REMEMBERING JULIA CHILD ON HER CENTENNIAL

Renee de Ramirez, MS 

Hospitality Operations and Management

Fortis College Miami Campus

WHAT MAKES A GOOD LEADER?

Leadership Qualities *What makes a good Leader?

The leadership qualities that are required to make a good leader can vary in different companies, teams and situations. They are context-dependent.

This can be illustrated in both modern leadership models and art. For example, the fact that LEADERSHIP QUALITIES ARE DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT is demonstrated in the play The Admirable Crichton and the film Twelve O'clock High - the latter having been used on leadership training courses for more than half a century.

In "The Admirable Crichton", written in 1902, the Lord and butler swap their roles as leader and servant as the situation changes. On a desert island, the butler's practical skills are essential for survival, whereas the Lord's knowledge of English politics is of no value. In the film "Twelve O'clock High", produced in 1949, as a squadron starts to suffer increasing losses during the war, the leader's people-oriented approach starts to fail. He is replaced by a dictatorial bully who turns the squadron round and restores their pride (in a modern setting, such leadership behaviour would often be regarded as unacceptable).

Leadership Styles

In theory, the ideal scenario is for a leader to have infinite flexibility. That means you are able to adapt your leadership style according to the situation and/or the state of the team - ej: to be an executive leader when a team is Forming but to be a participative leader when a team is Performing (the different leadership styles for different situations are described on our LEADERSHIP STYLES.

This need to change one's leadership style according to the circumstances is one of the fundamental principles underlying popular models such as Situational Leadership (develop by Blanchard and Hersey in the late 1960s).

However, modern leadership theory has begun to realize that the perfect, flexible leader does not exist. Everyone has strengths and weakness, and there is a need to strike a balance using the individual's preferred styles and meeting the needs of the situation. The modern goal is to develop 'good enough' leadership.

Perspective

How you look to develop leadership qualities will depend on whether you are looking at the subject from the perspective of an organization or an individual. The former is driven by need, the latter by talent. Organizations need leaders who will support the organizational culture and aims. For them, therefore, leadership development involves:

• identifying the leadership characteristics and/or profile of people who will enhance organizational performance
• selecting/recruiting individuals whose character, skills and potential closely match that profile
• developing the particular skills/abilities within those individuals so they can fulfill their leadership potential within the organization

For example, leadership in the emergency services requires strong executive and management skills. However, if you, as an individual, are seeking to develop into a position of leadership then you need to build on your own natural talents - trying to be a type of leader that is unnatural for you can lead to stress, executive burnout and poor performance. That is, you need to:

• discover your natural leadership style and qualities
• develop those qualities into tangible skills
• find a role or organization that matches your leadership talents, where what you have to offer will be valued

For example, leadership in a sports team requires physical fitness, sporting prowess and the ability to lead by example.

Conclusion

What makes a good leader depends on the organizational context. Developing leadership potential involves matching individual talents with organizational need, and building skills that both enhance performance and play to individual strengths. 

Renee de Ramirez, MS.

MANNERS, PROTOCOL AND ETIQUETTE

A lot of people in the D/s lifestyle place great importance on manners, protocols and etiquette, both at events, and functions, and also in more private situations.

The dictionary defines Manners as:

• Ways of behaving with reference to polite standards.
• A way of acting, bearing or behavior
• The socially correct way of acting.

Manners really are important no matter what lifestyle you lead, it is the basic common courtesies which most people learn as they grow up.

The please and thank you, not speaking with a mouthful of food, not interrupting a conversation, etc. All things that should apply in all situations.

Protocols and Etiquette - though related to good manners - are really what many people associate with our lifestyle, and many scene people place great importance on both.

So what is a Protocol, and what is Etiquette?

Protocol is defined as:

• A code of correct conduct
• The system of rules and acceptable behavior used at official ceremonies and occasions:

Etiquette is defined as:

• conventional requirements as to social behaviour.
• the set of rules or customs which control accepted behavior in particular social groups or social situations

From these definitions it is obvious that protocols are more widely recognized as being official behavior, whereas etiquette is predominantly social behavior, but the basic element is the same, they are about correct behavior in certain situations.

The D/s lifestyle has various situations which can involve different levels of protocol, for example an informal night at home might be low protocol, having D/s guests for dinner maybe medium protocol, but a formal D/s dinner would be high protocol.

Low protocol is easy going and usual in most informal situations or casual stay at home nights. It is also what many D/s couples use if they are in “vanilla situations” such as family get together, where not everyone is aware of the lifestyle. Only to the practiced eye, is the subtle D/s interaction noticeable, but there is no doubt in the submissive mind that it is there.

Medium protocol is basically just a step up from low protocol. It is still fairly easy going, but there is a bit of an edge to things, and the submissive is a little more aware of his/her behavior. It may involve things such as wearing a collar at the table for the evening, being mindful and respectful to whomever is around you, but being able to speak fairly freely, as long as you are respectful.

If a submissive or slave is “put on” high protocol, she/he is instructed to behave in a certain manner befitting a high protocol situation - she/he would have certain rules to follow. High protocol usually means all focus is on the Dominant, and no communication with anyone else, unless directed, is allowed. The submissive would keep eyes lowered and be quiet at all times, and remain in whatever position or place she/ he has been instructed to stay in.

Being in high protocol is a very good way of remaining focused, and also a good way of lessening stressful situations. As a submissive, on high protocol you do not think of anything except your Dominant.

A personal example for me, was to be placed on high protocol for almost a whole day, i wore a chain attached to my collar and was at Master’s side constantly, doing things for Him and being in His presence. The reason was that it was the anniversary of my mother’s death, and I needed to focus on something else rather than my sad thoughts.

At the end of the day I was much more calm and relaxed and able to think of her without the devastating sadness that had overcome me that morning.

Master had recognized that I would need something to get me through that day, and high protocol was the answer.

Protocols are also in place at such things as formal collaring, or training workshops, where certain codes of conduct are expected, and should be adhered to by everyone.

Etiquette is like a set of protocols or rules for social situations. Many Dominants like the formal side of D/s so they tend to teach their submissive to use correct etiquette, and to learn what is appropriate and when.

My Master requires different styles of greetings for me to use depending on which Dominant we may encounter.

For example, for most Dominants we meet up with, i would be likely to greet them in a fairly informal way, with a hug and a kiss on the cheek…. However there are one or two for which Master requires a formal greeting from me, that is - down on my knees with my forehead to the ground.

