"Salvador is in the service of tourists" How are the west and the
non-west represented in Dutch tourism shows?
Name: Jon Jonoski
Student number: 6140866 Period: Semester 2, 2014 Date: 27 juni 2014 Mentor: Jan Teurlings
Second Reader: Jaap Kooijman Masterthesis
Master: Mediastudies: Television & Cross-Media Culture Universiteit van Amsterdam
Table of Contents
Abstract Page 3
1. Introduction Page 4
2. Theoretical Framework Page 8
2.1. Orientalism Page 8
2.2. Eurocentrism Page 10
3. Methodology Page 12
4. Tourism & Globalization Page 14
4.1. Globalization in overview Page 14
4.2. Globalization & Culture Page 17
4.3. Dutch tourism shows in the context of globalization Page 19 4.4. Globalization & Hello, Goodbye Page 22 5. The representation of the ‘Other’ in Dutch tourism shows Page 26
5.1. 3 op Reis in Salvador Page 26
5.2. 3 op Reis in Texas Page 29
5.3. De Mol in Mongolia Page 32
6. The representation of the Netherlands in Dutch tourism shows Page 38
6.1. What is a Nation? Page 39
6.2 What is the Netherlands? Page 41
Abstract
Dutch tourism shows, such as 3 op Reis, Hello, Goodbye and Waar is de Mol reveal a very colonialist attitude when representing the non-west. These shows often prove to be very Orientalist and Eurocentric, representing the non-western places as violent, irrational, savage, subservient and uncivilized. They naturalize the idea of the non-west as inferior to the west and only define these non-western places in very Dutch terms. All that matters about places like Mongolia and El Salvador is how they can be of any importance to the Netherlands. Subsequently they define they use these place in opposition to The Netherlands in order to define The Netherlands, which is presented as civilized and rational. All of this is analyzed in the context of the modern globalized world, in which we are often presented with the idea that globalization is a global force of good, when this is often not the case. Many of the effects of globalization have only widened the divide between the west and the non-west and allowed the powerful western nation to exert even more power over the ‘others.’
I would like to thank my mentor Jan Teurlings, who helped me greatly with this thesis, not only by offering many valuable suggestions, but also by letting me very much work on my own schedule
1. Introduction
In E.M. Forster’s famous novel A Passage to India, Adele Quested is a British woman travelling to India where her would-be fiancée Ronny is holding a high office. Ms. Quested undertakes this journey to find out whether she really wants to marry Ronny, and if so, whether she wants to live with him in India. In order to answer this second question she keeps requesting to see the ‘real India’ and this is one of the causes of the novel’s main incident. Forster shows that Ms. Quested’s request is an impossible, and in many aspects, a problematic one.
To fulfill her request the British elite invites her to a so-called Bridge Party, at which the British and the Indians meet each other on a bridge to observe and safely interact with each other. Later on in the novel another high ranking official invites her to a tea party with two intellectual Indians. Neither the tea party or the Bridge Party satisfy Mrs. Quested. She does not feel that the Indians she meets there represent the real, or authentic India, because they are too westernized (Christensen, 161). Forster here shows that Ms. Quested does not know what the ‘real India’ exactly is supposed to entail, but she knows that it has to be something substantially different from her home nation, the United Kingdom. The problem is that in her, and her compatriots’ eyes the United Kingdom is rational, proper and civilized, while India is the opposite of that. Which means that Ms. Quested doesn't so much want to see the real India to gain new knowledge about the nation, but to simply reinforce her Orientalist view of the nation. The real India for her symbolizes the exotic and the non-civilized. In other words, it can be argued that when she says she wants to see the real India, what she means is that she wants to visit exotic, non-civilized places and people, treating them as tourist attractions. This complicates Ms. Quested's desire to see the real India even further, because as Christensen in his analysis of the novel states 'one cannot simply discard the viewpoint of the tourist and replace with the viewpoint of an authentic Indian experience' (Christensen 160).
There is another reason why Ms. Quested's wish to see the real India is problematic though. She expects that there are aspects of India that can encapsulate the whole nation and that will expose India's secrets and reveal its truths (Christensen 161). This is what she hopes to find at the Marabar caves. She believes that if she doesn't understand the caves she will never understand the real India (Christensen 161). When she finds that the caves do not signify or represent anything, she is disappointed and anxious. (To some extent this realization leads to the novel's main incident, when during the expedition to the caves Ms.
Quested accuses her Indian guide of sexual misconduct). Forster makes very well clear that it is not surprising that the caves do not reveal a singular truth about India. That is not because the caves are mysterious and unknowable (which they are), but because India cannot be reduced to one single place, person or aspect. It is an enormous nation with many people of many different ethnicities. Not even the Indians themselves can claim to know 'the truth' about their nation (Christensen 161). Interestingly enough this is only realized by Mrs. Moore, Ms. Quested's future mother-in-law, once she is on her way out of India. Travelling by train to the coast of the nation she finds that India is such a diverse nation that she will never be able to understand it.
As written earlier Forster is very critical of the attitude of Ms. Quested, and the British elite in general, towards India. He sees it as symptomatic of the (moral) decline of the British empire. For much of the modern audience (including myself) it is probably easy to see why the British (colonialist) attitudes towards India are problematic and why Forster is critical of them. Many of the British characters in the novel say things which most of us now would see as unquestionably racist and discriminatory and see the Indians as inferior species. Most of us would be outraged if modern politicians or other members of the elite displayed the same attitude towards another people. And most of us would probably agree that it is a good thing that this kind of attitudes are not accepted anymore. Yet to some extent this kind of attitudes still exist, in more latent and perhaps innocent ways.
How different is the modern tourist really from Ms. Quested? When we go on holiday in a faraway nation many of us have many of the same desires as she. In fact, one of the main appeals of tourism is the fact that we get away from our ordinary surroundings and have the chance to see things that are 'exotic'. And we expect this exotic things to be different from home, because otherwise there would not be much of a point visiting them. Many of us bemoan the so-called McDonaldization or Americanization of our favorite faraway holiday destinations. We fear and feel that many aspects of these nations have become westernized too much and thus our experience there is not authentic anymore.
To some extent, these are very valid concerns. As globalization scholar Arjun Appadurai states there is much evidence for the idea that globalization leads to cultural homogenization, which often means Americanization, even though for some nations Japanization and Russianiazation can be just as threatening (Appadurai 285). Still, it is not surprising that those concerned about the effects of globalization often single out
Americanization. Globalization has caused local and global boundaries to weaken, which means that the movements of people, cultural interactions, money, media images and
ideologies is now more fluid and irregular than ever (Appadurai 285). But because America has been the most powerful nation in the world since the Second World War it has been able, more than other nations, to disseminate its cultural, political and economic ideas through the rest of the world and local cultures have not always been able to resist this (Ritzer & Stillman 35). This means that globalization in general has been much more profitable for American products and brands than for non-American ones. A good example of this are Hollywood films. They have a bigger global reach than ever before to the detriment of many national film industries and national artistic expression. Even films that are less successful in America can often find success globally (Ritzer & Stillman 36-37).
