Social sciences, through examining, analyzing, and diagnosing the social environment, provide an accurate and comprehensive assessment of current conditions, along with the most practical strategies for achieving optimal outcomes. Dr. Nasser Fakouhi, professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Tehran, has, in addition to his teaching and research activities, played a significant role in public intellectual engagement. For years, he has contributed to the academic and cultural landscape by founding and managing a scientific-cultural institute and organizing a well-known series of research seminars titled “Anthropology and Culture Mondays.” These efforts have helped introduce prominent scholars, intellectuals, and valuable academic and cultural works to the wider public. Moreover, by emphasizing the inseparable connection between the humanities and other fields of knowledge, he has aimed to foster deeper ties among researchers and professionals across disciplines.
The following conversation explores his views on travel and the development of the tourism industry, particularly from his perspective as a scholar and analyst of culture and the human sciences.
Q-As a social science researcher who has traveled extensively, how do you define travel? From the perspective of the social sciences, how is travel understood?
In its conventional sense, travel refers to the physical movement from one place to another. Within this definition, we can include very short journeys, such as intra-city travel, which are movements tied to the various functions of urban life. Likewise, we can distinguish between short trips (in terms of both time and distance) and longer journeys. In today’s world, most travel occurs over relatively short periods—typically less than a week—and usually within relatively short distances (domestic tourism) or medium distances (international tourism). Though longer and more distant travels still exist, they are far less common.The concept of travel has evolved significantly throughout history. From ancient times until the onset of industrialization, travel was a highly restricted activity, engaged in by only a small segment of society. In other words, travel was associated with a specific social actor: the “traveler.” In older texts, the term “adventurer” appears more frequently than “traveler” or “tourist,” perhaps because travel was historically linked with risk and uncertainty. Except in cases of nomadic societies—where travel is an inseparable part of their lifestyle—most human societies became sedentary following the agricultural revolution around ten thousand years ago. This transition gave rise to agrarian communities, whose defining feature was their attachment to and reliance on land for survival. In other words, until the 20th century, such societies experienced very limited physical mobility, with movement occurring only for specific reasons. People largely remained within their place of residence, and if they did travel, it was usually over very short distances—for example, a villager might travel for trade or to visit relatives in nearby villages. The only other notable form of travel was pilgrimage. In Iran, pilgrimages to destinations such as Mashhad, Karbala, and ultimately Mecca were common. These types of journeys were culturally significant and even gave rise to specific honorific titles—such as “Mashhadi” (or “Mashdi”)—which were bestowed upon individuals who completed such pilgrimages. These titles carried special connotations, implying not only religious devotion but also financial ability, social prestige, and a sense of distinction and pride, meanings that continue to resonate in contemporary usage. Another important factor was the issue of safety—or rather, the lack thereof—along travel routes. Roads were often dangerous and insecure, which further limited travel as a social practice. As a result, journeys were largely confined to specific purposes such as trade or political missions. Travel was typically undertaken by royalty, envoys, government agents, and spies, whose movements were part of the state apparatus. In Christian contexts, missionaries also traveled for religious propagation, though these journeys often led to short- or long-term stays rather than continuous movement.
From the 19th century onward, we also see the emergence of scientific expeditions, particularly those by anthropologists, which introduced a new rationale for travel. These scholarly missions were not just about movement but about observation, documentation, and engagement with unfamiliar cultures—essentially transforming travel into a form of academic inquiry. In the 18th century and earlier, travel was largely reserved for aristocratic and courtly elites, as well as some high-ranking religious figures. A limited number of individuals also traveled under the auspices of the state, often for exploration or imperial expansion via maritime routes. Additionally, there were a few adventurers who embarked on journeys by working as crew members on ships. One such figure was Anquetil-Duperron, whose deep fascination with the East led him to take up work as a ship laborer in order to travel to India. He is credited with producing the first European transcription and translation of the Avesta, the sacred text of Zoroastrianism.
However, beginning in the 19th century, with the rise of democratic revolutions and the Industrial Revolution, travel gradually became democratized—transformed into a popular and accessible practice for broader segments of society. Nevertheless, it took roughly a century to a century and a half after the French Revolution for this democratization to take concrete legal form. In 1936, with the election of a socially progressive government known as the “Popular Front” in France, a landmark law was passed granting workers one week of paid vacation. For the first time, a majority of people had the opportunity to travel—many French citizens saw the sea for the very first time.
