The Tourist Narrative - SAGE Journals - Sage Publications

ts Article

The Tourist Narrative

Tourist Studies 9(3) 259–280 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1468797610382701 http://tou.sagepub.com

Jillian M. Rickly-Boyd

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Abstract This paper concerns tourist narratives, a type of autobiographical narrative condensed by the temporal and spatial constraints of tourism experience, as a place-making tool. While much attention has been paid to the importance of metanarratives both in the construction of tourism sites and in the self-identity process, the role of personal narratives for bridging this divide has been underexplored. As episodes of personal narratives, tourist moments are both socially and semiotically constructed. These narratives are at the nexus of spatial and temporal experience as tourists use multisensory experience, material objects, and landscape cues to connect memories with contemporary events and metanarratives to personal history. Narratives, however, are a construction; as they are (re)interpreted and (re)told events change in terms of their significance. As tourism experiences are incorporated into one’s autobiographical narrative, the tourism space takes on new meanings and through this incorporation it becomes place.This process is examined via tourist narratives of Spring Mill Pioneer Village. Collected during survey work at the site, these narratives illuminate the deeper significance of place more than survey data alone could have revealed. By teaming these two data sets, the importance of the social, semiotic, and sensory to the tourist experience, as well as their creation of place, is brought to the fore.

Keywords landscape; memory; narrative; place; tourism experience

Introduction In recent years, considerable academic attention has been drawn to theorizing the tourism experience. The interdisciplinary connections of tourism studies are exhibited in the numerous works on the tourist experience, including phenomenology (Cohen, 1972, 1974, 1979; Masberg and Silverman, 1996; Suvantola, 2002; Dann and Jacobsen, 2003), memory-making (Gordon, 1986; Small, 1999; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005), identity (Desforges, 2000; Wearing and Wearing, 2001; McCabe and Stokoe, 2004; Soper, 2006; Knudsen et al., 2008), performance and place-making (Baerenholdt, et al., 2004; Cartier

Corresponding author: Jillian M. Rickly-Boyd, Department of Geography, University of Indiana, Student Building 120, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue. Bloomington, IN 47405-7100, USA. [email: [email protected]]

260

Tourist Studies 9(3)

and Lew, 2005; Minca and Oakes, 2006), and the focus of this research – narration (Bendix, 2002; Cary, 2004; Robinson, 2004; Chronis, 2005b, 2008). While Wang (2006: 65) suggests ‘tourism is a quest for experiences’, the quest to fully understand and conceptualize the tourist experience is only beginning to be realized. Great strides are being made identifying the complexities that define the nature of subjective, touristic moments (see Bendix, 2002; Cary, 2004; McCabe and Stokoe, 2004; Chronis, 2005b; McCabe, 2005; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005); however, much work is still needed toward comprehension of the spatial and temporal dynamics that shape the self-reflectivity of narrative construction and place-making through tourism experience. In an effort to contribute to this discussion, the current work presents an examination of autobiographical narratives from tourists at a Hoosier1 heritage site. As an object of study, autobiographical narratives offer insight to the integration of tourism experiences with everyday experiences. Whereas narratology is a relatively new topic for tourism studies, it has a long history in literary theory (Herman, 1995; Bal, 1997; Eakin, 1999; Culler, 2000), sociolinguistics (Labov and Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1972; Culler, 1975; Maynes et al., 2008), and the cognitive sciences (McAdams, 1993; Herman, 1999, 2002, 2003), where interests range from narrative genre to oral storytelling (see Chamberlain and Thompson, 1998). For the purposes of this work, theorizations of autobiographical narratives, also called personal narratives, personal myths, oral histories, and self-stories, will be the focus (see Bruner, 1991, 2002, 2004; McAdams, 1993; Eakin, 1999). These are ‘stories we tell about our lives’ (Bruner, 2004: 691); they are self-reflective – ‘a second reading of experience’ (Gusdorf, in Olney, 1998: 344). Bruner argues, this telling ‘about oneself is like making up a story about who and what we are, what’s happened, and why we’re doing what we’re doing’ (2002: 64). Touristic autobiographical narratives, while somewhat constrained by spatial and temporal limitations of the tourism experience, do incorporate selective memories and experiences of our everyday. In addition, they become distinct episodes in our lifelong oral histories (see Haldrup and Larsen, 2003). Although narratology is grounded in structuralist and poststructuralist theory, autobiographical narratology is for the most part constructivist (Chamberlain and Thompson, 1998; Eakin, 1999; Bruner, 2004; Maynes et al., 2008). Meanwhile, tourism is argued to be an exercise in semiotics (MacCannell, 1976, 1999; Culler, 1981; Frow, 1991; Knudsen et al., 2007; Metro-Roland, 2009a). The examination of touristic narratives can provide a way to use both perspectives (see Kopijn, 1998). Grounded in fundamentally geographic notions of space-place, this paper incorporates elements of narrative theory to investigate place making through touristic experience. Situated in southern Indiana, Spring Mill Pioneer Village is part of the state’s park system and in that sense is a site within a site. Located within park boundaries, the village is made up of repaired, reconstructed, and replica structures of the original 1800s community. While fieldwork at this site was originally aimed at exploring the role and meaning of authenticity to the heritage tourism experience (see Rickly, 2008; Rickly-Boyd, 2009), touristic autobiographical narratives were also revealed. These narratives exhibit both constructivist and semiotic practices of place making. Landscape cues engage tourists with the site’s narrative, material objects trigger personal memories, and in combination with sensory, lived, and shared experiences in the village, tourists construct self-reflective narratives in which the village becomes a central location. As these

Rickly-Boyd

261

multifaceted narratives are incorporated into fuller autobiographical narratives the site becomes place (see Baerenholdt et al., 2004). The present work is a first step toward future research aimed at a fuller illumination of components of the touristic experience utilized in narrative construction and, therefore, place-making. A brief review of the relations between tourism and narrative shows how the multiple scales of narratives involved in the broader tourism industry are at work in the dynamic process of self-reflective identity construction. These range from meta-narratives (such as national myths) to personal memories and recollections of touristic experience. This is followed by a discussion of the methodological approach, including an argument for narrative, in lieu of discourse analysis, and descriptions of the study site and participant population. Subsequently, the Spring Mill Pioneer Village tourist experience is presented in a particular order to illustrate the work of both constructive and semiotic practices toward narrative construction and place making. Imaginative interactions with the site’s narrative and landscape lead to experiences of memories along with sensory sensations that coalesce in the company of family and friends. The resulting narrative accounts reveal the self-reflective nature of their construction as tourists link several of these moments into one story about place. Finally, this work concludes by reflecting on the relevance of narratology for tourism studies and suggests avenues of further research.

Tourism and narrative Tourism is a fascinating field because while tourists are continually categorized, segregated, and even deprecated, nearly everyone at some point in time has been, or will be, a tourist (Cary, 2004; Bruner, 2005; McCabe, 2005; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005). As a result, tourism is a field of study in which the examination of others (i.e., tourists) is also an examination of ourselves; this has allowed new, reflective research methods, including oral history, narrative analysis, and auto-ethnography, to become fundamental practices (see Morgan and Pritchard 2005). Jerome Bruner (1986, 1990) proposes two ways in which we understand our world – paradigmatic and narrative modes of thought. To comprehend our experiences paradigmatically is to look to reasoning and empirical observation; to explain them in this mode is to say no more than one means. However, narrative understanding of our experiences is concerned with wants, needs, and intentions. It is storied. It seeks to locate them in time and space, and therefore, a narrative will mean more than one can say (Bruner, 1986). Sequentially the narrative mode relies on emplotment, a temporal ordering of events (Ricoeur, 1985; Bruner, 1986, 1990; Somers, 1994; Herman, 2003). Narrative sequences can, and commonly do, stray from chronological order (Bal, 1997). In fact, the significance of events ‘is given by their place in the overall configuration of the sequence as a whole’ (Bruner, 1990: 43; see also White, 1981; Ricoeur, 1985; Bruner, 1986; Polkinghorne, 1988; Somers, 1994). Although we organize our lives in the form of narrative, it is a construction and thereby ‘can only achieve verisimilitude’ (Bruner, 1991, 2002, 2004; Cary, 2004). It is a construction that is not only ordered sequentially to highlight significant events, but moves beyond the time frame of the individual life course to connect familial, national, and institutional narratives in an ongoing narrative construction of the self (McAdams, 1993; Somers, 1994; Eakin, 1999; Maynes et al., 2008).

