In your opinion, what is the difference between a "traveler" and a "tourist"?
I'm just wrapping up a 3 month trip in S.A. and plan to write an article on the dubious distinction between these two types of overseas adventurers. If you have any thoughts on the philosophical, material, spiritual, etc. differences -- or lack thereof -- between tourists and travelers, please post or email me directly. I'd love to hear your opinion. As for mine, well....
[There are 22 posts - the latest was added on Tue 25 May, 0:36]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
This is a really good question. In my opinion, tthe
difference lies in attitude. Travelers want to integrate
themselves seemlessly into a culture; to become part of the
place they are visiting. This manifests itself as a strong
desire to meet locals, and to understand and respect local
customs. Tourists, on the other hand, stand out like a sore
thumb. They congregate in places that only other tourists
inhabit, they want to be catered to, and are uncomfortable
in anything too foreign (that's why you'll often see
tourists at a McDonalds, even though they can eat crappy
hamburgers at home).
Perhaps all the above is just a pile of dung, but that's
it, that's my opinion.
forget where I read it but someone differentiated between the two somewhat like this.."a tourist doesn't know where shee's been...a traveler doesn't know where shee's going."
... is always asked and everyone who answers it seems to think of themselves in the traveller camp not the tourist side. Wake up. We follow guide books, sometimes stay in gringo-filled haunts, buy souvenirs, take jungle trips, suckle malaria tablets, struggle with Spanish and constitute the main market for bottled mineral wate, international calls, internet cafes and the like. None of this is necessarily wrong (I don't want malaria or cholera any more than you do) but it's hardly "seamless integration" into local life is it?
.
The few real travellers out there spend years in a place, adapting and learning, moving very slowly and blending in as best they can. That's less than 1% of us, judging by the vast majority of post on this board (why on earth would a real traveller ask a European or Australian (say) for travel advice rather than a local? I doubt "real travellers" even visit this kind of board. And a "real traveller" would certainly not ask the brochure-questions that too often crop up here (eg: "how can I get from Cusco to Lima?", "is the Inca trail safe?" etc etc ad nauseum).
.
I am not a "real traveller" by this definition (and neither are you reading this, most likely), but similarly I am not a packaged tourist. There are lots of shades of grey in this question and unfotunately it is something that bored "real travellers" like to out-do each other on rather than spending time learning about the place they are in, meeting local people, learning some language etc.
.
Tourism is not wrong - many countries thrive on it and it can be fun and relaxing and interesting and all the rest. But that's what it is. You don't become a traveller for the university holidays or your gap year. I think to be a real traveller you think in terms of a lifestyle devoted to travel. Even then you will probably spend a lot of time as a tourist.
.
For a funny piss-take on the subject of "real travellers" read "Are you experienced?" by William Sutcliffe.
"Traveller" is the moniker that tourists use to pretend
that they are not tourists.
This is not to say that there are not forms of better or
worse tourism just that no trammeling is innocent.
Perhaps those that stay in luxury resorts and don't
interact with locals don't contaminate the loacale, leave
the most money around, and don't leave hordes of destitute
children with the "one pen" syndrome.
I agree, its attitude.
One of my favorite movies, The Sheltering Sky (stars John
Malkovich), directed by Bernardo Bertolucci(sp?), relates to
this very subject, which is based on a book of the same name
by Paul Bowles.
When I try and think of the distinction between travelers
and tourists, one notion that comes to mind is that of the
goal of the person. I typically think of a tourist as a
person who goes to a specific destination and intends to
see identifiable sites. For instance, they go to Peru,
with the intent to visit Machu Picchu.
However, when I think of the term travler, I think of a
person who knows where they are starting, but might not
know where they will be ending, and the point of the trip
is trying to get from point A to point B, and the sites
they see along the way are not as formally planned out.
Thus, the toursit is often looking for the great photo
opportunity to take home as a momento to prove to his or
her friends that he or she in fact did see ________ (fill
in the blank). While, the Traveler is more interested in
collecting travel stories of misadventures of broken down
buses, and border crossings from hell to share with friends
and other travelers met on future trip.
