热带地理 ›› 2016, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (4): 524-531.doi: 10.13284/j.cnki.rddl.002868

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

谁的遗产?——元阳梯田旅游经营者遗产认同比较

屈册a,张朝枝a,b   

  1. (中山大学 a.旅游学院;b.旅游发展与规划研究中心,广州 510275)
  • 收稿日期:2016-05-12 出版日期:2016-07-05 发布日期:2016-07-05
  • 通讯作者: 张朝枝(1973―),男,湖南岳阳人,博士、教授,博导,研究方向为遗产旅游与国家公园管理、旅游发展与目的地管理,(E-mail)zhchzhi@mail.sysu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:屈册(1989―),女,河南南阳人,博士研究生,研究方向为遗产旅游与旅游体验,(E-mail)645395071@qq.com
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(41471122)

Whose Heritage?—A Comparison between Nonlocal and Local Tourism Business’s Heritage Identities in the Yuanyang Terraces Area

QU Cea,ZHANG Chaozhia,b   

  1. (a.School of Tourism Management;b.Center for Tourism Planning & Research,Sun Yat-Sen University,Guangzhou 510275,China)
  • Received:2016-05-12 Online:2016-07-05 Published:2016-07-05

摘要:

为了对“谁的遗产”这一遗产基础问题进行探讨,文章从遗产失调性入手,收集云南元阳梯田多依树村客栈经营主在网络预订平台上的图片、文字以及对他们的访谈,通过话语分析法研究比较了本地与外地旅游经营者话语所表征的身份及其遗产认同差异。研究发现:外地旅游经营者的中产阶级身份认同使其对遗产的展示与传播是多元、小资、跨文化的,他们重视对遗产景观的展示与传播,此时的遗产是“他们的”;但从“家”和“地方”尺度看,他们认为遗产地不是“家”,他们只是外地人。从“国家”和“世界”尺度看,他们认为遗产是“我们”大家的。相反,本地客栈经营者消极的农民身份认同导致其对遗产景观元素的藏匿甚至抛弃,后续由于旅游利益,部分本地人开始有了遗产景观展示意识。由此看遗产不是农民眼中“我们的”遗产,但从“家”和“地方”尺度看,本地经营者认为遗产是“我们本地人”依恋的家;同时,本地人并无遗产“国家”和“世界”尺度的明显认知。

关键词: 外地旅游经营者, 本地旅游经营者, 身份认同, 遗产认同, 元阳梯田

Abstract:

In order to discuss the basic question, “whose heritage”, from the perspective of heritage identity dissonance, this paper collects network text, images and field interviews of the Inn operators in Yuanyang terraces area, and then with the discourse analysis compares the differences between the heritage identities of the local and nonlocal operators. The findings show that the interpretation and communication of heritage for the middle class of nonlocal operators are diversified, cross-cultural and petty. They attach great importance to the heritage display and spreading, and consider that the heritage is “theirs”. But to the scale of “home” and local “place” they do not think the heritage area is their home and just regard themselves as outsiders. To the scale of nation and world, they believe that the heritage belongs to “our human beings”. Instead, the negative attitude toward the farmer identity of local operators leads to their heritage landscape elements being abandoned and hidden. However, to meet their need of tourism benefits, some local operators begin to be aware of the heritage display. Therefore, the heritage is not “ours” in the eyes of the farmers. But to the scale of “home” and “place”, the local operators believe the heritage is “ours” and worthy of attachment. Otherwise, they have no salient cognition of the scale of nation and world. Based on the above, the paper has some discusses about heritage protection and management.

Key words: the nonlocal tourism operator, the local tourism operator, identity, heritage identity