262


Likewise, all tourism sites construct narratives; heritage landscapes though, are in particular, texturally rich. Heritage sites generally provide tourists with metanarratives of national significance, but they can also tell localizing narratives of place uniqueness by illustrating examples of local community provenance (Timothy, 1997; Rowe et al., 2002; Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2004; Metro-Roland, 2009b). Heritage narratives are stories that ‘people tell about themselves, others, and the past’ (Henderson and Weisgrau, 2007: xxviii); they ‘accentuate the positive and sift away what is problematic’ (Kammen, 1997: 220; see also Lowenthal, 1996). Heritage sites as conduits between the past and the present afford tourists the material and setting to combine lived experience with myth in the production of a uniquely personal tourist narrative, or a ‘co-construction’ as Chronis (2005a, 2005b, 2008) suggests. It is this ability to blend two different stories into a unique third that is among our exclusively human characteristics (Turner, 2003). This distinctive ability is also what perpetuates a lucrative tourism (namely heritage tourism) industry. Narrative formation is the ultimate result of the tourist experience, argues Ashworth (1994: 24) – a successful tourism product is an ‘interpretation of the local historical experience in so far as it can be related to, and incorporated in, the historical experience of the visitor’ (see also McIntosh, 1999; Chronis, 2005a, 2005b; 2008). Tourism places, suggest Baerenholdt et al. (2004: 10), ‘are not only or even primarily visited for their immanent attributes but also and more centrally to be woven into the webs of stories and narratives people produce when they sustain and construct their social identities’. Cary (2004: 66) argues that ‘the tourist is never a narrating subject, but rather the subject of narrative’ and the tourist ‘[i]nstead of belonging to the experience … belongs to the narrative’ (2004: 74). This can be taken a step further. Just as the tourist is the subject of, and belongs to, the tourist narrative (Cary, 2004), so too does the tourist narrative belong to the larger autobiographical narrative, as a composition of connected, yet distinct episodes of life experience (McAdams, 1993). An appropriate path towards understanding the tourist experience, therefore, is to analyze the first person telling of autobiographical, tourist narratives (see Bendix, 2002; Cary, 2004),

Site and methodology Spring Mill Pioneer Village is located within the borders of the state park that shares its name, Spring Mill State Park. Although the park offers visitors numerous amenities, it is the village that was the catalyst for the park’s establishment and continues to draw the majority of park visitors. The park has an annual tourist population of about 600,000; according to park officials, an ‘estimated 90 percent’ of these visitors come to see the village. Likewise, 85 percent of village tourists surveyed stated that touring the village was their primary motivation for visiting the park. Spring Mill Pioneer Village is a reconstruction/reproduction of the original village, with a mixture of original, repaired, reconstructed and replica structures (see RicklyBoyd, 2009). The village was established in 1815 with the construction of its first gristmill. It reached its peak in the 1830–40s selling goods throughout southern Indiana and shipping others down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers as far as New Orleans. However, by the 1890s the village was virtually abandoned as a result of being bypassed by two

Rickly-Boyd

263

railroad lines, having inefficient technology compared with contemporary steam power, and the impact of the Civil War in blocking southern markets. Preservation, establishment of the state park, and reconstruction of the village began in the early 1900s. Today visitors explore the village through self-guided tour. The park employs eight heritage interpreters2: a weaver, leatherworker, carpenter, miller, blacksmith, quilter, gardener, and potter, who work in correspondingly named structures and demonstrate their crafts for tourists. Approaching the village, one passes a sign that encourages visitors to ‘take advantage of this opportunity to experience life in the 1800s’. Moreover, the guidebook describes the village experience as providing tourists the ‘same simple joys that villages enjoyed almost two centuries ago’ (Brooks, 1965: 39). While the village is an immensely rich site for examining the postmodern celebration of the inauthentic (Rickly, 2008; Rickly-Boyd, 2009), such a study is not the purpose of the current paper. Rather, this work seeks to address how tourists engage and experience this landscape and how their experience is both vocalized in narrative and revealed through survey responses.

Methods Efforts to yield data about tourism experience at heritage sites are diverse; researchers have employed ethnography (DeLyser, 1999; Chronis, 2005b), participant observation (Bruner, 1994; Crang, 1996), survey (Poria et al., 2004, 2006), and interviews (Chronis, 2005a, 2006; Wilson and McIntosh, 2007). The data presented here come from survey participants who also gave narrative accounts of their experiences, both past and present, in the village. These accounts were not solicited, but many tourists seemed to feel compelled to add another dimension to their questionnaire responses. In some instances, long narratives of their experiences at Spring Mill Pioneer Village were recounted, with several spanning generations. The narratives were an unexpected byproduct volunteered by survey respondents. Because of the unanticipated nature of this fieldwork component, recordings were not made and therefore transcriptions are not available, which would no doubt be rich in data and useful for this study. However, extensive field notes were taken on significant phrases and components of the narratives. Because the focus of the larger project was the conception of authenticity by both tourists and site agents, a mixed-method approach was employed. Some of those data are used here to provide characteristics of the tourist population and to illustrate the connections among survey responses, observations, and narrative features. During the survey process a small tent with seating was setup near the entrance/exit point of the village. Tourists entering the village were greeted and upon exiting were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experience; this resulted in 110 completed, viable questionnaires for analysis. Park administration also provided investigators with ‘DNR [Department of Natural Resources] Volunteer’ hats and buttons to help establish trust. In addition, participant observation resulted in 604 photographs of the village, its structures, heritage interpreters, artifacts, and tourists. Landscape-reading as a method was used in conjunction with participant observation to gain insight to dynamics of tourism experience and meaning making at this site (see Duncan, 1990; Terkenli, 2002, 2004;

264


Knudsen et al., 2007, 2008). Textual analysis was also used to deconstruct on-site and off-site markers (MacCannell, 1999), including the park’s website, activity fliers, the village guidebook, village markers, and signposts. Finally, because of their autobiographical, self-reflective nature and therefore the use of ‘I’ as the central subject, narrative analysis – rather than discourse analysis – has been used to examine the tourist narratives collected during survey solicitation (Chamberlain and Thompson, 1998; Kopijn, 1998; Portelli, 1998; Eakin, 1999; Maynes et al., 2008). That is not to say that this process was not dialogic, or discursive. Indeed the touristic autobiographical episodes revealed were of that moment, a dialogic and discursive exchange between individual and researcher (Kopijn, 1998; Portelli, 1998; Maynes et al., 2008). However, narratives’ constructivist and semiotic characteristics make this method more applicable for eliciting one’s understanding of the world, of who they are, and their position in it (Kopijn, 1998; Maynes et al., 2008).

