Tourism and Modernity in China

Informal heritage-making at the Sarawak Cultural Village, East Malaysia

“…These findings speak to the literature at large on cultural theme parks as not only politically charged but also contested spaces (see Moscardo & Pearce, 1999;Oakes, 1998;Yang, 2011a;Zeppel, 2002). Yet, to limit the discussion merely to the production or consumption of such landscapes can overlook the possibility that experiences and interactions at these places are often complex, thus giving rise to the more mutually constituted narratives and discourses (Chronis, 2005;Johnson, 1986).…”

“…Put together to satisfy demands for consuming cultures, these spaces represent 'simplified and standardized versions of ethnic culture to satisfy metropolitan tourists' yearning for [and desire to actively encounter] the entertaining, unusual and exotic' (Yang, 2011b, p. 332). Yet, they also present ways to connect local communities to their forebears, which serves not only to link them to their 'roots' but also accentuate their sense of identity and attachment to the place they call 'home' (Hitchcock, Stanley, & Siu, 2005;Oakes, 1998;Stanley, 2002). Indeed, as the Skansen case exemplifies, such theme parks cauterize the motion of time and preserve traditions at risk of being lost due to modernization (Gordon, 2009).…”

“…Thus, the contemporary cultural (or historical) theme parks are shaped by societal concerns and may be seen to target both insiders (those whose cultures are being portrayed at the site) as well as outsiders (such as tourists and the younger generations without much intimate connections to the represented pasts or cultures) (Oakes, 1998). It is also for this reason, as well as due to the competition offered by the proliferation of this type of leisure attractions, that such sites frequently adopt creative ways to entice visitors to come, making them veritable landscapes of 'edutainment' that combine the entertaining joy of allowing spectators to encounter difference (as theme parks tend to do, see Kane, 2013) and the more serious work of educating the masses (Hendry, 2010).…”

“…For one, as Martin (2010, p. 537) puts it, their mobilization as a means of bringing people together 'often re-inscribe a totalizing perspective that constructs Others as unified cultures' even when they are not (emphasis in original). Indeed, they portray the ways of life of local inhabitants often based on specific visions/versions of what a community should look like, such that aspects seen to work against this are obscured if not erased (Witz, Rassool, & Minkley, 2005;Oakes, 1998;Teo & Yeoh, 1997). Yea (2002, p. 174) also cited how such spaces render overly 'simplistic images of primitive, exotic communities cut off from the modern world from which the tourists themselves come… [usually with] very little in common with the realities of life in the destination communities'.…”

Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in an ethnic theme park setting – the case of Binglanggu in Hainan Province, China

“…However, theme parks are rarely considered for their safeguarding function. They have the reputation of contributing to the 'disneyfication' and commercialisation of cultural heritage (Oakes 1998). One ethnic theme park in Hainan, that serves as both an entertainment facility for tourists and one of the most important institutions for safeguarding Li (Johnson 2014).…”