_
___________________________________________________________________

FOUR KINDS OF TOURISM?

Elery Hamilton-Smith
Phillip Institute of Technology, Australia

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: To relate tourism to leisure theory, this paper first offers a potential 
conceptual framework to assist in placing leisure in the context of other human 
behavior.  This is done by considering dimensions of both subjective experience 
and structural environment.  The field structured by these two dimensions is then 
reviewed by examining four more or less extreme positions, although emphasizing 
that reality will rarely conform to an extreme.  The two dimensional field of human 
behavior is, like all conceptual models, an attempt to understand the immense 
complexity of reality.  Turning to tourism, this framework demonstrates that just as 
recreation often fails to result in leisure, so the tourism industry may well detract 
from the positive aspects of the tourism experience, and at the worst, may produce 
alienation.  Keywords: leisure, tourism satisfactions, rewards, alienation, 
authenticity, existential and structural dimensions.

Hamilton-Smith teaches in the Department of Leisure Studies (Phillip Institute of Technology, Bundoora, 
Victoria 3083, Australia) but previously spent many years as a research and planning consultant working 
on a wide range of problems in many countries.
____________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

	  This paper develops a particular approach to integrating various forms of leisure 
theory, and then examines the potential of that approach for discovering a closer 
relationship between leisure theory and tourism.  It commences with a brief outline of the 
author's approach to the integration of leisure theory before proceeding to any 
examination of tourism per se.
	  Traditionally, the definition of leisure has been contested between various 
paradigms: many attempts at definition have proved unsatisfactory and it is indeed 
difficult to see any common agreement.  Various authors such as Parker (1976), 
Neulinger (1981), and Kelly(1983) have provided useful overview listings of these 
attempts.  However, simply listing various attempts is of limited value for the overall 
purpose of this volume of essays.
	  Kelly provides a basis for the present approach by drawing attention to the 
fundamental importance of two specific dimensions: leisure-existential reality and leisure 
as social reality (Kelly  1983:4 - 6).  He concludes (pp. 181 - 199) by drawing attention 
to the potential of dialectical analysis as a path to greater clarity.  In effect, the approach 
here is an endeavor to use Kelly's dialectic as an integrating framework, with the 
provision that merely examining leisure within such a framework, is inadequate, since 
the field of analysis should be all human behavior.
	  Within this field, leisure and other kinds of behavior might then be more adequately 
located and related to each other.  The aim is not to replace existing typologies, but to 
establish a framework to assist a conceptual analysis of their relationship to each other 
and to social reality.
	  Therefore, two dimensions of human behavior will be explored here.  The first of 
these is the subjective reality (Kelly 1983), in the personal experiences and valuations of 
the individual.  This is related to, but not identical with Neulinger's (1981) subjective 
dimension, and certainly not synonymous with Cohen's (1979) usage of the same term.  
The second is the environmental or structural reality (similar to the social reality of Kelly 
or objective reality of Neulinger) and is based in the opportunities and constraints 
imposed upon the individual from without.  Both dimensions are, of course, continuous 
ones, altogether for heuristic reasons, the extreme positions are emphasized in this 
article.
	  Space considerations permit a brief development of the framework and its two 
dimensions here.  Obviously the two dimensions interact, and their separation is to at 
least some extent arbitrary, resorted to for purposes of analysis.  Again, a full analysis of 
their interaction cannot be articulated here, but the overall framework is more fully 
developed in another paper currently in preparation.

