The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism, First Edition. Edited by Alan A. Lew, C. Michael Hall, and Allan M. Williams.© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mobilities, Ethnicity, and Tourism

Kevin Meethan

Chapter 19

The Mobility Paradigm

The basis of the mobility paradigm as outlined by Urry (2007; see also Sheller and Urry, 2007) starts with the assumption that social relations can no longer be conceived as being composed of societies or cultures as distinct autonomous units containing sedentary popula-tions. Rather, they are best conceptualized as a complex system of dynamic flows that cut across spatial boundaries involving diverse and multiple connections. In many respects this is a familiar description of the contemporary condition of globalization which has had a profound effect on societies and cultures over recent decades. However, we need to be wary of assuming that this brave new world has suddenly sprung into existence without precedent, and that the world of mobilities exists as an ahistorical, timeless present that sweeps all in its path.

Movement is not of course a new phenomenon, as a long view of history clearly shows: significant movements of people have occurred in the past, and, as McKeown (2004) makes clear, in terms of actual numbers the global movement of population rose in the latter half of the nineteenth century and peaked in the mid-twentieth century, since when it has been in decline. Of course, we are not dealing simply with quantity here, and while the nineteenth century could be seen as exemplifying an early phase of globalization, what is significant about its contemporary form is that there has been a significant shift in both the breadth and depth of global connectivity over the past three to four decades. This has been both rapid and encompassing to the extent that, within the current phase of globalization, boundaries of all kinds, both spatial and conceptual, can no longer be taken as given. The nation state is challenged by the growth of supranational organizations such as the European Union as much as by multinational corporations which, despite the current economic turmoil, exert considerable power. The system of production and consumption and labor relations upon which modern capitalism relies is increasingly organized on a global level (Glenn, 2007;

MOBILITIES, ETHNICITY, AND TOURISM 241

Lechner and Boli, 2012). Technology enables wider communication and increasing flows of information that also allow individuals to connect with others in real time.

Such changes pose many challenges, among which is the need to develop theoretical models to describe this shifting world. One approach is to move away from models of social-ity which arguably privilege, or perhaps more accurately assume, that national boundaries and national states provide social science with the units of analysis. Such assumptions are (with some exceptions) untenable; the analysis of our shifting world requires a focus on the movements, flows, and mobilities of people, goods, and information as central to social enquiry (Creswell, 2006; Urry, 2007). However, as with all new paradigms there is a need for caution. It may be tempting to view the contemporary condition of globalization as a new, deracinated force that sweeps all before it and that tradition and ethnicity are the sur-viving remnants of this onslaught, but even a cursory acquaintance with history calls this into question. Another aspect we have to consider is that mobilities, of whatever sort, are never uniform in their manifestations or effects, and can be resisted, controlled, diverted, or stopped. After all, the movement of tourists, workers, migrants, and refugees are all forms of mobility that are very different in terms of both their causes and effects, and as recent political events continue to remind us the movements of people across boundaries are often perceived as an existential threat and met with hostility, especially when they are perceived as different and other (Said, 1993; Pieterse, 2007). Mobility then may reinforce differences as much as it may blend them, so to speak, as in the development of a global cosmopolitan-ism that we see in many world cities. The full implications of such a shift, indeed a full description of the mobilities paradigm itself, are beyond the scope of this short chapter; however, some aspects of how this applies to tourism in general and the question of ethnic tourism in particular can be addressed.

I have long argued that while tourism is symptomatic of contemporary forms of globaliza-tion and hence mobility in general, it also has some unique characteristics, especially its transitory nature. At a structural level tourism is linked to the distinction that emerged within modernity between leisure and work, between leisure spaces and work spaces (Meethan, 2001). A fundamental difference between tourism and other forms of movement is that, by definition, tourism mobility is specifically time-limited, transitory, and undertaken for pur-poses of leisure consumption and as such involves a number of processes through which the mobility of people is both created and controlled (see also Sheller and Urry, 2007). It is this transitory and leisured nature that distinguishes it from other forms of mobility that may be motivated by other reasons, as mentioned above.

Yet there is more to tourism that the physical relocation of people. What is also of great significance is the way that tourism relies on the commodification of people and place or, to be more precise, the commodification of a people in a place that is fed in part by expectations derived from the perhaps less tangible, but not less important, ideas and expectations that frame the tourist experience. This is what Urry has termed “imagined presence” and its corol-lary, “imagined travel” (Urry, 2007: 47), and which has also been called the tourism imaginary.

