lens of
the ‘holy trinity’, Bell (2009, p. 24) has illustrated some ways of understanding how
the idea (and ideal) of hospitality is reshaping places. The study has been focused
on cities but not uniquely urban. The main characteristics of city are to have various
forms of inter-urban competitiveness in the context of post- industrialization.

Bell has explored urban “foodscapes”, “drinkscapes”, and “restscapes” which are
considered as “hospitality after” that have been reshaped the urban landscape just as
‘entrepreneurial governance’ has reshaped how cities behave, indeed what it means
to be a city.
Bell (2009) in this regard has used the term “holy trinity”, first used by Brotherton
(1999) which refers to food, drink and accommodation in business and managerial
terms. While elaborating this concept Bell writes, ‘Here we conjure the specter of
“calculative hosting” the cynical performance of hospitality laid on for the safe
purpose of getting paid (or getting rich)’. Here too we see “calculative guesting”
where by guests expect certain level of service (and servility) simply because they are
buying it and the whole beauty of pure, open, unquestioning hospitality relationship
is sullied and spoiled by being bought and sold. With these theoretical model of
understanding hospitality in the field of business and management, Bell is in favor
“critical” hospitality studies of labor relations (Collins, 2008; & Tufts, 2006; cited in
Bell, 2009).
Foodscapes: The highest valued guests, members of the so-called transnational
business class, to a large extent function as taste-makers able to define what
counts as legitimate good taste, and to fashion markers of good taste into lifestyles
(Featherstone, 1991; cited in Bell, 2009). The urban landscape is reshaped to provide
high-end consumption experiences for these taste-makers, including foodscapes.
Of course, for most traveler-diners, foodscapes are commercial hospitality venues-
cafes, restaurants, delis, trattoria. While the fetish of home-cooked food means that
gastronomic delights are available from “commercial home” settings, a more common
way in which “home” is parlayed in foodscapes is through the deployment of signs of
geographical distinctiveness and localness (Bell, 2009). Cities with iconic foodstuffs
or foodscapes can center their tourist economy on this segment of the hospitality
offer, and build a brand from it. At the same time, of course, foodscapes have been
globalized (a better word might be “glocalized”).
This study further elaborates the important final point about performance of
gastronomic hospitality is their staging: restaurant architecture and interior design
serves to make some eating places tourists destinations, sometimes regardless of the
quality of the food on offer (Frank, 2005).
Drinkscapes: The discussion of drinking places, hospitality and tourism will be
limited to the consumption of alcoholic drinks in urban drinkscapes. This is not
to deny that other kinds of drinking places, from coffee houses to tea rooms, juice
bars to watering holes, are equally important components of the overall experience
of drinking in the city – and, indeed, the country. The previous research on
“alcotourism” shows that people travel to drink, drink while traveling, or even drink
to travel (Bell, 2008).The drinkscape is part of the broader “urban nightscape”, the
so-called “nighttime economy” (Bianchini, 1995; cited in Bell, 2009) that Chatterton
and Hollands (2003) has described as contributing a new “feel” to cities, a new sense
of what urban experience might mean, and a new set pleasures and problems for
city dwellers and visitors. The desire to promote a new “urban nightscape” was also
part of a policy agenda to repopulate city centers, in order to address decades of
movement out towards the suburbs.
Studies of “alcotourism” reveal more than the vital urban social lives that
Montgomery highlights; they reveal a complicated set of practices and imagining,
whereby “local” drinking cultures are selectively appropriated, selectively transformed,
and selectively ignored by tourists while at the same time tourist’ drinking tastes
and habits remake “local” alco-cultures (Moore, 1995; cited in Bell, 2009). For some
travelers, drink is a taste of home-away-from-home (West, 2006; cited in Bell, 2009),
while for others, drinking “local” drinks is a way of experiencing the exotic.
Drink undoubtedly has a special place in the “holy trinity” of hospitality, for its
ambivalent ability to oil the wheels of conviviality yet also to lead to antisocial and
inhospitable behavior. Concerns over “binge drinking” in city centers have been
framed in terms of a loss of the hospitality of “traditional” drinking cultures and
places, and the ushering in of a new “inhospitable” alcoculture creating, in the words
of Bianchini (2006; cited in Bell, 2009:27) “alcoholic agoras.”
In the new nighttime economy of city centers this “welcome” is extended not
only by bar staff but also by door staff, tasked with ensuring certain modes of
hospitality between guests (Hobbs et al., 2003; cited in Bell, 2009:28). The activities
of the nighttime economy bring a different rhythm of hosting and guesting to cities,
as drinkers are attracted in the city center, performing certain modes of guestness –
including those that clash with the lifestyles of unwitting hosts such as city-center
residents (Roberts, & Turner, 2005; in Bell, 2009). Drinking alcohol therefore has a
strange location in ways of knowing and thinking about hospitality, and in the ways
of practicing it.
Restscapes: As Walton (2000) has shown in his short history of the hospitality
trades, foodscapes, drinkspaces, and restscapes share a common heritage in terms
of providing hospitality for travelers, and perhaps no institution better embodies the
commercial provision of hospitality – usually offering the “holy trinity” under one
roof – than the hotel. Moreover, hotels are stages for numerous other enactments
of hospitality between host and guest and between guest and guest. As Pritchard
and Morgan (2006) have noted the hotel as a “cultural product” has been somewhat
neglected in the emerging “critical” hospitality studies. As they add, hotels are
emblematic of the key issues at the heart of hospitality as a concept, leading them
to call upon scholars “to explore the spatiality of the hotel in order to analyze
how interior and exterior hotel spaces are made through social relations and how
social relations are in turn shaped by those self same spaces” (Pritchard & Morgan,
2006:770). Iconic in the architecture of the hotel in this regard is the lobby, where
outside and inside meet, and the hotel bar, where particular modes of drinking and
socializing are mobilized.
From themed hotels to boutique hotels, capsule hotels, business hotels, and
apartment hotels, the differentiation of product in the hotel sector is matched by
differentiation in design and in the hospitality offer. In a paper solely focused on
airport hotels serving business clients, McNeill (2008a; cited in Bell, 2009:29) traces
how this particular niche has developed to meet the need of the business traveler,
providing a seamless business space where even the guest room is part of the
“exoskeleton” of business-class connectivity. As well as hotel types serving distinct
niche markets, distinctive local and national restscapes have developed, even while
glocalized hotel brands have spread to new locations (McNeill, 2008b; cited in Bell,
2009). In Japan, for example, novel forms such as the capsule hotel and the love hotel
have appeared. The former offers minimal sleeping accommodation with none of
the added extras familiar from standard hotel rooms and suites – “rooms” can be
simply “pods” in which to sleep – while love hotels offer discretion via automation
and hourly room rates for intimate liaisons (Foster, 2007; in Bell, 2009).
Indeed, iconic hotels have long been embedded in the place myths of particular
cities, even as those myths change with time (Wharton, 2007; cited in Bell, 2009).
So the exterior architecture also has symbolic importance in communicating certain
values, hence the increasing call for “starchitects” to design restscapes (McNeill,
2008b; cited in Bell, 2009).
Host - Guest Relationship
The philosopher Max Beerbohm divided society into two classes – hosts and
guests – based on the instinct to either offer hospitality or to accept it (O’Connor,
2005; cited in Mill, 2008, p. 103). It can be argued that there are two schools of thought.
One sees the host-guest relationship entirely based on commercial transaction
between them (Aramberri, 2001; Slattery, 2002). Another sees hospitality as a social
phenomenon (Smith,1977/1989; Lashley & Morrison, 2000; Lashley et al., 2007). For
social scientists, it is clear that hospitality is not just about an encounter with a guest
(Rosello, 2001) and providing a service. A more generic approach to hospitality sees
host –guest relationships as a social phenomenon (Causevic & Lynch, 2009).
Both Simmel (1950) and Schutz (1944) have discussed the stranger as someone
who is outside of an “in-group” in many respects the category of the stranger is
necessary to the group’ s understanding of itself in that it allows another against which
the in-group can be defined. The position of the stranger is also one of ambiguity as
the etymology of the world linking it to both guest and enemy demonstrates (Zarkia,
1996). Further, as Schutz (1944) has noted, the lack of knowledge of the stranger
about the assumptions held by the in-group engenders a feeling of insecurity and
disorientation (Andrews, 2000). For Pickering (2001; cited in Brotherton & Wood,
2008) strangers occupy an inherently ambivalent position in society because they
are ‘neither socially peripheral nor symbolically central but somewhere particularly
between’.
According to the sociological and anthropological principles, the relationship
between host and guest is grounded in the nature of social life it would be difficult to
imagine how society would be possible without hospitality (Selwyn, 2013). Majority
of the scholars agree that hospitality brings together hosts and guests for occasions in
which social relationships are symbolized by the reciprocal giving of goods, services,
well-being, honor and status. It is routinely offered an occasions when strangers are
welcomed to mark the making of alliances between new friends-in places as diverse
as the public spaces of the city and or the more private (Selwyn, 2013).
Aramberri (2001) has subsequently suggested that the host should ‘get lost;
arguing that the commercial interactions now common in tourism contravene
`the world covenant’ of hospitality. On the contrary, he preferred to say that local
people and tourists are ‘service providers’ and ‘customers’ than as host and guest. He
argues that the modern experience no longer content these elements of exchange
and obligation. This approach reframes the nature of the relationship between the
host and guest and has given a greater emphasis to the economic rather than social
side of the exchange. In this regard, Slattery (2002) also has rejected the relationship
of host- guest descriptors, used by Lynch and Whannell (2000) in reference to
commercial home accommodation as coming from the private domain. Commercial
home accommodation is described as quasi hotels. But, Lynch (2005) is not in a
position to accept the criticisms of Aramberri (2001) and Slattery (2002) because
there has been found both private and commercial domains reflected in myriad
host and guest behaviors…. He believes that hotels, restaurants, bars and the other
hospitality venues are businesses where the critical relationship is sellers and buyers.
The buyers are not guests they are customers. The relationship is not philanthropic,
it is economic.
According to Nettekoven (1979; cited in Reisinger, 2009), the host can be local
residents, indigenous residents, investors, developers and those who provide a service
to tourists (e.g. hoteliers, front office employees, waiters, shop assistants, custom
officials, tour guides, tour managers, and taxi and bus drivers). The service providers
are often called “professional hosts”. In the context of writing tourism and hospitality,
Bell (2009) has also mentioned about the status of the host and guest. As he writes, the
host is static, fixed, rooted, while the guest is footloose, on the moves, rootless. This
asymmetry defines the very ‘host-ness’ of the host and the `guest-ness’ of the guest.
The host is at home, either literally in his house or more broadly in his homeland; the
guest is an incomer, a visitor, a stranger (Bell, 2007). Sheller and Urry (2004:8; cited
in Bell, 2007) write, in the context of tourism: ‘many “hosts” are increasingly also
from elsewhere, are also on the move, passing through, guests enacting host-ness.
Hospitality — as a relationship marked by poles of host-ness and guest-ness, and by
the obligations and rewards that this bipolarity brings — is thus itself destabilized as
we enter an increasingly mobile age, a society of mobility. The professional hosts are
hoteliers, front office host, waiters, shop owners, custom officials, tour guides, tour
managers and taxi and bus drivers. The non-professional host are local people.
Rosello (2001), as cited by Germann Molz & Gibson (2007) has stated, “Hospitality
is not just a metaphor for reflecting on encounters with the strangers, but, according
to Urry (1990), serves more broadly as a central concept for the emergent paradigm
of ‘mobility’. Hospitality is a structure that regulates, negotiates, and celebrates the
social relations between inside and outside, home and away, private and public, self
and others (p. 3). Implicit in most definitions of hospitality are the movements of
tourists and visitors (those mobile others who come and go) as well as the movements
of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees (those mobile others who come and stay).
The binary “host-guest,” the cornerstone social relationship of any tourist system,
has also been contested (Sherlock, 2001). “Hosts” are frequently themselves “guests”
in little developed destinations, wherein outsiders often engage in tourist business
(e.g. country, often also assume the role of host through casual employment in tourist
enterprises (Janta et al., 2011; cited in Cohen & Cohen, 2012). To host or to be hosted
are both forms of travelling- in- dwelling and dwelling- in- travelling where the
mobility of guests, travelers and foreigners intersects with host and homes (Germann
Molz & Gibson, 2007).
Hospitality Management and Hospitality Studies
These two broader areas are very important in the study of hospitality first and
tourism second. For many decades, hospitality studies has been pre-dominated by
hospitality management .Therefore, it is very important to know what is hospitality
management? Precisely nothing. There is hospitality and there is management. Both
are social, economic, and political activities. Both are the products of human action.
Neither can be granted any epistemologically privileged status. Both, however, can be
more or less defined, or, more precisely, circumscribed. It is Nailon (1982) who for the
first time theorized what hospitality management is. According to him, “Hospitality
management can be seen as the active co-ordination and balancing of the inter-
relationship of the four systems represented by the external environment, the human
resources, the technical infrastructure and the management information system.
Its purpose is to provide physiological and psychological comfort and security as
a business activity at a defined standard of service through provision of facilitating
goods” (Nailon, 1982).
King (1995, p. 220) has pointed out, ‘Effective management of hospitality in
any type of organization must begin with a clearly understood definition of what
hospitality is.’ If it is accepted that hospitality may arise in both private/domestic
and public/commercial contexts, it is also logical to suggest that the management of
hospitality provision occurs in both contexts (Brotherton, & Wood, 2000).
The definition of hospitality management existing in the literature tends to
be typified by a primary concern with emphasizing a particular product/service
focus. However, as King (1995) has accurately pointed out, “Effective management
of hospitality in any type of organization must begin with a clearly understood
definition of what hospitality is” (p. 220). If it is accepted that hospitality may arise
in both private/domestic and public/commercial contexts, it is also logical to suggest
that management of hospitality provision will equally occur in both contexts.
In essence, the concept of hospitality management embraces two key assumptions,
namely:
z hospitality management is about the management of (essentially but note
exclusively) commercial organizations in the business of providing the three
key related services of food, drink and accommodation; and
z hospitality management principally entails the application of management
concepts and techniques to the provision of these goods and services
(Brotherton & Wood, 2000:145).
Whether management is primarily regarded as an art, a science, a function or
a process, Fayol's (1949; cited in Brotherton, 1999, p. 170) view that is concerned
with coordinating, communicating, controlling, planning and commanding is
generally accepted. All these fundamental aspects of management are to be found
in the management of hospitality exchanges within both domestic and commercial
contexts, regardless of whether such exchanges take place for social or economic
motives.
The key issue there is not necessarily the context of, and/or motive for, the
hospitality exchange but the nature of its management. It is the distinction between
managing hospitality and hospitality management. As hospitality occurs in both
private/domestic and public/commercial environments, issues concerning the
management of hospitality equally arise in both type of environment. The distinction
between managing hospitality and hospitality management, given the generally

accepted use of the later term, lies in the concept of a profession and the existence of
a hospitality management professionals. Many employees in the hospitality industry
would fall into professional category. For example, many employees engaged as
professional food and beverage production and / or service staff are an integral part
of hospitality provision but they would not be regarded as hospitality mangers. They
would, however, be regarded as hospitality professionals, or professional hospitality
staff (Brotherton, 1999, p.171).
This view implies that there will be individuals involved in managing some
aspects of public/commercial hospitality exchanges, but who should not necessarily
be regarded as hospitality managers. They are also known as hoteliers. In this regard,
Brotherton (2013, p. 59) has proposed to basic perspectives on hospitality and
management. Accordingly he writes, people initiatively understand what ‘hospitality’
and management are because they have experienced both as recipients and
practitioners. Two basic perspectives have been used to define hospitality’s nature
and meaning. One may be described as the behavioral ‘perspective’ the second may
be described as the ‘industry’ or ‘provider’ view.
Important and desirable though such attributes may be, only through the
development of a theoretical framework for hospitality management can the
competent become effective, while those who are truly able can achieve excellence
(Nailon, 1982). The quality of hospitality services is a major underpinning of corporate
success – as gauged by profits. For example, a hotel can be depicted as a three-legged
stool with the seat representing profits. The three legs represent the major factors
to support these profits – the quality of hospitality service, management, and the
market. The only assurance for profitability is strength and balance in all three legs. A
hotel cannot expect to succeed with inferior services, or even with services for which
there is no market. Similarly, a hotel with superior services having a strong market
potential cannot succeed if it lacks the marketing, technical or production know-
how that can deliver these services or attract sufficient guests to maintain levels of
occupancy (Haywood, 1983, p. 166).
Lashley (2004,p.15; cited in Lashley et al., 2007) has summarized that the debate
between an emphasis on management versus that of studies, as follows: 'the study
of hospitality allows for a general broad spectrum of enquiry, and the study for
allows studies that support the management of hospitality’. This statement explicitly
acknowledges that the intellectual growth and progression of hospitality as an
academic field of study is best served through the critical analysis of the concept of
hospitality as broadly conceived.
It is apparent that hospitality as a higher education academic subject is evolving
and maturing from its beginnings as confined to management and industry. One
reflection of hospitality’s advancement towards an academic maturity is in the
emergence of alternative schools of thought (Littlejohn, 1990; Jones, 2004). Within
the contemporary hospitality academic community those that dominate are termed
as ‘studies’ and ‘management’. The former is derived from the social sciences
applied to hospitality in its many guises, and not only within an industrial context
as suggested by Jones (2004). It facilitates analysis of hospitality as business and as
cultural phenomena; not necessarily unrelated; a view supported by Wood (1999),
Lashley (2000) and Airey and Tribe (2000). The latter is concerned with hospitality
as industry, commercial endeavor, and business and management therein (Morrison,
& Lynch, 2007). It has become apparent that the study of hospitality can usefully
co-exist with that of hospitality management, as the difference between them is
essentially one of emphasis (Jones, 2004). Hospitality studies allow for the intellectual
pursuit of the social dimensions, alongside those of an economic nature.
One of the problems with the current state of hospitality studies is that different
disciplines and sectors frame hospitality in quite distinct ways. Even a brief review of
the literature reveals that scholars and practitioners are approaching hospitality from
very different perspectives and with very different objectives. Hospitality is framed
quite differently in the social science than it is in the managerial sciences (Lynch et
al., 2011). In an effort to capture the essence of the hospitality studies. Morrison and
O’Gorman (2006) have made a preliminary attempt to craft a working definition as
follows:
It [hospitality] represents the cordial reception, welcome and entertainment of
guests or strangers of diverse social backgrounds and cultures charitably, socially or
commercially with kind and generous liberality, into one’s home space to dine and/or
lodge temporarily. Dependent on circumstance and context the degree to which the
hospitality offering is conditional or unconditional may vary.
Thus, it is argued that the hospitality studies school of thought has the potential
to contribute to: ‘the creation of new knowledge that is not merely wed to unitary
business, industry and/or management ways of knowing what is hospitality.
Table 3: Examples of key contributions to hospitality subject development
Authors Contribution
Cassee (1983) Emphasis the interrelatedness of the hospitality industry with
the outside world.
Slattery (1983) Advocates the application of existing social science theory to
hospitality management.
Wood (1988) Argues for sociological approaches to the study of hospitality

management.
Littlejohn Allows for an approach to hospitality industry research that
(1990) draws on the social sciences.
Jones (1998) Recognizes a need for multi-disciplinarily and the difficulty in
achieving it.
Airey and Tribe Points to the preoccupation with the world of work rather
(2000) than the many disciplines or fields of enquiry that help explain
hospitality.
Lashley et al. Identify a contemporary willingness of the academic
(2007) community to extend the conception of the hospitality subject
boundaries, and associate this process as positive for the subject
development and its consequent academic standing.
Source: Morrison & O’Gorman, 2008:216
Table 4: Illustrative examples of disciplines engaging in research into the phenomenon
of hospitality
Field Focus Authors
Anthropology Observes current practices among the desert De Vaux
clearly indicating the importance and centrality of (1961)
the hospitality practices to their way of life.
Archaeology Interprets and excavates the use of commercial Ellis
hospitality buildings and structures, in order (2004a, b)
to understand more about how people lived in
historical locations.
Biblical studies Explores the origins of hospitality demonstrating Matthews
that hospitality is not a simple concept it contains (1991,
deeply rooted cultural norms. 1992)
Classics Uses the theme of hospitality to give significantly Reece
richer understanding of the structure of the (1993)
Homeric epics, by demonstrating that successive
oral poets who redacted the Homeric poems, used
to concept of hospitality as recurrent theme.
Deconstruction Defines hospitality as inviting and welcoming the Derrida