THE EXISTENTIAL DIMENSION

	  One of the more useful examinations of the way in which people perceive their own 
leisure experience is that of Shaw (1985), who distinguishes 13 factors and relates them 
to the normal daily pattern of events.  The present analysis selects only four factors which 
bring together some of those defined by Shaw, but which are also commonly regarded as 
part of any subjective definition of leisure.  Here they are treated as major determinants 
of the existential dimension of human behavior.  These are:
1.  The presence or absence of telling that an experience is truly satisfying in itself  - 
Neulinger's intrinsic motivation (1981:31).
2.  The presence or absence of feeling free from external constraint.  Many authors on 
leisure do not distinguish between "freedom from" and "freedom to," but this distinction 
is endemic to most discussions of freedom as such, and very useful to the current 
discussion.  In phenomenological terms, this may well be seen as the sense of personal 
control over one's life (Witt, personal communication), or of doing "what I don't have to 
do" (Kelly 1983:15).
3.  The presence or absence of feeling free to choose or to take action.  Again the 
phenomenological perspective would probably lead to a sense of personal competence 
(Witt, personal communication) or of "being able to do. . . ."  These two aspects of 
freedom are both closely interrelated to the individual's experience of the social 
environment.  One who has the educational advantages and cultural self-confidence of 
the sheer levels of the social stratification system is much more likely to experience 
soundly-based feelings of freedom than an educationally disadvantaged and financially 
deprived person.  This aspect will be further dealt with below.
4.  The presence or absence of feeling personal involvement in, or of commitment to, 
action.  Within Neulinger's formulation, this must be seen as a secondary effect of the 
factors already discussed, but it is clearly distinguished, in various ways, by other 
formulations that are important to the present argument.  Thus, one finds 
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) discussing "flow," Ellis (1973) presenting the stimulus-arousal 
theory of play, Stebbins (1979) dissecting amateurism or "serious leisure," and Godbey 
(1985:9) talking of "internally compelling love."
	  At the positive end of this dimension, one finds a high level of feelings of 
satisfaction, freedom, and involvement, and these feelings provide their own reward.  
Rewards, in other words, are in the feelings of the recipient.  At the opposite extreme, 
one would discover an absence of these factors, probably leading to feelings of 
alienation, using that term in its subjective sense (Schweitzer  1982).
	  Even though these factors are subjective ones, and essentially in the mind of the 
individual person, any one person's opportunity to achieve experiences at the highly 
positive end of this spectrum are certainly interrelated with their position in the social 
class system and hence their general life chances.  This is the major point about which 
the interrelationship between the two dimensions is most clearly demonstrable, yet it is 
the point most often ignored or disputed.  In spite of extensive empirical evidence, the 
so-called "compensation theory" of leisure dies hard.  McKay (1986) provides both an 
illustrative analysis and an extensive international bibliography.
	  When used to distinguish leisure, this dimension alone is inadequate, in that it does 
not satisfactorily distinguish between what is commonly known as leisure and much of 
what is recognized as work.  Thus, in dealing with "flow experience," Csikszentmihalyi 
(1975) is clear that he is not describing leisure, and draws examples from both work and 
leisure settings.  Later, he and his colleagues (Graef, Csikszentmihalyi and Giannino 
1983) demonstrated that much of what takes place within work possesses the 
characteristics commonly assigned to leisure.  Somewhat similarly, Stebbins (1979) 
makes it clear that amateurism, which is certainly located towards the positive end of this 
dimension, bridges between work and leisure, and shares characteristics of each.

