AnnaLc of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, No. I, pp.

23-40, 1997
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0160-7383/96 $17.00+0.00

PII:SO160-7383(96)00037-O

MUSEUMS AND TOURISTIC

EXPECTATIONS
Julia Harrison
Trent University, Canada

Abstract: Museums in recent years have given much more serious consideration to attracting
tourists. There is very little understanding, however, of what tourists expect a museum to offer.
As part of a much larger research project, a study of tourists who visited the Bernice Pauahi
Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii, was conducted in 1991. It sought to obtain a limited range
of quantitative and qualitative data on tourist of the museum. The study found that the museum
was drawing on a very select atypical group of visitors. What they valued about the museum is
useful information to help this and other museums to broaden their appeal to a wider audience.
Keywords: museums, tourists, Hawaii, Bishop Museum. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

R&urn& Les musCes et les attentes des touristes. Dans les anntes rtcentes, les mu&es ont
apportC beaucoup d’attention 2 la question de comment attirer des touristes. Pourtant, on
comprend ma1 ce que les touristes attendent des m&es. Comme partie d’un projet de recherche
beaucoup plus &tendu, on a CtudiC les visiteurs au Mu&e Bernice Pauahi Bishop 2 Honolulu
(Hawaii) en 1991. On a cherchk a obtenir une gamme limit&e de donntes quantitatives et
qualitatives sur ce qu’on esptrait voir dans le mu&e. On a trouvC que le muste attirait des
visiteurs d’tlite qui n’etaient pas des touristes typiques; il est pourtant utile de savoir ce qu’ils
ont apprtcit afin d’aider ce mus&e et d’autres mustes g attirer plus de monde. Mats-cl&:
mu&es, touristes, Hawaii, Mute Bishop. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION
The relationship between museums and tourism has been the sub-
ject of consideration by the museum profession in recent years (Bruner
1993a). Bruner has suggested that museums and tourism have several
things in common. These include the production and exhibition of
culture, a dependence on an audience, their construction and inven-
tion of what they display, and that they are both the result of travel
(19931336). Museums were often created simply to display the souvenir
collections of travelers to distant places. Most major natural and
cultural history museums have much grander and more profoundly
stated purposes (Impey and MacGregor 1985). “Travel” certainly had
a role to play in the history of museums, as voyages of exploration in
the era of imperialist expansion facilitated scientific and “touristic”
travel. This afforded the opportunity to amass many of the collections
which are at the heart of such world famous museums as the British
Museum and the Muste de l’homme.

Julia Harrison teaches anthropology at Trent University (Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

K9J 7B8. Email [email protected]). She has extensive experience in the museum field and
her current research interests include the representation of non-Western cultures for the tourist
audience as well as the tourism experience. She conducted research in Hawaii for her doctoral
dissertation. Her other research interests include the anthropology of organizations.

“0
24 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

Bruner’s comments highlight the historical and ideological links

between museums and tourism. These have also been emphasized by
the museum profession in recent years as many museums reach out
with increased vigor to draw in the tourists, with the intention of
increasing attendance revenues. This has not always been a welcome
development by some members of the profession who fear that sig-
nificantly increasing the numbers of tourists (or even visitors in gen-
eral) to museums will overburden institutional infrastructures,
ultimately threatening the museum’s ability to perform its traditional
tasks of preservation, conservation, and curatorship (Cannon-Brookes
1991; Capstick 1985). Others, in contrast, feel that museums must
dramatically change their approach to lure as many admission-paying
tourists as possible (Kelly 1988; MacDonald and Alsford 1989). Advo-
cates of this latter position suggest that museums must become more
high-tech, use a wide range of media to reach the visitor, and em-
phasize entertainment as much as education in their programming.
This paper explores what tourists to a particular museum “expected”
to see, and how these expectations can be a rich and productive arena
for bringing together these apparently conficting opinions within the
profession.
Museums have been gathering information on their visitors since
at least the late 20s (Robinson 1928). Most of these studies focused
on gathering quantitative information (Dixon, Courtney and Bailey
1978), although some limited early work strove for a more qualitative
approach to musum visitation (Draper 1977). In recent years, there
has been a greater concentration on collecting data of a more quali-
tative nature (Bourdieu 1990; Hooper-Greenhill 1994; Merriman
1989; Shettel 1989; Walsh and Duke 1991). But as yet there is still
much work to be done on understanding the behaviors and nature of
the experience for different categories of museum visitors. Specifically
of interest here are details of the nature of tourists’ experiences, what
makes a museum an attraction, and what the tourist looks for when
visiting a museum.
Museums such as the British Museum and the Louvre are often
visited by some tourists as part of a checklist of “must-see” attractions.
Such “must-sees” confirm that one has truly “been there”; they are
the “key symbols which mark the achievement of the tourist” (Gra-
burn 1977:16). But what are the other factors that prompt tourists to
visit museums, while they may not visit them at home? The tourism
literature has theorized (generally unsuccessfully) about “attract-
ivity” factors in reference to destination and attraction selection, but
there is clearly no one succinct answer as to what makes a place
an attraction (Leiper 1990; MacCannell 1989; Mill and Morrison
1992:265-275; Pearce 1991). Even to the inveterate museum visitor,
institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre are only part
(albeit in some cases, a major part) of what comprises her/his under-
standing of Britain or France as a place to visit. Museums by them-
selves do not have the “attractivity” to draw the wider tourist
audience. They are part of a clustered nuclei or mosaic of attractions,
often being places tourists seek out once they get to a destination
(Leiper 1990). Most tourists in their circulation through this mosaic
 JULIA HARRISON 25

of attractions are seeking, according to Graburn, “condensed

interpretations of the natural and cultural heritage” of the place that
they are visiting (198219). Museums, on the whole, can be seen
by the tourist to provide one such locus in the mosaic where those
“condensed interpretations” can be found.

