Pergamon

AnnaLc of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, No. I, pp. 23-40, 1997 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0160-7383/96 $17.00+0.00

PII:SO160-7383(96)00037-O

MUSEUMS AND TOURISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Julia Harrison Trent University, Canada
Abstract: Museums in recent years have given much more serious consideration to attracting tourists. There is very little understanding, however, of what tourists expect a museum to offer. As part of a much larger research project, a study of tourists who visited the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii, was conducted in 1991. It sought to obtain a limited range of quantitative and qualitative data on tourist of the museum. The study found that the museum was drawing on a very select atypical group of visitors. What they valued about the museum is useful information to help this and other museums to broaden their appeal to a wider audience. Keywords: museums, tourists, Hawaii, Bishop Museum. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd R&urn& Les musCes et les attentes des touristes. Dans les anntes rtcentes, les mu&es ont apportC beaucoup dattention 2 la question de comment attirer des touristes. Pourtant, on comprend ma1 ce que les touristes attendent des m&es. Comme partie dun projet de recherche beaucoup plus &tendu, on a CtudiC les visiteurs au Mu&e Bernice Pauahi Bishop 2 Honolulu (Hawaii) en 1991. On a cherchk a obtenir une gamme limit&e de donntes quantitatives et qualitatives sur ce quon esptrait voir dans le mu&e. On a trouvC que le muste attirait des visiteurs dtlite qui netaient pas des touristes typiques; il est pourtant utile de savoir ce quils ont apprtcit afin daider ce mus&e et dautres mustes g attirer plus de monde. Mats-cl&: mu&es, touristes, Hawaii, Mute Bishop. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION
The relationship between museums and tourism has been the subject of consideration by the museum profession in recent years (Bruner 1993a). Bruner has suggested that museums and tourism have several things in common. These include the production and exhibition of culture, a dependence on an audience, their construction and invention of what they display, and that they are both the result of travel (19931336). Museums were often created simply to display the souvenir collections of travelers to distant places. Most major natural and cultural history museums have much grander and more profoundly stated purposes (Impey and MacGregor 1985). Travel certainly had a role to play in the history of museums, as voyages of exploration in the era of imperialist expansion facilitated scientific and touristic travel. This afforded the opportunity to amass many of the collections which are at the heart of such world famous museums as the British Museum and the Muste de lhomme.

Julia Harrison teaches anthropology at Trent University (Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8. Email jharrison@trentu.ca). She has extensive experience in the museum field and her current research interests include the representation of non-Western cultures for the tourist audience as well as the tourism experience. She conducted research in Hawaii for her doctoral dissertation. Her other research interests include the anthropology of organizations.
0

24

MUSEUMS

AND TOURISM

Bruners comments highlight the historical and ideological links between museums and tourism. These have also been emphasized by the museum profession in recent years as many museums reach out with increased vigor to draw in the tourists, with the intention of increasing attendance revenues. This has not always been a welcome development by some members of the profession who fear that significantly increasing the numbers of tourists (or even visitors in general) to museums will overburden institutional infrastructures, ultimately threatening the museums ability to perform its traditional tasks of preservation, conservation, and curatorship (Cannon-Brookes 1991; Capstick 1985). Others, in contrast, feel that museums must dramatically change their approach to lure as many admission-paying tourists as possible (Kelly 1988; MacDonald and Alsford 1989). Advocates of this latter position suggest that museums must become more high-tech, use a wide range of media to reach the visitor, and emphasize entertainment as much as education in their programming. This paper explores what tourists to a particular museum expected to see, and how these expectations can be a rich and productive arena for bringing together these apparently conficting opinions within the profession. Museums have been gathering information on their visitors since at least the late 20s (Robinson 1928). Most of these studies focused on gathering quantitative information (Dixon, Courtney and Bailey 1978), although some limited early work strove for a more qualitative approach to musum visitation (Draper 1977). In recent years, there has been a greater concentration on collecting data of a more qualitative nature (Bourdieu 1990; Hooper-Greenhill 1994; Merriman 1989; Shettel 1989; Walsh and Duke 1991). But as yet there is still much work to be done on understanding the behaviors and nature of the experience for different categories of museum visitors. Specifically of interest here are details of the nature of tourists experiences, what makes a museum an attraction, and what the tourist looks for when visiting a museum. Museums such as the British Museum and the Louvre are often visited by some tourists as part of a checklist of must-see attractions. Such must-sees confirm that one has truly been there; they are the key symbols which mark the achievement of the tourist (Graburn 1977:16). But what are the other factors that prompt tourists to visit museums, while they may not visit them at home? The tourism literature has theorized (generally unsuccessfully) about attractivity factors in reference to destination and attraction selection, but there is clearly no one succinct answer as to what makes a place an attraction (Leiper 1990; MacCannell 1989; Mill and Morrison 1992:265-275; Pearce 1991). Even to the inveterate museum visitor, institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre are only part (albeit in some cases, a major part) of what comprises her/his understanding of Britain or France as a place to visit. Museums by themselves do not have the attractivity to draw the wider tourist audience. They are part of a clustered nuclei or mosaic of attractions, often being places tourists seek out once they get to a destination (Leiper 1990). Most tourists in their circulation through this mosaic

JULIA HARRISON

25

of attractions are seeking, according to Graburn, condensed interpretations of the natural and cultural heritage of the place that they are visiting (198219). Museums, on the whole, can be seen by the tourist to provide one such locus in the mosaic where those condensed interpretations can be found.

