To be or to refuse to be? Exploring the concept of leisure as resistance for young people who are visually impaired

This study explored the concept of leisure as resistance to social constraints of blindness. Leisure, because of its relative freedoms, has been conceptualised as a forum in which dominant cultural discourses and stereotypes can be challenged or resisted. A post-structural analysis of the leisure narratives of five young people who are blind revealed that they intentionally used aspects of leisure to resist some constraints and stereotypes of disability. Three strategies were identified: advocacy, redefinition and passing. Advocacy targeted other people’s beliefs; yet, some activities done to resist dominant discourses actually perpetuated them. Redefinition was a covert strategy to show themselves that they could be the same as everyone else. Passing was used in different ways. One young person used it when advocating, another to maintain social connections. However, maintaining social connections by passing was often at the cost of enjoyment, engagement and perceptions of ability. Empowerment through resistance in leisure related primarily to gains in self-confidence. These gains in self-confidence have the potential to contribute to social interactions and perhaps influence some of the discourses that operate as ‘truths’ about people who are blind.     

Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: what's the problem,who is responsible,and what can be done?

Wildlife tourism is a huge global market, the revenue from which can promote local livelihoods and tourist education, enact conservation, and improve animal welfare. Such benefits arise if wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) prioritise ethical deliverables above financial profit, but recent work has shown that the majority of WTAs have substantial negative animal welfare and conservation impacts. In the absence of global regulatory authorities, tourist revenue has become the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes acceptable use of animals in WTAs. Tourists, however, are not adequate assessors of WTAs’ animal welfare and conservation impacts: they lack the specialist knowledge required and are subject to a number of psychological biases that obscure the ethical dimensions of decisions to attend particular WTAs. This inadequacy is evidenced, and compounded, by overwhelmingly positive reviews on TripAdvisor (the industry-leading review site), even for WTAs with objectively poor ethical standards. Our suggested solution is to empower tourists by presenting unequivocal assessments of WTAs' animal welfare and conservation impacts, hosted in the fora that tourists already use to make their travel decisions. We would thereby promote a subjective norm that tourists should consider and limit their individual negative impacts when choosing which WTAs to visit.