A HAWAIIAN CASE STUDY

This paper presents information collected during a small scale study
done at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii, in
1991. A total of 200 people who came to the museum were surveyed
by the author or her assistant. Of these, 121 were “eastbound” largely
Caucasian tourists; the remainder were local residents but their data
are not considered here. Of the tourist sample, 40 were given a slightly
elaborated questionnaire in an effort to ascertain some understanding
of their perceptions of Hawaii prior to coming to the Bishop Museum.
Comments gathered in the course of the survey suggested one over-
riding theme: tourists expect that the “condensed interpretations” of
Hawaiian natural and cultural history offered at the museum to be
accurate reflections of the local community. The dilemma which
remains for the museum is to portray that sense of “localness”, while
at the same time challenging the often inaccurate, somewhat mythical
understandings held by the tourist of what “localness” really is.
MacCannell’s (1989) theory that today’s tourist is looking for the
authentic experience to escape the anomie of the modern world has
been a much debated interpretation of the tourist experience and its
motivation (Cohen 1982; Graburn, Buck and Dumont 1977; Schudson
1979). While this is unlikely to be the sole motivation of any tourist,
the results obtained at the Bishop Museum in 1991 would support
MacCannell’s ideas, at least in part. If the findings offer anything to
the debate on the overall applicability of this theory, they offer insight
into what motivates groups of people to do certain things while they
are visiting a selected destination. It would appear that anticipated
“real” experiences, as understood by tourists, are seminal to their
decisionmaking processes in choosing how they spend their time. The
challenge remains to critically analyze the nature of the “reality” of
what museums offer for the tourist (and, consequently, other visitors
as well). Ames (1991, 1994), Bennett (1995), Karp and Lavine (1991),
Karp, Kreamer and Lavine (1992), and Sherman and Rogoff (1994)
offer excellent critical discussions of the “reality” of representation
in a range of museums, but they fail to provide an informed under-
standing of how different categories of visitors understand their
experience in museums.

Hawaii and its Touristic Attractiveness

One early travel writer claimed that the Hawaiian islands had been
“favored with the finest climate in the world...her whole popularity
has been and must be built very largely on this... (Armitage 1923:76).
Ever since the late 18OOs, when regular steamship service from the
26 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

US began and the first major hotel was built, tourism has been a part
of life in Hawaii. It was Hawaii’s climate that was primarily billed,
and accepted as the islands’ main asset in attracting tourists. In 1927,
the year the elegant Royal Hawaiian Hotel opened, nearly 17,500
people were coming annually to indulge in the luxuriant warmth of
Hawaii. For the next 20 years tourist visitation to the islands hovered
around 20,000 a year (with a few very low years in the 30s and again
during World War II). The numbers of tourists per year had broken
100,000 by the mid-50s, but the major boom in tourism began after
statehood in 1959 when jet service was introduced and mainlanders
became more aware of the new state (Choy 1992:27; Farrell 1982). In
1960 nearly 300,000 visitors came to the islands. The figures grew
rapidly with a landmark 1 million visitors arriving in 1967. Nearly 20
years later in 1990, the number of tourists who stayed one night or
more numbered nearly 7 million (State of Hawaii 1990). Were they
all coming purely for the opportunity to experience Hawaii’s climate?
A 30s visitor effused that Hawaii had many other dimensions with
which to entice visitors. Her “jade islands in turquoise setting; coral
reefs in brilliant sunshine; restless surf, with spray flung high; coco-
palms, flirting with a ‘hula’ moon; warm breezes, jasmine perfumed;
bronze natives with laughing eyes!” (Anonymous 1936:27). Hawaii, to
the commentator, was a magnificent physical setting, rich with exotic
and enticing phenomena from the human and natural world. Rugged
volcanic peaks lush with tropical vegetation were swathed in the gentle
winds, heavy with perfume which comforted yet cooled one from the
“brilliant sunshine”. Such images stood in opposition to the much
harsher climes and environs of the mainland United States (from
where most of the visitors have always come from). The “restless”
ocean could be read metaphorically for a break from the repeated
monotony of the work-a-day world of the mainland. Hawaii offered a
break from routine, a chance to experience something new, a chance
to experience “paradise”. In the 20s through to the 40s the visits of
Hollywood stars, such as Douglas Fairbanks, Shirley Temple, and
Frank Sinatra, were events which attracted publicity in the islands
and at home (Brown 1982). For instance, legend in Hawaii has it that
the non-alcoholic beverage, which became known as a Shirley Temple
was institutionalized at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, where the young
actress stayed in the 30s. The drink had been specially mixed for her
in the lounge on the Matson liner on the trip over from the mainland,
and she asked to have the same thing upon arrival at the hotel.
In a ripple effect of such images, thousands of ordinary Americans
came in later years to Hawaii and inverted their normal place in the
social hierarchy by sharing in the indulgence, luxury, and opulence of
these heroes and heroines of American popular culture (Gottlieb
1982). The islands were places of new experiences and exotic peoples,
whose “laughing eyes” suggested a sensuality and sexuality long
associated with the “bronze natives” of the Pacific. To the 30s visitor
(and to thousands of others who continued to visit) these images and
ideas were the essential elements of the mythic image Hawaii. Such
ideas have become part of the popular image of the state thanks, at
least in part, to the tourism literature which has promoted “the
 JULIA HARRISON 27

