I think this is an interesting way of framing things. I'm not someone who travels a lot, although I have the means and the time.
Over the years, multiple people have wondered out loud to me why I don't "travel the world". I rented an apartment from someone recently, and this was one of the first things out of his mouth -- as if it were a given that anyone with the means should do it.
I've always confused by this sentiment. Sometimes I pick up the implication that they think I'm incurious.
I think it boils down to the fact that I care about ideas (and realizing ideas) more than experiences. I listen to (and play) plenty of music, eat all types of food, and I might even know a slightly more diverse set of people than most, but I don't particularly feel a need to travel to do these things.
----
I had a similar conversation with someone here on HN a year or two ago. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find it, but the idea was that "the only authentic mode of travel is work". There was actually a book that espoused this idea as far as I remember.
There was an implicit criticism of those who spend a lot of money to go sightseeing and "get experiences". "Experiencing" is not the same of participating.
I think this is what your quote means by "romanticism" (although I question the use of that word, since it has so many other meanings.)
(BTW I'm in the queue for Sapiens at the library, so thanks for renewing my interest :) )
-----
I also carpooled with a stranger up the west coast (one of the few times I travelled). I told him about this idea -- that the only authentic mode of travel is work. He travelled the world to shoot documentaries and happened to agree with me (naturally). A lot of his friends seemed to be into Burning Man and he questioned the value of spending so much money for experiences that are divorced from the world.
I don't necessarily endorse his viewpoint, but I think it's a perspective that might spark an interesting conversation.
-----
Anyway, I think you're right that there's a form of "experiencism" in modern culture that is akin to consumerism. I didn't directly connect the two before!
I don't think there is anything wrong with acquiring possessions, or acquiring experiences... but there does seem to be clique-ishness involved. In my experience, as yours, people who value experiences do tend to look down on consumerism.
In "The Rebel Sell," another one of those books that I continue to think about and reference many years later, the authors make the provoking claim that, contrary to the self-images of most tourists, backpackers, and lovers of foreign culture, the only authentic way to travel is on business trips. With a tangible reason to go abroad, a plausible desire for mutual exchange, instead of the usual leering and viewing and aimless wandering, the business traveller is authentically engaged and directed by a real project.
Over the years, multiple people have wondered out loud to me why I don't "travel the world". I rented an apartment from someone recently, and this was one of the first things out of his mouth -- as if it were a given that anyone with the means should do it.
I've always confused by this sentiment. Sometimes I pick up the implication that they think I'm incurious.
I think it boils down to the fact that I care about ideas (and realizing ideas) more than experiences. I listen to (and play) plenty of music, eat all types of food, and I might even know a slightly more diverse set of people than most, but I don't particularly feel a need to travel to do these things.
----
I had a similar conversation with someone here on HN a year or two ago. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find it, but the idea was that "the only authentic mode of travel is work". There was actually a book that espoused this idea as far as I remember.
There was an implicit criticism of those who spend a lot of money to go sightseeing and "get experiences". "Experiencing" is not the same of participating.
I think this is what your quote means by "romanticism" (although I question the use of that word, since it has so many other meanings.)
(BTW I'm in the queue for Sapiens at the library, so thanks for renewing my interest :) )
-----
I also carpooled with a stranger up the west coast (one of the few times I travelled). I told him about this idea -- that the only authentic mode of travel is work. He travelled the world to shoot documentaries and happened to agree with me (naturally). A lot of his friends seemed to be into Burning Man and he questioned the value of spending so much money for experiences that are divorced from the world.
I don't necessarily endorse his viewpoint, but I think it's a perspective that might spark an interesting conversation.
-----
Anyway, I think you're right that there's a form of "experiencism" in modern culture that is akin to consumerism. I didn't directly connect the two before!
I don't think there is anything wrong with acquiring possessions, or acquiring experiences... but there does seem to be clique-ishness involved. In my experience, as yours, people who value experiences do tend to look down on consumerism.
-----
EDIT: I found the comment, a good re-read :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10725521
In "The Rebel Sell," another one of those books that I continue to think about and reference many years later, the authors make the provoking claim that, contrary to the self-images of most tourists, backpackers, and lovers of foreign culture, the only authentic way to travel is on business trips. With a tangible reason to go abroad, a plausible desire for mutual exchange, instead of the usual leering and viewing and aimless wandering, the business traveller is authentically engaged and directed by a real project.