At home, there are rules for how we greet our guests and who comes first.

When out, there are rules for where we walk in relation to Master, and where we stand, this is all etiquette – correct behavior in certain situations.

But to add to this discussion, is it only the submissive who are subject to protocols and etiquette rules, or should Dominants also follow those guidelines?

For example as a submissive I know that I must always be polite and respectful and greet any Dominant we meet up with, in the correct manner.

My behavior is a reflection on my Master, and I am always conscious of that fact.

But what about Dominants who simply don’t respond, or who ignore submissive…. Is that really the right thing to do?

What about a Dominant who greets another Dominant, then goes around the group of people saying hello to each person, but yet ignores the collared submissive of the Dominant he first greeted.

My opinion of this behavior is that it is almost an insult to the Dominant who owns the submissive, is she simply not liked or is she ignored because she is only a submissive?

If the Dominant in question ignores all submissive in the group, then it can be assumed that it is normal behavior for Him/Her, but if it is only one submissive singled out to be ignored, and then it would seem more likely to be a personal dislike. Even if that is the case, it is not a good example to set to any submissive, or to any upcoming Dominant.

In my own opinion, it gets back to basic manners and courtesy, whether it be D/s or not, to ignore one person out of a group of people is just plain rude.

What about the Dominant who greets a submissive before greeting that submissive Master or Mistress?

What about a Dominant, who on seeing a submissive He knows, goes and pats her on the head as she is serving a drink on her knees to her Master?

Incidents like these do happen, and they are caused by ignorance on the part of the Dominant, not realizing or understanding the correct behavior.

Of course, most people we meet within the D/s Lifestyle are polite and well mannered, new people venturing out are sometimes ignorant of the etiquette which should be followed in social situations, but if things are gently explained, there isn’t usually a problem.

In summing up then, it would seem that basic manners should be a necessity in any lifestyle, but that protocols and etiquette play a big part in the D/s world. There are many of us who embrace them and incorporate them into our daily lives, but equally many who do not understand the subtleties of correct protocol and etiquette.

I fully understand that not everyone places as much importance on manners, protocols and etiquette as Master and I do. For me it is like the icing on the cake  - it adds to the quality of my life as a submissive, and helps me to remember my place, and to focus on Master.

To know that He is proud of my behavior in all situations makes me feel proud of myself, and gives me confidence when I need it.

Renee  de Ramirez, MS

Etiquette and Protocol Expert

DIPLOMACY HISTORY

Deals with the history of International Relations between states. Diplomatic history can be different from international relations in that the former can concern itself with the foreign policy of one state while the latter deals with relations between two or more states. Diplomatic history tends to be more concerned with the history of diplomacy whereas international relations deals more with current events and creating a model intended to shed explanatory light on international politics. It contrasts with political history dealing with politics inside the nation state.

Political world history

The political history of the world is the history of the various political entities created by the Human race throughout their existence on Earth and the way these states define their borders. The history of political thinking goes back to antiquity. Political history, and thus the history of political thinking throughout human existence stretches though up to Medieval period and the Renaissance. In the Age of Enlightenment, political entities expanded from basic systems of self-governance and monarchy to the complex democratic and communist systems that exist of the Industrialized and the Modern Era, in parallel, political systems have expanded from vaguely defined frontier-type boundaries, to the definite boundaries existing today.

Although much of existing written history might be classified as diplomatic history - Thucydides, certainly, is among other things, highly concerned with the relations among states - the modern form of diplomatic history was codified in the 19th century by Leopold von Ranke, a the leading German historian of the 19th century. Ranke wrote largely on the history of early Modern Europe, using the diplomatic archives of the European powers (particularly the Venetians) to construct a detailed understanding of the history of Europe wie es eigentlich gewesen ("as it actually happened.").  Ranke saw diplomatic history as the most important kind of history to write because of his idea of the "Primacy of Foreign Affairs" (Primat der Aussenpolitik), arguing that the concerns of international relations drive the internal development of the state. Ranke's understanding of diplomatic history relied on the large number of official documents produced by modern western governments as sources, which he argued should be examined in an objective and neutral spirit. 

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, work by prominent diplomatic historians such as Charles Webster, Harold Temperley, Alfred Pribram, R.H. Lord and B.E. Schmitt were mostly concerned with the events such as the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna and the origins of the Franco-German War. A notable event in diplomatic history occurred in 1910 when the French government start to publish all of the archives relating to the war of 1870.

Ranke's understanding of the dominance of foreign policy, and hence an emphasis on diplomatic history, remained the dominant paradigm in historical writing through the first half of the twentieth century. This emphasis, combined with the effects of the war Guilt Clause in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) which ended the First World War, led to a huge amount of historical writing on the subject of the origins of the war in 1914, with the involved governments printing huge, carefully edited, collections of documents and numerous historians writing multi-volume histories of the origins of the war. In the interwar period, most diplomatic historians tended to blame of the all the Great Powers of 1914 for the First World War, arguing that the war was in effect everybody's responsibility. In general, the early works in this vein, including Firtz Fischer's controversial (at the time) 1961 thesis that German goals of "world power" were the principal cause of the war, fit fairly comfortably into Ranke's emphasis on Aussenpolitik.

For the first half of the 20th century, most diplomatic history working within the narrow confines of the Primat der Aussenpolitik approach was very narrowly concerned with foreign-policy making elites with little reference to broader historical forces. The most notable exceptions to this tendency were A. J. Taylor and William Medlicott in Britain, Pierre Renouvin in France, and William L. Langer in the United States. A sign of the future tendencies in diplomatic history occurred in 1939 with the publication of the British historian E. H Carr's book The Twenty Year's Crisis which suggested that it was a flawed peace settlement in 1919 instead of the decisions of individual leaders that caused the problems of interwar Europe. Through The Twenty Years' Crisis was published just months before World War II began, the Japanese historian Saho Matusumoto wrote that in a sense, Carr's book began the debate on the origins of World War II.

