[Discussion] "Tourism in central and east european dictatorships in the 20th century"

[Sule Tarakcioglu]

*"Tourism in central and east european dictatorships in the 20th
century", T2M-Conference*
*Location:* 	Germany
<http://www.h-net.org/announce/geography.cgi?geography=Germany>

	

	

	

The International Association for the History of Transport, Traffic and
Mobility (T2M) invites proposals for papers to be presented at the Third
International Conference on the History of Transport, Traffic and
Mobility, to be held at the National Railway Museum, York, United
Kingdom on 6-9 October 2005. Papers of the panel "Tourism in central and
east European dictatorships in the 20th century" should address the
historical relationship between tourism and transport, traffic and/or
mobility linked to specific characteristic of socialist systems by
comparison. Proposals exploring theoretical or methodological issues as
well as those of a more empirical nature are very welcome. In this way
we should be able to analyse the genesis, development and interaction of
different cultures of travel in order to illuminate the various
historical meanings of tourism. For more detailed information on the
conference itself, please follow: http://www.t2m.org.

The conference language is English (only).The deadline for abstracts and
a short cv (max. 1 page each; Word or rich text format only) is *Tuesday
29.3.2005*. Send proposals to the e-mail address provided below. I will
forward all documents to T2M after designing a concise overview of what
the session is about, why it matters, and how the papers each address
the panel's theme.

"Socialistic travelling" considered as a serious subject of research
means a lot more than dealing with oddities, generated by the media or
in individual and collective memories. But even curios - as a first
access - are able to show how "robust and vulnerable normality is"
(Vester, transl.). Therein the freedom of travel as a base right is
central for transformation processes in 1989 and proved the explosive
force of "secret geographies of the caged" (Schuetze, transl.).

The development of socialistic countries - not only in aspects of
tourism - often seems to be monolithic. But thereby national and
individual varieties of life style are neglected. That is why tourism
history in particular lends itself to a distinguished comparative
consideration of socialistic states. Tourism always marked a domain not
only regulated and controlled by the state, but also depending on partly
autonomous mentally and culturally stamped conditions.

At first the rather little satisfactory research situation requires a
consideration of tourism in principle. This means analysis of
geographical, political, economical, judicial, transportation and
cultural aspects, first of one selected country, later in comparison.

Thereafter there must be a distinction between regarding a country as a
tourist destination or looking at travel customs of people of a specific
origin. In first instance this is a matter of natural conditions - and
therefore a different attractiveness of territories. After all the
question is, which perspective of development was given for specific
tourist regions and centers.

National and international travelling of socialistic countries' citizens
will be the focus point of the panel. In doing so, Marxism / Leninism is
regarded as a spanning of ideology considering tourism primarily as a
medium to recreate manpower in the working process. Only since the 1970s
has it also been patronized as an expression of private need and desire.

Questions to single studies could be:

    * Which political and societal task had tourism?
    * To what extent developments appeared standardized due to Soviet
      guidelines (e.g. ideological and economic integration,
      nationalization of businesses, and rejection of a western
      orientation)?
    * How was the central control of tourist matters organized
      institutionally?
    * Of what relevance is looking at administrative structures in
      tourism policy?
    * Did single states react on the apparent inflexibility of centrally
      planned economies with basic approaches for reforms?
    * Which significance had the most important travel operators - trade
      unions and companies?
    * Which chances and/or risks did governance see organizing centrally
      led social tourism?
    * Did the ideological importance of social tourism anticipate
      necessary changes?
    * Which part did state subsidies play?
    * Was social tourism an important factor of legitimacy of particular
      or all countries?
    * How far did social tourism annul the western-style orientation of
      tourism on distinction of consumption and absorption of buying power?
    * Were there tourist businesses working like enterprises on the free
      market?
    * Which importance did travelling have in a society with bounded
      individual room for development?
    * Which options did people have travelling abroad?
    * In doing so, what did they desire (e.g. within the CMEA/Comecon
      consumption tourism, to western countries as voyages to the
      "promised land")?
    * How did travel barriers change between socialistic countries but
      also towards western countries?
    * Why did states react differently, although all governances were
      feared of undermining the State's sovereignty by journeys abroad?
    * How did experiences from abroad correspond to the (socialistic)
      everyday life of people?
    * How did the omnipresent (especially financial) shortage influence
      travelling?
    * Were there strategies to ease the consequential restrictions?
    * Did socialistic countries feature a collective - possibly
      successful - tourism model despite national differences?
    * If yes, did this model cause a handicap in the process of
      modernization only to be caught up in the transformation (Habermas)?
    * If not, can there be found classes of more open and more closed
      societies?
    * Since there was no linear and inexorable shift to a market system:
      Which development of tourism policy did single states take in
      transformation?
    * How did they deal with the rapid obsolescence of hitherto valid
      travel patterns and with the decreasing demand for travelling to
      eastern European countries?

In the session, the single contributions should result in a vivid
exchange about so far largely unconnected research efforts. It is
assumable, that a catalogue of spanning characteristics might connect
the following: predominance of national tourism, especially social
tourism; severe engagement of the governance, the trade unions and the
companies; shortage and bad quality of tourist facilities; travel
barriers in international tourism, especially with western countries;
focussing of international tourism depending of natural attractiveness
of countries; restricted commercial importance of tourism by controlled
tourist flows between CMEA/Comecon countries.

A critical examination of tourism in socialistic states should clearly
express the named problems, but also to map specific characteristics and
qualities.

	Heike Wolter
PhD-Student at Technical University Dresden
Hoeflinger Ring 6
93083 Obertraubling
Tel. 0049 / 9401 / 521416

Email: wolter_heike@yahoo.de <mailto:wolter_heike@yahoo.de>