romancing the wild by robert fletcher

8/13/2019 Romancing the Wild by Robert Fletcher

1/43

Robert Fletcher

cultural dimensions of ecotourism

ROMANCINGTHE WILD


2/43

ROMANCINGTHE WILD


3/43

- Series Editors: Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Dianne Rocheleau, Clark University

This series addresses two trends: critical conversations in academic fields about nature,sustainability, lobalization, and culture, includin constructive enaements betweenthe natural, social, and human sciences; and intellectual and political conversationsamon social movements and other nonacademic knowlede producers about alterna-tive practices and socionatural worlds. Its objective is to establish a synery betweenthese theoretical and political developments in both academic and nonacademicarenas. This synery is a sine qua non for new thinkin about the real promise of emer-

ent ecoloies. The series includes works that envision more lastin and just ways ofbein-in-place and bein-in-networks with a diversity of humans and other livin andnonlivin beins.

New Ecoloies for the Twenty-first Century aims to promote a dialoue betweenthose who are transformin the understandin of the relationship between natureand culture. The series revisits existin fields such as environmental history, historicalecoloy, environmental anthropoloy, ecoloical economics, and cultural and politi-cal ecoloy. It addresses emerin tendencies, such as the use of complexity theory torethink a rane of questions on the nature-culture axis. It also deals with epistemoloi-cal and ontoloical concerns, buildin brides between the various forms of knowin

and ways of bein embedded in the multiplicity of practices of social actors worldwide.This series hopes to foster converences amon differently located actors and to pro-

vide a forum for authors and readers to widen the fields of theoretical inquiry, profes-sional practice, and social strugles that characterize the current environmental arena.


4/43

ROMANCING

THE WILD

Robert Fletcher

Duke University Press Durham and London 2014


5/43

2014 Duke University PressAll rihts reserved

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Desined by Courtney Leih Baker and typeset in Whitmanby Tsen Information Systems, Inc.

Library of Conress Cataloin-in-Publication DataFletcher, Robert, 1973Romancin the wild : cultural dimensions of ecotourism / Robert Fletcher.paes cm(New ecoloies for the twenty-first century)Includes biblioraphical references and index. 978-0-8223-5583-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 978-0-8223-5600-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)1. EcotourismSocial aspects. 2. Social classes. . Title.. Series: New ecoloies for the twenty-first century.156.5.2654 2014338.4791dc232013026378


6/43

For Tenaya,that she miht be lessrestless than her father


7/43

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix

Encounterin Ecotourism 1

OneThe Ecotourism Experience 29

TwoBecomin an Ecotourist 45

ThreePlayin on the Ede 72

Four

Affluence and Its Discontents 91

FiveCall of the Wild 113

SixEcotourism at Lare 130

SevenThe Ecotourist Gaze 149

The Teachins of Don Quixote 167

Notes 191

Bibliography 215

Index 245


8/43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like a fine wine (or spoiled child), this book has taken many years to mature;

as with any text, the presence of my lone name on the books cover beliesthe intensely social nature of its production. While an underraduate at Davis, conversations while rock climbin with Joel Kimmons first stoked

my intellectual fire and reflections on the call to adventure. The seeds of

this book project were sewn several years later on a mountaineerin trip inWyomin when, starin at the jaged peak we intended to summit, I sud-

denly asked myself what I was doin there. Since then, the project has de-

veloped by derees. The first stae comprised my dissertation research at Santa Barbara, completion of which would not have been possible withoutthe insihtful direction of my doctoral committee members: Elvin Hatch,

Mark Juerensmeyer, and particularly Eve Darian-Smith, the most construc-

tive and supportive advisor a raduate student could hope to find. Valuablecommentary and uidance were also provided by a number of fellow radu-ate students, includin Michele DeSando, Scott Lacy, Matt Lauer, and RaniMclean. Dialoue with Dwiht Hines, startin at Santa Barbara and con-

tinuin into the present, has been essential to this books development, ashave kayakin excursions over the years with Nico Tripcevich. At Feather

River Collee, as the rouh dissertation evolved into a book manuscript, Ibenefited from discussions and expeditions with Rick Stock, Darla DeRuiter,

Darrel Jury, Edar Varas, Shannon Morrow, David Arsenault, Robert Mor-ton, Brian Plocki, and Derek Lerch. At the University for Peace, colleauesJuan Amaya, Jan Breitlin, David Hoffman, Victoria Fontan, Balzs Kovcs,and Ross Ryan have all helped to productively shape my perspective as I

subsequently reworked the book into its present form. I have also ainedvaluable insiht over the years from many of my students, first in a course


9/43

x

on the anthropoloy of tourism at Pomona Collee in sprin 2006, then inmy series of raduate seminars on sustainable tourism at . Follow-in rejection of several previous stillborn versions of the book by other pub-lishers, my amazin editor Gisela Fosado at Duke University Press has beenunequivocally supportive of this project since it was first proposed. Bril-

liant critiques by two anonymous reviewers helped to transform my initialhalf-baked manuscript into this much more polished final product. And ofcourse, the book would never have seen the liht of day without onoin ca-maraderie and support from fellow members of the ! Collective: BramBscher, Dan Brockinton, Wolf Dressler, Rosaleen Duffy, Jim Ioe, Katja

Neves, Sian Sullivan, and Paie West.For inspirin my whitewater paddlin career, acknowledments are due

first to the Martins: Rachmat, Sahl, Halimah, Hamid, Robin, and especiallyRosada, with whom I have shared many haphazard experiences over the

years. At Beyond Limits Adventures, Mike Doyle and Dave Hammond aveme my start as a raft uide, while co-workers Darren Appleate, Alex Fer-nandez, Hunt Blumeyer, Jeff Alkema, and Jeff Hartman fostered my develop-

ment. At Zephyr Whitewater, Bob and Jane Feruson as well as fellow uidestoo numerous to name individually provided me with a nurturin home formany years. In Chile, my main support came from Eric Hertz at Earth River

Expeditions as well as paddlin partners Jim Grantland, Jerry Pepper, and

Branden Buell. At Sundance River Center in Oreon, Joe Dabbs, Cody Clay-ton, Moran Koons, Eddy Mutch, and J. R. Weir (alon with Edar Varas

once aain) welcomed me into the fold. In Costa Rica, acknowledments are

due primarily to the ood people at Aventuras Naturales.Finally, on a more personal level, special appreciation is due to my par-

ents, Hasanna and Lucas, for instillin in me both a love for the outdoors

and the upper-middle-class work ethic needed to see this project to com-

pletion. Rest in peace, Dad. Warm thanks as well to the RumoldsDanila,Inca, and Rainerfor kindness and encouraement over the years beyondanythin Ive deservedand of course most centrally to Claudia for endur-in my endless obsessin over this project with her characteristic equanimity

and (almost) infinite patience. And last but far from least, a very special

acknowledment to my wonderful dauhter, Tenaya, for roundin me in

my wanderins and constantly remindin me whats most important in allof this.


10/43

INTRODUCTIONENCOUNTERING ECOTOURISM

Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the wild without. We live in thecivilization they created, but within us the wilderness still liners. What they dreamed,

we live, and what they lived, we dream.Thomas K. Whipple,Study Out the Land

When I first met Dan, he was seated in the rin of half-broken chairs andsofas before the ramshackle cabin that served as the uide house for the

whitewater outfitter for whom he worked. Raised in the western United

States, the first son of a lawyer and nurse, Dan had learned to paddle white-water in the local river systems. Attendin university nearby, he connectedwith a roup of skilled paddlers and bean to seriously pursue his craft. After

raduatin, he chose to forsake the mainstream nine-to-five career rind

to work as an itinerant whitewater raft uide, movin from river to river

around the country in search of employment while kayakin recreationally,livin out of his car between pit stops at his parents house. When I met Dan,he was twenty-six and had been on the move for four years. He and his fel-

low uides slept on thin mats on the floor of their sparsely furnished cabinthrouhout the summer season and spent most of their free time hikin,

bikin, rock climbin, and paddlin in the surroundin mountains.By all accounts, Dan was somethin of a prodiy. At the tender ae of

twenty-one, he was uidin one of the most difficult commercial whitewaterruns in the United States (if not the world). On his first trip, he had arrivedto train with another uide, havin only seen this particular section twicefrom the cockpit of his kayak. The river was much hiher than expected,

however, and the main uide balked. Ill do it, Dan said eaerly, and so it


11/43

2

bean. His enthusiasm often made him less than cautious, however. Laterthat summer, I watched him pilot a raft down a particularly dauntin rapid,nearly flip at the top, then recover just in time to duck an undercut ledeat the bottom. The previous year, he had been forced to call for a helicopter

rescue after dumpin a boatload of novice paddlers on a remote run at floodstae in the middle of winter and hikin the roup out of the canyon throuhtwo feet of snow. Several years later, havin just completed the first descentof an impressive series of waterfalls in a tandem raft for a paddlin documen-

tary, Dan would attempt to leap to shore, miss his landin, and be swept intoan almost certainly fatal sieve, where he manaed to clin by his finertipsto a rocky lip lon enouh for his companions to throw a rope and haul himto safety.