THE STRUCTURAL DIMENSION

	  Turning to the structural dimension, a number of factors are discussed in the 
literature, although seldom in any overall sense.  Parker (1976, 1983) provides one of the 
most useful analyses of the work-leisure nexus; Salaman (1974) develops the notion of 
linkages between leisure and occupational communities, an apparently promising 
direction of analysis which has not been adequately pursued since; Cheek and Burch 
(1976) develop a similarly promising direction in the idea of leisure locales; and Roberts 
(1978) attempts a more comprehensive review of structural factors, but only establishes 
one which seems to separate the structural determinants of leisure from the mainstream 
of structural analysis (Clarke and Critcher 1985: 40 - 44).
	  Even these studies can be subjected, to varying degrees, to Rojek's (1985:1) critique 
as " . . . forms of theory which deal with the extensive critical literature on power, 
knowledge, signification, interdependency agency and the mode of production by 
ignoring it . . . in short, theories of `leisure without society'."  This is not simply because 
they examine leisure (and work) in isolation from the totality of human society, but more 
importantly because society itself is assumed as given, rather than being also subjected to 
critical analysis.
	  One other point which must be noted in opening this aspect of the discussion is that 
because the factors concerned are structural-environmental ones, they are external to the 
individual actor, and so not readily amenable to control by the individual.  Further, as 
noted above, the individual and subjective position of the individual is also very strongly 
influenced by external forces, and so the individual may readily be seen as the victim of 
those external forces.
	  Factors which might determine this dimension are numerous but a small number are 
adequate for present purposes.  The first determinant is the extent to and manner in 
which society, and specifically, the individual's own cultural reference group, label 
specific sectors of the time-space continuum as "work" and others as "leisure."  This 
may or may not coincide with the individual experience, but it does help to shape both 
behavior and the perception of and feelings about experience.  The extent to which this 
dimension is based in the perspective of wider society places the detail of the label 
squarely within a stratification system of class, status and power.  Some sectors carry 
high status because they contain such behavior as the practice of medicine, the writing of 
novels, or even being a University Professor, while others carry low status because they 
are to do with digging ditches, collecting garbage, or committing crime.  This author 
recognizes the complexity and obscurity of the time-space concept, and while it cannot 
be fully developed here, prefers it to the naive simplism embodied in the term "free-
time," or even "non-work time."  A useful review of the concept can be found in 
Carlstein, Parkes and Thrift (1978).
	  The second determinant of the structural dimension is the extent to which one is 
obligated by external forces to complete a task rather than continuing or not as the whim 
occurs.  Thus, one who sets out to climb a mountain is expected to attain the summit and 
his/ her success is judged by this - unlike the individual who simply scrambles about on 
a series of boulders for fun or personal development of techniques.  Obviously there is 
again an interrelationship between the two dimensions - the presence of external 
obligation is very likely to engender an internal sense of obligation.  On turning to the 
normal pattern of work as involvement in the production process, the obligation to 
complete arises out of the extent to which labor or time possesses an economic value.
	  The third determinant is the extent to which the rewards of one's behavior are based 
in structural characteristics rather than being absent or purely in personal satisfaction.  
This is similar to Neulinger's (1981) idea of extrinsic motivation.  Thus, work, as 
employment, is rewarded by the payment of money and related economic benefits which 
in turn are inextricably related to social class, and hence to both lifestyle and life chances.  
Behavior and reward are inextricably caught in a mutually reinforcing relationship - 
those who already possess high status have a greater opportunity to behave in a way 
which will add to and confirm high status; those of low status will find it extremely 
difficult to do.  Other forms of "work," whether artistic creativity, pursuit of an amateur 
interest, or the like, may or may not be financially profitable, but they do receive rewards 
in terms of enhanced status, power, or social class.
	  Thus, within the present approach, one finds at the positive end of the spectrum, 
normal "work," defined as involvement in the production process, but also a great deal of 
what might commonly be seen as leisure, an which Stebbins (1979) has distinguished as 
"serious leisure."  However, this dimension alone fails to adequately distinguish between 
behavior which is personally satisfying, expressive of freedom and personally involving 
on one hand, and sheer drudgery on the other.

THE HUMAN ACTIVITY FIELD

	  By considering both dimensions at the one time, a hypothetical framework can be 
established.  One common way of presenting this would be to display the two 
dimensions at right angles to each other, thus establishing the familiar four-cell diagram.  
This all too easily results in perceiving human behavior as falling into four categories - 
an artifact which clearly distorts reality.  This paper avoids such a presentation in order to 
emphasize that in reality any given segment of human behavior may fall anywhere within 
the total field.  Essentially, it sets up four hypothetical "ideal types" in the Weberian 
sense, not as a description of actual behavior, but as a heuristic device against which 
actual behavior might be examined.
	  In the following treatment, each of these four hypothetical types is identified in 
relation to the two major dimensions, and each is then used to examine specific aspects 
of human behavior.  Each is later applied to tourist behavior specifically.

