Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма, 2016, том 10, № 2

Современные проблемы 
сервиса и туризма

Научно-практический журнал
2016
Том 10 №2

УЧРЕДИТЕЛЬ:
Федеральное государственное 
бюджетное образовательное 
учреждение высшего образования 
«Российский государственный 
университет туризма и сервиса».
Журнал основан в 2007 г.
Выходит 4 раза в год.

ОСНОВНЫЕ СВЕДЕНИЯ  
О ЖУРНАЛЕ:
DOI: 10.12737/issn.1995–0411
ISSN: 1995–0411
eISSN: 2414–9063
Зарегистрирован в Федеральной 
службе по надзору за соблюдением 
законодательства в сфере массовых 
коммуникаций и охране культурного 
наследия (свид-во о регистрации СМИ 
ПИФС77–31758 от 25.04.2008 г.).
Включен в Перечень ведущих 
рецензируемых научных журналов 
и изданий ВАК РФ (распоряжение 
Минобрнауки России № Р-161 от 
30.09.2015) , в которых могут быть 
опубликованы основные результаты 
диссертационных исследований.
Включен в наукометрические базы 
РИНЦ, ERIH PLUS, Google Scholar, 
UlrichsWeb и др., индексируется 
в базе данных научной электронной 
библиотеки eLibrary.ru.

Ссылки на журнал при цитировании 
обязательны. Редколлегия не всегда 
разделяет высказанные авторами 
публикаций мнения, позиции, 
положения, но предоставляет 
возможность для научной дискуссии.

ПОДПИСКА НА ЖУРНАЛ:
Индекс в объединенном каталоге 
«Пресса России» –  Р81607;
индекс в каталоге «Почта России» –  
82834;
через Интернет на сайтах arpk.org, 
pressa-rf.ru, ural-press.ru, delpress.ru; 
редакторская подписка:  
editor@spst-journal.org

КОНТАКТЫ:
Адрес редакции: 141221, РФ,
Московская обл., Пушкинский р-н, 
д. п. Черкизово, ул. Главная, 99, к. 1.
Тел./факс: (495) 940-83-61, 62, 63, доб. 
395; моб. +7(967) 246-35-69
Web: http://spst-journal.org
e-mail: redkollegiaMGUS@mail.ru, 
olafn_dp@mail.ru,
editor@spst-journal.org

ОТПЕЧАТАНО:
ГУП МО «Коломенская типография», 
100400, МО, г. Коломна,
ул. 3-го Интернационала, 2а.
Тел.: (496) 618-60-16,  
fax: (496) 618-62-87
http://www.kolomna-print.ru
Усл.печ.л. . Тираж 500 экз.
Заказ № 561.

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР

Афанасьев О.Е. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, Лауреат 
Государственной премии Украины в области образования, д.геогр.н., проф.

РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

Федулин А.А. –  ректор Российского государственного университета туризма и сервиса, 
д.ист.н., профессор, Председатель редакционного совета;
Сафаралиев Г.К. –  депутат ГД Федерального Собрания РФ, Председатель Комитета ГД по 
делам национальностей, член-корреспондент РАН, д.физ.-мат.н., проф.
Шпилько С.П. –  Президент Российского Союза Туриндустрии, член Делового совета Всемирной туристической организации (UNWTO), к.экон.н.
Александрова А.Ю. –  Московский государственный университет им. М.В. Ломоносова, Лауреат Премии Правительства Российской Федерации в области туризма, д.геогр.н., проф.
Василенко В.А. –  Крымский федеральный университет имени В.И. Вернадского, Заслуженный деятель науки и техники Украины, д.экон.н., проф.
Ветитнев А.М. –  Сочинский государственный университет, д.экон.н., проф.

МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

Андрадес-Калдито Л. –  Университет Эстремадуры (Испания), координатор NETOUR, PhD, 
проф.
Бейдик А.А. –  Киевский национальный университет им. Тараса Шевченко (Украина), 
д.геогр.н., проф.
Влодарчик Б. –  Лодзинский университет (Польша), директор Института географии городов и туризма, PhD, проф.
Диманш Ф. –  Университет Райерсона (Канада), директор Школы гостеприимства и туристического менеджмента Теда Роджерса, PhD, проф.
Дуайер Л. –  Университет Нового Южного Уэльса (Австралия), PhD, проф.
Иванов С.Х. –  Варненский университет менеджмента (Болгария), PhD, проф.
Корстанье М.Э. –  Университет Палермо (Аргентина), PhD, ст. науч. сотр.
Мюллер Д. –  Университет Умео (Швеция), PhD, проф.
Неделиа А. –  М. –  Сучавский университет им. Штефана чел Маре (Румыния), PhD, доц.
Пулидо-Фернандес Х.И. –  Университет Хаэна (Испания), PhD, проф.
Радж Р. –  Городской университет Лидса (Великобритания), PhD
Речкоски Р. –  Государственный университет Святого Климента Охридского (Македония), 
д.юрид.н., проф.
Сааринен Я.Ю. –  Университет Оулу (Финляндия), вице-президент Международного географического союза (IGU), PhD, проф.
Сигала М. –  Университет Южной Австралии (Австралия), PhD, проф.
Теркенли Ф. –  Университет Эгейского моря (Греция), PhD, проф.
Тюрнер Л.У. –  Университет Виктории (Австралия), PhD, проф. –  исслед.
Уонхилл С.Р.Ч. –  Лимерикский университет (Ирландия), PhD, адъюнкт-проф.
Фу Я.-И. –  Индианский университет –  Университет Пердью в Индианаполисе (США), 
PhD, доц.
Холл К.М. –  Университет Кентербери (Новая Зеландия), PhD, проф.
Хью-Августис С. –  Государственный университет Болл (США), PhD, проф.
Шовал Н. –  Еврейский университет в Иерусалиме (Израиль), PhD, проф.

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ

Вапнярская О.И. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
к.экон.н., доц.
Кривошеева Т.М. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
к.экон.н., доц.
Лагусев Ю.М. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, д.пед.н., 
проф.
Минаев В.А. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, вед. науч. 
сотр., д.тех.н., проф.
Мосалев А.И. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, к.экон.н., 
доц.
Николаев Е.М. –  Московский гуманитарный университет, генеральный директор Группы 
компаний «Путешественник-traveller», к.экон.н., доц.
Платонова Н.А. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, д.экон.н., 
проф.
Саенко Н.Р. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, д.филос.н., 
проф.
Ульянченко Л.А. –  Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
д.экон.н., доц.

ОТВЕТСТВЕННЫЙ СЕКРЕТАРЬ: Логачева И.Н.
ПЕРЕВОД: Афанасьева А.В. –  к.геогр.н., доц.

Service & Tourism: 
Current Challenges 

Scientific and practical journal
2016
Vol. 10 №2

PUBLISHER:
Russian State University
of Tourism and Service (RF).
Founded in 2007.
Published 4 issues a year.

BASIC INFORMATION 
ABOUT THE JOURNAL:
DOI: 10.12737/issn.1995–0411
ISSN: 1995–0411
eISSN: 2414–9063
Journal registered by the Federal Service 
for Supervision of Legislation in Mass 
Communications and Cultural Heritage 
Protection, RF
(Reg. ПИФС 77–21758 issued 
25.04.2008) .
Peer-reviewed journal.
The journal was included in the list of 
the leading peer-reviewed scientific 
journals recommended by the Higher 
Attestation Commission for publication 
of thesis results.
The journal is included in the Russian 
Science Citation Index, ERIH PLUS, 
Google Scholar, UlrichsWeb, etc.
The journal is available in the Scientific 
Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru).
All rights reserved.
Citation with reference only.
Disclaimer –  http://stcc-journal.org/ 
index/disclaimer/0–36

CONTACTS:
Editorial office: 141221, Russia,  
Moscow region, Pushkino district,  
village Cherkizovo,  
99 Glavnaja str., build. 1.
Tel./fax: +7.495.940 8361, 62, 63, add. 
395; mob. +7.967.246 3569
Web: http://stcc-journal.org
e-mail: redkollegiaMGUS@mail.ru,
editor@spst-journal.org

EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Oleg E. Afanasiev –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in 
Geography, Laureate of the State Prize of Ukraine in the sphere of education

EDITORIAL COUNCIL

Alexander A. Fedulin –  Rector of Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.
Sc.) in History, Professor, Chairman of Editorial Council
Gadzhimet K. Safaraliev –  Chairman of the State Duma RF Committee on Nationalities, PhD 
(Dr.Sc.), Professor
Sergey P. Shpil’ko –  Chairman of Moscow Tourism Committee (RF), President of the Russian 
Union of Travel Industry, member of the Business Council of the World Tourism Organization, 
PhD in Economics
Anna Yu. Aleksandrova –  Lomonosov Moscow State University (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Geography, 
Professor
Valentin A. Vasilenko –  Taurida National V. Vernadsky University (Crimea), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor
Alexander M. Vetitnev –  Sochi State University (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor

INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL COUNCIL

Lidia Andrades-Caldito –  University of Extremadura (Spain), NeTour Coordinator, PhD in Economics, Professor
Аlexander A. Bejdyk –  Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine), PhD (Dr.Sc.) 
in Geography, Professor
Frederic Dimanche –  Ryerson University (Canada), Director of the Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, PhD, Professor
Larry Dwyer –  University of New South Wales (Australia), School of Marketing, Australian 
Business School, PhD, Professor
Yao-Yi Fu –  Indiana University –  Purdue University Indianapolis (USA), PhD, Associate Professor
C. Michael Hall –  University of Canterbury (New Zealand), PhD, Professor
Sotiris Hji-Avgoustis –  Ball State University (USA), PhD, Professor
Stanislav H. Ivanov –  Varna University of Management (Bulgaria), Vice Rector for Academic 
Affairs and Research, PhD, Professor
Maximiliano E. Korstanje –  University of Palermo (Argentina), PhD, Senior Researchers
Dieter K. Müller –  Umea University (Sweden), PhD, Professor
Alexandru-M. Nedelea –  Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava (Romania), PhD, Associate 
Professor
Juan I. Pulido-Fernandez –  University of Jaen (Spain), PhD, Associate Professor
Razaq Raj –  Leeds Beckett University (UK), PhD
Risto Rechkoski –  State University «Sv.Kliment Ohridski» (FYROM/Macedonia), PhD (Dr.Sc.) 
in Law, Professor
Jarkko J. Saarinen –  University of Oulu (Finland), Vice-President of the International Geographical Union (IGU), PhD, Professor
Noam Shoval –  Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel), PhD, Professor
Marianna Sigala –  University of South Australia (Australia), PhD, Professor
Theano S. Terkenli –  University of the Aegean (Greece), PhD, Professor
Lindsay W. Turner –  Victoria University (Australia), College of Business, PhD, Research Professor
Stephen R.C. Wanhill –  University of Limerick (Ireland), PhD, Adjunct Professor
Bogdan Wlodarczyk –  University of Lodz (Poland), Director of the Institute of Urban and 
Tourism, PhD, Professor

EDITORIAL BOARD

Ol’ga I. Vapnyarskaya –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD in Economics
Tatiana M. Krivosheeva –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD in 
Economics
Yuriy M. Lagusev –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in 
Pedagogic, Professor
Vladimir A. Minaev –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Technical, Professor
Anton I. Mosalev –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD in Economics, 
Associate Professor
Evgeniy M. Nikolaev –  Moscow University for the Humanities (RF), Director General of Tourism 
of the «Puteshestvennik-Traveller», PhD in Economics, Associate Professor
Nataliya A. Platonova –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in 
Economics, Professor
Natalya R. Saenko –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Philosophy, Professor
Ljudmila A. Ulyanchenko –  Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF), PhD (Dr.Sc.) 
in Economics

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Irina N. Logacheva
INTERPRETER: Alexandra V. Afanasieva, PhD in Geography