‘stranger’: however, this takes place on two levels: (1998,
the personal level where the ‘stranger’ is welcomed 2000)
into the home; and at the level of individual
countries. Using the conceptual possibility of
unconditional hospitality to understand and to
inform what is going on today in our world.
Gender studies Observes that symbols, verbal and non-verbal Brownell
communication, and value of sociability and (2001)
physical attractiveness contributes to a sexualized
work environment that is likely to encourage and
draw attention to gender-specific behaviors.
Philosophy Pursues the reality and principles underpinning Telfer
hospitality as a phenomenon. (1999)
Post-colonial Investigates the politics of hospitality exploring Ben
theory issues including democracy, citizenship, social Jelloun
exclusion, xenophobia, and racism to reveal the (1999)
ethics and politics of hospitality and the status of the
stranger, visitor, migrant, asylum seeker, and refugee.
Social history Explores the role of hospitality in society in Heal
particular in forming communities. (1990)
Sociology Constructs and deconstructs the role, meaning, Goffman
and symbolism of hospitality in society. (1969)
Source: Morrison & O’Gorman, 2008:216
Jones (2004) has noted that hospitality research is still lagging behind those fields.
z Hospitality science model: Based on the natural and physical sciences such as
chemistry, biological and physics. Studies of this type include research in diet,
nutrition, ergonomics, equipment performance and so on.
z Hospitality management school: This largely based on empirical and
quantitative studies, often related to studies of hospitality marketing and
consumption.
z Hospitality studies: This includes qualitative as well quantitative research.
z Hospitality relationship: This is recent school of thought and separate to, and
distinct from, any management or industry association.
z Hospitality system: System thinking accommodates both positivist and
normative research.
z Hospitality pragmatics: This is an inclusive position dealing with the realities

of the industry.
Typology of Hospitality
Hospitality has never been homogeneous. Since the earliest time, hospitality
provision is increasingly codified. As the society become more sophisticated, the
codification of hospitality provides reference points for new to treat a range of guests/
strangers, according to a variety of criteria. Typology of hospitality also becomes
apparent (O’Gorman, 2007). Clearly hospitality provision may exist on a large or
small scale, take a number of different forms depending on whether it occurs within
private/domestic or public/commercial contexts, and be provided for primarily social
or economic motives (Brotherton, 1999: 167-168).
There are many other types of hospitality researched by different scholars in
different aspect of hospitality. None of them have comprehensively elaborated
the particular types of hospitality in terms of developing hospitality classification.
Therefore, the present author made efforts of collecting the particular types of
hospitality defined and described by different scholars in different studies of
hospitality. They coined the terminologies according to the nature, function,
events, relations, religion, ethics, spaces and places, business, academic, ideology,
philosophy, behavior, aggression, tradition and changes of culture, norms, values of
human society. Whatever types of hospitality have they mentioned all those help to
understand hospitality as human phenomenon in better way. In this classification,
social hospitality has not been included because this has become the central part of
this study because of considering hospitality either as human phenomena or social
phenomenon as mentioned.
Before heading towards typology one should go through two components of
English that are denotative and connotative meaning of words. Denotative meanings
are dictionary meaning of words and connotative are the meanings that comes out
when pronounce along with other subtle words, all the types of hospitality which has
been discussed have different denotative and connotative meaning. The concerned
types of hospitality are as follows: private and public hospitality, hotel hospitality,
commercial hospitality, anticommercial hospitality, inhospitable hospitality, hospital
hospitality, transgressing hospitality, hybrid hospitality, commensal hospitality,
pseudo- hospitality, mundane hospitality, airport hospitality, simulated hospitality,
corporate hospitality, asymmetric hospitality, critical hospitality, mobile hospitality,
genuine hospitality, official hospitality, academic hospitality, intellectual hospitality,
linguistic hospitality, Embodied hospitality, divine hospitality, open hospitality,
personal hospitality, intra- tribal hospitality, conditional and unconditional
hospitality, universal hospitality, absolute hospitality, civic hospitality.
Private and public hospitality: In a related but slightly different vein, Burgess
(1982) explored the relationship between gift exchanges and hospitable behavior.
Burgess (1982) places on the issue of “exchange” in relation to hospitality and the
widening of the concept to include private as well as public contexts for the incidence
of hospitality. His model essentially contends that hospitality is an exchange
transaction comprises three elements; products, employee behavior, and the physical
environment.
Though the study of Telfer (2000), Brotherton (2008) and O’Dell (2007) show
private (domestic) and public (commercial) hospitality are independent forms, in this
studies it has been combinely placed with each other. It is, in short, a morally laden
social field of exchange and interaction whose bounds and limits were continuously
contested and debated (O’Dell, 2007). For public hospitality more widely however,
the problem of the stranger is compounded by the fact the majority of person’s who
participate in public hospitality are not tourists but permanent members of their
communities who use the public hospitality facilitates rooted in those communities.
Hotel hospitality: Ryan (1991; cited in Brotherton, 2007) has noted that the tourists
are strangers and bring with them the threat of social, cultural and environmental
damage. The tourist is not, however ‘simply a stranger, but a temporary stranger…
they are guest, but an impersonal guest’ (Ryan, 1991; cited in Brotherton, 2007). The
consequences of this impersonality for hotel hospitality have been characterized by
Wood (1994c; cited in Brotherton, 2007) in terms of the mechanisms that hotels use
to control their stranger-guests.
Commercial hospitality: According to King (1995; cited in Thio, 2005),
commercial hospitality is ‘a specific kind of relationship between a host and a guest
in which the host understands what would give pleasure to the guest and enhance
his or her comfort and well-being and deliver it generously and flawlessly in face to
face interaction. In commercial hospitality, there is a reciprocity based on money
exchange. Therefore, the guest is free to use the facilities offered because of the money
he/she pays, and the host has an obligation to give the best service that meets his/her
needs and expectations.
The term ‘commercial’ is used very exactly to convey a sense of an activity ‘viewed
with regard to profit’ (Longman, 1992; cited in Lynch & MacWhannell, 2000). The
nature of commercial hospitality as a service operation brings into consideration a
further range of characteristics (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) from which it is possible to select
four key characteristics that inform any discussion of the management of commercial
hospitality. According to Lockwood and Jones (2000), commercial hospitality is not
simply domestic hospitality on a large scale. It is different. It is business driven and it
shouldn’t make any excuses about its underlying business ethic. The challenge facing
commercial hospitality is to capitalize on the highly developed technologies and

systems of operation that are available, enabling employees to provide exactly the
food and service that the customer wants and is prepared to pay for it.
Anticommercial hospitality: Anticommercial hospitality is another form of
hospitality invented by Di-Domenico (2003; cited in McIntosh, Lynch, & Sweeney,
2010, p. 8) in the study of Scottish Guest houses. In this study Di-Domenico (2003; as
cited in McIntosh, Lynch & Sweeney, 2010; p. 8) has explained that anticommercial
hospitality refers here to behavior of hosts that challenges norms of (larger)
commercial hospitality establishment in relation to operation standards, business
practices aiming to maximize profitability, commercial accommodation product
norms, host-guest social distance. For example, commercial homes in the study
contained modest furnishing cleanliness, and facilities and were very low priced,
few hosts actively promoted their business, and there was something evidence of
compromise of space within the home.
Inhospitable hospitality: This type of hospitality has been mentioned in Ritzer
(2007, p. 130). He illustrates that his favorite example of the most inhospitable of places-
the fast food restaurant where ‘you are required to do virtually everything yourself ’.
This scholar has suggested that there are ‘McDonaldizing’ and globalizing tendencies,
particularly in corporate hospitality provision that will create increased ‘inhospitable
hospitality, in the commercial sector. According to this scholar, the general threat to
the hospitality is clear. In terms of the distinctions, the hospitality industry has in
the past been based on places, things, people and services but is threatened by a long
term trend in the direction of non-places, non-things, non-people and non-services,
more generally nothing is virtually the definition of unwelcoming, inhospitable. This
scholar is not pessimistic to see the inhospitable hospitality, as it has been concluded
that in spite of the problems discussed in this essay, the hospitality industry is in not
serious danger – indeed, various trends indicate that it should continue its dramatic
expansion of recent decades.
Hospital hospitality: This is another academic product of Hepple et al. (1990)
in the study of hospitality typology. The working definition of hospital hospitality
suggested that the individual, patient should feel as at home as possible during their
hospital stay. The phrase at home is intended to indicate a standard of security,
physiological comfort, and psychological comfort which the patient knows and is
satisfied with. This phrase does not make allowance for those who have unhappy,
unsatisfactory home lives, however, it is suggested that even such patients would be
aware of the concept of feeling at home and are likely to take the phrase in the spirit
in which it is intended. The inclusion of the phrase as possible in the definition allows
for the judgment of the patient to compare their expectations of hospital hospitality
with their experience of that hospitality.
The working definition is intended for us in its specific setting as in other settings
for example, in the case of the hospitality of a five star hotel, clients are often seeking
a higher standard of comfort than that which they are used to at home. Education
within hospital is, however, a worthy aim. And that the hospital is seen to set a good
example of healthy behavior seems very reasonable; however the extent of its success,
with respect to long-term changes within a community cannot be other than limited.
The study has shown that the concept of hospitality can be applied to hospitals and
that those non-medical aspects of hospitals which are important to making patients
feel as at home as possible in hospital can be identified and do meet with agreement
from a relatively large sample of patients expression their feelings during a hospital
stay. The study has also suggested that the hospitality factor groupings suggested in
Cassee and Reuland ( 1983), of behavior, product and environment the hospitality
factors which relate to behavior are considered to be the most important.
Transgressing hospitality: In the studies based on Sheringham and Daruwalla
(2007), transgression hospitality was formed as a means of articulating, demonstrating
and manipulating social structures and hierarchies functioning at the interplay between,
the likes of, order/disorder, hospitality/hostility, inclusion/exclusion, sacred/profane,
religiosity/bacchanalian, reality/fantasy and domestic/commercial (Sheringham &
Daruwalla, 2007, p. 44). Hospitality is a negotiated act between host and guest, and
can be described as transgressive in nature in that it infringes thresholds of physical,
psychological and symbolic character (Sheringham & Daruwalla, 2007, p. 33). The guest
by accepting the offer of hospitality enters into a negotiated agreement that impacts the
host’s sense of place. The role of food, alcohol and place as symbols and markers of
this transgression from order to disorder are highlighted and the role of religiosity and
parallels between carnival and hospitality are also explored. This has served to highlight
the transgressive nature inherent in the concept of hospitality, vulnerable as it is to
infringement in a multiplicity of ways, and heavy in symbolic connotations.
Hybrid hospitality: According to Foot (1978), based on hospitableness, hybrid
hospitality depends on the host’s sharing home life with the guests, such hybrid
hospitality lacks some value. But in many situations it is perfectly appropriate to
entertain guests away from home.
Commensal hospitality: This type of hospitality has been mentioned by March
(1987) in the study of hospitality of the Tamang and Sherpa communities of Nepal. While
focusing on this type of hospitality, March (1987) describes, in spite of these stylistic
differences of hospitality between the Tamangs and Sherpas, commensal hospitality is
extremely common and highly valued in both Sherpa and Tamang communities. All
transactions begin with a hospitable offering – of cigarettes, tea, milk, food, and other gifts,
but above all of “beer” and “whiskey” – that must be accepted and most be reciprocated.
An offering is effective if or because it creates an ambience of amicable feelings.