When I traveled to Chile the followin winter to continue my research, Ifound Dan there aain, workin as a uide with the same outfitter with whom

I had arraned to stay. En route he had one east to paddle in West Virinia,then to Canada, then to Jamaica to help train raft uides for a buddin white-

water operation there. Now he had parked himself in Pataonia for the sea-son, livin in a small tent overlookin the river and kayakin whenever pos-sible. Several months into this experience, he and I were recruited to uiderafts on a five-day exploratory descent of a river runnin between Arentina

and Chile. At one point durin this trip, we stood toether, inspectin a mas-sive boulder jumble of a rapid that we were preparin to portae.

This is the uliest rapid Ive ever seen, I told him.Yeah, Dan areed. Wanna run it?In the course of our travels, Dan described his plans for the future. He

and his brothers had secured a whitewater permit on a river back home

and were preparin to establish their own professional outfitter the next

summer. At the same time, he was neotiatin with some local contacts

to pioneer a raftin operation on Chinas formidable Yantze River. On theother hand, perhaps he would develop a raftin/trekkin business in Chilenow that he was there. He was also seriously considerin a career as a travel

writer, documentin his colorful escapades. Then aain, maybe he would oto law school and follow in his fathers footsteps. And so forth. If he followedthrouh on even a fraction of his ambitious plans, I told him, he would be amillionaire in no time.

After returnin to the States, I lost touch with Dan for several months.

When we finally reconnected, he told me that he had chaned his mind yet


12/43

3

aain and was movin to New York City to start an entirely new adventure:workin as a stockbroker on Wall Street.

Cultural Dimensions of Ecotourism

Dans story illustrates a number of dynamics central to the purpose of thisbook: to describe what I call the cultural dimensions of ecotourism. Overthe past several decades, the practice of ecotourismsuccinctly defined astourism sellin an encounter with a natural landscapehas expanded dra-

matically around the world, drawin substantial attention from both popu-lar and academic media. In most of this analysis, ecotourism is described

primarily as a materialprocess, a means by which economies and physical

environments are transformed to conform with the industrys expectations.In this book, however, I contend that ecotourism can also be productively

viewed as a culturalor discursive process, embodyin a particular constel-lation of beliefs, norms, and values that inform the activitys practice and

that are implicitly propaated via ecotourisms promotion as a stratey forsustainable development and environmental conservation in communities

throuhout the world.This particular cultural perspective is shaped by the fact that, like Dan,

ecotourists are typically white, upper-middle-class, politically liberal/leftistmembers of postindustrial western societies. This assertion, however, re-

quires some immediate qualification. I certainly do not intend to sugest that

it is onlysuch people who participate in ecotourism, merely that this demo-raphic has been central to the practice since its inception. This composi-tion is currently transformin in a number of ways as ecotourism becomesincreasinly diffuse and lobalized, a process I explore further in chapter 5.Yet this particular demoraphic still constitutes what miht be called a cul-

tural core of the practice, standin as the unmarked roup aainst whichecotourists of other persuasions stand out as a deviation of sorts and im-buin the ecotourism experience with its characteristic meanin and form.

This is so, I contend, because the particular nature of the ecotourism

experience resonates stronly with aspects of the particular embodied

habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1984) characteristic of this roup, cultivated via

a specific reimen of cultural conditionin. In other words, enaement inecotourism is one important means by which members of this roup con-

struct and perform their cultural identity. On the other hand, in practic-


13/43

4

in ecotourism, members of this roup also seek to escape temporarily thissame conditionin and the discontent it commonly enenders throuh pur-suit of an extraordinary, transcendent experience. Hence ecotourism pur-

sues seeminly contradictory ends, simultaneously fulfillin and fleein the

imperatives of a particular cultural conditionin reimen.At the heart of the ecotourism experience, therefore, stands a certain

paradox. Like Dan, ecotourists commonly describe theirs as alternative,

countercultural pursuits, in explicit opposition to values central to con-

ventional modern social life: an attempt to escape the anxiety, alienation,

and dissatisfaction commonly experienced in everyday work routines; to

immerse oneself in a timeless wilderness where one can achieve a sense

of peace and freedom ostensibly unattainable within the confines of (post)

industrial civilization. On the other hand, in their actual practice ecotour-ists, like Dan, often enact the very same mainstream work values they claimto be escapin: performin disciplined labor, embracin hardship, and de-ferrin ratification in pursuit of proressive oals.

In this sense, ecotourism collapses conventional distinctions between

work and leisure, production and consumption. We tend to think of leisureas the opposite of work, an opportunity to rest, relax, and unwind from a

hard days toil by indulin in luxury larely unavailable in everyday life

(Urry 2001). Yet in practicin ecotourism, people elect to spend their freetime enain in activities that often require more exertion, more hardship,more stress, and, at times, even more sufferin than they encounter in theirreular work lives. Rather than passively consumin the products of otherslabor, moreover, ecotourists commonly value their pursuits in terms of pro-ductivityeven the physical labor involved. At the extreme, as in Dans case,

the divide between work and play all but disappears.Consequently, as Dans experience also illustrates, the practice of eco-

tourism embodies a certain sense of restlessness, compellin tourists to tra-verse the lobe in search of new destinations in which to pursue their pas-

sion. At the heart of the ecotourism experience, then, stands a quest for

exotic adventure. In the process, ecotourists carry with them the particularcultural perspective informin their practice, which they promote, ener-

ally implicitly and with the most benevolent of intentions, for adoptions bythe local people with whom they collaborate in seekin to establish a localecotourism market.

This dynamic has important implications for understandin the deploy-ment of ecotourism as a conservation and development stratey. Central


14/43

5

to successful promotion of ecotourism for conservation and development,

many advocates assert, stands the inclusion of local stakeholders as centralplanners and decision makers. Ecotourism uru Martha Honey (20083031), former executive director of The International Ecotourism Society

(), maintains that if ecotourism is to be viewed as a tool for rural de-velopment, it must also help to shift economic and political control to the

local community, villae, cooperative, or entrepreneur. As a result, much

attention has been devoted to the question of how best to motivate locals toembrace ecotourism as a conservation and development stratey. Groundedin the conventional conception of ecotourism as a predominantly materialpractice, many advocates endorse what Honey (200814) calls the stake-

holder theory, the conviction that people will protect what they receive

value from. In this perspective, locals are understood to embrace ecotour-ism primarily as a result of demonstratin the economic benefits that can beenerated from preservin rather than depletin natural resources.

In actual practice, however, ecotourism development commonly entailsan implicit promotion of the particular cultural perspective informin theactivitys practice for adoption by local stakeholders in addition to demon-stration of simple economic benefits. The intensity with which this occurssugests that, notwithstandin their explicit assertions of the centrality of

economic incentives in effective ecotourism development, many planners

actually consider locals acculturation to the ecotourists point of view a cen-tral element of the development process. In other words, ecotourism devel-opment cannot be understood as a simple economic process; it is a particu-lar cultural practice with profound implications for the lives, institutions,

and worldviews of the people who host ecotourism ventures. How local

stakeholders respond to this cultural promotion, therefore, may be as impor-

tant as economic incentives in shapin the ecotourism development process.

Moreover, the cultural perspective informin the practice of ecotourismis expressed in a particular aze (Urry 2001) by means of which touristsevaluate a potential destination and decide whether or not it offers a satisfy-in experience. This aze prescribes a certain aesthetic sense that ecotour-ists use to appraise their experiences. This sugests that despite a commonemphasis on self-mobilization in ecotourism development, many locals for

whom the aesthetic expectations of the ecotourist aze are larely alien mayrequire substantial assistance by outside experts to effectively commodify

local landscapes as ecotourism destinations.All of this has implications for understandin the consequences of ecotour-


15/43

6

isms practice as well. As noted above, ecotourists characteristically describetheir pursuits as an attempt to resist or escape the confines of mainstream

society. I find, however, that the anxiety and discontent identified as the inspi-

ration for ecotourism may be provoked less by the social structure itself than

by the particular habitus ecotourists brin to their experience of this society.Rather than leavin this habitus behind in their pursuits, however, ecotourists

carry it with them. As a result, far from alleviatin restlessness and discon-tent, enaement in ecotourism may paradoxically perpetuate it.