Tourist population The participant population of Spring Mill Pioneer Village tourists was 65 percent female, all were American citizens, the majority were Indiana residents (82 percent), and the education level of most of the respondents ranged from a high school diploma to a bachelor’s degree (72 percent). Most tourists to the village were repeat visitors, more than 80 percent noted that they had been to the village several times before, and they were visiting primarily in family groups. Only one participant was visiting the village alone. Nearly 50 percent of respondents were visiting with 1–4 other people, 31 percent visiting with 5–10 companions, and 76 percent of participants were visiting with people under the age of 18 years. The majority of tourists were regional residents. License plate counts in the village parking lot showed that 76 percent of the vehicles were from a distance within 100 miles (160 km) of the site. As a number of studies (Nuryanti, 1996; Tian et al., 1996; Richards, 2000) have shown, the heritage tourism industry is dominated by domestic and local tourists. In this vein, Bruner (2005: 10) suggests local visitors to heritage tourism sites seek ‘not difference but similarity’ in order to ‘reexperience their own … culture and identity’.

Constructing narratives at Spring Mill Pioneer Village The tourist moment, a touristic experience in which one is the subject, ‘is complicated by the fact that there is a slippage between the “actual, onsite nature” of this interior experience and its representation. In journal entries, postcards, photographs, storytelling, and so on, the moment is clearly (re)presented, (re)produced, and (re)created through narrative’ argues Cary (2004: 64; see also Bendix, 2002). The (re)telling and therefore (re) interpretation of these narratives over time (re)inforces a sense of attachment (see also Cary, 2004) to the site as place. Tourists’ narratives, and narrative episodes, at Spring Mill exhibit both the constructivist aspects of autobiographical narrative formation and semiotic practices of tourism experiences. To engage with the site and its narrative, tourists use landscape cues to validate, or authenticate, the setting. By triggering memories, material objects link the present to the past and connect the site’s narrative to individual life experience. Performance of the

Rickly-Boyd

265

site provides the raw material – sensory and lived experiences shared with companions – to construct a touristic narrative. The combination of these factors results in a multifaceted tourist experience; the retelling of this experience through narrative is also a reliving of the moment. Tourism space is transformed into place as tourist narratives of the village grow into episodes of autobiographical narratives. Before we get to the elements of narrative construction at Spring Mill, let us first examine some survey results. As part of the questionnaire process tourists were asked to rank, from very important (4) to not important at all (1) and undecided/not applicable (0), how important each of the village’s features was to making them feel like they were in a pioneer community (Table 1). The use of the word ‘feel’ in the question suggests that being in this landscape, the practice and performance of being a tourist, involves more than visual elements (Haldrup and Larsen, 2003; Larsen, 2008). This question was intended to evoke from participants the doing and being in this tourism landscape (Larsen, 2008), as well as their imaginative interaction with the village. As will be shown, the ‘most important’ features contributing to Spring Mill’s pioneer village ‘feel’ also appear independently in touristic autobiographical narratives, for multiple reasons not revealed independently in the survey data.

Table 1. Ranking of most important features to making the tourist feel like they are in a pioneer community 1. Grist Mill* 2. Stream 3. Blacksmith Shop* 4. Forest 5. Museum in the Mill 6. Wildlife 7. Carpenter Shop/Wood Shop* 8. Sheeks House/Weaver Shop* 9. School/Nursery 10. Formal Garden 11. Spring House 12. Distillery/Potter Shop* 13. Meeting House 14. Apothecary Shop 15. Mercantile* 16. Heritage Interpreters 17. Mill Office 18. Munson House/Leather Shop* 19. Garden House 20. Tavern 21. Upper Residence 22. Granny White House 23. Lower Residence 24. Carriage House 25. Stagecoach Road *Have a heritage interpreter inside

266


Setting the stage What is a story without a setting? Heritage sites as ‘storyscapes’ (Chronis, 2005b) require performance of narrative through staging, mediators, and somatic experience. If the landscape, the stage upon which the site’s story unfolds, is not ‘convincing’ (Bruner, 1994), ‘credible’ (Gable and Handler, 1996), or ‘authenticated’ (DeLyser, 1999), then acceptance of, and therefore engagement with, its narrative never begins; furthermore, it can be outright contested (Chronis, 2005b). The success of heritage sites rests on the perceived validity of their landscape; it is this acceptance that ‘allows visitors to jump from the visible and the tangible, to the invisible and the experiential’ (DeLyser, 1999: 626). The forest and stream, while not explicitly verbalized in these tourist narratives, did rank among the most important for questionnaire respondents (Table 1), and, as the background elements or the stage upon which the tourists’ narratives take place, equally important in narrative construction. These are the first and last landscape features that visitors experience; just to get to the village one follows a path along the stream and through the forest. The stream is a particularly important introductory feature, as it both literally and symbolically powers the village. Following the sounds of the bubbling stream towards its source, the path cuts away from the forest and into an open valley where the village sits. The stream runs through the center of the village and is crisscrossed by walking paths. Flowing from Hamer’s cave, some of the water is diverted into the flume and is carried to the mill’s waterwheel, which in turn moves the gears and rotates the grinding stones to produce cornmeal. Looking out across the village, one sees that it sits in a valley surrounded by forested hillsides. The isolated feel of this location aids the construction of a nostalgic story about the village’s past for both agents and tourists and encourages visitors to ‘enter into the spirit of things’ (Crang, 1996: 425). These background features are necessary for creating a believable pioneer village and therefore meaningful tourist narrative that connects both temporal and spatial modes of experience – a time and place bygone. The stage upon which the site’s narrative is played out must be ‘authenticated’ in the minds of tourists before they can engage with it (DeLyser, 1999), let alone incorporate it into their own stories of personal experience. One can imagine the difficulty of engaging in the historical narratives of a heritage site built on asphalt or concrete, lacking the elements of a ‘frontier setting’ (Young, 2006). As we have learned from MacCannell (1976, 1999), the staging of tourist sites is fundamental to the nature of the tourism experience.

Connecting narratives As several authors (Bruner, 1994; Katriel, 1994; Gable and Handler, 1996; DeLyser, 1999; Chronis, 2005a, 2005b, 2008) have pointed out, most heritage sites construct narratives of national significance. Regardless of how ‘true’ or ‘false’ these narratives might be, it is these narratives with which tourists engage (Crang, 1994; DeLyser, 1999; Chronis, 2005b). Tourists at Spring Mill Pioneer Village encounter several narratives of national, as well as local, significance. While an examination of the historical accuracy

Rickly-Boyd

267

of this landscape and its narratives is interesting, it is not the focus of this work, but has been previously investigated (see Rickly, 2008; Rickly-Boyd, 2009). Site agents have worked to highlight the connectivity and parallelity of the story of Spring Mill Village to the national pioneer narrative of America. It was founded by a soldier of the War of 1812, Samuel Jackson Jr, who traveled across southern Indiana in search of an appropriate location to build his home and mill, settling on Spring Mill. Because of the site’s abundant resources the village quickly prospered, bringing immense wealth to a succession of mill owners. Spring Mill also exemplifies the American narrative of early industrial innovation and progress. The village quickly became a regional hub of whiskey and pork production with mercantile links to northern Indiana and south along the Mississippi River. However, as with most heritage sites, success stories come with loss. Spring Mill did not keep up with industrialization; moreover, railroad lines were laid bypassing the village and the Civil War blocked southern markets. Within 30 years the community disappeared, leaving the village abandoned. Heritage interpreters build on these national narratives of the pioneer spirit, early American innovation, the Civil War and the loss that came with industrialization through their demonstrations of 1800s crafts and telling of the story of a once thriving community. But because this is a rather small, regional tourist site, there is an equal focus on its local provenance. Heritage interpreters are quick to note that not only is this site analogous to national narratives it is also a distinctively Hoosier site. Early heads of state frequented Spring Mill and the leader of the community, John Hamer, was an integral figure in Indiana politics. The founding of Spring Mill was the catalyst for a network of surrounding communities and it was a major stop along the regional stagecoach road, housing one of the largest mills in the area. In addition, the local provenance of village structures and artifacts are highlighted. Plaques on each structure detail the original owner and local family who donated their cabin to help restore and reconstruct the originals. Tourists to Spring Mill Pioneer Village engage not only with the site’s narrative but personal memories are triggered semiotically. Because a semiotic engagement is based on one’s collateral experience (see Peircian semiotics in Bergman, 2002; Metro-Roland, 2009a), each experience is uniquely individual. While an ‘authenticated’ setting permits a fuller engagement of the tourist’s imagination with the site’s narrative(s), semiotic experience connects the personal. It is from Peirce’s formulation – ‘a sign represents something to someone’ – that MacCannell built his semiotic theory of tourism attraction (1999: 109, see also Metro-Roland, 2009a). Through interaction with objects in this landscape, tourists recollect personal memories (see also Bruner, 1994). Participant observation captured many of these moments; these few examples best illustrate such connections: ‘Oh wow! Remember the spinning wheel grandma used to have?’, exclaimed a woman, mid30s, to her male companion, upon entering the Lower Residence where a volunteer spins wool into yarn. ‘That looks just like grandma’s bureau’, stated a young woman, early 20s, to an older couple in their 50s to 60s, as she pointed to a chest of drawers in the Lower Residence.