delights of a visit to Hawaii” since the days of King Kalakaua, one of

the last 19th century Hawaiian monarchs (Anonymous 1927: 1). These
were what comprised one understanding of the “Hawaiianess” of the
islands, a theme which will return later in this paper.
A 1988 study identified the “typical” Hawaiian visitor as a woman
in her 3Os, employed in a professional or technical position, who would
stay for 10 days (Taylor 1988). Even the most hedonistic “typical”
visitor who comes to Hawaii only to bathe her body in the sun, sea
and surf is usually smitten with at least some aspects of Hawaiian
culture. For example, for many years it was part of the tourist’s
understanding of Hawaii that a lei would be given to her on arrival,
and that she would experience the “spirit of&ha” while in the islands.
But at what point does the average visitor want to know and experience
more of Hawaii’s history and traditions beyond the wearing of leis and
expressions of aloha? For many visitors their experience in commercial
nightclubs and their interaction with locals who work in the hotels or
in shops are enough to satiate their appetite for Hawaiian people and
culture. In fact, a 1987 study of the “touristic attractiveness” of
Hawaiian counties found for the island of O’ahu, the factors of “his-
torical prominence, distinctive local features, festivals, fairs and
ancient ruins” ranked only lo-13 on a list of 16 “attractivity” scores.
Climate and natural beauty ranked 1 and 2 respectively (Liu and
Auyong 1988). Hawaiian culture is not an important part of “Hawaii’s
appeal” for these tourists. Despite this, it has been an ongoing concern
of the tourism industry to “keep Hawaii Hawaiian”, to ensure that
other sun, sand, and sea destinations do not lure visitors away. In 1990
“Keep It Hawaiian” awards were given by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau
to businesses and projects that had a distinctly Hawaiian component.
The cultural dimension (some say the “aloha spirit”) is seen as crucial
by many industry promoters, even if it is not what primarily draws
people to Hawaii.

The Idea of “Hawaiianess”

In a small publication which discusses the relationship between
cultural values and hotel management in Hawaii, George Kanahele
suggests that it is Hawaii’s “Hawaiianess” that separates it from
other sun, sand, and sea tourism destinations. He states that “only
Hawaiians are original and unique to this land” (1991 :S), and they
are the element that gives the islands their distinctive flair. Called
simply “specialness” by some, the “Hawaiianess” to which Kanahele
refers is derived from the Native Hawaiian history, culture, and con-
nection to the ‘uina (land) of the islands. It is suggested here that this
idea of “specialness” has been distilled and appropriated by many
elements of Hawaiian society, so that today it can be said that there
are many understandings of “Hawaiianess”. Each different under-
standing reflects the unique experiences of those who have come to
call Hawaii home. Three main understandings of “Hawaiianess” are
relevant here: the original Native Hawaiian understanding, that of
the kama’aina (long-time residents), and that which could be called
28 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

“touristic”. Other ideas of “Hawaiianess” such as that of the Japanese-

Hawaiians and the Chinese-Hawaiian communities are not discussed.
The Bishop Museum expressed a sense of itself as a Hawaiian insti-
tution; it had its own institutional “Hawaiianess” which drew on
some aspects of what may be called Native Hawaiian and kama’aina
“Hawaiianess” (Harrison 1993a).
Hawaii to Native Hawaiians is the place to which their ancestors
sailed from more southerly islands in past millenia. It is their ancestral
home. Native Hawaiian understandings of the “Hawaiianess” of the
islands stem from a physical and spiritual rootedness in the islands.
This notion is linked to the idea of aloha (the commitment of oneself
to others), ohana (the extended family, based on a principle of sharing
and solidarity), and aloha ‘aina (the love of the land and the idea
of malama, or caring and stewardship for same), which Friedman
(1992:843) has suggested are at the heart of Native Hawaiian identity.
These aspects define what could be called a sense of “Hawaiianess”.
Friedman adds that the concepts of mana (life-force), kapu (sac-
red/forbidden), and ho’okipa (hospitality) are closely related to the
idea of aloha, ohana, and aloha ‘aina, and further express a sense of
Native Hawaiian identity (1992:856). Nationalist scholars such as
Haunani-Kay Trask (1991) ar g ue strongly against the claims made
by some academics, such as Linnekin (1983,1985) and Keesing (1989),
that these values are inventions and creations of recent generations.
To many Native Hawaiians, their own form of historical recording-
genealogy-offers clear evidence of the historicity of these ideas and
values, something which has been overlooked by academics who have
studied Hawaiian culture (Trask 1991: 160). These values infuse the
habitus of Native Hawaiians and express a profound and fundamental
understanding that their island home as “a special place”. Two hun-
dred years of colonial and foreign capitalist intervention in the islands
has not been able to successfully extinguish these powerful under-
standings. This tenacity fuels the current political assertions of seg-
ments of the Native Hawaiian community to reclaim sovereignty over
their homeland (Dudley and Agard 1990). The renaissance in Native
Hawaiian cultural expression in the literature, visual arts, music, and
dance in recent decades is only one arena that reflects the strength of
these values and understandings (Kanahele 1982).
Kama’aina is the Native Hawaiian term used to refer to those fam-
ilies who have lived a long time in the islands, and now call it home.
Whittaker describes kama’aina as one “category of Caucasian...who
exercises economic power, is culturally a mixture of old New England
and missionary values, has close association by marriage with Hawai-
ian nobility, and has become self-perpetuating as an endogamous
clan” ( 1986:80). K ama’aina Hawaiianess embodies a very nostalgic and
highly romanticized view of what “traditional” island culture and life
was, emphasizing in large measure the monarchical aspects of Native
Hawaiian life, as they were manifest in the mid-to-late 19th century.
Kama’aina is rooted in a time in island history prior to the arrival of
mass tourism, when these long-term white residents were in much
greater control of the commercial development in the islands (Cooper
and Daws 1990; Daws 1968). Local Hawaiian culture, or “Hawaiiana”
 JULIA HARRISON 29

