sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cultural tourism

22nd Asia Pacific Association Annual Conference 181

TOURISM AND COMMODIFICATION RELATIONSHIP IN THE GLOBALIZED WORLD: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROPOSAL

Burçin Kırlar Can Mehmet Ertaş Dokuz Eylül University Hülya Yeşilyurt Adıyaman University Ebru Günlü Dokuz Eylül University

INTRODUCTION because cultural values are saved from extinction with the increase in demand and thus Modern capitalism helps ontological traditions have preserved and revived; new cultural boundaries between near and far to disappear, formations have occurred from tourist-local people difference between home and foreign lands to erode interaction and develop new and different meanings by transforming the world into a global home; and on existing values; encourage local people to own this transition deterritorializes everything and proud of cultural consciousness (Cohen, 1988; paradoxically (Argın, 2003). In this context, as a Kroshus Medina, 2003; Xie, 2003; Cole, 2007; Finn, result of , is believed to be 2009; Su, 2011). separated from its roots and become deterritorialized, This study aims to bring a comparative and it is thought that tourism contributes the process. perspective on the relation of tourism and Urry (2009) claims that the large number of people commodification; which arise from globalization, and and places have caught up in the vortex of global clarify positive and negative aspects in the first tourism which makes tourism to be universalized instance and then to propose a conceptual model to and cultural values to be consumed. Structural understand the leading patterns that cause the changes in the tourist profile and demand growth commodification process. Lack of a clear consensus for touristic activities lead to cultural differences in the literature, especially on the concept of in the structure of society in globalization process. heterogeneity, makes this study essential to explain And it is stated that intensive interaction between these concepts. It is revealed in the conclusion that locals and tourists speeds up these cultural changes. both cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity create The impact of tourism on local culture is commodification, and as a result, this cycle helps claimed to lead the emergence of commodification cultural values to revive, diversify, renew and continue concept and it has become prominent in international on the one hand; but also causes to lose their tourism research (Mbaiwa, 2011). There are in-depth authenticity, deterioration or degeneration on the other. discussions among scholars on the impacts of commodification. While several researchers admit CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK commodification reduces authenticity of cultures, destroys local identity and cultural values, leads to Globalization standardization of culture and transforms local Although globalization is not a new concept phenomenon into global which results in conflicts used all around the world, there are different views affecting cultures in a negative way (Greenwood, about the philosophy behind it (Oduwole, 2012). 1978; MacCannell, 1992; Watson and Kopachevsky, Giddens (2000) states that there are very few issues 1994; Mason, 1996; Goulding, 2000; Halewood and spoken as frequent as globalization but hard to Hannam, 2001); some researchers, on the contrary, conceptualize. In this context, it is difficult to agree claim that commodification has positive effects on upon a common definition of globalization, causing 182 APTA 2016, Beijing, China 1st-4th June 2016 lots of discussions in literature on dimension, universalization. "Supraterritorization" notion means chronology and explanation of globalization that people all around the world are connected to (Scholte, 2002). Globalization cannot be fitted in each others in physical, legal, linguistic, cultural and a common definition because it covers and affects psychological sense in a transborder connection. a wide area from economics, politics and culture According to Scholte (2007), this notion is related to life styles and has different approaches from with deterritorization and contemporary society is every discipline, perspective, objective and just a piece of it; that is why he claims that regional ideology; the main reasons of different perspectives relations are prevailed by global relations which arise on globalization because of the ambiguity of leads unnatural cultural relations. Tomlinson(2004) itself, its impacts on wide scale, ongoing evolution states culture is one the fundamentals of country mark and still unknown dimensions (Genç and Hasanov, however it becomes insignificant and deterritorialized 2007; Yağcı, 2013). with the globalization. Deterritorialization is one of Cohen (2012) claims globalization resolves the terms that changes contents of identities, people worldwide economic, political and cultural and meanings in postmodern world system (Kaplan, boundaries, and provides a free flow among human, 1987) so it is possible to say that the two main commodity, capital, information, communication and symptoms; cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity life styles. According to Robertson (1999) emerged within this concept (Marti, 2006). globalization means contraction of the world, whereas Giddens (1998) defines it as the connection between and Heterogeneity remote places and people to each other and The tension between cultural homogeneity concentration and tightening of worldwide social and heterogeneity is one the fundamental issues of relations. Yeates (2001) states that there are many current global interactions (Appadurai, 1990). In concepts used as substitution of globalization such this context, some researchers suggest culture as transnationalization1), multinationalization2), becomes homogeneous (Ger and Belk, 1996; internationalization3), universalization4), Giddens, 1998; Wallerstein, 1998; Farquharson and liberalization5) and triadization6); yet it is not clear Omori, 2009), others think culture becomes whether they are used as synonyms or in different heterogeneous (Friedman, 1994; Robertson, 1994; meanings. Scholte (2005) claims that globalization King, 1995; Said, 1995; Hall, 1998; Berger, 2003). means "deterritorialization", disappearance of The main reasons of homogenization are that regionalism7) and lands, or in other words values of people become ordinary associated with "supraterritorization", the relationship among which spreads through social media individuals and societies in a more developed and to whole world and the distance between people outspread understanding over lands and frontier and cultures disappears with the technological boundaries; rather than it refers to internationalization, developments creating resemblance in shared values liberalization, modernization/ westernization8) or (Çoban, 2010). Cultural homogeneity is clarified as time independent places, elimination of differences

