When I first heard of slum tourism, I was shocked and repulsed at the idea. To me, it instantly seemed like a way for the upper class to go on a safari-type quest of ghettos—degrading the people of these ghettos to the level of animals and making them subhuman. The thought of these people being gawked at as a way for the tourists to “see the way that those in slums live” seemed nothing more than a ploy for the tourism industry to make a quick—and cheap—buck. There is no way of knowing how a person lives by simple observational methods that are quite short in duration.
However, upon discussing the matter further, I found that, although not yet too common, had been in practice for many decades—at least more than a century. They are currently now in foreign, highly exoticized cities—Mumbai,
I maintain that these are exploitative and under represent the culture that they are trying to present. Brief contact with a local resident gives no insight to the living conditions, general thought pattern of the people, or into the underlying themes of the culture. To understand a culture, you must discuss, not observe.
While this is by no means as invasive a form of surveillance, it involves a highly voyeuristic concept that will undoubtedly change the behavior of those cultures being observed. Proponents of slum tourism say that slum tourism actually brings good to the neighborhoods by not only disseminating the truth about poverty, but also by bringing volunteers into the locale to make food and fill water jugs.
However, with tourism always come souvenirs. The latter seems harmless, but in combination with the former, it makes a deadly duo that has the potential of turning the economic well-being of the neighborhood—even if it is a slum—into a weak and fragile mess. If a culture becomes reliant on tourism, even major tourism, any natural disasters, terrorist scares, or swine flu epidemic can virtually put the culture in ruins.
This is especially true if the disaster strikes that specific locale. Not only will no money be generated by tourists venturing through, but there will not be enough resources to create or buy supplies needed to solve the problem. If an economy is based on the manufacture of steel or the mining of coal, those goods can be used throughout the region and can also be exported to raise revenues to buy food. If an economy is the dominant supplier of a specific good in the world market and that supply is affected by a natural disaster, the global population is more likely to take notice. However, if the economy is based on the sale of woven baskets, jewelry, and other common knick-knacks sold at souvenir stands that lack demand in the market, the world might not take substantial notice, the goods cannot be exported, and the goods cannot be used to sustain the livelihood of the region.
Some might say that an economy based off of tourism is better than having no economy. However, I believe this type of economy to be based artificially. In order to have one that thrives, it requires the culture to compromise to the extent that the voyeurism exemplified through slum tourism is no longer simply looking, but creating a view of what the tourists want to see.
Each person is directly affected by having strangers gawk, point, and say, “How pitiful.” Of course, I have never been on a slum tour, so I cannot adequately account for how the tourists react to what they see. In fact, most of these tourists could even be humanitarian aid workers in the making. I am a cynic, but I have also observed many tourists. They stop dead in their tracks when they see something interesting, get in the way of the locals, and spend too much money on things they do not need. In fact, you could say that my tourism consists of watching tourists. That’s how I found out where the Sear’s Tower was located after living here for a year and a half.
[Disclaimer: The non-tourist behavior only applies to when I am in
No comments:
Post a Comment