The Tourism Imaginary

This refers to the sum total of practices, images, texts, films, videos, books, websites, and forms of knowledge that, either directly or indirectly, contribute towards the creation and maintenance of spaces as tourist destinations. No tourist travels blind, except the unwary, as

242 KEVIN MEETHAN

all travel is hedged with ideas and expectations of what we will find, or perhaps more accu-rately, to have our expectations met or challenged. While there is always an individual element at work here, the tourist imaginary also both reflects and creates the more common forms of representation by which people and places are characterized in terms of (often presumed) essential characteristics: we know both people and place because we recognize them as such.

The tourism imaginary includes elements of both public and private knowledge, it is, as Salazar notes, “.  .  . a mental, individual and social process that produces the reality that simultaneously produces it” (Salazar, 2010: 6). It also involves, to quote Salazar again, “. . . schemes of interpretation” (Salazar, 2012: 864), which are themselves based on the existence of a wider collective schema of tropes, metaphors, and other forms of cultural representation and production, which in turn define and create the differences between one society and culture and another.

In terms of tourism we can easily recognize such representations in the form of guidebooks and advertising, the stock in trade of tourism marketing, and for better or worse the lives of others have exerted a powerful hold on people’s imaginations. Advertising copy and market-ing though rely on the recognition of wider forms of cultural expression that range from TV shows and films – both fictional and documentary – to the use of photography to blogs, novels, performances, and other forms of art and commodity production that in some cases will also be implicated, both directly and indirectly, with political considerations (Bishop, 1989; Said, 1993; Picard and Wood, 1997; Phillips and Steiner, 1999; Hillman, 2003; Strain, 2003; Gorsuch and Koenker, 2006; Meethan et al., 2006; Morton and Edwards, 2009; Salazar, 2010, 2012; Reijnders, 2011; Gao et al., 2012; Tivers and Rakić, 2012).

The tourism imaginary then is a form of collective and public knowledge that is created through praxis and also informs praxis, something that we, as tourists and tourism analysts, contribute to through our own actions as well as our personal and private networks of friends and family. There is, however, one final element that we need to consider, for as Wearing et al. (2010) remind us, knowledge is practical, rather than simply discursive. The tourism imaginary is not a fixed and inert entity but involves active engagement in the process of place making. In short, the tourism imaginary can be summarized as comprising the sum total of both real and imagined presences, and the ways in which these can be combined in various tropes which is evident with the relationship between ethnicity and tourism.

Defining Ethnicity

Ethnicity is a multifaceted label, and defining it is no easy matter. Anyone attempting to do so is immediately confronted with a large and multidisciplinary literature (for a comprehen-sive account and overview see Pieterse, 2007; Brubaker, 2009) as well as numerous popular and commonsensical definitions. Despite this diversity, there are seven salient features that can be identified as being of both general and of particular relevance to the topic under discussion here.

First, ethnicity is a voluntary form of self-identification that involves the assertion of dif-ference by culture (Brubaker, 2009: 25). The idea of voluntarism is important as ethnicity is not a given or an essential characteristic that people simply possess by virtue of birth. People claiming ethnicity are exercising agency (even if in constraining circumstances) and involving themselves in the conscious manipulation of social and cultural forms. There may be political ends to be served or, as is often the case with tourism, the commodification of culture, bearing in mind that these are not mutually exclusive categories (Phillips and Steiner, 1999). To claim

MOBILITIES, ETHNICITY, AND TOURISM 243

ethnicity then is to define and maintain the existence of boundaries that both include (those who are like us) as much as exclude (those who are other).

Second, ethnicity is a form of group identification which, at a number of levels, is not easily distinguished from, or rather can be enmeshed in, cognate definitions of both race and nation. This most commonly equates a people with a place, often typified as a point of origin or a homeland (Timothy and Guelke, 2008). The third point relates to the ways in which ethnicity is often associated with minority status within a larger polity, even if we regard that as an ethnic majority (Wimmer, 2004). In this sense, a migrant community can be viewed as ethnic, in the same way that minority nationalisms can also be seen as ethnic. In turn this leads on to the fourth point which is that ethnicity is often defined in relation to a metro-politan center, particularly in terms of a colonized other (Harrell, 1995; Hall, 1997; Gutiérrez, 1999).