1) Transnationalization: Boundaries of economy or political and emergence of standard global culture (Giddens, economy to be defined rather than national borders 1998). Having same structures in shopping malls

2) Multinationalization: Production to be shared by and in distant and different cities (Holton, multinational organizations 2013) and having standardized touristic experiences

3) Internationalization: Factors like capital, labor, ideas to be shared among two or more countries offered in various destinations throughout the world can be seen as the results of homogeneity. 4) Universalization: People and cultures to be spreaded in universal level Ritzer (1998) considers homogeneity under the

5) Liberalization: Barriers in international exchange or transfer concept of "McDonaldization" and states fast-food legislation to be removed chains apply the same service standards all over the 6) Triadization: Economic, technological and political world, sell their products on standard menus, and developments to be gathered by the world's most developed regions such as America Europe and Japan and Far East destroy authenticity in society and important cultural

7) Regionalization: Regional blocks to be developed like EU elements. This has positive results for global entities of NAFTA however for the cultures trying to sustain their

8) Westernization: Homogenization of the world by the existence suffers from the same situation because leadership of West or USA 22nd Asia Pacific Tourism Association Annual Conference 183 global business can offer their standard products for original clothes, change eating and drinking habits sale to every country without any changes, heading for dining out and ready to serve food and standardization of products destroys specific cultures change their speaking by adding especially English and leads to the domination of a single culture. Barber foreign words in their native language. (1995), aligned with Ritzer’s McDonaldization By the nature of globalization, homogeneity concept, states that even the nations having self is not the only consequence of inclusion of local sufficiency claims do not have true sovereignty. For cultures into global culture or locality effects from example, Iranians listen conservative mullahs calling globalization. It is said that cultural elements and for holy war, while overhearing TV series broadcast meanings are derived from different interactions through satellites above themselves; Chinese (Taylan and Arklan, 2008). Accordingly, on the investors compete with each others to draw attention contrary to homogeneity, heterogeneity argues that of notables of the party also strive for KFC differences are still standing, in their own cities when they are serving to hundreds enriches out of interactions of different cultures of thousands of consumers, Russian-Orthodox church (Alankuş, 2001). Examples for heterogeneity may makes a bid to revive old beliefs, at the same time be that Turkish people celebrate their own religious contracts a joint venture with Californian holidays, at the same time celebrate Christian businessman to bottle spring water. holidays like Christmas and Halloween as well; in Considered from tourism point of view, people tourism point of view, hotels serve local foods and travelling with mass tourism are known for searching drinks by having others belong to different cultures, their own lifestyles in destination countries (Cohen, tourists travelled to Far East try to eat their own 2012). Tourism movements are expanding from west food by chopsticks even it is a part of Far East to east and from developed countries to culture and they also wear destination specific local underdeveloped or developing countries result in clothes when they back to homeland. Said (1978) tourism goods developments among unpopular and and Hall (1998) argue that globalization has not non-western countries to spread tourism (Shepherd, only emerged from , but also existed 2002; Cohen, 2012). Therefore, it is argued that mass in eastern cultures. Said (1978) emphasizes east is tourism destroys the culture in visited regions. just an imitation of west understanding is wrong. Destinations competing for mass mobilization in Similarly, Tomlinson (2004) opposes the opinion order to attract more visitors creates commodification of globalization leads to cultural homogeneity, and of local identities and competitive western style states "advocating globalization creates regions (Urry, 1999). One of the most obvious homogeneous cultures is similar with spending example of this is having fast food chains even in leisure time in duty-free shops amongst global small villages, on the other side western style brands by not going out from airports". Taylan restaurants, stores or museums can be also considered (2008) suggests globalization should be defined as with the same perspective. According to some a symbol for the interaction between the cultures researchers some destinations face with the danger and a heterogeneous process interconverting from of losing their appeal due to cultural and architectural global and local essentials within an inevitable uniformization around the world (Cole, 2007; Cohen, relation and interaction. 2012 -quoted from Relph, 1976). According to In literature, both heterogeneity and cultural Barber (1995)'s "McWorld" approach, nations are diversity (Iwabuchi, 2002) along with cultural stucked commercially in this homogeneous global homogeneity and cultural commodification concepts network. Similar airports, shopping malls and are discussed prominently (Hay and Marsh, 2000; entertainment centers can be examples for Mazur, 2010). In addition, both phenomena are deterritorialized places (MacCannell, 2001). examined with their positive and negative sides by It is known that local people are also affected the researchers. Kotler and Armstrong (1992) claim from homogeneity movement. Intense interactions that market will be differentiated by heterogeneous of local people with tourists result some changes variations and different consumer demands and in clothing, speaking, habits and attitudes (Doğan, needs; Levitt (1983) states homogeneous 2004). To instance, local people wear cheap commodification associated with globalization will imitations of wear western clothes instead of their result in uniformed single marketplace. 184 APTA 2016, Beijing, China 1st-4th June 2016