A HAWAIIAN

CASE

STUDY

This paper presents information collected during a small scale study done at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1991. A total of 200 people who came to the museum were surveyed by the author or her assistant. Of these, 121 were eastbound largely Caucasian tourists; the remainder were local residents but their data are not considered here. Of the tourist sample, 40 were given a slightly elaborated questionnaire in an effort to ascertain some understanding of their perceptions of Hawaii prior to coming to the Bishop Museum. Comments gathered in the course of the survey suggested one overriding theme: tourists expect that the condensed interpretations of Hawaiian natural and cultural history offered at the museum to be accurate reflections of the local community. The dilemma which remains for the museum is to portray that sense of localness, while at the same time challenging the often inaccurate, somewhat mythical understandings held by the tourist of what localness really is. MacCannells (1989) theory that todays tourist is looking for the authentic experience to escape the anomie of the modern world has been a much debated interpretation of the tourist experience and its motivation (Cohen 1982; Graburn, Buck and Dumont 1977; Schudson 1979). While this is unlikely to be the sole motivation of any tourist, the results obtained at the Bishop Museum in 1991 would support MacCannells ideas, at least in part. If the findings offer anything to the debate on the overall applicability of this theory, they offer insight into what motivates groups of people to do certain things while they are visiting a selected destination. It would appear that anticipated real experiences, as understood by tourists, are seminal to their decisionmaking processes in choosing how they spend their time. The challenge remains to critically analyze the nature of the reality of what museums offer for the tourist (and, consequently, other visitors as well). Ames (1991, 1994), Bennett (1995), Karp and Lavine (1991), Karp, Kreamer and Lavine (1992), and Sherman and Rogoff (1994) offer excellent critical discussions of the reality of representation in a range of museums, but they fail to provide an informed understanding of how different categories of visitors understand their experience in museums. Hawaii and its Touristic Attractiveness One early travel writer claimed that the Hawaiian islands had been favored with the finest climate in the world...her whole popularity has been and must be built very largely on this... (Armitage 1923:76). Ever since the late 18OOs, when regular steamship service from the

26

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

US began and the first major hotel was built, tourism has been a part of life in Hawaii. It was Hawaiis climate that was primarily billed, and accepted as the islands main asset in attracting tourists. In 1927, the year the elegant Royal Hawaiian Hotel opened, nearly 17,500 people were coming annually to indulge in the luxuriant warmth of Hawaii. For the next 20 years tourist visitation to the islands hovered around 20,000 a year (with a few very low years in the 30s and again during World War II). The numbers of tourists per year had broken 100,000 by the mid-50s, but the major boom in tourism began after statehood in 1959 when jet service was introduced and mainlanders became more aware of the new state (Choy 1992:27; Farrell 1982). In 1960 nearly 300,000 visitors came to the islands. The figures grew rapidly with a landmark 1 million visitors arriving in 1967. Nearly 20 years later in 1990, the number of tourists who stayed one night or more numbered nearly 7 million (State of Hawaii 1990). Were they all coming purely for the opportunity to experience Hawaiis climate? A 30s visitor effused that Hawaii had many other dimensions with which to entice visitors. Her jade islands in turquoise setting; coral reefs in brilliant sunshine; restless surf, with spray flung high; cocopalms, flirting with a hula moon; warm breezes, jasmine perfumed; bronze natives with laughing eyes! (Anonymous 1936:27). Hawaii, to the commentator, was a magnificent physical setting, rich with exotic and enticing phenomena from the human and natural world. Rugged volcanic peaks lush with tropical vegetation were swathed in the gentle winds, heavy with perfume which comforted yet cooled one from the brilliant sunshine. Such images stood in opposition to the much harsher climes and environs of the mainland United States (from where most of the visitors have always come from). The restless ocean could be read metaphorically for a break from the repeated monotony of the work-a-day world of the mainland. Hawaii offered a break from routine, a chance to experience something new, a chance to experience paradise. In the 20s through to the 40s the visits of Hollywood stars, such as Douglas Fairbanks, Shirley Temple, and Frank Sinatra, were events which attracted publicity in the islands and at home (Brown 1982). For instance, legend in Hawaii has it that the non-alcoholic beverage, which became known as a Shirley Temple was institutionalized at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, where the young actress stayed in the 30s. The drink had been specially mixed for her in the lounge on the Matson liner on the trip over from the mainland, and she asked to have the same thing upon arrival at the hotel. In a ripple effect of such images, thousands of ordinary Americans came in later years to Hawaii and inverted their normal place in the social hierarchy by sharing in the indulgence, luxury, and opulence of these heroes and heroines of American popular culture (Gottlieb 1982). The islands were places of new experiences and exotic peoples, whose laughing eyes suggested a sensuality and sexuality long associated with the bronze natives of the Pacific. To the 30s visitor (and to thousands of others who continued to visit) these images and ideas were the essential elements of the mythic image Hawaii. Such ideas have become part of the popular image of the state thanks, at least in part, to the tourism literature which has promoted the