268


‘Grandpa has tools like that’, quietly replied a young boy, about 6–8 years old, to his father when asked, pointing to the Carpenter working in the Wood Shop, ‘You ever seen anything like that?

Moments such as these allow tourists to form personal connections to the site’s narrative as everyday objects elicit personal memories. Bruner (1994) argues that it is this personal connection to place that tourists are truly seeking at heritage sites. Here the distinctly human ability to combine numerous stories into one (Turner, 2003) becomes essential (see also Crang, 1994; Rowe et al., 2002; Uriely, 2005; Chronis, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2008). Linking personal narratives to metanarratives illustrates the ‘cycle of narrative’ put forth by Jahn (2003) – connecting external (novels and anecdotes) and internal (memory and imagination) stories (see also Rowe et al., 2002). Individuals establish connections between themselves, the ‘community’, and the ‘nation’, and the histories of others (see also Rowe et al., 2002; Chronis, 2005a, 2005b, 2006). Therefore, in terms of the Tuan’s (1974) theorizations of place, Spring Mill Pioneer Village can be both a ‘field of care’ and a ‘public symbol’. Similar linkages are illustrated in the narrative of one tourist. This was her first time to the village; she came with her husband and two children. They were a young family (parents in their mid-30s, children less than 10 years old) who had just moved to the local community from Kentucky and had heard that the park was a good ‘family spot’. She was surprised by the village’s interactive atmosphere, as she did not expect the ‘actors’ or the ‘activities’. She says she will ‘definitely come back’, because she feels it is important for her children to see ‘how life used to be’ and because they had ‘such a great time’. She also asked for any other places to be recommended for the family to ‘get to know the community’. For her, and her children, establishing a connection to the local community and the community’s past are both important for their new home. To use the terms of Rowe et al. (2002), she is linking little narratives to big narratives by establishing a connection between their family, vernacular narrative and the official, public narrative of the community.

Performing place The embodied experience is essential to the creation of autobiographical narratives; not only is the self a work of the mind, but is equally rooted in somatic experience (Eakin, 1999). Heritage sites connect the nation, community, family temporally by connecting personal memory to metanarrative (Crang, 1994; Rowe et al., 2002; Chronis, 2005b). Performance of the site is somatic, full of lived experiences shared with companions, and crucial to place-making (Baerenholdt et al., 2004). Tourism space only becomes place, assert Baerenholdt et al. (2004), when it is ‘appropriated, used and made part of the living memory and accumulated life narratives of people’. While many of the narrative accounts presented here were captured during the act of ‘being a tourist’, they are nonetheless interwoven with past experiences and therefore incorporated into life stories.

Sensory experience In Urry’s foundational piece The Tourist Gaze (1990, 1992, 2002) the author suggests that tourism is primarily a visual activity. Moreover, it has been argued that the strong

Rickly-Boyd

269

emphasis on the visual, and particularly the photographic, has come at the expense of the other senses (Roeder, 1994; Smith, 2008). However, tourism experience – as with all experiences – is an activity that involves all of the senses and therefore their impact should not be overlooked, so to speak, in efforts to theorize tourism’s experiential dimensions (Franklin and Crang, 2001; Dann and Jacobsen 2002, 2003; Edensor 2006; Smith, 2008). ‘Landscapes are not merely visionscapes’, argue Morgan and Pritchard (2005: 41, citing Porteous, 1990; Basso and Feld, 1996), but they are also ‘touchscapes, soundscapes, and smellscapes’. While a unique visual environment can give mundane, everyday activities a special meaning for tourists (Urry, 1990, 1992, 2002), it is the multisensory experience within a distinct visual environment that can make memories of a sight/site powerful in later recollections. The work of humanistic geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1975) emphasizes the dynamics of the senses in experience and place making. He argues that while taste, smell, and touch are more passive than sight and hearing, all are involved in spatial, and therefore platial, experience. Through the ‘direct’ senses of seeing and hearing one actively explores and constructs ‘patterns of reality’; the passive sensations, however, ‘remain buried in our private selves’ and so have the acute ability to trigger memory (Tuan, 1975: 152). Experience combines both the active and passive sensory modes to imbue space with meaning, thus constructing place (see Tuan, 1975). Tourists’ personal narratives are created, shaped, and mediated by personal experience and interaction with the tourism landscape (Chronis, 2005b) and are, therefore, solidified by all senses and sensations experienced in that landscape (see also Morgan and Pritchard, 2005). The state parks system seems well aware of the connection between the senses, memory-making, and meaning, as exemplified in the following passage from the village guidebook: Of course, many of the best memories of Spring Mill are those unplanned, simple ones – the sound of the gurgling stream, the smell of wood smoke, the bright blue color of the forget-menots in bloom along the village stream, and the savored taste of the corn meal after you arrive back home and bake it. (Brooks, 1965: 39, emphasis added)

The site’s agents depend on the sensory experience of the village – its sounds, smells, sights, and feel – to be recalled with the taste of the cornmeal. This passive sense will bring back all others experienced in this landscape, allowing for re-experiencing, albeit short, of what is now only a memory. While it is known that the senses are important to experiencing space, noteworthy are the questionnaire data and tourists’ autobiographical narratives that also touched on their significance. Therefore, it is suggested that the multisensory experience of the site contributes to the ranking of features by questionnaire respondents and therefore should be considered in addition to the feature’s physical appearance and symbolic qualities (Table 1). Those features that were most important to tourists’ pioneer community experience were also the most dynamic and engaging of the senses. The Grist Mill, Blacksmith Shop, Wood Shop, and Weaver Shop were the most important built structures. These sentiments of importance were reiterated in responses to the open-ended question, ‘What has made your visit today most enjoyable?’; answers included – ‘the

270


actors’, ‘the people’, ‘blacksmith’, ‘the weaver’, ‘the mill’, ‘the potter’, ‘knowledge of the interpreters’. The presence of heritage interpreters transforms those structures from static, frozen in time, snapshots of everyday life bygone into dynamic, interactive, windows into the past where tourists not only peer in but also participate (Bruner, 1994; Crang, 1996; Tivers, 2002). These features, therefore, add to the multisensory experience of this unique visual environment: the sounds of water splashing as the mill’s water wheel turns, gears cranking and grinding corn inside the Grist Mill, the Blacksmith hammering iron into shape, the thumping of the loom inside the Weaver Shop, the whirl of the Potter’s wheel rotating, and the cutting of the saw’s blades outside the Wood Shop; the smells of old wood that saturate the village air, hints of fire smoke from the Blacksmith Shop, freshly tanned leather in the Leather Shop, cornmeal in the Grist Mill, blooming flowers in the Garden and drying flowers inside the Garden House. These senses become locked inside the minds of tourists’ and are experienced repeatedly through memory recollection, or as the guidebook notes, unlocked through the baking of cornmeal. When incorporated into tourism narratives, these types of sensory experiences, as well as lived experiences, become part of the ‘landscape of action’ of the story (Bruner, 1986). Sensory experience not only makes some of the structures particularly significant, but also helps account for the importance of the forest, stream, and wildlife. In addition to setting the stage for the site’s narrative and encouraging the touristic imagination, these features are sensorially engaging. As one walks along the stream path through the forest towards the village the sounds of the birds singing are palpable. It is quite common to hear visitors note their presence along the stream as they walk to the village. Among the most excited reactions to the avian displays was one woman to her companion male visitor (late 60s to early 70s), ‘so many birds … Honey, look a warbler!’ This rich sensory experience of the forest, stream, and wildlife features adds to the village’s unique visual environment.