What all of this makes clear is that the concerns that some aspects of globalization can be a threat to national cultures are very valid. It does not mean that
Americanization/globalization should be confused with modernization and progress. Many modern tourists and travel shows on television seem to do that, perhaps even unconsciously. These shows often present a hike through the nature of Brazil, China or Thailand as a more authentic experience, or as a truer representation of the 'real' Brazil, China, or Thailand than a stay in modern(ized) cities like Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai or Bangkok. The fact that these cities do not look any more like they did years ago may not always be a consequence of globalization/Americanization, but a consequence of the nation becoming wealthier or its societal structures becoming more functional. It is not hard to see why in that case it would be very problematic to present the experiences one has in the modern parts of these nations as inauthentic. The connotation of that could be that civility, wealth, order, technological
progress, etc. are somehow foreign to the national character of these nations. This is of course a very Orientalist approach towards these nations.
(Modern) tourists can be compared to Ms. Quested in another way too. When travelling in a foreign nation, due to constraints of time and money, it is impossible to fully understand everything about the nation. The average tourist is in the nation for a small amount of time, and chances are, especially if it is some faraway nation, that he/she will not come back in his/her lifetime. It is very human though to try to give meaning to our lives, and to a journey. It is not very strange that when visiting a foreign nation, many of us want to have the feeling that we have gained some sort of understanding about the nation we have visited. So we try to find an aspect, just like Ms. Quested did, of the nation that , we feel, encapsulates the nation and that makes us understand it. And as we have seen, that reduces the nation in an unrealistic and unfair way.
It is not very surprising that travel shows do the same, if only because of the basic conventions of these television programs. Most travel shows belong to the genre of television documentary. For both audiences and television producers the main value of the television documentary lies in how much knowledge about its subject that documentary generates (Corner 95). In other words, travel shows want to make sense of (a) reality. Television scholar John Fiske explains this best when he claims that “the essence of realism is that it reproduces reality in such a form as to make it easily understandable. It does this primarily by ensuring that all links and relationships between its elements are clear and logical, that the narrative follows the basic laws of cause and effect, and that every element is there for the purpose of helping to make sense: nothing is extraneous or accidental” (Fiske 19). Television documentaries in other words want to give us the sense that we have learned something real about the subject, without often leaving much room for ambiguity That subject, in the case of travel shows is a foreign nation. An episode of an ordinary television documentary of course does not last forever. It lasts 30-60 minutes, depending on how much time it has been allotted by those in power of the television channel. That means that if a travel show wants to give its audience the feeling that it has taught it something ‘real’ and ‘definitive’ about the nation profiled, it has to make at least some crude generalizations about that nation. In other words, it has to give the audience the idea, that because it focused on one particular aspect of that nation, the audience gained some real knowledge about the nation as a whole. That is reductive of the nation, but it is also problematic in another way. It means that, to some extent, the foreign nation is not defined by its norms and values, but by the norms and values of another nation, namely the one producing the show about it. And when a Dutch show for example profiles a nation like India, China, or Brazil that can mean that these nations are defined in an Orientalist way. And what is most interesting about this is perhaps that often this is done unconsciously and innocently. Most of the audience of these shows does not consider itself racist and Orientalist, and probably is not. And the same can be said for the producers of these shows (and for ordinary tourists!). This is why an analysis of travel shows can be very interesting. It can expose how natural Orientalist and Eurocentric ideas are in our society, and thus how our society is still being shaped by this ideas. For example how do these ideas shape the way we think of globalization and cosmopolitanism in our modern world.
I will explore these ideas through my main research question: To what extent do Dutch travel shows present an Eurocentric worldview? To answer this question I will analyze the following aspects of these shows:
- To what extent is the foreign world in these shows presented as an 'Other' ? And to what extent is the Dutch nation presented in opposition to the foreign world? - These programs often present themselves in the context of a globalized world in
which there is more freedom for people to be 'citizens of the world' and to travel all over the world. Yet what these shows also (implicitly) show is that it are mostly the Dutch tourists who profit from globalization and who have the means to call
themselves 'cosmopolitans'. To what extent are our modern ideas on globalization and cosmopolitanism Eurocentric, and to what extent do these travel shows reinforce these ideas?
- To what extent do these shows reinforce Eurocentric ideas of the nation-state, and how are these ideas presented in the context of a globalized world?
2. Theoretical Framework 2.1 Orientalism
In his influential book Orientalism Edward Said claims that “The Orient was Orientalized not only because it was discovered to be Oriental in all those ways considered commonplace by an average nineteenth-century European, but also because it could be – that is submitted to being – made Oriental” Said (5-6). This short quote explains quite well what Said means when he discusses Orientalism. By assigning a set of norms, values and ideas to the Orient the Europeans, starting in the eighteenth century created an image of the (society and culture of the) Orient, that did not have much in common with the reality of the Orient (Said 6). In other words, the Orient became a European/western construction. This construction presents the Orient and its people as, among other things, barbaric, exotic, uncivilized and childlike. By presenting the Orient in such a way, Europe could define itself as its opposite (Said 2). Europeans were civilized and rational as opposed to these ’other’ people. This reduction of the Orient also made it easier for the Europeans to deal with the Orient and to justify its colonization (Said 39). Or, in the words of Said “Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient - dealing with it by making statements about it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient” (Said 3). Thus Orientalism enabled ‘the’ west to control and contain the Orient and to justify this control and
It is perhaps unsurprising then that in the nineteenth century the height of Orientalism coincided with the height of European imperialism. In 1800 about 35 percent of the world’s surface was in some way under the jurisdiction of a European power. By 1914 that number had risen to 85 percent (Said 6). The process of decolonization began after the Second World War and by now most of the colonial structures have been officially dismantled. Yet
considering Europe’s power in the nineteenth century it is not surprising that our present world is still to some extent (culturally) influenced by the imperialist era (Said 6). In some ways Orientalism has become so ingrained in western culture that it has become invisible. Orientalist ideas have become so naturalized that the Orient is now often subconsciously depicted in an Orientalist way (Varisco 56-58). This is what Said calls latent Orientalism, and he distinguishes it from manifest Orientalism (Said 201). What manifest Orientalism is, quite literally speaks for itself. It is when Orientalism manifests itself directly either through (political) actions or through speech and thus becomes visible. Thus latent Orientalism is more problematic and dangerous. Latent Orientalism can easily be ignored and taken for granted because it can be only made visible when reading between the lines (Varisco 57). In other words a text may not make directly Orientalist statements, but it’s (hidden) underlying meaning may be Orientalist. In that case it can be said that the text indulges in latent
Orientalism (Varisco 59).
