Cultural tourism and tourist culture
Upon commencing a blog more technical, and certainly less personal, than those I have written until now, naturally my thoughts turn to the vocation to which I have dedicated myself for almost 25 years.
To have the opportunity to work as an expert in certain cultural tourism
fields and sectors, then the task of examining closely numerous thematic
proposals in fifty or so countries; and, finally, to play the intermediary
between those who conceive and implement projects and those who decide whether
or not to grant them a label has been an incredible learning experience. Principally,
for a quarter of a century it has allowed me to measure the progress made, the
breaking points and the key moments in time, thus largely to sidestep the effects
of shifting trends.
I was there in the late 1980s, when virtually all meetings discussed the big question: “What is cultural tourism, exactly?” This has still not been fully answered! So as not to wrap up in fifteen minutes a debate which needed a length of time equivalent to writing a dissertation, I habitually turned to a quotation:
“Culture is such a broad and
complex phenomenon that producing a clear definition of ‘cultural tourism’
becomes impossible and may even prove to be a futile endeavour.” (Tomasz
Studzieniecki).
I can turn, without great alteration, to the words I employed in 2003: “Cultural tourism, as a result, is emerging as one of the best places to see the contradictions of the society which implement it and one of the most tangible indicators of its ‘cultural health’.
Certainly,
an ‘Allegory of cultural tourism’ must be written, along the lines of Françoise
Choay’s ‘Allegory of heritage’.
Europe as a whole (better put now, the ‘DestinationEurope’ (see recdent updated document 2019 from European Parliament) about which the European Commission has restarted discussions since
2010) is thought of as a destination chosen due to its historical significance and
the both common and diverse, singular nature of its heritage. As such, a large
portion of this blog’s future posts will discuss the political and
administrative spheres which take decisions on the programmes and aids for targets
selected from all of tourism, the routes and tours connected to cultural practices
and, I should say, the practices of sustainability and environmental protection.
In all this, social tourism will not go overlooked, either.
Another section will deal with proposals
which aim to encourage the discovery of Europe through precise and feasible suggestions.
Choosing between these will be done primarily on the basis of originality, lesser-known
destinations, approaches which offer fresh encounters and give meaning to them
while appealing to the imagination, as well as tools which facilitate
discovery.
The blog will therefore be less about
stories – mediation and narration will be presented elsewhere – than of the
evolution of tourist policies in Europe, changes to the persons behind these
policies, publications which aid their guiding, even practical advice which selects
good practice, not to leave out examination of the most active enterprises, as
well as commentaries on vital tourism-based meetings on new developments in the
field.
Why I am only now taking up this approach
of theoretical and practical analysis, as openly as possible is because I now
feel free to express my personal points of view and also to share my memories. However,
researching the latest news and results falls within the scope of preparing the
courses and speeches asked of me.
Thus, working in this way, following day-by-day
the latest developments, which includes following my friends on increasingly
better-informed social media websites, largely consists of updating an action
plan which has the following parts:
·
Which Europe? Which skills?
Which work? Which programmes? There are numerous organisations involved which
do not share the same ideas with regard to territory and politics
·
Tourism in Europe: facts,
figures and sectors
·
Europe and others: tourism as a
geopolitical tool
·
The specific role of the European
Commission
·
The specific role of the
European Parliament
·
Why cultural tourism, and how?
Or: Europe as a laboratory for cultural tourism
·
The specific role of the
Council of Europe
From the 1995 Green Paper to the 2010
Communication on tourism
Over the last 25 years, I have had the
opportunity to witness up-close the several key moments in the history of
tourism in Europe. The first in which I was involved resulted in a missed
opportunity. The last finally brought about the implementation, even the coming
together, of a series of programmes which, through the European Commission’s
initiative in 2009, involved the great European institutions.
Three institutions working together
I do not think it useful to dwell on the
first of these moments, but there definitely are lessons to be learned from it.
Christos Papoutsis, the commissioner responsible for tourism in the mid-1990s,
took the rather perceptive initiative to reflect upon ‘Destination Europe’. In
other words, on a supranational tourist policy based on community, at least in
terms of joint communication, yet also in terms of measuring impact and including
cultural tourism in this reflexion. During the conclusion of the Maastricht
Treaty, an additional paragraph was finally introduced in article 3 to do with
actions in the fields of energy, civil protection and tourism.