The fifth point is that ethnicity is often perceived as forms of identity that are, to a greater or lesser extent, nonmodern (Phillips and Steiner, 1999: 18). Ethnicity in this sense is elided with tradition, what has been left behind in the relentless march of modernity, the primitive “. . . ancient and unchanged” as Harrell (1995: 15) puts it, that which is perceived as natural (Hall, 1997) and, I would add, inalienable (Meethan, 2008). The sixth point is that despite this equation of ethnicity with the nonmodern and even primordial, we have to acknowledge that forms of ethnicity are “. . . increasingly understood to have been generated by structural and cultural transformations that have been global in scope” (Brubaker, 2009: 23). It is here that we see the importance of mobility as a factor in defining ethnicity. Globalization may challenge the established order of national hierarchies and, rather than eliminate ethnic dif-ferences, give rise to situations where ethnicity actually becomes more salient as a form of identification, and therefore also as a factor to be commodified. Here we can clearly see one of the apparent paradoxes of globalization: while on some levels we see a trend towards uniformity and standardization across the globe, on others we see a countervailing trend that asserts locality and ethnicity and difference.

It is also important to stress, as mentioned in the introduction, that such processes have a long history and cannot simply be regarded as a reflection of the contemporary condition of globalization and mobility (Pieterse, 2007: 75–78), which is an issue I will return to below. The seventh and final point is that while ethnicity fixes boundaries, both physically and conceptually, we have to recognize that these are emergent and mutable (Brubaker, 2009: 28); even claiming a primordial and autochthonous attachment to a place is a part of boundary maintenance, of creating and asserting differences. Despite claims that may assert ethnicities as timeless, they are never fixed, and as such they need to be analyzed as a dynamic process, as a means of creating boundaries and claims to shared identities which are con-stantly being reinforced and renegotiated within particular conditions, and in many cases we can also see that they are rooted in the tourism imaginary.

Ethnicity and Tourism

Yang and Wall (2009: 599) date the emergence of the term ethnic tourism to 1977 (see also Picard and Wood, 1997). However, while it may not have been specifically labeled as such, forms of ethnic tourism and commodification can be dated back much earlier to what we would recognize as the beginnings of modern tourism in the mid-nineteenth century when, as Strain comments “. . . the world’s distant locales were seen as places from which to extract pleasure” (Strain, 2003: 42). Once subjugated and no longer a threat, colonial people, their

244 KEVIN MEETHAN

ways of life, and their customs became objects to be looked at and wondered over (Phillips and Steiner, 1999; Meethan, 2010). Arguably this went hand in hand with the wider forces and processes of colonialism, mass mobility, and modernity, a consequence of the early phase of globalization. That one caveat aside, Yang and Wall (2009) provide a very useful overview of the ways in which ethnicity and tourism interact, and also the point at which more contemporary forms of ethnic tourism began to be specifically labeled as such. As they note, exoticism and primitiveness and a cultivated sense of nonmodernity are the key ele-ments, which in turn can create a number of tensions, such as that between the need to maintain the exoticism that is the attraction, and the desire by those people to experience the benefits that modernity and globalization can bring. Like most forms of tourism, ethnic tourism is also fixed to specific places and locales, as much as involving the attributes of people themselves. Of course, these may well be intercut with political issues at a number of levels that can involve, for example, national forms of identity as much as more localized ones (Picard, 1996; Yang and Wall, 2006). As a form of commodification, ethnic tourism can also contribute to cultural survival, practices, artifacts, and even ways of life that may oth-erwise be swept away by globalizing forces; as much as ethnicity is mutable and negotiable, so too are the forms created to meet the demands of the tourist market. Whether or not this is perceived as some form of loss depends, I would argue, on the broad analytical approach that may be taken towards the subject and the ways that people define their ethnicity. A paradigm based on the assumptions of mobility – that stasis is assumed rather than given, that national boundaries do not determine cultural forms – will necessarily favor explanations of cultural change as pragmatic adaptations to current circumstances rather than, say, a loss of tradition in the face of overwhelming and dystopian global processes.