as it was often referred to by the kama’aina with whom the author

spoke, was something to be selectively preserved and reified, with all
aspects that were offensive to Christian puritan beliefs eliminated.
This included brother-sister marriages, human sacrifice, and most
critically exclusive control of the land by the Hawaiian nobility.
Kama’aina understandings of the islands reflect a tenacious belief of
life in the islands as a “kind of tropical Arcadia” (Smith 196O:l).
Hawaii was to many of these people and their 19th century ancestors,
an example of paradise “epitomized by the story of Adam and Eve
living in the Garden of Eden...a mythical land of bounty where man-
kind (sic) lived in harmony with nature” (Forbes 1992: 12). Tragically,
however, in the late 20th century, to many kama’aina, this under-
standing of Hawaiianess was slowly slipping away (Whittaker
1986:133-134).
Paradisiac images are also a major part of what constitutes “Hawai-
ianess” to the tourist audience. But it is an idea of paradise that has
been systematically cultivated by the commercial advertising for the
islands as a destination (Cohen 1982), and by the Hollywood film and
music industry (Brown 1982; Farrell 1982:227-230; Schmitt 1988). It
is a place of crystal waters, rugged lush mountains, with slopes heavy
with luxuriant perfumed flowers, white sand beaches upon which
seductive hula maidens and handsome beach boys stroll strumming
ukeleles. It reflects strongly the image about which the anonymous
visitor of the 30s mentioned above, waxed eloquently. As Cohen has
suggested, Hawaii, like other “touristic paradises” is “an inversion of
the intensive, complex, highly differentiated, ‘unnatural’ modern life:
[they are]...far-off place[s] where life is simple and toilless, nature
unspoilt, the natives happy and their women free and lively” (1982:8).
Hawaii is thus a place of dreams, magical romance and sexual indul-
gence, and of peace and perpetual arcadic happiness. A very key
dimension to the understanding of touristic Hawaiianess is that the
islands are a place where strangers are always warmly greeted, and
where local cultural traditions are willingly and openly shared, views
strongly challenged by Trask (199 1, 1991/92). It is, in every sense of
the word, a mythical place. It is a wonderful place for a holiday.

The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum is one of a list of cultural

attractions on the island of O’ahu which focus on the Native Hawaiian
history and culture of the islands. This is not the only focus of the
museum as it also tells of the natural history of the islands and, more
recently, some of the history of other groups in the islands. The
museum is located in a suburb of Honolulu, some distance from the
main tourism district of Waikiki. It is a memorial to Bernice Pauahi
Bishop, the last descendant of the Kamehameha dynasty. It was
Bernice’s great grandfather, Kamehameha I, who had first unified the
islands at the end of the 18th century, an event which took place just
prior to the influx of Westerners to the islands. The museum was
30 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

founded in 1889 by Bernice’s husband, Charles Reed Bishop, a Bos-

tonian who was to become a very powerful businessman in the com-
munity.
In her diaries Bernice expressed her love of museums and art
galleries, and her desire to visit them wherever she and her husband
traveled. These facts, linked with her commitment to the preservation
of the legacy of the Hawaiian people, are assumed by many in Hawaii
to be the impetus behind her husband’s founding of the Bernice
Pauahi Bishop Museum. Bernice’s personal collections, those she had
inherited from her relatives, were the founding collections of the
museum. Charles Reed Bishop, and William Brigham, the museum’s
first curator/director, added other collections as plans developed for
the museum.
The museum’s research areas grew to include anthropology (mainly
archeology), entomology, zoology (including ichthyology, invertebrate
zoology, vertebrate zoology, entomology, and malacology), botany, and
ethnobotany. It developed a preeminent research library and archives
including a photographic collection and an extensive map collection.
By the 90s the museum’s total collections include over 21.3 million
specimens. Throughout its history the museum has participated in
over 100 scientific expeditions to various areas of the Pacific, all of
which created a substantial legacy for the museum. Not only did
they build the collections and generate many publications, but they
established many of the research foci for years to come. The Bishop
Museum clearly has all of the resources to provide the “condensed
interpretations of the natural and cultural history” of holiday des-
tinations, which Graburn (1982: 19) suggests tourists are looking for
in their visits to museums.
The museum always had galleries open to the public, even if over
the years they had not been the main focus of the staffs interest.
Hawaiian Hall, the main gallery space in the original building is a
magnificent piece of neo-Romanesque architecture which held a great
symbolic position in what the museum represented to the local Native
Hawaiian population. In recent years, in fact, the exhibits have cov-
ered a very wide range of topics from dinosaurs, to eclipses, to science
fairs, as the current administration attempts “to bring the outside
world” to the local population of Hawaii. In the period 1984-1991,
little attention was paid by the institution to the exhibits about Native
Hawaiian history and culture. The exhibitions that were installed
presented a very narrow and disjointed story, which largely focused
on the 19th century Hawaiian monarchical history. What the visitor
sees in the main galleries on the first floor of Hawaiian Hall was never
intended to be a permanent or a comprehensive exhibition about
Native Hawaiian life. In the cases that surround the central platform
were the remnants of “Hawaii: The Royal Isles”, a traveling exhibition
done by the museum in the early 80s about the persistence ofHawaiian
values despite tremendous social, political, and cultural upheaval
throughout the 19th century. The majority of the items are those of
the ali’i and monarchy, and include artifacts which reflect the fas-
cination that the Hawaiian royalty developed with the regalia and
symbols of the monarchs of Europe. On a central platform is a hale
 JULIA HARRISON 31