JULIA HARRISON

27

delights of a visit to Hawaii since the days of King Kalakaua, one of the last 19th century Hawaiian monarchs (Anonymous 1927: 1). These were what comprised one understanding of the Hawaiianess of the islands, a theme which will return later in this paper. A 1988 study identified the typical Hawaiian visitor as a woman in her 3Os, employed in a professional or technical position, who would stay for 10 days (Taylor 1988). Even the most hedonistic typical visitor who comes to Hawaii only to bathe her body in the sun, sea and surf is usually smitten with at least some aspects of Hawaiian culture. For example, for many years it was part of the tourists understanding of Hawaii that a lei would be given to her on arrival, and that she would experience the spirit of&ha while in the islands. But at what point does the average visitor want to know and experience more of Hawaiis history and traditions beyond the wearing of leis and expressions of aloha? For many visitors their experience in commercial nightclubs and their interaction with locals who work in the hotels or in shops are enough to satiate their appetite for Hawaiian people and culture. In fact, a 1987 study of the touristic attractiveness of Hawaiian counties found for the island of Oahu, the factors of hisdistinctive local features, festivals, fairs and torical prominence, ancient ruins ranked only lo-13 on a list of 16 attractivity scores. Climate and natural beauty ranked 1 and 2 respectively (Liu and Auyong 1988). Hawaiian culture is not an important part of Hawaiis appeal for these tourists. Despite this, it has been an ongoing concern of the tourism industry to keep Hawaii Hawaiian, to ensure that other sun, sand, and sea destinations do not lure visitors away. In 1990 Keep It Hawaiian awards were given by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau to businesses and projects that had a distinctly Hawaiian component. The cultural dimension (some say the aloha spirit) is seen as crucial by many industry promoters, even if it is not what primarily draws people to Hawaii.

The Idea of Hawaiianess

In a small publication which discusses the relationship between cultural values and hotel management in Hawaii, George Kanahele suggests that it is Hawaiis Hawaiianess that separates it from other sun, sand, and sea tourism destinations. He states that only Hawaiians are original and unique to this land (1991 :S), and they are the element that gives the islands their distinctive flair. Called simply specialness by some, the Hawaiianess to which Kanahele refers is derived from the Native Hawaiian history, culture, and connection to the uina (land) of the islands. It is suggested here that this idea of specialness has been distilled and appropriated by many elements of Hawaiian society, so that today it can be said that there are many understandings of Hawaiianess. Each different understanding reflects the unique experiences of those who have come to call Hawaii home. Three main understandings of Hawaiianess are relevant here: the original Native Hawaiian understanding, that of the kamaaina (long-time residents), and that which could be called

28

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

touristic. Other ideas of Hawaiianess such as that of the JapaneseHawaiians and the Chinese-Hawaiian communities are not discussed. The Bishop Museum expressed a sense of itself as a Hawaiian institution; it had its own institutional Hawaiianess which drew on some aspects of what may be called Native Hawaiian and kamaaina Hawaiianess (Harrison 1993a). Hawaii to Native Hawaiians is the place to which their ancestors sailed from more southerly islands in past millenia. It is their ancestral home. Native Hawaiian understandings of the Hawaiianess of the islands stem from a physical and spiritual rootedness in the islands. This notion is linked to the idea of aloha (the commitment of oneself to others), ohana (the extended family, based on a principle of sharing and solidarity), and aloha aina (the love of the land and the idea of malama, or caring and stewardship for same), which Friedman (1992:843) has suggested are at the heart of Native Hawaiian identity. These aspects define what could be called a sense of Hawaiianess. Friedman adds that the concepts of mana (life-force), kapu (sacred/forbidden), and hookipa (hospitality) are closely related to the idea of aloha, ohana, and aloha aina, and further express a sense of Native Hawaiian identity (1992:856). Nationalist scholars such as Haunani-Kay Trask (1991) ar g ue strongly against the claims made by some academics, such as Linnekin (1983,1985) and Keesing (1989), that these values are inventions and creations of recent generations. To many Native Hawaiians, their own form of historical recordinggenealogy-offers clear evidence of the historicity of these ideas and values, something which has been overlooked by academics who have studied Hawaiian culture (Trask 1991: 160). These values infuse the habitus of Native Hawaiians and express a profound and fundamental understanding that their island home as a special place. Two hundred years of colonial and foreign capitalist intervention in the islands has not been able to successfully extinguish these powerful understandings. This tenacity fuels the current political assertions of segments of the Native Hawaiian community to reclaim sovereignty over their homeland (Dudley and Agard 1990). The renaissance in Native Hawaiian cultural expression in the literature, visual arts, music, and dance in recent decades is only one arena that reflects the strength of these values and understandings (Kanahele 1982). Kamaaina is the Native Hawaiian term used to refer to those families who have lived a long time in the islands, and now call it home. Whittaker describes kamaaina as one category of Caucasian...who exercises economic power, is culturally a mixture of old New England and missionary values, has close association by marriage with Hawaiian nobility, and has become self-perpetuating as an endogamous clan ( 1986:80). K amaaina Hawaiianess embodies a very nostalgic and highly romanticized view of what traditional island culture and life was, emphasizing in large measure the monarchical aspects of Native Hawaiian life, as they were manifest in the mid-to-late 19th century. Kamaaina is rooted in a time in island history prior to the arrival of mass tourism, when these long-term white residents were in much greater control of the commercial development in the islands (Cooper and Daws 1990; Daws 1968). Local Hawaiian culture, or Hawaiiana