The point that I wish to stress here is that when we are dealing with the apparent imme-diacy and newness that is often implied by the mobilities paradigm, we need to recognize that despite the major changes that have occurred as a consequence of globalization, the world of mobilities has not suddenly sprung into being as an ahistorical present. I suggest that we need to have a broader and historically informed perspective that accounts for the fact that first, mobility has always been a feature of human life, and that second, some changes have a deeper structural basis than might first be imagined, This is not to say that the mobili-ties paradigm is inherently wrong, rather it needs to be seen as working at a deeper level and over a longer period of time that might first be apparent, and that what we need to consider is the longue durée (Lee, 2012).

To sum up so far, commodifying ethnicity, and doing so on a world stage, is not a new phenomenon. While the actual forms this takes may change, there is no doubt that the lives of others have exerted a strong fascination for many people, and continue to do so, and that ethnic tourism is one way in which this is realized is through the tourism imaginary. A short example will help illustrate the points I have been making with reference to recognizable elements of exoticism, at least in Western eyes, in the example of San Francisco’s Chinatown during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Chinatown

One of the clearest examples of the ways in which a specific space has been constructed as a site of ethnic tourism is San Francisco’s Chinatown (Keeler, 1902; Asbury, 1933/2002; Chen, 2000; Rast, 2007; Santos et al., 2008; Santos and Yan, 2008). Like other ethnic enclaves in nineteenth-century USA, Chinatown (as it became known, see Chen, 2000: 98) had developed

MOBILITIES, ETHNICITY, AND TOURISM 245

as a result of both labor mobility that had brought immigrants to the USA as well as a distinct sense of racial otherness that both physically and socially delimited and confined Chinese migrants to a small area of the city. In many ways such developments were the typical experi-ence of other migrant groups within urban USA, but it was arguably the obvious and visible differences that marked the Chinese as the most other of all minority migrant groups. Everything about them, from dress to beliefs to food and language, was unique to Western eyes, but, in line with nineteenth-century ideology, presumed moral values were also associ-ated with racial characteristics (Bonner, 1997; Chen, 2000). This was most obviously manifest in the physical nature of Chinatown itself: crowded, insanitary, a site of opium dens, prostitu-tion, and gambling: a danger to the established order. The equation of people and place resulted in what Asbury described as “. . . white San Franciscans regarded the living quarters in Chinatown as pest-holes of filth and squalor” (Asbury, 1933/2002: 14).

Space does not permit a fuller exploration of the history of this development nor the widespread casual and institutional racism that helped shape it (see Bonner, 1997; Chen, 2000). For the purposes of this chapter it is sufficient to note that as Chinatown and its inhabitants became a “permanent” fixture in San Francisco, and also as more Chinatowns emerged in other cities (Santos et al., 2008), it also began to attract tourists who, initially at least, came to have their worst prejudices confirmed. In 1887, under the strapline “Looking the Chinese Evil in the Face,” the Daily Alta reported that:

Chinatown was alive last night with mixed parties of Eastern tourists intent on seeing everything. . . . Chinese restaurants, lodging houses, opium dens and underground basements were inspected. . . . The general verdict of the visitors is that Chinatown contains more depravity per square foot that any other town in America. (Daily Alta, California, vol. 42, no. 13728, April 2, 1887)

Chinatown was constructed in the imaginations of the majority white population as a place of danger as much as otherness, a liminal zone, positioned both materially and symbolically between two cultures (Andrews and Roberts, 2012). The depictions above are far from unique and, for example, Rast’s study (2007) notes how tourism in Chinatown in the late nineteenth century often involved the performance of staged authenticity purely for tourist consumption that, for example, included the creation of supposed opium dens. Performances of this kind conformed to the dominant values and expectations of their era; these tourists were indulging in a form of slumming that helped create the place and its inhabitants by confirming and reinforcing their prejudices (Toweil, 2010). Such prejudices were in turn created by forms of discourse that drew on existing tropes of exoticism and orientalism. It was these elements of the tourism imaginary which framed the expectations of the tourists and, in turn, the act of witnessing confirmed and reinforced them: what better way to assert superiority than to witness the depravity of others first hand.

