Ironic Tourism

This study is a participant observation ethnography of tourism over an 8-day study abroad trip. The group consisted of 12 Miami University students and spent 5 days in Reykjavik, Iceland, and 3 days in Nuuk, Greenland. Over the course of the trip, the group identified many experiences as “tourist traps” and chose to enthusiastically pursue them anyway.

Research Question

How is post-tourist irony collectively produced through group conversation?

Concepts at Play

Figure 1. Diagram of existing theories in the Anthropology of tourism and how they interact to create ironic post-tourism as a group practice.

Negotiation Process

Figure 2. A flowchart of the group’s negotiation process for choosing tourist activities.

Sky Lagoon Experience

Sky Lagoon, a geothermal spa, offers a carefully staged experience organized around a guided 7-step ritual with clearly structured movement. The group moved through the space together, both physically and conversationally, continuously noting its artificiality while still fully engaging by taking photos, following the ritual, and expressing enjoyment. The experience became meaningful not despite its constructed nature, but through the group’s shared recognition and discussion of it.

"That's totally a tourist trap."

A male student positions our upcoming experience as inauthentic. His comment signals recognition of inauthenticity in the rest of us.

"Well, that's a tourist trap I'm excited for!"

A female student’s quick response neutralizes his statement entirely by not arguing at all. She instead accepts the label of “tourist trap” and reframes our collective anticipation and excitement as a legitimate response to such a trap.

This conversation shows how tourist experiences are co-narrated in real time. Our negotiation of the value and meaning of the activities pursued is built through our conversations, where explicit irony is seen in our anticipation of experiencing the nearest “tourist traps.”

"Guys, is this real?" - "This is amazing!"

These comments, echoed by multiple participants while at Sky Lagoon, both realize and bask in the staged nature of our experience. The staging, rather than something to see through, becomes something to feel and react to collectively. Through conversation, we acknowledge the artificiality of the setting while still embracing its emotional and social rewards. Here, we are attempting to move within this “front stage” instead of beyond it by knowingly participating in it and affirming it together.

A) Sky Lagoon, a geothermal spa in Reykjavik, as advertised in a visitor's guide10 and elsewhere. B) Sky Lagoon as our travelling group experienced it.

Figure 3. A) Sky Lagoon, a geothermal spa in Reykjavik, as advertised in a visitor's guide10 and elsewhere. B) Sky Lagoon as our travelling group experienced it.

Key Findings

This study finds that post-tourism within this cohort was not an individual attitude, but a collective, conversational accomplishment. Labels such as “tourist trap” were not used to reject experiences, but were instead shared, negotiated, and reframed through interaction. Through ongoing conversation, the group co-narrated their experiences in real time, enabling them to enjoy highly staged environments while maintaining an ironic awareness of their constructed nature.

This research builds on MacCannell (1976) and Feifer (1986) by shifting the focus from individual perception to social interaction. Previous theories emphasize how individuals recognize and respond to inauthenticity, while this study demonstrates how that awareness is collectively produced and managed through group conversation, highlighting the importance of interaction in shaping how tourism is experienced and understood.

Figure 5. Ashlee and friends A) in the main shopping district of Reykjavik, Iceland and B) at Sky Lagoon.

Take Home Message

Post-tourism is not just a way of seeing — it is a way of being with others. In our travelling cohort, ironic awareness of tourist inauthenticity was collectively produced through conversation, transforming 'tourist traps' into shared, meaningful experiences.

Future Directions

If post-tourist awareness is collectively produced, how might different group compositions, such as age, familiarity, or cultural background, shape the ways inauthenticity is recognized, negotiated, or even resisted?
When travelling, how do conversations with others influence what feels authentic, valuable, or worthwhile?

References

Abram, Simone, Jacqueline Waldren, and Donald V. L. Macleod. Tourists and tourism: Identifying with people and places. New York: Berg, 1997.

Amit, Vered. Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World. Routledge, (Ed.). (2000).

Bruner, Edward M. The Maasai and the Lion King: Authenticity, Nationalism, and Globalization in African Tourism. American Ethnologist 28, no. 4 (November 2001): 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2001.28.4.881.

Clifford, James. Introduction: Partial Truths. Essay. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and George E. Clifford, 1–26. University of California Press, 1986.

Feifer, Maxine. Tourism in history: From Imperial Rome to the present. New York: Stein and Day, 1986.

MacCannell, Dean. Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

MacCannell, Dean. The Tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schocken Books, 1976.

Narayan, Kirin. How Native Is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist. Essay. In Situated Lives: Gender and Culture in Everyday Life, edited by Louise Lamphere, Helena Ragone, and Patricia Zavella, 23–41. New York, NY: Routledge, 1997.

Urry, John, and Jonas Larsen. The tourist gaze 3.0. (2011): 1-296.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Miami Family Fund and the Career Center for Exploration and Success at Miami University.

Research poster presented at the Miami University 2026 Undergraduate Research Forum

NACE Career Readiness Compitencies

Research Compliance Protocols

This project was reviewed and approved by the Miami University Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research: reference number 05326e

Page updated

Report abuse