Tamang and Sherpa versions of hospitality resemble one another in four essential
ways: in an assertion of almost perfectly balanced reciprocity; in the ambivalence
surrounding the relative social statuses of participants; in the use of hospitality as
a model for religious worship; and finally, in the importance of female symbol of
mediation in both human and divine hospitality exchanges.
Pseudo-hospitality: This is another type of hospitality which has been coined by
Olesen (1994; in Lugosi, 2009, p. 399) who has examined the notion of hospitality as
social transaction when discussing its commercial form, although her work is also
concerned with the identity performances of frontline workers. More importantly,
pseudo hospitality continues to separate its social forms from its provisions in
commercial settings. Such studies of hospitality are thus concerned with the service
providers or provision, and with few exceptions (Cuthill, 2007; cited in Lugosi,
2009), other aspects of the experience, including the consumers’ perspectives and the
contexts of transactions, are rarely considered.
Mundane hospitality: Bell (2007a; cited in Lynch, Germann Molz, McIntosh,
Lugosi, & Lashley, 2011) has illustrated how mundane hospitality occurs through
commuting to work on trains, for example, where the host passenger moves their bag
from the adjacent seat to make way for another passenger temporarily transformed
into the host’s (i.e. the bag-removing passengers) guest.
Such mundane forms of hospitality are sometimes offered through extensive
provider-consumer interaction (Crang, 1994, in Lugosi, 2009), but in commercial
environment food and drink can also be provided with minimal or no interaction
between staff and customers or between customers. Therefore, commercial provision
may not involve actual hospitableness. In order to justify this Lugosi (2009) has
presented the situation of the bar through patronage. Patronage also involved
particular identity performances, interaction rituals and mundane hospitality
transactions, which reproduced group norms, inside-outside statuses alongside
experiences of social proximity and distance.
Beyond acts of welcoming, it is useful to consider how other hospitable
transactions are also applied within service settings. Reception spaces and acts of
receptions often attempt to incorporate mundane hospitality offerings, in the form
of drink and foodstuffs ,but may also extend to access to wireless services, which
are referred to hear as gestures of generosity. Gestures of generosity may be used to
provide affective relationships between the organization and the consumer (Taher,
Leigh, & French, 1996; cited in Lugosi, 2014). Importantly customers may not be
charged for such mundane hospitality, at least not directly, and not all the time.
Airport hospitality: Touristic spaces are sites of consumption and construction,
with varying and multiphenomenal experiential contexts. Conventional theory of

‘non-places’ (Auge, 1995; cited in McCabe & Marson, 2006), such as airport lounges,
may in fact be sites of pure anticipatory joy, a chance to look forward to the pleasurable
experiences to come and to prepare last-minute shopping enjoy a meal or a drink in a
bar. The same place for another traveler may be dull, meaningless and futile; it may be
a site of constant use (perhaps for the business traveler or worker) and the experience
in this case in tangential, arbitrary, and desensitized. However the temporal aspect is
crucial. For example, for the leisure traveler if there is a delay, the site of the airport
lounge rapidly changes and becomes a site of anxiety and tension, dispute starts
between the tourist and the tour operator or airline operator and the time spent in
waiting eats into the precious time of the holiday itself – or the joyous return to the
home. The space of the lounge is transformed into a negative, claustrophobic and all
consuming environment. The a priori, in situ and a posteriori experience of place is
fundamentally significant in the social construction of place and identity (McCabe
& Marson, 2006).
Simulated hospitality: Ritzer (2007) has devised a simulated hospitality which
is an unauthentic hospitality where people experience genuinely modified services
in modern hospitality industry. This is repeated and sold as an experience to the
consumer or tourist. The simulated hospitality is the face of modern service industry
and defined as one of the main forms of hospitality. Instead of authentic hospitality,
visitors encounter are simulation- fakes- in terms of either people or experience. Thus,
natural, authentic attraction of one need to be closed off or modified in order not to
be adversely affected, or even destroyed, by the crush of large number of visitors. This
means that visitors do not have access to authentic sites but experience simulated sites.
Corporate Hospitality: It is Lugosi (2014), who studied on hospitality and
organization in which he has mentioned about a different type of hospitality i.e.
corporate hospitality. As he explains that longer-term, repeated transactions of
hospitality between external stakeholders and organization can take numerous forms,
but a prominent form is corporate hospitality, whether it is entertaining specific
clients with meals or as part of the extended entertainment packages, which include
attending cultural or sporting events. Engaging in these types of activities enables
organization to build personal relationships between individuals that translate into
commercial relationships; they can also help resolve conflicts and also management
change (Chetwynd, 2000; Hughes, 2000; cited in Lugosi, 2014). It is possible to argue
that mobilizing hospitality and establishing host- guest relations, which facilitates
interdependency, generate affective relationships and invites reciprocities, is a form
of strategic enchantment. In accepting corporate hospitality, external stakeholders
assume the role of guest, which entails some willingness to conform to expectations
of the role; becoming a guest also acknowledges the status and position of the host.
Commercial practitioners offer commentary on the significance and changing nature

of corporate hospitality (Quainton, 2009; cited in Lugosi, 2014), but there have been
limited attempts to provide academic analysis of corporate hospitality (Roger, 2003;
cited in Lugosi, 2014). More importantly, there is a dearth of social scientific research
into the way corporate hospitality is mobilized by organizations to create ongoing
relationships between them and various stakeholders.
Asymmetric hospitality: An alternative interpretation of the management and
employee activities is that they are attempts to blur the divide between colleagues
and to reconstruct the organization as a hospitable space. These studies also
highlight another key aspect of hospitable spaces and relationships - obligations
too participate and reciprocate. Such transactions mobilize asymmetric hospitalities
(Lugosi, 2009), where relationships are no longer simply between individuals who
give and receive, but between individuals and broader entities i.e. organizations and
the various social networks entangled in their existence. Food is one part of these
transactions, but the broader and more significant issue is how hospitable gestures
and the instrumental deployment of hospitality create obligations and reaffirms
specific power relations. Hospitality can thus be thought of as an instrument of
organizational entrenchment - a set of mechanisms and practices through which
organizational cultures, norms and values are (re)produced. Gestures of hospitality
may appear altruistic, but it is important to question the conditions and reciprocities
mobilized in and by such transactions within organizational contexts. Re-examining
food related organizational phenomena through notions of hospitality thus helps to
understand them more broadly, while also conceptualizing the ongoing dynamics of
the relationships between individuals (Lugosi, 2014).
Critical hospitality: Bell (2009) has advocated that hospitality is not limited
on ‘calculative hosting’ (the cynical performance of hospitality laid on for the sole
purpose of getting paid or getting rich) and ‘calculative guesting’ (whereby guests
expect certain levels of service or servility simply because they are buying it, and
the whole beauty of pure, open, unquestioning hospitality relationship is sullied and
spoiled by being bought and sold). This scholar has proposed that one should go
through ‘critical’ hospitality in which the emphasis has been given on the issue of labor
relationship which is not only essential but also it is quintessential for understanding
emotional labor to which Bell has coined the term ‘critical turn’.
Mobile hospitality: A contribution in Bell (2007a, & 2007b), as summarized
in Lynch el al.(2011), acts as a bridge between the social control/social exchange
categorization. Bell has employed simple but far-reaching definition of hospitality
as ‘welcome’ and conceives of form of mobile hospitality that is the heart of human
relations and confirms to the idea of hospitality as a social ethic. Bell (2007a, &
2007b) has proposed the idea of diurnal ‘moments’ of hospitality predicated upon
interactions between host and guests in city spaces, such as commuting to work, mega
events and hospitality, or every day urban hospitableness. Thus one can conceive of a
mobile hospitality that transcends spatial association with building.
Genuine hospitality: A genuine hospitality, according to Lashley et al. (2007),
is a form of hospitality in which guests wish to experience pure form of services.
It enables the study of hospitality through the meanings associated with it by the
various participants in hospitality transactions. The experiences of being a guest in
small hotels and guest houses provides insights into the use of public and private
spaces in the ‘commercial home sector’ (Lynch, 2005; cited in Lashley et al., 2007).
Guests often choose this form of accommodation because they wish to experience
‘genuine hospitality’ with a ‘real family’, while hosts frequently want to maintain their
own private space which is excluded from their own private space which is excluded
from their paying guests (Lashley et al., 2007). Fisher’s (1987) study in Dolpo, one
of the Himalayan districts of Nepal, shows how Tarangpurian people offer genuine
hospitality on the occasion of feast. As he observed… a rich man will spend more
for the celebration of his first son’s first haircut than a poor man. He will serve rice
instead of Chinu millet and his supply of distilled liquor will outlast the capacity of
his guest to absorb it. Such an occasion will be a burden for a poor man, even if he
substitutes Chinu millet for rice, beer for liquor and so on. In order to justify this
the above mentioned facts, Fisher (1987) has quoted the local proverb which is as
follows: Ista nahune manche kano,dhan nahune manche sano. A man without friends
is blind in one eye, a man without wealth is small. Wealth is sought not so that a man
can eat better, but so that he may feed others better. This desire to provide high-grade
hospitality, which is not peculiar to the Magars of Tarangpur (pseudonym).
Official hospitality: Though Telfer (2000) does not seem keen interested to
elaborate on official hospitality, has highlighted on its existence. As this scholar has
explained that there is an establishment of official relationship between the host and
guest. According to this scholar, official can carry out official duties of hospitality
in the same friendly spirit in which they might entertain those in their circle, and
when they are thought of as hospitable it is because they do this. As it is assumed that
hospitable official can be regarded as extending their circle to include those they have
an official duty to entertain.
Academic hospitality: This is another type of hospitality coined by Phipps and
Barnett (2007). Academic hospitality takes and makes many forms. It takes material
form in the hosting of academics and academic travelers. It takes epistemological
form in the translation of academic work into other languages and it takes touristic
form through welcome and generosity with which academic visitors are received.
In each of these four forms (in material form, in epistemological form, in linguistic
form, and in touristic form) academic hospitality involves the modes of what we
might term both hosting and guesting. Both of these modes place different demands
upon the academic
Intellectual hospitality: The term ‘intellectual hospitality’ first used by Kaufman
(2001) and Bennett (2003). Later on, Germann Molz and Gibson (2007) applied it
in the study of mobilizing hospitality. Their purpose of using it ‘how the deployment
of the concept of hospitality in one disciplinary content may provide insights in
another. As Friese (2004; & Still, 2004; in Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007) argues
‘what is at stake is not only the thinking of hospitality, but thinking as hospitality. In
the able hands of scholars, the cultural, commercial, philosophical, political, ethical
and social dimensions of hospitality have been subjected rigorous debate.
Linguistic hospitality: Ricoeur (1996; cited in Phipps & Barnett, 2007) holds
out translation as a model of linguistic hospitality [l’hospitalitelangagiere] that works
within the limits of what is possible. This type of hospitality is closely associated with
academic hospitality, although it has its own characters and relations in translation
and expression on mode of culture in terms of hosting and guesting. In a world that
is ‘ineluctably polyglot’ and where diversity persists, Ricoeur’s translation ethos is
designed ‘to repeat at the cultural and spiritual level the gesture of linguistic hospitality
In linguistic form, academic hospitality relates to the physical and practical challenges
of communication. It may be that, with English as an increasingly accepted if contested
lingua franca of academic life, the challenge is that of gaining literacy and fluency,
in both written and spoken forms, in English. In addition, linguistic hospitality as
academic hospitality relates to the need for a common discourse that allows those
within fields of scholarly knowledge and activity to be able to communicate with
each other with relative ease and with a common stock of referents, terms and
concepts. Linguistic forms of academic hospitality also relate to the scholarly work
of translation.
Embodied hospitality: Lynch et al. (2011) have pursued an embodied practice
that engages multiple senses. According to them, food, drink and accommodations
and other forms of consumption have important implications for understanding
the embodied performance of hospitality. Hospitality is offered to and by embodied
subjects. The power relations embedded in the hospitality encounter are often
negotiated around embodied markers of difference, such as race, class, gender,
sexuality and age, which intersect to shape the practice of hospitality (or hostility) in
distinct ways. Furthermore, hospitality may be quite literally embodied in the case
of organ of tissue donation. Hospitality implies a politics of comfort that applies not
only to the host’s and guest’s ontological security but also to their embodies well-
being (Lynch et al., 2011).
Divine hospitality: Boersma (2003) has shown that there is another type of
hospitality. It is a hospitality that will be realized in the internal kingdom of God. In