Like all representations, though, this was open to challenge, with some local people seeking to replace this image of depravity by redefining their ethnicity in terms of architecture and cuisine (Rast, 2007), precisely the kind of description we find in a book published in 1902 by the California Promotion Committee, clearly intended as an early form of civic boosterism:

The restuarants and joss houses are particularly striking on account of their steep balconies ornamented with carved woodwork, brightly colored or gilded .  .  . [on visiting a restaurant] I retired to a corner listening the while to the high pitched sing-song voices of the revellers, the

246 KEVIN MEETHAN

rapping of drums, clanging of cymbals and squeaking of fiddles, and imagining myself a disciple of Confucius in the heart of the Flowery Kingdom. (Keeler, 1902: 60–62)

Such transformations were evident elsewhere too, as other cities in the USA with Chinese populations began to see them not so much as a threat, but as a resource, leavened no doubt by an element of civic competition. For example, in 1905 in nearby Los Angeles, a local paper reported that:

Beginning with today, the Seeing California Traffic Bureau puts into service two new electric service [tram] trips. . . . The “Seeing Chinatown Trip” will be made in a private observation car starting at 8 o’clock in the evening. .  .  . Los Angeles has the second largest Chinatown in the country [and] . . . offers everything that can be seen in San Francisco. (Los Angeles Herald, vol. 32, no. 105, January 14, 1905)

Whether or not this involved opium dens is not recorded, but the shift from a moral danger to a tourist destination was further reinforced with the introduction of tour guides, people who acted as cultural brokers that could negotiate the differences between the culture of Chinatown and the dominant culture of the time. The following newspaper excerpt from 1913 demonstrates not only this, but also a difference between those who venture in to Chinatown and those who merely look, an early version of the familiar “traveler” and “tourist” distinction:

H.J. Lewis, the official licensed Chinatown tours guide . . . speaks the Chinese dialect [and] . . . personally conducts his parties in and out of Chinatown’s quaint streets. . . .

Lewis has nothing to do with the automobile “rubberneck” cars that carry crowds of tourists on a lightning ride through Chinatown, for Chinatown is only three squares from Market Street, and the “rubbernecks” are merely a decoy to attract the stranger, who pays for the ride but does not receive the service he expects to receive. (San Francisco Call, vol. 113, no. 85, February 23, 1913)

This brief example outlined above can only be indicative of some of the early developments and emergence of ethnic tourism, but nonetheless it also acts as a means to address some of the issues that arise from the mobilities paradigm as well as the issue of history that, I think, has tended to be downplayed in many accounts of tourism. As an ethnic enclave, Chinatown developed as a consequence of labor market mobility which was global in scale and scope during the mid- to late nineteenth century. The inhabitants were typified as “other” through a mixture of stereotyping based on perceived racial differences. Over time, we can also see a shift from being objects of scorn, whose presence reinforces the moral superiority of the majority, into a form of exoticism that can be commodified and toured. This also indicates the ways in which the tourism imaginary: the way that such things are framed, the expecta-tions of people and place that we can find in popular culture, in the media and so on, are themselves subject to forms of change and mobility.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections

There is no doubt that the current situation of globalization, and the mobility that comes with that, challenges many of the accepted social and conceptual boundaries from which we

MOBILITIES, ETHNICITY, AND TOURISM 247

construct our social worlds. We can look to the ways in which commodities, practices, and ideas now circulate in systems of (at times) baffling complexity. As outlined above, ethnic tourism commodifies people, places as much as artifacts, and other aspects of social life such as dance and ceremonies and other forms of performance. These are marked as other coun-terposed to globalization which is often typified as a deracinated, footloose, and mobile force, and that ethnicity and tradition are survivors, the remains of a more primitive way of life.

Forms of ethnicity are forms of identity that involve an element of conscious choice and, to a greater of lesser degree, the boundaries that define one people from another have always been fluid. We also need to consider that mobility itself is not new, and such a realization does not mean abandoning the mobilities paradigm; rather, it means extending and recasting it in terms that recognize the historical nature of social change and of course the history of tourism itself.

This means in turn we have to acknowledge that the flows of mobility are not necessarily welcome events. Despite that fact that as analysts and academics (or even as educated cos-mopolitans) we recognize the precarious and transitory nature of social organization, for those on the ground as it were, the maintenance of social and political boundaries can be a matter of the utmost importance, and perhaps even of survival. Mobility can, and is, resisted in a variety of forms and places. Its effects are uneven, some undoubtedly benefit and others less so. While the social sciences (broadly defined) have long discarded static paradigms of society, those whose lives we study may still claim that the rootedness of a people in a place, a language, a prescribed set of behaviors and so on, and the essentialism that it entails, is precisely what maintains the divisions and boundaries between them and us. We can also argue that the processes and flows of tourism commodification are themselves, in some instances at least, reinforcing attachments to place, people, and nation.