The onset of World War II and its aftermath created about a decade-long pause in this popularization of travel. It wasn’t until the 1950s, with the emergence of the so-called “welfare states”—governments focused on expanding the middle class and raising living standards for all citizens—that a meaningful and sustained upward trend in travel was observed. This upward curve has continued to the present day, turning tourism into one of the world’s largest economic sectors. Simultaneously, increased democratic achievements, legal protections for workers, recognition of the need for mental rest and leisure, improved economic conditions, the expansion of transport and accommodation infrastructure, and a general reduction in travel costs, all contributed to making travel accessible to a much larger portion of society. The golden age of travel spanned roughly from 1950 to 2000. However, following this period, with the global turn toward neoliberalism, elitism, and financial capitalism—beginning largely in the 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s—we witnessed a rise in political crises, a decline in people’s purchasing power, increasing unemployment, and a reduced ability of the public to spend on travel. As a result, the rapid growth of tourism began to slow.
Today, some once-thriving tourist destinations no longer possess the conditions necessary to attract travelers, while others have managed to successfully market themselves on the global stage and draw new attention. Overall, it was the democratization of travel that led to the reduction of costs, diversification of destinations, improved safety of routes, and the development of both infrastructure and services related to tourism—transforming it into a major sector of the global economy.
Q- You categorized types of travel into business, political, religious, and leisure-oriented purposes. But there are also people who travel with other motivations—such as getting to know new cultures, engaging with anthropology, or experiencing the social environment of the destination. Can we say that some tourists specifically choose destinations to experience unique social characteristics?
Travel motivated by a desire to understand the host society is not necessarily separate from leisure travel. In fact, attempts have often been made to create a division between cultural and leisure tourism, but I do not believe in such a separation. It is true that there are groups of tourists who travel solely for cultural reasons—often through expensive tours with the specific purpose of visiting historical monuments—but they are in the minority. In most cases, destination choices are based on a combination of motives. On the other hand, there are those whose choices are entirely leisure-oriented—for example, groups that seek out beach tourism or cities known for particular types of entertainment. But in the case of successful destinations with developed and sustainable tourism industries, we find that most—such as global cities like London, Paris, Rome, and Istanbul (before its recent crises), as well as New York, Berlin, Lisbon, or Athens—offer a mix of cultural and leisure tourism. These destinations have the greatest potential to attract tourists today, who are increasingly looking for places where they can both engage with culture and satisfy their need for rest, entertainment, and leisure experiences. Even travel aimed at experiencing culture—such as becoming familiar with local traditions and arts, exploring new living environments, indigenous architecture, or tasting new foods at various restaurants—is both cultural and leisure travel. Food itself is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon, yet most people classify these travel activities under leisure, often associating cultural tourism primarily with visiting museums. However, streets, watching people move about, wandering around, and browsing shops are all cultural experiences.
In essence, leisure tourism, cultural tourism, and even nature tourism cannot be considered entirely separate and distinct categories. Exceptions include very specialized nature trips, cultural programs exclusively focused on visiting historical sites, or travelers who spend their entire trip resting at a beach or another location. The latter type of tourism is especially vulnerable and uncertain, as leisure tourism dependent on natural climates is inherently unpredictable and fragile. Travel, both for those who journey and for those who encounter travelers, can—if properly managed—provide a culturally rich experience. It brings two or more cultures into direct contact and, through continued cultural interaction after the trip, creates better opportunities for mutual understanding and recognition. Moreover, travel and tourists contribute to the development of economic, structural, and cultural infrastructures in a country. However, it is also important to note that poor management of tourism can lead to negative impacts and problems, affecting both travelers and the residents of the host country.
Q- So, can we say that travel creates a mutual influence between tourists and host communities? In which social areas can we observe this reciprocal impact?
