ABSTRACT
In the minds of many Western tourists, the idea of the Pacific conjures up impressions of swaying tropical palm trees, white sand beaches, warm crystalclear waters and, possibly, dusky maidens in grass skirts or sarongs. This stereotypical, and highly gendered, image of “paradise” has been consistently portrayed over many years, not only in tourist advertising, but also in many other forms of image making, such as film, newspapers and magazines, novels, music, and even academic works (Connell and Gibson 2008; Douglas 1996; Harrison 2003, 2004; Sturma 2002). What is remarkable about this image is its consistency for much of the past 200 years and probably longer (Hall 1998). Nevertheless, as Harrison (2004: 2) noted, “like all stereotypes, that of the tropical island paradise contains some truth but much inaccuracy.” Image making is essential to tourism. Tourism, perhaps more than any
other business, is based on the production, reproduction, and reinforcement of images. These images serve to project the “other” into the lives of consumers and, if successful, will assist in setting the socially constructed boundaries of a network of attractions, which is referred to as “a destination” (Hall 1998). Otherness is a significant component in tourism marketing and the estab-
lishment of cultural and heritage stereotypes. “Encounters with the ‘other’ have always provided fuel for myths and mythical language. Contemporary tourism has developed its own promotional lexicon and repertoire of myths … ” (Selwyn 1993: 136). For many visitors, otherness is what makes a destination worthy of consumption. Although, ironically, as Hitchcock et al. (1993: 3) observed, “large numbers of tourists may be attracted to the region by its perceived ‘differentness’, lured by the images of culture and landscape which are vividly portrayed in the promotional literature, few are able or willing to tolerate a great deal of novelty.” However, to build binary opposites is to make one dependent on the other. There cannot be consumption without production. “It is apparent that they merge in many places and that each process certainly does have effects on the other… even if they are causal or may never ever be explicable” (Laurier 1993: 272). Any understanding of the creation of a destination therefore involves placing the development of the representation
of that destination within the context of the consumption and production of places and, more particularly, the manner by which places have become incorporated within the global system that provides not only for economic exchange but also the commodification of culture and heritage as a means for facilitating the accumulation of capital within the system. The emergence of capitalism in Europe in the Middle Ages coincided with the imperialist ambitions of the European powers, improvements in transport technology, and the development of a mercantile class that sought raw resources, produce, and trade with the ever-widening expanse of the European known world. Exploration became a geographical activity driven by the urgencies of economic growth. As Hall (1998: 141) argued:
The Pacific as a destination is a creation of capitalism. While the Pacific Ocean serves to provide a physical boundary for the Pacific, it is the socially constructed Pacific with its attendant myths which dominates the tourist consumers mind and is commodified for the tourist’s pleasure (and capital) which is by far the most important. However, the place making of the Pacific is not just a tourism phenomenon, it must be related to the means by which the Pacific was incorporated into the global capitalist system.