Specifically, I refer to the ‘Green Paperon the role of the Union in the field of tourism’ (COM(95) 97 final of 14 April1995) and the ‘Commission Proposal for a first multiannual programme to assistEuropean tourism entitled Philoxenia’ (1997/2000 COM (96) 168 final of 30 April1996).
The Philoxenia programme’s implementation started well thanks to, for example, the efforts of EMP Helena Vaz da Silva and even included, as a result, a number of the cultural routes of the Council of Europe she supported, such as the Route of Cities of Grand Discoveries.
Yet its
auspicious beginning was largely down to officials from three institutions
deciding to work side by side: firsrtly, those from the Culture Agency, chaired
by Edgar Morin and created by José Vidal-Beneyto, former Director-General of
the Council of Europe, and working
within the framework of UNESCO; secondly, those in the European Commission’s
Tourism Unit under the guidance of the Commissioner in charge of tourism; and
finally, the Directorate for Culture, Education and Sport of the Council of
Europe, led by Raymond Weber.
It was there that the notion of cultural
tourism, despite some blurred edges, truly took shape. The importance of observing
the heritage of others was highlighted by the European Commission as an engine
for travel, which the Council of Europe had also been calling for since 1984. I
believe this constituted a great success since, through a sort of
interinstitutional collusion of administrators, three groups had managed, of
sorts, to make it so that in March 1996, Federico Mayor Zaragoza,
Director-General of UNESCO, Raymond Weber, Director-General of the Council of
Europe, and European Commissioner Christos Papoustis delivered complementary speeches
on a shared philosophy for the relationship between tourism and culture; as
part of, no less, a tourism exhibition: the BIT in Milan.
A few months later, UNESCO and the Council
of Europe jointly proposed a ‘Mallorca Declaration’ which resulted from
meetings backed financially by the European Commission. In the Declaration, we
read: Today, I enjoy rereading the texts that
came forth from the preparatory meetings of this Declaration for they show me
that the creation of the European Institute of Cultural Routes in 1997 not only
kept alive, in Luxembourg, a European programme which could no longer find
funding from the Council of Europe, but that it also maintained the often
fragile and fraught link between three institutions; one that could be utilised
to ‘stitch Europe back together’, as José Maria Ballester said.
In fact, barely a year later (at a time
when the European Institute of Cultural Routes was settling down in the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg with a view to physically implementing the initiatives
found in the logical extension of this reflexion), the Council of Tourism
Ministers was meeting during the Luxembourgish Presidency of the Council of the
European Union. At the request of Germany and the United Kingdom, among others,
it rejected the Green Paper and its recommendations in favour of returning to a
more national and decentralised concept of tourist policies, demanding a return
to the strict upholding of the principles of subsidiarity.
Despite this bad news, however, an
innovative policy based on reaching out to tourists continued to develop. The
Institute also managed to implement the visibility strategy for a research
programme entitled PICTURE. A part of this programme was aimed at better
defining cultural tourism, but its essential focus was directed towards analysing
the impact of cultural tourism on the resources and economies of small and
medium-sized towns. We are now in the period of 2003 to 2006.
Final meeting of the PICTURE programme.
Neumünster Abbey
Exhibition on cultural tourism for small
and medium-sized towns
Another step forward and, in some ways,
sweet revenge. In April 2005, the Institute organised a conference in
Luxembourg on cultural tourism during the Luxembourg presidency of the Council
of the European Union, which brought together delegates from the ministries of
culture and tourism of European Union member states and member countries of the
Council of Europe . Something surely never seen before, so many countries for a
genuine pan-European collision between culture and tourism.
Taking off
One year later in Vienna, 21 March 2006, I attended the presentation of the results of the Conference of European Tourism Ministers entitled ‘Tourism: Key to Growth and Employment in Europe’.
At the time, Gentler Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission, said :
“Europe is the No
1 destination worldwide for tourists. However, we must take full advantage of
this to conserve our competitive advantage. Our proposals add a European
quality to the work of our Member States. They will contribute to promoting the
Union as a unique tourist destination in a more effective and coordinated
manner.”
Agenda 21 was planned there and then, which
led to the creation of a think tank on sustainable and competitive tourism and,
in 2007, to the creation of the NECSTOUR network. Taking the approach of
systematic data research, which was also announced, without doubt led to the
current European Tourism Observatory. Evidently, it was about increasing
visibility, of converging European funding instruments on tourism, policies
which, today, are all taking shape. The European Travel Commission-run website visiteurope.com
was also launched with great pomp and ceremony at this event, in the harmonious
mixture of the biggest tourist operators and the national offices of the future
27, and with the involvement of the biggest operators in IT.
Yet very prudently and respectfully, the Commission stated :
“By implementing this policy, the Commission will develop
tight partnerships with the governments of the Member States and players in the
tourism sector. These partnerships must constitute a central element in action
on all levels (European, national, regional and local, public and private). As
a general rule, the Commission states that Europe’s tourism policy should complement
the policies in effect in the Member States.”
Understand that I am not ignoring the fact that on 11 April 2006, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe a report on the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union, which had been requested the year before by the heads of state of the 46 Member States when they met at the summit in Warsaw on 16 and 17 May 2005.
The Juncker report presented recommendations for improving cooperation and coordination between the two organisations. More specifically, the Prime Minister remarked that in matters of cultural cooperation, the European Union was pursuing, in its Culture 2000 programme, the same goals as the Council of Europe (promotion of identity, respect of diversity, supporting creativity, etc.) and that it claimed to be open to collaboration with the other relevant international organisations.
Consequently, Prime Minister Juncker was suggesting that such collaboration
between the two Institutions would extend to the European cultural routes, as
he put it, “for other initiatives, such as the European Year of Languages [and]
the European Heritage Days”.
That same year, in Delphi, a Forum took
place with a view to granting the Olive Tree Route the label of Cultural Route
of the Council of Europe. At the end of the meeting, the participants requested
that the Council of Europe launch a Delphi initiative or platform capable of
bringing together all those responsible for, as well as financiers of, the
cultural routes. They entrusted the Luxembourg Institute with the task of
preparing an analysis and a report introducing this platform in line with the
programme’s 20th anniversary meetings.
Olive Tree Route Exhibition, Delphi 2006
Towards a Renewed European Policy
On 17 October 2007, the Transport and
Tourism Committee of the European Parliament, after consultation with the
Culture Committee, proposed Recommendations and a Report ‘On a renewed European
Union Tourism Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism’ (2006/2129(INI)). On the basis of the Resolution of 8 September 2005 on the new prospects
of and new challenges for sustainable European tourism, Parliament encouraged
at this time the selection of priorities with a view to speeding up their
realisation. In particular, it intended to encourage initiatives such as the
European Cultural Routes and positive experiences with regard to their
promotion of European tourist destinations in need of increased visibility.
When the European Union dedicated a year to
cultural dialogue and reflexion was sought on a “European Heritage Label” (an
idea launched in France on the eve of the referendum on the constitutional
treaty in 2005), a series of European initiatives took shape with a view to
selecting good practice and establishing criteria for the management and
evaluation of sustainable European destinations and locations.
NECSTouR, the network of European regions
which is embedded within the Agenda for a Sustainable and Competitive European
Tourism, was created in Florence in September 2007 on the initiative of the
Tuscany region, followed by Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d’Azur and Catalonia. Since
2007, many meetings have taken place (Marseille, Riccione, Plymouth, Florence,
Brussels, etc.) leading to the creation of an association which comprises the largest
possible number of European regions, as well as universities and institutions which
work with the regions on sustainable and competitive tourism. The network has
begun to single out the indicators to be tested on small destinations before
they are validated. The European Institute of Cultural Routes has been a member
of the network since its beginning. It has regularly contributed to the working
group on the “Active Conservation of the Cultural Heritage and Identity of
Destinations”. What is more, since the summer of 2011 it has produced a
questionnaire on the relations between regional policies and cultural routes in
the framework of a ‘Governance of Cultural Routes’ task-force.
The EDEN (European Destination of
Excellence) programme was launched with great success by the European
Commission with the aim of selecting destinations outside popular tourist
circuits; destinations which respect and value environmental, economic and
social concerns on a local level.
You can of course find descriptions of the
programmes in question on the European Commission’s website, as well as those
of other complementary initiatives and initiatives adopted more recently.
I shall not mention directly the
considerable work undertaken and updated during these years with regard to
tourism law: travellers’ rights, legislation for low-cost transport and
regulations on house and vehicle rental. The Tourismlaw organisation’s document
of 15 May 2007, which I have previously mentioned, is extremely comprehensive
in this regard.
The Lisbon Treaty: An economic dimension
and the power of travelling
Adopted after countless sleepless nights
towards the end of 2009, the Lisbon Treaty saved in extremis the very concept
of the common constitutional treaty. It brought an end to the cycle wherein the
dynamism of the Institutions came up against the complete inertia of certain states.
Thankfully, it was able to benefit from the dynamism of the others with regard
to the notion of common tourist policies.
At the time, we perhaps did not fully gauge
the significance of article 195 of the TFEU. The EU can, as such, “promote the
competitiveness of undertakings in this sector and create an environment
conducive to their development; encourage cooperation between the Member
States, particularly through the exchange of good practice; [and finally] establish
an integrated approach to tourism ensuring that the sector is taken into
account in its other policies."
With the door prised open a crack, European Commissioner Antonio Tajani, aided by his close-knit team and officials of the Tourism Unit, took just six months to prepare a ‘Communication from the Commission’ entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No1 tourist destination – a new politicalframework for tourism in Europe’.
What is more, he presented it at the end of the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union, firstly at a press conference in Brussels and subsequently at the town hall in Santiago de Composted after a five-kilometre walk to the Falcon capital.
Clearly, through
its symbolism, this walk emphasised the importance of travelling to and around
Europe, something instigated in 1987 by the Council of Europe and subsequently
resumed by an exposition in October 2007 entitled ‘Europe is the Way’, which
was held in plaza Obraidoro.
Europe is the Way Exhibition
Although this all-new situation encouraged
the development of a truly original and extremely demanding area for the cultural
routes in comparison with traditional markets, and a tourist product largely
ignored by the major stakeholders for almost 20 years, its main benefit was
that the powers that be were, as of the beginning of 2010, leaning towards the closening
of operational ties between the two Institutions.
The most symbolic, and the most moving, moment occurred in March 2010 during the General Assembly of the European Association ofVie Francigene in Montefiascone in the presence of Commissioner Antonio Tajani and MEP Silvia Costa. It was clearly the key moment when the process gathered momentum and the idea to hold a cultural routes exposition on European Tourism Day truly took shape. From this date on, lady luck smiled on us, which led to joint work, and notably the finalising, in less than a year, of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on the Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe.
The second Delphi
Forum, in April of that year, and a meeting arranged at the Lucca Campus in
May, helped to merge political commitments and provoke difficult discussions,
encouraging a convergence approach which has hence become indispensable.
Massive Tedeschi, Antonio Tajani and Silvia
Costa. Montefiascone
The intent behind the Communication was
clearly first and foremost economic: tourism is a strategic economic activity
for the European economy and the sector will probably grow steadily in size in
the years to come... “the European tourism industry generates over 5 % of EU
GDP. Taking into account the sectors linked to it, tourism's contribution to
GDP is even greater; it is estimated to generate over 10 % of the European
Union's GDP and provide approximately 12 % of all jobs.”
However, noting that since 2008 the economic crisis has threatened all sectors and that some climatic and geographical factors have not been conducive to European tourism’s return to profitability, the Communication adds:
“This difficult background for the
tourism industry has highlighted a number of challenges which the European
tourism sector must face. In order to respond, it is essential that all operators
in the sector combine their efforts and work within a consolidated political framework
that takes account of the new EU priorities set out in the 'Europe 2020'
strategy: Europe must remain the world's No 1 destination, able to capitalise
on its territorial wealth and diversity.”
Europe’s supremacy is stated several times:
“In addition, the European Union remains the world's No 1 tourist destination,
with 370 million international tourist arrivals in 2008, or 40 % of arrivals
around the world, 7.6 million of them from the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India and China), a significant increase over the 4.2 million in 2004. These
arrivals generated revenues of around EUR 266 billion, 75 billion of which was
from tourists coming from outside the Union. As regards journeys by Europeans
themselves, they are estimated at approximately 1.4 billion, some 90 % of which
were within the EU.”
An initial statement such as this, which is developed at length throughout the text, constitutes the bedrock of four key priorities for work which, in the coming months, we will have the opportunity to expand on in relation to their implementation. However, the real revolution is not only about the importance given to the cultural heritage sector (we have already seen that this was present in previous publications) but the fact that this transverse cultural priority was stated so strongly in a Communication which addressed all the Member States:
“The European Union can contribute to
the diversification of supply by encouraging intra-European flows through
capitalising on the development of thematic tourism products on a European
scale. Transnational synergies can ensure better promotion and a higher profile
for tourism. This may include the full range of heritage: cultural heritage
(including cultural itineraries), contemporary culture, protected natural
sites, health and wellbeing (including spa tourism), educational, wine and
food, historical, sport or religious tourism, agri-tourism, rural tourism, or
tourism capitalising on the maritime and sub-aquatic cultural heritage,
industrial heritage or the economic fabric of a region.”