other words, unlike Derrida’s pure hospitality, Ireneus’s eschatological hospitality is
based on divine transcendence and divine hospitality and assumes a future point at
which this absolute eschatological hospitality will be realized.
Open hospitality: The notion of open hospitality has been coined by Burgess (1982).
While writing about cultural continuity and change in the context of highlighting the
importance of cultural hospitality, Burgess (1982) focused on continuity of primitive
culture still existing in different parts of the world and also it is evident and so he
writes, “Precipitated by the attribution of mystical powers to unknown strangers or
feelings of mutual support when travelling themselves in hostile environments, heads
of household and tribal leaders offered open hospitality to travelers and all who
requested it” (Burgess, 1982). In order to justify his statement, Burgess (1982) links
with the Latin hostis and Greek Ksenos meaning stranger and guest.
Personal Hospitality: While the house has connotations of a private, personal
hospitality, the hotel represents a public, commodified experience of hospitality
subject to the logic of economic exchange. In contrast, the fortress signals defensive
nationalism, with strong and secure borders, inhospitable rather than hospitable.
Entering these spaces will depend on the different imperatives which regulate them
-- the political (fortress), ethical (house), and commercial (hotel) forms of hospitality
(Gibson, 2006).
Intra-tribal hospitality: Intra-tribal hospitality in largely focused on reciprocity
as different families in the tribe provide feasting in the understanding that they will
be guests of their guest on another occasion. This has been studied by Cole (2007) on
Ngadh tribe of Indonesia.
Conditional and Unconditional Hospitality: Both the conditional and
unconditional hospitality are the products of Kant and Derrida. As far as the
conditional hospitality is concerned, Kant, in his book entitled Perpetual Peace. A
Philosophic Sketch, states the law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions
a universal hospitality; His idea is very much related with the concept of conflict
and peace. Hospitality for Kant means…the right of a stranger is not to be treated
as an enemy when he arrives to the land of another. One may refuse to receive him
when this can be done without causing his destruction; but, so long as he peacefully
occupies his place, one may not treat him with hospitality. Kant goes on to write
that hospitality is… not the right to be a permanent visitor… a special beneficent
agreement would be needed in order to give an outsider a right to become a fellow
inhabitant for a certain length of time. It is only a right of temporary sojourn, a right
to associate which all men have. They have it by virtue of their common possession
of the surface of the earth, where as a globe, they cannot infinitely disperse and hence
must tolerate the presence of each other.

For Derrida there is always a tension between the limits of conditional hospitality
and an infinite unconditional hospitality. Derrida (2000b; cited in Laachir, 2007) has
argued that hostis reveals a strange crossing between enemy and host. This is due to
the troubling analogy in their common origin between hostis as host and hostis as
enemy and thus between hospitality and hostility or what Derrida calls hostipitality:
hospitality carrying within it the danger of hostility. The distinction introduced in
Derrida’s works between, on the one hand, unconditional hospitality or ‘absolute
desire for hospitality’ and on the other, conditional hospitality or the rights and duties
that condition hospitality (‘a law, a conditional ethics, a politics) is not a distinction
that ‘paralyses’ hospitality (Laachir, 2007). To keep alive the aporia between ethics
(the law of hospitality) and politics (the laws of hospitality) is to keep political laws
and regulations open to new changes and circumstances and to keep alive the fact
that hospitality is always inhabited by hostility. It is the question of intervening in the
conditional hospitality in the name of unconditional, an intervention that, though
surrounded by contradictions and aporias, recognize the need of ‘perverting’ the laws
for the sake of ‘perfecting’ them.
The distinction introduced in Derrida’s works between, on the one hand,
unconditional hospitality or ‘absolute desire for hospitality’ and on the other,
conditional hospitality or the rights and duties that condition hospitality (‘a law, a
conditional ethics, a politics) is not a distinction that ‘paralyses’ hospitality (Laachir,
2007). To keep alive the aporia between ethics (the law of hospitality) and politics
(the laws of hospitality) is to keep political laws and regulations open to new changes
and circumstances and to keep alive the fact that hospitality is always inhabited by
hostility. It is the question of intervening in the conditional hospitality in the name
of unconditional, an intervention that, though surrounded by contradictions and
aporias, recognizes the need of ‘perverting’ the laws for the sake of ‘perfecting’ them.
Universal hospitality: Humans inhabit a geographically limited planet and it
is our natural destiny to come into contact with one another. This ‘natural law’ of
shared residence on the earth surface assumes a ‘cosmopolitan right’ to travel and
encounter each other under various auspices. This right is conditioned by the law
of ‘universal hospitality’ which ensures the rights and duties associated with the
moment of foreigners around the world: the right to travel and be received in other
land without hospitality, and a duty to not use once travels as a means of exploitation
or oppression (Germann Molz, & Gibson, 2007). Kant (1957; cited in Lachir, 2007,
p. 179) has envisaged universal hospitality as a condition of perpetual peace and
world citizenship. It is only through hospitality that humanity can gradually be
brought closer to a constitution establishing world citizenship and thus perpetual
peace. Kant has dismissed hospitality as philanthropy and insists on its being a right
or a ‘natural law’. Kant’s notion of universal hospitality and cosmopolitan right to

address contemporary concerns, especially around issues of migration, asylum and
citizenship. Derrida has explained that because Kant’s notion of hospitality relies on
condition of reciprocity, duties and obligations between people and nation-states it
delimits rather than opens up borders and possibilities. Jacques Derrida admonishes
that Kant’s hospitality is only juridical and political: it grants only the right of
temporary sojourn and not the right of residence; it concerns only the citizens
of state (Derrida, 1999: 87; cited in Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007, p. 4). Kant’s
ideas on cosmopolitanism and world citizenship have been important in framing
contemporary debates on hospitality (Lachir, 2007, p. 179).
Absolute hospitality: This type of hospitality is an independent form has been
coined by Derrida (2004; cited in O’Dell, 2007). This concept may shed light on social
relations and encounters between strangers in various contexts. In this regard, O’Dell
has followed the view of Derrida and claimed, “It should be noted that the form of
hospitality interrogated in the chapter is characterized by a situation in which the
guest/host relationship is bound by commercialized process of exchange. It is, in
other words, a phenomenon limited and controlled by contextually defined laws (in
the plural) that place obligations upon both the guest and the host. As a result, it
never approaches the phenomenon that Derrida called ‘absolute hospitality” (p. 104).
Civic hospitality: This type of hospitality has been studied by O’Gorman (2007).
In course of describing this type of hospitality O’Gorman has followed the laws of
Plato. In his “Laws” and mentioned four types of stranger/guest from abroad who are
to be welcomed but treated differently, according to their purpose, rank and status.
They may be summarized as Merchant on trade or business: who is to be received
by the officials in charge at the markets, harbors, public buildings, outside of the
city. Cultural visitors to view artistic achievements, including musical performances:
who is to be received at temples where friendly accommodations are to be provided?
Civic dignitary on public business: who is to be received at civic receptions and by
the generals and public officials? The relationship is formal and business like and the
official with whom the dignitary lodges is responsible for their care and conduct.
Occasional high-status cultural visitor, who must be over 50 years of age, to view art
objects, or to exhibit such objects: who is to be welcomed as a visitor of the rich and
wise? Plato also indicated that there should be conformity within the ‘Laws’ for all
guests/strangers from abroad, and the ‘Laws’ also apply when sending out the state’s
own citizens to other states.
The above mentioned many different types of hospitality seem to be overlapped
in many contexts . There are few types of hospitality which are independent forms
whose nature and scopes are very important.
Hospitality and Neologism