By contrast, Sir Winston Churchill's 1948 book The Gathering Storm presented World War II as caused by the insane ambitions of Adolf Hitler who was unwillingly abetted by cowardly and weak-willed British and French leaders who chose appeasement over resistance. In the 1950s, almost all diplomatic history on the origins of World War II followed Churchill's lead in unsparingly condemning British and French leaders for appeasement in the 1930s. A group of French historians centered around Pierre Renouvin and his protégés Jean-Baptiste Duroselle and Maurice Baumont started a new type of international history in the 1950s that included taking into account what Renouvin called forces profondes (profound forces) such as the influence of domestic politics on French foreign policy. However, Renouvin and his followers still followed the concept of la décadence with Renouvin arguing that French society under the Third Republic was “sorely lacking in initiative and dynamism” and Baumont arguing that French politicians had allowed "personal interests" to override "any sense of the general interest". In 1979, Duroselle published a well-known book entitled La Décadence that offered a total condemnation of the entire Third Republic as weak, cowardly and degenerate.

The British historian A. J. P. Taylor's 1961 book The Origins of the Second World War claimed that Hitler had no master-plan for conquering the world and was instead an opportunistic leader seizing whatever chances he had for expansionism, and that the war that started over Poland in 1939 was due to diplomatic miscalculation on the part of the Germans, the British, the French and the Poles instead of being a case of German aggression. Taylor's book set off a huge storm in the 1960s that led to much reappraisal of the origins of World War II. British historians such as D.C. Watt, George Peden and David Dilks followed Taylor and argued that far being a case of a degenerate clique who had mysteriously seized control of British foreign policy in the 1930s, that appeasement was due to a number of structural economic and military factors that had limited British options. Reflecting the new interests, British historians such as Christopher Thorne and Harry Hinsley abandoned the previous focus on individual leaders to discuss the broader societal influences such as public opinion and narrower ones like intelligence on diplomatic relations. 

At the same time, in 1961 when the German historian Firtz Fisher published Griff nach der Weltmacht, which established that Germany had caused the First World War led to the fierce "Fischer Controversy" that tore apart the West German historical profession. One result of Fischer's book was the rise in the Primat der Innenpolitik (Primacy of Domestic Politics) approach. As a result of the rise of the Primat der Innenpolitik school, diplomatic historians increasing started to play attention to domestic politics. In the 1970s, the conservative German historian Andreas Hillgruber, together with his close associate Klaus Hildebrand was involved in a very acrimonious debate with the leftish German historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler over the merits of the Primat der Aussenpolitik ("primacy of foreign politics") and Primat der Innenpolitik ("primacy of domestic politics") schools. Hillgruber and Hildebrand made a case for the traditional Primat der Aussenpolitik approach to diplomatic history with the stress on examining the records of the relevant foreign ministry and studies of the foreign policy decision-making elite. Wehler, who favored the Primat der Innenpolitik approach, for his part contended that diplomatic history should be treated as a sub-branch of social history, calling for theoretically-based research, and argued that the real focus should be on the study of the society in question. Moreover, under the influence of the Primat der Innenpolitik approach, diplomatic historians in the 1960s, 70s and 80s start to borrow models from the social sciences.

A notable example of the Primat der Innenpolitik approach was the claim by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason who claimed that the launch of World War II in 1939 was best understood as a “barbaric variant of social imperialism”. Mason argued that “Nazi Germany was always bent at some time upon a major war of expansion”. However, Mason argued that the timing of a such a war was determined by domestic political pressures, especially as relating to a failing economy, and had nothing to do with what Hitler wanted. In Mason's view in the period between 1936 - 41, it was the state of the German economy, and not Hitler's "will" or "intentions" that was the most important determinate on German decision-making on foreign policy. Mason argued that the Nazi leaders were deeply haunted by the November Revolution of 1918, and was most unwilling to see any fall in working class living standards out of the fear that it might provoke another November Revolution. According to Mason, by 1939, the “overheating” of the German economy caused by rearmament, the failure of various rearmament plans produced by the shortages of skilled workers, industrial unrest caused by the breakdown of German social policies, and the sharp drop in living standards for the German working class forced Hitler into going to war at a time and place not of his choosing. Mason contended that when faced with the deep socio-economic crisis the Nazi leadership had decided to embark upon a ruthless “smash and grab” foreign policy of seizing territory in Eastern Europe which could be pitilessly plundered to support living standards in Germany. Mason's theory of a "Flight into war" being imposed on Hitler generated much controversy, and in the 1980s he conducted a series of debates with economic historian Richard Overy over this matter. Overy maintained the decision to attack Poland was not caused by structural economic problems, but rather was the result of Hitler wanting a localized war at that particular time in history. For Overy, a major problem with the Mason thesis was that it rested on the assumption that in a way unrecorded by the records, that information was passed on to Hitler about the Reich's economic problems. Overy argued that there was a major difference between economic pressures inducted by the problems of the Four Year Plan, and economic motives to seize raw materials, industry and foreign reserve of neighboring states as a way of accelerating the Four Year Plan. Moreover, Overy asserted that the repressive capacity of the German state as a way of dealing with domestic unhappiness was somewhat downplayed by Mason.

In addition, because World War II was a global war, diplomatic historians start to focus on Japanese-American relations to understand why Japan had attacked the United States in 1941. This in turn led diplomatic historians to start to abandon the previous Euro-centric approach in favor of a more global approach. A sign of the changing times was the rise to prominence of such diplomatic historians such as the Japanese historian Chihiro Hosoya, the British historian Ian Nish, and the Japanese historian Akira Iriye, which was the first time that Asian specialists became noted diplomatic historians. The Cold War and decolonization greatly added the tendency to a more global diplomatic history. The Vietnam War led to the rise of a revisionist school in the United States, which led many American historians such as Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams to reject traditional diplomatic history in favor of a Primat der Innenpolitik approach that saw a widespread examination of the influence of American domestic politics together with various social, economic and cultural forces on foreign-policy making. In general, the American Cold War revisionists tended to focus on American foreign policy decision-making with respect to the genesis of the Cold War in the 1940s and on how the United States became involved in Vietnam in the 1960s. Starting in the 1960s, a ferocious debate has taken place within Cold War histriography between the advocates of the “orthodox” school which saw the Cold War as a case of Soviet aggression such as Vojtech Mastny against the proponents of the “revisionist” school which saw the Cold War as a case of American aggression. Latterly, a third school known as "neo-orthodox" whose most prominent member is the American historian John Lewis Gaddis has emerged, which holds through the United States borne some responsibity for the Cold War, the lion's share of the responsibility goes to the Soviet Union.

Historical studies

In Europe, diplomatic history fell out of favor in the late Cold War era. Since the collapse of communism, there has been a renaissance, led especially by historians of the early modern era, in the history of diplomacy. The new approach differs from previous perspectives by the wholesale incorporation of perspectives from political science, sociology, the history of mentalities, and cultural history.

