The central interest of this paper lies in identifying the nature of demand for experiencingethnic tourism products. As a framework and focus for this discussion, ethnic tourism involvestraveling for the purpose of observing the cultural expressions and lifestyles of exotic people (McIntosh and Goeldner 1995); pursuing the quaint customs of indigenous and other people asexemplified by the Inuit, the San Blas Indians of Panama and the Toraja in Indonesia (Smith 1977, Smith 1989); and searching for the ethnically exotic in as untouched, primitive andauthentic a form as a tourist can find (van den Berghe 1994).

>Some criticism and modification of this concentration on exotic and small indigenousgroups has been raised (King 1994; Pitchford 1995). Such commentators suggest thatthis ethnic tourism should also apply to studies of travel involving friends and relatives exploringtheir ethnicity in other locations. Alternatively, analysts such as Pitchford 1995 are concernedto include major ethnic groupings within the definition, such as the Welsh in the United Kingdom.This groups striving for identity and independence is linked to the tourism presentation of theirculture. The present paper considers and applies only to those ethnic contact situations which involveperformances, presentations and attractions portraying or presented by small, often isolated, usuallyindigenous communities. This framework is consistent with the approach adopted by Wood (1984) and supported by Harron and Weiler 1992. These authors define ethnic tourism asinvolving first hand experiences with the practices of another culture, particularly with people fromthe indigenous culture (Harron, S., and B. Weiler 1992 Review. Ethnic Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, B.Weiler and C. M. Hall, eds., pp. 83–92. London: Bellhaven.Harron and Weiler 1992:84). The kind of groups which are seen asrelevant include the Amish communities of the United States, the First Nation societies of Canadaand North America, the Maori of New Zealand, Aboriginal communities of Australia, the Bushmenof Southern Africa, and the Ibo tribes of Indonesia. This definition of ethnic tourism includestraditional and contemporary cultural presentations and performances, thus embracing those whichare only partially for tourists as well as those which are wholly for visitors.

>In the world of tourism researchers, attention has been chiefly directed towards describingand understanding the impacts of ethnic tourism on the host society. This kind of work isexemplified by the set of papers in Smith 1977 Hosts and Guests volume. Much ofthis early work followed what Jafari (1990) has described as a reactive platform, that is, anorientation towards tourism which is largely critical of this phenomenon and which is primarilyconcerned with highlighting the negative consequences of tourist/host interaction. While most of thepapers in this volume were revised in the 1989 edition and this revision produced a more optimisticaccount, there is still a concentration of studies which conclude that ethnic tourism is in danger ofconsuming the commodity on which it is based (Altman 1989; van den Berghe 1994).This argument is, however, not completely pessimistic, with some researchers noting thattourism can restore arts, revitalize skills, foster creativity and provide a platform for communitiesto present themselves positively (Cohen 1988; Craburn 1984; Pitchford 1995).

>The positive and negative consequences of contact fostered by ethnic tourism, as definedat the outset of this paper, have been closely linked to debates about authenticity. It is welldocumented that the concept of authenticity in tourism studies has been shaped by the work ofMacCannell (MacCannell 1973, MacCannell 1976). In the original presentation ofauthenticity, MacCannell argued that attractions could be characterized as varying in the degree towhich they were staged, that is, contrived for tourists. He further suggested that tourists soughtbackstage (or genuine or noncontrived) experiences, thus setting loose the argument that the moderntourist demands authenticity. In a range of extensions and refinements to this pioneering treatmentof authenticity, a number of authors argued that not all tourists sought authenticity, that manyrecognized the inauthenticity of the experience, but that they still enjoyed it (Cohen 1979,Cohen 1988; Pearce and Moscardo 1986).

