Topologies of tourism enclaves

Tourism Geographies An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment ISSN: 1461-6688 (Print) 1470-1340 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20 Topologies of tourism enclaves Richard Ek & Mekonnen Tesfahuney To cite this article: Richard Ek & Mekonnen Tesfahuney (2019): Topologies of tourism enclaves, Tourism Geographies, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2019.1663910 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1663910 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 23 Sep 2019. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtxg20 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1663910 Topologies of tourism enclaves Richard Eka and Mekonnen Tesfahuneyb a Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Department of Geography, Media and Communication, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden b ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Research on tourism enclaves has relied mainly on topographical understandings of the phenomenon. The focus has been on the ontic, that which is or exists instead of the relational qualities or properties of tourism enclaves. Topographical conceptions thus tend to simplify enclavic processes and attributes that are much more complex than meets the eye. In this article, we make the case for topological understandings of tourism enclaves, based on a relational ontology, as a complement. We thereby strive to offer more nuanced conceptions of tourism enclaves. We depart from Agamben’s political ontology to illustrate our claim. Seen topologically, tourism enclaves are not simply spaces marked-off from the norm, but rather constituents of the norm. Tourism enclaves need to be theorized as ‘prototypes’ or ‘laboratories’ of new subjectivities (ways of being, relating, and experiencing the world). The tourist thus emerges as a model figure of biopolitics in the contemporary, the norm rather than the exception. The tourist is not that which is abandoned by the sovereign in the manner of Agamben, but rather a free exilant, a subject that self-willingly chooses abandonment. We deploy topological concepts, like Agamben’s the ban, the camp, and state of exception. Such a conception, we argue, widens the ontological register or horizon of tourism theory. Received 20 July 2018 Accepted 21 August 2019 KEYWORDS Tourism enclaves; topography; topology; tourism theory; political ontology 关键词 旅游飞地; 地形学; 拓扑 学; 旅游理论; 政治本 体论 摘要 对旅游飞地的研究主要依赖于对这一现象的地形学研究。人们关 注的焦点一直集中在现有或已存的整体, 而不是旅游飞地的关系 性质或属性。因此, 地形学概念倾向于简化飞地形成的过程和属 性, 而这些过程和属性比表面上看起来复杂得多。本文以关系本 体论为基础, 对旅游飞地进行拓扑学研究, 以期为旅游飞地提供 更细致入微的概念。我们从阿甘本的政治本体论出发来说明我 们的主张。从拓扑学观察, 旅游飞地不仅仅是与常规分隔开的空 间, 而是常规的组成部分。旅游飞地需要理论化为新主体性(世 界存在的方式、世界联系的方式和体验世界的方式)的”原型”或 ”实验室”。游客因此成为当代生物政治学的典范人物, 成为规范 而非例外。游客不是以阿甘本的方式被君主所抛弃的东西, 而是 一个自由的流亡者, 一个自我选择抛弃的主体。我们使用拓扑学 的概念, 如阿甘本提出的禁令、阵营和例外状态。我们认为, 这 一概念拓宽了旅游理论的本体论视野。 CONTACT Richard Ek [email protected] ß 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 2 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY Introduction Modern society originally quite closed up, is rapidly restructuring or institutionalizing the rights of outsiders (that is, of individuals not functionally connected to the operation) to look into its diverse aspects. Institutions are fitted with arenas, platforms and chambers for the exclusive use of tourists (MacCannell, 1999, p. 49). MacCannell recognizes tourism as a key agent of structural differentiation in modernity. Tourism is not incidental but rather central to the modern societal and social order. Today tourism ‘constitutes the pinnacle of the capitalist way of life’ notes Sloterdijk (2014, p. 195). Touristic ways of being and relating to destinations distil more general ways of being and relating to the world. MacCannell’s perceptive observation signals to the need to conceive of and theorize tourism enclaves as ‘prototypes’ or ‘laboratories’ of new subjectivities, i.e. as formative of ways of being, relating, and €fgren, 1999; Minca, 2009; Simpson, 2016). Read thus, tourexperiencing the world (Lo ism enclaves are anything but exceptions to the norm. In parallel, the tourist can be conceived as a model figure or normative figure of the contemporary instead of the incidental or marginal figure he/she is often made out to be (Tesfahuney, 2016). Enclaves or enclosures come in many shapes and forms – from the plantation spaces of the 16th century, the enclosures of 17th century England, military barracks, sacred spaces, settler colonies, prisons, hospitals, to gated communities and airports. Conventionally, enclaves have been defined as a territory completely surrounded by another territory in contrast to an exclave, which is a territory belonging to a state but located in and separated by the territory of one or several other states (Berger, 2010). In this sense, tourism enclaves are contemporary territorial expressions of apparently enduring forms of spatial, geopolitical organization (Simpson, 2016). Tourism scholars have recently shown growing interest in these enclavic spaces of tourism. The theories, concepts, and vocabulary familiar from political geography – territorialization, bordering, and of course the concept of enclave itself – have been mobilized and applied to shed new lights on this particular touristic spatial phenomenon (Saarinen, 2017). Research on the geopolitical dimensions of tourism as well as ‘geopoliticizing tourism geographies’ (Mostafanezhad, 2018) is a case in point. Saarinen (2017) provides a conceptualization that captures the dialectic of inclusion and exclusion underlying enclavic tourism. Conceived thus, enclavic tourism spaces are an expression of human territoriality and the regulation of flows, mobilities, resources, and people. One early example is the strand of research in tourism studies that highlighted the backpacker phenomenon and how backpackers engendered tourism enclaves in the name of more virtuous tourism practices and ideologies (Elsrud, 2004; Lloyd, 2006). However, research on enclaves in tourism studies, has by and large relied on topographical approaches to and understandings of the phenomenon. Studies of enclavic tourism have mainly been occupied with mapping out and examining the ontic dimensions of enclavic tourism, i.e. that which is or exists, instead of the relational qualities or properties underlying tourism enclaves. Geographically, the major thrust of the research has focused on empirical studies of constructed (mostly by private stakeholders) tourism enclaves in the South (Klein, 2007; Saarinen, 2017). Tourism enclaves have been theorized as geographically distinct areas vis-a-vis the surrounding territory, society, culture, and economy – thus more or less detached from the regional TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 3 economy, polity, and culture they are located in or surrounded by. The focus on enclaves in the South inadvertently bolstered conceptions of enclaves as idiosyncratic spaces, ‘aberrations’ from normative tourist spaces, ways of being and relating to the world. Topographical conceptions of tourism enclaves tend to simplify enclavic processes and attributes. Questions of biopolitics, power, and normative subjectivities constituted in and encapsulated by enclavic tourism are lost in topographical renditions as they are not visible from a topographical perspective or through a topographic lens. In this article, we propose a topological understanding of