Tourism - Commodification Relationship of local phenomenon into a global one. Some of Different socio-cultural structures interacts locals accepts their culture to be commodified as thanks to tourism and some of the beliefs and norms a touristic element, others object to commodification may change accordingly (Erwin and Smith, 2008; concerning their culture and beliefs will be Duran, 2010). The most important factor of cultural depreciated (Mbaiwa, 2011; Kaygalak et al., 2013). commodification can be considered as increased That is why cultural commodification causes tourism activity interaction in the globalization cultural conflicts. Cultural commodification in process (Shepherd, 2002). Cohen (1998) defines destinations changes people behaviours and affect commodification as a process that objects and local social capital like hospitality adversely activities are evaluated according to their exchange (Cohen, 1988; Mbaiwa, 2011). If Şirince -a local values and categorized as goods and services in town in Turkey- is analyzed as an example, thanks commercial context. In terms of tourism, cultural to tourism crafts, old businesses and food culture values presented to market such as local traditions, are maintained and caused a revival in cultural rituals and are considered as cultural sense, yet in recent times it has become too popular commodification (Gotham, 2002; Mbaiwa, 2011). as a touristic destination and those elements become Watson and Kopachevsky (1994) consider commodified with the danger of losing their commodification as an all-pervasive feature of authenticity. Commodification of cultural elements modern capitalism and standardization of products, creates economic benefit for local people, on the pleasure and experiences. Therefore the process other hand same people worry to lose these values reifies the consciousness and spreads modern at the same time (Kırlar and Sünnetçioğlu, 2013). capitalism. Tourism, a complex socio-cultural In this context, local people perceiving tourists as dimension of modernity, is exposed to the same "money" (Doğan, 2004) and uniformed effects of capitalist consumer culture. Apart from sold everywhere make their culture standard and economic impacts, it causes commodification of directly contribute to commodification. According social environment in terms of sex, culture and to MacCannell (1999) who stimulates tourism to religion (MacCannell, 2001; Shepherd, 2002; Bauer worshipping, the process, where touristic elements and McKercher, 2003; Poulin, 2003; Macleod, are perceived like "sacralization" can be called 2006; Kitiarsa, 2008). Also life styles of society, mechanic and social replication. Touristic patterns traditions, language, music, dance and other artistic become commodified by demonstration of traditions elements can be considered examples of other as well as attractiveness thorough replicated commodified factors in this process (MacCannell, photographs, sculptures and other items. 1999; Halewood and Hannam, 2001; Cole, 2007). In a study conducted in Botswana on cultural Another specific example may be young Asian commodification and tourism, implies that the women are seen as sexual objects by male tourists commodification of cultural values for the sake of visiting Southeast Asia (Urry, 2009). On the other the development of tourism causes cultural conflicts hand, wearing cross necklaces or clothes with cross among the local population. Middle aged local symbols despite being Muslims can be examples people are afraid of losing authenticity of cultural of the commodification of religion (Erkal, 2000). values and do not want tourism to be developed, In tourism market, positive and negative young population defend developments in tourism consequences of cultural commodification on local by considering its socio-economic effects such as culture are discussed. However in literature business opportunities and employment (Mbaiwa, mainstream opinion is commodification minimize 2011). In