Highly Positive on Both Dimensions

	  This hypothetical position relates to behavior which is highly satisfying in personal 
and intrinsic terms, expressive of freedom, personally involving, is perceived by one's 
reference group as "work," demands completion or finitude, and is structurally 
rewarding.  This is much like Nealinger's Leisure-Work (1981: 30-32).  It includes 
"good work," in the sense of participation in the production process through a role which 
is personally fulfilling. It also covers "serious leisure" in the sense of undertaking an 
unpaid pursuit for its own sake, but at the same time sharing with professionals in the 
same pursuit a common series of criteria of success, or, in Stebbins' (1979) terms, 
participating in the same professional-amateur public system.
	  Artistic creativity, whether paid or unpaid, is an illustrative example.  It is usually, 
although not universally, seen by the participant as meeting all the criteria associated 
with personal satisfaction on the existential dimension; it is commonly termed one's 
"work" both by peers and public; and in particular, it demands completion or finitude.  
The world feels disappointed by an Edwin Drood or an Unfinished Symphony - the 
author or composer ought not to have died.
	  Most importantly, this hypothetical position underlies the sector of human behavior 
where the actor receives both personal and structural rewards.  The two dimensions are, 
of course, mutually reinforcing as one's personal satisfactions and are confirmed by 
meeting any demands for completion and by the structural rewards.  Not surprisingly, it 
is most likely to occur among those who stand relatively high in the social stratification 
system, and that is compounded by the extent to which these same people are likely to 
experience this combination of rewards in all or most aspects of their lives.
	  It is now possible to turn to tourism. The hypothetical tourist in this extreme of the 
field will have been of any external constraints in selecting his or her specific travel plan; 
will have felt able to undertake the program involved; will find it personally satisfying, 
be aiming to attain some goal or purpose, whose completion can be identified; will have 
been seen to be doing this; and will be rewarded with increased status or power as a 
result.  It is extremely likely that he or she will identify himself/herself as a traveler, but 
will strongly resist acceptance of the label "tourist."  The souvenirs of this kind of tourist 
are likely to again reflect the notion of authenticity.  Particularly favored are "ethnic" arts 
and crafts, particularly if they were genuinely produced for local and not tourist 
consumption (Graburn 1984).  As a convenient shorthand for later reference, one might 
call this kind of travel "tourism-as-quest."
	  This is, of course, the end of tourism which MacCannell (1976) describes, but as 
Graburn (1983:18) has already pointed out, MacCannell is essentially talking about the 
middle classes "surrounding the world in search of new experience."  Regrettably, his 
work is so often accepted as an apologia for the total tourism phenomenon, and so the 
reality of tourism-as-escape or tourism-as-consumption has been effectively obscured.
	  Much of the present author's tourism over the last 10 years fits neatly into this ideal. 
He has freely chosen to visit many National Parks in each of two major subcontinents; 
has had the resources to be able to do this; has found it satisfying, even joyful; has 
become deeply involved in it; but has undertaken it as part of a long-run research study, 
recognized as an integral part of his "work"; and has achieved an enhanced status among 
at least some of his students and peers as an outcome.
	  Obviously, the explorer-traveler is usually an example of this extreme position.  
Noyce (1958) reviews a remarkable wealth of material reporting the motives, 
circumstances, and satisfactions of explorers and adventurers, much of which illustrates 
the kind of characteristics already discussed.  Mitchell (1983), in dealing with the 
mountaineering experience, not only gives excellent case material, but in his final 
chapter (pp. 222-225) argues that one can generalize to the experiential dimension of 
other less obviously adventurous activities.
	  The tourism industry and tourism scholars have fully recognized the importance of 
this extreme with its cluster of potential rewards and satisfactions.  Tours are packaged in 
terms of specific study programs, and often marketed through apparently "non-tourist" 
organizations and media such as the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, or the magazine of 
the New York Museum of Nature.  The Sierra Club, of course, was its pioneer in the 
genesis of this type of tourism, commencing with its Tuolumne Meadows "outings" of 
1901.  Safari-type tourist experiences are packaged as giving the opportunity for 
"authentic" experience.
	  Thus, tourism experiences are commoditized in these packages, which include not 
only fares, accommodation, meals, guide services, and the like, but as MacCannell 
(1976:23) points out, "their value is a function of the quality and quantity of experience 
they promise."  Whether or not the promise is achieved is another question, depending 
not only on the quality of the package, but also on the matching between package and 
buyer.  The commoditization of this kind of tourism by the industry leads to a wide range 
of experiences which try to conform to the ideal extreme - ranging from genuine 
exploration to some packages which are self-evidently of very questionable authenticity, 
yet find willing buyers.
	  MacCannell (1976) provides a basis from which one can understand the dynamics of 
the commoditization process, and the way in which it exercises an appeal to the buyer.  It 
is likely to lead in turn to the false belief that authenticity, surely a subjective factor, 
belongs only in tourism-as-quest.  There is no question that tourism of this kind confers 
recognition and higher status from one's peers upon the tourist.  The more one is seen to 
have sought out something different and truly authentic, the more one's tourism is seen 
as high-status behavior.  As an example, the following conversation was overheard 
recently by the author:
	"It seems Nepal is the really fashionable place to go at present."
	"Not at all, that's pass‚. Ladakh is the place to go."
	"I don't even know where Ladakh is!"
	"Of course, that's why it's now the place to go."