And again:
“To this end, the Commission has
already begun cooperating with the Council of Europe in the field of cultural
tourism in order to better assess its impact and give it a higher profile.
Cross-border initiatives have also been set up in recent years, such as
European cycle routes or pilgrimage routes, i.e. the Via Francigena and
Santiago de Compostela. The Commission considers that a number of these
initiatives would benefit from recognition and from a European seal of
legitimacy which would guarantee their transnational character. Such recognition
of their European vocation could create a similar dynamic to that created by
the success of the European Capitals of Culture, which act as a catalyst for
local development and tourism by implementing an ambitious and attractive annual
cultural programme on a European scale.”
Exhibition of the Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe Berleymont, September 2010
That was not merely a signal of intent as,
after the European Tourism Day dedicated to the Cultural Routes in 2010 and thanks
to a budget approved by the European Parliament at the end of 2010, two calls
for proposals on thematic cross-border tourism were made in 2011, and the
Council of Europe and the European Commission have been pursuing a joint
programme since last November.
Quality Label(s)
The term joined and integrated destinations means in essence – at the very least – to construct a common image and joint communications:
“The image of Europe and its perception as a collection of
sustainable and high-quality tourist destination must be improved. Making
European destinations more attractive and raising their profile should bring
significant economic benefits, by stimulating non-European tourist arrivals and
also by increasing interest by Europeans in travelling within their own
continent.” Further still: “Develop[ing] a European 'Qualité Tourisme' brand,
based on existing national experience, to increase consumer security and
confidence in tourism products and reward rigorous efforts by tourism
professionals whose aim is quality of tourism service for customer
satisfaction.”
For one who has been involved in transnational and intergovernmental organisations for decades, such language is not only markedly new; it means that habits which have been set in stone must now be upturned with the utmost haste, particularly those aimed at savage competition between European destinations.
‘Different strokes for different
folks’ is a line of thought which has been widely put into practice by national
tourist offices. Now, though, Action 18 sets out a plan to “Create a true
'Europe brand' in cooperation with the Member States to complement promotional
efforts at national and regional level and enable European destinations to
distinguish themselves from other international destinations”, and number 20 a
plan to “Encourage joint promotional actions at major international events or
large-scale tourism fairs and exhibitions.”
So what of this? I will not go into excessive detail about the way in which the “European Heritage Label”, mentioned elsewhere in the Communication, has in the meantime become a community programme with the aim of, through European citizenship criteria, drawing tourists’ attention to sites and cross-border areas which are of great significance to the history of Europe. Instead, I can simply quote Decision No1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, which defines this label in a wider context:
“In addition to strengthening European citizens’
sense of belonging to the Union and stimulating intercultural dialogue, the
action could also contribute to enhancing the value and profile of cultural
heritage, to increasing the role of heritage in the economic and sustainable
development of regions, in particular through cultural tourism, to fostering
synergies between cultural heritage and contemporary creation and creativity
and, more generally, to promoting the democratic values and human rights that
underpin European integration.”
While pointing out how it ensures complementarity with previous initiatives, the text specifies that:
“The label
should seek added value and complementarity with regard to other initiatives
such as the Unesco World Heritage List, the Unesco Representative List of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and the Council of Europe’s European
Cultural Routes. Its added value should be based on the contribution made by
the selected sites to European history and culture, including the building of
the Union, on a clear educational dimension reaching out to citizens,
especially young people, and on networking between the sites to share
experiences and good practice. The main focus of the action should be on the
promotion of and access to the sites as well as on the quality of the
information and activities offered, as opposed to the preservation of the
sites, which should be guaranteed by existing protection regimes.”
However, I must point out some of the focal points of the work undertaken in the framework of a consultation of tourism professionals, which aimed to implement a “European Tourism Quality Label”. With an open meeting on the results of this consultation having taken place in Brussels on the 25th of January 2012, I will be able to come back to this, but this consultation naturally set out the objectives of the future ETQ to respond to the concept of an ‘Umbrella Label’.