Содержание

5

КОЛОНКА ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА 

Частные, корпоративные и народные музеи в туристском пространстве России и мира

ЛОКАЛЬНОЕ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ: ФОРМУЛА ТУРИЗМА 
7

Корстанье М.Э.
Что есть туризм? Антропоцентрическая дискуссия

19

Александрова А.Ю., Аигина Е.В.
Туристский вектор в актуализации культурного наследия

29

Кривошеева Т.М.
Сувенирная продукция в музеях –  инструмент эмоциональной коммуникации с посетителями

38

Афанасьев О.Е., Афанасьева А.В.
Музеи легенд и мифов в мировом туристском пространстве

47

Казакова С.А.
К вопросу о формировании базы данных частных и корпоративных музеев России

РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ РАЗВИТИЯ ТУРИСТСКОГО СЕРВИСА 

51

Дыбаль М.А.
Потенциал корпоративных музеев в развитии регионального делового туризма
(на примере Санкт-Петербурга)

64

Гусейнова А.Г.
Особенности интерактивных форм работы музеев образовательных организаций  
Ярославской области

72

Хваджа А.Н.
Проблемы и перспективы развития культуры и музейного туризма в странах «Арабской весны»

НОВЫЕ ТУРИСТСКИЕ ЦЕНТРЫ 
79

Листвина Е.Г.
Первый музей славянской мифологии –  туристический бренд города Томска

88

Потапова Н.В., Скребец С.А.
«Музей ярких фонарей» для слепых и слабовидящих посетителей

96

Хаткевич А.А.
Музей Сибири, Севера и Дальнего Востока: межрегиональное сотрудничество и вклад 
в повышение туристического интереса к восточным регионам России

103

Чечевин Г.Б.
«Сберегательная касса есть мать экономии…». Музей истории сберегательного дела в Самаре

111

Цветкова Е.А.
Музей «Гранд Макет Россия» –  новая достопримечательность на туристической карте страны

118

Васильева Е.А.
Кукольный народный художественный промысел Петербурга «Потешный промысел»

127

Оконникова Т.И., Саранча М.А.
Из истории становления музея-усадьбы П.И. Чайковского

134

Хетагурова В.Ш.
Перспективы создания общественного музея природы (народного парка)  
в бассейне реки Малая Истра

141

Веслогузова М.В., Шестанова Э.А.
Историко-культурный комплекс «Остров-град Свияжск» как туристская дестинация 
Республики Татарстан

МОЗАИКА АВТОРСКОГО ОПЫТА 
147

Короткова О.В.
Путешествие среди звёзд

151

ТУРИСТСКО-ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫЙ ЦЕНТР РГУТИС  

Корстанье М.Э. 
Рецензия на книгу «Социокультурная мобильность и мега-события: этические и эстетические 
аспекты Чемпионата мира по футболу 2014 в Бразилии»

153

Илькевич С.В. 
Рецензия на учебник «Туризм в России: руководство по управлению»

156

Лагусев Ю.М. 
Рецензия на монографию «Состояние и перспективы развития автотуризма в Российской Федерации»

158

РЕЙТИНГ 

Туристские рейтинги музеев

Content

5

EDITOR’S NOTE 

Private, corporate and people’s museums in the tourism space of Russia and the world

LOCAL IN GLOBAL: FORMULA FOR TOURISM 
7

Maximiliano E. Korstanje
What is tourism? An anthropocentric discussion

19

Anna Yu. Aleksandrova, Ekaterina V. Aigina
Tourism vector in cultural heritage actualization

29

Tatiana M. Krivosheeva
Souvenir production in a museum –  tool of emotional communication with visitors

38

Oleg E. Afanasiev, Aleksandra V. Afanasieva
Museums of myths and legends in the global tourism space

47

Svetlana A. Kazakova
On the formation of the private and corporate museums database

REGIONAL ISSUES OF TOURISM SERVICE 

51

Mikhail A. Dybal
Potential of corporate museums in the development of regional business tourism
(the case of Saint Petersburg)

64

Aljona G. Guseynova
Features of interactive work forms of museums under educational organizations in Yaroslavl region

72

Ayham N. Khwaja
Problems and promising directions of culture and museum tourism
In the countries of the «Arab spring»

NEW TOURIST CENTERS 
79

Evgeniia G. Listvina
The First Museum of Slavic mythology as a tourism brand of Tomsk

88

Natalia V. Potapova, Svetlana A. Skrebets
Bright Lights Museum –  for the blind and visually impaired people

96

Arthur A. Khatkevich
Museum of Siberia, the North and the Far East: interregional cooperation and contribution
to improvement of tourist interest in Eastern regions of Russia

103

Gleb B. Chechevin
«Saving bank is saving’s mother…». The Museum of savings business history in Samara

111

Elena A. Tsvetkova
Museum «Grand Maket Rossiya» –  a new site on the tourist map of Russia

118

Ekaterina A. Vasilyeva
National doll art-crafting of Sankt Petersburg «Poteshny promysel»

127

Tatiana I. Okonnikova, Mikhail A. Sarancha
From the history of formation of the Museum-estate of P.I. Tchaikovsky

134

Valeriya Sh. Khetagurova
Prospects for creating of a public museum of nature (national park) in the basin of Malaya Istra

141

Maria V. Vesloguzova, Ellina A. Shestanova
Historical and cultural complex «Island-Town of Sviyazhsk» as a tourist destination 
of the Republic of Tatarstan

MOSAIC OF AUTHORIAL EXPERIENCE 
147

Olga V. Korotkova
Voyage through the stars

151

RSUTS TOURIST INFORMATION CENTER 

Maximiliano E. Korstanje 
«Socio-Cultural Mobility and Mega-Events: Ethics and Aesthetics in Brazil 2014 World Cup»: Review

153
Sergej V. Il’kevich Review of textbook «Tourism in Russia: A Management Handbook»

156

Yurij M. Lagusev
Review of monograph «Caravanning in the Russian Federation:  
Situation and development prospects»

158

RATING 

Tourism rating of museums

PRIVATE, CORPORATE  
AND PEOPLE’S MUSEUMS  
IN THE TOURISM SPACE 
OF RUSSIA  
AND THE WORLD

Distinguished friends & colleagues!