JULIA HARRISON

29

as it was often referred to by the kamaaina with whom the author spoke, was something to be selectively preserved and reified, with all aspects that were offensive to Christian puritan beliefs eliminated. This included brother-sister marriages, human sacrifice, and most critically exclusive control of the land by the Hawaiian nobility. Kamaaina understandings of the islands reflect a tenacious belief of life in the islands as a kind of tropical Arcadia (Smith 196O:l). Hawaii was to many of these people and their 19th century ancestors, epitomized by the story of Adam and Eve an example of paradise living in the Garden of Eden...a mythical land of bounty where mankind (sic) lived in harmony with nature (Forbes 1992: 12). Tragically, however, in the late 20th century, to many kamaaina, this understanding of Hawaiianess was slowly slipping away (Whittaker 1986:133-134). Paradisiac images are also a major part of what constitutes Hawaiianess to the tourist audience. But it is an idea of paradise that has been systematically cultivated by the commercial advertising for the islands as a destination (Cohen 1982), and by the Hollywood film and music industry (Brown 1982; Farrell 1982:227-230; Schmitt 1988). It is a place of crystal waters, rugged lush mountains, with slopes heavy with luxuriant perfumed flowers, white sand beaches upon which seductive hula maidens and handsome beach boys stroll strumming ukeleles. It reflects strongly the image about which the anonymous visitor of the 30s mentioned above, waxed eloquently. As Cohen has suggested, Hawaii, like other touristic paradises is an inversion of the intensive, complex, highly differentiated, unnatural modern life: [they are]...far-off place[s] where life is simple and toilless, nature unspoilt, the natives happy and their women free and lively (1982:8). Hawaii is thus a place of dreams, magical romance and sexual indulgence, and of peace and perpetual arcadic happiness. A very key dimension to the understanding of touristic Hawaiianess is that the islands are a place where strangers are always warmly greeted, and where local cultural traditions are willingly and openly shared, views strongly challenged by Trask (199 1, 1991/92). It is, in every sense of the word, a mythical place. It is a wonderful place for a holiday.

The Bernice Pauahi

Bishop Museum

The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum is one of a list of cultural attractions on the island of Oahu which focus on the Native Hawaiian history and culture of the islands. This is not the only focus of the museum as it also tells of the natural history of the islands and, more recently, some of the history of other groups in the islands. The museum is located in a suburb of Honolulu, some distance from the main tourism district of Waikiki. It is a memorial to Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last descendant of the Kamehameha dynasty. It was Bernices great grandfather, Kamehameha I, who had first unified the islands at the end of the 18th century, an event which took place just prior to the influx of Westerners to the islands. The museum was

30

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

founded in 1889 by Bernices husband, Charles Reed Bishop, a Bostonian who was to become a very powerful businessman in the community. In her diaries Bernice expressed her love of museums and art galleries, and her desire to visit them wherever she and her husband traveled. These facts, linked with her commitment to the preservation of the legacy of the Hawaiian people, are assumed by many in Hawaii to be the impetus behind her husbands founding of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. Bernices personal collections, those she had inherited from her relatives, were the founding collections of the museum. Charles Reed Bishop, and William Brigham, the museums first curator/director, added other collections as plans developed for the museum. The museums research areas grew to include anthropology (mainly archeology), entomology, zoology (including ichthyology, invertebrate zoology, vertebrate zoology, entomology, and malacology), botany, and ethnobotany. It developed a preeminent research library and archives including a photographic collection and an extensive map collection. By the 90s the museums total collections include over 21.3 million specimens. Throughout its history the museum has participated in over 100 scientific expeditions to various areas of the Pacific, all of which created a substantial legacy for the museum. Not only did they build the collections and generate many publications, but they established many of the research foci for years to come. The Bishop Museum clearly has all of the resources to provide the condensed interpretations of the natural and cultural history of holiday destinations, which Graburn (1982: 19) suggests tourists are looking for in their visits to museums. The museum always had galleries open to the public, even if over the years they had not been the main focus of the staffs interest. Hawaiian Hall, the main gallery space in the original building is a magnificent piece of neo-Romanesque architecture which held a great symbolic position in what the museum represented to the local Native Hawaiian population. In recent years, in fact, the exhibits have covered a very wide range of topics from dinosaurs, to eclipses, to science fairs, as the current administration attempts to bring the outside world to the local population of Hawaii. In the period 1984-1991, little attention was paid by the institution to the exhibits about Native Hawaiian history and culture. The exhibitions that were installed presented a very narrow and disjointed story, which largely focused on the 19th century Hawaiian monarchical history. What the visitor sees in the main galleries on the first floor of Hawaiian Hall was never intended to be a permanent or a comprehensive exhibition about Native Hawaiian life. In the cases that surround the central platform were the remnants of Hawaii: The Royal Isles, a traveling exhibition done by the museum in the early 80s about the persistence ofHawaiian values despite tremendous social, political, and cultural upheaval throughout the 19th century. The majority of the items are those of the alii and monarchy, and include artifacts which reflect the fascination that the Hawaiian royalty developed with the regalia and symbols of the monarchs of Europe. On a central platform is a hale