As such, it is presented a little like a three-headed animal:
“For Europe, it is a competitive instrument
and a promotion tool: it aims at improving the profile of Europe as a set of
high-quality destinations in order to remain Nr 1 tourism destination of the
world. For tourism businesses, it is a management tool: it provides tourism
establishments and organisations with the possibility of constant monitoring
and improvement of their performance to win the confidence of consumers and business
partners. It also seeks to facilitate business connections and the exchange of good
practice. For consumers it is an information tool: its aim is to empower
consumers by raising their awareness on what they could expect from
establishments which bear the ETQ logo in comparison with those not recognised
by the ETQ Label.”
The discussions of January 2012, which were
conducted very openly and in the presence of delegates from the Member States
and large organisations representing professionals and consumers, were exciting
for you could hear loud and clear how the debates on subsidiarity in this
context are far from over. Quality labels of course already exist, not to
mention the ISO standard or the immense amount of work already undertaken in
France and Italy. However, the question is how an umbrella can be of service
when the sun does not shine everywhere as brightly.
Open-ended conclusions
In his polemic work “Brussels, the Gentle Monster: or the Disenfranchisement of Europe”, Hans Magnus Enzensberger states that, to his mind, we have entered a post-democratic age. In particular, he cites Robert Menasse (see “Populismus zerstört Europa”, published in Die Zeit on 20 May 2010) who has long commented on the European Union’s ‘democratic deficit’. He returns to one of the founding principles which describes, but arguably does not justify, this long road strewn with obstacles I have mentioned:
“Under
the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive
competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the
proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at
central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the
scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”
So here we are, for tourism, all the while harbouring
the feeling of having lost fifteen years!
That said, the former president of West Germany Roman Herzog would cool our ardour by adding to this text a perhaps realist comment on the balance between subsidiarity and centrality, realist yes but all the same rather discouraging:
“The truth is, that should come from
within, but in the minds of the politicians, officials or lobbyists of Brussels,
that plays almost no part” (Read ‘Die EU schadet der Europa-idee’ in the
Frankfurter Allegemeine Zzeitung of 15 January 2010).
Regardless, ever the optimist, I want to
take it as a positive that, pushed by the need for the Union to succeed,
European democracy has invented a post-modern concept of decision-taking,
enabling it to move forward while gradually putting its own contradictions on
the table. I am still frustrated that I had to watch the development of a
magnificent project all the while feeling that I was on an endless
rollercoaster ride. However, I remain convinced that that which we still call
cultural tourism, for want of a better word, has a profound anthropological
element: that of the necessity of the ‘Route’. This is confirmed by the
universality of pilgrimages; by Bruce Chatwin’s metaphor of ‘Songlines’; and
that we have entered, with no way back in sight, into an era of falling back in
love with the European idea, its democratic side anyway, through the tourism of
discovery.
For years, I have used as a maxim for my work George Duby’s text in the 1994 work Pushing Back the Horizon:
“Above all history is beguiling and has consistently
played a capricious role in Europe. I am convinced that much of our culture's
stamina is a result of its being decidedly more historicist than other world
cultures. Add to this the European's fondness for his past, his deference for
memories that have been cherished and carefully perpetuated from one generation
to the next, the feeling of constantly moving towards a goal - all these
constitute one of the essential elements of this Faustian spirit which
encourages Europe to scatter its achievements all over the place.”
Bibliography
Tomasz Studzieniecki, Tomasz Mazurek,
(2007) "How to promote a cross-border region as a tourism destination –
the case study of the bug Euroregion", Tourism Review, Vol. 62 Iss: 1,
pp.34 – 38.
Pour le tourisme culturel. Editeur :
Institut culturel del Món /Agence européenne pour la culture. 1996. ISBN/ISSN :
84.87789.41.2
Hans Magnus Enzensberger. Brussels, the
Gentle Monster: or the Disenfranchisement of Europe .2011. In the German :
Sanftes Monster Brüssel oder der Entmündigung Europas. Suhrkamp Verlab Berlin.
2011.
Bruce Chatwin. The Song Lines. Franklin
Center: Franklin Library, 1986. “Man's
real home is not a house, but the Road, and that life itself is a journey to be
walked on foot”
Repousser l’Horizon / Pushing back the Horizon.
Editions du Conseil de l’Europe / Editions du Rouergue. 1994.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire