Theoretical analysis uncovers a second gaze driven by unseen dimensions in tourism studies, suggesting tourist agency stems from seeking what remains hidden.
The concept of ‘the gaze’ brings a philosophical concern for the human subject and human ‘agency’ to tourism studies. Foucault’s concept of the gaze, advocated by Urry, presupposes a narcissistic subject within which there is a deterministic fit between self and society. This article proposes for tourism studies an alternative to the Foucault/Urry idea of the gaze. The second version of the gaze is structured by its understanding, conscious or not, that visibility presupposes invisibility; that in every seeing there is an unseen; a backside, a dark side. I reject Urry’s notion that the motive for tourism is simply to take leave of ordinary, everyday life. I argue that the basis for specifically tourist desire is in the structure of the second gaze as always suggesting something that is missing from it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dean MacCannell (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: