tourist or traveller

i think i have finally hit upon the distinction. unfortunately i have to report that i am (i could optimistically add "as yet") by this definition firmly in the "tourist" camp.

you can recognise tourists, because they lack a role. they are observers. when you watch a TV documentary about aztec ruins, you see only the ruins themselves. never the cameraman, the sound guy, the mic and the camera. you have the impression of a single subjective experience. it is as if you are a ghost in the scene. if the camera spun round and showed you the process of making the programme you are watching, you would get an unpleasant shock.

when a tourist encounters other tourists, he gets a similar feeling. the tourist wishes, ghostlike, to observe without participating. when it is just you, you can make believe that you don't exist. but when you are forced to confront other tourists, the truth of your own role-less presence is forced upon you.

a traveller, by contrast, i believe, has a role. he really engages in the situation. perhaps he stays in one village for three weeks, makes some friends, learns how to make tostadas, and teaches some english. since he has a role, he is not a ghost and does not have the same crisis of self. even though his presence also is transitory, it is concrete.

actually i doubt whether i myself will ever achieve "travellerhood". part of the fun of travelling for me, is being sometimes the only person of my own culture. you can make believe you are anyone, and place any interpretation you please on what you see. it's so much more diverting than at home, when through long familiarity you know always what people are thinking and why they are acting the way they are, and you know that everyone else understands you in the same way.