another study which examines the relation authenticity of the culture (Halewood and Hannam, between local culture and tourism in rural areas of 2001; Kroshus Medina, 2003; Cole, 2007). Ireland determines that in the process of Greenwood (1978) claims that tourism developed commodification of local culture and heritage on the basis of capitals western evolution causes changes the distance of social relationship between commodification and this commodification ruins the individuals and groups living in urban and rural areas values of local identity and culture. Watson and (Kneafsey, 1998). And a study conducted in Mardin Kopachevsky (1994) state cultural -a city of Turkey- upon authenticity and tourism leads to cultural standardization and transformation shows that as a result of developed tourism activities, 22nd Asia Pacific Tourism Association Annual Conference 185 local people present their clothes, activities and and Finn (2009) also indicate commodification has rituals according to demands of tourists which leads some positive socio-cultural impacts like survival cultural commodification and losing authenticity of of cultural identities and folk traditions. For local culture (Kaygalak et al., 2013). example, an island called Visby in Baltic Sea has Despite the fact that commodification a tradition of wearing Medieval clothes for a week associated with globalization has negative impacts every year which enables the survival of Medieval on cultural elements, it is argued that the demand theme and keeping the tradition (Urry, 2009). for cultural elements enriches these factors and Another study conducted by Su (2011) in Lijiang maintain traditions from extinction (Cohen, 1988). in China also support the same opinion, accordingly In addition, positive sides of commodification are commodification secure forgotten ethnic music to argued in terms of new formations rising from the revive, diversify and make young people to be interaction between tourist and local people and interested in ethnic music. Another positive effect change in new and different meanings to old values of commodification is referred as strengthening (Cohen, 1988; Kroshus Medina, 2003). For cultural bonds. In the research Cole (2007) studies example, a study conducted on Mayas reveals that in Indonesia shows that commodification resulting eventhough majority of the villagers abandon their from tourism has many benefits for local community local identity, they are trying to reach traditions such as economic benefits, utilization of touristic through new channels since they can not learn from facilities and opportunity to make friends. The most the old way, in order to meet the growing demand important contribution of commodification is for tourism now. Thus the tourist demand for goods making local people to have culture and objects reflecting Mayan culture trigger self-consciousness and proud of their culture. especially tourist guides, stone carvers and potters to track studies of some epigraphers and A Conceptual Model Proposal for Tourism & archaeologists working in the same area in order Commodification Relation to learn Mayan cosmology and use relevant patterns Theoretical framework about the relationship and symbols on their business and try to learn their between tourism and commodification reveals gaps. native language and encourage native speakers to The submission of a new model proposal is to use their own language (Kroshus Medina, 2003). contribute to the understanding of tourism's cultural Halewood and Hannam (2001) study on Viking effects and can be used for the typology of tourism tourism suggest commodification and commodification relationship. The model results can be considered as a process containing both from the combination of the theoretical background disowning and embracement for the sake of Viking of related literature and discusses the leading patterns cultural values development. Similarly, Xie (2003) that cause the commodification process.

Figure 1. Proposed model for Tourism&Commodification relationship 186 APTA 2016, Beijing, China 1st-4th June 2016

According to tourism-commodification the local dishes, offering Mexican or world cuisine relation model, a mutual communication exists to a German tourist staying in a stone house in among globalization, technological developments Alaçatı can be accepted as an example for cultural and tourism. Technology is one of the most heterogeneity. important factors for borders to be disappeared and The opinion of cultural homogeneity and thus acceleration of globalization process. Thanks to single lead commodification dominates technological developments people can in the literature. However in suggested model not cheaper to distant and different places in a more only homogeneity but also heterogeneity, as the secure and comfortable way, also they can easily revealer of cultural diversity, are considered to be have access to all information and can spread this lead in commodification. Considering objects and information. Align with these developments more activites primarily with their exchange and people are travelling which lead a continuous converting them into goods or services is stated as increase in touristic activities and variations. On the the definition of commodification (Cohen, 1998), other hand changes and demand structure of tourism in tourism point of view, definition changes as can shape technological developments. Existing or presenting local values such as local traditions, new technologies are adopted according to the needs rituals and festivals to tourism market (Gotham, arising from touristic demand. People can travel to 2002; Mbaiwa, 2011). In this context, it is thought every corner of the world through mass movements that mechanical and social reproduction of the items which accelerate globalization through tourism. offered in the tourism experience leads to It is stated that the interaction between commodification. Starting from this, mechanical globalization, technological developments and reproduction means making simple copies of tourism have two different effects on culture. touristic elements, and social reproduction means Accordingly, in cultural context tourism leads both associating groups, cities and regions with famous homogeneity and heterogeneity. Cultural touristic elements. Referring over the same example homogeneity means that places become of Alaçatı; mechanic and social reproductions time-independent, differences are disappearing and process with the tourists buying uniformed standard culture is emerging (Giddens, 1998). On souvenirs (i.e., magnet, sculpture, t-shirts) of Alaçatı the other hand, cultural heterogeneity means that and use them in their own countries or giving as differences are standing still and cultural diversity a gift to their relatives and imitating local foods is increasing due to the interaction among different and habits (lifestyle and philosophy, clothing etc.) cultures. In this context, as a result of cultural in their own culture and sharing these values with homogeneity single culturalism concept (Hay and surrounding. All this process at the end it believed Marsh, 2000; Mazur, 2010) and as a result of to turn into a commodification in this conceptual cultural heterogeneity cultural diversification model. To sum up the model, the argument of this concept (Iwabuchi, 2002) are arising. Thus, on the research is that not only cultural homogeneity but one hand societies resembles to each others and also heterogeneity lead the commodification as the correspondingly they contribute the process of the result of mechanic and social reproduction of the emergence of a single global culture, on the other cultural elements mentioned above. as a result of interaction with different communities society is experiencing the process of defining and CONCLUSION expressing their differences (Keyman and Sarıbay, 2000). To illustrate these processes, an example can There are two different views on the be given from a local town called "Alaçatı" which relationship between globalization and local culture is located in the city of Izmir/Turkey. Although there in the literature, and accordingly, it results both in are authentic stone houses for tourists cultural homogeneity and also emergence of accommodation aligned with local culture in the different cultures (Urry, 1999). Cultures become town, without considering the local structure commodified by the interaction of communities chain businesses continue their activities with the having different social and cultural structure in the same standards all over the world are examples to process of globalization with accelerated tourism cultural homogenization. On the contrary, alongside mobility. In this context, cultural values such as local 22nd Asia Pacific Tourism Association Annual Conference 187 traditions, crafts, rituals and festivals presented as interested in Cappadocia or the increasing interest a package to tourists are considered as cultural in gastronomy tourism in recent years make local commodification (Gotham, 2002; Mbaiwa, 2011). In food culture to gain importance again. order to develop tourism, commodification of In conclusion, developments in the cultural elements like clothing, architecture, crafts globalization process like many other areas affect and eating drinking habits have both positive as well tourism activities and with these developments as negative effects on culture (Cole, 2007; Mbaiwa, tourism creates some changes in culture. Many 2011). In literature on the one hand negative effects destinations willing to meet tourism demand, offer of commodification are discussed in terms of their local cultural elements to tourists leading reducing or ruining authenticity of cultures, cultural commodification in time. On the one hand, destroying local identity and cultural values, leading cycle of commodification causes losing authenticity to conflicts in culture, social environment and of cultural elements, cultures to get disrupted or relation as well as making the destination less corrupted, on the other it results in revival, appealing (Greenwood, 1978; MacCannell, 2001; diversification, renewal and continuity of cultural Shepherd, 2002; Bauer and McKercher, 2003), on values. the other, it is argued that commodification has also Although it is generally accepted in the positive impacts especially on oblivious cultural literature as cultural homogeneity turns out to values, identities and traditions to be preserved and and this also causes revived, old businesses and crafts to be reappeared, commodification of the culture, it is suggested in cultural diversification and enrichment, cultural this model that not only homogeneity but also values to be strengthened, encouraging local people heterogeneity result in commodification. By means to own and proud of cultural consciousness (Cohen, of mechanic and social reproduction -suggested by 1988; Halewood and Hannam, 2001; Cole, 2007; Su, MacCannell- tourists duplicate cultural values and 2011). it turns into a commodified outcome at the end. Although there are many examples in Turkey As a result, both of the processes end with reflecting positive and negative sides of tourism commodification. An example can be given to sum associated commodification, a very few researches up the suggested model; some of the tourists buy, are encountered in literature. To demonstrate, in keep or present just a monotype copy of souvenir order to increase demand, nonconforming modern that can be found everywhere and reflect the culture buildings, shopping malls or hotels are constructed of host community, some tourists on the contrary in tourism destinations serving mass tourism like experience authentic and original goods and Alanya, Bodrum and Kuşadası, cause local area to practices during their travel and afterwards they lose its authenticity and appeal. Also in Mardin after sustain this foreign culture on their own lives or tourism development, crafts become more prominent share these experiences with relatives or friends. but with developed touristic activities cultural values It is accepted that both processes either buying just like clothes, activities and rituals are shaped around a souvenir or having an authentic experience and the demands of tourists which leads losing then sharing the tangible outputs of it lead the authenticity of local culture. Also in Şanlıurfa, one commodification by making a mechanic and social the most important cultural tourism centers, reproduction of these cultural values. traditions like sira nights9)* presenting in new Evaluation of tourism and commodification formations to foreigners as well as domestic tourists relationship in a conceptual point of view makes are damaging the authenticity. On the other side, impossible to have practical analysis. An applied local crafts like carpet weaving, ceramics, pottery research with practical analysis for further studies and stone dressing contribute local culture due to is expected to contribute to literature. Besides it is commodification to develop tourism. For example suggested to have deeper destination based as a positive contribution, cultural items such as researches to examine positive and negative impacts pottery are commodified for the sake of touristic of commodification of cultural elements. Especially, development and local people are encouraged to get interviews with local people living in popular tourism destinations will be beneficial for the related * A kind of event that features a gathering of people to eat area. and sing with traditional musical instruments. 188 APTA 2016, Beijing, China 1st-4th June 2016