In my analysis of the tourist shows, I am interested in showing that these shows’ Orientalism is mostly latent and in making this latent Orientalism visible. In that way I can show how Orientalist ideas are still ingrained in the lives of western audiences. I will do this by showing that the show’s worldview is not so much Orientalist because it makes direct Orientalist statements about the nations, but because the arguments it makes for visiting, for example, Indonesia are unconsciously based on an Orientalist worldview. This can be tied in to Roland Barthes’ concept of myth (Barthes 299-302). Myths, according to Barthes, expose ideologies, norms and values which are considered natural and normal, yet in actuality are historical, ideological and/or cultural constructs (Barthes 302). To expose the myth one has to look past the surface of the cultural object and analyze the, deeper, layers of the object. This is basically what I will do in my analysis of the tourism shows, in order to expose the latent Orientalism. Staying with the example of Indonesia, I am not so much interested in showing that a show presents Indonesia as a great holiday destination because of its great nature, but in showing that the show presents Indonesia in such a way because of certain unspoken Orientalist assumptions and ideas western audiences have about Indonesia (and their relationship to it) and tourism.
Lastly it is important to note that for Said Orientalism was mostly about Europe’s relationship to the Middle East, East-Asia and Northern Africa. Yet when discussing the ways in which ‘western’ shows depict the Orient it be clear that the ’west’, in this case, is not so much a geographical term as a political one. The ‘west’ can perhaps best be seen as the capitalist First World as it was defined in the 1950’s by the French demographer Alfred Sauvy, when he also coined the term The Third World (Shohat & Stam 25). The capitalist First World consisted of Europe, the USA, Japan and Australia. The Second World consisted of the socialist block and lastly there was The Third World. That final term was not very well defined, but connoted that the nations belonging to the Third World were poor, backward, and/or non-white (Shohat & Stam 25). To some extent Orientalism should perhaps also be seen as a non-geographical term. As my analysis of these shows will show, many Latin-American, African and Eastern-European nations are depicted in western (popular) culture in much the same way as the Orient was depicted in the Orientalist objects Said analyzed. This is perhaps even more emphasized in tourism shows, which place a lot of value on showing that these foreign lands are exotic, wild and that they are places where one can go to escape civilization for a while. To better understand why this is the case, the concept of
Eurocentrism is a valuable conceptual tool. 2.2 Eurocentrism
Eurocentrism and Orientalism should not necessarily be as two completely different theories. Orientalism can be seen as an example of Eurocentric thinking (Amin 175). As the influential scholar Samir Amin has claimed, Orientalism is an example of the construction of an
Eurocentric culture. According to Amin “Once it became capitalist and developed the power to conquer, Europe granted itself the right to represent others – notably the Orient – and even to judge them” (Amin 175). Eurocentrism, though, goes much further than Orientalism. It is about the idea that Europe could only become so powerful, because it is an exceptional continent. And that the continent of Europe has certain characteristics which are so natural to, and ingrained in the continent, that it makes Europe better than the other continents, which lack Europe’s features. There are for example theorist believing that Europe is a superior continent, because it has a superior climate and environment (Blaut 78). Others see the fact that Christianity is an inherently European religion as the main reason for Europe’s
superiority, even though Christianity was not born in Europe, but in the Orient. (Amin 173). As written earlier, the modern world is still very much influenced by Europe’s imperialist domination of the world in the nineteenth century. Thus, even the modern world,
is still very much shaped by Eurocentric ideas. It is clear for example in the world maps, which put Europe on the center of the world and make it appear larger than it is, while at the same time literally belittling Africa (Shohat & Stam 2). It is also visible by the fact that “Greenwich Mean Time produces England as the regulating center of temporal
measurement” (Shohat & Stam 2). Europe is thus still often seen as the continent that holds the world together and the continent against which the rest of the world should be measured by.
In their book Unthinking Eurocentrism Ella Shohat and Robert Stam note five main characteristics of Eurocentric thought. First of all Europe is seen as the motor of historic progress and history itself is presented in a linear way, with the modern European cities as direct descendants of classic Greek society, whose values are constructed as ‘western’, even though classical Greece was more influenced by Eastern societies. Secondly, and tied in to the idea of historical progress, Eurocentrism claims it is natural for western societies to progress towards democracy. It sees dictators like Hitler as aberrations. Thirdly Eurocentrism obscures both the potential benefits of non-European democratic traditions and the potential drawbacks of western democracies. Furthermore Eurocentrism minimizes the importance of western oppressive practices such as slavery and imperialism by claiming them to be both accidental and not of great importance for the disproportionate power of western societies. Lastly Eurocentrism “appropriates the cultural and material production of non-Europeans, while denying both their achievements and its own appropriation” (Shohat & Stam 2-3).
An Eurocentric worldview can also be found in the Dutch tourism shows. I will make this clearer in the next chapter in which I will discuss (tourism) shows in the context of a globalizing world. I will analyze there to what extent modern ideas on globalization and cosmopolitanism which enable and influence westerners to go on holiday to faraway places are Eurocentric, and thus make Europe the norm for the rest of the world. For now it is sufficient to say that these western shows present a faraway nation they do it on western, in this case Dutch, terms. The show presents them in such a way as to make them relatable to Dutch viewers. And as written earlier these shows use Eurocentric ideas about ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ societies to present and define these faraway lands, for example when they present the less developed parts of these nations as somehow more authentic than their more
developed parts. Again we see that Europe is the yardstick by which the rest of the world is being measured.
Lastly it is important to note that both Eurocentrism and Orientalism have close connections with the concept of exoticism, which is even more closely connected to
European colonialism. Exoticism romanticizes the ‘Other’, while at the same time exploiting and oppressing him (Kempadoo 1). As scholars George Sebastian Rousseau and Roy Porter claim in their book Exoticism in the Enlightenment ‘the invention of the exotic evidently satisfied needs amongst a European, and later an Atlantic civilization, which as it
progressively explored and dominated the entire globe with its guns and sails, increasingly assumed the right to define human values, and conduct in their highest expression. Other cultures, other creeds were not merely different, not even merely lower, but positively, even objectively strange. It was not merely the remoteness of geographical distance in a world where miles counted for much, but the ineluctable sense that all their mental processes and logical deductions were equally alien. Labelling the anthropological Other as exotic
legitimized treating the peoples of the Third World as fit to be despised – destroyed even, or at least doomed, like the Tasmanian aborigines, to extinction – while concurrently also constituting them as projections of Western fantasies’ (Rousseau & Porter 7). It is especially this last part that makes exoticism a valuable concept for discussing modern-day tourism. In the western world many non-western tourist destinations are advertised as places where the western tourist can indulge in escapist fantasies. This harkens back to the 18th and 19th century when European (colonialist) artists wrote exotic narratives in which the ‘Other’ was often subjugated to the sexual and violent fantasies of the writer (Kampadoo 1). Interestingly the Others in these narratives were often either presented as innocent and pure of heart, or as utter savages (Rousseau & Porter 7). How these exotic ideas still influence modern-day tourism will become more clear later on when discussing Pushkala Prasad and Charlotte Echtner’s ideas on the representation of Third World tourist destinations.