In the U.S. since 1980, the discipline of diplomatic history has become more relevant to and integrated with the mainstream of the historiographic profession, having been in the forefront of the internationalization of American historical studies. As a field that explores the meeting of domestic and international forces, the study of US foreign relations has become increasingly important for its examination of both the study of culture and identity and the exploration of political ideologies. Particularly shaped by the influence of studies of Orientalism and globalism, gender studies, race, and considerations of national identity, diplomatic history was often at the cutting edge of historical research. Despite such innovations, however, the core endeavor of diplomatic history remains the study of the state, which is also a key to its broadening appeal, since considerations of US state power are essential to understanding the world internationally.

Renee de Ramirez MS

Diplomacy and Protocol Expert

The History of Tourism * The Boom in Mass Tourism in the 19th Century

Organized group holidays offering an all-inclusive price that reduced the travelers' costs were an innovation of the 1840s. Thomas Cook (1808-1892) , a brilliant entrepreneur from England, is seen as their inventor and thus the pioneer of commercialized mass tourism. His first all-inclusive holiday in 1841 took 571 people from Leicester to Loughborough and supplied both meals and brass music. From 1855, Cook offered guided holidays abroad, for example in 1863 to Switzerland. These catered to a mixed clientele, from heads of state and princes to average representatives of the middle, lower middle and working classes. Cook, inspired by clear socio-political motives, wanted to use Sunday excursions to tempt workers out of the misery and alcoholism of the cities into the green of the countryside. He had more success with inexpensive all-inclusive holidays, often to foreign destinations, for the middle class. His introduction of vouchers for hotels and tourist brochures was highly innovative.

Cook's pioneering role in the emergence of mass tourism is widely recognized. He influenced the travel agencies later opened in Germany, above all those associated with the names of Rominger (Stuttgart, 1842), Schenker & Co. (München, 1889) and the Stangen Brothers (Breslau, 1863). Carl Stangen (1833–1911)  organized holidays through Europe, then from 1873 to Palestine and Egypt, before extending them to the whole world in 1878. Over this period, the travel agency was able to establish itself as a specialized institution. It channeled ever greater demands for relaxation and variety among broadening social strata: from the 1860s, traveling became a type of "popular movement" that spread throughout society. The German writer Theodor Fontane (1819–1898) remarked in 1877.

The opening of the Alps to tourists was an equally important development of the 19th century.  It was preceded by an affinity for nature acquired under the influence of the Enlightenment and Romanticism that sentimentalized the mountains. This created a flock of what would soon be called tourists made up of researchers, nobles, artists, painters, writers and other members of the educated classes, as well as the upwardly mobile middle classes, who followed Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777), Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (1740–1799) and Rousseau in their search for natural beauty and the mountains. This romanticism of alpine harmony replaced the mediaeval fear of the mountains and underwent a "touristization" over the 19th century. Two groups propelled this process – the aristocracy and the new middle class. The pioneers were enthusiastic British mountaineers who pursued the exclusive sport in Switzerland, charging up the summit and encouraging the development of infrastructure (the construction of hotels, Alpine huts, mountain railways, Anglican chapels and so on) through their continues presence, as well as leaving behind the traces of a cultural transfer.

Mountaineering associations founded across the continent led the way. Significantly, the first was the Alpine Club (1857) in London, followed by the Austrian Alpenverein (1862), the Swiss Alpenclub (1863), the Club Alpino Italiano (1863) and the German Alpenverein (1869). Most of these subsequent associations set themselves broader goals than the British club, which chose to remain an aristocratic sports body. The mountaineering associations soon acquired popularity, although they were somewhat conservative, and their impact was enormous. They produced club reports, almanacs and guidebooks to routes, while membership increased considerably and the infrastructure (hotels, bread and breakfasts, huts, guide, paths and cable cars) was extended. The mountaineering associations and their branches soon stimulated a mass middle-class mountaineering movement that initially centred on Switzerland. A tendency developed whereby the movement increasingly encompassed lower social classes, at the turn of the century finally including proletarian tourist associations such as the Naturfreunde ("The Friends of Nature" – Vienna, 1895) and later the loosely associated organisations of Der Wandervogel ("The Migratory Bird" – Berlin, 1905).  Thus, the enthusiasm for mountaineering underwent first a "bourgeoisification" and then a "proletariatisation". This early social tourism was characterized by a new collective ethos mixed with non-commercial elements that have been understood as the precursors of "soft tourism". These intermingled with distinct forms of sociability, the conscious appreciation of the environment and consideration for the local population, countryside and cultural assets.

Holidaying Practices in the Interwar Period

The development of tourism in the 20th century can be divided using a number of different periodisations. It is common, and plausible, to identify a "developmental phase" between 1915 and 1945. This covers the stagnation in tourism as a result of the First World War, but also transitional developments that steadily acquired importance. It was preceded by a period of growth in which, for example, the number of stays in a hotel or other form of holiday accommodation in Germany rose about 471 percent between 1871 and 1913, a good seven times faster than the level of growth in the population. The bulk of these belonged to the upper middle class, and soon the entire middle class, who made their way to the newly opened coastal resorts on the North and Baltic Seas, as well as to the spa, health and gambling resorts.  Germans took to bathing holidays relatively late in comparison to the pioneering British and, at first, for health reasons, with socializing and recreation coming later. However, they became increasingly popular, as evident in the development of famous locations, coastal resorts and beaches.  The loss of their former exclusivity and the shift towards entertainment and distraction signified an increase in social accessibility, whereas, for example, the new ski and winter tourism retained its chic clientele at the turn of the century.

The dominant motif of traveling and holidaying after 1900 was recuperation. However, only those involved in intellectual work had an established right to relaxation; this right was extended from nobles, the middle-class professions and high-ranking bureaucrats to entrepreneurs, merchants, mid-ranking bureaucrats, white-collar workers and teachers. Without doubt, this was connected to the regulation of holidays as part of legal agreements on pay. 

