Identity Tourism and Jediism

So I'm back in school for Hospitality and Tourism Management... and I came across a term that I think would be a discussion/learning experience.

Identity Tourism.

So what does this mean? Identity Tourism is the :Taking on of different characteristics (race, sexual orientation, gender, ect) for recreational purposes.

Some do this to blend into different cultures, groups, and et cetera in order to have new experiences in life. Now Tourism, or at least being a tourist, ends after a person has been outside their catchmen (local area in which they normally travel for the purpose of experiencing something outside their norm) after one year of being a tourist. Examples of this is someone travelling to, say, Jamaica for work. for one day under one year they are considered a tourist. After a year, they are known as a resident.

So, tourism being the "travelling outside of the norm to experience" can Jediism be considered a "identity tourism attraction" of sorts? People come and explore here by taking on the "characteristics" of Jediism and Jedi to experience it, as a form of adventure.

We have many people come and go. Sometimes people are here for years, other times its a matter of days (and maybe they come back years later).

So, I am stating here that someone who is part of this Temple for less than one year would technically count as an "Identity Tourist" of Jediism. I've found that those that stay for a year end up finding it more of a home than just a place to visit, making them "residents" of Jediism.

Just some thoughts I had while doing some schoolwork. Lets see what your take on it is.

My BBA was in Hospitality and Tourism, so this is a cool topic! :laugh:

The very word "Tourism" entails the implied expectation of coming back to "normal" after tourism is over. In that sense, I don't think Jediism is an attraction (it might be for people who are originally drawn by the idea of cosplaying or roleplaying, but I'm sure they notice quite quickly what we are about), because people who come in here and aren't immediately scared off by this being - gasp - real, actually intend to stay, and only leave because they finally decide it wasn't for them.

In that sense, it's more like a failed migration, where you move somewhere to reside in because it seems lovely, but then you realize mosquitoes abound and so you end up moving back home (home sick), or to somewhere new (new migration).

It is indeed an interesting topic.

I don't know anything about tourism, but the Hero's Adventure is just that too : There and Back Again. In other words, for the adventure to come full circle, one comes back to the Ordinary World from which one departed, just with the experience and the knowledge one gained along the journey.

It is interesting to think about it in terms of tourism. Usually tourism is when one goes somewhere one wants to go (even if one doesn't necessarily know why one wants to go nor what one is looking for), whereas with the heroic cycle, the Call to Adventure is not refusable -- one can refuse it, several times even, but things just keep going off kilter until one finally has to say "yes". Funny thing is, the heroic adventure can start out as tourism, just with a lot of unpredictable and unexpected events turning things "just so" in a way that transforms the character of the tourist.

An extended example :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

I'm more interested in intention then appearance. As all sorts of assumptions could be made about the relationships between things based on their proximity, but given the dimension of time it's really the change in the relationships which give the indications about ones intention - and which therefore serve most usefully about longer range forecasting. Concepts like labels such as identity really work best when they retain accuracy, otherwise they should probably be more about the circumstance and conditions.

So even mimicry can be genuine, as mimicry, but I think there is benefit to making ones past a constructive attribute of their future rather then abandoning it to replace it with something else. It sort of links back to the hiding behind the title thread I guess - is the label appropriate to reveal focus, or a mask to hide it.

Is there a difference between identity tourism and cultural appropriation?

Andy Spalding wrote: Is there a difference between identity tourism and cultural appropriation?

A bit, yes, but a very good question! First time I read of Identity Tourism I thought the same question!

Identity tourism "is the subset of tourism concerned with a traveller's engagement with a country or regions cultures, specifically the lifestyle of the people in those areas", ect.

Cultural appropriation is "the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture... may be reduced to exotic fashion or toys by the dominant culture".

On one hand we have taking part in the culture as part of tourism (enjoying food, their history, ect) and the other we have the adoption of parts of their culture for little more than "fun". The key difference, in my mind, is one normally has to travel to take part in Identity Tourism, while cultural appropriation can be done by anyone anywhere because they like that part of a culture.

Andy Spalding wrote: Is there a difference between identity tourism and cultural appropriation?

In identity tourism, the culture sells you the opportunity to live like they do. In cultural appropriation, they try to keep it from you, but you take it anyway.

Andy Spalding wrote: Is there a difference between identity tourism and cultural appropriation?

Cultural Appropriation as a concept was developed within universities as an extension of social-conflict-theory (aka modern Marxism) in order to escalate hostilities among western people, especially Americans. Identity tourism as a concept emerged from within a thriving and important international industry.

One of these ideas is useful and helps bring people together, embracing and celebrating the ideals of freedom and personal expression, commercial enterprise, and multi-cultural interplay, and one of these ideas is a weapon intended to give people intellectual ammunition to attack each other, and has the long term effects of intensifying racial and cultural hostilities and justifying the nudging of society just a little bit closer towards embracing authoritarianism.

Interesting. The difference between the two is the intent of the people who's culture is being imitated.

Tourism has positive and negative aspects. There are many places that court visitors as a source of income and pride in their own culture. Iceland is a good example of this. They have lots of pride in their national identity and natural scenery and are happy to share it with tourists. On the other hand places like Jamaica are great, in the designated tourist areas. Responses outside of that are a bit tepid.

So, when people come and tour, do the jedi share everything or do the jedi have designated tourist areas and resorts?