Highly Positive on Existential Dimension Only

	  Here one can examine behavior which is highly satisfying in personal and intrinsic 
terms, expressive of freedom, and personally involving, but which is not seen as "work," 
does not or usually cannot demand completion of finitude, and does not provide any 
significant structural rewards.  It is similar to Neulinger's Pure Leisure (1981:30 - 32).  It 
includes a great deal of behavior undertaken "just for fun," amusements, relaxation, and 
diversion.  There is often a sense that doing something different from one's everyday 
responsibilities is an important element here, and that part of the satisfaction may well lie 
in just that.
	  There is no question that this is the alternative extreme which the tourism industry 
may and does offer.  The normal sun-sea-sand-and-sex formula belongs here, as does any 
package which offers escape as opposed to quest.  Cruise holidays, high class specialist 
hotels (or even better, castles) offering luxury accommodation and gourmet meals, many 
snow resorts casinos, and a range of other attractions all provide for such an opportunity.  
Again purely as shorthand, and by contrast with the previous extreme, one might label 
this "tourism-as-escape," even though there are clearly factors of attraction as well as 
factors of escape in choosing such an experience.
	  The commoditization of this kind of experience also holds out a promise which may 
or may not be fulfilled.  In this case, if the promise fails to eventuate, one probably finds 
the least pleasing (to the traveler) outcome - there are no structural rewards available 
and probably no plausible excuses for not enjoying oneself when one is meant to.  This 
reflects the deeper ambiguity of an extreme which offers only the personal reward and 
withholds any possibility of structural rewards.
	  An aspect which must not escape attention is the unknown extent to which this 
general area of  tourism experience also embraces what might be called tourism-as-
familiarity.  It in turn relates to Shaw's (1985:9) effortlessness (mental).  The extent to 
which people may find their personal freedom is constrained by the fear of new 
experiences leads to a wish to holiday in an unthreatening environment.  Graburn 
(1983:20) cites work by Campbell which shows that "many of the affluent working 
classes in the USA do not have the cultural self-confidence to travel much out of their 
familiar surrounding, expressing their apprehensions about not knowing how to dress 
and eat properly, not knowing other languages, accommodation and transportation 
systems, and the fear of getting taken or the attractions of beggars.  For them, the effort is 
not worth the pleasures."
	  The general neglect of this kind of tourism by scholars is probably related to the 
concentration upon international travel rather than the domestic holidays which comprise 
the major part of tourism.  A widespread example is the families who camp by the beach, 
in the same tent, or the same site, with the same neighbors, year after year.  The author is 
aware of some families now using the same site into a third generation.  This is a clear 
example of the influence of social class upon tourism opportunity.  Yet this issue has 
been given very little attention.  Obviously, to return to Rojek's (1985) criticism cited 
above, one not only has the study of "leisure without society," but also "tourism without 
society."
	  Tourism-as-escape is often scorned by both those who prefer to identify, themselves 
as travelers, and the residents of the host society.  It is seen as a mindless diversion, and 
as low status behavior.  Such an attitude, of course ignores the reality and the importance 
of personal satisfaction, which may well be extremely high.  To return briefly to the idea 
of authenticity, that individual may well see his tourism-as-escape as a truly authentic 
experience of exactly the nature he desires.  However, as an illustrative example of this 
problem, a long experienced tourism professional recently confessed to the author that, 
following a period of extreme work stress, she had taken a packaged sun resort holiday. 
She found it intensely satisfying and appropriate to her personal preferences at that 
juncture, yet still felt a degree of embarrassment in discussing it.
	  It is this kind of tourism which generates the greatest market for traditional souvenirs 
rather than the ethnic arts or other symbols of authenticity.  Here it is important to buy 
items which explicitly signal where one has been.  T-shirts are especially popular, 
particularly if the message on them subtly or blatantly suggests what a great escape 
holiday one has just enjoyed.
	  In reality, as noted at the commencement of this discussion, few actual behaviors 
correspond to these hypothetical extremes.  Most occupy intermediate positions.  It is, 
therefore, of particular interest to note that many popular travel books are written around 
an experience which had some elements of "work," finitude, and structural reward, yet 
place a very strong emphasis on the existential.  Some which exemplify this character 
include Chatwin (1977), Levi (1972), Matthiessen (1978), and Newby (1958).  It seems 
reasonable to suggest that the great number of people who enjoy traveling vicariously by 
reading are not so interested in the accomplishment of an end purpose as they are in the 
experience and feelings of the traveler.  Thus, as a direct comparison, Noyce's (1954) 
South Col proved to be much more highly regarded than Hunt's (1953) Ascent of 
Everest.
	  Again, this adds some weight to the plea that the personal and existential as a basis 
for tourism should not be lightly disregarded, even when it leads to escape or fantasy.  It 
is as valid for those who seek it as quest is for others.