We are glad to represent to you the new, 
second in 2016, issue of scientific and practical journal «Service and Tourism: Current 
challenges». The Editorial Board in this issue 
has decided to continue themes of consideration of directions and forms of cooperation 
between the museum and of tourism space, 
which became traditional for our journal. This 
time the vast majority of articles are devoted to the issue of private, corporate and, to 
a lesser extent, people’s museums and their 
role in tourism development.
It is exactly the concept of «private and 
corporate museum» under current conditions most fully meets the expectations and 
demands of today’s visitor. We can say that 
refusal of the concept of «visitor» and borrowing from the sphere of hospitality the 
concept of «guest» is the long-felt need in 
museum affair. There is a great variety of 
subjects of modern national museum space, 
and competition for visitors between them 
increases in many times. And in proportion to 
this trend attitude towards visitors is changing –  they are increasingly perceived as the 
most honored guests, whose aspirations, interests, mood have to be foreseen. Ironically, 
in this trend, caused by economic conditions, 
we can see a return to the origins and traditions of hospitality that have long existed in 
Russia and have been very aptly described in 
the monument of Russian everyday culture 
of the XVI century –  «House-building». Indeed, it is now part of the normal thing, for 
example, tea parties in a museum, regales 
with pies and pickled products to recipes of 
inhabitants of old estates-turned-museum, 
entertainment programs for adults and children, interactive exhibits and many other in
КОЛОНКА ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА  

EDITORS NOTE

ЧАСТНЫЕ, КОРПОРАТИВНЫЕ 
И НАРОДНЫЕ МУЗЕИ 
В ТУРИСТСКОМ 
ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ РОССИИ  
И МИРА

Дорогие друзья, коллеги!

Спешим порадовать Вас новым, вторым в 2016 г., выпуском научно-практического журнала «Современные проблемы 
сервиса и туризма». В нем редакция решила продолжить уже ставшую традиционной для журнала тематику рассмотрения 
направлений и форм взаимодействия музейного и туристского пространств. В этот 
раз абсолютное большинство статей выпуска посвящены частным, корпоративным 
и, в меньшей степени, народным музеям 
и их роли в развитии туризма.
Именно категория «частный и корпоративный музей» в современных условиях 
наиболее полно соответствует ожиданиям 
и требованиям сегодняшнего посетителя. 
Можно сказать, что в музейном деле уже 
назрела необходимость отказаться от понятия «посетитель» и заимствовать из сферы гостеприимства понятие «гость». Ведь 
в богатейшем многообразии субъектов 
современного отечественного музейного 
пространства конкуренция за посетителя 
между ними многократно возрастает. Пропорционально данной тенденции меняется и отношение к посетителю –  его все чаще 
воспринимают именно как самого дорогого гостя, пытаясь предугадать его чаяния, 
интересы, настроение… Как ни странно, 
в этой обусловленной экономикой тенденции можно увидеть возвращение к истокам и традициям гостеприимства, издавна существовавшим на Руси и очень емко 
описанным в памятнике русской бытовой 
культуры XVI в. – «Домострое». И действительно, сегодня уже входит в привычное 
явление, например, чаепитие в музее, потчевание гостей пирожками и солениями 
по давним рецептам домочадцев усадеб

музеев, анимационные программы для 
взрослых и детей, интерактивные экспозиции и многие иные новации в музейной работе. И именно частные и корпоративные 
музеи наиболее оперативно адаптируются 
под быстро меняющиеся вкусы и пожелания посетителей, а, следовательно, и задают вектор развития для всего музейного дела в стране, наглядно демонстрируя 
то, что музей как институция культуры, 
способен стать важнейшей туристской дестинацией и формировать туристские потоки. Таким ярчайшим примером может 
быть музей «Гранд Макет Россия» в СанктПетербурге, которому в условиях жесточайшей конкуренции со стороны других достопримечательностей за довольно короткий 
срок удалось не только занять одно из 
лидирующих мест по привлекательности 
для туристов и экскурсантов, но и обойти 
многие, давно известные аттракции. Такой 
успех абсолютно нового частного музея 
практически невозможен в условиях плотного и устоявшегося музейно-исторического туристского пространства такого города, 
как Северная Пальмира. И, тем не менее, 
это удивительный, но свершившийся факт.
Сегодня Россия по количеству частных 
и корпоративных музеев –  одна из лидеров 
в мире. Но потенциал этих учреждений нового типа еще далеко не в полной мере используется в целях туризма. Наивно было 
бы полагать, что в относительно небольшом 
по объему выпуске журнала можно было 
бы рассмотреть даже малую часть опыта 
развития «музейного туризма» на их базе. 
Тем не менее, мы надеемся на то, что освещенные в журнале музейно-туристские 
практики станут полезным подспорьем для 
многих энтузиастов, помогая в формировании поистине «живых музеев» в туристском 
пространстве нашей страны, в т. ч. и на основе богатейшего мирового опыта.
Главный редактор
проф. О.Е. Афанасьев

novations in museum work. And it is private 
and corporate museums more quickly adapt 
themselves to the rapidly changing tastes 
and wishes of visitors, and, therefore, set a 
vector of development for all the museums 
in the country. They clearly demonstrate that 
a museum as an institution of culture is able 
to become a major tourist destination and 
generate tourism flows. The museum «Grand 
Maket Rossiya» is the case in point. In conditions of severe competition with other attractions this museum in a relatively short period 
of time had succeeded to take one of the 
leading places by the attractiveness to tourists and excursionists, and also to circumvent 
many long-known attractions. Such success 
of the completely new private museum is virtually impossible in the conditions of a dense 
and well-established museum and historical 
tourism space of such city as North Palmyra 
(St. Petersburg). And nevertheless, it is amazing, but accomplished fact.
Today Russia in amount of private and 
corporate museums is among the world leaders. But the potential of such new-type institutions is far from being fully used for tourism 
purposes. It would be naive to believe that 
even a small part of the experience of «museum tourism» based on them could be discussed in this, relatively small in volume, issue of the journal. However, we hope that the 
museum and tourism practices, elucidated in 
the journal, would be a useful tool for many 
enthusiasts, helping in the formation of a truly «living museums» in the tourism space of 
the country on the basis of rich international 
experience.