tourism enclaves based on a relational ontology. Topological/relational conceptions of tourism enclaves offer alternative analyses of biopolitics, power, and normative subjectivities constituted in and encapsulated by enclavic tourism. A key implication of the perspectival shift we propose here is that seen topologically tourism enclaves are much more than just spaces that are territorially and functionally marked-off from the norm. Indeed, from the perspectives of topological space, these tourism enclaves are constitutive of normative tourism spaces. The tourist thus emerges as a model figure of biopolitics and geopolitics in the contemporary, the norm rather than the exception. Relying on Agamben’s (1998) political ontology to illustrate our claim, we deploy topological concepts, such as the polis, the ban, the camp, and state of exception. Such a conception, we argue, widens the ontological register or horizon of tourism theory as it complements the topographical view on tourism enclaves predominant in tourism studies. By adopting relational (topological) perspectives that place the exception at the center of western political ontology, we strive to align enclavic tourism research with wider contemporary philosophical currents. A relational ontology of enclavic tourism questions conventional distinctions between enclavic and non-enclavic tourism spaces. Our readings and topological understandings of enclavic tourism, therefore, transcend conventional topographic (dichotomous) distinctions such as tourist or citizen, inside or outside, inclusion or exclusion, norm, or exception (Ek & Tesfahuney, 2016). Our reading invokes a geopolitical–philosophical reasoning based on Giorgio Agamben’s (1998) topological readings of Western political ontology that opens up possibilities for alternative theorizations of enclavic tourism. Consequently, our conceptualization is aligned to the contemporaneous biopolitical ‘turn’ in tourism studies (Roelofsen & Minca, 2018; Rutherford, 2011; Simpson, 2016) as well as the budding geopolitical turn in tourism geographies in general (Mostafanezhad, 2018). Our attempts to apply the insights of political philosophy to issues in tourism theory are invitations for further deliberations, dialogues, and debates in tourism studies, and thereby (re)envisage and (re)cast matters touristic anew. In short, this text is a plea to ask new research questions regarding (enclavic) tourism, in which the enclaves and the enclave tourists is conceptualized as the role model of the contemporary world order, whatever it is labelled as neoliberal, post-political, or simply capitalistic. The perspective shift we are proposing also disrupts the scale of continuum between the tourist and the citizen, including ‘middle forms’ like residential tourism and lifestyle migration. Widening the ontological horizon of tourism studies is thus a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. A widening of the ontological horizon creates theoretical opportunities or possibilities that enrich empirical understanding of not 4 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY only tourism enclaves specifically, but tourism as a way to relating to the world in general as well. In order to theoretically and analytically realize the aim of this article, we lay out our argumentation in three stages. First, we provide an overview of existing research on tourism enclaves. Simultaneously we outline in more detail the ontological distinctions between the habitual or conventional topographical understanding and topological conceptions of the spatial. We juxtapose the spatial ontology underlying research on enclavic tourism to the political-ontological approach we propose here. The alternative reading provided here is in no way exclusive, and only one of many ways of imagining and examining enclavic tourism in particular and the world of tourism at large in general. Second, we introduce and deploy Agamben’s (1998) conceptions of the city and the camp as instances or figurations of topological space, stressing the dialectical relations rather than distinctions or separations of dyads such as exception/norm, inside/outside, and citizen/tourist. Thus, we complement conventional notions of tourism enclaves that follow a topographical ontology, whereby the enclave is primarily seen as the exception from the rule. This is particularly prominent in critical, particularly Marxist perspectives. The enclave is conceived as an aberration from the normative spatialities and temporalities of tourism. Rather, we propose that the enclave is more than an idiosyncratic tourism space, but rather the very essence of or distillation of tourism. Third, in the vein of Franklin (2004) among others, the previous analytical operations provide the ground for adopting compound ontologies of tourism, yet from a more political–philosophical perspective. Finally, we close this article by proposing new directions and research questions that have emerged from our topological readings of enclavic tourism. In what follows, in the next two sections, we introduce topographical and topological conceptions of tourism spaces, respectively. We rely on prior research on tourism enclaves to (1) highlight the spatial ontologies underpinning enclavic tourism research and (2) to juxtapose an alternative, topological (relational) perspective on enclavic tourism. We would like to stress that our primary aim here is not to critique prior research, rather the aim is pedagogical. In the rest of the article, we deploy Agamben, as an illustration of how to work with metaphysical and politico-philosophical notions such as state of exception, inclusion/exclusion, the threshold, abandonment/the ban, the camp/biopolitics and power in relation to tourism theory – a very modest attempt to broaden the ontological horizon of tourism research. Topographies of tourism enclaves Predominantly, research on tourism enclaves that apply a topographical approach rely on Euclidean geometry and absolute notions of space in the understandings of enclavic tourism. Space is understood as res extensa, physical expanse and distance (a la Descartes). Moreover, space is given and stable, and exterior to the events and phenomena it frames (see Massey, 2005; Harvey, 2006). Space is thus conceived as a container. A topographical understanding stresses the (absolute) physical and functional geographical reliefs and distinctions, similarities, differences, and patterns in a three-dimensional Euclidean space. The topographical map is the most typical TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 5 representation of this particular ontology, one that runs deep in Wester metaphysics (Casey, 2002). The inside/outside distinction is an instance of topographical ontology (Lefebvre, 1991). According to Latour (1993), the creation of these two distinct ontological dichotomous realms or domains has to do more with exclusionary categories and practices of purification that are inherent to and definitional of the modernistic (epistemological) project than with the physical world per se. It is an either/or rather than a both/and logic or principle that is constitutive of modernist, topographic ontologies and generically hierarchical modes of thinking (Haraway, 1991). Ipso facto, it is impossible (schematically and figuratively) to be both inside and outside, to straddle two different realms at the same time. The distinction, per se, is the element in the ontology