×
Home
2024 Conference
All Conferences
Instructions
TSVC | Tourism Students Virtual Conference

Caught in a poverty romance: tourism in Dharavi, Mumbai

Caught in a poverty romance: tourism in Dharavi, Mumbai
Author: Bogomila Georgieva
1 Commentries
Abstract:
The paper aims to identify whether tourism, in particular slum tourism in Dharavi, Mumbai is voyeuristic in nature or brings benefits to the locals. In order to meet its aim the paper discusses the reactions after “The Slumdog Millionaire”movie release in 2008; motivations of tourists to partake in slum tours and some good practices in Dharavi, the biggest slum in Asia.

Keywords:
Film tourism, slum tourism, voyeurism, poverty porn, authenticity, benefits

Discussion paper:
Is tourism in Dharavi, Mumbai, “poverty porn” or a drive for development?

Dharavi in Mumbai is the largest slum in Asia, often associated only with poverty and stagnation (Reality Tours and Travel, 2014a). The township gained more popularity as a destination after the release of the popular motion picture “The Slumdog Millionaire” in 2008, which tells the story of an Indian boy who grew up in the slums but finally finds his way out of there (Meschkank, 2010). As a result in 2010 Reality Tours and Travel, a main provider of professional and regular tours, brought approximately 7,000 tourists to Dharavi (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013).

Film tourism and the effects of “The Slumdog Millionaire” release are discussed first.

Film tourism was defined by Roesch (2010, p. 7) as “a specific pattern of tourism that drives visitors to see screened places during or after the production of a feature film or a television production”. The appearance of a site in a film can increase the visitor numbers to an already existing place, boost new kinds of tourism and benefit the local economy (Tanskanen, 2012).
Boost in new kinds of tourism occurred after the success of “The Slumdog Millionaire” movie as well as a peculiar form of film tourism- poorism or slum tourism, started growing in Dharavi (Mendes, 2010). Critics of slum tourism attack not just actual poverty tours but also virtual slum tourism through film. “The Slumdog Millionaire” was even called a “poverty porn” in the London Times newspaper (Selinger and Outterson, 2009).

An ethical issue related to the film was that slum residents were not satisfied with the way their home was presented. The Indian audiences started protesting because of the portrayal of the “slum” as poverty pornography and because of the romanticization of the idea of an easy escape from the slum (Roy, 2011).

There are a number of issues associated with film tourism (Roy, 2011). In the case of Dharavi, an explosion of the morally-charged slum tourism occurred.
A definition of slum tourism, also referred to as poverty tourism or poorism, was given by Gomez (2013, p. 18) who suggested that it is “the act of visiting and touring impoverished countries”. Some authors use terms such as “social tours” or “reality tours”, suggesting that slum tourism contains interactive features but is also authentic and real (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013). However, critics would say that poorism is a form of voyeurism or exploitation (Meschkank, 2010).

Odede (2010), who grew up in Nairobi’s Kibera slum comments that slum tourism turns poverty into entertainment as they witness poverty only for a short period of time and easily escape from it. However, Weiner (2008) says that the slum tourism experiences changed the lives of a part of the tourists. Slum dwellers’ opinions also can be divided into two groups. While some of the favelas’ residents in Brazil, for example, saw this type of tourism as a positive development and a way for breaking their isolation from the rest of the world (Freire-Medeiros, 2009), others like those in Dharavi did not meet slum tours positively. According to a Dharavi resident, cited in BBC News (2012), local people did not feel the benefits from tourism. Tourists visited the slum several times a week, sometimes giving a bit of cash to locals, but in the end the positive impact was perceived to be minimal. However, can this quote from BBC News coverage be representative of the opinion of all Dharavi residents? Is it enough to label slum tourism demeaning activity if only a few residents are upset by it? A future qualitative study, investigating slum dwellers’ attitudes, would be beneficial to the debate of slum tourism ethics.

Motivations to partake in slum tours are also important. On the one hand, certain tourists consider slum tourism as the only way to encounter the real side of a destination (Meschkank, 2010).
Also, although today’s interest in slum tourism is being criticized as voyeuristic and exploitive (Gomez, 2013; Roy, 2011) in the case of Dharavi, tourists shared that in order to appreciate the beauty, they needed to see the ugly side of the city of Mumbai and gained a new respect towards the impoverished (Hannam and Diekmann, 2010).

The above arguments show that all slum tourists cannot be firmly labelled as poverty voyeurs and while some are considered to partake in slum tours as a fun way to spend their leisure time, others approach these experiences in a more respectful way.

Reality Tours and Travel is one of the tour operators in Dharavi which claim to be making attempts to bring not only awareness of the life in the slums but also financial benefits. According to this organisation, its aim is to present Dharavi as a place of “enterprise, humour and non-stop activity” (O’Brien, 2011, p. 5). Whether this purposeful presentation of the slums is actually real and authentic is a question that needs more consideration. Also, the company gives 80% of all profits to its sister charity organisation Reality Gives which runs local programs and connects the slum dwellers to socially minded individuals and organisations (Reality Tours and Travel, 2014b).