Editor-in-chief
Prof. Oleg E. Afanasiev

ЛОКАЛЬНОЕ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ: ФОРМУЛА ТУРИЗМА

LOCAL IN GLOBAL: FORMULA FOR TOURISM

UDC 572:338.48 
DOI: 10.12737/19498

Maximiliano E. Korstanje
University of Palermo (Buenos Aires, Argentina); University of Leeds,  
Centre for Ethnicity & Racism studies / CERS (Leeds, United Kingdom);  
PhD, Professor; e-mail: mkorst@palermo.edu

WHAT IS TOURISM? AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DISCUSSION

Some decades ago, tourism scholars precluded that the production of knowledge would invariably lead to 
the maturation of discipline. Even in these years, tourism-research has grown rapidly but keeping some 
concerns respecting the possibilities to become in a consolidated discipline. One of the aspects that tourism research is unable to resolve is the dispersion of theories, and the lack of a shared epistemology to 
understand what tourism is. In this new manuscript I explain informally the anthropocentric ground of 
tourism. This does not represent any attack to any scholar in particular, but a call of attention to what 
today is being written.
Keywords: epistemology of tourism, rites of passage, mobility, escapement.

Introduction. Nowadays tourism research faces a serious crisis. This is the reason 
why an attempt is worth of my time and efforts. Here I will synthesize likely in an informal way, my experience as author, reviewer, 
and editor in tourism fields. Some decades 
ago, Professor J. Tribe held the thesis that the 
growth of tourism research was not backed 
by a firm background. The flexibility of International Academy for the Study of Tourism 
respecting to what is being produced worldwide, conjoined to other factors such as the 
fragmentation of theories and networks in 
the field resulted in the lack of a shared epistemology to understand the phenomenon 
[78, 79, 80]. If J. Jafari [27] in his seminal text, 
The Scientifization of Tourism, proclaimed the 
rise of a knowledge based platform where 
any subjective valuations would set the pace 
to more objective scientific studies, Tribe observed that these spin-offs were based on serious discrepancies along with the meaning of 
tourism. As Thirkettle & Korstanje [77] put it, 
the struggle for emergent schools to monopolize and impose their own interpretations 
prompted a much deeper dispersion almost 
impossible to control. Instead of coordinating 
efforts to forge a more efficient and harmonized method, tourism-related scholars adopted transdisciplinarity as a vehicle towards 
scientific maturation. From its onset, appliedresearch has been influenced by a business
centered paradigm in which case, tourism 
was naively defined as an industry in lieu of an 
ancient social institution. Rather than achieving the desired results, studies focused on the 
needs of finding new segments (demand) to 
satisfy the needs of suppliers. Most certainly, 
commercial tourism was sensitive to the demand leaving other of its aspects unchecked. 
Money was a crucial factor to optimize the 
leisure system that modern societies created 
after WWII [67]. Tourism management posed 
as a valid instrument of planning in order 
to organize territory in an efficient manner. 
Since future is unknown, and science is based 
on empirical facts, Van Doorn observed, the 
role of tourism-researchers was pointed out 
to forecast the trends and effects of tourism 
in environment [86]. The management of 
tourist destinations rested on the trust in the 
evolutionary progress of the industry. For this 
reason, applied-research should be tilted at 
measuring the dynamic of destinations from 
an all encompassing way [18, 22, 60]. During 
90s decade, marketing and management monopolized the emerging paradigms emerging 
paradigms. New nascent trends such as darktourism, slum-tourism, creative-tourism, heritage-tourism and so forth, arrived to the toptier journals to set agenda in scholarship to 
mark the boundaries of what should be or not 
investigated [77]. Though this dispersion generated new businesses for investors, states 