Most European countries lacked strict holiday rights before 1900: with the exception of a few pioneering cases, paid time off work for more than a day only became established in law after the First World War. In Germany, the Reichsbeamtengesetz of 1873, which outlined the employment conditions of state employees (Beamte), was the beginning. At first, it was only relevant to state employees, and holidays for other employees remained the exception before the First World War, only becoming possible after it, for example in Austria through the Arbeiterurlaubsgesetz (Law on Workers' Holidays ) of 1919. Similar developments took place in Switzerland: holidays for the civil servants of the federal administration were first subject to regulation in 1879, but only established as a legal right in 1923. In industry, holiday rights were only granted much later. Among 100 Swiss factories, for example, in 1910 only 11.9 percent gave their employees paid holidays; by 1944, this figure had risen to 87.9 percent. The right to holiday enshrined in normal work contracts today is an achievement of the 20th century. In Switzerland, this right was not regulated uniformly. In different cantons, the situation developed independently, although from the 1930s collective work contracts became important; one paid week off was usual. Only after 1945 did most cantons extend their laws on holidays to the entire labor force. Germany did not pass a general law on holiday rights until 1963.

One innovative new form of holidaying that also came to include families with children was the "summer retreat". From the 1870s, the term, first used in 1836, referred to a middle-class holidaying practice whose practitioners sought relaxation in the countryside as an alternative to the seaside during the summer. The summer retreat can be understood . At first, the lower middle and working classes could not afford a summer retreat with the family, while Sunday excursions became a custom for middle-class families before 1914 – these slowly extended to the whole weekend and then several days.

 

After the crisis of the First World War, the summer retreat offered a simple, healthy and economical holiday, which from the 1920s was accessible to employees and workers on low incomes. Love of the countryside and a desire for the simplicity of rural life inspired by a critical view of the city, preferably in the beauty of low mountain ranges, seem to indicate a particularly German variety of the summer retreat, which differed from trips to Scandinavian or Russian holiday cottages or dachas.  The behavior of Germans on summer retreat created a repertoire that came to define the practice.

The presence of people on summer retreat left behind the first traces of a touristic infrastructure, for example the designation of walking trails and the construction of guest houses, bothies, forest restaurants, observation towers and recreational opportunities.

Between 1933 and 1939, the National Socialist regime in Germany brought new impulses, an increasing amount of travel and holidaying practices aimed at the masses. These developments overcame the once essentially middle-class nature of travel by creating a social or popular tourism characterized by the state organization of holidaying and recreation. It goes without saying that tourism served the political system and the National Socialist ideology. The various stages and graduated pattern of use of the new tourism are conspicuous, providing an object lesson in the inherent potential for a totalitarian regime to exploit tourism politically. Mass tourism emerged in the Third Reich. For the historian of tourism, this form of holidaying, guided from above, was characterized by its claim to democratization on behalf of the general workforce, the Volk. Hitler wanted to grant the worker a satisfactory holiday and do everything to ensure that this holiday and the rest of his free time would provide true recuperation.

The National Socialists implemented this goal through the creation of a body to organize recreation – the Nationalsozialistische Gemeinschaft Kraft durch Freude ("The National Socialist Association Strength through Joy" – KdF) and a ministry Reisen, Wandern, Urlaub ("Traveling, Hiking, Holiday" – RWU), both of which were subordinate to the party. In order to avoid resistance to the social transformation, workers received at first between three and six days holiday per year. From 1937, the majority of wage-earners had from six to twelve days off per year and could benefit from the new, very cheap, opportunities for holidays and travel: walking tours, train journey, cruises with accommodation and meals achieved great popularity. This is evident from record statistics that testify to an unprecedented boom in travel: the 2.3 million journeys undertaken in 1934 rose to five million in 1935, 9.6 million in 1937 and 10.3 million in 1938. In the six years before the outbreak of war, 43 million journey, cruises and walking tours were sold at cheap prices that could not be competed with, for example seven days in Norway for 60 Reichsmark or 18 days in Madeira for 120 Reichsmark.

The KdF tourists, who traveled en masse as a logical expression of the state's ideology of national community, kept to themselves and were often met with disapproval at exclusive resorts and on cruises.  On the whole, it is generally true that the KdF movement contributed to the development of mass and repeat tourism and thus, to a certain extent, its democratization, albeit at the cost of the broad masses and to the benefit of the Nazi regime. The success of the KdF holidays was based on the interaction of three factors: the need to work and lack of money no longer ruled out going on holiday; holidays were offered at the lowest prices possible, and the organization commanded a closely meshed network that adapted itself to the workers' needs rather than the other way round. One also should not forget the fact that, at the same time, the German private tourist industry underwent a tremendous boom, for example in the construction of youth hostels and camping sites and in catering to the middle-class holidaymakers who gradually returned to the more upmarket forms of tourism. One historian summaries the KdF tourism with the words that the Germans had, admittedly, not yet become a "Volk auf Reisen" ("a people on the move"), but the Nazi dictatorship had shown the direction which – delayed by collapse and reconstruction –they would go in the end.

The Expansion of Tourism and Globalization

The last phase embraces the developments in tourism during the post-war period up to the present. Depending on one's perspective, this is the apex of tourism or the phase of practice and consolidation These are justified labels for the period's combination of infrastructural construction and renovation, streams of tourists and holidaying as a common form of recreation: indeed, over the last few decades, tourism has become an important branch of the global economy and is a defining characteristic of modern industrial nations. Tourism crosses borders: spatial, temporal, social and cultural. This is its common denominator. There is a consensus that the enormous boom during the post-war period was bound up with economic growth, technological progress, a high level of competition and the creation of new destinations and traveling styles. The increase in recreational mobility among broad strata of society should be seen against this background. Various factors brought about this boom, including rising affluence,    urbanization, the unprecedented construction of transportation and communication networks, and the increase in leisure time as a result of shortening working hours, all of which shaped   socialization.

However, this growth in tourism after the war only came slowly and in Germany, Austria and Switzerland remained confined to domestic destinations. In Western Germany, not until 1953 did the capacity for holiday accommodation reach pre-war levels; the considerable increases in the percentage of teenagers and adults going on holiday each year only took place during and after the 1960s: rising from 28 percent (1962) to 58 percent (1980), over 65 percent (1987) and 70.8 percent – meaning the Western German figures were average in comparison to other European countries. Involved in this were, alongside trade union bodies, the holiday   organizations and travel agencies, as well as the large travel companies, which acquired increasing importance. Subsidized "social tourism" for families and young people, which helped those parts of the population on low incomes to go on holiday, was a noticeable trend in several countries. Social policies, holiday funds, subsidies, charities and entire holiday camps and villages for workers and low-income employees can be found in France, Austria, Germany and, above all, in Switzlerand.