Eating out has become a central part of ‘experience economy’ of cities (Pine &
Gilmore, 1998) as Finkelstein (1999; cited in Bell, 2007) has renamed eating out using
the neologism ‘foodatainment’ to emphasize that it is about so much more than just
eating. Foodatainment is regularly conscripted into the place promotion techniques
so central to regeneration, with parts of the city particularly ‘sold’ on the basis of the
food on offer - especially, perhaps, in the case of ‘ethnic’ foods, as in Chinatowns
(Bell, 2004).
The form of foodatainment emphasized by Finkelstein is referred to as high-
style restaurant dining and is also accompanied by other forms of food-related
entertainments, from the pleasures of wandering a sumptuous food hall or deli,
visually consuming the produce on display, to the equally pleasurable but more every
day experiences of coffee shops, take-away and local bars, in which different forms of
hospitality and commensality are enacted. And, of course, the experience economy
of cities or districts also has parallels in what might be called ‘drinkatainment’ –
the production of themed bars and pubs, ranging from the staged authenticity of
Irish theme pubs to Soviet styled vodka bars (Williams,2000; cited in Bell,2007:91).
Both foodatainment and drinkatainment have become cornerstones of the urban
regeneration script, which increasingly emphasizes the value of the night-time
economy to cities seeking to improve their fortunes (Chatterton, & Hollands, 2003;
cited in Bell, 2007, p. 91). However, the ways in which districts utilize foodatainment
and drinkatainment produce radically different kinds of hospitality space and
experience. For Lashley et al. (2007:181) another neologism is ‘hospitaintment’
which denotes all.
Hospitality and Gender
Women bring a set of competences to their management positions that
successful hospitality organizations require. Numerous studies confirm that there
are management style differences between men and women (Kolb,1990;Pounder
& Coleman,2002). Typical of a feminine style are competences such as building
consensus, effective listening, team building, inclusive communication and valuing
diversity. Women are kiss directive and more empowering. They value relationships,
fostering collaborative decision making and creative problem solving. Women also
tend to provide more feedback to employees than do their male counterparts (Burke
& Collins, 200; Oshagbemi & Gill,2002; cited in Brownell, 2013:161).
Elsewhere (Veijola & Jokinen, 2005, 2008) we have adopted a view on gender as
a contingent act, not unrehearsed but not predetermined either, and based on the
notion of habit (Bourdieu, 1990) and performative acts (Butler,1990). Combining
this notion of gender with the framework of new work described earlier, we suggested
that the Western world is turning into a hostessing society. In other words, rather
than world having become increasingly (masculine ) and mobile (see Urry, 2000;
Hannam,2008), the world has started to host and, even more interestingly, to hostess.
‘Hostessing is a qualification, competence, skill, appearance, offering and vocation
that new working life requires from both women and men; as a concept of doing and
action, instead of structure and actor, it evokes a gender aspect but does not glue it to
individuals like the noun of a ‘hostess’ would do (Veijola & Jekinen, 2008:170).It is ‘a
vital, albeit- often for those empowered by male gender- transparent, element in the
world economy where gender is the reproduce in the interplay between contingency
and habit’ (Veijola & Jokinen, 2008:177; cited in Veijola, 2010:115).
Tourism and Hospitality
The term ‘tourism’ appeared in 1811 AD (Kunwar, 2012). The various derivations
of what we now call ‘tourism’ revolve around the idea of circular movement. The term
comes from the Latin tornare to turn or to round off and tornus wheel – a circular
movement relating to change of residence (Mieczkowski, 1990; Smith, 1990; in Mill,
2008: 98). The French word tour suggesting circular tower and circular travel with
a return to the point of departure leads to tourisme in French, tourismo in Italian,
tourismus in German, the English ‘tourism’ and the Russian turizm (Mieczkowski,
1990: 21; cited in Mill, 2008, p. 98.)
Franklin (2003, p. 100) summarizes various definitions as follows: ‘the temporary
movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and
residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations and the
facilities created to cater to their need’ (Franklin, 2003, pp. 27-28; Mathieson & Wall,
1982, p.1; in Kunwar, 2012, p. 11).
Franklin holistically identifies the characteristics of modern tourism as follows
(Franklin, 2003, p. 101):
z It is derived from the condition and experience of life in modernity and is not
an escape from it;
z Modernity, in turn, is about the permanence of novelty and not an escape to it;
z It is more than travel – it is about accessing novelty and the modern world;
z It is consumerism;
z The framework for tourism has been influenced by nationalism, nation states
and latterly by cities and regions;
z It is more than a visual experience and certainly more than rest, relaxation
and pleasure. It exists within a political and moral context; and
z It is way of accessing the world and, increasingly, our place within it.
Is there any relationship between ‘tourism’ and ‘hospitality’? It is common, though

incorrect to use the term hospitality industry interchangeably with tourism or tourism
industry. The term is also used to refer the various types of lodging, accommodation
that are part of tourism (Grottola, 1988). To many, ‘tourism’ involves the people while
hospitality is concerned with overnight stays (Bushwell & Williams, 2003). One the
deeper level the ‘tourist process’ can be thought of consisting of three elements of
travel, accommodation and participation in activities at the destination. Others would
be the social economic and environmental impacts resulting from these elements
(Bushwell & Williams, 2003; cited in Mill, 2008, p. 104).
The diversity of the hospitality sector relates to the difficulty in developing a
straight forward definition (Ninemeier & Perdue, 2005; cited in Ottenbacher et al.,
2009). The hospitality industry is often associated with the tourism industry but
most people relate it to hotels and restaurants (Powers & Barrows, 2006). According
to Lashley (2001), educational institutions and industrial organizations in English-
speaking countries employed the term hospitality to define a group of service firms
that were related to the provision of food, drink and accommodation. Indeed, UK
academics (Brotherton, 1999; Jones & Lockwood, 2000; Lashley, 2001) have argued
that the hospitality industry consists of activities that were called hotels and catering
in earlier times.
In contrast, the US academics suggest that hospitality should be defined in a
broader perspective. Several definitions combine the hospitality and tourism fields
under the umbrella of travel and tourism (e.g., Walker, 2004) and define travel,
lodging, food service, clubs, gaming, attractions, entertainment, and recreation as
sectors of the hospitality field (Nykiel, 2005; Ottenbacher et al., 2009). Earlier, Powers
(1992) and Ottenbacher et al.(2009) described hospitality as primarily consisting of
hotels and restaurants, and tourism-travel as an affiliated industry. The scholars have
explained that the term hospitality comes from medieval “hospice” meaning “house
of rest” for travelers and pilgrims. Later, Walker (2004; Ottenbacher et al., 2009)
identified four major areas of the hospitality field as travel, lodging food service and
recreation.
To the current hospitality situation, one can identify hospitality as a field (not an
industry) comprising of six separate industries, such as lodging, food service, travel,
conventions, leisure and attractions. Gee, Makens and Choy (1997) have classified
travel-related industries into three categories. Category 1 includes direct providers of
services, such hotels, restaurants, travel agents, airlines, and ground transportation.
Category 2 includes support services that provide direct or indirect service to a
traveler (contract food service, tour organizers, travel publications, etc.). Category
3 includes tourism development agencies or organizations such as government
agencies, financial institutions, real estate developers, and so on. Thus, Gee et al.
(1997) have considered category 1 as the primary supporters of the travel industry
followed by the Categories 2 and 3. This understanding is consistent with many other
classifications of the hospitality-tourism field.
Interestingly, the US Department of Commerce, Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) System (SIC, 2007) has provided a very distinct alterative using output as the
dependent measure in classifying industries. Industries are separated based on the
differences in their primary output products. For example, 4724 represents Travel
Agencies, and 4725 represents Travel Operators; 5812 reflect Primarily Eating
Establishments and 5813 reflect Primarily Drinking Establishments (Ottenbacher et
al., 2009, p. 266).
In social sciences, hospitality is a heavily marginalized field. Hospitality needs
emancipatory knowledge and therefore a critical theory perspective. In the field
of tourism, business and management, hospitality is observed only through the
commercial relationships between the hosts and the guests, with the main theme
being operational efficiency. Looking through a hospitality social lens, tourism is
actually a component of hospitality; it is an industrial and commercial part. However,
looking from the strict commercial perspective, tourism is a broader umbrella term
and hospitality is a part of the tourism concept. Tourism is about destinations,
whether a city, a part of the city, a region, a geographical area, a national park, a
country, a continent, etc. Hospitality concerns hotels, restaurants and entertainment
facilities. Tourism concerns a total destination, a macro perspective, and an industry.
In commercial term this is correct. However, looking from a slightly different position,
from a position of researching the relationships between people in society, host –
guest relationship, a core of hospitality, one realizes that the meaning of hospitality is
much more than tourism (Causevic & Lynch, 2009).
Brotherton (2002) has examined whether or not hospitality exists as a separate
entity from tourism, travel or leisure. He indicated that hospitality can, in fact, exist
without tourism (people enjoying a meal while shopping), travel (in a local pub)
or leisure (business man taking client a lunch). Tourism in other hand cannot exist
without travel but can without leisure (business tourism). Travel can however exist
without tourism or leisure (business travel). Leisure can also exist independent of
hospitality – reading books at home –tourism and/or travel. Thus, he concludes,
hospitality can be distinguished from tourism, travel and leisure. Further hospitality,
leisure and travel are all concepts distinct and discrete from each other. Although
travel is seen as necessary condition for tourism to occur other things- motivation
time, money – are also required (Mill, 2008).
One way to view the interrelationship is to examine the way academics have
organized tourism and hospitality at the university level. There are three primary
models that assist in understanding the philosophical bases of tourism and hospitality
academic programs (Chen & Groves, 1999; cited in Mill, 2008). The first views
tourism and hospitality as mutually inclusive. In this model both are independent
with some areas of overlap. While the identity of each discipline is recognized, the
common overlap areas include the pieces that can be transferred from one to other.
Tourism concentrates on the impact of marketing studies, economic, environmental
and social impact studies. Hospitality is concerned with service, marketing, and
management of travel, hotels, commercial recreation and other leisure business.
The second views hospitality on a superior position to tourism where hospitality
is a superior position to tourism where hospitality is a primary driving force as a
service component to other industries (Chen, Groves 1999; cited in Mill, 2008, p.
104). This model views hospitality as service based (hotels, restaurants, casinos
etc) and tourism synonymous with travel sector. The third model views tourism as
superior to hospitality. Tourism is viewed as important economic activity that express
for some concern for the impact of development on social, cultural and ecological
fabric of destination. The hospitality industry develops to service tourism because of
tourism’s great economic importance. Its role is in the development of infrastructure
to support tourism.
Conclusions
The study of hospitality as a human phenomenona or in other word a social
phenomenon directly deals and essentially involves the relationship between host
and guest. From the social context, hospitality can be referred to as the act of being
hospitable while from the commercial perspective hospitality can also be regarded
as a sub-sector of the service industry. Ottenbacher et al. (2009) have contended that
hospitality is still considered as a relatively new research discipline with no consensus
on its definition and concepts although it was claimed to be the world’s largest
industry. This statement would be the answer of what is hospitality ?
UK hospitality research, both qualitatively and quantitatively, is at best static and
even in decline. This may be due to factors that academics might like to think of
as outside their control – declining student numbers, marginalization within their
institutions, and lack of external funding, failure to attract PhD students, lack of
industry support. But evidence from other countries suggests that these factors have
not affected hospitality research. Indeed, Pizam (2003; cited in Jones, 2004) has stated
that hospitality educators are among the top academics in many universities around
the world (sic) and hospitality students are as intelligent and academically adept
as students in the science, humanities, business and arts…our field is sufficiently
challenging to attract the best young minds of our generation.
In the natural sciences there have been many controversies between alternative
schools of thoughts, perhaps most famously between creationist and Darwinists.

Such debates require protagonists to sharpen their logic, develop their arguments
and produce their evidence. Until recently, hospitality researchers and academics
have tended to avoid controversy. Perhaps a sign of maturity would be to welcome
it? “A wider hospitality perspective could facilitate an exploration of trans-historical
and cross-national and /or cultural studies of hospitality” (Brotherton, 1999, p. 171).
It is suggested to conduct research on diplomatic hospitality, brothel hospitality,
airlines hospitality, ethno-hospitality or rural hospitality, military hospitality,
airport hospitality and hospitality at prison which will be inspiring subject for future
researchers. This article will also inspire to the future researchers for studying on
what Nepalese hospitality is.
Hospitality in Nepal
Atithi devo bhava
(Guest is equivalent to God)
Acknowledgement
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. C.P. Rijal,
an eminent scholar of Nepal, who without any hesitation checked this manuscript.
Likewise, I would also like to thank to Tirtha Laxmi Maharjan, Usha Chand and
Anub Bhandari of CPDF who helped me in managing this work. They are Madav Raj
Tripathee of IST College, Ranjeeta Shrestha of NCM, Merina Lama of GATE College,
Bibek Raj Kunwar (studying MBA Hospitality in America) and Saurav Raj Kunwar
who also deserve acknowledgement for their help in preparing this research paper.
References
Airey, D. & Tribe,J.(2000). Education for hospitality In Lashley, C. & Morrison,
R.(eds.) In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates(pp.255-275),
Oxford: Butterworth/ Heinemann.
Aramberri, J. (2001). The host should get lost paradigms in the tourism theory.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (3), 738-761.
Ariffin, A. A. M., Magzhi, A. & Aziz, N. (2011). Understanding hotel hospitality and
differences between local and foreign guests. International Review of Research
Papers, 7(1), 340-349.
Bell, D. (2009). Tourism and hospitality. In Jamal, T.& Robinson, M. (eds.). The Sage
Handbook of Tourism Studies(pp.19-34), London: Sage.
Bell, D. (2007a). Moments of hospitality. In Germann Molz, J. & Gibson, S. (eds.)
Mobilizing Hospitality: The Ethics of Social Relations in a Mobile World. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Bell,D.(2007b). Hospitality and urban regeneration. In Lashley, C., Lynch, P. &

Morrison, A. (eds) Hospitality A Social Lens (pp.89-99), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Boersma, H. (2003). Irenaeus, Derrida and hospitality: on the eschatological
overcoming of violence. Modern Theology, 19(2), 163-180.
Brotherton, B. (2013). Hospitality and hospitality management. In Wood, R. C. (ed.)
Key Concepts in Hospitality Management. London: Sage Publishing.
Brotherton, B. (1999). Towards a definitive View of the Nature of Hospitality and
Hospitality Management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 11 (4), 165-173.
Brotherton, B. & Wood, R.C.(2000). Defining hospitality and hospitality management
In Lashley, C. & Morrison, A. (eds.) In Search of Hospitality- Theoretical Perspectives
and Debates (pp.134-156), Oxford: Butterworth/Heinermann.
Brotherton, B. & Wood, R. C. (eds.). (2008). The Sage Handbook of Hospitality
Management, London: Sage.
Brotherton, B. & Wood, R. C. (2008). The nature and meanings of hospitality.
In Brotherton, B. & Wood, R. C. (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Hospitality
Management, (pp. 36-61). London: SAGE.
Brownell, J. (2013).Women, gender and hospitality employment. In Wood, R.C. (ed.)
Key Concepts in Hospitality Management(pp.157-162), London: Sage.
Burgess, J. (1982). Perspectives on gift exchange and hospitable behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 1(1), 49-57.
Chung-Herrera, B. G., Enz, C. A. & Lankau, M. J. (2003). Grooming future hospitality
leaders: a competencies model. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
44(3), 17-25.
Cole, S. (2007). Hospitality and tourism in Ngadha: an ethnographic exploration.
Hospitality a Social Lens (pp.61-72)., Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cohen, E. & Cohen, S. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2177-2202.
Cresswell, T. (2007). Hospitality and migrant memory in Maxwell Street Chicago.
In Germann Molz, J. & Gibson, S. (eds.) Mobilizing Hospitality (pp.47-64),
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dikeç, M., Clarke, N. & Barnett, C. (eds.). (2009). Extending Hospitality: Giving Space,
Taking time. Edinburg: Edinberg University Press.
Fine, G.A. (2008). Kitchens: the culture of restaurant work (update with new preface),
Burkeley: University of California Press.
Fisher, J. F. (1987). Trans-Himalayan Traders: Economy, Society, and Culture in

Northwest Nepal, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
Franklin, A. (2003). Tourism: an introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Fridgen, J. D. (1996) Tourism and the Hospitality Industry, Educational Institute
American Hotel and Motel Associations.
Friese, H. (2004). Spaces of hospitality. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities,
9(2), 67-79.
Gee, C. Y., Makens, J. C.& Choy, D. J. (1997). The Travel Industry. New York: John Wiley.
Germann Molz, J. & Gibson, S. (2007). Mobilizing Hospitality: The Ethics of Social
Relations in a Mobile World. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gibson, S. (2003). Accommodating strangers: British hospitality and the asylum
hotel debate. Journal of Cultural Research, 7 (4), 367-386.
Gibson, S. (2006). The hotel business is about strangers’ border politics and hospitable
spaces in Stephen Frear’s dirty pretty things. Third Text, 24 (6), 693-703.
Gibson, S. (2007). ‘Abusing our hospitality: inhospitableness and the politics of
deterrence: in Germann Molz, J. & Gibson, S. (eds.) Mobilizing Hospitality (pp.
159-176), Aldershot: Ashgate.
Harrison, D. & Lugosi, P. (2013). Tourism culture(s): the hospitality dimension.
Tourism Recreation Research, 38(3), 269-279.
Haywood, K. M. (1983). Assessing the quality of hospitality services. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(4), 165-177.
Hepple, J., Kipps, M., & Thompson, J. (1990). The concept and an evaluation of its
applicability to the experience of hospitality patience. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 9(4), 305-318.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart Commercialization of Human Feeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jones, P. (2004). Finding the hospitality industry? Or finding hospitality schools of
thought? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(1), 33-45.
Jones, P. (1998). (ed.). Hospitality management. International Journal of Hospitality
Management,17, 105-110.
Jones, P. & Lockwood, A. (1995). Hospitality operating systems. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(5), 17-20.
Kattara, H. S. Iraqj, M. & Hewedi, M. (2004). Tourism and hospitality research
experience: a highlight of tourism and hospitality research issues in Egyptian
higher education. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 4(2), 1-7.

Kay, C. & Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality – management competencies. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 52-63.
Keung, S. W. C. (2000). Tourist’s perceptions of hotel frontline employees’ questionable
job related behavior. Tourism Management, 21, 121-134.
Kim, H. J. (2007). Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: the antecedents and
effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 151-161.
King, C. A. (1995). What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 14(3/4), 219-234.
Korstanje, M. E. & Tarlow, P. (2012). Being lost: tourism, risk and vulnerability in the
post-9/11 entertainment industry. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 10(1),
22-33.
Kunwar, R. R. (2012). Tourists and Tourism Science and Industry Interface. Kathmandu:
Ganga Sen (Kunwar).
Laachir, K. (2007). Hospitality and the limitations of the national. In Germann, M.
J., & Gibson, S. (eds.) Mobilizing Hospitality: The Ethics of Social Relations in a
Mobile World (pp.177-192),Aldershot: ASHGATE.
Lashley, C. (2000). Towards a theoretical understanding. In Lashley, C., & Morrison,
A. (eds.) In Search of Hospitality Theoretical Perspectives and Debates (pp.1-17),
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (eds.). (2007). Ways of knowing hospitality.
Hospitality: A Social Lens, 173-191. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (eds.). (2007). Hospitality A Social Lens.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lashley, C., & Morrison, A. (eds.)(2000). In Search of Hospitality Theoretical
Perspectives and Debate. Oxford: Butterworth & Heinemann.
Leiper, N.(2000). An emerging discipline. Annals of Tourism Research,27(3):805-809.
Lugosi, P. L. (2014). Hospitality and organizations: enchantment, entrenchment and
reconfiguration. Hospitality and Society, 4(1).
Lugosi, P. L. (2009). Ethnography, ethnographers and hospitality research:
communities, tensions and affiliations. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and
Development, 6(2), 95-107.
Lugosi, P. L. (2009). The production of hospitable space: commercial propositions
and consumer co-creation in a bar operation. Space and Culture, 12(4), 396-411.
Lugosi, P. L. (2008). Hospitality spaces, hospitable moments: consumers encounters