Maximiliano E. Korstanje

and policy makers who always see in tourism 
a fertile source of energy, it forged a chaos in 
academy to organize all the produced material. The logic of businesses is often conducive 
to find new segments in a competitive market, which leads to dispersion, but these are 
not the goals science pursues [31].
As the previous backdrop, other scholars 
exert an extreme criticism against tourism literature by two main reasons. At a first glance, 
scholars have devoted considerable resources 
and times to producing scientific knowledge 
but it is far from being a scientific corpus consolidated as other disciplines. Beyond impact 
factors and citations, tourism-research still is 
naïve, biased and profit-oriented to understand the psychology of tourist mind. Secondly, 
the question whether positivists underpinned 
the proposition the interview was the only 
valid methods for reaching the truth, epistemologists in tourism fields have not contemplated in their respective fieldworks any other 
method than the opinion of tourists think [1, 
2, 5, 62, 64, 65]. The problem with this perspective lies in the fact sometimes tourists are 
unfamiliar with their behavior or simply lie. 
Following this, ethnographers have adamantly 
observed the limitations of open or close-ended questionnaires or even formal interviews 
under some contexts. More interested in looking for new business opportunities or protecting the profits of investors, tourism-research 
is today far from explaining not only its origins 
but also what tourism is [36, 88]. Nonetheless, others seminal texts already discussed 
in the anthropology of tourism can give further hints [17]. In this short essay review, we 
discuss the contributions of founding parents 
who had worked to delineate the boundaries 
of discipline [10]. Later, in restant sections we 
propose our own conception of tourism not 
only as an escape-goat mechanism, but as an 
anthropological rite of passage.
Tourism: a long-simmering issue. Over 
last decades, tourism has been defied and 
approached from diverse angles. While some 
scholars prioritizes its dynamism (producing 
and distributing wealth) [46, 59, 76], others 
voices have exerted a radical critique respecting to its colonial legacy [20, 26, 49, 73, 81, 
83, 84]. For this wave, tourism would be a 
mechanism of control enrooted in colonial
ism. The needs of being there that today characterize modern tourism can be equaled to 
the first ethnologists and social scientists who 
launched to the unknown. Aside from the scientific interests of these explorations, Europe 
expanded the colonial order to the periphery imposing not only a cultural matrix, but 
their products and trade [3, 9, 32, 33, 69]. A. 
Santana-Talavera has convincingly confirmed 
that the already-existent theories in tourism 
fields can be organized in 6 great families [71]: 
a) commercial hospitality, b) an instrument of 
democracy, c) a subtype of leisure, d) a form 
of cultural expression, e) a process of acculturation, and f) a discourse that strengthen 
the colonial dependency between centre and 
periphery. Though it is hard to imagine tourism without the pay-for logic, it is important 
not to lose the sight other theories have said 
something on this.
It is unfortunate that etymologists are 
not in agreement about the origin of activity [29]. While some experts associate the 
terms to old Saxon term torn, others envisaged France was the epicenter where tourism 
surfaced [45]. What is important to discuss is 
that no matter the used term, cultures have 
developed similar institutions for escapement 
than tourism.
Swiss-born economist J. Krippendorf 
found that tourism was something else than 
a mere industry, or a net of services as economists precluded. His original works were 
intended to discuss the psychological motivations of holiday-makers in the industrial 
society. At time of travelling to other sites 
moved by pleasure and relax, we are fulfilling 
one of our basic needs, resting. Since workers are trapped with a set of diverse frustrations and deprivation during an extended period of time, escapement and tourism play a 
crucial role by contributing to mental health. 
The maximization of individual pleasure is the 
main goal tourists pursue. Starting from the 
premise that economies and leisure are inextricably intertwined, Krippendorf adds, each 
society develops different forms of tourism. 
Human behaviors, which are socially determined by culture and values, are changed according to endogenous and exogenous forces. 
Combining anthropological insights with their 
own studies in economy, Krippendorf leaves 

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
№ 2/2016  Том 10

an all-encompassing model that helps followers to understand tourism as a social institution, enrooted in the culture from sedentary 
phase. The decline of happiness western 
societies experience today results from the 
degree of alienation workers suffer in their 
daily life. At once the productive system is 
more oppressive, further leisure is needed 
to counter-balance the material asymmetries. One of the conceptual pillars of tourism 
consists in emulating a lost-paradise as it has 
been designed by main religions. The eternal 
quest for this exemplary center corresponds 
with the attachment with mother´s womb. 
This top-down cosmology gives as a result a 
hierarchy of exploiting and exploited classes. 
In any societal order, the elite not only monopolizes the means of production, but also 
the allegories by which the work-force is subordinated, or in terms of MacCannell alienated. In this respect, Krippendorf acknowledges 
that one of the main problems of capitalism is 
its eagerness to expand to other markets consuming resources to yield capital-gain. This 
explains the struggle of locals and capitalowners in tourism as well as the negative effects in some destinations. No less true is that 
tourists are moved by a hedonist consciousness that leads to commoditize «the Others». 
In fact, tourism is not good or bad, it simply 
works as an instrument officials use in different manners. At time of considering tourism 
as a mechanism of alienation, we ignore its 
anthropological nature. Unless otherwise resolved, proponents of tourism as an agent of 
development leave behind its predatory conception of value [38–44].
In sharp contrast with Krippendorf, MacCannell conceives that tourism consolidated 
just after the mid of XXth century, or the end 
of WWII. Not only the expansion of industrialism, which means a set of benefits for workers as less working hours and salaries increase 
but the technological breakthrough that triggered mobilities were responsible from the 
inception of tourism. There was nothing 
like an ancient form of tourism, MacCannell 
notes. Taking his cue from the sociology of 
Marx, Durkheim, and Goffman, MacCannell 
argues that tourism and staged-authenticity 
work in conjoint in order for the society not 
to collapse. If totem is a sacred-object that 

confers a political authority to chiefdom in 
aboriginal cultures, tourism fulfills the gap 
between citizens and their institutions which 
was enlarged by the alienation lay people 
face. The current industrial system of production is finely-ingrained to expropriate workers 
from part of their wages. A whole portion of 
earned salaries is spent to leisure activities, 
even in consuming tourism. As Krippendroff, 
MacCannell believes, industrialism forged 
a «tourist consciousness» that revitalizes 
the glitches and deprivations produced by 
economy. Tourism would be a type of totem 
for industrial societies that industrial societies that like a chamanized, like a chamanized totem in primitive communities, revitalizes psychological frustrations and alienation 
proper of urban societies. Not surprisingly, 
MacCannell adds, Marx was in the correct 
side at denouncing the oppression suffered 
by the work-force. Nonetheless, leisure, far 
from being an ideological mechanism of control (as in whole Marxism), prevents the social 
disintegration [49, 50]. A last more radical insight situates tourism from «the fields of ethics». Whether tourism has proved something 
that is the lack of interests for the «Other» 
who is toured–gazed-. Originally opposed 
to Urry`s view, MacCannell does not use the 
term «gaze» because it is a Foucaultian term 
that denotes control. This is not the nature 
of tourism. Everything that can be seen suggests another reality which remains covered. 
Further, the goals of tourism not only are the 
leave from ordinary life as Urry precludes, but 
the formation of a meta-discourse towards a 
new consciousness. It was unfortunate that 
digital technologies and mass-consumption 
are undermining the attachment of people 
to their cultures and traditions. Over recent 
years, he was concerned by the lack of ethics 
in tourism consumption. Coalescing contributions of Giddens with Derrida, he points out 
that globalization entails to type of mobilities. 
Nomads who are defined as forged-migrants 
are pitted against tourists who are encouraged to consume landscapes and exotic cultures. Since tourists are conferred by a certain 
degree of freedom, this leads them to think 
they are part of a privilege class, affirming 
their own self-esteem by enjoying the precarious conditions where natives live. If this 