However, i do have to agree with some of what has been said
above. There is not a clear-cut line between who is a
traveler and who a tourist. Just remember, there is
nothing wrong with being either a tourist or a traveler, as
long as you fun traveling!
I like this one:
A traveller has more time and spends less money than a
tourist.
It is simple and quite true.
A traveler watchs, a tourist sees; a traveler collects, a
tourist takes; a traveler passes the night, a tourist
sleeps; a traveler talks to someone, a tourist speaks to
someone; They are different and yet the same.
This question was asked in another part of the Tree some time ago (probably by the same person, looking for trouble...).
.
I don't think there's a difference, it's all in what someone WANTS to pretend to be. People who insist on being called "traveller" and not tourist are people who think they are better than others.
.
The first time I started thinking about this topic at all was when a visitor in a hotel in Lima started yelling at the hotel clerk because the clerk entered "tourist" in the "occupation" box of their registration books. The tourist went berzerk and yelled that he was a TRAVELLER, not a tourist!! I thought he must be joking but he was dead serious. God, people, wake up, we are all the same, we are not Robinson Crusoe or something. I mean, all the places we go to (and call "off the beaten track, ha ha!!") have been visited by thousands or millions before us.
.
Why make a distincion at all? It would be stupid to call yourself a traveller while on a long trip, but to have to call yourself a tourist if you have less time and more money, wouldn't it?
Burton, Shakleton, Cook, Mallorey they were real adventurers/explorers. The difference between them and all of us is far greater than the difference between a modern day traveller and tourist.
Why is it that people buy a popular guidebook that every
other tourist traveller has (yes, I'm talking about lp),
then goes to the places that are in that guidebook, and
then commences to complain that there are to many tourists
in that place??
I've noticed this affliction everywhere that I've
travelled. Even came down with it once or twice...
I had been a 'traveller' for 5 years before I realized I was just a cheap 'tourist'.
Come on ya'all, we are all tourist! "I'm a tour tourist,
your a tourist, wouln't you like to be a tourist too!" I'm
getting off my high horse, care to join me?
cecilia, malud, doogs and todd:
good to hear some common sense on this post. I agree with
you completely; we're all tourists.
I get pissed of by those people who insist they're
'travelers' and therefore of a better breed as well.
We're all tourists, it's just that some are a bit more
'responsible' while traveling. And I agree as well that the
high-spending tourist in a resort may be better for a
country and have a lower negative impact than many
'travelers'. (but I wouldn't want to go there!)
Now, that was quite liberating, I think I'll go get myself
a hawai shirt! I'll join you there todd!
There's no difference! Just a matter of semantics. Why make such a big deal out of it? Who cares, anyhow?
You're a traveler while en route. When you get there, you're a tourist.
Great Topic,
I do believe there is a difference between a traveler and a
tourist and though it may be slight semantics, I don't hold
to the belief that it is a elitist mentality of "holier
than thou" attitude present in all people that relate to
"traveler" as a moniker. For those that would insist on it
as a name, I believe they are tourists in denial. But
others have written that if you are a traveller emersed in
the culture, you should be asking advice of a local. I
guess I explain this phenomenon in utilizing the words
"empathize" and "sympathize". To empathize is to
understand an experience and to sympathize is to have
direct involvement that allows you to relate to the
experience. You have lived it before. Becuase, as
foreigners we can only empathize with the locals we
encounter me must depend on those we can sympathize with
for perspective. I don't think that there is anything
detracting about searching out the experiences of those
which share your perspective; in this case "Western"
(excuse the generalization; please don't kill me!)
So we are tourists becuase we use a guide book? I don't
think so. I think most will agree that the experiences of
a traveler hold a "completely" unique tone to those of your
friends from your home town on their Spring Break
extravaganza. A traveler can't quite relate to the average
person becuase they allow themselves to be shaped my the
various cultures, smells and adventures and in that is what
I believe creates the difference... The sense of adventure
you search out away from the protection and familiarity of
what you already know. The acceptance of the unexpected
and the patience that comes with time. The grasping of the
culture and of the moment that escapes the pre-purchased,
pre-ordained world that comforts the tourist.
Does this make them better? No and do the terms traveler
and tourist drift into the realms of the inscrutable?
Sure. I have been both a travel and a tourist and I
believe it is the attitude you bring to the situation...
Oh... and if you are wearing a plastic bracelet around your
wrist at any time during your travels, you are a tourist.
As always, the spelling of this letter has been changed to
protect the innocent.
d_nice "There is my 'two-bits'... soldiers... set
your phasers on annihilate!!!!
d_nice:
A very wordy and flowery post. Unfortunately you've gotten
some of your vocab mixed up. To "sympathize" with someone
is NOT to understand them; it is to feel sorry for them.
When you are trying/able to relate to someone because you DO
understand the situation they're in, you can "empathize".
So if for example, you arrive in a povery-stricken village,
you can have "sympathy" for its people, but it is
unlikely that you could "empathize".
If you are a traveller, who is indeed immersed in the
culture of the place(s) you are travelling, you would not:
a) have a straight job or be a university student somewhere
in Europe, Oz, the U.S.A., or anywhere else for that
matter.
b) be purchasing travel guidebooks
c) be wondering where to find a school to learn Spanish or
Portuguese
d) etc.
We are all tourists to varying degrees. We hopefully
return from our trips to foreign lands being a little bit
more informed than when we left, and feeling a bit better
about ourselves about having done so. Personally, my
holidays always remind me that I am fortunate to have been
born in a Western country, along with the opportunites which
this has provided.
I backpack and travel by myself. However, I don't consider
myself any better of a person than the individual who takes
a package tour. Nor do I consider myself any better than
the many goat and llama herders I have met in my visits to
the Andean Paramo.
The only tourists for whom I have disdain are the same types
of people I don't like at home. These are the
self-important types who are rather full of themselves (the
boludo Cecelia referred to in her earlier post that had a
shit-fit in the hotel is a good example of this).
Boa sorte em seu viagem
El Contador
Tour'ist - one who travels for pleasure
I pronouce you all GUILTY!
In a PC world gypsies are now called travellers (but not
tourists). A traveller travels, a tourist tours. A
traveller's focus is on the journey, not the destination. A
tourist travels in order to tour. A traveller travels to
exist. You dont see many travellers (in the PC sense)
trying to get into Buckingham palace. Therefore if the
"travellers" to use the backapck-packers vernacular
actually start to tour they are tourists. If they still
believe they are travellers, they could have saved a stack
of money and stayed in the UK. A traveller hitches from
Aldershot to Slough for the hell of it. A tourist would go
to windsor castle and the Tate Gallery. There are no LP
guides to Slough or aldershot (tho' I may be mistaken), but
no doubt both windsor and the Tate gallery are mentioned in
the LP guide to the UK / England. Transposing this idea to
Peru, anybody who visits Machu Picchu is therefore a
toursit. Anybody in a horse and cart travelling back and
forth from Juliaca to Andihuaylas (or however the hell it
is spelt) is a traveller. Therefore there are no travellers
in Peru.
To sum up, I'm pink therefore I'm Spam.
John
to play out the semantics game a little more...
one of the definitions of Empathy is :identification with
or vicarious experiencing of the feelings or thoughts of
others.
I guess I was trying to touch on the vicarious relationship
we share with those we meet on the road as opposed to
history/culture we share with hometown people...
Sympathy: Once again semantics, but a definition I found,
and more the way I was relating the explination is: A
relationship between persons or things whereby whatever
affects one also affects the other.
I was just defending the act of searching out advice from
those that have traveled from your own country/world. And
asked myself why we did this and my little empathy/sympathy
story evolved...
thanks though good point, I should be more specific...
d_nice. Taken from Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language...