3. Methodology
In my analysis of the tourism shows I will analyze both the form and the content of the shows, meaning that I will analyze how the aesthetic choices of the show shape the shows’ ideologies.
Historically the idea that media scholars should study the aesthetics of television has been seen as a waste of time. As noted by John Corner, the reasoning behind this is that providing an aesthetic experience to its viewers has never been the main concern of non-fiction television. Television producers emphasized content over style and thus media scholars would be better of analyzing things like the television audience or the institutions making television possible (Corner 92-93). While this is to some extent reasonable, ignoring television aesthetics is problematic for two main reasons. Firstly, it ignores an important part
of television history. They ways in which television producers created and presented their television programs changed considerably in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. During those
decades more and more television programs started using an aesthetic with a heavy emphasis on style (Caldwell 4). As John Caldwell says, this does not (merely) mean that, due to
technological changes, television programs now looked better, or more sophisticated. It also means that the style of the program, more and more, started becoming the actual subject of the program. The program started defining itself through its style and that is also how it sold itself to the audience. In other words, a television program was now selling itself as a stylistic experiences and it used its style, not its content, to compete with other programs (Caldwell 5). The second, and far more important, reason why ignoring television aesthetics is problematic, is because it ignores some of the core characteristics of television. In his essay on visual culture W. J. T. Mitchell claimed that one should “overcome the veil of familiarity and self-evidence that surrounds the experience of seeing” (Mitchell 166). An aesthetic analysis of a television show can help overcome that veil of familiarity. It can show that nothing we see on television is a ”natural” choice. When looking at even a single shot, it is important to realize that what is presented there and how it is presented there, is consciously determined by the creators of that shot. And the same can be said for the ways in which multiple shots are edited together. Thus the ways in which the audience ‘reads’, and assigns meaning to, the shot, or to the story depend on the techniques the creators use to present their shots. If we for example see a character darkly lit, that often implies that it is a mysterious, or dangerous person. And the use of many fast cuts in a scene often signifies chaos. In order to tell a story, or to simply present content, in a visual medium such as television these techniques, or stylistic devices, are necessary, and the ways in which these techniques are used shape the content. Therefore style and content cannot be treated as two completely separate entities. The way audiences perceive the content of a television program (and assign meaning to it) depends very much on the stylistic choices made by the creators of that program. Thus even if providing an aesthetic experience has not been (and in some cases still is not) the main concern of non-fiction television, its producers still have to make aesthetic choices in order to present their content to the audience.
Though Mitchell puts emphasis on visual culture, he also wisely states that “there are no purely visual media and that all media are, to a varying degree, mixed” (Mitchell 170) This idea is further explored by Corner when he discusses the aesthetics of television documentaries, and many of his ideas can be related to television (programs) in general. Corner claims that documentary aesthetics should be divided in three different “categories”:
the aural, the narratological, and the pictorial (Corner 96). I discussed much of the pictorial aesthetics in the previous paragraph, when I was talking about the look of the shots and how they are edited together. Under aural aesthetics Corner includes, among other things, the speaking style of the protagonist and the music being used in the documentary. Lastly Corner defines the narratological aesthetics as the narrative tropes that are being used to tell the story and the ways in which the story is told so it fits the duration of the television documentary (Corner 98-99).
I have written previously a paper on how the aesthetics of Locked up Abroad, a show on National Geographic Channel, shape it’s Orientalist worldview. Locked up Abroad is a show that is in some ways similar to the tourism shows, which are the object of analysis in this thesis. That show too follows a western person, who goes on holiday to a non-western place. And that show too implicitly makes Orientalist and Eurocentric statements about the nation its protagonist is in, through its protagonist’s experience, which in that show, as its title implies, is very negative. That paper showed that an aesthetic analysis of a television show can gain important and interesting insights (which would have been overlooked if the focus was only on the content of the show) about both the worldview of a show and about the nature of television. This is why I believe such an approach will also be valuable for the analysis of this thesis.
4. Tourism & Globalization
4.1 Globalization in overview
In 2012 the number of people going on holiday in another country exceeded the 1 billion mark for the first time. At the same time revenues from (international) tourism exceeded the 1000 billion dollar mark for the first time (Negut & Neacsu 50). In a 2013 essay on the relationship between globalization and tourism, Romanian scholars Silviu Negut and Marius Cristian Neacsu triumphantly cite these facts. They see the rise of tourism is a logical
consequence of societal changes which allowed the average citizen to have more wealth and free time, and of technological changes which have modernized the (communication)
infrastructure. These changes have meant that tourism is no more a luxury only the elites can afford, but something that has become accessible to the ordinary middle-class citizen (Negut & Neacsu 45). But that is not the main reason for their triumphalism. As many other modern scholars, Negat and Neacsu, quite reasonably argue that these technological and societal
changes are a direct consequence of the modern globalized world. The process of
globalization, according to them, started in the middle of the 20th century when capitalism became the dominating economic system around the world and created a global economy (Negut & Neascu 48). This means that the forces that made the rise in tourism possible, are the same forces that led to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990’s. Thus for these Romanian scholars international tourism is an expression of individual freedom, a freedom they did not have in communist Romania (Negut & Neascu 51).
It is quite interesting to read the above cited essay and to consider that it is written in 2013. While it notes that there are some drawbacks to globalization, it mostly sees
globalization as an incredibly positive process that opens up great opportunities for
everybody around the world. It thus very much reflects the ideas of Thomas Friedman, who in influential books such as The Lexus and The Olive Tree and The World is Flat sung the praises of globalization. According to Friedman, the process of Globalization really began in 1492, when Christopher Columbus discovered America and thus nations for the first time started doing intercontinental trading. Around 1800 a second wave of globalization began when national companies, searching for a larger market, became multinational companies and created a global economy. This process, what Friedman calls Globalization 2.0 lasted until around 2000, when due to the rise of digital media technologies, individuals for the first time obtained the power to globalize (Friedman 9-10). In other words, Globalization 1.0 is the period between 1492-1800 when globalization was driven by nations going global. During Globalization 2.0, which lasted from 1800-2000, globalization was driven by companies going global. The period since 2000, which Friedman calls Globalization 3.0, is driven by individuals going global (Friedman 10). As Friedman puts it Globalization 3.0 is the
consequence of “the convergence of the personal computer (which allowed every individual suddenly to become the author of his or her own content in digital form) with fiber-optic cable (which suddenly allowed all those individuals to access more and digital content around the world for next to nothing) with the rise of work flow software (which enabled individuals all over the world to collaborate on that same digital content from anywhere, regardless of the distances between them)” (Friedman 10-11). These developments have ‘flattened’ the world, meaning that the boundaries for individuals to compete and collaborate with other individuals all over the world have disappeared nearly completely (Friedman 10). But the main reason Friedman is so positive about Globalization 3.0, is because he believes that this is the first era of globalization that is truly global. To quote him again: “Globalization 1.0 and 2.0 were driven primarily by European and American individuals and businesses. Even though China
actually had the biggest economy in the world in the eighteenth century, it was western countries, companies and explorers, who were doing most of the globalizing and shaping of the system. But going forward this will be less and less true. Because it is flattening and shrinking the world, Globalization 3.0 is going to be more and more driven, not only by individuals, but also by a much more diverse - non-Western, non-white – group of individuals. Individuals from every corner of the flat world are being empowered.