Maximiliano E. Korstanje

is not controlled tourism may produce a progressive process of dehumanization [48–56]. 
Though there were commonalities between 
MacCannell and Krippendorf, some significant 
differences emerge at time of delineating the 
roots of tourism. While the former signals to 
tourism as a postmodern phenomenon, the 
latter one found ancient forms of tourism in 
major civilizations as Romans, Sumerians and 
Babylonians.
The British sociologist, J. Urry claims for 
a new understanding of tourism. In so doing, he uses the term, gaze to explain how 
ocular-centrism has monopolized the daily 
life of peoples. At time of traveling to other 
destinations, tourists are controlling natives 
by their gaze. The importance of watching 
allows modern tourists to take possession of 
«gazed-other». Like the other above reviewed 
scholars, Urry believes that the tourist-gaze is 
enmeshed into a cultural matrix which is systematically organized to reinforce the system 
of production and exchange of commodities. 
Since tourism relates to aesthetical revolution brought by postmodernism, it is impossible other civilizations developed similarlyminded forms of escapement. The rise of 
mobilities, which is validated by the current 
statistics of travellers worldwide, is contrasted to thousands of migrants who seek better 
opportunities. Both are physical movement, 
but the differences are visible. In fact, Urry 
is convinced mobility is often based on the 
dominance of esthetic over the rest of senses. 
At some extent, this explains the main reason 
as to why people recur to mass-transport as 
a mechanism of evasion as well as the increasing importance of travel photography in 
recent decades. In a globalized society characterized by the predominance of spectacle, 
multiculturalism encourages the displacement as a vehicle towards happiness, development and emotional commitment. From 
this angle, nation-states are reinventing their 
boundaries and identities constantly in the 
interchange of tourists, migrants and workers. This new forms of movements are part of 
social memory and broader acculturation processes which researchers should inspect [84, 
85]. Beyond cosmopolitanism, Urry observes, 
an economy of signs has accelerated not only 
the exchange of commodities, but commod
itized the culture according to consumption 
styles of westerners. In these terms, tourism 
corresponds with an aesthetical value underpinned in the needs of gazing the exoticness.
In this token, N. Salazar [70] centers a 
critical diagnosis from the lens of cosmopolitan spirit tourism often wakes up. Traditions 
and imaginaries are aligned to transitional 
spaces tourists discover while touring. They 
look for familiarity in an unfamiliar setting. 
Locals are interpelated by previous traits, 
stereotypes and marks elaborated from outside. The real engagement with the other is 
replaced by an act of consumption, where 
hosts are subordinated and invisivilized. This 
begs a more than interesting point, is tourism 
related to consumption?
To this question, E. Cohen has formulated 
an original answer. Far from what MacCannell 
or Urry argued, he believes that tourism is not 
an escapement from an alienated life or a quest 
for novelty. Cohen defines tourism as a commercial hospitality which means temporal stage 
dissociation between rules and the maximization of pleasure. This not only generates a tension between centre and its periphery, but also 
tourists are moved by meeting with «Others». 
The encounter between hosts and guests is 
based on the possibility the commercial hospitality is sold by locals to visitors [11–13].
Other senior sociologist interested in 
these types of issues, G. Dann addressed to 
tourist motivations to explain why they need 
to travel. Oriented to give an answer for the 
misleading research, Dann establishes that in 
a context of anomie, ego should be enhanced 
to avoid serious pathologies. The social system produces a «phantasy world» in order 
for subject to protect its ego. At some extent, 
tourism is like a metaphor of social world. 
Dann`s diagnosis in this vein, converges with 
John Urry. Dann overtly goes on to acknowledge that tourism should be placed as a metaphor of changing world. Being a tourist reveals something else than Maccannel or Urry 
thought, it shows the socio-cultural conditions wherein society evolved up to date. It is 
unfortunate that this modern world is based 
on a clear tension between oppression (fear) 
and liberty (mobility). Not only the postmodern ethos should be explored by taking tourist as an object of study but as a metaphor 

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
№ 2/2016  Том 10

of the changes take room daily in industrial 
societies. To put this in brutally, tourism denotes a change of environment, which only 
is feasible by displacement. In this quest for 
novelty, or authenticity, ethnography offers a 
good opportunity to find answers that clarify 
the meaning of tourism [14–16].
As the previous argument given, N. Graburn [23, 24] argues convincingly that tourism 
not only should be labeled as a rite of passage, 
but as a type of «sacred-journal», emulating 
the founding values of society. Because the 
play is vital in his argument to understand the 
meaning of tourism, the encounter between 
locals and tourists are open to uncertainty 
and unforeseen reactions. Basically, Graburn 
adds, things one makes in holidays are the 
same one are accustomed to do at home, the 
difference is the magic movement gives.
«The food and drink might be identical 
to that normally eaten indoors, but the magic 
comes from the movement and the non-ordinary setting. Furthermore, it is not merely 
a matter of money that separates the stayat-home from the extensive travellers. Many 
very wealthy people never become tourists, 
and most youthful travelers are, by western 
standard, quite poor» [24, p. 24].
Taking his cue from previous insight in 
other allegories as those formulated by D. 
MacCannell (totem) and Cohen (lost-paradise), for Graburn, tourism is enrooted in the 
culture where elements of play and pilgrimage are inextricably intertwined [25]. In perspective, to symbolize such a meeting, Valene 
Smith speaks of the encounter of hosts and 
guests to denote how principle of hospitality 
is structured. Quite aside from its economic 
factor, tourist behavior corresponds with our 
needs of escapement which only is feasible by 
the introduction of hospitality. Three key factors determine tourism, «leisure, discretionary and positive locals». Albeit, discretionary 
income and individual motivations plays a 
crucial role by boosting or constraining the 
tourist demand, it allows the alternation of 
periods of work with relaxation. The social 
function of tourism seems to be the revitalization of the social scaffolding. However, 
since «as work gives way to leisured mobility, individuals find re-creation in a variety of 
new contexts. Different forms of tourism can 