(grass house) and the scale model of a heiau (religious structure), both
ofwhich were installed in the early years of this century. Both exhibits
have only limited interpretive information associated with them. The
hale has a plaster cast of a Hawaiian sitting inside of it, a leftover from
some of the very early dioramic exhibits at the museum. Above these
two exhibits hangs a full skeleton of a whale, one of the first exhibits
installed in the building at the turn of this century. These three
dominant features of the gallery have little obvious connection to
the cases on the periphery which concentrate on the 19th century
monarchy.
Since the installation of “Hawaii: The Royal Isles” in Hawaiian
Hall, floods, infestations of insects and mold, building and case
deterioration, usurpation ofgallery space for other purposes, extended
loan of materials, and contrary institutional funding priorities
depleted the first-floor galleries of Hawaiian Hall. The remnants told
a very sketchy, disjointed, and imbalanced version of even the story
that the exhibit originally intended to tell, which focused on a narrow
perspective of life in Hawaii. It almost ignored the life of the makahana
(common people), and dealt only with what some called the decadence
and decline of the 19th century Hawaiian monarchy (Hughes
1980:74). The messages conveyed by Hawaiian Hall define a distant
island “other”, a monarchy isolated from its people (whose existence
has only to be assumed, as there is almost no direct reference to
them) whose distinct cultural identity can be reduced to “objectifiable
units”-clothing, bowls, tools, “gods”, baskets, musical instruments,
photographs, and early illustrations. No exhibits in these main gal-
leries showed the real depth and richness of Native Hawaiian culture
in the islands. The themes and fragmented story of Hawaiian Hall,
the richness of the koa cases, the ornate ironwork of the railings, the
shadow of the whale which looms over the room, the large heiau model
and grass hale on the central raised platform-all these placed the
main galleries of Hawaiian Hall firmly in the 19th century. The earth
tones of the cases (green, brown, and yellow) firmly placed the design
of the exhibit in the late 70s. The room has the aura of a bygone era
of grandeur and reverence, which seems sombre and tragic today.
Empty cases, missing artifacts, and an overall aura of neglect pre-
dominated in the gallery.
The director stated to the author that he recognized the insti-
tution’s special obligation to the Native Hawaiian communities, and
noted its responsibility to tread carefully in making decisions about
Hawaiian Hall and the exhibition of Native Hawaiian culture. By late
1991 the museum was trying to breathe some new life into its Native
Hawaiian heritage and into the communities to which it felt that it
had a special obligation. Planning had begun on a small centennial
exhibition about the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893,
and an exhibition entitled “POHAKU: Through Hawaiian Eyes” was
planned for the spring of 1992. The overthrow of the monarchy was a
very emotional and potent anniversary for Native Hawaiians, but the
museum did not focus on it in the way that it had the total eclipse of
the sun, which had happened on July 11, 199 1. Although not an
event to be celebrated in the same way, the commemoration of the
32 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

overthrow could certainly have been a vehicle for emphasizing the

Native Hawaiian legacy of the museum. But at the end of 1991, the
administration was still embroiled in an ideological battle with some
staff over whether Hawaiian Hall was the “jewel” or the “trophy
house” of the museum. Work was in progress to repair the roof of the
building, a process which continued to reveal further decay in the
building. The museum had not announced any plans to deal with the
somewhat tragic state of the space, and seemed to be avoiding facing
up to what would be a long-term commitment to major redevel-
opment. Some staff felt that the administration was simply ignoring
the museum’s Native Hawaiian legacy and its obligations to that
heritage (personal communication with the author).

The Tourist Audience

An interest in the culture and history of Hawaii draws visitors to a

range of institutions, each of which tells some part of the story of
Native Hawaiian people, their history and culture. The majority of
these institutions are on the island of O’ahu (one of eight major
islands in the chain), and are located in or near the city of Honolulu.
Each other island, however, has a number of museums and cultural
institutions which often tell a more localized version of island history
and culture. Some O’ahu “cultural” institutions are purely com-
mercial in nature (such as the Paradise Cove Luau on the island of
O’ahu), while others such as the the Polynesian Cultural Center and
the Kodak Hula Show define themselves in broader, more altruistic
terms (Harrison 1993a, 1993b). Manyofthese institutions do not keep
statistics on how many of their visitors are tourists, although the
majority of them cater almost exclusively to the tourist audience. One
institution which does keep very thorough information on its visitors
is the Polynesian Cultural Center, a cultural theme park which has
recreations of villages from various island nations throughout the
Pacific. In 1989 it recorded over 800,000 visitors (Christensen 1990:4).
The attendance figures for the Bishop Museum in 1990-91 were nearly
550,000, but it is impossible to know what percentage of these were
tourists.
For most of its history the Bishop Museum has never paid much
attention to the tourist audience. There was, however, one period in
the 70s when efforts were made to increase tourist visits dramatically
and thus generate much-needed revenue for the museum. Its Heritage
Theater in King’s Alley in Waikiki opened in 1972, featuring live
dramatizations of Hawaiian history, most particularly the Hawaiian
monarchy, staged with actors, dancers, and musicians in an elaborate
Victorian setting. Some of the museum’s most important artifacts,
such as King Kamehameha’s feather cloak, were also on show in
King’s Alley (Anonymous 1972; Doyle 1972). The cape was displayed
in a vault-like setting with the intention of generating the idea the
that this was not simply the cape of a famous Hawaiian king, but that
it was a “million-dollar cloak” (Anonymous 1972:42). The museum at
this time also owned a refurbished four-masted sailing vessel, the
 JULIA HARRISON 33

“Falls of Clyde”, which was docked in Honolulu’s waterfront. To link

these two attractions with the main museum, four red double-decker
London buses were acquired. With the purchase of what was known
as the “Passport to Polynesia”, visitors could visit all three sites at
their leisure over the course of a day. The tour package was actively
marketed to tourists once they arrived in the islands, as well as being
marketed on the mainland, Canada, and in Japan. However, the
Heritage Theater, the Falls of Clyde, and the London buses proved to
be a financial drain on the Bishop Museum, as they never gained the
expected tourist popularity. Before the end of the 7Os, efforts were
being made to dispose of all three “attractions”.
These efforts in the 70s suggested that turning the attention of the
average Waikiki beach stroller to Hawaiian history and culture was
not easily done. Tourists who were interested in such matters would
be willing to leave Waikiki, and find their way to Bishop Museum
proper, as many had done throughout the entire history of the
museum. In fact, in the 80s it was assumed that tourists comprised
nearly 80% of the museum’s visitors (Kodani 1989-90:7). As one staff
member said “I give them an A for their effort in finding their way
out here”. The vast majority of the tourists who came out to the
museum were non-Japanese (they were what the Hawaii Visitors
Bureau grouped as “eastbound”). But Japanese tourists (identified by
the Hawaii Visitors Bureau as “westbound”) make up about l/3 of
the visitors to the islands (State of Hawaii 1990). In 199 1 a community
liaison officer was hired in an effort to bring more Japanese tourists
into the museum, but this position was fairly shortlived. Little
additional effort was put into luring more of the “eastbound” tourists,
as the decision was made to focus marketing on the local resident
community, with very positive results.

Visitors’ Projle

A study done in 1989 suggested that 47% of the first-time visitors

to Hawaii, with a high-school education and an annual salary of less
than US$50,000, will be attracted to the islands at least in part
because of Hawaii’s history and culture (Sunderland Smith Research
Associates 1989:37). This, however, does not seem to be the profile of
the tourist visitor to the Bishop Museum, as the majority of those
questioned at the museum in 1991 were repeat visitors to Hawaii.
Only in age profile do the findings correlate. As to their age, 66% of
the surveyed visitors to the museum were over 35, which closely
correlates with findings of the 1989 study which found 62% of the
visitors to the islands with interests in culture and history were 30 or
over (Sunderland Smith Research Associates 1989:36). But 79% of the
visitors to the museum had at least a college education, and 56%
earned over US$40,000 annually. This is a distinctly different profile
from that found in the 1989 study of those drawn to the islands by
Hawaiian history and culture. Only 47% of the latter group had at least
some college education and 41% earned over US$50,000 annually. It
would seem that the museum is drawing on a somewhat different
34 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

audience base. Benefitting from the general comments made to the

researcher by visitors who were surveyed, it seems that those who
came to the Bishop Museum as part of their vacation activities were
those who were predisposed to go to museums. They indicated that
they had an overall interest in the institutions themselves, as well as
an interest generally in history and culture. The tourist visitors to the
Bishop Museum seem to come from a different group of tourists than
those who simply found Hawaii’s natural and cultural history part of
the islands’ “attractivity”.
A 1990 study by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau on the psychographic
profile of visitors to Hawaii, further suggests that the museum is
currently drawing on the atypical visitor to the island of O’ahu. The
1990 psychographic study found that visitors to O’ahu primarily come
from the lower-income category (under US$35,000, annually). Many
of the O’ahu visitors are first-time visitors to the islands and are
largely drawn from the blue-collar workforce. They enjoy sightseeing
and are likely to take organized tours to see the sights of the islands
(personal communication with Hawaii Visitors Bureau). Over 50% of
the visitors to the Bishop Museum earned over US$40,000 annually,
with 25% of that total earning over US$60,000. They consistently
classed themselves as professionals, were repeat visitors to the islands,
and had come to the museum on their own, or in the company of
family or friends. This suggests that it is probable that the museum
has always drawn on the atypical O’ahu island visitor. Those who were
willing to endure the hot and dusty ride to the suburbs on the streetcar
in the early years of the century are likely to have been, tem-
peramentally, the same as those who endured the similar long, tedi-
ous, and cramped bus ride to the museum today. They have to feel
comfortable enough to venture out on their own in the islands, a fact
which suggests that they are probably not first-time visitors. Nearly
l/2 of the visitors in 1991 stated that they were simply following
their propensity to visit museums wherever they went and readily
overlooked any mild discomfort experienced in getting there. Their
general comments reflected an overall enjoyment of their visit to the
Bishop Museum. Responses such as “we enjoyed it”, “well worth the
trip”, “loved it”, “interesting”, “it is authentic”, “a good local place”,
and “well done and informative, not touristy” were enthusiastically
offered in response to several questions. Almost none of respondents
made any strong negative comments about their experience. Based
on their familiarity with mainland museums, such as the Explo-
ratorium in San Francisco, a few simply offered hints on how the
museum could improve its presentation.
For at least one day of their vacation these museum visitors put a
visit to the museum as a priority over the “sun, sand, and sea” offered
by the beaches of O’ahu. Generally they came to the museum to learn
about of Native Hawaiian culture, either something which the tourism
brochure, or comments made by friends or relatives, suggested they
would find at the Bishop Museum. These were the two main ways
that people learned about the museum. They found at the museum
something which was seen to be genuine, something which they felt
had not been established to serve only the tourists. The museum in
 JULIA HARRISON 35

their eyes was something which was part of the local community. To
them it was a Hawaiian place.

Tourists’ Ideas of Hawaii

As part of the present research, 40 tourist visitors to the museum

were given a list of words and asked to identify which they associated
with their image of Hawaii before they came to the museum (Table
1). While not listed in any particular order, words generally fell into
three groups: those referring to the very popular hegemonic glosses
of Hawaii (the touristic “Hawaiianess”); those which would require
that the visitor know something more specific of Hawaii’s history and
culture (the kama’aina “Hawaiianess”); and those which would require
that the tourist be aware of some of the contemporary realities of life
for Native Hawaiians in Hawaii (Native Hawaii “Hawaiianess”). To
associate the words in Group 3 (Table 1) with Hawaii would require
a focused study of its history and culture. The words for each section
were drawn from three distinct arenas. Group 1 are words and ideas
that are perpetuated in the tourism brochures and general advertising
as to what Hawaii offers. They reflect the image that has been com-
mercially promoted by Hollywood and popular media over the years.
Those in Group 2 were selected from the more informed writings of
the history and culture of the islands. They are drawn from readings
and literature that are generally available in the islands and readily
digestible by the interested and motivated visitor. They are also drawn
from the content of other “museum-like” institutions in Honolulu,
including Iolani Palace and Mission Houses Museum. Those in Group
3 are drawn largely from the literature written by Native Hawaiians,
in which they frankly discuss the marginal position into which Native
Hawaiians have been pushed in their homeland over the last 200
years.
Some of the words in Group 1 had an association with Hawaii for
as many as 85% of the respondents. The frequency of association of
words in Group 1 averaged around 70%. The association of words