Also, Reality Tours and Travel prohibit taking photos of the slums and the dwellers, tour groups are limited to five or seven people (Gomez, 2013).

Overall, it is evident that not all tour organisations can be claimed to be exploitive and disrespectful towards the slum dwellers.

That is why, a consideration should be not whether slum tourism should exist, but how to be conducted. Poverty tourism that is ethical in its nature should contain the following characteristics: builds solidarity between visitors and observed, provides understanding on the bases of equality, sharing and respect, supports local communities, maximize economic, social and cultural benefits (Scheyvens, 2001, in O’Brien, 2011).

In conclusion a categorical condemnation of slum tourism cannot be made. Most likely, the question should not be whether slum tourism should exist, but how to be conducted. However, further examination of its impacts is needed as it still divides the society’s opinions.



References:
1. Gomez, K. (2013) Poorism as a global trend in the field of marketing: A case study on India. [online] [Accessed 25 April 2014]. Available at: http://www.philau.edu/collegestudies/Documents/Catalina%20Gomez.pdf
2. Roy, A. (2011) Slumdog cities: Rethinking Subaltern Urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(), pp. 223-238.
3. Outterson, K. & Selinger, E. (2009) The Ethics of Poverty Tourism. Boston University School of Law Working Paper 09-29. Environmental Philosophy.
Commentary for: "Caught in a poverty romance: tourism in Dharavi, Mumbai".
Author: Samuel Royston
I have chosen to write a commentary on this discussion paper, as the topic of slum tourism is a research theme within tourism which is of particular personal interest. Additionally, the concept of film tourism which is a key component of this paper, also formed a core element of my own discussion paper for this conference.

The author has written a very interesting, and well-structured discussion paper, firstly providing the reader with an introductory paragraph which identifies the destination under discussion and forming the basis for the case study, before demonstrating an understanding of the concept of film tourism and the role of “Slumdog Millionaire” as a driver of slum tourism or ‘poorism’, and then moves to explore the outcomes which arisen as a result of the release of “Slumdog Millionaire”. The author suggests that the growth of Dharavi, the slum tourism destination featured in this paper, has been as a result of the exposure from the film, Slumdog Millionaire. This notion is supported by Tooke and Baker (1996), who argue that the exposure of a destination featured in a film is able to generate and maintain interest in a way which marketers cannot.

The author discusses Meschkank’s (2010) criticism of slum tourism as a form of voyeurism or exploitation, and draws attention to the somewhat unethical elements of this mode of tourism. However, she also takes into consideration elements of slum tourism which contribute towards Weiner’s (2008) observation that slum tourism is one of the few ways that the Western world can understand the true meaning of poverty, and, later in her paper, acknowledges a core concern posited by Weiner (2008), who argues that the core question surrounding slum tours is not whether they should exist, but how they are conducted.

Georgieva observes that slum tourism can be classified as a form of reality tourism, whereby tourists engage in a quest for reality and authenticity, a notion further supported by Meschkank (2010), who proposes that the slum tourism phenomenon is a quest for real and authentic experiences, where tourists not only seek a real slum, but also a ‘real India’ which both they believe to find in Dharavi. Closely related to this issue, it is also important to note that slum tourism can be regarded as a mode of cultural tourism (Jaguaribe and Hetherington, 2004). A key issue related to cultural tourism and cultural products in general, is noted by Russell (2008), who observes that the tourism industry, especially with regards to cultural tourism, has become increasingly commodified, whereby true authenticity is regarded as being no longer achievable.

Overall, it is my opinion that the paper provides an incredibly balanced argument regarding the impacts and effects of slum tourism in Dharavi, consisting of numerous contrasting arguments, before concluding that further research into the impacts of slum tourism must be conducted, as opinions are universally divided regarding the issue. I have taken into consideration that the discussion paper is a shortened version of the original conference paper, and it is therefore important to note that some of the elements which I have raised for discussion, could indeed have featured in the original, extended paper.

References.

Jaguaribe, B. and Hetherington, K. (2004). Favela tours: Indistinct and mapless representations of the real in Rio de Janeiro. - in Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds.): Tourism Mobilities. Plaxes to play, places in play. - London: 155-166.

Meschkank, J. (2011). "Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: poverty tourism and the tensions between different constructions of reality", GeoJournal, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 47-62.

Russell D. W. (2008) Nostalgic Tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25(2) 2008.

Tooke, N., & Baker, M. (1996). Seeing is believing: the effect of film on visitor numbers to screened locations. Tourism management, 17(2), 87-94.

Weiner, E. (2008). Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism. New York Times, 9(03), 2008.