Slow Travel or the Illusion of Authenticity
FR

Translated into English.

AT Attila Globetrotter ·
If the author isn't engaging here... can't the following contributors change the game?

I don’t know.

Feels like I’m responding to an ad. It’s weird.

there were some fascinating discussions in this section,

Yeah. 😉
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
I thought travel blogs were a thing of the past

Forums too...

No idea which platform "influencers" are most active on these days?

Instagram, TikTok????

Still, with our answers on this forum and our travel journals, we’re all a bit like influencers.

Volunteer ones, this time...😛

I wonder if there are any mischievous influencers out there.

Like the kind who send people to some real dump, luring them in with photoshopped pics and glowing reviews?

Not for the money—that’s everywhere. Just for the fun of it.
SO Solene40 Globetrotter ·
Instagram for sure (TikTok, I’m way too old to have even glanced at it 😂), but I’ve never really gotten into it. I’d even say those stunning images really get on my nerves: - especially the ones taken with drones that have nothing to do with what *you* actually see at ground level 😆, - and those with girls in gala outfits in front of a photogenic landscape (sooo natural 😂), not to mention it really fuels mass tourism! But hey, that leaves more room for the rest of the planet—that’s the upside 😌
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
I don’t know.

I feel like I’m responding to an ad. It’s weird.

It’s been bugging me for a while—people who post short messages just to redirect to their site, blog, or vlog. If they’re going to do that, they might as well publish those stories and photos here to properly contribute to VoyageForum.

That said, if I put myself in their shoes, I get their approach. It’s just harder to swallow when you’ve spent a ton of time designing and publishing your own travel journals.

At least, usually, the person comes back to reply to messages.
BL Blogob Regular ·
Thanks, Kola, for this reflection that, without mincing words, highlights a pervasive paradox: responding in this forum’s bustling space often feels like opening Pandora’s box of endless exchanges, where the conversation, far from reaching a conclusion, dissolves into a whirlpool of repetitive arguments.

My article’s intent isn’t to harshly criticize the bourgeoisie or the ease with which some Westerners travel to the far corners of the globe. It’s really about questioning this compulsion to categorize, to slap labels on practices that, under the sway of trends, turn into hollow marketing tools. These are the concerns of the privileged, one might say with a touch of irony.

In this sea of blogs overflowing with tales praising concepts like "slow travel" or "responsible travel," it seems crucial to remind ourselves of a simple but often overlooked truth: not every human practice needs to be systematically named or institutionalized. A label doesn’t inherently add virtue to the act it describes.

The idea that you’d become a "better" traveler just because you chat with a local, take part in an eco-volunteering project, or extend your stay in an exotic place is nothing more than a fantasy. Personality doesn’t magically transform at the crossing of a border, and the "responsibility" touted by some travelers doesn’t become an inherent virtue simply by setting foot on foreign soil.

https://linkcuts.com/j18nu19q https://tinyurl.com/ywwnxa29 https://tinyurl.com/3mabpcv6

These travel trends—whether called "ethical," "responsible," or "slow"—are often just will-o’-the-wisps, constructs designed to seduce an audience searching for meaning but ultimately participating in the same consumerist logic they claim to reject. My point isn’t to decree an absolute truth but to spark a sincere question: to what extent do we, sometimes naively, buy into these alluring yet empty narratives?

The discussion raised by Attila illustrates an equally recurring phenomenon: in travel, as in digital exchanges, a certain posture is tacitly imposed. There are unspoken rules, codes to follow, or risk being stigmatized. Posting an opinion becomes an invitation for debate. Sharing a link to your blog feels like confessing a personal interest.

It’s precisely this mechanism—the tyranny of implicit norms—that leads me to step back after sharing a reflection, especially in a section titled "Reflection." It seems wiser to let others shape the discussion as they see fit, without stamping it with a definitive seal.
BL Blogob Regular ·
You’ve probably all noticed how a discussion, often stimulating at first, inevitably tends to devolve into personal attacks. The argument gives way to sweeping judgments: "They’re just promoting their blog, so they lack sincerity," or "They criticize the bourgeoisie, but aren’t they bourgeois themselves since they travel?" And just like that, the debate withers, stuck in a spiral of *ad hominem* attacks—both sterile and exhausting.

This phenomenon, so common in this space, isn’t lost on anyone. Maybe it’d be wiser to adopt a simpler, more serene approach: respond if you feel like it, and refrain if you don’t. Perhaps we should also question that almost reflexive urge to "correct" or criticize not the ideas themselves, but the person expressing them.