Table 1. Images of Hawaii

Group I Group 2 Group 3

Aloha Missionaries Cultural Renaissance

Floral Prints Ocean Migrations Environmental Pollution
Surfing Monarchy Third World Nation
Paradise Sugar Cane Political Struggles
Sun Whaling Poverty
Grass Hut Poi Land Claims
Grass Skirt Ukelele Colonialism
Palm Trees Featherwork Racism
Hula Human Sacrifice
Leis Revolution
Beaches
Sh opping
36 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

which suggest a more detailed knowledge of Hawaiian history and

culture (Group 2) averaged around 50%. Words in Group 3, which
suggest some knowledge of the contemporary situation of Native
Hawaiians and their political struggles, were identified by only an
average of 27% of those surveyed (Whittaker 1986:95). It would seem
that tourists come to the museum with fairly predictable commercial
“Hollywood” images of what Hawaii is and was. They expected to
learn something of Native Hawaiian culture while at the museum
having assumed that this was apriorityofthe institution. Manyvisitors
spent most of their time in Hawaiian Hall, where the exhibitions on
Native Hawaiian history and culture are located. Few stated that they
had learned a great deal from their time at the museum, however,
probably because the Bishop Museum presented little more about
Native Hawaiian culture than other entertainment-directed insti-
tutions (Harrison 1993b). Most felt that it simply “enhanced” or
“enriched” what they already knew. It was more the sense of place
of the museum, its “localness”, its “Hawaiianess” which had been
reinforced for them. But what understanding of “Hawaiianess” was
the Bishop Museum confirming? It could be suggested that the exhi-
bitions at the Bishop Museum in 1991 seemed ultimately to confirm
the “hegemonic glosses” of the “touristic Hawaiianess”. To some
it confirmed a nostalgic sense of a lost Native Hawaiian culture,
reminiscent of the “kama’aina Hawaiianess”. It seemed to have offered
very little to challenge the understandings by introducing a sense of
the Native Hawaiian Hawaiianess.

CONCLUSION
To those tourists who were surveyed about the Bishop Museum,
their perception of a “good local place” was the most important
element. This probably is the strongest virtue that many museums
possess simply by their very nature, character, and history. It is the
rootedness of museums in the local community that makes them so
distinctive. However, to be truly “local”, a museum must reflect what
honestly comprises that “localness”. In the case of the Bishop
Museum, this means dynamically and accurately reflecting life in
Hawaii through time and space. But it also means challenging any
“trivialized” glosses held by many tourists of what constitutes the
local community and experience. This should be the model for all
museums. Some might argue that this position would politicize
museums, but this is a vacuous argument, for as Michael Ames has
claimed, there is nothing apolitical about the nature and work of
museums (1991:13). Or it could be said that the strategy of overtly
challenging hegemonic glosses concerning the local community would
move the institutions further away from the model of a place of
“entertainment”, because it would confront visitors with challenges
to some of their basic assumptions about the place that they have
come to simply enjoy. One may argue against both of these claims. If
museums are seeking to attract new audiences, they must increase
their attractivity, and their greatest potential “attractivity” is rooted
 JULIA HARRISON 37

in strongly expresssing their sense of distinctive “localness”, in all of

its dimensions.
Graburn has suggested that some tourist groups may stay away from
museums as they are not attracted to “institutional” and “freedom
limiting” experiences, which he has noted are “perhaps, too much
like their institutional occupational worlds”. To draw in these tourists,
Graburn suggests that museums must emphasize the “informal,
associational, non-didactic aspects of the cultural institution,
especially tied to happenings and events which replicate spontaneity
and sociality” (1982:19). Spontaneity and sociality arise most readily
from programs that are not constructed to simply draw in the tourism
dollar; they will arise from things which more honestly reflect life in
the the local community. Life in the Hawaiian community is dynamic,
ambiguous, contradictory, and profoundly rich-as is all community
life. What greater resource could a museum have?
The Bishop Museum should reflect and debate all of the under-
standings of “Hawaiianess”, and in doing so it will reflect the dis-
tinctiveness of the place where it is rooted-that is what tourists want
to see. The museum has in recent years been actively working to make
itself more relevant and appealing to the local community (Harrison
1993a). Part of this has involved bringing exhibitions and programs
to the museum which could not be seen anywhere else in Hawaii. It
also involved letting segments of the local population have a greater
role in determining how they were portrayed by the museum. It would
seem that these latter objectives, and the suggestions made here as
to what the tourist visitor wants to see in the museum, are highly
complementary. 0 0

Acknowledgments-The author expresses sincere appreciation to the management and

staff of the Bishop Museum who showed her the true meaning of the term “aloha”
while she conducted her research at the museum. The research from which this paper
is drawn was conducted at the museum in Hawaii in 1990-91. The information
included in this article reflects the museum at the time of fieldwork. It does not
necessarily reflect that situation at the museum presently. Funding for the larger
research project was obtained from the Social Science and Humanities Research
Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, the Canadian Federation of University
Women, the Museums Assistance Program, the Canadian Museums Association, the
Royal Anthropological Institute, the Oxford Overseas Research Scheme and the
Alberta Heritage Scholarship Fund.

REFERENCES

Ames, M.
1991 Biculturalism in Exhibitions. Museum Anthropology 15(2):7-15.
1994 The Politics of Difference: Other Voices in a not vet Post-Colonial World.
Museum Anthropology 18(3):9-l 7.
Anonymous
1927 Publicitv for Hawaii-Consider Paradise. Paradise of the Pacific 40(4):1.
1936 A Tourist’s Impression of Hawaii. Paradise of the Pacific 48(3):27-29.’
1972 Bishop Museum-Can Show Biz Support its Research Programs? Hawaii
Business (Nov.):35-43.
Armitage, G.
1923 Capitalizing Hawaii’s Climate. Hawaiian Annual 76-81.
38 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