Globalization 3.0 makes it possible for so many more people to plug in and play, and you are going to see every color of the rainbow take part” (Friedman 11).
Although Friedman probably had an even more utopian view of globalization than the average globalization scholar (and has been widely criticized for it), the mainstream view of globalization at the beginning of the 21st century was that globalization was mostly a force of good. The idea was that globalization would lead to more income equality, to more cultural diversity as people with different backgrounds from around the world would interact more with each other and share their values, and to democracy becoming the universal form of government (Milanovic 667). This last idea was influenced by Francis Fukuyama’s famous statement that the end of the Cold War was not just the end of an era, but also ‘the end of history.’ That is because, according to Fukuyama the end of the Cold War showed that “liberal democracy may constitute the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government” (Fukuyama 9).
These ideas are not only very utopian, but also quite western-centric. Thomas Friedman wrote The World is Flat in 2005. Much has changed since then. Most notably, the internet, and digital media in general, got an even more prominent place in the people’s daily lives. Meanwhile, in 2008 the world was struck by a global financial crisis. Both these developments were instrumental in shaping a more critical view of globalization, both in the mainstream, and, especially, in the academic world. It became much clearer that while the internet had indeed empowered individuals, to some extent it had empowered corporations and national governments even more. They can monitor the people’s internet activity, because everyone who ‘surfs’ the internet leaves information behind about him/herself. This is why websites, such as Facebook and YouTube, which bring a great number of people online at the same place are so commercially viable. They are basically harvesters of information about its users, which is very valuable for corporations. They can use that information for predicting, and even shaping, people’s behavior in a way that is most
profitable for them. At the same time the users do not know which information about them is valuable to corporations, or even which information about them is accessible to these
corporations in the first place (Beer 995). In other words, this means that corporations now can have even more power over individuals, because they can exert this power without people even knowing they are exerting it. They can exploit individuals without them even knowing how, and when they are being exploited (Beer 995-996). And as became quite clear when the NSA scandal broke out, it are not just corporations, but also national governments which can use the new digital technologies to control individuals.
It also became clear that, although Friedman believed that globalization now for the first time was truly global, it was still the ‘West’ that profited much more from globalization, than other parts of the world. The rapid growth of air travel, for example, has often been seen as one of the driving forces of globalization (Adey et al. 786). In the last twenty years air travel has nearly doubled. Currently each year about three billion passengers travel by plane. Around a quarter of them are American, and a large percentage of the rest of them come from a western European nation (Lindsay & Kasarda 99). In other words, globalization has indeed opened up new opportunities for more people from more different backgrounds than ever before to travel and to 'transcend national boundaries', but most of the tourists and travelers are still concentrated in the west. And it are mostly westerners who profit from these new opportunities. Which does not mean that tourism is concentrated in the west. Westerners massively travel to non-western places. About one third of international western tourists travel on holiday to a so-called Third World nation, while the opposite happens relatively rarely (Echtner & Prassad 662).
4.2 Globalization & Culture
Although Friedman has been a hugely influential scholar, his theories mostly focus on how globalization affects the market. Globalization has also serious cultural consequences. It has now become much simpler for cultural products to circulate around the world, which has greatly affected national cultures (Crane 1). Because power still lies in the west many scholars fear that globalization can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, meaning ‘the imposition upon other countries of a particular nation’s beliefs, values, knowledge,
behavioral norms, and style of life (Crane 3). In other words, cultural imperialism is ‘the cultural domination by powerful nations over weaker nations’ (Crane 3). The distribution of popular film, music and television exemplifies this rather well. The international film market is dominated so much by Hollywood that many other national film industries have declined. The most popular music channel in the world is the American MTV. Besides in the United States the channel can be viewed in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Yet even there MTV
mostly shows videos of major artists signed by major conglomerates from the United
Kingdom and the United States. Furthermore MTV propagates a westernized lifestyle which is not always compatible with the cultures of many nations MTV broadcasts in (Crane 6-7). Lastly the influence of American television as a form of global culture can be seen in the media products of some countries whose populations have been heavily exposed to these shows. In these countries locally produced television programs have been described as pale copies of western genres’ (Crane 7). All of this goes to show that globalization has
necessarily led to cultural heterogenisation. This can also be partly attributed to the fact that many people do not have a desire for cultural heterogenisation. Many people feel that because of globalization 'our' national culture will become threatened by foreign forces. And that ’our’ traditional, norms and values will be replaced by new, unfamiliar ones, to which ‘we’ will have to adapt, even though ‘we’ may fundamentally disagree with them In other words, ‘we’ fear that globalization is a threat to ‘our’ (national) identity (Morley 428). In this context many people search for a sense of belonging, an affirmation that their (local and national communities) still matter (Morley 425). The entertainment and cultural industries in many nations try to answer this concerns by for example resisting foreign content (by using a quota for foreign television productions for example) or by presenting television shows that, both explicitly and implicitly, try to preserve and protect the national (or local) culture (Crane 14-15). For example, the so-called 'nostalgia shows' are now very popular. These are shows that a present a glorified past, not tainted by multiculturalism. In the words of globalization scholar David Morley "the television set can sometimes offer the solace of symbolic immersion in a ‘lost world’ of settled homogeneity. In this respect, the late Australian TV producer Bruce Gyngell once claimed that one of the reasons why Australian soap operas such as Neighbours and Home and Away appeal to some among the British audience is because they are, in effect, ‘racial’ programs, depicting an all-white society for which some Britons still nostalgically pine" Morley (439). Other shows, set in the modern day try to comfort its audience by presenting the home nation (and its’ people) as a positive, relevant force, with good strong values and cultural characteristics of which the national audience can be proud. They present its audience the idea that their nation is of great importance and value, even in this modern globalized world. As such these shows, sometimes implicitly, also normalize the idea of the nation-state in general. In other words, they naturalize the idea that having a national identity is normal and important (Morley 436).As a consequence of all this, even though the world is indeed now more globalized than ever, nationalist tendencies and
ideas have not diminished. In fact quite the contrary has happened. As a reaction to globalization nationalistic feelings have in some respects flared up.
