Paper short abstract:

The accumulation of cases that analyze the impact of tourism in the rural world has generated results that seem contradictory. We call "Dilemma of Duality" to these disagreements. We ask ourselves about the reason for these discrepancies and we propose three explanatory hypotheses.

Paper long abstract:

In recent decades, ethnographic research on the development of tourism in rural areas has accumulated. But far from reaching general conclusions, the results of these studies seem contradictory. Sometimes, tourism appears as an engine of development, while in others it is shown as a mechanism that increases the vulnerability and dependence of the peasant. At times, it seems that it promotes feminine empowerment, but other studies show that tourism increases the workload of women and consolidates a gender division of labor that marginalizes reproductive tasks. While some studies conclude that tourism generates employment and reduces poverty, others affirm that this activity subtracts resources from traditional economic sectors and impoverishes them. These supposed discrepancies are what we call "Dilemma of Duality".

We ask ourselves what is the reason for this disparity. We propose three hypotheses: a) the consequences of tourism are different because the contexts analyzed are different; b) the researcher comes to the field with theoretical convictions that lead him to prioritize some aspects over others in his evaluations; c) the destinations go through different phases that go from expansion to crisis (Tourism Life Cycle), and the evaluation depends on the moment in which the study is carried out.