JULIA HARRISON

31

(grass house) and the scale model of a heiau (religious structure), both ofwhich were installed in the early years of this century. Both exhibits have only limited interpretive information associated with them. The hale has a plaster cast of a Hawaiian sitting inside of it, a leftover from some of the very early dioramic exhibits at the museum. Above these two exhibits hangs a full skeleton of a whale, one of the first exhibits installed in the building at the turn of this century. These three dominant features of the gallery have little obvious connection to the cases on the periphery which concentrate on the 19th century monarchy. Since the installation of Hawaii: The Royal Isles in Hawaiian Hall, floods, infestations of insects and mold, building and case deterioration, usurpation ofgallery space for other purposes, extended loan of materials, and contrary institutional funding priorities depleted the first-floor galleries of Hawaiian Hall. The remnants told a very sketchy, disjointed, and imbalanced version of even the story that the exhibit originally intended to tell, which focused on a narrow perspective of life in Hawaii. It almost ignored the life of the makahana (common people), and dealt only with what some called the decadence and decline of the 19th century Hawaiian monarchy (Hughes 1980:74). The messages conveyed by Hawaiian Hall define a distant island other, a monarchy isolated from its people (whose existence has only to be assumed, as there is almost no direct reference to them) whose distinct cultural identity can be reduced to objectifiable units-clothing, bowls, tools, gods, baskets, musical instruments, photographs, and early illustrations. No exhibits in these main galleries showed the real depth and richness of Native Hawaiian culture in the islands. The themes and fragmented story of Hawaiian Hall, the richness of the koa cases, the ornate ironwork of the railings, the shadow of the whale which looms over the room, the large heiau model and grass hale on the central raised platform-all these placed the main galleries of Hawaiian Hall firmly in the 19th century. The earth tones of the cases (green, brown, and yellow) firmly placed the design of the exhibit in the late 70s. The room has the aura of a bygone era of grandeur and reverence, which seems sombre and tragic today. Empty cases, missing artifacts, and an overall aura of neglect predominated in the gallery. The director stated to the author that he recognized the institutions special obligation to the Native Hawaiian communities, and noted its responsibility to tread carefully in making decisions about Hawaiian Hall and the exhibition of Native Hawaiian culture. By late 1991 the museum was trying to breathe some new life into its Native Hawaiian heritage and into the communities to which it felt that it had a special obligation. Planning had begun on a small centennial exhibition about the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, and an exhibition entitled POHAKU: Through Hawaiian Eyes was planned for the spring of 1992. The overthrow of the monarchy was a very emotional and potent anniversary for Native Hawaiians, but the museum did not focus on it in the way that it had the total eclipse of the sun, which had happened on July 11, 199 1. Although not an event to be celebrated in the same way, the commemoration of the

32

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

overthrow could certainly have been a vehicle for emphasizing the Native Hawaiian legacy of the museum. But at the end of 1991, the administration was still embroiled in an ideological battle with some staff over whether Hawaiian Hall was the jewel or the trophy house of the museum. Work was in progress to repair the roof of the building, a process which continued to reveal further decay in the building. The museum had not announced any plans to deal with the somewhat tragic state of the space, and seemed to be avoiding facing up to what would be a long-term commitment to major redevelopment. Some staff felt that the administration was simply ignoring the museums Native Hawaiian legacy and its obligations to that heritage (personal communication with the author).

The Tourist Audience

An interest in the culture and history of Hawaii draws visitors to a range of institutions, each of which tells some part of the story of Native Hawaiian people, their history and culture. The majority of these institutions are on the island of Oahu (one of eight major islands in the chain), and are located in or near the city of Honolulu. Each other island, however, has a number of museums and cultural institutions which often tell a more localized version of island history and culture. Some Oahu cultural institutions are purely commercial in nature (such as the Paradise Cove Luau on the island of Oahu), while others such as the the Polynesian Cultural Center and the Kodak Hula Show define themselves in broader, more altruistic terms (Harrison 1993a, 1993b). Manyofthese institutions do not keep statistics on how many of their visitors are tourists, although the majority of them cater almost exclusively to the tourist audience. One institution which does keep very thorough information on its visitors is the Polynesian Cultural Center, a cultural theme park which has recreations of villages from various island nations throughout the Pacific. In 1989 it recorded over 800,000 visitors (Christensen 1990:4). The attendance figures for the Bishop Museum in 1990-91 were nearly 550,000, but it is impossible to know what percentage of these were tourists. For most of its history the Bishop Museum has never paid much attention to the tourist audience. There was, however, one period in the 70s when efforts were made to increase tourist visits dramatically and thus generate much-needed revenue for the museum. Its Heritage Theater in Kings Alley in Waikiki opened in 1972, featuring live dramatizations of Hawaiian history, most particularly the Hawaiian monarchy, staged with actors, dancers, and musicians in an elaborate Victorian setting. Some of the museums most important artifacts, such as King Kamehamehas feather cloak, were also on show in Kings Alley (Anonymous 1972; Doyle 1972). The cape was displayed in a vault-like setting with the intention of generating the idea the that this was not simply the cape of a famous Hawaiian king, but that it was a million-dollar cloak (Anonymous 1972:42). The museum at this time also owned a refurbished four-masted sailing vessel, the

JULIA HARRISON

33

Falls of Clyde, which was docked in Honolulus waterfront. To link these two attractions with the main museum, four red double-decker London buses were acquired. With the purchase of what was known visitors could visit all three sites at as the Passport to Polynesia, their leisure over the course of a day. The tour package was actively marketed to tourists once they arrived in the islands, as well as being marketed on the mainland, Canada, and in Japan. However, the Heritage Theater, the Falls of Clyde, and the London buses proved to be a financial drain on the Bishop Museum, as they never gained the expected tourist popularity. Before the end of the 7Os, efforts were being made to dispose of all three attractions. These efforts in the 70s suggested that turning the attention of the average Waikiki beach stroller to Hawaiian history and culture was not easily done. Tourists who were interested in such matters would be willing to leave Waikiki, and find their way to Bishop Museum proper, as many had done throughout the entire history of the museum. In fact, in the 80s it was assumed that tourists comprised nearly 80% of the museums visitors (Kodani 1989-90:7). As one staff member said I give them an A for their effort in finding their way The vast majority of the tourists who came out to the out here. museum were non-Japanese (they were what the Hawaii Visitors Bureau grouped as eastbound). But Japanese tourists (identified by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau as westbound) make up about l/3 of the visitors to the islands (State of Hawaii 1990). In 199 1 a community liaison officer was hired in an effort to bring more Japanese tourists into the museum, but this position was fairly shortlived. Little additional effort was put into luring more of the eastbound tourists, as the decision was made to focus marketing on the local resident community, with very positive results.

Visitors Projle A study done in 1989 suggested that 47% of the first-time visitors to Hawaii, with a high-school education and an annual salary of less than US$50,000, will be attracted to the islands at least in part because of Hawaiis history and culture (Sunderland Smith Research Associates 1989:37). This, however, does not seem to be the profile of the tourist visitor to the Bishop Museum, as the majority of those questioned at the museum in 1991 were repeat visitors to Hawaii. Only in age profile do the findings correlate. As to their age, 66% of the surveyed visitors to the museum were over 35, which closely correlates with findings of the 1989 study which found 62% of the visitors to the islands with interests in culture and history were 30 or over (Sunderland Smith Research Associates 1989:36). But 79% of the visitors to the museum had at least a college education, and 56% earned over US$40,000 annually. This is a distinctly different profile from that found in the 1989 study of those drawn to the islands by Hawaiian history and culture. Only 47% of the latter group had at least some college education and 41% earned over US$50,000 annually. It would seem that the museum is drawing on a somewhat different

34

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

audience base. Benefitting from the general comments made to the researcher by visitors who were surveyed, it seems that those who came to the Bishop Museum as part of their vacation activities were those who were predisposed to go to museums. They indicated that they had an overall interest in the institutions themselves, as well as an interest generally in history and culture. The tourist visitors to the Bishop Museum seem to come from a different group of tourists than those who simply found Hawaiis natural and cultural history part of the islands attractivity. A 1990 study by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau on the psychographic profile of visitors to Hawaii, further suggests that the museum is currently drawing on the atypical visitor to the island of Oahu. The 1990 psychographic study found that visitors to Oahu primarily come from the lower-income category (under US$35,000, annually). Many of the Oahu visitors are first-time visitors to the islands and are largely drawn from the blue-collar workforce. They enjoy sightseeing and are likely to take organized tours to see the sights of the islands (personal communication with Hawaii Visitors Bureau). Over 50% of the visitors to the Bishop Museum earned over US$40,000 annually, with 25% of that total earning over US$60,000. They consistently classed themselves as professionals, were repeat visitors to the islands, and had come to the museum on their own, or in the company of family or friends. This suggests that it is probable that the museum has always drawn on the atypical Oahu island visitor. Those who were willing to endure the hot and dusty ride to the suburbs on the streetcar in the early years of the century are likely to have been, temperamentally, the same as those who endured the similar long, tedious, and cramped bus ride to the museum today. They have to feel comfortable enough to venture out on their own in the islands, a fact which suggests that they are probably not first-time visitors. Nearly l/2 of the visitors in 1991 stated that they were simply following their propensity to visit museums wherever they went and readily overlooked any mild discomfort experienced in getting there. Their general comments reflected an overall enjoyment of their visit to the Bishop Museum. Responses such as we enjoyed it, well worth the trip, loved it, interesting, it is authentic, a good local place, and well done and informative, not touristy were enthusiastically offered in response to several questions. Almost none of respondents made any strong negative comments about their experience. Based on their familiarity with mainland museums, such as the Exploratorium in San Francisco, a few simply offered hints on how the museum could improve its presentation. For at least one day of their vacation these museum visitors put a visit to the museum as a priority over the sun, sand, and sea offered by the beaches of Oahu. Generally they came to the museum to learn about of Native Hawaiian culture, either something which the tourism brochure, or comments made by friends or relatives, suggested they would find at the Bishop Museum. These were the two main ways that people learned about the museum. They found at the museum something which was seen to be genuine, something which they felt had not been established to serve only the tourists. The museum in

JULIA

HARRISON

35

their them

eyes was something it was a Hawaiian

which place.

was part

of the local community.

To

Tourists Ideas of Hawaii As part of the present research, 40 tourist visitors to the museum were given a list of words and asked to identify which they associated with their image of Hawaii before they came to the museum (Table 1). While not listed in any particular order, words generally fell into three groups: those referring to the very popular hegemonic glosses of Hawaii (the touristic Hawaiianess); those which would require that the visitor know something more specific of Hawaiis history and culture (the kamaaina Hawaiianess); and those which would require that the tourist be aware of some of the contemporary realities of life for Native Hawaiians in Hawaii (Native Hawaii Hawaiianess). To associate the words in Group 3 (Table 1) with Hawaii would require a focused study of its history and culture. The words for each section were drawn from three distinct arenas. Group 1 are words and ideas that are perpetuated in the tourism brochures and general advertising as to what Hawaii offers. They reflect the image that has been commercially promoted by Hollywood and popular media over the years. Those in Group 2 were selected from the more informed writings of the history and culture of the islands. They are drawn from readings and literature that are generally available in the islands and readily digestible by the interested and motivated visitor. They are also drawn from the content of other museum-like institutions in Honolulu, including Iolani Palace and Mission Houses Museum. Those in Group 3 are drawn largely from the literature written by Native Hawaiians, in which they frankly discuss the marginal position into which Native Hawaiians have been pushed in their homeland over the last 200 years. Some of the words in Group 1 had an association with Hawaii for as many as 85% of the respondents. The frequency of association of words in Group 1 averaged around 70%. The association of words
Table Group 1. Images of Hawaii 2 Group 3

Group

Aloha Floral Prints Surfing Paradise Sun Grass Hut Grass Skirt Palm Trees Hula Leis Beaches Sh opping

Missionaries Ocean Migrations Monarchy Sugar Cane Whaling Poi Ukelele Featherwork Human Sacrifice Revolution

Cultural Renaissance Environmental Pollution Third World Nation Political Struggles Poverty Land Claims Colonialism Racism