4.3 Dutch tourism shows in the context of globalization
These struggles for belonging and identity in a globalized world are very much visible in the ways in which modern-day tourism is discussed and represented. More and more tourism scholars for example discuss the relationship between (post)colonialism and tourism. It has been argued that ''contemporary mass tourism to newly decolonized 'Third World countries' means that many are welcoming their old masters with open arms", and they do this because it is economically viable for these nations (Carrigan 2). Especially problematic is the fact that western tourists are lured to these nations by marketing that presents the west and the 'Third World' in stereotypical way that has its roots in Europe's imperialist period. This means that because colonialist stereotypes "continue to be replicated an reinforced through narrative, fictions, art and film, these stereotypes have basically become the language of tourism (Echtner & Prasad 662). This means that westerners are presented an image of the "Third World that does not really reflect the reality of the Third World. Of course, the consequences for the Third World itself are even more problematic, as "by relying on the images of a colonial past, the tourism industry merely perpetuates the ideology of colonialism and prevents the local people from defining a national identity of their own" (Echtner & Prasad 671). As the postmodern scholar Bryan Turner notes in his book Orientalism, Postmodernism
and Globalism: “Global tourism increases intercultural exchange and forces cultural elites to
come to terms with the heritage industry. Tourist fantasy permits the self to assume diverse social roles in exotic settings; tourism invents and demands empathy to play out short term fantasy roles. Tourism tends to make cultures into museums, as cultural phenomena can be viewed as quaint, peculiar and local. Tourism paradoxically is a quest for authentic local cultures, but the tourist industry, by creating an illusion of authenticity, in fact reinforces the experience of social and cultural simulation. The very existence of tourism rules out the possibility of authentic cultural experience. More importantly, ethnic and national cultures become local or folk cultures, which are available to the tourist gaze” (Turner 185).
This quote shows very well how issues of tourism are intertwined with issues of globalization, although it must be said that several statements Turner makes here warrant further scrutiny. Therefore it is quite unfortunate that Turner does not discuss this quote much further, but it is quite interesting for example that he seems to regard the idea that ‘tourist fantasy permits the self to assume diverse social roles in exotic settings’ as a positive aspect
of the tourism. It may be positive for the ‘self’, but not so much for the exotic settings themselves, whose sole function in this case is to serve the (self-fulfillment of the) tourist. It also means that these exotic places are now defined by foreign others, purely by their
exoticness. Even though they may define themselves in other ways, another definition is now being imposed on them by forces from outside. Turner’s statement becomes even more problematic when we consider that his book is very much written from a western point of view. Even though he does not outright say it, it is heavily implied that ‘exotic settings’ here are not places such as London or New York, but places which have cultures that are distinctly different from western culture. Defining these ‘other’ cultures in such a way is problematic, because first of all it reduces them to their exoticness. Secondly, such thinking, does not differentiate between these cultures. It does not matter whether one goes to Africa, or to Asia, both continents are ‘exotic’ and whether the tourist does go to the one or the other does not matter much. Both will serve the same function for him. It is quite interesting, and perhaps telling, that earlier in the book Turner discusses the problems European nations may face now that more and more immigrants come to Europe, more specifically Islamic immigrants. He differentiates between how that may affect the United Kingdom, Germany and the
Netherlands, but sees Islam as basically one giant ‘category’ which always and everywhere has the exact same characteristics, norms and values (see for example Turner 183-184).
This kind of thinking is also quite visible in the Dutch tourism shows, such as Ik
Vertrek, RTL Travel and Waar is de Mol. The presenters of these shows travel to all kinds of
different destinations, both in the western world and in the ‘other’ parts of the world. What is first of all quite interesting is that when these shows travel to a western place such as Dublin, Paris, or New York they focus mostly on the cities and on the cultures of these nations. When watching the episodes set in these different cities, it is easy, even for the less knowledgeable viewers who may be less familiar with these cities, to distinguish between these different places. The idea presented to the viewers is that Paris, and French culture, is substantially different from Dublin, and Irish culture. In other words, these are all nations and cities with a clear (cultural and national) identity. Thus there are different reasons to visit these places and each place will offer a distinctly different experience to the tourist. On the other hand, when these travel shows visit an African, South American, or Asian destination, the show's focus is mostly on the exoticness and the nature of these places. The nature is presented roughly in two different ways. Either as being calm, ideal for a relaxing holiday, or as rough, ideal for an active holiday. The shows do not put much effort in making a distinction between these 'non-western' places. There is hardly any inter-continental distinction, let alone between two
nations that happen to be on the same (non-western) continent. In other words, these shows present the idea to the audience that going to a non-western place will offer them an exotic experience that is roughly the same in whatever non-western, or 'exotic' place they will go to.
What is interesting about this, is that all these presentations of the world all occur on different programs, airing on different channels, both public and commercial. While there are in the Netherlands less tourism shows, than, for example, cooking shows, there are still enough tourism shows that for one such show to be successful and relevant, it should in some way try to distinguish itself from other shows like it. It appears that neither of these shows feel the need to distinguish itself by presenting a very different worldview. They distinguish themselves in other ways, for example by the way they present their information to the audience. Some do it in a serious way, others choose a more playful manner to do this. Or they distinguish themselves by the style of the presentation. In some shows the presenter merely informs the audience about the holiday through a voice-over, while in others the presenter is more active, doing the activities that are being presented to the audience. What all of this implies is that there are certain ideas in Dutch society about the 'west' and the 'other' parts of the world, which are so ingrained in society, that a show must adhere to in order to succeed. Otherwise the show may be deemed too weird, may not be taken seriously, or simply may not connect to the audience. More importantly, the show perhaps cannot do anything but adhere to these ideas. Because these ideas are so ingrained in society, the producers of the show may not be able to present a different worldview, even if that may be more profitable. Thus it is important to remember that the show's worldview is often
unconsciously constructed. The producers may not set out to present such a problematic view, but they could be culturally conditioned to present it in that way.