There is also the need to bear in mind some methodological issues. As ethnicity is by and large a voluntary form of self-identification, it cannot easily be apprehended through what we might regard as the standard techniques of survey research. For every person who was willing to tick a box that described their ethnicity, there would no doubt be someone else who would tick a box marked “other.” Like all forms of identity, ethnicity needs to be appre-hended through types of data collection and inquiry that can acknowledge the often blurred social boundaries and particular socioeconomic circumstances which contribute to the forma-tion of ethnicity. It is perhaps no surprise then that most studies of ethnicity have been carried out using ethnographic field methods that are sensitive to the nuances of social interaction and identity formation.

Constructing ethnicity is one thing, but consuming it another, so rather that talking about ethnicity in general, it is perhaps more instructive to think about which aspects of ethnicity can be apprehended in relation to the wider issues of tourism and mobility; for example, the relation between commodification and ethnicity and why some types are more favored over others, and how different forms of ethnicities themselves construct the “other.” While peoples’ perceptions of their own ethnicity may be hard to quantify, that is perhaps not the case when we are dealing with tourists’ perceptions and expectations of ethnicity which may be more amenable to more standard forms of measurement. Nonetheless, what we also have to con-sider is that any matching of perceptions to an ideal – the tourism imaginary – is just that; it does not tell us where the ideal comes from, and that in turn requires a different, more interpretivist methodology.

As a starting point I would suggest a focus on the tourism imaginary and ethnicity, by analyzing the common tropes, narratives, and imagery that are taken to exemplify ethnicity.

248 KEVIN MEETHAN

We also need to consider that the visual is important here, as the brief example above shows: what defines the people and the place is the way it appears, the way it looks, the way it conforms to and informs the tourism imaginary. While forms of visual analysis have always been an element of tourism studies, they tend (with some exceptions) to have been subsumed under more logocentric approaches. I would suggest that a study of ethnicity within the tourism imaginary offers the possibility of developing a more visually informed analysis.

In themselves these points are perhaps nothing new, but our mobile world offers some interesting methodological opportunities. To describe them all would be a different chapter, but it is worth outlining some of these as a starting point. The increasing spread of social media should not be underestimated as a means to elicit information: online surveys are now common, but other forms of social interaction such as blogs offer a means to get in touch with potential informants, as well as being a ready source of information in their own right. Travel blogs in particular are the latest manifestation and democratization of travel writing, itself a key component of the tourism imaginary; analyzing such blogs would reveal many of the dynamics by which the tourism imaginary is created and sustained.

One final point on methodology is the increasing use of online archive sources (such as those I used as source material above) that have enormous potential, as yet mostly unrealized, to help create an historically informed analysis, one that can trace the development of the tourism imaginary through time. As I have been careful to point out, the current situation of global mobility may be new but it is by no means unprecedented, and perhaps it is time for tourism analysis, a fully established discipline its own right, to engage not only the present but also the past.

I would suggest that the processes of commodification that inhere to tourist space are a consequence of structural mobility that has deep historical roots. It is the real lives of people we need to consider, whether of the past or of the present: the ways in which they negotiate and deal with the existential uncertainties of mobility and possible loss of identity on the one hand, and the existential anchors and certainties that tradition and ethnicity may offer on the other. We have to account not just for the tangible material elements of mobility, but also the knowledge and representational forms of the social worlds we inhabit and which con-tribute to the tourism imaginary. Here we can trace the development of ideas, and how that knowledge informs and creates the actual practices of tourism.

References

Andrews, H. and Roberts, L. (eds) 2012. Liminal Landscapes: Travel, Experience and Spaces In-Between. London: Routledge.

Asbury, H. 1933/2002. The Barbary Coast: An informal history of the San Francisco underworld. Thunder’s Mouth Press: New York.

Bishop, P. 1989. The Myth of Shangri-La: Tibet, Travel Writing and the Creation of Sacred Landscape. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Bonner, A. 1997. Alas! What Brought Thee Hither? The Chinese in New York 1800–1950. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Brubaker, R. 2009. Ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 21–42.Chen. Y. 2000. Chinese San Francisco 1850–1943: A Trans-Pacific Community. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.Cresswell, T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London: Routledge.

MOBILITIES, ETHNICITY, AND TOURISM 249

Gao, B.W., Zhang, H., and L’Espoir Decosta, P. 2012. Phantasmal destinations: a post-modernist perspec-tive. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 197–220.