REFERENCES Genç, F.N. & Hasanov, M. (2007). Küreselleşme ve bölgesel entegrasyonlar çerçevesinde Türkiye-Orta Alankuş, Sevda (2001). Globalleşme, yerelleşme ve yerel Asya Cumhuriyetleri arasındaki ilişkiler. medya. BİA - I. Globalleşme Yaklaşımları. Proceedings of Globalleşme Prosesinde Kafkasya http://www.bianet.org/diger/arastirma218.htm., Merkezi Asya-Uluslararası Kongresi, 2-5th May Access date: 04.06.2014. 2007, (pp. 1181-1188). Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjunction and difference in the Ger, G. & Belk, W. (1996). I’d like to buy the world global cultural economy. Theory, Culture & Society, a coke: Consumption spaces of the less affluent 7, 295-310. world. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(3), 271-304. Argın, Ş. (2003). Nostalji ile ütopya arasında. İstanbul: Giddens, A. (1998). Modernliğin sonuçları. E. Kuşdil Birikim Yayınları. (translated by). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. Barber, B. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. Braving the New Giddens, A. (2000). Sosyoloji. H. Özel & C. Güzel World: Readings in Contemporary Politics, 17-27. (translated by). Ankara: Ayraç Yayınları. Bauer, T.G. & McKercher, B. (2003). Sex and tourism: Gotham, K.F. (2002). Marketing mardi gras: Journeys of romance, love and lust. New York: Commodification, spectacle and the political Hawthorn Hospitality Press. economy of tourism in New Orleans. Urban Studies, Berger, P.L. (2003). Küreselleşmenin kültürel dinamikleri, 39, 1735–1756. bir küre bin bir küreselleşme: Çağdaş dünyada Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, kültürel çeşitlilik. A. Ortaç (translated by). İstanbul: postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic Kitap Yayınevi. experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commodifaction in European Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 835-853. tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 371-386. Greenwood, D.J. (1978). Culture by the pound: An Cohen, E. (2012). Globalization, global crises and tourism. anthropological perspective on tourism as cultural Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 103-111. commoditization. Hosts and Guests: The Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodifcation. Anthropology of Tourism. University of Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 943-960. Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Çoban, Ö. (2010). Paylaşım olgusunda meydana gelen Halewood, C. & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage değişiklikler ve günümüz sosyal ve iş yaşamina tourism: Authenticity and commodification. Annals izdüşümleri. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, of Tourism Research, 28(3), 565–580. 28(1), 345-359. Hall, S. (1998). Yerel ve küresel: küreselleşme ve etniklik. Doğan, H.Z. (2004). Turizmin sosyo-kültürel temelleri. A.D. King (compiled by), Kültür, Küreselleşme Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. ve Dünya Sistemi. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Duran, E. (2010). Sürdürülebilir turizm kapsamında Hay, C. & Marsh, D. (2000). Demystifying globalisation. toplumsal ve kültürel kimliğin korunması: gökçeada London: Macmillan. örneği. Unpublished doctorate dissertation. İzmir: Holton, R. (2013). Küreselleşmenin kültürel sonuçları. Dokuz Eylül University Social Sciences Institute. Kasım Karaman (translated by). Sosyoloji Erkal, M.E. (2000). Küreselleşme, değişme ve dini hayat. Konferansları, No, 47. Dini Araştırmalar, 6(17), 59-65. Iwabuchi, K. (2002). Recentering globalization: Popular Erwin, J. & Smith Z.A. (2008). Globalization: A reference culture and Japanese transnationalism. London: handbook. California: ABC-CLIO. Duke University Press. Farquharson, K. & Omori, M. (2009). Cultural Kaplan, C. (1987). Deterritorialazation: The rewriting of homogeneity in Australia and Japan. The Australian home and exile in western feminist discourse. Sociological Association (TASA) Annual Cultural Critique, 6, 187-198. Conference Proceedings, 1-4th December, Kaygalak, S., Usta, Ö. & Günlü, E. (2013). Mardin’de Canberra: The Australian National University. turizm gelişimi ile otantik olgusu arasındaki Finn, J., 2009. Contesting culture: A case study of ilişkinin sosyolojik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. commodification in Cuban music. GeoJournal, 74, Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24(2), 191-200. 237-249. Friedman, J. (1994). & Global process. Keyman, E.F. & Sarıbay, A.Y. (2000). Global yerel London: Sage Publications. eksende Türkiye. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları. 22nd Asia Pacific Tourism Association Annual Conference 189