and affective experiences in commercial settings. Journal of Food Service,19, 139-
149.
Lugosi, P., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (2009). Critical hospitality management research.
The Industries Journal, 29(10).
Lynch, P. A. (2005). Sociological Impression in a Hospitality Context. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(3): 527-548.
Lynch, P., Di-Domenico, M. L., & Sweeney, M. (2007). Resident hosts and mobile
strangers: temporary exchanges within the topography of the commercial home.
In Germann, M. J., & Gibson, S. (eds.). Mobilizing Hospitality (pp. 121-144),
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lynch, P., Germann, M. J., McIntosh, A., Lugosi, P., & Lashley, C. (2011). Theorizing
hospitality. Hospitality and Society, 1(1), 3-24.
Lynch, P., & Macwhannell, D. (2000). Home and commercialized hospitality. In
Lashley, C. & Morrison, A. (eds.) In Search of Hospitality (pp.100-144), Oxford:
Butterworth/Heinemann.
March, C. S. (1987). Hospitality, women, and the efficacy of beer. Food and Food
Ways, I:351-387.
McCabe, S. & Marson, D. (2006). Tourist constructions and consumptions of space:
place, modernity and meaning. In Burns, P. M. & Novelli, M. (eds.) Tourism and
Social Identities: Global Frameworks and Local Realities, 91-110. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
McIntosh, A. J., Lynch, P. & Sweeney, M. (2010). My home in my castle: defiance of
the commercial homestay home in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, XX (X),
1-11.
Mill, R. C. (2008). The Inter-Relationships between Leisure, Recreation, Tourism
and Hospitality. In Brotherton, B. & Wood, R. C. (eds). The Sage Handbook of
Hospitality Management (pp.90-106), London: Sage.
Morrison, A. & O’Gorman, K. (2008). Hospitality studies and hospitality management:
a symbiotic management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27,
214-221.
Muhlmann, W. (1932). Hospitality. In Seligman, E. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, 7, New York: Macmillan.
Munsters, W. (2010). The cultural destination experience audit applied to the tourist-
historic city. In Richard, G., & Munsters, W. (eds.). Cultural Tourism Research
Methods(pp.52-60), Wallingford: Cabi.
Nailon, P. (1982). Theory in hospitality management. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 1(3), 135-143.
O’Dell, T. (2007). Hospitality, kinesthesis and health: Swedish spas and the market
for well-being. In Germann Molz, J. & Gibson, S. (eds.). Mobilizing Hospitality:
the ethics of Social Relation in a Mobile World (pp.103-120), Aldershot: Ashgate.
O’Gorman, K. D. (2007). Dimensions of hospitality exploring ancient origins. In
Lashley, C. Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (eds.). Hospitality A Social Lens(pp.17-32),
O’Gorman, K. D. (2010). The Origins of Hospitality and Tourism, Oxford: Goodfellow
Publishers.
Ottenbacher, M., Harrington, R., & Parsa, H. G. (2009). Defining the hospitality
discipline: a discussion of pedagogical and research implications. Journal of
Hospitality’s Tourism Research, 35(3), 363-383.
Page, S. (2003). Review. In search of hospitality: theoretical perspectives and debates.
Tourism Management, 24, 719-728.
Phipps, A.& Barnett, P. (2007). Academic hospitality; Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 6(3), 237-254.
Picard, D. (2013). Cosmopolitanism and hospitality. In Smith, M. & Richards, G.
(eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Tourism, 164-171. London: Routledge.
Pine, B.J. II & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome to experience economy. Harvard
Business Review, July-August, 97-105.
Reisinger, Y. (2009). International tourism: cultures and behavior. Amsterdam:
Elsevior.
Reuland, R., Choudry, J. & Fagel, A. (1985). Research in the field of hospitality.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,4(4), 141-146.
Rijal, C.P. & Ghimire, S. (2016), Prospects of Creating Memorable Experience in
Nepalese Tourism and Hospitality Industry. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Education, 6, 40-66.
Ritzer, G. (2007). Inhospitable hospitality? In Lashley, C., Lynch, P. L.& Morrison, A.
(eds.). Hospitality: A Social Lens (pp.129-139), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Santich, B. (2007). Hospitality and gastronomy: natural allies. In Lashley, C., Lynch,
P.& Morrison, A. (eds.). Hospitality A Social Lens(pp.47-60), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Selwyn, T. (2013). Hospitality. In Smith, M. & Richards, G. (eds.) The Routledge
Handbook of Cultural Tourism. London: Routledge.
Sheringham, C. & Daruwalla, P. (2007). Transgressing hospitality: polarities and
disordered relationships? In Lashley, C., Lynch, P. & Morrison, A. (eds.).

Hospitality: A Social Lens (pp.33-46), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sherlock, K. (2001). Revisiting the concept of hosts and guests. Tourist Studies, 1(3),
271-295.
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism
experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.
Slattery, P. (2002). Finding the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure,
Sport and Tourism Education,1(1),19-27.
Slattery, P. (2003). Finding the hospitality industry (Slattery’s Reply to Brotherton).
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education.2(1): 119-120.
Smith, V. L. (ed.) (1989). Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stierand, M. B. (2013). Gastronomy and haute cuisine. In Wood, R. C. (ed.). Key
Concepts in Hospitality Management. London: Sage.
Tauhari, V. (2006). Competencies for a career in the hospitality industry: an Indian
perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
18(2), 123-134.
Taylor, S. & Edgar, D. (1996). Hospitality research: the emperor’s new clothes?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(3), 211-227.
Telfer, E. (2000). The philosophy of hospitableness. In Lashley, C., & Morrison, A.
(eds.). In Search of Hospitality, 38-55. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Thio, S. (2005). Understanding hospitality activities: social, private, and commercial
domain. Journal Manajement Perhotelan, 1(1), 1-5.
Tolia-Kelly, D. P. (2013). Book review. Extending Hospitality: Giving Space and Taking
Time. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Tresidder, R. (2013). The marketing language of hospitality. GSTF Journal of Business
Review, 3(1), 99-105.
Tribe,J.(1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,24(3),638-657.
Tribe,J.(2000). Undisciplined and Unsubstantiated. Annals of Tourism Research,
27(3), 809-813.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: epistemological issue, In Phillimore, J., &
Goodson, L. (eds.). Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies,
Methodologies, 46-62. London: Routledge.
Tunney, J. (2006). The ghost host community in the evolution of travel law in world
trade contexts: a pragmatic cosmopolitan perspective. In Burns, P. M. & Novelli,

M. (eds.). Tourism and Social Identities: Global Frameworks and Local Realities,
61-78. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Uriely, N. & Reichel, A. (2000).Working tourists and their attitudes to hosts. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27(2), 267-283.
van Keken, G. & Go, F. (2006). Close encounters: the role of culinary tourism and
festivals in positioning a region. In Burns, P. M. & Novelli, M. (eds.) Tourism and
Social Identities (pp. 49-60), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Veijola, S.(2010). Gender as work in the tourism industry. Tourist Studies, 9(2):109-
126.
Walton, J. K. (2000). The hospitality trades: a social history. In Lashley, C., & Morrison,
A. (eds.). In Search of Hospitability (pp.56-76), Oxford: Butterworth/Heinemann.
Wharton,A.(2007). Commodifying space; hotels and pork bellies. In Lashley,
C.,Lynch, P.& Morrison, A. (eds.) Hospitality A Social Lens (pp.101-116),
Wood, R. C. (ed.)(2013). Key Concepts in Hospitality Management. London: Sage.
Wood R. C. (2013). Hospitality management education. In Wood, R. C. (ed.) Key
Concepts in Hospitality Management. London: Sage.
Wood, R. H. (1989). More alike than different: the culture of the restaurant industry.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 82-97.
Zlomislic, M. (2004). Conflict, tolerance and hospitality. The Philosopher, LXXXX
11: 2.

Description of Hospitality by Ramesh Sir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Description of Hospitality by Ramesh Sir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Description of Hospitality by Ramesh Sir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is Hospitality?

Ramesh Raj Kunwar *

and accommodation, hospitality transactions involve the interpretation, articulation

investigation of management of guest and host to as a significant means of

contained by a sphere of hospitable and social interaction. A full description of this

guests or strangers of diverse social backgrounds and cultures charitably, socially

being paid to provide hospitality, is at the heart of the operator’s dreams.

However, commercial domain is clearly influenced by above mentioned social

society, arguably looking at social relationship from an entirely different perspective.

Anthropology Moral obligations defining social and cultural Cole

Sociology Component parts of the theory of Ritzer

The combination or aggregation of these four dimensions constitutes the concept

z Hospitality includes food, drink and accommodation and is also concerned

z Individual places of hospitality either offer associated services, or are located

morality/transgression, religiosity/bacchanalian, order/disorder and high/low (Bell,

of hospitality and in particular Derrida’s challenging concept of ‘absolute hospitality’

growth in diversity of customer demand. Hospitality is an integral part of leisure

forms of inter-urban competitiveness in the context of post- industrialization.

between managing hospitality and hospitality management, given the generally

Wood (1988) Argues for sociological approaches to the study of hospitality

Deconstruction Defines hospitality as inviting and welcoming the Derrida

z Hospitality pragmatics: This is an inclusive position dealing with the realities

commercial hospitality is to capitalize on the highly developed technologies and

An offering is effective if or because it creates an ambience of amicable feelings.

with varying and multiphenomenal experiential contexts. Conventional theory of

Commercial practitioners offer commentary on the significance and changing nature

hospitality. It is a hospitality that will be realized in the internal kingdom of God. In

must tolerate the presence of each other.

or a ‘natural law’. Kant’s notion of universal hospitality and cosmopolitan right to

Hospitality and Neologism

Is there any relationship between ‘tourism’ and ‘hospitality’? It is common, though

schools of thoughts, perhaps most famously between creationist and Darwinists.

Bell,D.(2007b). Hospitality and urban regeneration. In Lashley, C., Lynch, P. &

Fisher, J. F. (1987). Trans-Himalayan Traders: Economy, Society, and Culture in

higher education. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 4(2), 1-7.

Lugosi, P. L. (2008). Hospitality spaces, hospitable moments: consumers encounters

Nailon, P. (1982). Theory in hospitality management. International Journal of

disordered relationships? In Lashley, C., Lynch, P. & Morrison, A. (eds.).

trade contexts: a pragmatic cosmopolitan perspective. In Burns, P. M. & Novelli,

You might also like