Topologies of tourism enclaves

Abstract

Research on tourism enclaves has relied mainly on topographical understandings of the phenomenon. The focus has been on the ontic, that which is or exists instead of the relational qualities or properties of tourism enclaves. Topographical conceptions thus tend to simplify enclavic processes and attributes that are much more complex than meets the eye. In this article, we make the case for topological understandings of tourism enclaves, based on a relational ontology, as a complement. We thereby strive to offer more nuanced conceptions of tourism enclaves. We depart from Agamben's political ontology to illustrate our claim. Seen topologically, tourism enclaves are not simply spaces marked-off from the norm, but rather constituents of the norm. Tourism enclaves need to be theorized as 'prototypes' or 'laboratories' of new subjectivities (ways of being, relating, and experiencing the world). The tourist thus emerges as a model figure of biopolitics in the contemporary, the norm rather than the exception. The tourist is not that which is abandoned by the sovereign in the manner of Agamben, but rather a free exilant, a subject that self-willingly chooses abandonment. We deploy topological concepts, like Agamben's the ban, the camp, and state of exception. Such a conception, we argue, widens the ontological register or horizon of tourism theory.

Dynamics of coastal tourism: drivers of spatial change in South‐East Asia

“…It has been transformed from ad hoc , predominantly small‐scale tourism in budget enclaves involving minimal socio‐spatial disruption, to increasingly being driven by highly capitalized resort enclaves for international mass tourism. The more easily penetrable tourism spaces of backpacker and urban enclaves have transformed into ‘exclusive spaces and spaces of exclusion’ (Saarinen & Wall‐Reinius, 2019; Ek & Tesfahuney, 2019).…”

“…Sheller, 2009). In addition to large tightly‐bound resort enclaves, other authors identify a range of tourist enclaves within host countries including budget tourism enclaves developed for backpackers and urban tourist enclaves, (Saarinen & Wall‐Reinius, 2019; Healy & Jamal, 2017), which, by comparison are ‘relatively fussily bounded and easily penetrable’ (Ek & Tesfahuney (2019: 869). That said, other academics have been more circumspect regarding foreign capital's dominance in tourism (Harrison, 2004).…”

Coercive geographies: Biopower, spatial politics, and the tourist

“…The tourism industry has indeed often presented these spaces as protected environments, facilitated by the conditions of (perceived) separation and internal homogeneity that characterize such tightly crafted landscapes. The very idea of an experimental tourist community placed in an enclavic space, and located on an island, draws from a long tradition of tourist “laboratories” in which tourist bodies are closely governed and monitored (Ek and Tesfahuney, 2019; Simpson, 2016).…”

“…These transformations are a manifestation of biopower as they reframe the population as a product, and re-couple population with production. Those transient, mobile subjects exercise their subjectivity through the market of hedonistic tourism experiences—living it or creating it—instead of the political forum of citizenship (Ek and Tesfahuney, 2019).…”

The Spatial Mismatch between Tourism Resources and Economic Development in Mountainous Cities Impacted by Limited Highway Accessibility: A Typical Case Study of Lhasa City, Tibet Autonomous Region, China

“…With the deepening of this research area, many scholars have expressed doubts about the "resource curse" [30]. The representative views of countries on the transmission mechanism of the "resource curse" mainly include "enclave attributes" [31], terms of trade deterioration theory [32], Dutch disease effect [33], crowding out effect [34], etc.…”