Whether one is a ‘tourist’ or a ‘backpacker’ seems to be a prominent subject of debate among travellers, but why is it that those travelling become so concerned with these labels and which category of traveller they themselves fall into?
This summer a friend and I travelled the well trodden south-east Asia backpacker trail – (Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos). Talking to other travellers along the way I found that students and young travellers were keen to insist on their backpacker status: “I’m not a tourist.” But why are these labels so important to travellers? Do they even count for anything anymore? Is there a difference?
The label ‘tourist’ always seems to have negative connotations. Backpackers, supposedly, fully immerse themselves in the culture and actively look for adventure and experience while the tourist has simply come to ‘sight-see’. These kinds of definitions have made ‘backpacker’ a much more fashionable label amongst young travellers.
A couple of months ago the Guardian printed an article titled ‘Wasted Youth?’ which focused on Thailand’s notorious Full Moon Party, the largest beach rave in the world. Up to 30,000 European ‘backpackers’ go to party there every month. The article claims that the popularity of events like these with travellers on gap years marks the end of the ‘golden age of the gap year’: “They don’t experience anything apart from tourism. They don’t want to understand the culture; they just want to binge.” I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going to attractions like the Full Moon Party; I was there this summer and it was, without a doubt, a lot of fun. However, I wasn’t embarrassed to recognise what the party stands for and why I was there. With its reputation of being the largest beach party in the world, the Full Moon Party is undeniably a tourist attraction. There is nothing cultural about it – it’s just a cheaper more exotic Magaluf. I didn’t try to insist on my status as a backpacker. For one the label isn’t important to me but more significantly, by their own definition, so-called ‘backpackers’ are tourists. It seems absurd to me that young travellers will try to distinguish themselves so insistently from ‘tourists’.
To me, in a lot of cases the ‘backpacker’ label represents some self-indulgent vanity, that somehow to admit to being a tourist will devalue their experience. Self-labelled ‘backpackers’ have a sense of superiority over tourists; a belief that their travels are in some way more commendable. Not only do people feel the need to label themselves but they also label others. It’s competitive: they feel the need to qualify that they are travelling properly; truly experiencing the country.
The tourist industry is all too aware of the importance of these labels to many travellers. One common distinction is that tourists will be more willing to part with their cash for the luxuries of a hotel room for example. In fact, in a lot of places young travellers were all too happy to fork out even more money to stay in the ‘Backpackers Hostel’, with basic necessities like a widescreen TV and DVD collection. It’s a marketing ploy, travellers wishing to keep up their appearance of being a backpacker and not a tourist will naturally be drawn to a named ‘backpacker hostel’.
Ultimately, the clear significance of these labels to many travellers is very interesting. Surely to some extent both ‘backpackers’ and ‘tourists’ will have a lot in common, such as sharing similar interests in the attractions a country has to offer. Why else would they be there? Yet it seems the message each label sends out is very different and many travellers are conscious of that.