The apex of European tourism began in the 1960s: in response to the economic situation and strategic innovations in the market economy, commercial tour operators and travel companies transformed the nature of competition through increasingly cheaper offers, propelling it in the direction of mass tourism, introducing new destinations and modes of holidaying. 

Here, tourism produced its own structures and secondary systems. Many travel agencies and tourist  organizations were set up, while department stores also offered package holidays, for example Neckermann in Germany from 1963 and Jelmoli in Switzerland from 1972. The         replacement of bus and rail travel with journeys by car and caravan, and later by air, provided a powerful stimulus. Charter tourism occupied a flourishing market sector and established itself with cheap offers for foreign holidays. Foreign tourism first affected neighboring countries and then more distant destinations – Austria and Switzerland were popular among German holidaymakers, but Italy and Spain later gained increasing prominence: From about 1970, journeys abroad clearly represented the majority; this trend towards foreign holidays has recently grown even stronger. In general, the number of teenagers and adults taking foreign holidays rose more than threefold over the 40 years before 1991 – from nine to 32 million.

However, the researcher must differentiate between the varying levels of intensity that this boom possessed in different European countries. To do this, one must look at the frequency, forms of travel, trends and destinations, as well as countless statistics and market studies, the results of which indicate social and cultural holidaying traditions. In the mid-1970s, 70 to 80 percent of the Scandinavia's adult population went on holiday, while in Britain, the Netherlands and Switzerland this figure was 60 percent and in Italy about 25 percent. Foreign tourism dominated this phase and many resorts and beaches on the Mediterranean and regions in the newly opened up Alpine countries became magnates for holidaymakers that, later, developed into strongholds of tourism.  On the supply side, the infrastructure underwent intensive construction: some Alpine villages (St. Moritz, Zermatt, Lech) were entirely transformed into tourist and skiing resorts; rural provinces (Provence, Côte d'Azur, Tirol), cities (Venice,  Salzburg), costal areas  (on the Adriatic Sea, Kenya) and islands (Mallorca, Rhodes, the Maldives, Sylt) increasingly mutated into holiday areas, resorts and complexes.

However, the increase in touristic traffic hints at another social and structural expansion, the impact of which has been gaining strength since the 1990s. Holidays and travel are becoming accessible to ever broader strata of the population; not only "traditional" holidaymakers – i.e. state employees, white-collar workers, graduates and urban workers – have benefited. The rural population and social groups defined by age and gender (women, singles, pensioners) have taken advantage of tourism, something which is evident from the specific products tailored to their various demands. This picks up on a central characteristic of modern tourism –  diversification and specialization as a result of globalization . This corresponds to tourism's apparently unbridled potential, regardless of the facts that little structural development has taken past over the last decade and that touristic tastes and behavior have been reasonably stable since the Second World War, albeit with some changes in emphasis.

On the one hand, this view is contradicted by the institution of "club holidays" such as the "Club Méditerannée" (1955), the "Club Soleil" (1966), the "Robinson Club" (1970), the "Club-Aldiana" (1973) and others, which have very successfully put into practice their own holidaying formulas and philosophies. On the other, artificial holiday worlds in the form of amusement parks and theme parks are becoming increasingly important: Disneyland, Europa-Park, Port Aventura, Sun City and many others have annual visitor numbers in the tens of millions and are still experiencing constant growth.  These are made up of post-modern pseudo-events, simulated worlds and hyper-realities which the tourists internalize as adventure, fun, game and competition, despite the fact that the visitors see through their artificiality. Such experiential constructs come and go. For the historian of tourism, this represents a shift that is noteworthy on account of its systematic nature: the traditional touristic consumption of symbols (sights, other worlds) have been extended or replaced by an experience-laden entertainment culture that is part of a new way of perceiving the world. This has global characteristics; it is breaking down boundaries by mutating and is thus moving towards a globalized system with specific, increasingly interchangeable forms and modes of experience. Only time will tell what structures will emerge from this innovative potential.

Renee de Ramirez, MS

Hospitality Operations and Management

  Chairperson

Fortis College Miami Campus

THE HISTORY OF TOURISM * Structures on the Path to Moderny

Various academic disciplines have repeatedly sought to re-evaluate the significance of tourism. Globalized tourism's socioeconomic place within the framework of the leisure and holidaying opportunities on offer today has attracted particular attention. Such accounts often leave out the fact that this also has a history. The present article aims to overcome this shortcoming: it seeks to present an overview of the important structures, processes, types and trends of tourism against the background of historical developments. It deals with early forms of travel in the classical world and the Middle Ages, as well as the precursors of modern tourism, Bildungsreisen ("educational journeys") and the middle-class culture of travel. It then examines the boom in mass tourism in the 19th century and the unique expansion of tourism in the 1960s characterized by new forms of holidaying and experience shaped by globalization.

Tourism as a Globalized System

Tourism is often seen as a global phenomenon with an almost incomprehensibly massive infrastructure. Its importance is evident from the fact that its influence thoroughly penetrates society, politics, culture and, above all, the economy. Indeed, this is the branch of the global economy with the most vigorous growth: the World Tourism Organization (WTO) estimates that in 2007 it encompassed 903 million tourists who spent 625 billion US dollars. They thereby supported a global system with roughly 100 million employees in the modern leisure and experience industry. There exists a complex, interwoven world-wide structure dedicated to satisfying the specific touristic needs of mobile individuals, groups and masses. Since its inception, tourism has polarized: it reveals numerous views ranging from the total approval of its potential for enriching self-realization combined with recreation to critical rejection due to the belief that it causes harm through the systematic dumping down of entertainment and avoidable environmental destruction.

Beginning in the early 1920s, an early theory of Fremdenverkehr – a now obsolete term for tourism – emerged in the German-speaking world that dealt mainly with business and economic problems; since the 1960s, it has been replaced by the ever-expanding field of tourism studies. This gives many disciplines the space to approach the subject of tourism, or at least aspects of it, from their own particular academic perspective. Today, tourism studies means the mufti-disciplinary bundle of academic approaches in the sense of an undisguised "transdiscipline", which can find different applications. However, tourism studies does not exist as an integrated field of study. Instead, there are countless empirical accounts, case studies, approaches, theories and perspectives in individual disciplines, including economy, geography, psychology, architecture, ecology, sociology, political science and medicine.