Kırlar, B. & Sünnetçioğlu, S. (2013). Sustainability praxis Rethinking the philosophy of globalisation in on destinations: case of "doomsday" in Şirince Africa. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 7(2), village on 21th of December. Conference of 87-95. Tourism&Hospitality: The Highway to Sustainable Poulin, R. (2003). Globalization and the sex trade: Regional Development. ATAF - Proceedings of the Trafficking and the commodification of women Conference of Tourism & Hospitality, (pp. 56-60). and children. Canadian Women Studies, 22(3/4), 28-30th June 2013, Armenia: Erivan. 38-47. King, A. (1995). The times and spaces of modernities. Ritzer, G. (1998). Toplumun McDonaldlaştırılması. Ş. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Süer Kaya (translated by). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Global Modernities. London: Sage Publication. Yayınları. Kitiarsa, P. (2008). Religious commodification in Asia Robertson, R. (1994). Globalization or glocalisation. The marketing gods. London: Routledge. Journal of International Communication, 1(1), 33– Kneafsey, M. (1998). Tourism and place identity: A case 52. study in rural Ireland. Irish Geography, 31(2), Robertson, R. (1999). Küreselleşme: Toplum kuramı ve 111-123). küresel kültür. Ü.H. Yolsal (translated by). Ankara: Kotler P. & Armstrong G. (1992). Principles of marketing. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Said, E. (1995). Oryantalism. N. Uzel (translated by). Kroshus Medina, L. (2003). Commoditizing culture: İstanbul: İrfan Yayınları. Tourism and Maya identity. Annals of Tourism Scholte, J.A. (2002). What is globalization? The Research, 30(2), 353-368. definitional issue – again. University of Warwick Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Business Review, 61(3), 92-101. Regionalisation Working Paper, 109(2), 1-34. MacCannell, D. (1992). Empty meeting grounds: The Scholte, J.A. (2005). Globalizaton: A critical introduction. tourist papers. London: Routledge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. MacCannell, D. (2001). Remarks on the commodifaction Scholte, J.A. (2007). Defining globalization. of culture. In V.L. Smith & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts Clm.economía, 10, 15-63. and guests revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st Shepherd, R. (2002). Commodifaction, culture and century, (pp. 380-390). NewYork: Cognizant tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 183-201. Communication Corporation. Su, X. (2011). Commodifaction and the selling of ethnic Macleod, D. (2006). Cultural commodification and music tourists. Geoforum, 42, 496-505. tourism: A very special relationship. Tourism, Taylan, A. (2008). Çok uluslu fast-food restoranlarının Culture and Communication, 6(2), 71-84.3-4 "Ramazan menüleri" örneğinde küresel-yerel kültür Marti, G.M.H. (2006). The deterritorialization of cultural etkileşimi. Kültür ve İletişim, 11(1), 73-109. heritage in a globalized modernity. Journal of Taylan, H.H. & Arklan, Ü. (2008). Medya ve kültür: Contemporary Culture, 1, 92-107. Kültürün medya aracılığıyla küreselleşmesi. Sosyal Mason, G. (1996). Manufactured myths: Packaging the Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 85-97. exotic for visitor consumption. In N. Robinson, Tomlinson, J. (2004). Küreselleşme ve kültür. A. Eker N. Evans & P. Callaghan (Eds.), Tourism and (translated by). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. culture towards the 21st century. Conference Urry, J. (1999). Mekanları tüketmek. R.G. Öğdül Proceedings: Tourism and Culture: Image, Identity (translated by). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. and Marketing. Northumberland: Centre for Travel Urry, J. (2009). Turist Bakışı. E. Tataroğlu & İ. Yıldız and Tourism. (translated by). Ankara: BilgeSu Yayıncılık. Mazur, B. (2010). Cultural diversity in organisational Xie, P.F. (2003). The bambo-beating dance in Hainan, theory and practice. Journal of Intercultural China: Authencity and commodifaction. Journal Management, 2(2), 5-15. of , 11, 5-16. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2011). Cultural commodifaction and Wallerstein, I. (1998). Ulusal ve evrensel: Dünya kültürü tourism: The goo-moremi community, central diye bir şey olabilir mi? A.D. King (compiled by), botswana. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Kültür, küreselleşme ve dünya sistemi. Ankara: Geografic, 102(3), 290-301. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, pp. 121-137. Oduwole, E.O. (2012). Globalisation as universalization: Watson, G.L & Kopachevsky, J.S. (1994). Interpretations 190 APTA 2016, Beijing, China 1st-4th June 2016

of tourism as commodity. Annals of Tourism (Eds.) Stratejik Küresel Pazarlama. Ankara: Efil Research, 21(3), 643-660. Yayınevi. Yağcı, M.İ. (2013). Küresel pazarlama stratejisinin Yeates, N. (2001). Globalization & Social policy. London: gelişimi ve genel ilkeler. In N. Timur & A. Özmen Sage Publication.