Highly Positive on Structural Dimension Only

	  This extreme relates to behavior seen as "work" by one's reference group, which 
demands completion or finitude which is structurally rewarded, yet lacks personal and 
intrinsic satisfaction, fails to be expressive of freedom, and lacks any sense of personal 
involvement or commitment.  It is very similar to Neulinger's Pure Job (1981:30-32) in 
that it provides only structural rewards through some kind of payoff.  In general terms, it 
obviously includes paid work which is not satisfying to or enjoyed by the individual and 
is undertaken only for pay.  However, it may well include other kinds of behavior.  A 
sportsman who is highly skilled and becomes involved in higher levels of competition, 
then becomes bored with the game, but feels unable to " . . . let his team-mates down" 
will probably find his game to be drudgery.  But he continues playing because of the 
rewards gained from external recognition by team-mates and fans and probably even 
from player fees.  Similarly, many people find themselves trapped into having accepted 
some kind of responsibility towards their family, neighbors, peers, or an organization and 
then find this becomes drudgery, but continue, again because of the extrinsic rewards.
	  There are probably two kinds of tourists to be considered here.  First are those who 
must travel for some compelling extrinsic motivation, whether it be obligations to an 
employer, their own personal income-earning, or something else.  But there are also 
those who have purchased a commoditized tour which has failed to deliver what they 
expected.  But having purchased it, they feel themselves bound to the itinerary and 
persist, not gaining enjoyment or satisfaction, but determined to " . . . hang in there" and 
return home to relate the venture to envious friends.
	  It is probably more important to an understanding of tourism as informed by this 
framework to recognize that there is at least some evidence that those who buy holidays 
for escape are very likely to come from an occupation which can only be assigned to the 
"pure job" category.  They undertake work so that they can afford to live and to make the 
once-a-year escape.  It would be, however, too simplistic to argue that this is a cause-
effect relationship.  The choice of an escape-type holiday is doubtless based in a wide 
range of factors arising out of one's personal background, including one's place in the 
social class system, which also, of course, largely determines one's employment 
opportunities.

Highly Negative on Both Dimensions 

	  Here one finds behavior which is wholly alienating - with no sense of personal and 
intrinsic satisfaction, freedom, or involvement, no structure rewards, need to complete 
anything, or even the standing of being seen as "work."  Not surprisingly, such behavior 
is not normally chosen by anybody.  But it must be recognized that for many people, 
unemployment' results in exactly this.  At perhaps an even more extreme position, the 
literature on behavior in prisons or other closed institutions demonstrates the extent to 
which people will struggle to develop goal-directed behaviors which offer personal and 
structural rewards, in order to avoid the dehumanizing effects of total alienation.
	  As with the previous type, it is perhaps not a major consideration in tourism, and will 
only receive brief attention here.  But regrettably, one occasionally finds tourists who can 
only be placed at this extreme.  The most notorious are the "lost ones" or "drifters" of 
such regions as Southeast Asia.  Young people who lose their social bearings may have 
linkage only with the illicit drugs subculture and drift aimlessly from place to place.  But 
there are also people who buy a holiday package for which they are completely 
unequipped and for which nobody helps them to prepare.  They lose their sense of 
direction or purpose, and become virtually paralyzed by fear and indecision.
	  An illustrative example is the case of two young middle-class girls on their first trip 
out of their home country whom the author found huddled in the foyer of a hotel in New 
Delhi.  Having ventured into the city on the first day, they had become frightened, and 
retreated to the hotel, where they had remained, weeping, eating packaged potato chips, 
and drinking Coca-Cola for five days, waiting only until their return flight.  Then are also 
tourists who find themselves caught up willy-nilly in local violence civil or international 
war, and whose reaction, not surprisingly, is one of utter panic.