Bennett, T.
1995 The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P.
1990 The Love of Art, European Art Museums and their Public. Stanford CA:
Stanford University Press.
Brown, D.
1982 Hawaii Recalls. Honolulu: Editions Ltd.
Bruner, E., ed.
1993a Special Issue Museums and Tourism. Museum Anthropology 17(3).
1993b Introduction: Museums and Tourism. Museum Anthropology 17(3):6.
Cannon-Brookes, P.
1991 Editorial: Museums, Theme Parks and Heritage Experiences. Museum Man-
agement and Curatorship 10:351-358.
Capstick, B.
1985 Museums and Tourism. Museum Management and Curatorship 4:365-372.
Choy, D. J. L.
1992 Life Cycles for Pacific Island Destinations. Journal of Travel Research
30(3):26-31.
Christensen, S.
1990 Marketing Analysis Report. Laie, O’ahu: Polynesian Cultural Center.
Cohen, E.
1982 The Pacific Islands from Utopian Myth to Consumer Product: The Dis-
enchantment of Paradise. Aix-en Provence: Centre des Hautes Etudes Tour-
istiques.
Cooper, G., and G. Daws
1990 Land and Power in Hawaii: The Democratic Years. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Dixon, B., A. E. Courtney, and R. H. Bailey
1978 The Museum and the Canadian Public. Toronto: Culturcan Publications.
Doyle, S.
1972 King’s Alley, Waikiki. Ka’elele 102(June): l-3.
Draper, L., ed.
1977 The Visitor and the Museum. Washington DC: Museum Educators of the
American Association of Museums.
Dudley, M. K., and K. K. Agard
1990 A Call for Hawaiian Sovereignty. Honolulu: Na Kane 0 Ka Malo Press.
Daws, G.
1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Farrell, B. H.
1982 Hawaii: The Legend That Sells. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Forbes, D. W.
1992 Encounters With Paradise: Views of Hawaii and its People, 1778-1941. Hon-
olulu: University of Hawaii Press and Honolulu Academy of Arts.
Friedman, S.
1992 The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American Anthro-
pologist 94(4):837-859.
Gottleib, A.
1982 Americans’ Vacations. Annnals of Tourism Research 9:165-187.
Graburn, N.
1977 The Museum and the Visitor Experience. In The Visitor and the Museum, L.
Draper, ed., pp, 5-26. Washington DC: Museum Educators of the American
Association of Museums.
1982 Tourism, Leisure and Museums. Paper presented at the Annual Conference
of the Canadian Museums Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Graburn, N., R. Buck, and J. P. Dumont
1977 Reviews of the Tourist: A Theory of the Leisure Class. Annals of Tourism
Research 4~217-225.
Harrison, J. D.
1993a An Institution in Transition: An Ethnography of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Museum. Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University.
199310A Museum, a Theme Park, and a Tourist Show: Parallel Messages.
 JULIA HARRISON 39

Hooper-Greenhill, E.
1994 Museums and Their Visitors. London: Routledge.
Hughes, R.
1980 Chieftains, Flacks and Feathers. Time 9( 15):74.
Impey, O., and A. MacGregor, eds.
1985 The Origins of Museums. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kanahele, G. S.
1982 The Hawaiian Renaissance. Honolulu: The Waiaha Foundation.
1991 Critical Reflections on Cultural Values and Hotel Management in Hawai’i.
Honolulu: The Waiaha Foundation.
Karp, I., C. M. Kreamer, and S. D. Lavine, eds.
1992 Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Washington DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Karp, I., and S. D. Lavine, eds.
1991 Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics ofMuseum Display. Washington
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Keesing, R.
1989 Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific
1(1/2):19-39.
Kelly, R. F.
1988 The Pressures of Tourism on Museums: A Canadian Myth. Paper presented
at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Museums Association, St. John, New
Brunswick.
Kodani, S.
1989-90 Managing the Outreach. Bishop Museum, New Dimension for a New
Century. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Annual Report.
Leiper, N.
1990 Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research 17:367-384.
Linnekin, J.
1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity. American Eth-
nologist 10:241-252.
1985 Children of the Land: Exchange and Status in a Hawaiian Community. New
Brunswick NJ: Rutgers.
Liu, J., and J. Auyong
1988 Touristic Attractiveness of Hawaii by County. Tourism Research Publications
Occasional Papers 10. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii School of Travel
Industry Management and the Social Science Research Institute.
MacCannell, D.
1989 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (2nd ed.). New York:
Schocken Books.
MacDonald, G., and S. Alsford
1989 A Museum for a Global Village. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Merriman, N.
1989 Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon. In The New Museology, P.
Vergo, ed., pp. 149-171. London: Reaktion Books.
Mill, R. C., and A. Morrison
1992 The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pearce, P.
1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. The Journal of Tourism Studies 2( 1):46-55.
Robinson, E. S.
1928 The Behavior of the Museum Visitor. Washington DC: American Museums
Association Monograph.
Schmitt, R. C.
1988 Hawaii in the Movies 1898-1959. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society.
Schudson, M. S.
1979 Review Essay: On Tourism and Modern Culture. American Journal of Soci-
ology 84: 1249-l 259.
Sherman, D. J., and I. Rogoff, eds.
1994 Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. Minneapolis MN: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Shettel, H.
1989 Evaluation in Museums: A Short History of a Short History. In Heritage
40 MUSEUMS AND TOURISM

Interpretation: The Visitor Experience, D. L. Uzzell, ed., pp. 129-137. London:

Belhaven Press.
Smith, B.
1960 European Vision and the South Pacific 1768-1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
State of Hawaii
1990 State of Hawaii Data Book. Honolulu: Department of Business.
Taylor, L.
1988 Just Who are These Millions of Visitors. Honolulu Star-Bulletin Advertiser
(May 1):Gl.
Sunderland Smith Research Associates
1989 Hawaii’s Heritage and its Appeal to Visitors. Honolulu: WAIAHA Foundation.
Trask, H.-K.
1991 Natives and Anthropologists: The Colonial Struggle. Contemporary Pacific
Spring 2(2):159-167.
1991/92 Lovely Hula Lands. Border/Lines 23:22-29.
Walsh, J., and L. L. Duke, eds.
1991 Insights: Museums, Visitors, Attitudes, Expectations. Los Angeles CA: The
1. Paul Gettv Trust.
Whirtaker, E. ’
1986 The Mainland HAOLE: The White Experience in Hawaii. New York: Col-
umbia University Press.

Submitted 7 June 1994

Resubmitted 10 September 1995
Accepted 18 October 1995
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Nelson H. Graburn