Lived experience As moments of firsthand on-site experience, our autobiographical narratives are chains of lived experiences, placed in social and cultural contexts (McAdams, 1993). In addition, Eakin (1999: 100) argues that narrative is a ‘mode of phenomenological and cognitive self-experience’. Lived experiences that represent particularly powerful moments in one’s life, for example transitionary periods and ‘first’ experiences, are more likely to become distinct chapters, anecdotes (Ashplant, 1998), or nuclear episodes (McAdams, 1993) in one’s autobiography. However, the perceived significance of these moments does change, as we continually renegotiate our life stories (McAdams, 1993). Along with the general importance of ‘wildlife’ to constructing a ‘pioneer’ experience as revealed in the survey results, some specific examples of its significance to the visitor’s lived experience are also noteworthy. Most common were the references to wildlife and children in the village. One woman, visiting with her daughter and grandchildren, told us that they had not been to the village in ‘some time’, and decided to come as a family. Her granddaughter approached as she was filling out the questionnaire and said to me, ‘I saw the butterflies’. Her grandmother replied, ‘we have never seen so many butterflies … the garden was just full of them’. A moment later a butterfly flew by and the girl started to chase it; her grandmother told her to stop, and she replied, ‘I’m gonna take it home.’ This

Rickly-Boyd

271

example of lived experience, as interaction with wildlife, was at the heart of their pioneer tourism experience. Not only was this feature the one that made their family visit in the village unique, but the girl wanted to take a piece of this home with her. Sightings of snakes appeared in two accounts. A little girl at the prompting of her father, as he was filling out the questionnaire gave a similar account. I asked her, ‘Did you have a good time in the village?’ She shrugged shyly moving closer to her father. Her father said, ‘Why don’t you tell her what you saw.’ The girl replied, somewhat anxiously, ‘there is a snake in the water!’ Her father pointed to the Spring House and said, ‘by that building’. The most revealing story, perhaps, has come from a repeat visitor (male, mid20s) who had been to the village several times in his life, but frequently emphasized the same memory – ‘You know I saw my first snake in the garden … I was only 5 or 6 … it crawled right over my feet.’ This early moment of lived experience for him is a spatial and temporal connection to the village as place – this was not only the place but also the time in which he experienced this ‘first’. This intersection of time and space is what Bakhtin (1981) terms a ‘chronotope’, as a special experience it is incorporated as such in his autobiography. The sight and touch of that snake positions Spring Mill as a place among other anecdotes of ‘first’, lived experiences, as well as functions as the central moment of significance in his memories of the village. Perhaps the little girl’s snake experience will function similarly in her autobiographical narrative.

Companion visitors In addition to the importance of sensory and lived experiences in the tourists’ narratives, shared experiences were revealed as significant in the questionnaire responses. To the question, ‘What has made your visit today most enjoyable?’, participants were given four options – the village’s authenticity, the heritage interpreters, the people you are visiting the village with, and the weather today – and they were asked to rate each of these most enjoyable (1) to least enjoyable (4). ‘The people you are visiting the village with’ received the strongest response, with 57 percent of participants rating it as the most enjoyable aspect of their visit and giving it an average score of 1.76. For most tourists, visiting Spring Mill Pioneer Village is a family experience. To reiterate characteristics of the tourist population, only one participant was visiting the village alone and 76 percent were visiting with people under 18 years old. Companion visitors are one of the social benefits of the tourist experience (McManus, 1988; Bruner, 1994; Masberg and Silverman, 1996; Haldrup and Larsen, 2003); the familiarity of fellow visitors aids in memory-making, narrative construction, and therefore attachment to place. Urry (1990, 2002) theorizes the significance of companion visitors to tourism experience as the ‘collective gaze’; Haldrup and Larsen (2003) take this a step further to suggest a more exclusive and intimate gaze – the ‘family gaze’, in which the ‘family’ is both the subject and object of the event. The event is captured photographically and recorded in narrative as constructions of how they view themselves; ‘tourists strive for accumulating idealized memory-stories that make the fleeting tourist experience a lasting part of their personal and familial narrative’ (Haldrup and Larsen, 2003: 27). The importance of companion visitors to the Spring Mill tourist experience is best exhibited in one narrative, given by two sisters, both in their 40s, who were at the park for

272


a family reunion. Many people from the family reunion toured the village that day, as well as hiked trails and took cave tours. Several participated in this study and these two sisters in particular spent quite some time recounting memories of Spring Mill. They have their family reunions in the park every year – ‘it’s a family tradition … for as long as I can remember we have been coming here’, stated one sister, and it is always held in the ‘picnic area by the village’, added the other. This particular year they had ‘about 80’ people in attendance, which they noted was ‘a good year’. They grew up in this community; one continues to live here, while the other lives ‘about two hours away’. The one who has remained in the nearby community said that she used to bring her children to the park ‘every couple of weeks’. However, ‘not that much anymore … since the kids have gotten older’. The sister that now lives farther away noted that she wishes that her children had ‘a place like this growing up’ because ‘we [as children] had such a great time here’. The sister who has moved away said she remembers being at the park ‘about every weekend … especially in the summer … . We knew this place like the back of our hand!’ she claimed. Among other park events, they regularly participated in village activities such as the ‘pioneer days’, when they learned how to make ‘cornhusk dolls’ and a ‘leather pouch’. The sister who still resides in the community noted how many more activities there are for children now, stating that she wished ‘there had been as many things to do here when we were kids’. She frequently brought her children to events at the park when they were younger; they participated in ‘pioneer days’ just as she did, but activities such as the ‘village treasure hunt’ have been added since she was a child. Even though her children are teenagers now, she said, ‘they still love the Haunted Village at Halloween … it’s one of the things we still do as a family’. Her autobiographical narrative of experiences in the village spanned two generations as she told of both her childhood memories and the memories she has made with her own children. Through two generations in the village she formed her own distinct memories, relived and re-experienced those with her children, and formed new memories from the perspective of mother and family reunion organizer, all in relation to family. Her narrative of Spring Mill suggests it may be a site that will continue to be important for family gathering and cohesion – perhaps she will bring her grandchildren here and one day her children may be organizing their family reunions – and therefore it may remain a locus of her autobiographical family narrative, and even may become her children’s. While she is now experiencing a changing family dynamic, as her children are growing older and are less interested in village activities, she noted the importance the village has had as a site of at least one remaining family activity – the Haunted Village. The Haunted Village is an event that came up repeatedly in discussions about Spring Mill Pioneer Village, both at the park and outside of the community. One such example illustrates both the lived and shared experience of this tourist moment. An acquaintance who grew up in a community near the park, but has since moved away, shared one narrative. Although she spent some time at the village as a child, she described her memories of it as particularly strong in terms of her Haunted Village experience. She first came to the yearly event with her family when she was ‘younger, 8 or 9’, at which times she says, ‘my dad would do his best to scare the shit out of me’, noting that he would hide in shadows and jump out at her. When she got older she came with her friends from high school; they turned the tables and would ‘scare the park workers’, which usually just got them in