DISCUSSION

	  The two-dimensional field of human behavior described here is, like all conceptual 
models, an attempt to help understand the immense complexity of reality.  Therefore, it is 
a simplification and must be recognized as such.  But from a leisure theory perspective, it 
has value in helping to make sense of the complex nexus of leisure-recreation-work-job-
unemployment, meet, and to understand the dual reward system which operates in 
respect to all of these.
	  Recreation, for example, falls anywhere within the total field, depending upon the 
match between the participant and the experience.  The model serves to demonstrate that 
although recreation services claim to be about " . . . meeting leisure needs," they may 
well produce outcome which cannot be properly described as leisure and may even be 
drudgery or alienation.  This problem seems likely to arise as a result of packaging, and 
marketing a specific recreation experience (recreation as a consumer product).
	  Similarly, and as demonstrated anecdotally above, tourism may be placed anywhere 
in the total field depending upon the person-situation being described.  This model 
enables one to distinguish clearly between tourism-as-guest and tourism-as-escape.  So 
far, it has been argued that these are both legitimate expressions, provided that they 
match the individual tourist and his/her situation.
	  It has already been suggested above that tourists are likely to occupy the other 
extreme positions if the experience sold by the tourism industry does not match the 
buyer.  Here one has an analogy with recreation: the negative outcomes, in at least some 
instances, result from a tourism-as-consumption philosophy, where the tourist experience 
is packaged along with the necessary supports of travel and accommodation and 
marketed in such a way as to maximize profitability or at least market-share.  In this 
situation, it is very easy to see how the half-formulated preferences of the buyer are 
quickly subordinated to the ready availability of prepackaged opportunities. Therefore, 
one might raise questions about tourism education for potential customers, or about 
policies to increase customer power in the decision process, or about planning 
frameworks which might assist.
	  It is then perhaps useful, as an example, to examine some of the ideas of recreation 
planners about how one matches participant to experience and minimizes conflict.  One 
of the more promising planning tools is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of Clark 
and Stankey (1979) which provides for defining a range of outdoor recreation 
opportunities, clarifying the criteria which should be met in establishing each, and from 
this basis, ensuring that a wide spectrum of recreation behaviors is serviced.  Perhaps the 
notion of a spectrum of tourist opportunities ranging between the two extremes of 
tourism-as-quest and tourism-as-escape is worthy of development.  In effect, such a 
spectrum has already been put forward, in a very rudimentary form, by Smith ( 1977:9) in 
the introduction to her Hosts and Guests.  A fully-developed planning tool based upon 
this beginning might both help planners to establish a more appropriate range of 
opportunities and help marketers to differentiate customers more effectively.  Clearly; 
this bears a close relationship to the market segmentation approaches used in 
contemporary tourism planning.  But the comparison with ideas developed in recreation 
planning may well add greater depth to thinking, just as the market segmentation of 
tourism planning may offer a great deal to recreation planners.
	  One other example may serve to demonstrate the way in which this model might 
relate to another practical issue in tourism.  There has been a considerable concern about 
the social and cultural impact of tourism.  Indeed Smith's (1977) well-known book has a 
sufficient collection of case studies that the reality of the problem needs no further 
comment.  One of the interesting conceptual approaches to this is offered by Butler 
(1980) in idea of a "tourist area cycle of evolution."  In effect, his cycle is one in which 
tourism-as-quest gradually becomes more commoditized as the industry fights to offer 
novel opportunities for authenticity, until these have to be recycled as opportunities for 
tourism-as-escape, and ultimately discarded.  The dynamic which drives the cycle is one 
of tourism-as-consumption, subject to the normal expansionist pressures of a market 
system.  Probably this cycle can only be interrupted if the host government intervenes in 
the market system, as a small number have already done on a broad scale and virtually all 
have attempted in a peripheral and single-attraction mode.
	  Turning to a more theoretical perspective, the dual-dimensional analysis of behavior 
offered here provides a more robust theory than many other approaches, in that it does 
place leisure fully back into its social context.  Analysis of the various factors 
determining each dimension allows one to introduce and account for a wide range of 
social and political elements within the leisure (or tourism) experience, many of which 
have been excluded from traditional studies.
	  Among the elements most often neglected in discussions of leisure are the closely-
related ones of social class and occupation.  In the same way, it is almost self-evident 
that there is an important interrelationship between occupation and holiday-taking, yet all 
too little tourism research has explored the relationship between tourism behavior and 
home behavior, of which class and occupation are central determinants.
	  In conclusion, the parallels between this approach to leisure theory and its potential 
application to tourism studies are sufficiently close to facilitate a valuable transfer of 
learning between these two fields.  Perhaps even more importantly, it provides a valuable 
tool for linking the study of leisure and tourism to the mainstream of social theory.