At first, the fields of business studies and economics dominated a study of tourism that was grounded in an institutional approach; general accounts, analyses from the cultural sciences and historical surveys came conspicuously late. Admittedly, cultural and social history, as well as historical anthropology, have been opening up to the questions surrounding tourism for some time. However, these are perceived differently to those studies undertaken by economists and social scientists. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the historical prerequisites and development of travelling habits and holidaying styles if one wants to understand the nature of tourism today. This is true not only of concepts and ideas associated with the topic, but also the specific insights which the disciplines employed aim to provide. Conducting historical research on tourism within the context of the discipline of history is not synonymous with the task of writing a history of tourism (or parts of it).

This article takes the second approach. It is a conscious attempt to give an overview that picks up on the classic processes, stages, types and trends of modern tourism in order to place them in the context of their historical development. In general, there is a consensus that one should understand tourism as a phenomenon of modernity and place its appearance in the context of middle-class society from about the middle of the eighteenth century. However, this does not exclude historically older, "related" forms of travel, which should at least be remembered here. Not every journey is a touristic journey; mobility has many modalities. It is sensible to separate traveling as a means to an end (for example, expulsion, migration, war, religion, trade) and traveling as an end in itself in the encoded sense of tourism (education, relaxation, leisure, free time, sociability, entertainment).

Early Forms of Travel and Types of Journey

Recreational and educational travel already existed in the classical world and, even earlier, in Egypt under the pharaohs. In the latter, there is evidence of journeys emanating from a luxury lifestyle and the search for amusement, experience and relaxation. The privileged groups of the population cultivated the first journeys for pleasure. Their writings tell us that they visited famous monuments and relics of ancient Egyptian culture, including, for example, the step pyramid of Sakkara, the Sphinx and the great pyramids of Gizeh – buildings that had been constructed a good thousand years earlier. The Greeks had similar traditions. They traveled to Delphi in order to question the Oracle, participated in the Pythian Games (musical and sporting competitions) or the early Olympic Games. Herodot (485–424 B.C.) , the well-traveled writer with an interest in both history and ethnology who visited Egypt, North Africa, the Black Sea, Mesopotamia and Italy, pioneered a new type of research trip.

Classical Rome also gave impetus to traveling and particular forms of holiday. Holiday travel became increasingly important due to the development of infrastructure. Around 300 A.D., there existed a road network with 90,000 kilometers of major thoroughfares and 200,000 kilometers of smaller rural roads. These facilitated not only the transport of soldiers and goods, but also private travel. Above all, wealthy travelers seeking edification and pleasure benefited from this system. In the first century after Christ, there was a veritable touristic economy which organized travel for individuals and groups, provided information and dealt with both accommodation and meals.

The well-off Romans sought relaxation in the seaside resorts in the South or passed time on the beaches of Egypt and Greece. The classical world did not only have the "bathing holiday", but also developed an early form of "summer health retreat" in swanky thermal baths and luxury locations visited by rich urban citizens during the hot months. Something that had its origins primarily in healthcare soon mutated into holidays for pleasure and entertainment, which could also include gambling and prostitution. The decline of the Roman Empire caused the degeneration of many roads. Travel became more difficult, more dangerous and more complicated.

The mobility of mediaeval corporate society was shaped by its own forms and understandings of travel tailored to diverse groups, including merchants, students, soldiers, pilgrims, journeymen, beggars and robbers. From the twelfth century, the movement of errant scholars became increasingly important. Journeys to famous educational institutions in France (Paris, Montpellier), England (Oxford) and Italy (Bologna) became both a custom and a component of education. The desire to experience the world emerged as an individual, unique guiding principle. Traveling tuned from a means into an end: now, one traveled in order to learn on the road and developed in doing so a love of travel and life that not infrequently crossed over into licentiousness and the abandonment of mores. With regard to the motivation for travel, one can see here an important process with long-term repercussions – traveling and wandering has, since then, been seen as a means of confronting oneself and achieving self-realisation."Das subjektive Reiseerlebnis wird zu einem Kennzeichen der beginnenden Neuzeit: auf Reisen erlebt das eigene Ich seine Befreiung."

The journeyman years of trainee craftsmen can be seen as a counterpart to those errant students "studying" at the "university of life". The travels of journeymen were part of the highly traditional world of artisan and guild structures, for which documentation exists from the middle of the 14th century. Beginning in the 16th century, the guilds prescribed the common European practice of journeying as an obligatory element of training, often lasting three to four years. This survived as an institution with a rich and highly regimented set of codes well into the 18th century. The fundamental idea was that one could mature and learn while traveling, experience the world and improve one's craft in order to grow through a test and return as an accomplished man. The fact that not all journeymen were successful and often suffered terrible fates is evident from reports of an "epidemic of journeymen" that circulated in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Precursors of Modern Tourism

An early form and precursor of modern tourism was the grand tour undertaken by young nobles between the 16th and 18th centuries. This possessed its own, new structures that were clearly defined by corporate status: the original goal was to broaden one's education, mark the end of childhood and acquire and hone social graces; however, over time, leisure and pleasure        became increasingly important. On the one hand, this created the differentiated paradigm of travel "as an art". On the other, the search for amusement and enjoyment implied an element of traveling as an end in itself. The classic grand tour lasted between one and three years. Route, sequence and contacts, not to mention the educational programme, were planned down to the last detail. The aristocrats traveled with an entourage of equerries, tutors, mentors, protégés, domestic servants, coachmen and other staff. These provided for safety, comfort, education, supervision and pleasure in accordance with their specialized area of responsibility.

From England, the tours went on to, for example, France and Italy. Trips to the classical sites of Italy represented the highpoint of the journey, but large cities in other countries were visited: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Munich, Vienna and Prague had considerable drawing power. During the tour, the young aristocrats visited royal courts and aristocratic estates for, after all, one goal was to teach them the appropriate etiquette and social graces through practice. The nobles attended princely audiences, learned how to behave themselves at court and took part in parties and festivals.