This conclusion, finally, offers insiht into ecotourisms role within the

capitalist economy. As I explain below, the ecotourism industry has been de-scribed as providin a series of spatial, temporal, and environmental fixes(Harvey 1989; Castree 2008) facilitatin capital accumulation and thereby

helpin to (temporarily) resolve contradictions inherent to capitalist mar-

kets enerated by tensions between competin imperatives of production

and consumption (see Fletcher 2011). One of these fixes involves treatin the

human body itself as a site of accumulation (Harvey 2000; Guthman 2009)by sellin experiences that evoke desired emotions and sensations (Fletcherand Neves 2012). These experiences, and the feelins they evoke, however,bein transient by nature, can only be recaptured by purchasin them anew.In seekin to replace anxiety and discontent with feelins of peace, happi-

ness, excitement, and even euphoria, ecotourism thus offers a product it canrarely deliver, paradoxically amplifyin the very desire it seeks to satisfy andthus provokin a common quest for further experience in pursuit of an elu-sive satisfaction. In this manner, ecotourism, like modern consumerism ineneral (Campbell 1987), facilitates a process of ceaseless capital accumu-lation via the body by sellin an experience that withholds final fulfillmentand thus leaves tourists constantly wantin more.

In developin this analysis, the book builds on a lon-standin tradition

of research in political ecoloy explorin the complex and multidimensionalrelationship amon political-economic institutions, cultural practices, andnonhuman naturesmuch of it contained in previous installments of thisNew Ecoloies for the Twenty-First Century series.

Defining Ecotourism

As Honey (20086) observes, Ecotourism is often claimed to be the most

rapidly expandin sector of the tourism industry, which now rivals oil pro-duction as the worlds larest industry ( 2011). From its oriins as


16/43

7

a marinal, countercultural pursuit in the 1960s, ecotourism has quickly

rown to become the center of a substantial lobal infrastructure, practicedin nearly every nation. Addison (199922) estimates conservatively that in1996, 71 million tourists worldwide were nature bound. Accordin to theWorld Tourism Oranization, a Madrid-based division of the United Na-

tions, by 1998 ecotourism had captured 20 percent of the $441 billion lobaltourism market and was rowin 30 percent annually (versus 4 percent forthe industry as a whole) ( 1998). In 2004, the reported aain

that ecotourism was continuin to develop at three times the rate of the in-dustry averae (cited in 2004).

The manitude of such fiures, however, depends upon how ecotourismisdefined. As with most key words in the social sciences, the terms meanin is

a matter of some contention. Broadly defined, ecotourism is travel in pursuitof a non-extractive encounter with an in situnatural landscape. This defi-nition, of course, includes a wide rane of activities, from the type of multi-day whitewater expeditions in which Dan and I participated in Chile to a lei-surely stroll throuh manicured botanical ardens; it encompasses visitina national park in Montana, divin in the Caribbean, seein Mayan ruins,[and] stayin at a villae lode in Papua New Guinea (West and Carrier

2004491). By the same token, there are many types of ecotourists. While

early practitioners may have been predominantly more intrepid travelersCohens (1979) noninstitutionalized drifters and explorers or Plos (2001)adventurous allocentricstoday ecotourism is as likely to appeal to thoseon the other side of the spectrum: institutionalized vacationers (Cohen 1979)

and more cautious psychocentrics (Plo 2001). Ecotourists may travel in-dependently or pay for a commercial trip; aruably, they may even be paidto work as ecotour uides (or travel writers) themselves, blurrin the line

between leisure and work as Dans experience exemplifies.

So defined, ecotourism is commonly considered exemplary of a trend innew or alternative tourism that developed in earnest in the 1970s as a

challene to the so-called conventional mass tourism that has formed the

center of the lobal industry since its consolidation in the 1950s (Poon 1993;Mowforth and Munt 2003). Althouh there is certainly no strict separationbetween conventional and alternative approaches, researchers view them asemphasizin distinct qualities. While conventional tourism focuses on lux-ury and comfort, new tourism pursues (at least a semblance of) austerity

and adventure. While mass tourism is considered larely passive and other-directed, alternative tourism is deemed more active and self-propelled.


17/43

8

Encapsulatin the common differentiation of the two approaches, Mow-

forth and Munt (2003) describe mass tourism as the pursuit of the stan-

dard four Ss (sun, sand, sea, and sex) while alternative tourism emphasizesthree Ts (trekkin, truckin, and travelin).

In this sense, there is considerable overlap between ecotourism and other

concepts, includin adventure tourism (Fletcher 2010a), extreme (Rine-hart and Sydnor 2003), risk (Fletcher 2008), and lifestyle (Wheaton

2004a) sports, even edework (Lyn 1990, 2005a). Each of these cate-

ories contains quintessential ecotourism activities as well as others less

easily cateorized as such. Definin the relationship amon these differentphenomena thus takes us into some tricky territory. Is skydivin ecotourism?

It takes place in a natural space in some sense, yet this space is less the

focus of the experience than its backdrop. In addition, it relies on motorizedvehicles, commonly seen as antithetical to ecotourisms aim to et back to

nature. Is huntin ecotourism? Aain, the activity occurs outdoors and cen-ters on an encounter with nonhuman nature, yet this encounter is primarilyan extractive one. And what about sunbathin? While enerally consideredone of the paradimatic four Ss of conventional tourism, it does involve

interaction with a natural landscape in a certain sense, albeit one ener-ally associated with the kind of hih-rise beach resort typifyin conventional

mass tourism.To add to this confusion, there is a rowin campain to define ecotour-

ism more narrowly, contendin that the broad definition refers merely to

nature-basedtourism while enuine ecotourism must o beyond simply offer-

in an encounter with natural landscapes to provide sinificant environmen-

tal and social benefits, particularly to surroundin communities (see esp.

Honey 2008). Hence Hctor Ceballos-Lascurin, the International Union

for the Conservation of Natures renowned ecotourism expert, defines eco-

tourism as environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relativelyundisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and anyaccompanyin cultural features, both past and present), that promotes con-servation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations (199620).

In 1990, advanced its own, more succinct definition, which has

since become the industry standard, describin ecotourism as responsibletravel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the

well-bein of local people (cited in Honey 20086). Many o further tocreate specific lists of criteria for the practice of enuine ecotourism. As


18/43

9

Honey (2008: 7) explains, in this campain, nature-based tourism is de-

fined solely by the recreational activities of the tourist while ecotourism isdefined as well by a set of principles that include its benefits to both conser-

vation and people in the host country.

In reconition of this complexity, rather than attemptin to define a strictboundary distinuishin ecotourism from other phenomena, my approach is

instead to describe, la Max Weber, an ideal ecotourism experience, the cen-

ter of a fuzzy cateory that becomes less distinct as we approach the mar-ins, reflectin our eneral tendency to think in terms of prototypes ratherthan clearly delineated cateories (Lakoff 2001). Despite their diversity, inall forms of activity commonly labeled ecotourism there is a shared orienta-tion toward immersion in outdoor spaces; toward encounters with natural

resources rather than cultural productions (unless the latter are associatedwith ostensibly more natural indienous peoples); toward (relatively)

strenuous activity rather than relaxation; and toward (at least some) aus-

terity rather than luxurious indulence. Moreover, while I am sympatheticto the campain to distinuish mere nature-based tourism from enuineecotourism, the present study is primarily concerned with understandin

tourists choice of recreational activities. Hence, while acknowledin the

utility of the move to define ecotourism more narrowly in terms of its im-

pacts, for the purpose of this book I conceptualize the activity more broadlyas synonymous with nature-based tourism in eneral, focusin on its prin-cipal aim as a service industry: to deliver a rewardin encounter with non-human nature.

Explaining Ecotourism

So defined, three sets of explanations have been offered to account for eco-

tourisms dramatic rise, alternately emphasizin supply- and demand- sidedynamics; production and consumption. On the supply side, researchers

hihliht two overlappin factors. The first frames ecotourism as a vehiclefor capitalist expansion (Bandy 1996). The tourism industry, in eneral, hasbeen described as a major internationalized component of Western capi-

talist economies (Britton 1991451), and ecotourism in particular is oftendescribed as the cuttin ede of this trend, facilitatin the proressive com-modification of natural resources around the lobe. In this analysis, ecotour-

ism is considered part of a third wave of tourism development as the indus-try has evolved in concert with lobal capitalism (Lash and Urry 1987; Urry


19/43

10

2001). In its oriins as a small- scale, elite enterprise, tourism of the GrandTour variety reflected early liberal capitalisms nascent entrepreneurial

structure. The rise of mass tourism, centered on collective prepackaed holi-

days, in the postwar era, by contrast, coincided with the consolidation of anoranized, Fordist reime of accumulation emphasizin increasinly larer

vertically interated firms. Finally, the 1970s saw the rise of new/alternativetourism offerin a diversity of flexible, individually tailored trips concurrent

with capitalisms shift toward a novel disoranized, post-Fordist form cen-tered on flexible accumulation throuh diverse structures (Harvey 1989).This has led to the development of myriad niche or boutique markets de-sined to offer an outlet for every tourists particular taste, includin suchdiverse (and disturbin) products as war, sex, and slum tourism (Munt 1994;