that creates the difference; the boundary (Nail, 2016), the barbed wire that constitutes the social (Netz, 2004), the walls that created Rome (Diken & Laustsen, 2006). This distinction is an act of (sovereign) boundary making, and as such a foundational partition that literally conjures up Leviathan, in other words the state of nature, and the social contract. Barring this division or distinction, neither enclavic tourism nor tourism spaces for that matter either. Initially, research on tourism enclaves relied on absolute conceptions of space and its theorizations relied on topographical distinctions and perspectives (Kermath & Thomas, 1992). Later on, the focus of touristic enclave research on destinations in the global south placed the subject in a broader North/South spatial divide and international economic order, as well as in a regional and local context. There was for sure an awareness of the interactions and exchanges between the formal economy of tourism enclaves and the informal economy of the surrounding territory (Kermath & Thomas, 1992). Yet as noted by Freitag (1994), the very spatial design of the enclave made it difficult for the regional industry to get ‘into’ the economy of the tourism enclave, save the local elite. Interaction between the economy of the enclave and the surrounding economy is very limited. If and when local stakeholders manage to get ‘in’, they are forced to the margins of the enclave economy (Shaw & Shaw, 1999). In as much as enclavic tourism ‘is a form of tourism characterized by physically, socially and economically self-contained structures segregated from the local community’ (Naidoo & Sharpley, 2016, p. 18), the socioeconomic impact of the tourism enclave on the surrounding and wider neighboring society has been limited (Anderson, 2011; Mbaiwa, 2005). Tourism enclaves seen topologically In a topological understanding on the other hand, non-metric properties of spatial figurations such as connectedness and density are stressed, which implies a focus on functionality, relations, the interactions between relations and, importantly, the processes of spatial emergence below the (topographical) surface (Murdoch, 2006). The topological imagination harmonizes with a relational notion of space. Relational takes on spatiality imply a paradigmatic departure from the Cartesian absolute understanding of space since these dissolves the boundaries and borders between objects and space. Space is the product of processes and events rather than a container of processes or an arena where events take place in (Smith, 2003). As space is a process, 6 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY space is also always already in flux and always in emergence. Relational space is based on a Heraclitan ontology of becoming while absolute space is based on a Parmenidean ontology of being. In a way, relational space is a verb, both socially produced and socially constructed, while absolute space is a noun (Doel, 2000). Early studies of backpacker tourism, occupy a middle ground between purely topographic approaches to enclave tourism on one hand and the topological conceptions that is on offer here (Cohen, 2006). Although these studies strove to broaden the concept of the enclave, they nevertheless departed from a topographical understanding of space. As the backpacker is, supposedly, a tourist that seeks out the local other, the boundaries between the backpackers and locals are porous. The interaction between the tourist and the citizen of the destination becomes a relative space of dynamic societal interaction (Cohen, 2006; Lloyd, 2006). The backpacker tourism enclave is characterized as a space of social negotiation between hosts and guests, a space of suspension (Wilson & Richards, 2008). Yet and for all that, the enclave is still a space ontologically given and possible to pin-down, map out, and categorize. The typologies of tourism enclaves (Cohen & Neal, 2012) is based on the permeability of the border that separates the enclave from the wider (absolute) space the enclave is placed or situated ‘in’. As spelled out by Cohen and Neal (2012, p. 573): ‘researchers have noted differences in the relative tightness versus looseness of enclave boundaries: resort enclaves are reported to be tightly bound, while backpacker and urban tourism enclaves are relatively fuzzily bounded and easily penetrable’. The spatial distinction that defines the tourism enclave is still in operation, even though its specific nature varies between different enclaves. From an ontic view, enclaves come in many forms. Relational understandings of space have been established in tourism studies in general for decades now, and have also made their mark in enclavic tourism research. A relatively early example is the study by Torres and Momsen (2005) in their discussion of Cancun as a socially constructed ‘Gringolandias’ and their analysis of Cancun as a transnational relational space infused not only by capitalistic power-relations but resistance as well. The resort is a product of the interplay of transnational capital and consumption- as well as production-led migratory flows to Cancun. The intellectual ammunition of the relational space approach comes to good use when the tourism enclave is conceptualized as a socio-spatial process with inherent paradoxical spaces and representations of space as visualizations of power (Carlisle & Jones, 2012). Boundary-work and counter representations confirm Massey’s and Lefebvre’s contentions that space is always oozing, immanent, in becoming and hence malleable (Buzinde & Manuel-Navarrete, 2013; Manuel-Navarrete, 2016). Arguably, a topological approach to tourism enclaves relies on ontogenesis (immanence and becoming), rather than ontic (transcendence and being) conceptions of space (Nancy, 2000). In our effort to set new light on tourism enclaves, we pose new questions on enclavic tourism from the perspective of ontogenesis rather than conventional ontic approaches. From the perspectives of ontogenesis, it is possible to be both inside and outside at the same time as embedded in a topological spatiality. It is a ‘both-and – €bius band, a common topological figure: situation’ that applies. Think about the Mo there is no distinction between the inside and the outside of the band as one can move along the whole strip without transgressing any border or threshold. The vey TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 7 meaning and relevance of the inside/outside – dichotomy comes into question. Topographical attributes like physical distance and relief take a secondary role, as topology primarily focuses on other attributes such as reach, folding and becoming (Allen, 2016). In human geography, the topological views of space have been influenced by French Neo-Marxist theory, French post-structuralism and geophilosophy as well as German existentialism. Shields (2013) ‘cultural topology’ and the ‘post-mathematical topology’ outlined by Martin and Secor (2014) are two examples. However, the ‘topological turn’ is still very much exploratory in nature and more of an ongoing dialogue rather than a full-blown paradigm shift. Moreover, there are philosophical and analytical reservations and uncertainties with regard to the applicability of mathematical topology to the social sciences in general (Abrahamsson, 2012; Barba Lata & Minca, 2016). Perhaps the distinction between the topographical and the topological is altogether a false one? Is