be defined in terms of the kind of leisure mobility undertaken by the tourist» [75, p. 5]. At 
this stage, Smith is concerned on the effects 
of the activity over local community as well 
as the problems the tourist bubble generates. 
The meeting between guests and hosts may 
be very well a problematic issue if policy makers do not regulate the economic asymmetries created by the industry. The concept of 
acculturation is discussed as one of the most 
interesting points, placed by Smith in her 
original texts. However, unlike MacCannell or 
Krippendorf, she does not provide a thorough 
explanation of what tourism is.
Last but not least, in a recent book, D. 
Chambers and T. Rakic point out the experience of fieldwork suggest that at time we 
shed light on some issues others else remain 
unchecked. The legitimacy of academic disciplines rests on its explanatory capacity. 
These borders, far from being stable, are in 
continuous renegotiation. Though tourismresearch has been consolidated as a promising academic option for graduate and postgraduate students, a radical turn undermines 
the dominant understanding of tourism as it 
has been formulated by the founding parents. 
Most certainly, beyond tourism, critical scholars unveiled a commoditized discourse where 
the «Other» is subordinated to ruling class of 
developed countries. As something else than 
a peace-making industry, tourism covers racialized allegories which lead to control the 
periphery. This paradigm sees in tourism an 
alienatory mechanism of surveillance. However, instead of the dismantling of epistemological borders of tourism, a reconfiguration 
of theory is preferable [10]. This seems to be 
exactly, through it was not recognized by English Speakers, what some scholars had done in 
Latin America.
Tourism Research in Latin America. Over 
many years, tourism research in Latin America 
struggled to establish as a serious academic 
alternative. Based on an inter-disciplinary approach, the produced state of the art was intended to forge an epistemology of tourism 
which not only explains the roots of this phenomenon, but giving alternative solutions to 
the problem of sustainability. At some extent, 
as Australian-led research the question of 
ecology posed as a primary concern of tour

Maximiliano E. Korstanje

ism scholarship. Understanding the academic 
relations between North and South alludes 
to the metaphor of skeleton and flesh. While 
skeleton represents the theory produced in 
the Northern developed countries, South 
provides with the flesh which signals to the 
empirical basis that validates the theory.
In this vein, the global south recently became in a fertile source to give information respecting to theories which are drawn in other 
hemisphere. For some reason, the problem of 
ecology was present not only in Latin American 
studies but also in other global south destinations as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Because of limitations in time and space, 
this essay review is only tilted at discussing 
critically the conceptual background of tourism applied research in Latin America. Offering a new point of view to the current epistemological problems of tourism-research, Latin 
Americans and their own kaleidoscope paved 
the ways for the upsurge of a new more critical turn where the discourse of status-quo is 
defied but at the same time legitimized.
As Korstanje puts it, one of the limitations of tourism research does not correspond with the time of maturation, the discipline obtained, but with the fact that a clear 
shared epistemology should be developed 
[34, 35]. Aside from this aspect, Latin Americans devoted considerable efforts in forge an 
all-encompassing view of tourism [61].
Whilst profit-oriented school envisages 
tourism as an activity strongly associated to 
productivity [58], historians (revisionists) attempted to reconstruct the socio-economic 
factors that explain the rise of tourism amidst 
XXth century [21, 28, 68, 72, 74, 89]. Nonetheless, over the last two decades a new stance 
more critical of tourism effects not only 
placed its roots under the lens of scrutiny, but 
exerted a radical diagnosis to a much deeper 
connection with capitalism [63]. In any direction, Latin Americans accept the Euro-centric 
paradigm that tourism surfaced amidst XXth 
century; a problem already discussed in the 
founding parents of the discipline. Without 
exception as M. Osorio Garcia [65], M. Barreto [4] or S. Gastal [19] among others who 
are definitely influenced by J. Krippendorf, 
a whole portion of theory produced in Latin 
American universities are related to the belief 

tourism is a modern issue. The marginal interests for history in tourism fields explain the 
lack of perspective to obtain a self-explanatory theory. As K. Walton pointed out,
«It is particularly important that tourism 
studies should begin to pay serious attention 
to the relevance of historical research and 
writing to its concern. Despite the growing interest in issues of heritage, authenticity, and 
historical representation in the provision of 
tourist experiences and the analysis of consumer expectations and response to them, 
which entails assessment of the ways in which 
tourism uses history, and occasionally, the 
ways in which history might use tourism, the 
attention paid to the serious examination of 
the past in much tourism literature retains a 
tendency towards the derivative and perfunctory, especially in the introductory texts that 
so often set the tone of student experience» 
[88, preface, 3].
In a radical critique to E. Pastoriza [68] 
and the school she represents, M. Korstanje 
[32, 33] publishes a book review at Pasos, 
Journal of tourism and Cultural Heritage with 
focus on the limitations historians inherited to 
address tourism. At a first glance, historians 
who approached tourism were not Latinists, 
or were unfamiliar with the daily life of Ancient times. In this vein, they were somehow 
connected to Middle Age and envisaged that 
earlier civilizations were pre-tourist organizations. Following this paradigm, obviously, not 
only they were unable to find leisure practices 
or forms of tourism in Middle age where feuds 
were atomized through Europe, some of them 
pitted against their neighbors or involved in 
civil wars. At a second point, no less true is 
that this period represented a stagnant point 
that obscured many centuries into the shadows of violence. However, ancient empires as 
Rome, Babylon and Assyria have certainly developed certain escape-goat mechanism in order for their political structure do not plunge 
into chaos [47]. Romans used a term feriae to 
confer its citizens the right to rest for 3 months 
after one year of hard work in the capital. One 
might imagine Rome as a cosmopolitan exemplary centre stubbed with aliens and citizens 
coming from the four corners of civilized periphery. What is more than important to discuss, is that our modern rights to holidays are