Acknowledgments - The model presented here has arisen out of numerous discussions with 
colleagues and students, all of whom deserve a share of the credit and none of the blame.  In 
particular, I am grateful to Theo Bodewes, Phillip Bosserman, Jack Kelly, Peter Witt, Geoff 
Godbey, Rob Lynch, Roger Trowbridge, Tony Dalton, and Gregory Heath for their stimulation 
and clarification of my thinking.  But in naming them, I must also emphasize that perhaps the 
greatest inspiration comes from the critique (both spoken and unspoken) of my students.  Finally 
the comments of referees aided greatly in clarifying some further aspects.


REFERENCES

Butler, R. W.
	1980  The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for 	
		Management of Resources.  The Canadian Geographer 24(1):5 - 12.
Carlstein, T., D. Parkes, and N. thrill
	1978  Timing Space and Spacing Time: Volume One: Making Sense of Time. 	
		London: Edward Arnold.
Chatwin, B.
	1977  In Patagonia. London, Jonathan Cape.
Cheek, N. H. and W. R. Burch
	1976  The Social Organization of Leisure in Human Society.  New York: Harper & 
		Row.
Clark, R. N. and C. H. Stankey
	1979  The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, 	
		Management and Research.  USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 
		PNW-98.
Clarke, J., and C. Critcher
	1985  The Devil Makes Work: Leisure in Capitalist Britain.  London: Macmillan.
Cohen, E.
	1979  A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.  Sociology 13(2):179 - 201.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
	1975  Beyond Boredom & Anxiety.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ellis, M. J.
	1973  Why People Play.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Godbey, G.
	1985  Leisure in Your Life: An Exploration (2nd. ed.). State College, PA: Venture 
		Publishing.
Graburn, N. H. H.
	1983  The Anthropology of Tourism.  Annals of Tourism Research 10:9 - 33.
	1984  The Evolution of Tourist Arts.  Annals of Tourism Research 11:393 - 419.
Graef, R., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and S. Giannino
	1983  Measuring Intrinsic Motivation in Everyday Life.  Leisure Studies 2:155 - 168.
Hunt, Sir John
	1953  Ascent of Everest London: Hodder and Stoughton. 
Kelly, J. R.
	1983  Leisure Identities and Interactions.  London: Allen & Unwin. 
Levi, P.
	1972  In the Light Garden of the Angel King.  London: Collins.
 MacCannell, D.
	1976  The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class.  London: Macmillan.
 McKay, J.
	1986  Leisure and Social Equality in Australia.  Australian and New Zealand Journal 
		of Sociology  22(3):343-367.
Matthiessen, P.
	1978  The Snow Leopard.  New York: Viking Press.
Mitchell, R. G.
	1983  Mountain Experience: The Psychology and Sociology of Adventure.  Chicago: 
		University of Chicago Press.
Neulinger, J.
	1981  To Leisure: An Introduction.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Newby, E.
	1958  A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush.  London: Secker & Warburg.
Noyce, W.
	1954  South Col: One Man's Adventure on the Ascent of Everest, 1953. London: 
		Heinemann.
	1958  The Springs of Adventure.  London: John Murray.
Parker, S.
	1976 The Sociology of Leisure.  London: Allen & Unwin.
	1983 Leisure and Work.  London: Allen & Unwin.
Roberts, K.
	1978  Contemporary Society and the Growth of Leisure. London: Longman.
Rojek, C.
	1985  Capitalism and Leisure Theory.  London: Tavistock Publications.
Salaman, G.
	1974  Community and Occupation: An Exploration of Work / Leisure Relationships. 
		London: Cambridge University Press. 
Shaw, S. M.
	1985  The Meaning of Leisure in Everyday Life. Leisure Sciences 7(1):1-24.
 Smith, V., ed.
	1977  Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism.  Philadelphia: University of 
		Pennsylvania Press.
Stebbins, R. A.
	1979  Amateurs: On the Margins Between Work and Leisure.  Beverly Hills, CA: 
		Sage Publications.
Schweitzer, D.
	1982 Contemporary Alienation Theory and Research.  In Sociology: The State of the 
	Art, Bottomore, T., S. Nowak, and M. Sokolowska, eds. pp. 67-99.  Beverly Hills 
CA:	Sage Publications.


Article submitted 17 July 1986
Revised version submitted 11 December 1986
Accepted 11 February 1987
Refereed anonymously