Rickly-Boyd

273

trouble. Now in her late 20s she has not been back in several years, but remembers the last time she went, in the company of her boyfriend. This last visit she recalled was ‘beautiful … . I had forgotten how beautiful the village is … candles lining the streets and the lamp posts… and all the decorations.’ ‘It wasn’t as scary as I remembered … but we still had a good time,’ she noted. In this narrative, it is not only the village, but a particular activity in village, which serves as the focal point for her ‘coming of age’ story. Through her tourism experiences she narrates her maturity, from an easily scared child, to a mischievous adolescent, and finally a nostalgic adult. While there are surely numerous instances in her life that would be equally telling of this transition, she has excluded those as she placed herself as the subject of an autobiographical narrative of Spring Mill Pioneer Village. Moreover, these types of events bridge the gap between touristic and community activities. While Spring Mill Pioneer Village is a tourist landscape, it is also an extension of the local community – both in terms of location and history. The frequency of visits by Spring Mill tourists push these boundaries as well, making it difficult at times to draw distinctions. Are tourists who visit the village once a week, or even once a month, throughout the entire season still tourists? If they live in the surrounding community are they still participating in tourism? While their entrance fees to the park would suggest yes, their personal opinions would say no. This difficulty is also what makes the site so fruitful in terms of the tourist experience research. An area of growing interest in tourism studies focuses on tourist place-making. While travel was once thought of as an escape from place, it is now recognized as a ‘place-based experience’, which ‘entails negotiations of meaning, identity, and otherness in specific places’ (Minca and Oakes, 2006: 1). Similar results can be found in Bruner’s (1994: 411) study of New Salem, Illinois, in that such sites ‘provide visitors with the raw materials (experiences) to construct a sense of identity, meaning, attachment, and stability’, essentially the construction of place comes as tourism sites are embedded with personal meaning and incorporated into our life stories (Bearenholdt et al., 2004).

Making place through tourism experience According to Tuan (1975) the construction of place out of space takes time; it is through experience that place is created as a center of meaning. Place is a ‘fundamental quality of human spatial experience’ argue Minca and Oakes (2006: 16); it is constructed out of ‘complex local knowledge, bodily experience, and the disordered order of everyday life’. However, place-making is not static, but rather a dynamic, ongoing process (Lefebvre, 1991; Cartier, 2005). ‘Places are reference points in our existential space; they are thus parts of a bigger referential totality’ (Suvantola, 2002; 31). As we have seen in the tourists’ autobiographical narratives of Spring Mill experience above, the village as place is used as the central point around which different moments in time are told. Morgan and Pritchard (2005: 41) also contend that, ‘there is no perception of place and landscape without memory’ (see also Schama, 1995), a statement that highlights the importance of lived experience to place-making. The temporal component of spatial experience is equally important, not only does place formation require time spent in a space to give it personal meaning (Tuan, 1975), but perception of place requires the memory of that experience (Schama, 1995).

274


Similar to the tourist accounts in McCabe and Stokoe’s (2004: 602) study, in which ‘talk about place becomes talk about identity’, these narratives of place are also about time; time spent forming connections, experiencing space, (re)creating and (re)living memories. Through the process of narrative construction and telling tourists make the site place. As opposed to absolute authenticity, it is an attachment to place, argues Bruner (1994), that tourists truly seek. Because so many of Spring Mill’s tourists are return visitors (85 percent), visitation to the village becomes ritual. One woman’s narrative uniquely exemplifies the extreme in this process as her narrative of experience in the village spans generations so that she is no longer an outsider, but has become an insider to the village landscape. The woman (early to mid-70s) recalled visiting the village when she was ‘just a child … not long after the park opened’, and she has been ‘coming here ever since’. When she started a family she brought her children to the park as well, where they would picnic regularly. Several times throughout the summer the family would come to the village for a picnic, as the woman noted, ‘back in the days when you could actually drive right up to the village’ and ‘sit right in the middle of it with your food’.2 Now she brings her grandchildren here, noting how much the ‘kids love to play in the stream’ that runs through the village. She especially enjoys the improvements the park has made to the village garden and particularly the butterflies it provides. But upon being asked to fill out a questionnaire on her experience in the village, she replied, ‘I’m not a tourist or anything … I’m just visiting.’ This is quite true for her unique narrative. Now that she and her husband are retired they visit the village on a weekly basis to chat with the heritage interpreters, who have become close friends, and to buy freshly ground cornmeal at the Grist Mill. The long time span through which they have come to the village has made it place, and they are now insiders to this landscape. It has become an extended part of their community and is, therefore, more deeply imbedded in their autobiographical life narratives. It has become a reference point, as a place in which she relives childhood and motherly memories with her grandchildren. Her tourist narrative is a condensed version of her autobiographical narrative, and she is able to trace life transitions through this space.

Conclusions If ‘tourism is a quest for experiences’ (Wang, 2006: 65), as opposed to the traditional line of thought that tourists seek authenticity (see MacCannell, 1976, 1999), how do we move towards an understanding of the nature of the tourist experience? Efforts to typologize and categorize tourists and their motivations have left exceptions to the rules, outliers from the models, and revealed unique ‘other’ experiences (Franklin and Crang, 2001; Uriely, 2005). Ultimately, it seems, touristic experience is a distinctively individual and contextual experience. Opportunely, tourism studies has its strengths in its multidisciplinary perspectives. The far-reaching scholarly connections bring rich sub-fields and methodologies to tourism and further our understanding of the tourist experience, as has been the goal of this work. While geographers have been actively pursuing notions of place-making by tourists (Minca and Oakes, 2006), intensive narrative analysis and particularly narratology have been somewhat overlooked, notwithstanding a few notable scholars (Bendix, 2002; Cary, 2004; McCabe and Stokoe, 2004; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005). Narrative analysis, a rich

Rickly-Boyd

275

qualitative method, is used throughout the social sciences and humanities, and can be a valuable addition to tourism studies. While the degree to which metanarratives are employed at tourist sites is well documented (see Katriel, 1994; DeLyser, 1999; Johnson, 1999; Graham et al., 2000; Raivo, 2002; Rowe et al., 2002; Chronis, 2005b, 2008; Soper, 2007; Knudsen and Greer, 2008; Rickly, 2008), the creation of autobiographical touristic narratives has not received the same level of examination. It is through narrative, argues Bruner (2002: 64) that, ‘we constantly construct and reconstruct ourselves to meet the needs of the situations we encounter, and we do so with the guidance of our memories of the past and our hopes for the future’ (see also McAdams, 1993; Somers, 1994; Eakin, 1999). Because self-making is shaped by ‘both the inside and the outside’ (Bruner, 2002: 65), tourism is also an act of identity construction by complementing our everyday experience with unique ‘other’ experiences, expanding our spatial and temporal connections, combining internal and external stories (Jahn, 2003). Tourists’ autobiographical narratives, and narrative episodes, of Spring Mill Pioneer Village are informed by semiotic practices, yet are constructivist in nature. As Minca and Oakes (2006: 20) have argued, ‘[p]laces are at once the sedimented layers of historical experience, cultural habit, and personal and collective memory and continually remade by ‘lived bodily movement’”. Tourists’ narratives aid in making place out of space by allowing them to (re)live and (re)create memories. If place is the ‘product of a combination of movement through space and experience through time, the condition of travel only heightens, and indeed makes more accessible, these paradoxes’ (Minca and Oakes, 2006: 20). Spring Mill Pioneer Village has provided a fruitful case study for initial examination of autobiographical narratives of tourism experience, while at the same time indicating the direction and scope of much needed future work. The narratives gathered have shown the significance of the tourist’s place-making process via the integration of tourism experience into autobiographical narratives. Comparing these brief narratives with survey data illuminates the personal significance of the touristic experience in richer detail and suggests more in-depth future work towards intensive tourist narrative solicitation and analysis. Narratological theory provides a useful perspective for interpreting how tourists construct reality, furthering our understanding of the tourist experience by understanding how experience is translated into a meaningful story of experience and integrated into our autobiographies. As a tourism story is continually (re)told and therefore (re) lived, it is incorporated as an episode into one’s autobiographical narrative, and it is through this incorporation that tourism space is made into place. Notes 1. ‘Hoosier’ is a term used to characterize residents of the state of Indiana. Someone from Indiana is a Hoosier. 2. ‘Heritage interpreter’ is the title of park employees who work in the village. They are live actors who provide third person accounts of ‘life in a 1800s pioneer community’. They also dress in ‘old-fashion’ clothing and demonstrate period crafts. 3. The park now has limited automobile access to the village, so that visitors must walk about 500 feet (150 m) from the parking lot to the village. Food and drinks are limited within the

