In defense of tourists

In a recent opinion post in The New York Times, Anna Altman continues a recent trend, though certainly not a new phenomenon, of decrying tourists and tourism in general. Rather than seeing travel as a “bucket list … of places to check off,” she writes, we should actively embrace the Grand Tour model of tourism among young, upper-class men in the 17th through 19th centuries, in which we travel abroad (for months on end, if possible), seeking “cross-cultural experiences” and avoiding tourist traps like the Vatican and the Eiffel Tower as though they were the bubonic plague.

It should surprise no one who reads them that these pieces are found in (among other publications) The New Yorker. My main problem with the argument here is that even if it is true (which I struggle to believe), it at best only applies to the high-and-mighty, self-righteous trust-fund hipstersubset of our population. Even assuming that avoiding tourist destinations is always good, as the authors purport, effectively no one outside of the ivory-tower bubble could possibly affordto consciously emulate the Grand Tour.

In their long heyday, Grand Tours were the hottest trend for those 20-somethings who were the scions of Europe and America's aristocratic families. The Grand Tour was an opportunity for these salt-of-the-earth people, in which the stresses of a multimillionaire upbringing could be left behind for a several-month séjour to western Europe or the American West (often accompanied by a troupe of servants). To suggest that this mode of travel, never historically intended for mass consumption, is the “Right Way to Travel” (as Altman's piece is titled), is an arrogant and elitist contention that applies to almost no one.

But now on to my actual objections to the argument in favor of recreating the Grand Tour. Tourism in the mainstream sense, though it isolates the visitor from the host culture, at least allows one to physically and literally "see the world." A significant feature of the modern world nonexistent (at least to the same degree) in 1800 is that Western expats don’t just cross the Atlantic. For many people, the only way to discover their favorite place or country on Earth is to sample the wide world of the 21st century. Saving for years or decades to undertake a four-month adventure to one specific and small set of places (the standard London-Paris-Florence jaunt, for instance) could mean that a potential Sinophile would never see China, and more generally, never discover the eye-opening feeling of falling in love with a place and a people. By contrast, taking more trips of shorter distance to a wider diversity of destinations allows one to see what they really enjoy, and perhaps even discover a latent passion for a place, a history or a culture.

Second, anyone interested in history can vouch that there is a unique feeling in knowing you stand where Churchill, Lincoln or Galileo once did or seeing the palace from which hundreds of years of Chinese dynastic or French monarchic history unfolded. Physically being there connects one to the events that shaped world history in a way that even the most vivid textual description can’t. As a sophomore flirting with the prospect of becoming a history major, I may have some bias here, but I think everyone has a little history buff inside them yearning to be free. What better way to do so than by seeing all the "touristy" or "Top 10 in [Country Name]" places you can?

Third, many times the reason tourist sites are so popular is that they are in fact some of the best or most beautiful. While knowing what happened at Mont Saint-Michel makes it immeasurably cooler, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why it’s the most visited site in France outside of Paris. The intrinsic beauty, uniqueness or architectural marvel of many buildings, artworks and sites are often justification enough for braving the lines and paying through the nose.

If there is a correct modern-day interpretation of the Grand Tour, and I believe there is, it can be found in the “OEs” of present-day New Zealanders. Overseas Experiences, as they’re known, are when New Zealanders leave their homeland for a few months or a few years, pack up and move and often take up long-term work in a new country (most commonly England, Japan, France and the United States). Why is the OE better than the Grand Tour? Because it allows for actual cultural immersion and appreciation, and is accessible to the masses. An OE usually involves full-time work in the new country, and there is simply no better way to understand a culture than by adopting a daily routine there and truly putting down roots. Even for that large majority of us for whom a job is necessary for financial stability at home, the OE still provides an opportunity to travel for an extended period of time because the traveler takes up work in the host country. Unlike a Grand Tour, in which the traveler brings a staff of servants, art-buyers and translators, stays in the finest hotels in the Western world and often isolates himself with other people of similar upbringings, the OE forces one to become self-sufficient in a foreign culture, and extensive interaction and cultural assimilation are easily facilitated.

So if you’re ever in a position to decide, for the love of God, go see Michelangelo's "David." Even the busloads of people taking selfies won’t diminish the inevitable feeling of awe you won’t get by Googling it.

Ryan Dukeman is a sophomore from Westwood, Mass. He can be reached at rdukeman@princeton.edu.