Why, when someone shares an opinion—whether positive or negative, and without it having any real impact—do we so often feel the need to shift our focus from the message to the messenger?

Isn’t this a glaring and unsettling illustration of our inability to tolerate the mere existence of a differing perspective without seeing it as a threat to our own coherence or the stability of our beliefs? Maybe it’s time to recognize that expressing an opinion, no matter how debatable, doesn’t demand immediate approval or relentless refutation. At best, it calls for respectful silence or a thoughtful response; at worst, polite indifference.

That way, discussions might—just once—avoid turning into a battlefield of egos and return to their original purpose: a free and fruitful exchange of ideas.

Unfortunately, Attila embodies one of the main reasons I left this forum. His behavior, which you’ve all witnessed, follows a pattern of systematic provocation, an endless quest for confrontation. Such an attitude likely reveals a latent neurosis, or at least a mind inclined toward malice. This relentless need to find flaws, to impose his views as an unquestionable norm, reflects a compulsive desire for dominance in the discursive space.

All I did was raise a topic, an open reflection for discussion, without pretending to set a framework or dictate behavior. Wouldn’t it be more constructive—even more elegant—to refrain from intervening if the subject doesn’t spark interest or agreement?

I wonder about this visceral need some people have to jump in not to enrich the debate, but to derail it into ego-driven quarrels. If we can’t avoid this dynamic, maybe it’d be wiser to let everyone choose their battles and stay silent when the exchange promises nothing but sterile conflict.

With that, thank you to the other contributors for taking the time to read and share your perspectives.
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
What I’m mostly saying is that I’d love to read more posts here as well-developed and well-argued as yours. You know what this site is about—don’t hesitate to bring it to life. In doing so, you’ll naturally attract new readers.

Regarding your latest points, while they’re certainly well-supported, just as you spot contradictions in others’ opinions, they could just as easily challenge your conclusions. It’s all well and good not to want to suspect someone of self-interest or to refuse to categorize people. But those people and categories still exist.

What makes me smile is that, in the end, once all the arguments are laid out, it always reminds me of the ending of Patrice Leconte’s film *Ridicule*: if you can prove through a highly convincing intellectual construct that God exists, you can just as easily prove the opposite with the same methods.

You see what I mean?
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
You’ve probably all noticed how a discussion, often stimulating at first, inevitably tends to devolve into personal attacks. The argument then gives way to sweeping judgments: "He’s just promoting his blog, so he lacks sincerity," or "He criticizes the bourgeoisie, but isn’t he bourgeois himself since he travels?"

Without any personal attacks and just out of intellectual curiosity, how do you justify some of your hostile messages toward what you call the bourgeoisie, given your many trips around the world? Don’t you see the contradiction in that?

And a little observation: when I asked you this question earlier, it was partly in a playful spirit but mostly because I was surprised to notice this apparent contradiction and couldn’t quite figure it out. So, if we assume off the cuff that it’s automatically a form of attack, isn’t that precisely one of those very French reactions you yourself criticize?
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
- especially those taken with drones that have nothing to do with what you see at ground level 😄

I totally agree with this point!

- and the one with chicks in fancy gowns in front of a photogenic landscape (so natural 😏

But what if it's a dude? 😉
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
It’s been bugging me for a while now, those people who post short messages just to redirect to their website, blog, or vlog.

I think these are people who make a living from their site.

If you’re going to post, you might as well share those stories and photos here to properly contribute to VoyageForum.

Well, here, the author isn’t paid....
MA Mathews Globetrotter ·
Jojoone has a point when he talks about "Chauve Travel" because I find this discussion a bit far-fetched. We’re not really sure where this conversation is headed—probably straight to the hall of cliché discussions...😛
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
I’m relieved to see you can post things other than invitations to follow your blog.
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
I don’t mean to be contradictory, but get this—I recently stumbled upon and read through an old discussion spanning nearly 30 pages in the "Humanitarian Aid and Volunteering Abroad" section under Other Topics. It gave off that vibe, and I came across some interesting perspectives and picked up bits of info and knowledge I didn’t have before. Sure, it was buried among a ton of frustrating or low-effort posts (the topic had attracted its fair share of teens and nonsense).

Clearly, as the thread went on, it became obvious that some folks would’ve done well to at least read the earlier, more sensible comments.

