Reciprocity in tourism organisation

Reciprocity in Agua Blanca is anchored in the ways in which resources are used and accessed, such as access to irrigable cropland, distribution of job opportunities and assignment of gathering quotas. For accessing CBT resources, the rationale is similar. To determine the number of people who can work as community tour guides, a minimum earnings threshold is used to determine who can give the exclusive engagement required by this tourist activity. No single family can have two members working in CBT if there are other families with no members employed in this activity. Therefore, participation in CBT cannot be concentrated within the same families, nor can it be a full-time occupation.

The practice of reciprocity in the context of CBT in Agua Blanca has two fundamental and intertwined expressions - namely, teamwork and the rotation of tasks and positions. Teamwork, more than any other activity whether ritual or festive, fosters sociability; in contrast to the individual work of the household unit, CBT activity is synonymous with ‘doing together’ and promoting reciprocity. Rotation is a way of allocating individual opportunities and obligations based on collective criteria (Arguedas, 1987; Michaux, Gonzales, & Blanco, 2003), which follows the logic of distribution with a greater emphasis on equity, and it takes account of the needs of families rather than just individual needs. Hence, rotation combines social, economic, political and environmental aspects in its operation and also forges ‘social bonds’ (Temple, 2003a) insofar as it constructs patterns of behaviour among community members. Selective rotation within this community constitutes an expression of reciprocity, a logic that pervades community practice and, while aware of internal inequalities, this community’s use of rotation seeks at least not to aggravate them.

Rotation, as a practice, can be understood as an interface that turns econo-mistic exchange and competitiveness into a practice of reciprocity. This interface occurs because rotation is grounded in assumptions of "limiting individual advantage” (Temple, 2003b. pp. 48-49) and of a fair and equal assignation of opportunities. Under capitalism, access to opportunities is predominately regulated through processes of economistic exchange and individualistic-competitive logic. Rotation goes against this cunent, as does the assembly itself, and it is in the organisation of tourist activity that its most radical expression can be seen in the community.

The committee that organises CBT promotes equality of opportunities and fosters improvements in the performance and abilities of members, while profits earned on tourism activities undertaken collectively are distributed equally among all the guides. This approach embodies resistance to the assumptions of an individualist meritocracy in relation to communal organisation, as discussed by Bauman (2001). Furthermore, this approach substantially fosters cohesion, as is reported to be generally the case with any practice of reciprocity (Temple, 2003a).

This organisational model is not free from tension and conflict. In this context, any issues arising are addressed in two possible ways. First, each working group holds a brief meeting at the start and end of the day to deal with disagreements and working problems. Second, a monthly committee meeting may examine issues that require more in-depth discussion that go beyond the working group. The main problem to be solved is the linkage between collective discipline and personal interests and attitudes. A general framework of horizontal relationships and then^- common interest in the tourism business are the incentives that allow conflict resolution from a community logic. A “common habitus” has thus been created, which is characterised precisely by conflict resolution capacity through dialogue and agreement in assembly-type meetings.

CBT has been developed in this community to create a space for socialised learning and practice thr ough organisational levelling, with rotation as the guiding principle, rather than encouraging specialisation and emphasising differences. Furthennore, all members of the committee receive the same monthly salary. This approach to CBT does not mean that there are no leaders, no differences and inequalities, or no people with greater skill sets compared to others. Rather, the community focuses its strategy on not aggravating or making explicit these differences: reciprocity must not yield in the face of pressure from the logic of exchange. CBT for this community involves cooperation rather than competition. This is perhaps the main organisational consequence of CBT: to enhance commonality rather than individual interest. By means of teamwork and rotation, differences and inequalities are not eliminated, bitt their effects are minimized. Leaders and individuals with particular skills are required, but inequalities in access to resources or benefits do not build on these differences.

This approach to CBT appears to have helped ensure the success of this tourism organisation, involving a centripetal practice of teamwork and rotation that counters, at least to some extent, the centrifugal tendencies that would otherwise be encouraged by the market through standardised tourist activity. In accordance with Temple (2003a), the case of Agua Blanca shows how tourism operating within a globalised philosophy based exclusively on exchange, comprising individualism, meritocracy, competition and increased inequality, can be turned into a practice of reciprocity based on ‘limiting individual advantage’, thanks to the development of interfaces such as the assembly, the tourism committee, teamwork and rotation. Hence, tourism in Agua Blanca fosters ‘social bonding’ over the exclusive exchange of goods (Temple & Chabal, 1995) and, therefore, lends support to the conclusion that “increasing integration into ‘modem’ systems and processes need not, as is often supposed, undermine the moral economy and can potentially invigorate it” (Walsh-Dilley, 2013. p. 678).