Since tourism has been considered recently as a very significant issue to improve the social life, then few common social factors such as social control and autonomy have a massive impact in the tourism sector to develop it more. Therefore, couple of sociological themes has been highly influencing the hospitality and tourism sectors from the tourists perspective and as well as from the service provider perspective.
So that, the social control and the autonomy, both factors are affecting and affected by the political, cultural, religious variety of various tourism locations. That is how, tourism is concerned as "…a language of social control in promotional material…" (Dann, 1996). In this work, I will be trying to discuss briefly and step by step some of the very specific aspects of social control and autonomy in the tourism sector, what are combined and gathered knowledge from the readings of sociology scholars in the tourism and social science study.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Social control in tourism
3. Autonomy in tourism
4. Comparison
4.1 Similarities
4.2 Differences
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this work is to explore the sociological interplay between social control and tourist autonomy within the global tourism industry. By synthesizing scholarly literature, the paper investigates how external restrictions and internal freedom shape the tourist experience and how these dynamics reflect broader socio-political environments.
- The impact of social control mechanisms on tourist behavior and freedom.
- The conceptualization of tourist autonomy as a counter-theory to social regulation.
- The dichotomy between Mixophobia (fear of the unknown) and Mixophilia (desire for novelty).
- The role of service providers and institutions in shaping the holiday experience.
- The conflict between sustainable liberty and the need for organized tourism structures.
Excerpt from the Book
Social control in tourism
The discussion topics what have been picked up from the writings of Dann, Franklin and Lim, are normally describing some sorts of social manipulations phenomena upon the tourists groups. According to those writings, the social controls in tourism have been appeared as an opposition of recreation and leisure for the tourists groups. Being controlled by a particular society is really a confinement over the tourist groups. In the readings it has been demonstrated that this type of restrictions occur because of social, cultural and political instability (Lim, 2007). Whereas, in many other societies, for instance, in the European countries that happens because of the system has been established towards the elderly people (Dann, 2000). So generally, modernization in the name of globalization is actually creating huge unusual and informal impact of social control in many touristic locations. On the other hand, the controlling which has been manipulated by the government and politicians that has pretty predictable, formal and usual approach. Therefore in different readings about different tourism destinations have shown different phenomena of tourism social controls. For instance, in the article of Lim with Himalaya has got a clear political and cultural domination; whereas, in the elderly hotels in Mallorca has got some kind of domination which goes with the age discrimination, which has been ruled upon the elderly tourist groups; etc. In-fact, the total scenario and circumstance were as, the aged tourists groups were treated as if they were in an ‘elderly care home’ even if they were tourists. This sort of social controlling set up is completely against the tourist’s wish, desire and happiness (Dann, 1996, 2000).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the significance of social control and autonomy as sociological factors that influence both tourists and service providers in the modern tourism sector.
2. Social control in tourism: This section discusses how social manipulation and external constraints, often stemming from cultural or political instability, serve to limit the freedom of tourists.
3. Autonomy in tourism: This chapter defines autonomy as the freedom of choice and personal satisfaction, highlighting it as a conflicting concept to the rigid social control found in many destinations.
4. Comparison: This chapter contrasts social control and autonomy, analyzing their similarities and differences through concepts like Mixophobia and Mixophilia.
4.1 Similarities: This section explores how both themes are influenced by perspectives of service providers and tourists, and how they relate to the need for safety and organization.
4.2 Differences: This section differentiates the concepts by analyzing the psychological reactions of tourists toward unfamiliar environments versus their desire for new experiences.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes that current tourism practices often negatively constrain the tourist, suggesting that a positive approach to autonomy is necessary for the industry's future development.
Keywords
Tourism, Social Control, Autonomy, Sociology, Mixophobia, Mixophilia, Globalization, Tourist Experience, Freedom of Choice, Service Providers, Sustainability, Recreational Satisfaction, Social Instability, Holiday Resorts, Cultural Boundaries
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the sociological relationship between social control and tourist autonomy, specifically looking at how these two forces shape the travel experience.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include the restriction of tourist behavior, the pursuit of individual autonomy, the influence of service providers, and the psychological impact of visiting new, unfamiliar environments.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to analyze the tension between the constraints imposed upon tourists and their inherent desire for self-determination, and how these factors contribute to the quality of the tourism experience.
Which methodology is applied in this study?
This work utilizes a qualitative, literature-based approach, synthesizing key theories from sociology scholars such as Dann, Franklin, and Lim to analyze tourism phenomena.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body evaluates definitions of social control and autonomy, provides a comparative analysis using the concepts of Mixophobia and Mixophilia, and discusses the perspectives of both tourists and service providers.
Which keywords define the core of this paper?
Key terms include Social Control, Autonomy, Mixophobia, Mixophilia, and Tourist Experience, representing the interplay between regulation and individual freedom.
How is the concept of 'Mixophobia' distinguished from 'Mixophilia'?
Mixophobia refers to the panic or fear of unfamiliar environments, which often leads to increased demand for social control, whereas Mixophilia refers to the curiosity and hunger for new experiences, which aligns with autonomy.
What does the author conclude regarding the future of tourism development?
The author concludes that for the tourism sector to be sustainable and beneficial, service providers must shift away from being controllers and instead promote a positive, autonomy-based approach that respects the liberty of the individual tourist.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Jobaire Alam (Autor:in), 2014, The relationship between tourism, sociology and social control, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/413358