Absolutely, mutual influence exists. However, as I mentioned earlier, like many phenomena, positive and negative aspects coexist. It is not accurate to evaluate only one side of the outcomes. When inbound tourism flourishes, many positive effects occur, such as development and improvement of infrastructure. Simultaneously, we witness increased security and stability because sustaining tourism requires better communication networks and higher quality accommodation services. Alongside these infrastructural developments, the level of civility and proper social behaviors among people also rise and improve…
Another point is that tourists carry an image of the host country’s culture back to their home societies. If this image is positive, the destination’s status in public and international opinion improves. If the image is less favorable, this feedback loop can still push the system toward positive change. There is also the possibility that business-savvy tourists, after assessing the security and market conditions during their trip, may promote the destination upon returning home and foster new trade opportunities related to tourism. A good example is Spain between the 1960s and 1990s. Initially unprepared to host tourists, through planning and investment in tourism, Spanish society was positively transformed. Tourism played a significant role in democratizing the government systems in Spain and Portugal. The continued influx of tourists then helped strengthen and stabilize democracy in those countries.The opposite can be seen in Turkey, where authoritarian tendencies over the last decade—partly due to the general situation in the Middle East—have reduced stability, pushed the government toward dictatorship, and triggered a negative cycle in the tourism industry.A negative example of tourism development can be seen in Southeast Asian countries like Thailand. While policies focused on leisure and beach tourism generated significant income, they also led to widespread ethical issues and social problems. Studies and analyses of the recent tsunami in Thailand indicate that the concentration of tourist activities and services along the coastline, combined with inadequate emergency response infrastructure, was one of the main reasons for the high casualty rate in this natural disaster.
Considering that the value systems of each country differ, travelers’ behaviors may not always align with the host country’s values, and such differences can be noticeable to the local community. This difference is reciprocal—locals themselves will encounter such contrasts when they travel abroad. To participate effectively in the global tourism industry, we must decide whether we want to engage in this cultural exchange or not. Overall, I believe that tourism, when balanced and properly managed, brings more positive impacts than negative ones. Participation in policymaking can happen on several levels. For example, how much should long-term planning for tourism be emphasized in national strategies? What will be the positive and negative impacts of tourism over 10, 20, or 30 years? Unfortunately, these considerations receive little attention in our country today, and there is no consensus—without which serious planning is nearly impossible. Even if laws are passed and contracts signed, there is no guarantee of their proper implementation.On the other hand, paranoia and fear of tourists—reflecting concerns about the cultural impact of incoming travelers—are unfortunately widespread in Iran, despite a lack of understanding about how negative impacts actually arise. I believe the solution lies in cultural work and raising awareness among officials, decision-makers, and moral and intellectual leaders in society to dispel these baseless fears.
Another fundamental issue is that we lack the infrastructure and conditions to accommodate foreign tourists on a large scale, while at the same time, there is widespread outbound travel from our country. In other words, government policy has been the opposite of what it should be. To prevent negative impacts and protect cultural values, foreign tourists have been largely barred from entering, while there is a massive outflow of our own citizens traveling abroad—whose experiences abroad can have an even stronger negative effect on our values.We have also overlooked that it is not travel alone that brings negative impacts. Today, we live in an information network where media, computers, the internet, social networks, and so forth influence culture and social values in ways that are largely uncontrollable. In this context, tourists can actually have a positive role: through direct interaction with a European tourist inside Iran, the common perceptions and stereotypes about Europe can be corrected, allowing a more accurate and truthful image to replace misconceptions. No one can better explain and help address this paranoid fear of cultural destruction caused by inbound tourism than experts in social and human sciences.
On the other hand, in Iran, most infrastructural shortcomings are cited as reasons for the slow growth of the tourism industry. However, the real problem currently is the lack of strong political, legal, and social will to develop tourism. This reluctance stems from fears about the cultural negative impacts of tourism growth, fears that are themselves rooted in the distance we feel from the rest of the world. Social science experts can demonstrate that this anxiety is not only unfounded but harmful because it blinds us to vulnerabilities and causes us to focus on the wrong issues. I do not deny that cultural influence and erosion can occur, but I believe that if the arrival of several million foreign tourists to Iran might cause negative impact in about ten percent of vulnerable areas, then the departure of millions of Iranians abroad causes a thousand times more damage. Conversely, if inbound tourism increases, we might travel less ourselves; and when we do travel, we will do so more consciously—perhaps even choosing destinations different from those we select today.
