Is it the “end of tourism as such” or a new beginning? Response to José López-González and Michalis Nikolakakis

Recent articles by José López-González and Michalis Nikolakakis contain extended readings of my work and the editors at TS have kindly invited me to respond. The academic standing of tourism research is central to this dialog. Tourism has become so ubiquitous that some argue we have entered a “post tourism” historical phase. According to this view, tourist studies as a special field is no longer needed if researchers in all other areas bear in mind that tourism may be a factor in their research. The two articles correctly suggest that my work stands in sharp contrast to this “post tourist” position. In this “Response” I continue to argue for an independent role for tourism research as the most accurate mirror we have for the larger changes that are currently taking place in society. And I argue that the older fields and disciplines—sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics—lack the theoretical and methodological torque to handle these changes. I further argue that the newer transdisciplinary paradigms—semiotics, structuralism, phenomenology, existentialism, etc.—contain conceptual tools that can be adapted to the job ahead. Both Nikolakakis and López-González have accurately grasped and explained these and several other aspects of my work.