All posts by isidoras

Tourism in ethnic districts: authenticity vs performance

Beatriz Martínez Parra (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Université Paris 1: Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Migratory processes towards Europe and America occurred from the late nineteenth century onwards. These processes were caused by the quest for economic prosperity and decolonization processes. In this context, ethnic groupings were conformed, mainly in large cities, where migrants and their descendants settled down (Sassone and Mera, 2007).

Ethnic districts were conformed on the basis of familial and social ties which consolidated through migratory chains. Migrants settled down in urban spaces, having an impact on them (Sassone and Mera, 2007) and generating cultural and social changes in the urban landscape (Quijano Gómez, 2009.).

When migrants arrived, they usually struggled for social and labour integration. Inside the enclave, their counterparts offer them employment opportunities and facilitate access to adequate housing (Terzano, 2014). However, on the outside, they are subjected to violence, labour exploitation and discrimination (Qadeer and Kumar, 2006).

As they were expelled and segregated by the receiving home society, their only alternative for survival was grouping and starting businesses run by them and for them (Qadeer and Kummar, 2006). This  entrepreneurial spirit is what has formed the ethnic districts which can be found today (Qadeer y Kummar, 2006).

At present, these urban agglomerations have been transformed into places focused on leisure (Schmiz, 2017). These neighbourhoods have been promoted by tourist literature as places which enrich local culture (Ford et al., 2010).

The issue that cities went from obviating the existence of these ethnic neighbourhoods to advertising them as must-visit places is the result of different factors (Maruyama et al., 2017). On the one hand, the reduction of industrial activities in cities that based their economic activity on the manufacturing industry. As a result, these cities needed to look for alternatives to the industry to maintain their economic activity (Maruyama et al., 2017). At the same time, it produced a change in consumers’ tastes, emerging a new market niche that was interested in individualized consumption and individual symbolic development (Maruyama et al., 2017). With this social and economic situation, the presence of ethnic neighbourhoods which count with a gastronomic and leisure offer with an exotic essence, were transformed into a resource for cities (Maruyama et al., 2017a).

In such a way, some of these neighbourhoods started to muster the attention of foreign visitors by being configured as ethnic tourism districts with their own personalities. 

Some of them have been the object of active policies of development and promotion as areas of leisure and tourism, taking advantage of the entrepreneurial talent of the migrant population (Shaw et al., 2004). At a political level, culture has been produced to develop a multicultural agenda which contributes to changing certain pejorative perceptions inherited regarding these neighbourhoods (Maruyama and Woosnam, 2015). Traditionally, city planners have been taking advantage of the cultural singularities of groups but also controlling the ways in which it presented this culture to tourists (Maruyama et al., 2017). Tourist districts embody the ethno-cultural diversity of big cities converting it into an asset (Vergun, 2019). It has developed branding, diversification and differentiation processes which look to produce places which attract consumers using global brand resources such as Chinatowns and Little Italy (Schmiz, 2017).

Chinese New Year’s Festival Parade in 2017, from: Flushing Chinese Business Association. https://documentedny.com/2023/01/17/lunar-new-year-in-nyc-where-to-celebrate-in-2023/

In this way, a considerable number of these districts are, thus, the object of interesting processes of heritagization and touristification. Many scholars have researched these processes of cultural asset transformation in tourist attractions, which are joined by the bundling of resources and services for their easy tourist consumption (Maccannell, 1973). In this context, María Soledad Laborde (2008) indicated that the visibility of, for example, Chinese neighbourhoods, implied the selection of a series of cultural performances which are legitimated by governments, because they, together, conform to a resource to raise an image of the city from a tourism approach (Laborde, 2008). 

In these processes, the authenticity of cultures vanishes, and it is replaced by the thematization of landscapes (Loukaitou-Sideris and Soureli, 2012). Santos, Belhassen and Canton (2008), in fact, specified that ethnic tourism in cities is developed in a commodification context of ethnicity for tourism (Santos, et, al., 2008). Moreover, in many cases, local culture is commodified without the consent of the participants (Cohen, 1988). In this manner, the commodification destroys the authenticity of local culture and in its place appears a “staged authenticity” (Cohen, 1988). Similarly, this tends to generate the perpetuation of stereotypes, which could turn into an amalgamation of the exotic perceived under the perception of the socially dominant majority (Loukaitou-Sideris and Soureli, 2012).

Nevertheless, tourists usually react in a positive way to rebuilt cultural performances or attractions developed with the purpose of attracting tourism and always with a certain sensation of authenticity and exotism (McKercher et al., 2004). In fact, it has been suggested that lots of people who visit cultural tourist attractions look for stereotyped images from the past (McKercher et al., 2004). 