276


village boundaries as well. State health codes require that these items must remain outside the village.

References Ashplant, T. G. (1998) ‘Anecdote as Narrative Resource in Working-Class Life Stories’, pp. 99–113 in M. Chamberlain and P. Thompson (eds) Narrative and Genre: Contexts and Types of Communication. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Ashworth, G. J. (1994) ‘From History to Heritage: From Heritage to Identity: In Search of Concepts and Models’, in G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham (eds) Building A New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe. London: Routledge. Ashworth, G.J. and J.E. Tunbridge (2004) ‘Whose Tourist-Historic City? Localizing the Global and Globalizing the Local’, pp. 223–234 in A. A. Lew, M.C. Hall and A.M. Williams (eds), A companion to Tourism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Baerenholdt, J. O., M. Haldrup, J. Larsen and J. Urry (2004) Performing Tourist Places. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. Bal, M. (1997) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Basso, K. and S. Feld (eds) (1996) Senses of Place. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Bendix, R. (2002) ‘Capitalizing on Memories Past, Present, and Future: Observations on the Intertwining of Tourism and Narration’, Anthropological Theory 2: 469–87. Bergman, M. (2002) ‘C.S. Peirce on Interpretation and Collateral Experience’, Forskarseminarium i filosofi. Filosofiska institutionen 7.10.2002. Brooks, R. L. (1965) The Village that Slept Awhile: Spring Mill Pioneer Village. Indianapolis, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Bruner, E.M. (1994) ‘Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of Postmodernism’, American Anthropologist 96(2): 397–415. Bruner, E.M. (2005) Culture on Tour: Ethnographies of Travel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1991) ‘The Narrative Construction of Reality’, Critical Inquiry 18: 1–21. Bruner, J. (2002) Making Stories: Law, Literature, and Life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Bruner, J. (2004) ‘Life as Narrative’, Social Research 71(3): 691–710. Cartier, C. (2005) ‘Introduction: Touristed landscapes/seductions of place’, In C. Cartier and A.A. Lew (eds) Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes. London: Routledge. Cartier, C. and A.A. Lew (eds) (2005) ‘Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes’, in T. Skelton and G. Valentine (Series Eds) Critical Geographies. London: Routledge. Cary, S. H. (2004) ‘The Tourist Moment’, Annals of Tourism Research 31(1): 61–77. Chamberlain, M. and P. Thompson (eds) (1998) Narrative and Genre: Contexts and Types of Communication. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Rickly-Boyd

277

Chronis, A. (2005a) ‘Our Byzantine Heritage: Consumption of the Past and its Experiential Benefits’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 22(4/5): 213–222. Chronis, A. (2005b) ‘Coconstructing Heritage at the Gettysburg Storyscape’, Annals of Tourism Research32(2): 386–406. Chronis, A. (2006) ‘Heritage of the Senses: Collective Remembering as an Embodied Praxis’, Tourist Studies 6(3): 267–96. Chronis, A. (2008) ‘Co-constructing the Narrative Experience: Staging and Consuming the American Civil War at Gettysburg’, Journal of Marketing Management 24(1/2): 5–27. Cohen, E. (1972) ‘Toward a Sociology of International Tourism’, Social Research 39(1): 164–83. Cohen, E. (1974) ‘Who is a Tourist? A Conceptual Review’, Sociological Review 22: 27–53. Cohen, E. (1979) ‘A Phenomenology of Tourist Experience’, in S. Williams (ed.) Tourism: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Crang, M. (1994) ‘Spacing Times, Telling Times and Narrating the Past’, Time Society 3(1): 29–45. Crang, M. (1996) ‘Magic Kingdom or A Quixotic Quest for Authenticity?’, Annals of Tourism Research 23(2): 415–31. Culler, J. (1975) Structuralist Poetics. Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge. Culler, J. (1981) ‘Semiotics of Tourism’, American Journal of Semiotics 1(1): 127–40. Culler, J. (2000) Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. London, Oxford University Press. Dann, G. and J. K. S. Jacobsen (2002) ‘Leading the Tourist by the Nose’, in G. Dann (ed.) The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World. Oxford: CABI. Dann, G. and J. K. S. Jacobsen (2003) ‘Tourism Smellscapes’, Tourism Geographies 5(1): 3–25. DeLyser, D. (1999) ‘Authenticity on the Ground: Engaging the Past in a California Ghost Town’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(4): 602–32. Desforges, L. (2000) ‘Travelling the world: Identity and Travel Biography’ Annals of Tourism Research 27: 926–45. Duncan, J. S. (1990) The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eakin, P. (1999) How our Lives Becomes Stories: Making Selves. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Edensor, T. (2006) ‘Sensing Tourist Spaces’, in C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds) Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Franklin, A. and M. A. Crang (2001) ‘The Trouble with Tourism and Travel Theory?’, Tourist Studies 1(1): 5–22. Frow, J. (1991) ‘The Semiotics of Nostalgia’, October Summer (57): 123–51. Gable, E. and R. Handler (1996) ‘After Authenticity at an American Heritage Site’, American Anthropologist 98: 568–78. Gordon, B. (1986) ‘The Souvenir: Messenger of the Extraordinary’, Journal of Popular Culture 20(3): 135–47. Graham, B., G. J. Ashworth and J. E. Tunbridge (2000) A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy, London, Oxford University Press. Haldrup, M. and J. Larsen (2003) ‘The Family Gaze’, Tourist Studies 3(1): 23–45. Henderson, C. E. and M. Weisgrau (eds) (2007) Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage, and the Seduction of History. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Herman, D. (1995) Universal Grammar and Narrative Form. Durham: Duke University Press.