it not a distinction made only possible to see from a specific perspective, from a topographical perspective which imply that there exists a correct representation of the world? We argue that it is more productive to imagine or theorize space as an arena of being and becoming, immanence and transcendence, ontogenesis and the ontic, articulated as both topography and topology. We can draw parallels to David Harvey’s (2006) answer to the ‘eternal’ question of whether space is absolute, relative, or relational. In the end, Harvey settled for space being all three. Is space topographical or topological? We conceive of space as both topographical and topological (Nancy, 2000). Hence, our take on tourism enclaves is complementary to rather than a dismissive critique of topographical perspectives on tourism enclaves. City and camp In this section, we present an overview of Giorgio Agamben’s understanding of the spatial relation of the city and the camp. Agamben has had a tremendous influence in human geography, not least via the early works of Minca (2005, 2006, 2007), Ek (2006) and Gregory (2004, 2006). Minca has shown how Agamben’s political philosophy works on an explicit spatial register. In what follows, we focus on the city and the camp (Diken & Laustsen, 2006; Giaccaria & Minca, 2011). His conception of topological space is also a critique of absolute notions of space inherent in western metaphysics and political philosophy. In Agamben’s reading, Western metaphysics has the topographic circle as its foundational figure and model (Ek, 2006). Agamben’s philosophy provides an entry point to theoretically flesh-out our arguments and enables us to problematize and show the limitations of predominant ontological conceptions of tourism enclaves. Sovereign power, as per Agamben, is about making and breaking ontological distinctions. Indeed, the sovereign is the one that makes and breaks the law – the two primary, or original, acts of sovereign power. The sovereign is located at the threshold of the inside and outside, law and state of exception, life and death, zo€e and bio. The inside/outside ontology is central to Aristotle’s notion of the polis as the highest good and the community of ‘Man’ as a political animal (bios) in contrast to zo€e, the bare or simple life of being, or natural life (Agamben, 1998). One of the most famous foundational urban myths, the story of Romulus and Remus, captures as well the dialectics of 8 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY zo€e/bio, inside/outside, civilization/barbarism, central in Agamben’s deliberations on the city and the camp (Diken & Laustsen, 2006). Sloterdijk (2016) provides a similar conclusion albeit one based on an existential rather than political reading of the dyad civilization/barbarism. Indeed, a similar thought model is at play in Hobbes’ Leviathan and his distinction between the state of nature and a commonwealth (Diken & Laustsen, 2005). The spatial corollaries of the inside/outside, inclusion/exclusion, zo€e/bios distinctions, chisel out territories as absolute spaces and nation states as institutionalized containers of society (Agnew, 1994; Elden, 2009; H€akli, 2001; Norris, 2005; Sassen, 2006; Wall, 2005). According to Agamben, these western conceptions of the world rest on an illusory distinction. The ontological security promised by the social contract, the polis (the political community or nation-state), is always already provisional, as sovereign power has the capacity or power to un-make the distinction, and institute a ban on its subjects – to abandon its subjects (Wall, 2005). Ontically speaking ‘we’ may feel safe in Leviathan – an apparently benevolent sovereign that protects us as subjects, yet from an ontogenesis point of view ‘we’ are never safe even on the ‘inside’. Rather, we occupy the space of indistinction, at the threshold of zo€e/bio (Gregory, 2004). Thus, the topographical inside/outside model fails to fully capture the power-topology underlying sovereign power (Agamben, 1998). As per Agamben, the camp is the exemplary space where sovereign power is spatially played out. The space of the camp is ontologically speaking a threshold in constant transition, with subjects neither in nor out but caught betwixt (Koopman, 2008). Physically, camps are spatial manifestations of this sovereign power and may appear ontically in malevolent (prisons, concentrations camps) or benevolent guises (airports, shopping malls, event arenas, tourism enclaves). One should thus speak of camps (in the plural) since as Agamben argues, camps have a paradigmatic position in the contemporary biopolitical order and come in many shapes and ways. They range from torture camps/prison spaces such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to all-inclusive resorts, ludic leisure spaces, and hedonistic/eudainomic experiencescapes. Still, they all have the same underlying spatial logics of zo€e/ bio, inside/outside, inclusion/exclusion. In brief, they are articulations of sovereign power and control, be it economic, political, cultural or social, and not the least spatial (Diken & Laustsen, 2005; Norris, 2005), and eventually articulations of life/death (Foucault, 2003, p. 240–241). Tourism enclave – now you see it, now you do not On one hand, a tourism enclave is ‘simply’ an ontic actualization, a material manifestation absolutely worthy of careful mapping and investigation. At the same time one that does not tell us the whole story. The logic of the ‘enclave’, like the logic of the camp, requires musing and interpretations that transcend topographical categories and boundary markers. In the topographic frame, the tourism enclave is a conceptual and spatial construct that gives priority to its visuality, i.e. the topographic frame is ocular-centric. This is no coincidence as a topographical view of the world comes ‘naturally’ due to the hegemony of vision (Rodaway, 1994). A scopic regime with perspectivism as a dominant visual practice (Jay, 1988; Levin, 1993) lends itself to an TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 9 inherently topographical view of the organization of society and the ordering of territories. It is through a topographical view that walls, borders and entry points become visible and distinct in the first place. To David Michael Levin this means that the world view that the visual practice makes possible is ‘frontal’: that is ‘ontology of entities which, at least in the ideal situation, are to be held ‘front and centre’: in the most ideal act of beholding, the object is to be held in place directly before the eyes. What is laid out here is a metaphysics of vision, one that tends to overvalue constancy, uniformity, permanence, unity, totality, and distinctness’ (Levin, 1989, p. 31, e.o.), that is, a world-picture (Heidegger, 1977; Gregory, 1994). The tourism enclave is a part and parcel of the world-picture and the world as exhibition (Mitchell, 1989). However, a far-reaching understanding of enclavic spaces in tourism needs to combine topographic and topologic lenses in analyzing processes of enclavization, involving both the opening-up and closure of space under the sign of tourism. What is not immediately displayed in the tourist world picture, is the commodity relation that upholds the enclave. Just like the commodity, capitalist relations between people are hidden behind exchange relations in the market place. The social organization that constitutes the tourism enclave