Glenn, J. 2007. Globalisation: North–South Perspectives. London: Routledge.Gorsuch, A. and Koenker, D. (eds) 2006. Turizm: Russian and East European Tourism Under Capitalism

and Socialism. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.Gutiérrez, D. 1999. Migration, emergent ethnicity and the “third space”. The shifting poliics of national-

ism in Greater Mexico. Journal of American History, 86: 481–517.Hall, S. 1997. The local and the global: globalization and ethnicity. In Dangerous Liaisons: Gender,

Nature and Post – Colonial Perspectives, A. MacClintock, A. Mufti, and A. Shohat (eds), pp. 173–187. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

Harrell, S. (ed) 1995. Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Hillman, B. 2003. Paradise under construction: minorities, myths and modernity in northwest Yunnan. Asian Ethnicity, 4(2): 175–188.

Keeler, C. 1902. San Francisco and Thereabout. San Francisco: The California Promotion Committee.Lechner, F.J. and Boli, J. (eds) 2012. The Globalization Reader, 4th edn. Wiley Blackwell: ChichesterLee, R.E. (ed) 2012. The Longue Durée and World Systems Analysis. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.McKeown, A. 2004. Global migration 1846–1940. Journal of World History, 15(2): 155–189.Meethan, K. 2001. Tourism in Global Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Meethan, K. 2008. Remaking time and space: the internet, digital archives and genealogy. In Geography

and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts, D. Timothy and J.K. Guelke (eds), pp. 99–114. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Meethan, K. 2010. Touring the other: Buffalo Bill’s Wild West in Europe. Journal of Tourism History, 2(2): 117–132.

Meethan, K., Anderson, A., and Miles, S. (eds) 2006. Tourism Consumption and Representation. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Morton, C. and Edwards, E. (eds) 2009. Photography, Anthropology and History: Expanding the Frame. Farnham: Ashgate.

Phillips, R.B. and Steiner, C.B. (eds) 1999. Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in Colonial and Post-Colonial Worlds. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Picard, M. 1996. Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: Archipelago Press.Picard, M. and Wood, R. (eds) 1997. Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Pieterse, J.N. 2007. Ethnicities and Global Multiculture: Pants for an Octopus. Plymouth: Rowman and

Littlefield.Rast, R. 2007. The cultural politics of tourism in San Francisco’s Chinatown, 1882–1917. Pacific

Historical Review, 76(1): 29–60.Reijnders, S. 2011. Places of the Imagination: Media, Tourism, Culture. Farnham: Ashgate.Said, E. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus.Salazar, N. 2010. Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing Imaginaries in Tourism and Beyond. New York: Berghahn

Books.Salazar, N. 2012. Tourism imaginaries: a conceptual approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2):

863–882.Santos, C.A., Belhassen, Y., and Caton, K. 2008. Reimagining Chinatown: an analysis of tourism dis-

course. Tourism Management, 29(5): 1002–1012.Santos, C.A. and Yan, G. 2008. Representational politics in Chinatown: the ethnic other. Annals of

Tourism Research, 35(4): 879–899.Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds) 2007. Tourism Mobilities: Places To Play, Places to Stay. London: Sage

Publications.Strain, E. 2003. Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment and the Tourist Gaze. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

250 KEVIN MEETHAN

Timothy, D. and Guelke, J.K. (eds) 2008. Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Tivers, J. and Rakić, T. (eds) 2012. Narratives of Travel and Tourism. Farnham: Ashgate.Toweil, J.M. 2010. Slumming and the 19thC Geographical Imagination. Unpublished MA thesis, The

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000275/u0015_0000001_0000275.pdf.

Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press: Cambridge.Wearing, S., Stevenson, D. and Young, T. 2010. Tourist Cultures: Identity, Place and the Traveller. London:

Sage Publications.Wimmer, A. 2004. Dominant ethnicity and dominant nationhood. In Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority

Groups and Dominant Minorities, E.P. Kaufmann (ed), pp. 40–58. London: Routledge.Yang, L. and Wall, G. 2006. Ethnic tourism development: Chinese Government perspectives. Annals of

Tourism Research, 35(3): 751–771.Yang, L. and Wall, G. 2009. Ethnic tourism: a framework and an application. Tourism Management, 30:

559–570.