What is it about?

Tourists often travel in search of distinctive “local” cultures and authentic experiences. But what counts as local is not isolated from the wider world. Based on ethnographic research with tour guides in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, this article shows how local culture is continually shaped through encounters between global and local influences. The guides themselves participate in global popular culture, use new technologies and have international connections. Yet when working with tourists, they carefully present particular traditions, places and ways of life as distinctively “local”, adapting their stories and performances to what different visitors expect. The article calls this process glocalization and shows that globalization does not simply erase cultural differences. It can also help produce, reshape and market those differences.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Globalization and local culture are often imagined as opposing forces: globalization supposedly makes the world increasingly similar, while local communities preserve cultural difference. This article challenges that assumption. It shows ethnographically that the global and local are produced together. Tour guides are particularly revealing actors because they stand at the point where international visitors encounter the places and cultures they have travelled to experience. The research shows that guides do much more than communicate information. They actively select, interpret and sometimes simplify culture for particular audiences. In the village tours examined in the article, for example, tourists are primarily shown practices that correspond to their expectations of traditional village life, even though the villages themselves are already connected to wider processes of technological and cultural change. The seemingly authentic “local” experience is therefore already glocal. This matters far beyond tourism. The article demonstrates why we need to understand globalization through everyday practices rather than only large-scale global forces. It also raises questions that remain highly relevant: Who decides what represents a place? Why are some elements of contemporary life presented to outsiders while others are hidden? And how do expectations of authenticity shape the ways communities represent themselves?

Perspectives

Looking back at this article more than twenty years after its publication, what strikes me is how strongly its central concern continues to resonate with my later work. I was already interested here in something that would become increasingly important in my research: the ways people imagine places, cultures and ways of life, and how those imaginaries subsequently shape actual practices. The tour guides I worked with in Yogyakarta provided a particularly vivid example. They were deeply embedded in contemporary global culture. They listened to international music, used mobile phones and the internet, maintained contacts abroad and, unusually for guides in their situation, some had travelled internationally themselves. Yet their professional success partly depended upon performing a recognizable form of “localness” for tourists. Their knowledge of the global actually helped them become more convincing representatives of the local. That paradox fascinated me then and still does. Tourists often travel enormous distances in search of cultural difference, yet what they recognize as genuinely different has already been shaped by global ideas about what authenticity, tradition and locality are supposed to look like. During the village tours described in the article, guides therefore did not simply reveal a pre-existing local culture. Together with villagers, tourism businesses and tourists themselves, they participated in producing a particular version of the local. For me, this was also an important methodological lesson. Grand concepts such as “globalization” become much more interesting when we examine how they are lived and negotiated in ordinary situations. Globalization could be observed in something as apparently mundane as a guide deciding what clothes to wear, which language to use, what story to tell, or which rice field to show visiting tourists. The article therefore strengthened my conviction that anthropology can make an important contribution by connecting large-scale processes with the fine-grained realities of everyday life. Perhaps the idea I would emphasize most strongly today is that the local is not disappearing. Nor is it a cultural residue that somehow survives globalization. Locality is continuously being made and remade through people's relationships with a wider world. Tourism makes this unusually visible because cultural difference is not merely encountered there. It is interpreted, performed, negotiated and given value.

Professor Noel B. Salazar
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Tourism and glocalization “Local” Tour Guiding, Annals of Tourism Research, July 2005, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.10.012.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page