There are, as mentioned earlier, other problematic aspects to Turner’s quote I cited. I will not address them directly, but I will touch upon them in writing. Before going further I must note though that while I will mostly look very critically at how globalization affects (the representation of) tourism, Negat and Neacsu’s positive essay should not be forgotten. Even though the idea that globalization is a mostly incredibly positive process is outdated and problematic, it should also not be forgotten that globalization (or at least some aspects of it) really can, and does have positive consequences, which may not have happened without globalization. And that forgetting this may, to some extent, also be Eurocentric/western-centric thinking. Modern tourism was for a long time a privilege of west-European aristocrats that is often seen as having originated in the 16th century when during the so-called Grand Tour, these aristocrats travelled around Europe, visiting among other things classical Roman
places in France and cities in northern Italy (Towner 215). In other words, tourism is a 'western cultural project' (Cohen 331). Moreover, "the core of modern tourism lies in the Western world; the industry was developed, owned and managed by Westerners; modern tourists were predominantly Westerners; Westerners shaped the principal tourist routes and destinations, styles of travel, of accommodations and of auxiliary services" (Cohen 331). Thus, for many people, including many who live in the west, tourism is something that, partly due to globalization, only became possible in the 20th century. For them, the fact that they can now go on holiday in a faraway nation and behave as a stereotypical tourist is a genuine triumph for which they sometimes really had to fight, and should therefore not be taken lightly. Having said that, while tourism has become less elitist in the modern day though, it is still something mostly available to western citizens. Even though tourism by non-western tourists has substantially increased in the last couple of years, it is still a very recent, and rare phenomenon, so much so that there has hardly been any research done regarding the tourism culture of non-westerners. In other words, why, where and how do non-western tourists travel are still considered open, unanswered questions (Cohen 331).
4.4 Globalization & Hello, Goodbye
The overabundance of western travelers is visible in Hello, Goodbye, one of the most popular shows on Dutch television. It is a quite simple show in which the presenter goes with a camera crew to the Dutch national airport Schiphol, where he interviews either people leaving the Netherlands, or people waiting for their loved ones to arrive. This often leads to poignant, humorous, and emotional stories, which is why the show has become so popular, despite its seemingly banal premise. But it are not these stories, which make this show so interesting. It could, after all, rightfully be argued that these stories could also be potentially found by interviewing consumers in a shopping mall. It is exactly its airport setting makes this an interesting show that is more than just a collection of interesting, emotional stories. Rather than that, the show offers interesting insights in the relationship between tourism and globalization.
It may seem obvious, considering that this is a Dutch show, that most of the people interviewed here are Dutch. But being Dutch is not necessary to be interviewed on the show; being a passenger on Schiphol is. Which means that there have occasionally been interviews with people of other nationalities, most of them western. But it are not just the interviewees that are western. During the interviews, the audience is constantly being made aware of the people in the background, minding their own business on the airport. All of these people have
very western appearance. When an interview is being conducted with someone waiting for loved ones to arrive, the camera constantly cuts to people coming out of the gate. It is
interesting that even when the flight in question is arriving from a non-western place, most of the people shown exiting it are westerners.
An interesting exception is an item wherein a father and his two daughters are waiting for a Chinese au-pair to arrive. From the interview we learn that the children's mother passed away some months ago and that the au-pair will be helping them during this tough period. It is one of the few items in Hello Goodbye, wherein a non-western person is, at least partly, the subject. Yet the interview is mostly conducted with the father and his daughters and basically ends once they meet the au-pair. Thus, the audience does not learn what the reasons of the Chinese au-pair are for coming to live with this family. It is not known why she chose to do this, and what she has to gain from this arrangement. By presenting the item in such a way the show implicates that all that matters about a Chinese woman coming to the Netherlands, is why her visit is necessary for the Dutch, and how she can be of any help to them. This item is quite exemplary for how the other items with non-Dutch, and especially, non-western people are presented here. Most of these 'foreigners', including those who actually live in the Netherlands, but are (the offspring of) immigrants, presented in the show have some sort of special reason for travelling to the Netherlands, and thus being on Schiphol. Their being in the Netherlands is a necessity. On the other hand, many of the Dutch people interviewed in the series travel simply because they want to, or because they can. They are tourists who go to other places to have fun, or to relax. Thus the show presents the idea that for Dutch (westerners) travelling is something natural and normal, while for the 'others' it is something of a special, unnatural experience, which 'they' must validate. By doing this Hello, Goodbye does not just present the idea of cosmopolitanism as a western privilege, but it also
naturalizes the idea that cosmopolitanism is a western privilege. In other words, it presents the fact that cosmopolitanism is mostly available to western people as natural and logical.
This also makes Hello, Goodbye a good example of the kind of modern, nationalist show discussed by Morley, if only because, as discussed earlier, the show presents a very homogenous society. The show does not give the impression that the Netherlands is a very multicultural society. It presents a society dominated by Dutch, or westerners with a very similar culture as the Dutch, wherein people from other cultures are a rarity. But the show also presents the Netherlands as a nation of great importance to its people. Those leaving are not just sad, because they leave their loved ones, but because they leave the comfort of the Netherlands, just like those arriving back at Schiphol are not just joyful because they see their
loved ones again, but because they are back on familiar ground. Besides that, as discussed earlier, many of the interviewees put the trips of themselves, or of those they are waiting for, in the context of a turbulent period in their lives. Thus here travelling is often quite directly associated with disorder. And coming back to the Netherlands is often presented as a return to order.
What these examples show is that "air transport is deeply implicated in the making of global social orders, and is intricately tied to relations of power that both produce and shape forms of mobility" (Adey et al 783). This makes analyzing air travel (and tourism) in the context of a globalized world quite relevant, as it highlights some of the problematic aspects of globalization, most importantly that many of the, often celebrated, effects of globalization do not yet have a positive impact globally. It is still mostly the west that profits from
globalization, while 'other' parts of the world still do not gain much from it. Even worse, many of these 'other' places may even be actively harmed by these so-called positive effects, widening even more the divide between the 'west' and the 'non-west'. Before discussing this further though it is important to note that looking at air travel and tourism, can also expose the divides in class which are widened by globalization. The following, rather long, quote, by Matthew Sparke illustrates this quite well: "Club-class passengers still move with significant speed in the comfy cosmopolitan circuits created by international conference trips,
international tourism and international family get-togethers. For the world's working classes and for those subject to security risk codification, by contrast, being in the kinetic underclass has altogether more oppressive and more unpredictable outcomes, including, not least of all, much more volatile mixes of movement and immobility. The experience of immobility in these cases means something entirely different to the petty class resentments that come with seeing business suits and Lexus cars speed by in NEXUS lanes" (Sparke 169).
It is interesting that the class divides at the airport are being made invisible in Hello,
Goodbye". Everybody interviewed seems to be rather well of. It is also quite interesting that
many of the interviewees tell rather gripping and emotional stories about a turbulent period in their life, with which the audience is supposed to sympathize. In nearly none of these stories is (lack of) money identified as the reason for the problems faced by the interviewees. An item about a new flight to Las Vegas is also quite relevant in this regard. The item consists of many short interviews with people from all walks of life, who are all excited that they are going to go shop, and lose money in other ways, in Las Vegas. It is made clear that money is no problem for any of these people. What this item, as well as to some extent the whole show, implies is that travel is no luxury anymore for westerners. Rather, it is something
available for everyone. The show in other words not only ignores the still existing class differences, but renders them invisible, as if they do not exist.
