All cultures engage in travel of some form. For many, it is a necessity, such as with nomadic subsistence-based cultures or for trading purposes. Although many non-Western societies also engage in pleasure travel, it is not implicit that it is equivalent to what is popularly conceptualized as “tourism” by researchers. There is much debate in the literature on the conceptualization of “tourism” and “tourist”. This, however, is often confined to theoretical debate and the research literature often neglects to consider that the many researchers and participants may define tourism and tourist differently. Even within the Western literature there is little agreement about what exactly tourism is in any given context (Cohen and Cohen). Often some tourists themselves eschew the term “tourist”, preferring to categorize themselves as “travelers” or “visitors”. Tourism has a range of meanings that differ by degree of institutionalization, type of economic exchange, and form of travel. This variation is further accentuated when one starts crossing cultural boundaries. For example, sometimes researchers are themselves mistaken for tourists by the locals (Berno and Lanfant). There is growing support for the idea that tourism should be approached from an emic (culture specific) stance, from which the first point of departure for research should encompass the indigenous definition of tourist and tourism (Cohen and Lanfant).

Although the terms tourist and tourism are common in the dialogue of Pacific Islanders, it may be ethnocentric to assume that they have the same meaning to Islanders as to Western researchers, or to the tourists who visit them. Despite the traditional generosity of Pacific Islanders, and the fact that many Islanders themselves travel, it has been suggested that tourism, as popularly understood, is not an indigenous practice in the South Pacific, and is alien to indigenous ways (Biddlecomb; Farrell and Minerbi; Patterson, 1992). In Polynesia, for many Pacific Islanders this often involves traveling in groups to meet and stay with members of the extended family or friends. Often this has a specific purpose, such as attending a wedding, funeral, or sporting event. Hospitality is generally reciprocated by means such as gifts (for example, food and crafts), a financial contribution to the hosts, and/or by hosting in return. It is implicitly understood that cultural obligation dictates that at some point in the future, the hosts will be reciprocated appropriately for their hospitality ( Beaglehole 1957; Ross 1991; Stephenson 1979). Therefore, the social and economic transactions for this type of tourism are “continuous” transactions which are unbound in time and worth, and do not end when the tourist–host encounter is complete. This is in contrast to the segmented and instrumental social and economic interactions implicit in most Western forms of tourism. The payment of money to purchase the tourist experience forms a discrete transaction, and tourist-host interactions, both social and economic, are entered into for specific, limited, and immediate purposes. Unlike Pacific Islanders, Western tourists rarely expect far-reaching, or long-lasting consequences as a result of their transactions (van den Berghe 1994).

Tourists in many parts of the South Pacific are hosted as though they are truly a “guest” rather than a tourist (Vusoniwailala 1980). The act of welcoming a guest is an essential part of being a host in Polynesian society; not to do so may seem inhospitable. Much social interaction in the South Pacific is based on the concepts of social obligation, including generosity, reciprocity and aroa. Aroa is an important characteristic in Polynesia and “… permeates the complete scene. Upon it rests [Polynesians'] whole way of life” (Rere 1976:24). Aroa has several connotations: it means love, kindness and generosity; it is used as a form of greeting and farewelling; and it also represents an attitude to generosity, particularly towards strangers (Rere 1976). It is “ … the unconditional desire to promote the true good of other people with no conditions attached” ( Maly 1993:5).

Such generosity traditionally helped to build and maintain a continuous network of reciprocal obligations on which one could draw at a later time (Graves and Kirch, 1984). The obligations of reciprocity are strong, with an emphasis on generosity. But it is the responsibility of the receiver to reciprocate at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way (Crocombe 1976). This type of reciprocity contributes to an egalitarian group atmosphere and an ambience of agreeable sociability (Howard 1974). The Polynesian system of mutual interdependence creates patterns of behavior that are not easily changed, even when non-reciprocation produces resentment. However, although generosity represents the traditional ideal in Polynesia for conducting interpersonal relationships, a strategy of equalization represents an acceptable alternative in contemporary Polynesian society. Dividing things equally may not create as strong reciprocal obligations, but it avoids jealousies and conflict (Graves and Graves 1978).

Within the social fabric of the Cook Islands, where this research was undertaken, reciprocity has an important role in the strengthening of relationships and “getting things done”. While cash is coming to replace other forms of payment for goods and services, traditional obligations are important in many areas of life. This concept of reciprocity can be problematic in tourism, however. For example, in the Cook Islands, tipping is discouraged, as a “gift” of money (tip) would need to be reciprocated in ways other than the services rendered (Liew Y. M. 1977 Implications of Tourism for the Cook Islands: A Preliminary Study. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand..Liew 1977). Many Cook Islanders in Rarotonga who have had greater exposure to tourism have learned to “ration the reflex” in terms of traditional generosity, though most others have yet to learn this necessary practice. This is one way in which tourism may be “extractive of human spirit” in the Cook Islands ( Scott 1991:82).

When a visitor to a Pacific island is not differentiated as a tourist and is seen as a “guest”, cultural obligation dictates that generosity be extended to the visitor. This in itself is not problematic. But generosity in a traditional Polynesian context is about investment in human relationships, it is about establishing an obligation which will be reciprocated in the future. In a tourism context this is seldom understood, or reciprocated by the tourist (Scott 1991). Tourists may unwittingly convert this system of social exchange into “unwilling altruism” by stepping in and out of the community without fulfilling expected reciprocal obligations ( de Kadt 1979:62). This has led to the exploitation of the aroa concept (“institutionalized aroa”), which could potentially cut deeply into the traditions of Pacific Islanders which are vital to the psychological well-being and group coherence of island societies (Britton 1987). Traditional generosity may be taken for naivete and Islanders may come to be taken advantage of, not necessarily on purpose, but as a result of the different cognitive styles of the individuals involved. Indeed, the question of tourism’s influence on the South Pacific is inseparable from the question of the economic impact. Its most evident impact in the South Pacific is the intensification of the change from a primarily non-monetary, subsistence agricultural economy to a wage based, profit motivated tertiary activity. The traditionally individualistic profit, accumulation and investment motivation of tourism in many ways conflicts with the collectively oriented, sharing ethic of many Pacific Islanders (Goodman and Rajotte).