278


Herman, D. (1999) Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Herman, D. (2002) Story Logic. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Herman, D (2003) ‘Introduction’, in D. Herman (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Jahn, M. (2003) ‘“Awake! Open your eyes!” The Cognitive Logic of External and Internal Stories’, in D. Herman (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Johnson, N. C. (1999) ‘Framing the Past: Time, Space and the Politics of Heritage Tourism In Ireland’, Political Geography 18(2): 187–207. Kammen, M. (1997) In the Past Lane: Historical Perspectives on American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Katriel, T. (1994) ‘Sites of Memory: Discourses of the Past in Israeli Pioneering Settlement Museums’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 80(1): 1–20. Knudsen, D. C., A. K. Soper and M. Metro-Roland (2007) ‘Commentary: Gazing, Performing and Reading: A Landscape Approach to Understanding Meaning in Tourism Theory’, Tourism Geographies 9(3): 227–33. Knudsen, D. C. and C. E. Greer (2008) ‘Heritage Tourism, Heritage Landscapes and Wilderness Preservation: The Case of National Park Thy’, Journal of Heritage Tourism 3(1): 18–35. Knudsen, D. C., M. Metro-Roland, A. K. Soper and C. E. Greer (eds) (2008) Landscape, Tourism, and Meaning. Aldershot: Ashgate. Kopijn, Y. J. (1998) ‘The Oral History Interview in a Cross-Cultural Setting’, pp. 142–159 in M. Chamberlain and P. Thompson (eds) Narrative and Genre: Contexts and Types of Communication. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Labov, W. (1972) ‘The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax’, in Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. and J. Waletzky (1967) ‘Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience’, in J. Helm (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Larsen, J. (2008) ‘De-exoticizing Tourist Travel: Everyday Life and Sociality on the Move’, Leisure Studies 27(1): 21–34. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell. Lowenthal, D. (1996) Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York, NY: The Free Press. MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist: A New Theory for the Leisure Class, Berkeley, University of California Press. MacCannell, D. (1999) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley, University of California Press. Masberg, B. A. and L. H. Silverman (1996) ‘Visitor Experience at Heritage Sites: A Phenomenological Approach’, Journal of Travel Research 34: 20–25. Maynes, M., J. Pierce and B. Laslett (2008) Telling Stories: The Use of Personal Narratives in the Social Sciences and History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. McAdams, D. (1993) The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of Self. New York: The Guilford Press. McCabe, S. (2005) ‘“Who is a Tourist?”: A Critical Review’, Tourist Studies 5(1): 85–106. McCabe, S. and E. H. Stokoe (2004) ‘Place and Identity in Tourists’ Accounts’, Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 601–22.

Rickly-Boyd

279

McIntosh, A. J. (1999) ‘Into the Tourist’s Mind: Understanding the Value of the Heritage Experience’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8(1): 41–64. McManus, P. M. (1988) ‘Good Companions: More on the Social Determination of LearningRelated Behavior in a Science Museum’, International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 7: 37–44. Metro-Roland, M. (2009a) ‘Interpreting Meaning: An Application of Peircean Semiotics to Tourism’, Tourism Geographies 11(2): 270–79. Metro-Roland, M. (2009b) ‘A Needle in a Hay Stack: Finding Authenticity at the John Hay Center, Salem, Indiana’, Journal of Heritage Tourism 4(2): 145–56. Minca, C. and Oakes, T. (2006) ‘Introduction: Traveling Paradoxes’, in C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds) Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefiend Publishers, Inc. Morgan, N. and A. Pritchard (2005) ‘On Souvenirs and Metonymy: Narratives of Memory, Metaphor and Materiality’, Tourist Studies 5, 29–53. Nuryanti, W. (1996) ‘Heritage and Postmodern Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 23(2) 249–60. Olney, J. (1998) Memory and Narrative: The Weave of Life-Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Polkinghorne, D. (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Poria, Y., Butler R. and Airey D. (2004) ‘Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites’, Journal of Travel Research 43: 19–28. Poria, Y., A. Reichel and A. Biran. (2006) ‘Heritage Site Management: Motivations and Expectations’, Annals of Tourism Research 33(1): 162–78. Portelli, A. (1998) ‘Oral History as Genre’, pp. 23–45 in M. Chamberlain & P. Thompson (eds) Narrative and Genre: Contexts and Types of Communication. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Porteous, J. (1990) Landscapes of the Mind: Worlds of Sense and Metaphor. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Raivo, P. J. (2002) ‘The Peculiar Touch of the East: Reading the Post-War Landscapes of the Finnish Orthodox Church’, Social & Cultural Geography 3(1): 11–24. Richards, G. (2000) ‘Tourism and the World of Culture and Heritage’, Annals of Tourism Research 25(1): 9–17. Rickly, J. M. (2008) Authenticity and Heritage Experience in a Symbolic Tourist Landscape: Spring Mill Pioneer Village. Master’s Thesis. Department of Geography, Indiana University. Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2009) ‘Establishing Authenticity in a Tourist Landscape: Spring Mill Pioneer Village’, Material Culture 41: 1–16. Ricoeur, P. (1985) Time and Narrative (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, M. (2004) ‘Narratives of Being Elsewhere: Tourism and Travel Writing’, pp. 303–15 in A. A. Lew, M.C. Hall, and A. M. Williams (eds) A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell: Publishing. Roeder, Jr, G.H. (1994) ‘Coming to Our Senses’, Journal of American History 81(Dec.): 1112–22. Rowe, S. M., J. V. Wertsch and T. Y. Kosyaeva (2002) ‘Linking Little Narratives to Big Ones: Narrative and Public Memory in History Museums’, Culture Psychology 8 (1): 96–112. Schama, S. (1995) Landscape and Memory. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Small, J. (1999) ‘Memory-work: A Method for Researching Women’s Tourist Experiences’, Tourism Management 20: 25–35.

280


Smith, M. M. (2008) ‘Still Coming to “Our” Senses: An Introduction’, Journal of American History 95(2) :378–391. Somers, M. R. (1994) ‘The Narrative Constitution of Self: A Relational and Network Approach’, Theory and Society 23: 605–49. Soper, A. K. (2006) Cultural Heritage, Identity, and Tourism in Mauritius: Moving Beyond the Tourist Gaze. Dissertation. Department of Geography, Indiana University. Soper, A. K. (2007) ‘Developing Mauritianness: National Identity, Cultural Heritage Values, and Tourism’, Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(1): 94–109. Suvantola, J. (2002) Tourist’s Experience of Place. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Terkenli, T. S. (2002) ‘Landscapes of Tourism: Towards a Global Cultural Economy of Space?’ Tourism Geographies 4(3): 227–254. Terkenli, T. S. (2004) ‘Tourism and Landscape’, pp. 339–48 in A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall and A. M. Williams (eds) A Companion to Tourism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Tian, S., J.L. Crompton and P.A. Witt (1996) ‘Integrating Constraints and Benefits to Identify Responsive Target Markets for Museum Attraction’, Journal of Travel Research. 35(2): 34–45. Timothy, D. J. (1997) ‘Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience’, Annals of Tourism Research. 24(3): 751–754. Tivers, J. (2002) ‘Performing Heritage: The Use of Live ‘Actors’ in Heritage Presentations’, Leisure Studies 21: 187–200. Tuan, Y. F. (1974) Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Tuan, Y. F. (1975) Place: An Experiential Perspective. Geographical Review 65(2): 151–65. Turner, M. (2003) ‘Double-scope Stories’, in D. Herman (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Uriely, N. (2005) ‘The Tourist Experience: Conceptual Developments’, Annals of Tourism Research 32(1): 199–216. Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. (1992) ‘The Tourist Gaze ‘Revisited’’, American Behavioral Scientist 36(2): 172–86. Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Wang, N. (2006) ‘Itineraries and the Tourist Experience’, in C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds) Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Wearing, S. and Wearing, B. (2001) ‘Conceptualizing the Selves of Tourism’, Leisure Studies 20(2): 143–159. White, H. (1981) ‘The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality’, in W. Mitchell, (ed.) On Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, G. B. and A. J. McIntosh (2007) ‘Heritage Buildings and Tourism: An Experiential View’, Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(2): 75–93. Young, L. (2006) ‘Villages that Never Were: The Museum Village as a Heritage Genre’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4): 321–38.

Jillian M. Rickly-Boyd is a doctoral student in the Department of Geography at Indiana University. Her research focuses on tourism performance, landscape experience and perceptions of authenticity. Address: Indiana University, Department of Geography, Student Building 120, 701 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405-7100. [email: [email protected]]