Therefore, the aristocrats' political, social and professional concerns determined the destinations, but these also catered to their interest in art, pleasure and leisure.The nobles barely came into contact with other classes and social groups – the social supervision of the entourage ensured this.  This was a specific form of dirigible that followed strong social norms, was exclusive and elitist, and aimed to preserve the rule of the aristocracy. Two aspects are of importance for the history of touristic travel: the destination and the encounter with foreign countries and sights, interestingly at the interface of a supposed cultural gap between North and South:

From the Enlightenment into the 19th century, Bildungsreisen ("educational journeys") undertaken by the (upper) middle class were an important stage in the development of tourism. The travels of the educated middle classes imitated those of prominent poets and philosophers, for example Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) , Charles Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) , Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) , Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781) , Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803)  and many others.  They all traveled to Italy or France in search of edification and discussed the knowledge acquired abroad and their experiences in literary works, travelogues and travel novels. Educational travel expanded with the inclusion of other strata of the population and shorter trips. People journeyed in coaches, explored the countryside and cities, visited landmarks in order to experience nature, culture and art directly on the spot and deepen one's understanding of them. Alongside middle-class travels in search of education and art, there developed a form of traveling oriented towards culture, industry and technology. These were information-gathering journeys driven by professional interests and economic motivations. The representatives of a middle-class entrepreneurial strata traveled to France, Britain and Germany with the express goal of learning about the technological progress and innovations of industrialization.  They were interested in current developments in trade, agriculture, industry, technology and manufacturing, which they explored through direct contact with individuals.

The "early", "pre-" or "developmental" phase of modern tourism is generally considered to have lasted from the 18th century to the first third of the 19th century. During this stage, touristic travel remained confined to a minority of wealthy nobles and educated professionals. For them, traveling was a demonstrative expression of their social class which communicated power, status, money and leisure. Two characteristics stand out: on the one hand, the search for pleasure increasingly supplanted the educational aspects; on the other, wealthy members of the middle classes sought to imitate the traveling behavior of the nobles and the upper middle classes. Consequently, aristocrats who wanted to avoid mixing with the parvenu bourgeoisie sought more exclusive destinations and pastimes. This is evident in the fact that they found renewed enthusiasm for bathing holidays and took up residence in luxurious spa towns with newly built casinos. These included Baden-Baden, Karlsbad, Vichy and Cheltenham, where life centered around social occasions, receptions, balls, horse races, adventures and gambling. Here, too, the nobles were "swamped" by entrepreneurs and factory owners. In response, they created a socially appropriate form of holidaying in costal resorts. The British aristocracy enjoyed Brighton and the Côte d'Azur, or wintered in Malta, Madeira or Egypt.

The Foundations of Modern Tourism

In the context of the history of tourism, the term "introductory phase" refers to all the developments, structures and innovations of modern tourism between the first third of the 19th century and around 1950. This had its own "starting phase", which lasted until 1915. This period witnessed the beginning of a comprehensive process characterized by a prototypical upsurge in a middle-class culture of travel and its formation, popularization and diversification. It prepared the way for a mass tourism recognizable to modern concepts of spending leisure time. The development progressed episodically and built upon a number of changing social conditions and factors. The most important undoubtedly include not only the advance of industrialization, demographic changes, urbanization and the revolution in transportation, but also the improvement of social and labor rights, the rise in real income and the resulting changes in consumer demand.

As early as the beginning of the 19th century, the opening up of the Central European system of transport brought about enormous change that genuinely deserves the designation as a "revolutionary development". It also improved the mobility of tourists and created new trends. Short-stay and day trips became popular and made use of the modern advances in transport technology. Steam navigation began in Scotland in 1812; the continuous use of steam ships on German watercourses followed in 1820 and, in 1823, Switzerland received its first steam ship on Lake Geneva. Railways also created greater mobility. The first sections of track were opened in England in 1825, in France in 1828, in Germany in 1835, in Switzerland in 1844/1847 and in Italy in 1839. However, the railway's use and popularization of touristic routes and destinations only began somewhat later with the introduction of mountain railways towards the end of the 19th century. 

The Vitznau-Rigi railway in Switzerland was Europe's first mountain railway in 1871. The new means of transport enabled not only an increase in transport carrying capacity, but also reduced the cost of traveling. Moreover, ship and rail travel extend tourists' field of vision, bringing about a distinct form of "panoramatised" perception (i.e. the background replacing the foreground as the centre of attention) and encouraging an interest in travel writing.

 

It is true that the railway was not created to promote tourism. However, from mid-19th century, the latter employed the convenience of rail transport for its own purposes.  The railway therefore is rightly considered to be the midwife at the birth of modern mass tourism. One must still keep in mind that touristic travel remained the preserve of privileged parts of the population. This traveling acted as a form of middle-class self-therapy, the removal of the middle-class self from its existence in the shadow of the old aristocratic world in order to learn about modernity via a paradigmatic experience. It was another century before the lower middle and working classes could go on holiday. At first, they had to make do with day trips by train and ship in order to escape the city briefly.  The foremost practitioners of middle-class tourism were the manufacturing and trading families, educated professionals working in the state bureaucracy, schools and universities, as well as the new 'freelance professions', including writers, journalists, lawyers, artists, who were able to take the first steps out of the corporate society. From the 1860s, there were portentous indications of a popularization. Traveling became a form of popular movement and an answer to the desire to relax among large sections of the population following the advance of industrialization and urbanization.

A number of instructional materials, steering mechanisms, innovations and forms of holiday of the 19th century were developed for middle-class traveling and holidaying needs. Guidebooks and travelogues in the form of travel literature acquired increasing importance; this type of text should not be underestimated – they had their precursors in the 18th century and created touristic destinations and perceptions.  The Briefe über die Schweiz (1784–1785) by the Göttingen professor Christoph Meiners (1747–1810)  and Heinrich Heidegger's (1738–1823)  Handbuch für Reisende durch die Schweiz (1787) set a pattern. In terms of production and sales, Karl Baedeker (1801–1859)  achieved the greatest success as a writer of 19th-century German guidebooks.   He founded his publishing house in 1827 and produced a series of guidebooks with reliable, well-researched content. Their standardized format allowed the reader to find guidance and advice quickly and easily; the books developed their own way of conveying information. "The Baedeker", however, contained more than information and recommendations; the publisher defined a style of travel and which tourist attractions were worth visiting: Indeed, tourist attractions soon became touristic obligations; sightseeing became a must. John Murray's (1808–1892)  publishing house in London had a similar goal; in 1836, it successfully brought out the "Red Book" – the first guidebook to Holland, Belgium and the Rhineland. Guidebooks, with their own, prominently normative didactic occupy a place in the interesting history of functional writing.

This Article to be continue...

                                                                                                              Renee de Ramirez, MS

Hospitality Operations and Management 

Fortis College Miami Campus