Today, Iranians tend to choose travel destinations that are cheaper and closer, as their income levels and economic capacity have not significantly increased. Meanwhile, the tourism industry is one of the largest sectors that can directly and indirectly stimulate Iran’s economic growth.
Q- Given your deep understanding and studies of Iran from a social perspective, along with your years of living abroad, what features and values should we focus on to better introduce Iran and boost tourism?
In my opinion, as long as we don’t change our outlook towards the world, we cannot move towards mass tourism. We can only host very selective tourists, or in other words, cultural tourists who are a very small minority, especially high-income groups. These are tourists for whom visiting Iran’s historical sites is so important that they are willing to pay very high prices and accept minimal services in return. These tourists pay attention to the historical and cultural heritage and are usually from countries with strong traditions in cultural tourism. For us to expand tourism beyond this niche, we must first undergo changes in our mindset towards openness and interaction with the world.
Also, we need to improve our infrastructures, services, and hospitality standards so that the experience is attractive not just to a small elite but to a broader audience.Moreover, promoting the rich diversity of Iranian culture, including arts, cuisine, traditions, and natural landscapes, can create a more compelling image internationally.
Finally, it’s crucial to have coherent, long-term planning and political will to support tourism as a strategic economic and cultural sector. But regarding mass tourism, which today constitutes a major part of the global tourism industry, different conditions must be established. For this type of tourist — who make up 95% of the world’s travelers and differ greatly from elite and specialized tourists — travel needs to be democratized. At the same time, infrastructures and superstructures must be developed, and the flow of travel carefully managed and guided properly. Only if the people and officials recognize this issue and overcome the fear and anxiety they have about tourism, and the authoritarian restrictions affecting lifestyles are reduced, can we definitely welcome mass tourism—without causing any harm to our social values. In my opinion, with proper management, this will make our society more ethical than it currently is.
If we consider the framework of problem analysis as presented by officials, then not much stands out for emphasis or introduction. The values you mentioned are not inherent; witnessing more civil behavior, kinder people, and a milder system with less authoritarianism depends largely on the people’s livelihood conditions, their satisfaction with life, and the extent to which their problems have been reduced and resolved. In a context where there are numerous challenges, high inflation, and people are concerned about employment, healthcare, and the quality of education and educational environment for their children — while even the affluent class struggles with issues of status competition, nouveau riche behavior, and rivalry — the values you referred to have weakened and are moving towards dissolution. The consequence is that, realistically, we have little substantial to offer. In the current situation, when residents of this country must carefully compare prices from several stores before making any purchase, why is it expected that a tourist—who can only spend about a week traveling once a year—should take the risk and pay a high price to visit Iran? We assume that with our vast cultural heritage and numerous tourist attractions, we can host travelers, which is true; however, we are not the only country with such heritage. Many countries possess historical legacies but also enjoy better overall conditions. The reality is that tourists ask themselves: “Is it better to go to place A, which has less heritage but offers more security, better facilities, and less authoritarian pressure, or to place B, which has greater historical heritage but fewer amenities and less security?” This is a choice made by the tourist, and until a fundamental action is taken to address this issue, Iran will not be the winner in this selection process. Even if all authoritarian aspects are removed, it will take a long time for essential qualities to become ingrained in the people; societal change does not happen easily. Spain, Portugal, and others took nearly 30 years of effort to reach their current conditions. Turkey, after 20 to 30 years of development, achieved similar status but, as we see, a crisis caused its collapse, leaving Turkey’s tourism industry in a highly unstable state today.
Therefore, in short, I am hopeful about the future of mass tourism in Iran, but I believe this entirely depends on the democratization and opening up of our country’s space—first for Iranians themselves—along with increased income levels, growth of the middle class, rising average earnings, and a significant reduction in people’s worries about their future and that of their children. Happy or relatively content people, confident and less anxious about the future, can attract many tourists. However, the fewer such people there are, the harder it is to invite others into a country that, by definition, is already full of sorrow, pain, and hardship.
Gilgamesh Magazine, Issue 4 / Esfand 1397 (March ۲۰۱۹)
This text is an AI-generated translation of a Persian article originally published on the website of Nasser Fakouhi (nasserfakouhi.com).
The original article is available at the following link:
