Tag: English

Introduction       Although the classic marketing idiom says that marketing is “the battle for your mind” (Ries and Trout, 1981), research on tourist personality in relation to travel preferences is quite limited. According to Leung & Law (2010), there are 169 research articles on personality covering a broad range of topics from human personality to brand personality. However, in the human personality area, the majority of topics focus on service staff. Current research on tourist personality is insufficient.       Most reports on tourist behavior are typological. The classifications are relatively arbitrary without supportive data. For example, Cohen (1972), a frequently cited sociological paper on tourism, points that people travel to seek novelty and strangeness. Therefore, the experience of tourism is a combination of degrees of novelty and familiarity, “the security of old habits with the excitement of change.” Based on the degrees that tourists keep in their “microenvironment bubbles,” he classified tourists into four groups: the organized mass tourist, the individual mass tourist, the explorer, and the drifter.       The other famous theory on tourist behavior is by Stanley Plog (1973 & 2004). In the 1960’s when commercial flights just launched, airline companies saw

As an individual with Manchu and Sibe language skills and an interest in the development of Manchurology, I am following closely a situation in which two scholarly camps have engaged in a fight with virtually no results. One camp is comprised of scholars based in Taiwan and China, who adhere to the Chinese view that a major reason for the Qing Empire’s success in ruling China for approximately three centuries is the Sinicization of the Manchus. The “New Qing History” camp, which is led by American academia, however, dismisses that view as a reflection of Chinese chauvinism, but maintains that the Manchus had kept their Jurchen tradition firmly during their reign over China and that they behaved as foreign, not Chinese, rulers.   The core of the disputes lies in the term Sinicization. For example, when a Westerner reads a Qing history book, he or she may question the justification for Sinicization, or the “Chineseness,” of the Qing dynasty, as has long been the stance of official Chinese historiographers. These questions bring into doubt the Chinese orthodox view of non-Han minority rule of China.    On this issue, my tentative suggestion is to substitute the term “Hybridization” for Sinicization. The