is mediated through the market place. The subjective and abstract values of the tourism enclave are reduced to objective, material things (Marx, 2002). The touristic enclave is ‘only’ the materialization and empirical manifestation of a phenomenon that, just like the commodity, externalizes or bleaches out the underlying capitalist relations. Viewed topologically, the tourism enclave is a materialization or concentration of capitalistic relations, €scher & social order, and practices, that are actually inherent to society at large (Bu Fletcher, 2017). The enclave is not an exception, rather (part of) the norm. As an ‘empirical beacon’, the tourism enclave may easily give the impression that tourism is spatially (de)limited and clearly demarcated to certain physical areas. Moreover, you are a tourist only when certain conditions are upheld, like an overnight visit in another (topographical) place. This topographical imagination of tourism as something outside of or marginal to society at large places greater value on research questions that approach tourism as contained and demarcated in time and space. However, if the topographical imagination is supplemented by a topological one, tourism enclaves emerge as something more than enclosures, or carved-off idiosyncratic spaces. For instance, in a topological imagination the relationship between the tourist in the enclave and the citizen outside of the enclave become intertwined. Where tourism or the enclave ends and where the polity or citizen begins is not clear cut. In a topological imagination, both the tourist-citizen and the enclave-polity lie at the threshold, i.e. the spaces of indistinction. A major implication of this is that the tourist and the citizen are but two faces of a topological figure or relation. A stance that may set the sirens of tourism scholars on, since if this is the case then everyone may be seen as a tourist. Alternatively, no one may be seen as a tourist. However, this is not what we are implying. Instead, in a similar vein to Foucault’s conceptualization of power, we uphold that tourism consists above all of a set of practices, dispositions, ways of being in and relating to the world that permeate the contemporary societal. The citizen and the tourist €bius strip as its frame or model The topological reasoning outlined above with the Mo rather than the circle of the topographical (with equidistance, clearly marked inside 10 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY and outside, inclusion and exclusion, bordering and ordering, territorialization, and cartographies of space as fixed and demarcated), offers new ways of seeing and thinking tourism enclaves. By this we mean novel ways of contextualizing, theorizing and describing the phenomenon of tourism enclaves in the field of tourism studies that in particular focus on its manifold spatialities. The specific reasoning applied here can be ‘up-scaled’ and extended to shed light on established conceptions of tourists, tourism and thereby the ontologies and epistemologies of tourism theory as well. Indeed, one could argue that tourism is always already enclavic: it is apart from everyday life, the authentic and extraordinary, a space where quotidian norms, values and relations are spatiotemporally ‘suspended’ so to speak. Tourism studies, its canon, has precisely this as its point of departure. Tourism as a phenomenon has conventionally been conceived, based on a topographical ontology, on a foundational idea in which tourism is viewed as something different, separated out from, or beyond quotidian life. As such, outside of work, family life, politics and the spaces of dreary everyday existence, a logic of particularity, of the unique, of the non-quotidian, underlies the canon and foundational ideas of tourism. A logic of particularity that always already is inherent to the discipline of tourism studies and permeate its world-view. The world as an oyster of extraordinary, distinguished, and exceptional touristic places for the (usually male) tourism scholar to explore and conquer (Ek & Larson, 2017), in stark contrast to the mundane and ordinary home (Nilsson & Tesfahuney, 2018). Tourism has been framed as the search for and the experience of the authentic other (so central to the discipline’s core conceptual apparatus) and the spatiotemporal sublimity of mythic and extraordinary touristic places (nowadays increasingly transformed into alienating touristic enclave by a relentless market-based commodification machinery), or if you like, touristic spaces of exception. But again, these touristic spaces of exception – tourism enclaves spread all over the world – from a topological viewpoint – are not ontologically exceptional, rather ‘only’ actualizations of force-fields, of near and far, of here and there, of subject and sovereign, of law and state of exception. By rethinking institutionalized concepts like ‘tourism’ and ‘tourist’ through less institutionalized concepts like ‘tourism enclave’ it becomes possible to reflect upon tourism as a societal phenomenon in new ways. This has been done earlier in the work of Franklin (2004, 2007) and Edensor (2000, 2006) among others, but while Franklin discusses tourism theory through the perspective of social theory and Edensor from a practice and performativity perspective, we apply political philosophy to arrive at our conclusions. From a political-philosophy perspective, it is particularly expedient to question and investigate the binary pair of the ‘citizen’ and the ‘tourist’. The tourist is by tradition understood and juxtaposed as someone distinct or different from the political citizen, the member of the polis, the community and as such mapped into the inside/outside – distinction. As such the tourist is rather akin to the stranger, the outsider, the alien. ‘Proper’ social science disciplines like sociology and political science as well as disciplines like philosophy, human geography and history have been highly attentive to the figure of the citizen, in stark contrast to the disdainful views of the tourist and the field of tourism studies (Nietzsche’s [1996] remark about stupid and perspiring tourists climbing mountains speaks for many). In tourism studies, the TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 11 famous host – guest model is built on this duality and even if we have several scholarly works that problematize this distinction (Rojek, 1998), or unfold the disentanglements between the tourist and the citizen (Bianchi & Stephenson, 2014), by and large the distinction between citizens and tourists is still taken for granted in tourism studies. The current debate on over-tourism is one example. The condescending view of the social sciences to matters touristic is but a species of topographical logic, which when viewed topologically reveals that the tourist has more in common with the citizen proper – something that even the celebrated thinkers in philosophy (including, perhaps ironically, Agamben) and other scholars of the citizen fails to espy. However, from a topological perspective, the tourist and the citizen positioned side by side is a picture that does not hold in the same way as the distinction between the tourism enclave and whatever lies around the enclave does not hold. Rather, the relationship between the political citizen and the non-political or perhaps better post-political tourist is €bius strip: the tourist is the flipside of the citizen, the citizen the better depicted as a Mo flipside of the tourist. This implies that the tourist is perhaps an empirical phenomenon that can be dated to the industrial era or the post-industrial era, as commonly understood, but actually has an older philosophical ancestry, as the ontological doppelganger and constant/shadow companion of the citizen. Similarly, the camp has been theorized by Agamben as an inherent principal order of the city and not, as Foucault argues, a colonial invention (Agamben, 1998). Be that as it may, neither are the silent companions that they once presumably were. Agamben provocatively argues that the logic of the camp is nowadays generalized – it is the paradigm of social life and subsumes the whole society (Diken & Laustsen, 2005). The same trajectory may be traced for the tourist as a paradigmatic figure – the mobile sovereign tourist subject, one who decides the exception and establishes normative mobile subjectivities, ways of being in and relating to the world. In short, the tourist as the ideal typical subject of our time (Tesfahuney, 2016). The injunction Enjoy!  