Gibson 2009).One strand of this analysis has described ecotourisms capacity to provide

a series of partial fixes (Harvey 1989) for contradictions inherent to capi-talist accumulation (Fletcher 2011; Fletcher and Neves 2012). As with tour-ism in eneral, ecotourism development can provide a spatial fix in facili-tatin reinvestment of accumulated capital in forein markets. It can offera temporal fix by sellin an ephemeral event that minimizes the turnovertime needed to recover invested capital. It can provide a time- space fix

throuh lendin for tourism development abroad. Further, ecotourism canfacilitate a variety of environmental fixes (see Castree 2008) by harness-in as a source of revenue in situnatural resources that can be consumedwithout substantial depletion. Indeed, incredibly, ecotourism is actually

able to transform the very resource scarcity created by capitalist expansioninto increased revenue as remainin resources become ever more valuable(Fletcher 2011). In this sense, ecotourism is tied up with the emerence ofwhat OConnor (1994) calls capitalisms ecoloical phase shiftin from

formal to real subsumption of nature within production (Smith 2007).This new ecoloical phase, of course, is itself part and parcel of capital-

isms neoliberal turn since the 1970s (Brockinton et al. 2008). Ecotourismdevelopment, then, has been described as an expression of neoliberalizationas well, embodyin such paradimatic free market principles as decentral-ization and dereulation of natural resource overnance (or rather rereu-lation from states to non-state actors) as well as resources marketization,

privatization, and commodification as tourism products. West and Car-

rier (2004484) thus describe ecotourism as the institutional expressionof particular sets of late capitalist values in a particular political-economic


20/43

11

climate, while Duffy (201217) oes further to assert that ecotourism is notjust reflective of lobal neoliberalism, but constitutes one of its key drivers,extendin neoliberal principles to an expandin rane of biophysical phe-

nomena.

In the other principal supply-side perspective, ecotourism rowth is pri-marily attributed to international development planners efforts to promotethe industry as a stratey for economic rowth, particularly in poor rural

areas of less-developed nations that have not yet experienced sinificantbenefits from conventional development interventions. Munt, for instance,calls tourism development in eneral a last-ditch attempt to break from

the confines of underdevelopment and et the to lay the olden eg

of an upwardly-mobile (1994: 49). Since the 1960s, indeed, tourism

has been promoted as a development stratey by a wide variety of interests,includin transnational institutions such as the United Nations and WorldBank, international aid aencies such as , and national overnmentsworldwide. Reconition of conventional mass tourisms many neative

socioeconomic and environmental impacts (includin increased pollution,crime, prostitution, dru use, and substantial leakae of revenue from thelocal economy), however, has increasinly diverted this attention to forms of

sustainable tourism, such as ecotourism, in particular (Honey 2008; Mow-

forth and Munt 2003). The World Bank, for example, disbanded its tourismloan proram in 1979 in reconition of mass tourisms dark side, reopen-

in it only in the early 1990s with a new focus on emerin trends includ-in aro-eco-tourism, community-based tourism, cultural and adventure

tourism (Hayakawa and Rivero 20091). In this sense, ecotourism is tied

up with the international development communitys increasin preoccupa-tion with environmental sustainability. Ecotourism is often considered anideal form of sustainable development, particularly for rural areas of less

developed societies, for several reasons. First, ecotourism enerates reve-nue precisely from preservin rather than depletin natural resources andthus, in theory, incentivizes sustainable use. Second, it is precisely the leastdeveloped areas of the world that ecotourists, by definition, commonly seekout, implicitly directin resources (aain, theoretically at least) toward thepoorest of the poor. Third, unlike mass tourism, ecotourism is thouht to beinherently eared toward small-scale development and local control, sinceecotourists desire relatively undeveloped destinations and will o elsewhere

should excessive development occur.As a result, ecotourism is now enthusiastically endorsed as a sustainable


21/43

12

development stratey by international financial oranizations, national ov-ernments, nonovernmental oranizations, academic researchers, industryprofessionals, and innumerable local community members (Mowforth andMunt 2003; Honey 2008). As Honey describes: Around the world, ecotour-

ism has been hailed as a panacea: a way to fund conservation and scientificresearch, protect fraile and pristine ecosystems, benefit rural communi-

ties, promote development in poor countries, enhance ecoloical and cul-

tural sensitivity, instill environmental awareness and a social conscience inthe travel industry, satisfy and educate the discriminatin tourist, and, someclaim, build world peace (20084).The United Nations sinaled ecotour-

isms importance for development by pronouncin 2002 the International

Year of Ecotourism (see Butcher 2006a), echoin the famous Bruntland Re-

port ( 1987) by hihlihtin the need for international cooperation inpromotin tourism within the framework of sustainable development so asto meet the needs of present tourists and host countries and reions whileprotectin and enhancin opportunities for the future. Today there are few

countries that have not incorporated ecotourism into their national devel-opment plans.

In this view, ecotourism has also risen due to its widespread promo-

tion as an important form of support for protected areas (s) concerned

with preservation of bioloical diversity (Krer 2005; Honey 2008). Whiles have always been associated to some deree with tourism, particularlybi ame huntin (Ioe 2004), ecotourism is specifically associated with

the widespread transition over the past several decades from the histori-

cally dominant form of protected area manaement termed fortress con-

servation (Brockinton 2002), in which the state enforces strict bound-

aries and terms of use and imposes sanctions for their violation, to so-calledcommunity-based conservation, whose main aim is to deliver alternative

income-eneratin opportunities to members of park-adjacent communitiesand thereby encourae the latter to refrain from exploitin resources withinthe (Borerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo 2005; West 2006). Ecotourism

has been one of the principal supports for this stratey since its inception(West 2006; Brockinton et al. 2008).

In these supply-side explanations, which are of course not mutually exclu-

sive, the lobalization of ecotourism is understood as a predominantly ma-terial process, a mobilization of the financial capital, physical infrastructure

(buildins, vehicles, equipment), and human bodies that form the industry.In terms of Appadurais (1996) influential lobal flows model, this view


22/43

13

would understand ecotourism development as a financescape, techno-

scape, and/or ethnoscape. From this perspective, then, the effects of eco-tourism development have been investiated primarily in terms of their

material implications. Hence researchers have documented ecotourisms

consequences on environmental conditions, on livelihoods, and on social

relations within impacted communities.Such supply-side explanations tend to depict ecotourism development as

an abstract, impersonal process, nelectin to explore the personal motiva-tions and desires of the specific actors who actually make up the industry.Moreover, it is not clear that either capitalists or development planners havebeen the dominant force in ecotourisms dramatic rowth. From another per-

spective, the main impetus for ecotourism development has been provided

by travelers themselves, who in seekin to forsake the beaten path have cre-ated a force that has subsequently been harnessed by capitalist enterprise

and a development apparatus for the latters own ends, resultin in a deep-enin feedback loop amon these three interconnected roupstourists,

business owners, development aentsspurrin the industrys takeoff.Relatively little has been written concernin the demand side of ecotour-

ism development, however. Ecotourists have been described as pushed bya desire to escape overcrowded, unpleasant conditions at home (Honey

200812) and pulled by such factors as a quest for spectacle (Ryan et al.2000) or spiritual transcendence (Vivanco 2006); for a limpse of a mys-terious Nature understood as separate from and prior to humanity (Westand Carrier 2004485); a search for the exotic or authenticity (Duffy

2002); or as an attempt to capitalize on the status value of international

travel for middle-class leeches from wealthy western societies (Munt 1994;

Duffy 2002).Mowforth and Munt (2003) present the most extensive discussion of mo-

tivation for ecotourism consumption to date. Focusin on the practices classdimensions, they expand on Munts (1994) previous analysis of ecotourismsrole as a status marker for the new [i.e., upper] middle classes (Mowforthand Munt 2003139). Drawin on Bourdieus (1984) seminal analysis of class

distinctions, the authors arue that travel has an increasinly important

role to play as social classes seek to define and distinuish themselves fromother social classes (2003121). Within the new middle class, the authorsdifferentiate ecotouristsolder and professionally successful members

of the new boureoisie (121)from eo-touristsmembers of the newpetit boureoisie who are typically youner service workers and therefore


23/43

14

not so economically well endowed (122) as elite ecotourists. While eco-

tourists can differentiate themselves by their ability to afford expensive

holidays that are exclusive in terms of price . . . and the number of touristspermitted (121), eo-tourists must compensate for insufficient economiccapital . . . with an obsessive quest for the authentication of experience

(123) in order to establish their own distinction vis--vis both the new bour-eoisie and workin class. As a result they seek out less formalized forms oftravel, such as backpackin, overland truckin, . . . or small roup travel toemphasize their individualism and uniqueness (123). Both roups, Mow-forth and Munt contend, also seek to sinal their intellectual prowess by ap-proachin ecotourism as an opportunity to study and learn (124).

