:
"Tourists who seek out historical sites and monuments and who revel in their awe over the past are but a small portion of the total array of tourists. A much greater magnitude of economic activity is generated by resort and theme-park tourism carried out in entirely new and purposefully artificial environments. We know intuitively that such modern tourist sites are different from the ruins of Rome, but how and why and to what end do we make distinctions" (Lasansky and McLaren xix)?Despite the original Eiffel Tower's ability to attract tourists, replications found at the Paris Las Vegas hotel and at Disney's Epcot exude enough Parisianness, or even general Frenchness, to satisfy those who never travel to the actual monument. Referencing Rob Shields, David Crouch and Nina Lubbren claim this could be because of place-myths:
"Place-myths are conglomerates of place-images, that is, stereotypes and clichés associated with particular locations, in circulation within a society. Place-myths need not necessarily be faithful to the actual realities of a site; they derive their durability, spread and impact from repetition and widespread dissemination" (Crouch and Lubbren 5).It is likely the Eiffel Tower's reproductions are place-images contributing to a constructed Paris or France place-myth within environments such as Las Vegas and Orlando.
With these questions in mind, I briefly explore
the history of the Eiffel Tower sites at Paris, Las Vegas, and Orlando. After explaining how each
came into being, I look at the Eiffel Tower's power as a synecdochal sign for Paris, and consequently
for France, within and outside of each location. Then, I examine distinctions between the particular
Tower discussed and the others. Finally, I discuss the difficulty of recontextualizing the Eiffel
Tower as a visual object, because of its consistency in meaning. I assume the concept of place-myths
and the simulacrum are already at work, and therefore choose instead to study Vegas and Epcot as
institutional apparatuses using the Eiffel Tower as an institutional technology. By institutional
apparatus, I refer to the "forms of power/knowledge that constitute institutions" (Rose 174).
In other words, both of these locations are designed to discipline visitors according to their
individual ideologies: what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and Disney makes dreams come true.
Furthermore, they create environments capable of using the Eiffel Tower to signify Paris, or France
in general. As an institutional technology, the Eiffel Tower becomes one of the "practical techniques
used to practise that power/knowledge" (Rose 175).
From my perspective, Paris is an innocent bystander
in the Eiffel Tower's perpetual movement across space and time. This does not mean the city overlooks
capitalizing on the Tower's popularity. On this point, I agree with Daniel Jewesbury's opinion: "The
commodification of the tourist site involves an ideological as well as a financial investment.
Returns on one are dependent on the flourishing of the other" (Jewesbury 228). Though there are many
Parisians who take advantage of the Eiffel Tower's strong image by selling thousands of miniature
models, posters, and t-shirts, this would not be possible if it did not hold ideological power in the
first place. Additionally, in my view these souvenir salespeople are not mini-institutions at work
using the Eiffel Tower as a technology. Instead, they are business-minded individuals in need of
employment and accessing their available resources. Also, they do not discipline or construct
consumers of the Eiffel Tower in a certain way, automatically eliminating the possibility of this
group as a collective institutional apparatus.
Please feel free to enjoy each realm of this site
both in its own context, and when supplemented by your preexisting knowledge. Eiffel Tower fanatics,
or viewers who have comments and questions, can contact the author by e-mail
here.
a class taught by Bob Bednar in the Communication Studies Department at Southwestern University