LAUSR

This Post Publication Review focuses on a recent article by Dennis Tolkach on ‘Tourism and Anarchism’ published in Tourism Recreation Research (2017). The paper represents a useful contribution to discussions of the relations between different political philosophies and tourism, particularly with respect to the relationship between the individual and the state, environmental and social justice, human rights, and responsibility for individual actions (Hall, 1994). Indeed, much of the literature in tourism studies is seemingly blind to the connections that different political philosophies and assumptions about the relative roles of the individual and the state have to notions of tourism-related mobility, governance and sustainability. Such blindness may be deliberate, a case of agnotology, or it may come from a simple lack of concern or interest. After all, if you do question the taken-forgranted assumptions that underlie much present-day tourism education and research with respect to the centrality of the market, the need for a flexible labour force, and tourism’s economic and social function in contemporary capitalism, what are you then going to do about it? The present paper seeks to use Tolkach’s (2017) contribution as a positive springboard into a range of issues that his article raised, and a number which it did not. One of the most important issues in trying to understand the relationship between tourism and anarchism is how politics and issues of power, let alone anarchism itself, is peripheral tomost tourism research and education. Fromone interested in critical and emancipatory research this is not surprising because making corporate and state power transparent would arguably not be good for the business for tourism or its supposed contribution to development, ethics and sustainability. Although it would be good for gaining a much better understanding of fairness, participation and consumer (and community) rights. For example, the notion of co-creation has become incredibly fashionable in tourism marketing (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Campos, Mendes, Valle, & Scott, 2018), and elsewhere, well used, yet lacking appreciation of the bullshit (this term is used advisedly [Frankfurt, 2005]) that lies behind it. The prefix ‘co’ is a living formative which, whether used as a verb, adjective, adverb, substantive or as an agent-noun, implies ideas such as ‘together’, ‘mutually’, ‘in common’, ‘jointly’, ‘partner’ and ‘in conjunction’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 1933). From an anarchist perspective, this is an extremely important notion as it suggests equality and equity in mutually agreed participation. Unfortunately, the reality with respect towhat it characterises inmuchdiscussionofmarketing and business co-creation is often nothing of the sort and is instead used as a way of describing particular socio-economic relationships, typically characterised by experiences, social media and the development of ‘product’, and marked by an economic exchange that is beneficial to business. Most importantly, it is ‘uneven’ and ‘disadvantageous’ with all the socio-economic implications that go with it. Of course, to be critical of business-as-normal, including what has become tourismand tourism studies-asnormal, is dangerous. And here, to describe one’s perspective as anarchist may potentially draw derision from colleagues (who may often possess a Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph level of political understanding and perspective) who misappropriate the concept to equate anarchism to terrorism or chaos, and in most business schools and departments of tourism, hospitality and events studies would almost certainly not lead to tenure! Although, perhaps ironically, a strong economically conservative perspective on economic individualism and rationalism might be seen as ‘normal’ or even appropriate. It is therefore highly likely that one of the reasons for the ‘silence’ regarding anarchism and, to a