In a similar if less serious vein, David Brooks (20002056) mocks upper-

middle-class Bobos (boureois bohemians) who o incredible lenths to

distinuish themselves from passive, nonindustrious tourists who pile in and

out of tour buses. In pursuin ecotourism, Bobos seek to et away from

their affluent, ascendin selves into a spiritually superior world (2067).

Yet, paradoxically, they brin their ambition with them and thus turn na-ture into an achievement course, a series of ordeals and obstacles they canconquer (2089).

While these analyses offer valuable insihts, they leave important ques-

tions unanswered. Why exactly are these particular types of experiences sovalued by ecotourists? Why are they valued by the specific type of people

who seek them? Why these people and not others? How do the various dy-namics hihlihted above articulate in an overarchin structure of feel-

in informin ecotourism motivation? Why has a penchant for ecotourismemered in this particular historical period?

Ecotourism DiscourseIn addressin such questions, this study ranes far beyond the specific ac-tivity under investiation, for a foundational element of my thesis is that

ecotourism is about much more than just ecotourism. Rather, I sugest thatthe phenomenon can be understood as a manifestation of dynamics centralto contemporary social life in eneral. In this sense, the book offers a timelyfollow-up to Dean MacCannells classic study, The Tourist, the full implica-tions of which, nearly four decades after its initial publication, are still not

altoether unpacked. MacCannell (19991) sugests that the prototypicaltourist, in search of authentic experience unavailable in modern society, is


24/43

15

one of the best models available for modern-man-in-eneral. Written in theearly 1970s, this analysis primarily addresses the rise of mass tourism; formsof new/alternative tourism were only just developin at that time and thus

were beyond its purview. Yet if the mass tourist indeed represents modern-man-in-eneral, offerin a window into important aspects of industrial

western society, the ecotourist miht be understood in similar fashion as thequintessential postmodern subject, providin valuable insiht into contem-porary postindustrial social dynamics.

In this respect, the study offers an important contribution to studies oflobalization as well. MacCannell (1999184) asserts that tourism is the

cuttin ede of the worldwide expansion of modernity, and ecotourism, ac-cordin to Addison (1999415), is the cuttin ede of world tourism. Hence

ecotourism can be understood as an important component of lobalization,the full implications of which have yet to be explored. In the perspective

offered in this book, the lobalization of ecotourism is understood as not

merely a material process but a cultural or discursive onewhat Appadurai(1996) calls an ideoscape. This perspective builds on a lon line of analy-sis in the social sciences describin the overarchin ideational structures in

which material realities are embedded. It evokes Webers discussion of theimportant motivatin force of symbolic forms such as social status vis--vis

the Marxian emphasis on the primacy of the economic base, as well as hisseminal (thouh contested) analysis of the extent to which capitalisms risecan be seen as founded in a peculiarly Protestant work ethic (Weber 1930).The perspective builds as well on a rowin body of research analyzin inter-

national development as the expression of a particular discourse that notonly pursues economic transformation or capital accumulation in the placesit operates but also seeks to acculturate local inhabitants to a particular cul-tural perspective espousin the values and principles of modernity (Es-

cobar 1997497). Escobar thus describes development as a campain tocomplete the Enlihtenment in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (1995221).Other researchers have demonstrated how development discourse often

operates to influence local peoples cultural outlook in the course of pro-

ram implementation.A spate of research has beun to describe ecotourism development in

similar terms. Stronza (2007227) contends that ecotourism is not merelyan economic tool for conservation, but also the cause of new understand-

ins, values, and social relations. West and Carrier (2004) label ecotourisma form of virtualism that seeks to transfiure local landscapes to conform


25/43

16

to a particular western separation between opposin conceptual realms ofnature and culture. Vivanco (2006) demonstrates how ecotourism can alterthe local meanin of natural resources by ascribin to them a monetary ex-chane value previously absent. Cater (200632) calls ecotourism a western

construct that can fail to reconize . . . the fundamentally diverent valuesand interests between the promoters and tarets of ecotourism. Hutchins(200776) describes how involvement in ecotourism subtly transforms rela-tions with the local landscape for Ecuadorian Kichwa and thus contends that

ecotourism continuously pries open new spaces into which physical bodiesand cultural meanins flow.

Yet to date no other study, except my own previous work upon which thisbook builds (Fletcher 2009a), has analyzed ecotourism development as the

expression of a particular discourse, infused by a specific cultural perspec-tive, explorin both the various dimensions of this discourse and how theseinteract with local cultural formations as ecotourism expands around the

lobe. In addition, the study oes beyond explanation of ecotourism devel-opment in terms of abstract processes, whether discourse, capitalism, ordevelopment, to describe how these processes manifest at the local levelin the motivations and behaviors of the particular actors who actually form

what we label the ecotourism industry.

Studying Across

As an attempt to describe overarchin patterns and trends in the lobal eco-tourism industry as a whole, this study draws substantially on secondary

research, seekin to synthesize, in a sense, the bureonin body of litera-

ture already available on the topic. Additionally, it is rounded in ten yearsof firsthand empirical research employin a mixed-methods approach. As a

diffuse, lobal phenomenon, ecotourism presents sinificant challenes interms of research desin. This is particularly the case for cultural anthro-

poloists such as me, whose lon-standin disciplinary conventions dictatethat one remain with a small, spatially circumscribed roup of people for anextended period of time (Stockin 1983; Gupta and Feruson 1997). Thereis a ood reason for this prescription, allowin one to participate actively inthe lives of ones informants (a method termed participant observation)

and thereby pursue an experiential understandin of the subjective under-

standin of the meanin others ascribe to their experiencewhat Malinow-ski (1922) famously called the natives point of view. As Luhrmann writes


26/43

17

in her fascinatin ethnoraphic study of contemporary witchcraft, To someextent, the anthropoloist who enuinely participates in a cultural practicecan take himself as a subject. One cannot have access to the inner reachesof those to whom one talks; one can have partial access to ones own, and

throuh involvement at least bein to understand what some of the othersmay have been experiencin (198915).

Increasinly, however, anthropoloists are acknowledin the difficulty

of employin this method in the study of the transnational phenomena thatincreasinly concern them (Marcus 1995; Gupta and Feruson 1997). Eth-noraphers are therefore explorin novel approaches to traditional researchin a rowin call for multilocale (Marcus and Fischer 1986), mobile

(Marcus 1995), or deterritorialized (Appadurai 1996)most commonly

simply multi-sitefieldwork. Even iven the advances of multi- site re-

search, however, anthropoloists are reconizin the limitations of con-

ventional face-to-face study in addressin sinificant issues in what Ortner(1998) calls a media- saturated world, where communication within spa-

tially dispersed imained communities (Anderson 1983) is increasinly

conducted via various forms of mass media.In my study, therefore, I have combined various methods in order to

trianulate findins from different sources. First, I enaed in multi-site

ethnoraphic research in North, Central, and South America with providers,

uides, and clients on commercial ecotourism trips, as well as local workersin tourism destinations and participants on independent expeditions like

the exploratory descent I undertook with Dan. Ecotourists, by definition, arehihly mobile, so enain in participant observation requires movin withthem. I bean my research in California durin the sprin of 2001, miratedto Chile (like California, a popular international travelin destination) for

the winter, then returned to California the followin sprin and summer

for a total of eihteen consecutive months of fieldwork. Followin this ini-tial research period and the completion of my dissertation (Fletcher 2005),I continued to conduct periodic research every summer for the next severalyears while teachin in California, followin up on unresolved issues en-

countered in my initial fieldwork. Securin a new job in Costa Rica in 2008,I continued the inquiry there over the next four years as well.

Participant observation can be practiced to varyin derees, ranin from

larely passive observation to complete participation (Bernard 2004347).

At the extreme, then, lies the attempt to become the phenomenon one seeksto understand: what Ferrell and Hamm call deeply experiential verstehenre-


27/43

18

search. As the authors (199814) maintain, this approach seems particularly

appropriate for investiation of practices like ecotourism with a stron ex-periential component, allowin the researcher to explore the lived politicsof pleasure and pain, fear and excitement; to think with the body as wellas the mind. Indeed, as Lyn (1990861) describes of skydivers, many eco-tourists consider their experience ineffable. They maintain that lanuae

simply cannot capture the essence . . . and therefore see it as a waste of timeto attempt to describe the experience. Throuh experiential enaement,

then, one can seek to understand aspects of the experience that cannot be

readily verbalized.In the course of my research, I actively participated in a variety of eco-

tourism trips (see Fiure Introduction 1). Most of these involved whitewa-ter paddlin, the activity in which I am most proficient, ranin from two

weeks to several hours. At times I actually worked as a commercial raft uide

and/or safety kayaker, a perspective that afforded me insiht into the back-stae culture of professional ecotourism providers (see Fletcher 2010a). Inaddition, I participated occasionally in backpackin, mountaineerin, rock

climbin, mountain bikin, snowboardin, and telemark skiin.Nader (1969) famously criticizes cultural anthropoloists tendency to

.1. Doin verstehenresearch. Costa Rica.Photo by Mario Huevo.


28/43

19

focus their studies on marinalized, impoverished, and/or powerless peoples.

Denouncin this preoccupation with studyin down, she calls for more re-search concernin elite roupsstudyin upa call that has been sub-

sequently answered in many ways (e.., Marcus and Hall 1992; Ho 2009).

Relatively little attention, however, has been devoted to the specific dynam-ics of studyin across, that is, to workin with informants in a similar socio-economic stratum as the researchers themselves. As a white, upper-middle-class male from the United States, this was the position I assumed in my

research. In addition, before beinnin formal research I had a history of

practicin ecotourism (havin worked as a whitewater raft uide for sev-

eral summers before beinnin raduate school), makin me somethin of anative or insider anthropoloist (Narayan 1993). In this capacity, I drew

upon my personal experience in my analysis as wella practice now com-monly referred to as autoethnoraphy (see Anderson 2006). As Narayandescribes, native ethnoraphy involves an inverse process from the study

of an alien one. Instead of learnin conceptual cateories and then, throuhfieldwork, findin the contexts in which to apply them, those of us who studysocieties in which we have preexistin experience absorb analytic cateoriesthat rename and reframe what is already known (1993687). While this prac-

tice remains controversial, it offers a potentially valuable source of insiht

into the lived experience of a phenomenon that an outsidereven one withmany years experience in a iven contextwould be hard-pressed to dupli-cate (Visweswaran 1994).

In addition to participant observation, I conducted explicit interviews

with informants whenever possible. These interviews raned from more

formal semistructured dialoues, followin a predefined schedule and dii-tally recorded, to casual conversations durin the course of a iven trip. Inaddition to my diital recordins, I documented all of my experiences in

copious field notes to which I referred later in formulatin my analysis.As a larely imained community, ecotourists are united in their dis-

persion by various media, both print and visual, that provide collective ac-cess to a pool of common information, includin the best destinations andmost celebrated practitioners, as well as new techniques, terminoloy, andequipment. In order to eneralize beyond the results of my personal field-

work to address the ecotourism experience in eneral, therefore, my studyrelies substantially on qualitative text analysis as well. In the course of my

research over the last ten years I have read a reat quantity of texts, perusineverythin from best-sellin narratives written by independent travelers to


29/43

20

industry periodicals such as OutsideandNational Geographic Adventureto in-fliht airline maazines to outfitters brochures and websites to ecotouristsblos. I also viewed a number of films, both documentary and fictional. Un-like Ortner (1999), in her insihtful study of mountaineerin, I felt no uilt

at the pleasure I derived in doin this.The result, then, is an eclectic study rounded in a collection of comple-

mentary methods. Despite its broad reach, however, there remain severalsinificant limitations to my study. Based on my experience, I distinuish

four distinct yet overlappin roups comprisin the ecotourism industry.

First, there are the independent travelers, the elite practitioners whose ex-traordinary exploits provide the model for others to emulate. Second, thereare the professional ecotourism outfitters and uides who provide the infra-

structure for the commercial industry. Often members of these two roupsare one and the same, as elite travelers establish themselves as professionaloutfitters or work as uides to fund their independent endeavors. Third,

there are the clients on commercial ecotours, those who pay others for

experiences they are usually ill-equipped to undertake on their own. This

roup has a wide rane of ability levels, from hihly capable allocentricspayin for the convenience of an established itinerary to psychocentric

neophytes who have never ventured off pavement, as Beedies (2002) client

continuum depicts. Finally, there are the local ecotourism support workers,who may or may not work as uides as well as drivers, cooks, porters, house-

keepers, and so on.Due to the hihly mobile nature of the ecotourism community as a whole,

I usually had much more access to the first three roups than the fourth,

which is much more rooted in particular locations. Hence my analysis of thelatter is far more limited, althouh, as I discuss further in chapter 6, I wasable to spend sinificant periods of time with local workers in several places.

In addition, despite the diversity of locations in which I conducted research,of the many hundreds of ecotourists I encountered in my studyand par-ticularly of my direct informants as well as my textual sourcesthe majorityin the first three ecotourism roups oriinated from North America. By far,the most diverse roup was the first, the independent travelers, who hailedfrom a number of other countries (all western and/or postindustrial) in addi-tion to the United States and Canada. The uides with whom I worked

were fairly disparate as well. The commercial clients, by contrast, were by

and lare from North America (with a smaller number from Europe and


30/43

21

even fewer from Asia), whether the trip occurred in Northern California orSouthern Chile. I attempt to counter this bias to a deree by hihlihtin di-mensions of my analysis that articulate with research in contexts outside ofNorth America. Still, my study speaks much more to the experience of North

American ecotourists than others, a bias that I hope will soon be rectified bysubsequent research in other contexts.

Toward a Unified Theory of Ecotourism

The analysis is rounded in a rather ambitious conceptual framework thatseeks to synthesize insihts from three rand theoretical traditionscritical

political economy, poststructuralism, and psychoanalysiscommonly seen

to stand in sinificant tension. In treatin ecotourism as a form of capital-ism, I naturally rely on Marxian political economy, while my understandinof ecotourism as discourse (and overnmentality; see chapter 6) is clearlyrounded in Foucauldian poststructuralism. There are, of course, sinifi-

cant obstacles to unitin these two perspectives. Foucault, after all, con-

ceived his lifes work in substantial part as a frontal challene to a Marxistunderstandin of the world (see esp. Foucault 1970, 1980, 1991). For ortho-dox Marxists, material exploitation is commonly assumed to be the main

aim of much human behavior, notwithstandin actors professed intentions,while Foucault accepts that actors may actually pursue the nonmaterial, less

self-interested ends their policies claim to pursue (what he called a will toknow for its own sake; see esp. Foucault 1978). Similarly, Marxists charac-teristically claim the capacity to discern others true interests even if actorsthemselves do not (Lukes 1974), whereas poststructuralists followin Fou-cault commonly assert that all interests are fundamentally relative and con-structed (Fletcher 2001). This leads to a common difference in Marxist and

Foucauldian understandins of the function of power, with Marxists ener-ally viewin the phenomenon as somethin that represses or conceals onestrue interestswhat Lukes calls a three-dimensional definition of powerwhile Foucault famously asserted, We must cease once and for all to de-

scribe the effects of power in neative terms: it excludes, it represses, it

censors, it abstracts, it masks, it conceals. In fact, power produces; it pro-duces reality, it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth (1977194).Finally, Foucault stood staunchly opposed to Marxists tendency to round

their political prescriptions in theories of universal human nature (i.e.,


31/43

22

Marxs creative species-bein), proposin instead a human bein totallyimprinted by history (Foucault 198487; see also Foucault 1991; Foucaultand Chomsky 1974).

Despite these differences, Foucault himself acknowleded that there re-

mained considerable affinity between his work and that of Marx and indeeddrew extensively on the latter in many of his writins. As a result, research-ers have souht to interate the two thinkers in various ways, a literatureon which I build in developin my synthetic conceptual framework. WhatMarx offers most centrally is an incisive analysis of the development and

structure of the capitalist economy as well as the social relations and ways ofseein the world enendered by life within capitalist society. What Foucaultadds to this analysis is an understandin of the overarchin forms of over-

nance and ways of knowin in which the capitalist economy is embedded

and how all of this operates throuh disciplinary institutions and practicesto shape actors self-conceptions within a capitalist modernity.

In this latter focus, further insiht is ained by introducin Pierre Bour-dieu into the mix. Bourdieu (esp. 1977, 1984) oes beyond Foucault to de-scribe the ways in which disciplinary practices become inscribed in the em-bodied, larely unconscious habitus shapin actors behavior. At the same

time, Bourdieu provides an additional bride between Foucault and Marx by

describin how habitus is shaped by material circumstancesparticularlysocioeconomic class positionsas well as how actors work to accumulate

various forms of capital in pursuin their life projects.In its interation of Marxian and Foucauldian projects to understand the

intersection of political and economic forces in relation to environmental

issues, this book can be seen as a work in political ecoloy, weavin toetherparallel Marxist and poststructuralist strains of that perspective as well.

The resultin synthesis is a useful lens to understand what Foucault (2007)

called the milieu within which actors operate and by means of which theyare interpellated (Althusser 1972) or hailed into particular subject posi-tions. However, the internal workins of these actors themselvesthe

processes by which individuals as subjects identify (or do not identify) withthe positions to which they are summoned (Hall 199614)remain larely

invisible in this lens. To illuminate this inner world I therefore brin

in psychoanalysis. There are, aain, sinificant challenes in this, for whileMarxism and psychoanalysis have been brouht into conversation for some

time now, Foucault remained notoriously taciturn on the topic of the psy-che (Butler 199718) due larely to his explicit opposition to Freuds posit-


32/43

23

in of innate psychic drives and their ostensive repression as the basis of

much human behavior (see Foucault 1970, 1991; Hall 1996). Yet as Butler

(199323) proposed some time ao, one miht still subject psychoanalysis to

a Foucaultian redescription even as Foucault himself refused the possibility.

And indeed, Butler and others have worked to interate poststructuralist

and psychoanalytic perspectives in productive ways. I have drawn particu-lar inspiration from Savrans (1998) historical readin of Freud as describinnot a universal human condition but a particular personality formation char-

acteristic of the modern West. Most centrally, however, I build on Freudserstwhile disciple Jacques Lacan, drawin on Butlers (1993, 1997) feministpoststructuralist rereadin of both Freud and Lacan as well as ieks (e..,1989, 2008) idiosyncratic fusion of Lacan and Marx.

At the intersection of these two domainsmilieu and psychic mecha-

nismsstands the body. The body is an important object of analysis in Marx-

ist, poststructuralist, and psychoanalytic traditions alike (see, e.., Foucault1980; Butler 1993, 1997; Hall 1996; Weedon 1997; Harvey 2000; Federici

2004). The body is both acted upon by the political, economic, and en-

vironmental forces of the milieu and motivated by psychodynamic pro-

cesses in a complex entanlement. In short, as Harvey explains, The

human body is a battleround within which and around which conflictin

socio-ecoloical forces of valuation and representation are perpetually at

play (2000116). Understandin how all of these forces intersect to pro-

duce a iven structure and set of behaviors, at scales ranin from lobal

to local, is my principal analytical approach. In this sense, social action canbe described as overdetermined, that is, simultaneously conditioned bya multitude of factors, none of which can be identified as the sole (or evenmost sinificant) causal aent. In this way, I have pursued a comprehensiveunderstandin of the ecotourism experience at the intersection of trans-

national economic policies, material and cultural conditions, and psychicfunctionin (Helstein 2003277).

This theoretical framework also conditions a particular approach to theperennial problem of understandin the relationship between structure andaency in human behavior. Interpreters debate the extent to which Marxallowed space for individual aency in his classic assertion that men maketheir own history, but they do not make it just as they please (1978595).Workin in the Marxist tradition, however, Bourdieu stakes a relatively en-

erous space for aency in his so-called practice theory (see esp. 1977), interms of which actors are seen to actively construct throuh (somewhat)


33/43

24

self-conscious strateies of capital accumulation the very social structuresthat direct and constrain their actions to a certain deree.

Foucault, on the other hand, maintained that the very opposition between

social forces and individual will upon which the structure-aency debate is

predicated is a false one, assertin, It is, therefore, I think, a mistake tothink of the individual as a sort of elementary nucleus, a primitive atom orsome multiple, inert matter to which power is applied, or which is struck bya power that subordinates or destroys individuals. In actual fact, one of thefirst effects of power is that it allows bodies, estures, discourses, and desires

to be identified and constituted as somethin individual (20032930). Incontrast, Foucault endorsed an understandin of individuals as both con-

structed by and vehicles for the exercise of power, which they wield over

themselves and others alike. Further challenin the notion of individual

autonomy, Foucault observed that there is always within each of us some-thin that fihts somethin else, sugestin that one miht therefore ascribe

aency to sub-individuals (1980208). In this, he offers additional space for

reconciliation with psychoanalysis, which he acknowledes as havin beenthe first of the western social sciences to question the individuals coherencein its depiction of the personality as a contest amon distinct components(see Foucault 1970). Yet while he admitted to havin iven very little room

to what you miht call the creativity of individuals (Foucault and Chomsky1974148), Foucault clearly maintained space for aency of a certain kind,

assertin that power is exercised only over free beins, and only insofar asthey are free (Foucault 1983221).

In my synthetic analytical framework, I follow Foucault in this particularformulation, viewin subjects, vis--vis Harveys characterization, as a me-diation of multiple forces both internal and external, which they are free,in a certain sense and to a limited deree, to either enact or contest throuh

intentional pursuit of Bourdieuian strateies as well. In much popular (as

well as some scholarly) writin, a penchant for ecotourism is commonly de-scribed as motivated by some innate individual propensity to seek adven-

ture, risk, excitementwhat Zuckerman (2007) has labeled a sensation

seekin personality trait. My study seeks to challene this notion, demon-stratin that whatever the bioloical basis for enaement in ecotourism, the

sociocultural patterns shapin its practice call into question explanations

rounded solely (or predominantly) in individual predilections, for the prac-

tice is at least as stronly shaped by social forces that serve to influence whois most likely to embrace the activity accordin to continencies of history,


34/43

25

eoraphical location, and dynamics of race, class, and ender. My analysis,then, is simultaneously structural and subjective, material and cultural, ex-plainin the lobal rowth of ecotourism as the function both of impersonalpolitical economic processes operatin at the macro level and the personal

desires and actions of the operators, tourists, and local workers who embodythese diffuse processes in particular places and times.

A Guide to What Follows

In the followin chapters, I develop my analysis step by step. I have tried

to keep the analysis as enain and accessible as possible without sacrific-in rior by releatin my more arcane theoretical points to the endnotes

for scrutiny by specialists. In chapter 1, I bein by outlinin what I call anideal ecotourism experience, which I contend is implicitly structured as anarchetypal adventure. Drawin on Lacan via iek, I describe this experi-ence as a fantasy, sugestin that ecotourism derives much of its appeal from

tourists desire to realize this fantasy in their own experience and therebycapture the pleasurable emotions they believe it will confer. As a fantasy,

however, the ideal ecotourism scenario is a romanticized distortion of thehistorical experiences upon which it is based, renderin it quite difficult to

realize in practice.This ideal ecotourism experience also motivates by constructin a model

ecotourist embodyin admirable qualities that prospective tourists hope toappropriate throuh identification with this model. Chapter 2 describes thisprocess of becomin an ecotourist whereby a valued identity is simulta-

neously constructed and performed throuh ecotourism practice. While eco-

tourists commonly frame their pursuits as an attempt to resist aspects of

mainstream modern society, my analysis sugests that this practice actually

embodies many of the very qualities tourists claim to be escapinand, in-deed, upon which the valued identity they seek is fundamentally based. Thisidentity is quite particular, however, rounded in intersectin dimensions ofrace, ender, sexuality, and class, helpin to explain why ecotourism appealsmost stronly to the white, upper-middle-class heterosexual males who have

historically constituted the majority of practitioners.Chapter 3 describes how this identity is played out in the practice of eco-

tourism. Further problematizin the common depiction of ecotourism as

an alternative, countercultural pursuit, I show how the phenomenonembodies a conventional upper-middle-class compulsion to continually


35/43

26

proress and achieve throuh dilient labor and deferral of ratification. Onthe other hand, ecotourism is also pursued for its capacity to provide a tem-porary escape from this very same compulsion in the form of an altered

state of consciousness commonly termed transcendence or flow. Para-

doxically, then, ecotourism is valued for its capacity to simultaneously fulfilland escape the imperatives of a culturally specific habitus.

In chapter 4 I adopt a historical perspective, describin how the ecotour-ism industry has developed over time. I identify a lon-standin oscillationin the popularity of outdoor adventure throuhout western history, coincid-in with periods of risin discontent with a capitalist modernity in eneral.Intriuinly, this tends to occur not durin economic downturn but ratherdurin periods of increasin affluence, when discontent can no loner be

attributed to material deprivation. In response, many finer affluence itselfas the cause of discontent and thus turn from work to leisure pursuits likeecotourism in search of proress and self-actualization.

Chapter 5 addresses the pursuit of wilderness at the heart of the eco-tourism experience, viewin this as a response to the widespread sense

of alienation produced by twin divisions attendant to capitalist develop-

ment: the so-called metabolic rift between humans and nonhumans, and

an internal division effected by the compulsion to constrain ones ostensive

human nature, conceived as a wild animal, seen as requisite to success

within civilized society. This sense of alienation and constraint provokesa desire amon those who consider themselves most overcivilized to es-

cape into an idealized wilderness realm in order to experience a liminal re-lease from these conditions. In line with the previous chapters analysis, thisdesire seems to row stronest durin periods of affluence when the rewards

of self-restraint are no loner viewed as worth the prodiious sacrifice re-quired.

Subsequently, chapter 6 explores the implications of the precedin analy-sis for understandin ecotourisms employment as a stratey for conserva-tion and sustainable development in rural communities. In this process, thecultural perspective motivatin ecotourisms practice is implicitly promotedfor adoption by the local people tareted for interventions. Ecotourism de-

velopment thus represents an attempt to lobalize both a particular form ofcapitalism and a particular cultural formation. As noted above, this compli-cates the dominant stakeholder theory of ecotourism development by show-

in that such development entails an implicit acculturation process in addi-tion to demonstration of simple economic incentives.


36/43

27

The cultural perspective informin ecotourism also manifests as a par-

ticular aze by means of which tourists evaluate the quality of their experi-ence, a dynamic I describe in chapter 7. While the postindustrial lobetrot-ters who dominate the lobal ecotourism industry are themselves illustrative

of this aze, local providers unfamiliar with the ecotourists point of view

often have difficulties establishin successful operations that fulfill clientsexpectations. This dynamic poses clear limits to ecotourisms capacity to

commodify rural landscapes, sugestin that many locals may require as-

sistance to understand the differences between their own perspectives andthat of potential clients to effectively harness ecotourism as an income-

eneration stratey to support both conservation and development.In the conclusion, I hihliht the books overarchin implications for

understandin the ecotourism experience. I identify a common ambivalencetoward the pursuit of the wild adventure experience at the heart of eco-tourism. A similar ambivalence appears central to capitalist modernity itself,

which has souht to pure exotic adventure in order to construct a rational,disenchanted, machinelike society. At the same time, the decline of divineprinciples roundin the social order, in conjunction with the continual cre-ative destruction wrouht by capitalism, has led to the institutionalization of

a certain sense of uncertainty and adventure as an interal feature of modern

life. Hence modernity both embodies and denies the quest for extraordinaryexperience, and each side of this paradox is emphasized over time as faith inthe modern project waxes and wanes. Like Don Quixotes chivalrous quest,therefore, ecotourism represents a fantasmatic fictionalization, in a sense,of ones lived experience in a quest for continual excitement that is by defini-tion unattainable. Far from deliverin a satisfyin experience, consequently,ecotourism tends to perpetuate the very discontent it promises to alleviate.

Adrift in Papua New Guinea, journalist Kira Salak muses, I want to know

what Im doin here . . . always on the move, always travelin to one dan-erous place after the next. When will I be able to stop? When will I end thesearchin? (2002295). In this book I hope to answer Salaks questions, ex-plainin the motivation for this voluntary quest for uncertainty and hardship

and the nature of the restlessness and anxiety that in lare part compel it.


37/43

NOTES

1 This distinction is primarily heuristic because, from an anthropoloical perspec-

tive, culture is commonly seen to encompass economic/material processes. I willcomplicate this distinction when I describe ecotourism as discourse later in thechapter.

2 Reconition of this dynamic rew inductively from my research. In strivin to dis-cern common patterns in motivation for ecotourism consumption, I quickly beanto notice the characteristic whiteness of the participants on the various ecotour-ism trips I investiated. It was also readily apparent that most participants hailed

from societies in the western European tradition and that even nonwhites camefrom postindustrial nations such as Japan and South Korea. More slowly, it be-came clear that the vast majority of participants were also from upper-middle-class backrounds. While I explain this dynamic in reater detail in chapter 2, byupper-middle-class I refer to people who either practice or were raised by people

who practice relatively well-paid white-collar professions enerally requirin ad-vanced education such as bankin, medicine, teachin, and law. The vast majority

of my research informants conformed to this characterization. Almost all of thewhitewater paddlers I encountered, for instance, had completed a bachelors de-

ree (the traditional portal to upper-middle-class status), and many held raduatederees as well (includin quite a few PhDs). Similar dynamics have been notedin a number of other ecotourism studies in different contexts (Clark and New-comb 1977; Lyn and Snow 1986; Ortner 1999; Chvez 2000; Duffy 2002; Cole-man 2002; Vivanco 2006). Ecotourists leftish political tendencies dawned on memuch more slowly, as I reflected back on my findins after several more years ofresearch. I realized that the majority of my informants had expressed a rane of

views consistent with a liberal political orientation, as described by Lakoff (2001)in a North American context, and that this liberal bias increased with the serious-ness of ones pursuit, such that independent travelers who practiced their activities

full-time tended to be more consistently liberal than passeners on short commer-cial trips. In subsequent research I bean to ask informants directly about their


38/43

192

political orientation and found my initial impressions reinforced. A similar leftistorientation is identified in pursuits as diverse as mountaineerin (Ortner 1999),rock climbin (Roper 1994; J. Taylor 2006), and skydivin (Lyn and Snow 1986).Gender dynamics in ecotourism participation are more complex, as discussed in

chapter 2. 3 See esp. Slater 2004; Arawal 2005; Biersack and Greenber 2006; West 2006;Escobar 2008; Dove et al. 2011.

4 This characterization, of course, collapses the popular distinction between tour-ists and travelers, where the former term desinates those who participate asclients on commercial tours while the latter operate independently. In this opposi-tion, the term touristis commonly used as a derisive label for someone who seemscontent with his obviously inauthentic experiences (MacCannell 199994), prin-cipally by self-proclaimed travelers who thereby assert the superiority of theirown pursuits (Mowforth and Munt 2003). Clearly, then, this distinction is prob-

lematic, and I therefore employ the label ecotouristto desinate both tourists andtravelers as popularly distinuished.

5 The United Nations Environment Proram, for instance, advises that sound eco-tourism should pursue the followin:

Contribute to conservation of biodiversitySustain well-bein of local people Include interpretative/learnin experience Promote responsible tourist action Delivered by small businesses to small roups Emphasize local participation and ownership (Wood 2002)

6 Even self-defined luxury ecolodes commonly encourae a certain austerity(relative to comparably hih-end conventional resorts at least) in their charac-teristic emphasis on minimizin environmental impact via promotion of suchmeasures as limitin electricity use and shower lenth, refillin water bottles,eliminatin disposable shampoo and conditioner bottles, infrequent washin ofbed sheets and bathroom towels, and so forth (see, e.., Almeyda Zambrano et al.2010).

7 This literature is developin quickly and currently includes Davis 1997; Vivanco2001, 2006; Duffy 2002, 2008, 2010, 2012; Duffy and Moore 2010; West and Car-rier 2004; Bianchi 2005; Carrier and Macleod 2005; Mowforth and Munt 2003;Cater 2006; Fletcher 2009, 2011; Fletcher and Neves 2012; Neves 2010.

8 In a point of conjunction with the previous capitalocentric explanation of ecotour-ism rowth, critics have sugested that this emphasis on sustainable developmenthas been stronly promoted by the same transnational capitalist class domi-natin the lobal tourism industry (see Sklair 2001; Cater 2006; Ioe et al. 2010;Fletcher 2011).

9 Http://www.un.or/documents/ecosoc/res/1998/eres199840.htm; accessed

8/12/2010.10 Of course, the extent to which ecotourism actually redresses the many downsides


39/43

193

of mass tourism has been thorouhly questioned (e.., Duffy 2002; Vivanco 2006;Honey 2008; Mowforth and Munt 2003). As Duffy (200232) summarizes, Eco-tourists can replicate the same problems as the mass tourists that they are ex-pected to replace.

11 This literature has become quite voluminous. Sinificant sources discussin en-vironmental and economic impacts of ecotourism include Boo 1990; Cater andLowman 1994; Ceballos-Lascurin 1996; Chapin 1990; Dixon et al. 1993; Duffy2002; Fennell 2008; Foucat 2002; Giannecchini 1993; Groom et al. 1991; Hall andKinnaird 1994; Honey 2008; Kin and Stewart 1996; Krer 2005; Kusler 1991;Leatherman and Goodman 2005; Lindber 1991; Lindber and Enriquez 1994;Orams 1999; Panusittikorn and Prato 2001; Stonich 2000; Stronza and Durham2008; Walpole et al. 2001; Whelan 1991. Discussion of social impacts includes

Abel 2003; Bookbinder et al. 1998; Carrier and Macleod 2005; Chapin 1990; Kinand Stewart 1996; Mowforth and Munt 2003; Schneider and Burnett 2000; Slat-

tery 2002; Stem et al. 2003a, 2003b; Stronza and Durham 2008; Vivanco 2001;Walpole et al. 2001; West 2006; West and Carrier 2004.

12 This perspective is inspired in part by Campbells (198717) similar demand-sideanalysis of the spirit of modern consumerism, respondin to what he describesas an academic tendency to over-emphasize the factor of supply and to concen-trate upon chanes in the techniques of production rather than chanes in thenature of demand.

13 Brooks describes Bobos as pursuin enrichin misery and serious play. He con-tends, At the tippy top of the leisure status system are those vacations that involve

endless amounts of aony and pain. . . . Such trips are not fun, but the educated-class trekkers are not lookin for fun. They want to spend their precious weeks offtorturin themselves in ways that will be intellectually and spiritually enhancin(Brooks 2000208).

14 Lippards (1999ix) description remains equally valid today.15 While commentators commonly define an opposition between discursive and

material processes, viewin discourse for the most part as a function of lanuae(see, e.., Weedon 1997), in its Foucauldian usae as a form of power-knowledediscourse can be understood rather as an attempt to collapse this very distinctionby desinatin both representations and the material practices in which they areembodied.

16 As described later in the conclusion, such values are commonly seen to include aview of the subject as an autonomous individual, an epistemoloy and social order

rounded in formal rationality, and an understandin of history as proress fromprimitive oriins to increasin complexity

romancing the wild by robert fletcher

Documents