zek, 1996) is but a generalization of the touristic way of that defines contemporary life (Zi life. The tourist subject is thus not marginal to, but integral to everyday (social) life (Edensor, 2007; Franklin, 2003; Hannam, 2008; Pernecky, 2010), in which the development and growth of tourism (enclaves) is but one instance or empirical indication of (Sidaway, 2007). Moreover, the tourist is anything but the a-political subject that he/she has traditionally been predominantly theorized as. Rather, a political subject par excellence, if only as an agent of de-politicization (hedonism, enjoyment) or side-lining of politics proper (Kingsbury, 2005). A topological imagination thus brings forth the problematics of contem zek (1999), Jacques Ranciere (1999), porary theorizations of the post-political, by Slavoj Zi Chantal Mouffe (2005), Mustafa Dikeç (2015) and Erik Swyngedouw (2018), that fail to recognize and give proper due to the tourist subject in their mappings of the post-political contemporary. Coda [B]iopolitics begins with enclosure-building (Sloterdijk, 2014, p. 170). To recapitulate our argument, we propose a topological understanding of tourism enclaves that go beyond conventional topographic takes on tourism enclaves as distinct geographical articulations of tourism. We argue that the logic of the tourism 12 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY enclave permeates much of what at face value is not considered enclavic tourism. Thus, it could and should be searched for elsewhere, particularly in places where it is least associated with or expected, as the privatized public library or in the uncanny home (Nilsson & Tesfahuney, 2018) and not only where it manifests itself empirically. That said, we do not claim that the world is literally filled with tourism enclaves, rather the logic of the enclave is much more complex and hence tourism enclaves need to be ‘gazed anew’. The question is how. This article has attempted to provide new ways of looking and studying that. To ‘see’ or ‘apprehend’ the logic of the enclave, tourism theory needs to develop topological eyes that discern the distant as proximal, the exception as the norm and new cartographies that rupture its habitual geographical imaginations and ontological standpoints. Political theories and philosophies that rupture by invoking concepts that cipher the world topologically, such as Agamben’s politico-philosophical vocabulary, provide such a vision and a cartography of enclavic tourism. In what follows, we outline some of the directions that tourism geographies could fruitfully take. A first set of questions relate to further inquiries to tourism spatiality for instance along the lines of Cantillon (2018). Thus, while the spatiality of the camp in the ontic shape of asylum detente centers has been mapped out extensively, the spatiality of the tourism enclave, the resort, the resort destination, the cruise ship and besieged cities like Barcelona remains to be investigated from a political philosophical perspective. The all-inclusive resort for instance is a way for the sovereign to biopolitically organise and manage space in order to secure the control and supervision of the subjects and their mobility (Mattson, 2016). A second avenue is to in a more philosophical way attempt to unravel the guest – host paradigm, through for instance a metaphorical and symbolic refiguration of the guest and the host as untidy and in the extension reformulate hospitality as a way of being rather than something that takes place solely €ckert, & Grit, 2014). A third direction in a touristic context (Veijola, Molz, Pyyhtinen, Ho could be centered on the tourist per se, as in Jansson (2018) or perhaps rather a figuration of the ‘post-post tourist’, a social media drenched figure that de-differentiates cultural boundaries and distinctions between mass tourism and niche tourism as well as between tourism and post-tourism. Fourth, we propose that enclavic tourism research in particular and tourism studies in general would benefit by engaging with the spherical ontologies proposed by Sloterdijk (2016). Sloterdijk (2014, p. 195) places tourism at the altar of the capitalist way of life. From this perspective, the tourism enclave is not just a distillation of a new meta-geography of the Global South and the Global North and developmental issues therein, but also a meta-geography of the planetary polity (Sidaway, 2007). Following Sloterdijk (2016), in relation to urban tourism for instance, it would be worthwhile to examine tourism enclaves in light of the foam of planetary urbanism, ‘tourism as part of the interior world of capital’ so to speak (Sloterdijk, 2016). Airbnb and Uber are iconic examples of this. Indeed, the foam, as well as the sphere and the bubble draw out the dialectics of inclusion/exclusion, inside/outside, norm/exception in sharper relief than Agamben’s esoteric/metaphysical musings on space, power, norm/exception, and life/death. For instance, Sloterdijk (2016) theorizes the foam as the spatial architecture of the contemporary, such that we live in our small bubbles, TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 13 connected-and-encased. Translated into the tourism lexicon this would shed new insights not only on the workings of tourism enclaves, but also on current tourist practices like tourism social media and other attempts to encapsulate and de-differentiate thy, & Cai, 2013). tourist subjectivities (Munar, Gyimo Our critical scrutiny of tourism is no stranger to tourism theory itself. Rather, a careful convocation of (what at first sight appear as) far-flung analogies to concepts like ‘camp’, and ‘foam’. We hope the previous insights will hold out a vitalization of tourism theory. In any case, topological concepts offer a widening of the ontological horizon of our discipline. In our view, this is beneficial for tourism studies both theoretically and empirically. Our theoretical antes are not devoid of methodological risks. The obvious one being the mapping of philosophical and metaphysical arguments on to the plain field of tourism studies. So too the transposition of philosophical concepts and arguments to the realm of the social sciences is fraught with methodological and conceptual problems. As the attempts to import Agamben’s ideas and topological perspectives from the discipline of mathematics to the social sciences show – a daunting task and intellectual endeavor to partake. Yet, this in itself should not hinder sustained and critical engagements either. Indeed, is it not by challenging ourselves intellectually that we develop as academics? Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Richard Ek is Associate Professor in Human Geography at Lund University. His research interest is primarily on biopolitics and spatial theory, tourism geographies, and planning. Most recent publications discussed topics like: emotional labour in the sharing economy, the diffusion of micro-breweries and overtourism. Mekonnen Tesfahuney is Professor in Human Geography at the University of Karlstad. His research interest revolt around questions of precarious mobilities, power and space/place as well as human geographic and tourism theory. Recent publications dealt with the following themes: Privileged Mobilities, Pilgrimage/Post-Secular Tourism, and The Home and Tourism. References Abrahamsson, C. (2012). Mathematics and space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(2), 315–321. doi:10.1068/d3002int Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power. Beyond territory and networks. Abingdon: Routledge. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer. Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80. doi:10.1080/09692299408434268 Anderson, W. (2011). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impact in emerging destinations. Anatolia – Anatolia, 22(3), 361–377. doi:10.1080/13032917.2011.633041 Barba Lata, I., & Minca, C. (2016). The surface and the abyss/rethinking topology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(3), 438–455. doi:10.1177/0263775815622086 14 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY Berger, S. (2010). Geopolitics of enclaves: The study of enclaves – some introductory remarks. Geopolitics, 15(2), 312–328. doi:10.1080/14650040903486942 Bianchi, R. W., & Stephenson, M. L. (2014). Tourism and citizenship. Abingdon: Routledge. B€ uscher, B., & Fletcher, R. (2017). Destructive creation: Capital accumulation and the structural violence of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(5), 651–667. doi:10.1080/09669582. 2016.1159214 Buzinde, C. N., & Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2013). The social production of space in tourism enclaves: Mayan children’s perceptions of tourism boundaries. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 482–505. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.06.003 Cantillon, Z. (2018). Resort spatiality. Reimagining sites of mass tourism. London: Routledge. Carlisle, S., & Jones, E. (2012). The beach enclave. A landscape of power. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1, 9–16. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2011.12.003 Casey, E. (2002). Representing place: Landscape paintings and maps. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, E. (2006). Pai – A backpacker enclave in transition. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(3), 11–27. doi:10.1080/02508281.2006.11081502 Cohen, E., & Neal, M. (2012). A middle eastern Muslim tourist enclave in Bangkok. Tourism Geographies, 14(4), 570–598. doi:10.1080/14616688.2012.647320 Dikeç, M. (2015). Space, politics and aesthetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Diken, B., & Laustsen, C. B. (2005). The culture of exception: Sociology facing the camp. Abingdon: Routledge. Diken, B., & Laustsen, C. B. (2006). The camp. Geografiska Annaler B, 88(4), 443–452. doi:10.1111/ j.0435-3684.2006.00232.x Doel, M. (2000). Un-glunking geography: Spatial science after Dr. Seuss and Gilles Deleuze. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking space (pp. 117–136). London: Routledge. Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 322–344. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00082-1 Edensor, T. (2006). Performing tourist places. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2), 243–244. doi:10. 1016/j.jrurstud.2005.07.006 Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(2), 189–215. Ek, R. (2006). Giorgio Agamben and the spatialities of the camp: An introduction. Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography, 88(4), 363–386. doi:10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00228.x Ek, R., & Larson, M. (2017). Imagining the alpha male of the tourism tribe. Anatolia – Anatolia, 28(4), 540–552. doi:10.1080/13032917.2017.1370778 Ek, R., & Tesfahuney, M. (2016). The paradigmatic tourist. In A. M. Munar & T. Jamal (Eds.), Tourism research paradigms: Critical and emergent knowledges (pp. 113–129). Bingley: Emerald Press. Elden, S. (2009). Terror and territory. The spatial extent of territory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Elsrud, T. (2004). Taking time and making journeys: Narratives on Self and the Other among backpackers. Lund Dissertations in Sociology 56. Department of Sociology, Lund University. Franklin, A. (2003). The tourist syndrome. Tourist Studies, 3(2), 205–217. doi:10.1177/ 1468797603041632 Franklin, A. (2004). Tourism as an ordering: Towards a new ontology of tourism. Tourist Studies, 4(3), 277–301. doi:10.1177/1468797604057328 Franklin, A. (2007). The problem with tourism theory. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies (pp. 131–148). Oxford: Elsevier. Freitag, T. G. (1994). Enclave tourism development. For whom the benefits roll? Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 538–554. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(94)90119-8 Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended. London: Picador. Giaccaria, P., & Minca, C. (2011). Topographies/topologies of the camp: Auschwitz as a spatial threshold. Political Geography, 30(1), 3–12. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.12.001 Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 15 Gregory, D. (2004). The colonial present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Malden: Blackwell. Gregory, D. (2006). The black flag. Guantanamo Bay and the space of exception. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 88(4), 405–427. doi:10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00230.x Hannam, K. (2008). Tourism geographies, tourism studies and the turn towards mobilities. Geography Compass, 2(1), 127–139. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00079.x Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books. Harvey, D. (2006). Space as a key word. In N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A critical reader (pp. 270–293). Malden: Blackwell. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York, NY: Harper & Row. H€akli, J. (2001). In the territory of knowledge: State-centered discourses and the construction of society. Progress in Human Geography, 25(3), 403–422. doi:10.1191/030913201680191745 Jansson, A. (2018). Rethinking post-tourism in the age of social media. Annals of Tourism Research, 69, 101–110. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2018.01.005 Jay, M. (1988). Scopic regimes of modernity. In H. Foster (Ed.), Vision and visuality (pp. 3–23). Seattle: Bay Press. Kermath, B. M., & Thomas, R. N. (1992). Spatial dynamics of resorts. Sos ua, Dominican Republic. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 173–190. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(92)90076-2 Kingsbury, P. (2005). Jamaican tourism and the politics of enjoyment. Geoforum, 36(1), 113–132. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.03.012 Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt. Koopman, S. (2008). Cutting through topologies: Crossing lines at the school of Americas. Antipode, 40(5), 825–847. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00639.x Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Levin, D. M. (1989). The listening self. Personal growth, social change and the closure of metaphysics. London: Routledge. Levin, D. M. (1993). Introduction. In D. M. Levin (Ed.), Modernity and the hegemony of vision (pp. 1–29). Berkeley: University of California Press. Lloyd, K. (2006). Catering to the backpacker: The transition of backpacker enclaves in Vietnam. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(3), 65–73. doi:10.1080/02508281.2006.11081506 €fgren, O. (1999). On holiday. A history of vacationing. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lo MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist. A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2016). Boundary-work and sustainability in tourism enclaves. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(4), 507–526. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1081599 Martin, L., & Secor, A. J. (2014). Towards a post-mathematical topology. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 420–438. doi:10.1177/0309132513508209 Marx, K. (2002). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy. In N. W. Biggart (Eds.), Readings in economic sociology (pp. 18–23). Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/ 9780470755679.ch2 Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage. Mattson, K. (2016). Holiday utopias: The gendered and racialized spaces of all-inclusive tourism. In M. Tesfahuney & K. Schough (Eds.), Privileged mobilities: Tourism as world-ordering (pp. 67–80). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impact in the Okavango Delta. Tourism Management, 26(2), 157–172. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.005 Minca, C. (2005). The return of the camp. Progress in Human Geography, 29(4), 405–412. doi:10. 1191/0309132505ph557xx Minca, C. (2006). Giorgio Agamben and the new biopolitical nomos. Geografiska Annaler B, 88(4), 387–403. doi:10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00229.x 16 R. EK AND M. TESFAHUNEY Minca, C. (2007). Agamben’s geographies of modernity. Political Geography, 26(1), 78–97. doi:10. 1016/j.polgeo.2006.08.010 Minca, C. (2009). The island: Work, tourism and the biopolitical. Tourist Studies, 9(2), 88–108. doi: 10.1177/1468797609360599 Mitchell, T. (1989). The world as exhibition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mostafanezhad, M. (2018). The geopolitical turn in tourism geographies. Tourism Geographies, 20(2), 343–346. doi:10.1080/14616688.2018.1434820 Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. thy, S., & Cai, L. eds. (2013). Tourism social media: Transformations in identity, Munar, A. M., Gyimo community and culture. Bingley: Emerald. Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography: A guide to relational space. London: Sage. Naidoo, P., & Sharpley, R. (2016). Local perceptions of the relative contributions of enclave tourism and agritourism to community well-being: The case of Mauritius. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.11.002 Nail, T. (2016). Theory of the border. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nancy, J.-L. (2000). Being singular plural. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Netz, R. (2004). Barbed wire: An ecology of modernity. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Nietzsche, F. (1996). Human, all too human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nilsson, M., & Tesfahuney, M. (2018). Home – tourism’s uncanny. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(15), 1783–1788. doi:10.1080/13683500.2018.1441269 Norris, A. ed. (2005). Politics, metaphysics, death. Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer. Durham: Duke University Press. Pernecky, T. (2010). The being of tourism. Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(1), 1–15. Ranciere, J. (1999). Disagreement. Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Rodaway, P. (1994). Sensuous geographies. Body, sense and place. London: Routledge. Roelofsen, M., & Minca, C. (2018). The superhost. Biopolitics, home and community in the Airbnb dream-world of global hospitality. Geoforum, 91, 170–181. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.021 Rojek, C. (1998). Tourism and citizenship. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 4(2), 291–310. doi:10.1080/10286639809358077 Rutherford, S. (2011). Governing the wild. Ecotours of power. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press. Saarinen, J. (2017). Enclavic tourism spaces: Territorialisation and bordering in tourism destination development and planning. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 425–437. doi:10.1080/14616688. 2016.1258433 Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authorities, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Shaw, B. J., & Shaw, G. (1999). Sun, sand and sales’: Enclave tourism and local entrepreneurship in Indonesia. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(1), 68–81. doi:10.1080/13683509908667844 Shields, R. (2013). Spatial questions: Cultural topologies and social spatialisation. London: Sage. Sidaway, J. D. (2007). Enclave space: A new metageography of development. Area, 39(3), 331–339. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00757.x Simpson, T. (2016). Tourist utopias: Biopolitics and the genealogy of the post-world tourist city. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 27–59. doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1005579 Sloterdijk, P. (2014). In the world interior to capital. Towards a philosophical theory of globalisation. Cambridge: John Wiley. Sloterdijk, P. (2016). Foams. Spheres III. South Pasadena, CA: Semiotext(e). Smith, N. (2003). American empire: Roosevelt’s geographer and the prelude to globalization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2018). Promises of the political: Insurgent cities in a post-political environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tesfahuney, M. (2016). Who is the tourist? Reflection on the ideal typical subject of our time. In M. Tesfahuney & K. Schough (Eds.), Privileged mobilities. Tourism as world ordering (pp. 93–105). UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 17 Torres, R. M., & Momsen, J. D. (2005). Gringolandia. The construction of a new tourist space in Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 314–335. doi:10.1111/j.14678306.2005.00462.x €ckert, E., & Grit, A. (2014). Disruptive tourism and its untidy Veijola, S., Molz, G. J., Pyyhtinen, O., Ho guests. Alternative ontologies for future hospitalities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wall, T. C. (2005). Au hazard. In A. Norris (Ed.), Politics, metaphysics, death. Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer (pp. 31–48). Durham: Duke University Press. Wilson, J., & Richards, G. (2008). Suspending reality: An exploration of enclaves and the backpacker experience. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(2), 187–202. doi:10.2167/cit371.0  zek, S. (1996). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso. Zi  zek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. New York: Verso. Zi