The most interesting aspect of Sparke's quote though may be his notion of 'security risk codification', which makes clear the modern international airport is not a neutral space, but a space in which western norms and values are expressed in such a way that it allows 'the west' to keep exerting its power over the rest of the world. Especially since 9/11 an Arab wearing traditional Arab clothing is classified as potential suspect and is much more likely to be scrutinized by airport security than a person with a western appearance (Aude et al. 780). This is quite problematic when it happens in a western airport, such as Schiphol, but,
theoretically speaking, an Arab appearance there is something of an outlier. It could be considered something out of the ordinary that is worth checking out. It becomes much more problematic when Arabs are scrutinized for their Arabic appearance on an international airport in an Arabic nation. Having an Arabic appearance there is to simply follow the cultural conventions of that nation. It is, or should be, normal to have an Arabic appearance there. Presenting such an appearance as suspect there, denormalizes an entire culture. It basically makes western culture the normal culture in the Arab (and the rest of the) world, and it enforces the idea that even in the Arab world, Arab culture is a deviation from the norm. This effectively turns Arabs into 'Others' on their own soil. This is a good example of the notion that "the imposition of borders at the airport is less and less about commercial regulation or even military security, and more and more about instruments for the policing of a variety of actors and objects, pathologies by their deviant mobillities (Aude et al 780-781). In this regard it is also interesting to note that the security facilities used at an airport are used there because it are Westerners who regard them as 'a nuisance or as a reassurance' (Aude et al. 780).
All of this are not just theoretical concerns. The ways in which the west represents both itself and ‘the other’ parts on the world are very much visible in, and affect our, daily lives. That is for example visible in sportswriter Brian Phillips’ analysis of a quote in USA
Today, regarding the Brazil World Cup. The quote he analyzes is the following: “The news of
a second decapitation this year in Brazil has raised questions about whether such heinous crimes may deter foreign visitors considering a trip for next summer’s FIFA World Cup.” According to Phillips the quote wants to tell you more than just the fact that the World Cup may face attendance problems. According to Phillips that simple quote, also stresses the savageness of Brazil. It presents is a dangerous place, people have to fear, because their ‘head might get chopped of there. And on a further level the quote becomes even more problematic.
As Phillips explains it ”You’re being invited to construct a fantasy in which several hundred thousand tourists less well-advised than USA Today readers like you make the trip down to Brazil and are slaughtered in their replica kits. That’s the third level. Blood-spattered Wayne Rooney jerseys strewn throughout the streets. And I’m sorry, but that’s not the only fantasy you’re being invited to construct. The top level of the code is the one in which you feel yourself to exist within a protective bubble of law and security, outside which all is madness. Here in this Holiday Inn Express in Lincoln, Nebraska, you are safe; in South America, life is cheap. That is not simply a fleeting implication, my friends, that is a media strategy and a worldview, and it is not one in which you are encouraged to regard all your fellow humans as equals” (Phillips 1). This quote shows very well that it still remains very relevant to
deconstruct western depictions of the non-west and to point out how they are sometimes very problematic. That is exactly what I am going to do in the next two chapters wherein I will first show how Dutch tourism shows present, and define the non-west, and then show how at the same time these shows try to define the Netherlands by contrasting it with these other places.
5. The representation of the ‘Other’ in Dutch tourism shows
5.1 3 op Reis in Salvador
“Every Salvadoran sees it as his duty to give any foreigner the time of his life, and to
absolutely make sure that the foreigner will not have a negative experience in El Salvador. It is the ultimate goal of any Salvadorian to make sure that when you return home with the feeling that you visited a wonderful country.” These words are uttered by a Dutchman
residing in El Salvador, who is being interviewed about the nation by Chris Zegers, the Dutch presenter of 3 Op Reis. (3 Op Reis roughly translates as 3 on a Trip, because it is a travel show that is being broadcast on the third Dutch public channel). Zegers has started his visit of El Salvador, in the capital city San Salvador, which he presents as a large, beautiful city that can be dangerous, because of the large number of gangs. The above mentioned quote is meant to comfort Zegers, and the Dutch audience of 3 Op Reis, that they should not be very worried and can come to El Salvador without facing much problems.
This fragment shows very well how colonialist attitudes still shape the way in which non-western (tourist) destinations are often being represented. Here that happens in both obvious and less obvious ways. The above-mentioned quote quite literally defines the Salvadorians merely by how subservient they are to the westerners, as if that is all that
matters about them. Moreover it presents this as completely normal and positive, not only for the westerners themselves, but also for the Salvadorians. It is implied that they are completely comfortable with the fact that they are defined in such a way. This would be less problematic, if it at least was a Salvadorian who defined his people like this. But here it is a Dutchman who defines them to another Dutchman who uncritically accepts it. In the rest of the episode no Salvadorian is given a chance to refute this definition, or to give another one. Thus this whole fragment naturalizes the idea that the Netherlands holds the right to define the
Salvadorians on Dutch terms. And this definition is furthermore naturalized as more valid and more valuable than any definition the Salvadorians may come up with themselves. In other words, the Salvadorians are presented here as irrelevant, certainly compared to the
Netherlands, and as rightfully subservient.
The irrelevancy of the Salvadorians also becomes clear from the fact that the gangs are mostly being discussed in the context of how they might endanger western tourists. The show hardly cares about how the Salvadorians, who actually have to live with these gangs every day, cope with them. Perhaps the show is not bothered by this, because it believes that (gang) violence is a normal occurrence in El Salvador. Violence is very much presented here as a part of daily life in El Salvador, and as something that is quite unremarkable to the Salvadorian population. The violence only becomes relevant once it is perpetuated against Westerners. Everything the audience learns about the culture and the history of San Salvador is connected to either the many (civil) wars fought in the nation, or the gangs who are still relevant. The Salvadorian culture and society are defined as violent here. On top of this the show makes explicitly clear that all these wars presented here happened after El Salvador’s independence. The implication seems to be that the colonialist period here was peaceful. Besides that, the colonialist period is sometimes quite explicitly glorified here. Zegers claims for example that Plaza Libertad is the most beautiful square, because it comes closest to the colonial past, during which San Salvador was built. Indeed, the colonial past, when the Spanish ruled over Salvador is presented here as a period associated with creation, while the period since Salvadorian’s independence is being associated with destruction. In this regard Zeger’s visit to San Salvador’s oldest gentlemen’s club is quite interesting. Gentlemen’s clubs are some of the most enduring symbols of colonialism. It are the places where the colonial elites came to gather to relax and to take important decisions regarding the colonies. For the colonial elites these were some of the most important symbols of their power over their colonies (Moore 36). 3 op Reis presents the gentleman’s club in San Salvador as the most relaxing place in the city for both Zegers and the Salvadorians. Considering that both it