36

MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

which suggest a more detailed knowledge of Hawaiian history and culture (Group 2) averaged around 50%. Words in Group 3, which suggest some knowledge of the contemporary situation of Native Hawaiians and their political struggles, were identified by only an average of 27% of those surveyed (Whittaker 1986:95). It would seem that tourists come to the museum with fairly predictable commercial Hollywood images of what Hawaii is and was. They expected to learn something of Native Hawaiian culture while at the museum having assumed that this was apriorityofthe institution. Manyvisitors spent most of their time in Hawaiian Hall, where the exhibitions on Native Hawaiian history and culture are located. Few stated that they had learned a great deal from their time at the museum, however, probably because the Bishop Museum presented little more about Native Hawaiian culture than other entertainment-directed institutions (Harrison 1993b). Most felt that it simply enhanced or enriched what they already knew. It was more the sense of place of the museum, its localness, its Hawaiianess which had been reinforced for them. But what understanding of Hawaiianess was the Bishop Museum confirming? It could be suggested that the exhibitions at the Bishop Museum in 1991 seemed ultimately to confirm the hegemonic glosses of the touristic Hawaiianess. To some it confirmed a nostalgic sense of a lost Native Hawaiian culture, reminiscent of the kamaaina Hawaiianess. It seemed to have offered very little to challenge the understandings by introducing a sense of the Native Hawaiian Hawaiianess.

CONCLUSION To those tourists who were surveyed about the Bishop Museum, their perception of a good local place was the most important element. This probably is the strongest virtue that many museums possess simply by their very nature, character, and history. It is the rootedness of museums in the local community that makes them so distinctive. However, to be truly local, a museum must reflect what honestly comprises that localness. In the case of the Bishop Museum, this means dynamically and accurately reflecting life in Hawaii through time and space. But it also means challenging any trivialized glosses held by many tourists of what constitutes the local community and experience. This should be the model for all museums. Some might argue that this position would politicize museums, but this is a vacuous argument, for as Michael Ames has claimed, there is nothing apolitical about the nature and work of museums (1991:13). Or it could be said that the strategy of overtly challenging hegemonic glosses concerning the local community would move the institutions further away from the model of a place of entertainment, because it would confront visitors with challenges to some of their basic assumptions about the place that they have come to simply enjoy. One may argue against both of these claims. If museums are seeking to attract new audiences, they must increase their attractivity, and their greatest potential attractivity is rooted

JULIA

HARRISON

37

in strongly expresssing their sense of distinctive localness, in all of its dimensions. Graburn has suggested that some tourist groups may stay away from museums as they are not attracted to institutional and freedom limiting experiences, which he has noted are perhaps, too much like their institutional occupational worlds. To draw in these tourists, Graburn suggests that museums must emphasize the informal, associational, non-didactic aspects of the cultural institution, especially tied to happenings and events which replicate spontaneity and sociality (1982:19). Spontaneity and sociality arise most readily from programs that are not constructed to simply draw in the tourism dollar; they will arise from things which more honestly reflect life in the the local community. Life in the Hawaiian community is dynamic, ambiguous, contradictory, and profoundly rich-as is all community life. What greater resource could a museum have? The Bishop Museum should reflect and debate all of the understandings of Hawaiianess, and in doing so it will reflect the distinctiveness of the place where it is rooted-that is what tourists want to see. The museum has in recent years been actively working to make itself more relevant and appealing to the local community (Harrison 1993a). Part of this has involved bringing exhibitions and programs to the museum which could not be seen anywhere else in Hawaii. It also involved letting segments of the local population have a greater role in determining how they were portrayed by the museum. It would seem that these latter objectives, and the suggestions made here as to what the tourist visitor wants to see in the museum, are highly complementary. 0 0
Acknowledgments-The author expresses sincere appreciation to the management and staff of the Bishop Museum who showed her the true meaning of the term aloha while she conducted her research at the museum. The research from which this paper is drawn was conducted at the museum in Hawaii in 1990-91. The information included in this article reflects the museum at the time of fieldwork. It does not necessarily reflect that situation at the museum presently. Funding for the larger research project was obtained from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Museums Assistance Program, the Canadian Museums Association, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Oxford Overseas Research Scheme and the Alberta Heritage Scholarship Fund.

REFERENCES
Ames, M. 1991 Biculturalism in Exhibitions. Museum Anthropology 15(2):7-15. 1994 The Politics of Difference: Other Voices in a not vet Post-Colonial World. Museum Anthropology 18(3):9-l 7. Anonymous 1927 Publicitv for Hawaii-Consider Paradise. Paradise of the Pacific 40(4):1. 1936 A Tourists Impression of Hawaii. Paradise of the Pacific 48(3):27-29. 1972 Bishop Museum-Can Show Biz Support its Research Programs? Hawaii Business (Nov.):35-43. Armitage, G. 1923 Capitalizing Hawaiis Climate. Hawaiian Annual 76-81.

38

MUSEUMS

AND TOURISM

Bennett, T. 1995 The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. 1990 The Love of Art, European Art Museums and their Public. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Brown, D. 1982 Hawaii Recalls. Honolulu: Editions Ltd. Bruner, E., ed. 1993a Special Issue Museums and Tourism. Museum Anthropology 17(3). 1993b Introduction: Museums and Tourism. Museum Anthropology 17(3):6. Cannon-Brookes, P. 1991 Editorial: Museums, Theme Parks and Heritage Experiences. Museum Management and Curatorship 10:351-358. Capstick, B. 1985 Museums and Tourism. Museum Management and Curatorship 4:365-372. Choy, D. J. L. 1992 Life Cycles for Pacific Island Destinations. Journal of Travel Research 30(3):26-31. Christensen, S. 1990 Marketing Analysis Report. Laie, Oahu: Polynesian Cultural Center. Cohen, E. 1982 The Pacific Islands from Utopian Myth to Consumer Product: The Disenchantment of Paradise. Aix-en Provence: Centre des Hautes Etudes Touristiques. Cooper, G., and G. Daws 1990 Land and Power in Hawaii: The Democratic Years. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Dixon, B., A. E. Courtney, and R. H. Bailey 1978 The Museum and the Canadian Public. Toronto: Culturcan Publications. Doyle, S. 1972 Kings Alley, Waikiki. Kaelele 102(June): l-3. Draper, L., ed. 1977 The Visitor and the Museum. Washington DC: Museum Educators of the American Association of Museums. Dudley, M. K., and K. K. Agard 1990 A Call for Hawaiian Sovereignty. Honolulu: Na Kane 0 Ka Malo Press. Daws, G. 1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Farrell, B. H. 1982 Hawaii: The Legend That Sells. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Forbes, D. W. 1992 Encounters With Paradise: Views of Hawaii and its People, 1778-1941. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press and Honolulu Academy of Arts. Friedman, S. 1992 The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American Anthropologist 94(4):837-859. Gottleib, A. 1982 Americans Vacations. Annnals of Tourism Research 9:165-187. Graburn, N. 1977 The Museum and the Visitor Experience. In The Visitor and the Museum, L. Draper, ed., pp, 5-26. Washington DC: Museum Educators of the American Association of Museums. 1982 Tourism, Leisure and Museums. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Museums Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Graburn, N., R. Buck, and J. P. Dumont 1977 Reviews of the Tourist: A Theory of the Leisure Class. Annals of Tourism Research 4~217-225. Harrison, J. D. 1993a An Institution in Transition: An Ethnography of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University. 199310A Museum, a Theme Park, and a Tourist Show: Parallel Messages.

JULIA

HARRISON

39

Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1994 Museums and Their Visitors. London: Routledge. Hughes, R. 1980 Chieftains, Flacks and Feathers. Time 9( 15):74. Impey, O., and A. MacGregor, eds. 1985 The Origins of Museums. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kanahele, G. S. 1982 The Hawaiian Renaissance. Honolulu: The Waiaha Foundation. 1991 Critical Reflections on Cultural Values and Hotel Management in Hawaii. Honolulu: The Waiaha Foundation. Karp, I., C. M. Kreamer, and S. D. Lavine, eds. 1992 Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Karp, I., and S. D. Lavine, eds. 1991 Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics ofMuseum Display. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Keesing, R. 1989 Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific 1(1/2):19-39. Kelly, R. F. 1988 The Pressures of Tourism on Museums: A Canadian Myth. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Museums Association, St. John, New Brunswick. Kodani, S. 1989-90 Managing the Outreach. Bishop Museum, New Dimension for a New Century. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Annual Report. Leiper, N. 1990 Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research 17:367-384. Linnekin, J. 1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity. American Ethnologist 10:241-252. 1985 Children of the Land: Exchange and Status in a Hawaiian Community. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers. Liu, J., and J. Auyong 1988 Touristic Attractiveness of Hawaii by County. Tourism Research Publications Occasional Papers 10. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii School of Travel Industry Management and the Social Science Research Institute. MacCannell, D. 1989 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (2nd ed.). New York: Schocken Books. MacDonald, G., and S. Alsford 1989 A Museum for a Global Village. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Merriman, N. 1989 Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon. In The New Museology, P. Vergo, ed., pp. 149-171. London: Reaktion Books. Mill, R. C., and A. Morrison 1992 The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pearce, P. 1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. The Journal of Tourism Studies 2( 1):46-55. Robinson, E. S. 1928 The Behavior of the Museum Visitor. Washington DC: American Museums Association Monograph. Schmitt, R. C. 1988 Hawaii in the Movies 1898-1959. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society. Schudson, M. S. 1979 Review Essay: On Tourism and Modern Culture. American Journal of Sociology 84: 1249-l 259. Sherman, D. J., and I. Rogoff, eds. 1994 Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press. Shettel, H. 1989 Evaluation in Museums: A Short History of a Short History. In Heritage

40

MUSEUMS

AND TOURISM

Interpretation: The Visitor Experience, D. L. Uzzell, ed., pp. 129-137. London: Belhaven Press. Smith, B. 1960 European Vision and the South Pacific 1768-1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press. State of Hawaii 1990 State of Hawaii Data Book. Honolulu: Department of Business. Taylor, L. 1988 Just Who are These Millions of Visitors. Honolulu Star-Bulletin Advertiser (May 1):Gl. Sunderland Smith Research Associates 1989 Hawaiis Heritage and its Appeal to Visitors. Honolulu: WAIAHA Foundation. Trask, H.-K. 1991 Natives and Anthropologists: The Colonial Struggle. Contemporary Pacific Spring 2(2):159-167. 1991/92 Lovely Hula Lands. Border/Lines 23:22-29. Walsh, J., and L. L. Duke, eds. 1991 Insights: Museums, Visitors, Attitudes, Expectations. Los Angeles CA: The 1. Paul Gettv Trust. Whirtaker, E. 1986 The Mainland HAOLE: The White Experience in Hawaii. New York: Columbia University Press. Submitted 7 June 1994 Resubmitted 10 September 1995 Accepted 18 October 1995 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Nelson H. Graburn