Chapter II. Tourism reforms to improve travelling and tourism organisations in uzbekistan

Tour m., French. Tour , in cards: circle, one turn around; // in dancing: do one round, dance once around the room [2 p.876]. Tourist m., -istka f., frn. Touriste , traveler, predominantly amateur traveler (see meaning Tour). Journey action on ch. wandering, wandering, walking, or riding in foreign places; // path, road, Putin. Traveler - wanderer; who is on the way, at the crossroads, driving, walking, or who traveled a lot in foreign places, who saw a lot in foreign places [2, p.1425].
With the development of scientific knowledge about tourism, the latter appears as a systematic object of study. The International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism has proposed the following definition of tourism. This is "a set of relationships and phenomena that arise during the movement and stay of people in places other than their permanent place of residence and work" [1, p. 12].
Based on these definitions of tourism as basic, we will single out some fundamental aspects in them.
In these definitions, there is a definition of tourism as a kind of "walking in a circle", i.e. tourists most often return to the point, the place where they started their journey. Further: a tourist is always a traveler who "is on the way, at a crossroads", "saw a lot in other people's places."
The image of a tourist route suggests itself as a kind of spiral - a tourist returns home after a trip, having made a circle, but in the process of this circle, he passes through his choices (“crossroads”) to some other, higher level of a “spiral coil” (new knowledge, impressions , representation). Finally, tourism, according to the above definitions, is "a set of relations and phenomena." Let us pay attention to the fact that the emphasis here is not on tourism activities, but on what social relations are formed by this activity. No less important are the "phenomena" that tourists encounter during their travels (see definition). Moreover, the word "set" in the definition captures the relationship between what tourists observe, learn ("phenomena") and interpersonal relationships ("relationships").
Thus, tourism involves the creation of some new social reality that differs from the usual "non-tourist" everyday life. It is this unusualness, the contrast in relation to everyday existence that has a special attraction for young people. At the same time, these differences are not sufficiently reflected in the traditional practice and theory of the organization of tourism activities. This is expressed in the fact that where, at first glance, some novelty of impressions, information, experiences and sensations is offered, sociocultural content is most often offered that does not form a new"a set of relationships and phenomena" in comparison with the usual life and social relationships of tourists. The return of tourists, ultimately, to the starting point of the route means the presence in any youth tourism program of the mandatory comparison of “one’s own”, “home” culture with the “other”, “external” one, followed by the inclusion of an open (studied) new social and cultural reality in the process journeys into the familiar context of the youth lifestyle, even if enriched with new information and impressions.
But this comparison has not yet become widespread in the field of organized youth tourism - strategies and technologies for comparing “one's own” and “foreign” cultures with a focus on enriching and developing the existing cultural potential of tourists have not yet been worked out. The well-known sociologist of culture L.G. writes about the importance of comparing different cultures. Ionin: “The question of the need to study what distinguishes my life and the life of my fellow tribesmen, compatriots, contemporaries from the life of other large groups of people of the past and present, with all the apparent uniformity of life characteristics, such as birth, growing up, death, systems of social status , power relations, family structures, etc. - can arise when there is a collision with this other, when you can see it with your own eyes and experience it. From such a collision and experience, even in ancient times, the sciences of culture arose" [3, p. 27-28].
In the theory and practice of youth social tourism, this combination of “own” and “foreign” sociocultural contexts is not given due attention, except for topics related to the “culture shock” [6] of tourists with complete unpreparedness for possible situations in the country of travel. The essence of culture shock is a conflict between old and new cultural norms and orientations, old ones inherent in the individual as a representative of the society that he left, and new ones, i.e. representing the society in which he arrived. Ways to resolve this conflict, and them, according to F. Bock [3, p. 23-25], there are five, can be traced to the implementation of tourism programs. Let us briefly describe these methods.
1. Ghettoization(from the word ghetto). As part of the tourism program, attractions are actively visited, hotels, meals, transport and all possible services for a comfortable stay, which are provided by the host managers, are pre-booked for tourists. But in such a program, tourists often find themselves in a situation of their own "cultural ghetto", in which real contacts with representatives of a "foreign" culture are minimized. Participants of tourist programs are "protected" in every possible way by their organizers from getting too close to the locals, their way of life, and values. As a result, tourists are forced (due to ignorance of the language, local culture, peculiarities of their own mentality, religion, etc.) to avoid any direct contact with a "foreign" culture.
2. Assimilation(opposite of ghettoization). In this case, the youth participating in the tourist route seeks to fully assimilate the cultural baggage of the “new homeland” necessary for life, completely abandoning their own culture. At the same time, the organizers of the route do not provide for the maintenance of the “cultural microenvironment” of the tourists themselves, which is necessary to preserve their own cultural identity and self-respect. In this case, the surrounding environment of tourists does not accept their "otherness", forcing tourists to take an adaptive ingratiating or aggressive position in relation to the local culture. Obviously, the cultural and educational effect of such tourism will be small, because. new cultural information will in no way be compared with their own socio-cultural potential, the social experience of tourists. The youth,
3. Intermediate option . This is a tourism program that has as its positive results the acquisition of socialization and inculturation skills for its participants, as well as the possibility of long-term cultural ties, social mutual assistance and, finally, personal relationships between tourists and representatives of a "foreign" culture. Already at the design stage of such programs, the preparation of traveling youth for its comprehensive perception of cultural information is laid down and the mechanisms for a possible dialogue between young people and representatives of local culture are included when visiting foreign countries, certain regions of Russia [4, p. 118-122].
4.