Consequently, the debate on whether ethnic districts really need to be ornamented with stereotyped images to satisfy tourist demand or if they should maintain their own aesthetic (which may provide a more real and authentic experience) arises. It is possible that the lack of ornamentation reduces the number of visitors who arrive in the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, there are some tourists and visitors who reject this type of performance and look for other types of experiences where you really see how people live. Regarding residents, neighbours may not feel represented by the ornamentation of the area. However, the arrival of visitors attracted by decoration may provide income to the neighbourhood. Should the new and potential ethnic neighbourhoods surrender to ornamentation and cultural performances as well-known Chinatowns or should differ from them and offer other types of experience? Maybe there is no correct or wrong answer in this debate. Nonetheless, when developing and implementing policies for ethnic neighbourhood development I consider it key to consider all stakeholders, including civil society to arrive at the most adequate decision.

Beatriz Martínez Parra has a degree in Tourism and a master’s degree in Planification and Management of Tourist Destinations, both at Complutense University of Madrid. She decided to study Tourism not just because it is a great industry (specially in Spain), but because it is a cross-cutting and at the same time multi-purpose issue. She chose the topic of my thesis while working on the Una Europa project named CUTE. In this project she studied, together with Maria García, Juan Angel Martin, Ana Yañez and other master’s students (as she was), heritagization processes in the districts of Usera and Villaverde. Usera is nowadays becoming the Chinatown of Madrid. Beatriz has been always interested in topics regarding ethnicity, anthropology, culture, heritage… And, since the Chinatowns of the world are touristy areas, it is interesting for her to study how the ethnic districts and neighborhoods are conformed, and to research firstly the heritagization processes of these areas and secondly the turistization processes, usually attached to the previous heritagization processes.

Referencies:

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism.  Annals of Tourism Research. 15. 371-386. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X.

Ford, L., Klevisser, F., Carli, F. (2008). Ethnic Neighborhoods and Urban Revitalization: Can Europe Use the American Model? Geographical Review. 98(1). 82 – 102. DOI:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2008.tb00289.x.

Laborde, M. S. (2008). Apropiación y disputa en la conformación del “Barrio Chino” en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires: el patrimonio inmaterial como estrategia. IX Congreso Argentino de Antropología Social. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales – Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Posadas. 

Loukaitou-Siders, A. y Soureli, K. (2012). Cultural Tourism as an Economic Development Strategy for Ethnic Neighborhoods. Economic Development Quarterly. 26(1). 50-72. DOI:10.1177/0891242411422902.

Maruyama, N., Woosnam, K. (2015). Residents’ ethnic attitudes and support for ethnic neighborhood tourism: The case of a Brazilian town in Japan. Tourism Management. 50(2015). 225-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2144.

Maruyama, N., Woosnam, K. Boley, B. (2017). Who is ethnic neighborhood tourism for anyway? Considering perspectives of the dominant cultural group. International Journal of Tourism Research. 19(6). 727-735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2144.

MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology. 79. 589-603. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225585.

McKercher, B., Ho, P., du Cros, H. (2004). Attributes of popular cultural attractions in Hong Kong. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(2). 393-407. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.008.

Qadeer, M., Kumar, S. (2006) Ethnic enclaves and social cohesion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 15 (2). 1-17.

Quijano Gómez, E.  (2019).  Barrios chinos:  cultura, economía y turismo.  Reflexiones sobre transnacionalidad y etnicidad en la era de la globalización. Revista Ciudades, Estados y Política. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/cep.v6n3.84044.

Santos, C., Belhassen, Y. y Catón, K. (2008). Reimagining Chinatown: An analysis of tourism discourse. Tourism Management. 29(5). 1002-1012. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.002.

Sassone, S.M., Mera, C. (2007). Barrios de migrantes, espacios interculturales: coreanos y bolivianos en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. XXVI Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología. Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología (ALA). Guadalajara, México. 

Schmiz, A. (2017). Staging a ‘Chinatown’ in Berlin: The role of city branding in the urban governance of ethnic diversity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 290–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776416637208V.

Shaw, S., Bagwell, S. y Karmowska, J. (2004). Ethnoscapes as Spectacle: Reimaging Multicultural Districts as New Destinations for Leisure and Tourism Consumption. Urban Studies. 41(10). 1983–2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000256341

Terzano, K. (2014). Commodification of Transitioning Ethnic Enclaves. Behavioral science. 4(4). 341-51. DOI: 10.3390/bs4040341.

Vergun T.V. (2019). Ethnic villages as a factor of the development of ethnic tourism. Science Almanac of Black Sea Region Countries. 20(4). 29-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000256341.