Giving Habitus a Break: Charter Tourism and Nationalism

I shall begin by outlining the background to my approach which I hope will illustrate why I think there is a need for a) more ethnographic studies of tourists and b) the value of using the concept of habitus in tourism studies. In the sociology and anthropology of tourism tourists are conspicuous by their absence. As Crick notes “[w]e have, for the most part, taxonomies of tourist types and vague generalizations” (1989: 330). This is particularly so when considering charter tourists, in which there has been little attempt to engage with tourists’ experiences. However, this is an emerging area of enquiry as the work of Selänniemi (Finnish tourists) and Hanefors (Swedish tourists) show. My work makes a further contribution to this field with a consideration of British charter tourists. Another facet to contemplate is the use of ethnographic techniques in the study of tourists. In general, this is a research method that has had little inroad in the study of tourism, (Crick (1994), Selwyn (1996), O’Rourke (1987), and Passariello (1983) are notable exceptions). The study of tourism can prove useful in the examination of issues that exercise the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, questions of identity and consumption are such examples. To study tourists is thus not only useful to tourism studies but to the disciplines which make it a subject of enquiry.

Theoretically the study of tourists has been broadly within the context of questions of authenticity, the use of the gaze, tourism as a rite of passage, and the semiotic analysis of destinations and their associated discourses. By and large these have lacked empirical evidence, in that the meaning attributed to signs and symbols etc is provided by the scholar and not the tourists.

Tourism spaces are constructed by the use of signs and symbols that resonate with meaning taken from the home world; but what needs to be understood is the role that the tourists themselves have in this construction and how they might negotiate, mediate, or challenge that structure . Thus it becomes essential to think about how tourism is practised by tourists and one way to think about this is to consider how the meanings of the signs of the tourist spaces are embodied and brought alive by the tourists actions and dispositions. Such a phenomenological analysis of tourists’ practices not only sheds light on the nature of the experiential facets of tourism, but to reiterate the point, informs a wider debate around sociological questions of identity and consumption.

It is not the intention, however, to dismiss the value or importance of semiotic or symbolic interpretations of tourist spaces and create a theoretical divide between a structural and phenomenological position and this is why the concept of habitus is relevant. This theory, like tourists, appears to be largely absent in the discussion of tourism (for example, a keyword search in Annals of Tourism Research found no matches) and yet it is precisely this theory that allows an analysis of tourism in terms of its construction and practice. The term habitus was first used by Mauss (1950), following a Durkheimian legacy of categoristaion of the social world, in his writing on The Notion of Body Techniques. Following observation of troops in the First World War Mauss noted that different societies used their bodies in different ways and that these techniques which are learnt govern the use of the body by habit. The concept was again used by Bourdieu (1979) in his analysis of class distinctions. He suggested that people were born into their class habitus of learned manners and attitudes which are embodied and thus influence their being in the world; for example, what they might eat and how they might eat it. To follow the thread if one can be born into a set of certain techniques of using the body and a certain way of being in the world in terms of class then it seems reasonable to suggest that one can also have a habitus of national identity.

In order to make clear the value of the application of habitus I turn to examples taken from my ethnography of British charter tourists to Mallorca.

To start with one of the resorts – Magaluf – it is encoded with signs or signals of ‘Britishness’ from the flying of country flags, the availability of ‘British’ food and drink – fish and chips, the cooked breakfast, imperial pints of Boddingtons and Tetleys – to the use of the English language and the broadcasting of British TV programmes. Among these signs are actual place names which include, for example, The Willows, The White Horse, The Red Lion, Scots Corner. Of a significant group of names is one that speaks of a British military past, linked as they are to the Napoleonic wars and other military conflicts that the British have been engaged in, for example, The Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, and The Falklands. Such names can be analysed to suggest that the type of Britishness being referred to is based upon violence, aggression, military might, strength in adversity, independence, and being the best. By the application of habitus this structuring of the tourist landscape is the equivalent to being born or brought into a particular class habitus which will inform ideas of identity, in this case it is a representation of a national habitus. The question to then ask is how is this identity embodied, negotiated, or enacted by the tourists? One way is in the consumption of food and drink. Thus for example tourists do not seek out the foreign other in the form of Spanish or Mallorcan food but look for and consume what they believe to be British (north sea cod, cornflakes, British sausages and bacon etc). One very telling example is the search for ‘a proper cup of tea’ and tourists comments about not being able to find one in a Spanish establishment but in those run by the British or being of a familiar part of the British landscape eg: The Willows and MacDonalds. The next point is how well do the tourists take on and enact the violence indicated in the café-bar names. This is most notable in the performance of acts of aggression between different groups of tourists and in eruptions of violence after a visit to Pirates Adventure (a form of night-time entertainment) which itself re-plays legendary and mythical confrontations between the British and the foreign other.

To end I am advocating two things. One relates to theory and the other to methodology. Firstly, I am calling for more analysis of the practise and performance of tourism and suggest that the use of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is a useful tool for that purpose. Not only will this tell us more about what tourists and thus tourism is about but it will inform the disciplines of anthropology and sociology as we can then shed more light on questions of identity and consumption practice. Secondly, I am advocating more ethnographic studies of tourists in order to fully understand what such performances and practises actually entail. In so doing tourists will no longer be an emerging area of enquiry but central to the study of tourism as they are to its creation.