>In the evolution of the understanding of this concept, it has become increasingly apparentthat genuineness or authenticity of a tourism setting is not a real property or tangible asset, butinstead is a judgment or value placed on the setting by the observer. The link between the issue ofauthenticity in tourism generally and ethnic tourism in particular is an active area of debate. Inparticular, a distinction has been noted between ethnic tourism situations which involve a purelyvisual or object oriented form of communication (such as arts, crafts, and architecture) and thosewhich involve visitors in an active performing arts context, such as dance, living history, orinteractive drama presentations (Handler and Saxton 1988). In the interactive domain anumber of commentators have argued that it is desirable to redefine and reshape the originalconception of authenticity. Daniel (1996), for example, describes the role of dance in ethnictourism and notes that the energy of the performance can communicate to tourists at a fundamentallevel. She argues that both performers and audience can identify performances that are more genuine,authentic, and profoundly experienced than routine re-enactments. This kind of argument, whichsuggests that authenticity related to social interaction has some additional properties to that involvingphysical props and tourists spaces, is also evident in the work of Hughes (1995), Crang (1996) and Handler and Saxton 1988. For example, Crang (1996) argues thatthere are magic moments of authenticity in living history presentations and dramatic presentations.He believes that there is something stirring about being drawn in, akin to a viewers full involvementin a horror movie, where the time and spirit of the contact is vividly felt. In such moments ofinvolved or experienced authenticity, tourists may feel that they have a rich understanding of thevisited culture.

>The questions which drive this paper are focused on the extent to which different groupsof visitors are interested in ethnic experiences. This kind of issue has received some preliminarycommentary. Walle (1996) observes that since developing countries and rural regions of theindustrialized world often benefit by showcasing indigenous societies, it is important to understandhow tourists think about such ethnic experiences. Walles own study adopts a qualitative literarycriticism framework, in contrast to the present attempt, to answer this kind of question withquantitative analyses. Stebbins claims, without any supporting data, that there is a general and aspecialized cultural tourist. The former, it is argued, makes a hobby of visiting a range of cultural(including ethnic) tourism products such as art performances, festivals, and attractions acrossdifferent geographical settings. By way of contrast, the suggested specialist cultural tourist focuseson a small number of attractions or ethnic products and visits them repeatedly. Stebbins furthersuggests that both types are inclined to eschew the commercial husk surrounding their subject ofstudy (Stebbins (1996):950).

>The claims of commercial disinterest which Stebbins makes are not supported by the workof Littrell et al., 1994. This group of authors explored the connection between tourisminterests and souvenir purchasing in a 1,370 person study of visitors in three northwestern states ofthe United States. They identified an ethnic arts/people-oriented tourism group who liked to immersethemselves in contact situations, participate in festivals, and use their time to seek authenticity in acommunity and among its residents. This group enthusiastically purchased crafts, local foods, anddistinctive souvenirs, rather than avoiding such commercial outlets.

>Hughes (1995), drawing on the work of Krippendorf (1987) and Urry (Urry 1990, Urry 1994), notes that there are two possible market segments for ethnictourism. First, the post-industrial segment, following Krippendorfs analysis, has an orientation whichis linked to fulfilling sustainable tourism practices. This group is likely to be sensitive to impacts itsmembers have on the host population and be concerned with behaving responsibly in ethnic contactsituations. Second, the postmodern segment, and here the definition follows the work of Urry, canenjoy contrived spectacles while remaining aware of their inauthenticity. This postmodern segmentis thus likely to be a highly active and flexible group, enthusiastically embracing diverse tourismopportunities.

>Dann 1996, reviewing the contribution of Urrys (Urry 1990, Urry 1994) work, supports the interpretation of the postmodern tourists by noting that they reject certainforms of mass tourism, have diverse preferences, seek many alternate sites and attractions, and haveinsatiable requirements to explore their identities (Dann 1996:19). Further, Danns parallelaccount of postmodern tourists provides a link to the earlier concern with authenticity. He suggeststhat they have different concerns from the earlier tourist generations habitually seeking authenticitydescribed by MacCannell. This suggestion agrees with that of Cohen who reports