Cultural Forms 3

Emic and Etic Cultural Forms and their Commoditization:

Comparing the Roles of Festivals and Culture Parks in Jeju and Taiwan

主體和旁觀的文化形式與兩者的商品消費化現象:

濟州和台灣的節慶活動與文化園區之間的角色比較

The Autonomy of Culture: Provocative Implications

文化的自由: 引起議論的含意

There are classic examples of cultural extinction and degradation due to colonialism and the neo-colonialism of tourism, and there are equally powerful cases where the issues of artistic expression and the rights to control cultural symbols, images and narratives have been fought for (Simons, 2000) and won. I have argued that there can be a balance (Hunter & Suh, 2007). But in tourism we stand close to the edge, risking culture by transforming it into a resource to support the replacement economy of tourism that boosts failing primary and secondary sectors. There is also the risk of falling under the hegemony of the inbound market and its economic superiority (poorer people do not travel to richer countries!). The core reality of tourism is tied up with economic dependency and geo-politics.

It is important to recognize how the combination of festivals and culture parks can be a mechanism for providing a sustainable, profitable and responsible tourism system/infrastructure that can simultaneously ensure a community’s robust local culture while providing for satisfying experiences for visitors. The combination of these two institutions results in a synergy effect maximizing local identity and the profitability of tourism. In addition, this can be accomplished without the dangerous concerns of geo-political or economic hegemony. Conversely, instances where culture parks hold ‘festivals’ and where festivals are transformed into ‘culture parks’, can only fail because in the first instance there emerges an absurd contrivance and in the latter, a demolition of social experience.

The beauty of a festival is that it is a scene where people are reproducing and contesting their culture to find meaning for their own lives. Culture, like ethnicity, is a “fundamentally ‘manufactured’ and heavily iconic activity” (Hollinshead 1998, p. 123). It is a mythical expression, heavy with ritual, and is often inexplicable to the eyes of the outsider. And the risk of the culture park is in its contrivance, as “that which is too obvious cannot be true” (Baudrillard 1996, p. 98). Filled with markers, the culture park obliterates its cultural features, with signs and souvenirs (MacCannell, 1976). But for the tourist, concerned only with his own experience, that contrivance is met with bemusement, and acceptance.

Deeper Implications: Comparing Two Islands

更深層的含意: 兩座島嶼的比較

Using Jeju as a benchmark, the concerns of nation (foreign and domestic) and hegemony in the context of Taiwan and China might be addressed, in the context of this paper. Jeju can be compared with Taiwan in terms of their similarities as Islands, and in regional proximity to their most significant tourism markets. Jeju receives close to 6,000,000 tourists a year, largely from its most proximal source market, the Korean Peninsula. On the other hand, Taiwan is lucky to receive 2,000,000 tourists a year in spite of its size and massive inventory of diverse natural and cultural resources. Jeju has been systematically developed as a tourism destination since it was designated as such by the Korean Economic Development Plan of 1964. Taiwan has never properly addressed its own potentially lucrative tourism potential. The China market could be the source of massive tourism revenue.

However, on both islands concerns with autonomy and the maintenance of authentic cultural identity overwhelm the fact, that when properly employed, the mechanism of festivals and culture parks can reduce the problem of ‘foreign tourists’ to simple win-win economics. The synergy of festivals and culture parks at a destination can act as a socio-cultural buffer, absorbing revenue while protecting against certain undesirable influences. Practical tourism requires systematic development and regional consciousness. Thinking geographically rather than geo-politically, controlling length of stay, regulating tour operators and generous investment in local intangible cultural resources can prevent, for Taiwan, Chinese tourists becoming what the Taiwanese are for the Indigenous Tribes, a dangerous and overwhelming crowd. For Taiwan, like Jeju, local culture is real power, in its internal form manifest through festivals, and in its outward form, as culture parks and other museums.

References

Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman,

(Trans.). NY: Semiotext.

Baudrillard, J. (1996). The Perfect Crime. Chris Turner, (Trans.). London: Verso.

Burke, K. (1935). Permanence and Change. New York: New Republic.

Dewey, J. (1989). The Later Works, 1925-1953; Volume 10:1934, Art As Experience.

Jo Ann Boydston, (Ed.), Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G. & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a

conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78.

Geertz, C. (1995). After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist.

Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Hollinshead, K. (1998). Tourism, hybridity, and ambiguity: The relevance of Bhabha’s

‘third space’ cultures. Journal of Leisure Research 30(1), pp. 121-156.

Hunter, W.C. & Suh, Y.G. (2007). Multimethod research on destination image

perception: Jeju Standing Stones. Tourism Management, 28(1), 130-139.

Laxon, J.D. (1991). How “We” See “Them:” Tourism and Native Americans. Annals of

Tourism Research 18(3): 365-391.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. NY:

Schocken Books.

MacKay, K.J. & Fesenmaier, D.R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination image

formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 537-565.

Simons, M.S. (2000). Aboriginal heritage art and moral rights. Annals of Tourism

Research (27)2 pp. 412-431.

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society.

London: Sage.