The Traveler Reflections section acts like a pressure valve, on top of letting people discuss all sorts of general travel-related topics—some more loosely connected than others. It took an unpleasant turn around 2017–2019 because of people with genuinely noble ideals but who weren’t exactly open to opposing views and were quick to label others as reactionaries or fascists. One of the plagues of our time.
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
hardly open to opposing debates

That’s really the big issue with discussions in this section.

We can debate anything, but not with just anyone?

very quick to see reactionaries and fascists everywhere.

Does Mélenchon hang out on VF?

What’s his username?
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
I’ll answer this question as soon as you’ve apologized to Blogob. This isn’t the first time he’s caught you doing this 😛
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
My curiosity about who Mélenchon is won’t go so far as to make me write just anything. 😉
BL Blogob Regular ·
Yes, Jojoone1, when we venture into the delicate exercise of criticism—whether it’s directed at a person, an idea, or a school of thought—it’s illusory to think we can escape the reciprocity of judgment ourselves. By criticizing, we insidiously tend to adopt the flaws, attitudes, or even the thought patterns of what or whom we condemn. A tragic irony emerges here: in our intrinsic fallibility, humans inevitably reflect the very object of their disapproval. Though this observation may seem banal, it remains a universal and timeless truth.

So, Jolonne, I’m not claiming to be above criticism. I readily admit that my own positions can be subjected to rigorous examination and may well reveal a certain degree of contradiction.

Otherwise, yes, I do occasionally sprinkle affiliate links here and there on my site—after all, why not earn a modest compensation for the time spent writing all these articles? That said, I don’t intend to make a living from it. That would require adopting a stance that’s foreign to me.

This reflection deserves a deeper dive, but the format here is too limited to delve into it. Attila, forgive me, but I actually wrote an article on this very topic. Those who are interested and have the time can dive in at their leisure. 😉

https://www.virtual-trip.fr/blogs-de-voyage/

Thanks again for your feedback.
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
Since you're interested in slow travel, this discussion should really interest you.
DJ Djalma Globetrotter ·
hey,

“Slow travel” is a concept some tout as a philosophical revolution in travel. But when you look closer, it’s nothing more than marketing spin on an age-old practice.

I wasn’t familiar with this “label,” so I looked into it and read the rest of your post. I can say I mostly agree with what you wrote. It could be summed up as:

Slow travel doesn’t invent anything. It just puts into words—and often into slogans—what travel has always been for those who practice it with intention.

But that doesn’t really move the conversation forward! What first came to mind is this idea of “slow travel” as a concept set against another type of travel we’d call “fast travel,” right? A bit like how “fast food” is opposed to a traditional meal that takes longer to prepare, with more varied ingredients, and is supposedly better for your health and (so they say) more respectful of “the environment”—what we’d call slow food. To me, it’s just a matter of taste, no doubt shaped by many factors, including upbringing. Personally, I’m more of a slow-food kind of person, but I’m not really bothered by those who regularly eat fries and burgers. Are we going to see a “philosophical revolution” emerge for travel the same way it did for food? I don’t think so, because it’s already how most households and restaurants operate. So why has this “slow” concept appeared in travel? I see a few reasons, but there are probably many more. First, it’s a way to react to the rise of trips that are just a series of stops where you barely have time to settle in. From my own experience, this kind of travel has existed for decades. What’s changed (just my opinion) among young travelers is this fear of having gaps in their schedules. There’s this anxiety about having nothing to do (you *have* to fill every moment with activities) and this eagerness to see as many sites as possible and come back with tons of photos. With ecological issues like pollution and climate change, there’s also a sense of guilt among some travelers about using transportation known for its environmental impact—so they travel less and end up falling for the slow travel marketing slogan.

So, what about “adventure travel” as the next marketing slogan—not invented yet?
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
Truth emerges from discussion. I get the approach.

At its core, I inherited a simple common sense from my family that keeps me from jumping on certain trends or groundless theories. So it’s a matter of upbringing, but more often, it’s about personality. And many here love travel too much to be swayed by dubious ideas. After a year of work, we all need to unwind—vacations require planning, they cost a significant sum, you have to decide what to pack, and you weigh the costs to make the most of those weeks. There’s just no time to get into slow travel, which often only exists in magazines.

It’s a bit like people trying to convince us to boycott this or that airline, this or that destination, or even to avoid flying altogether. There’s some truth to it, but the rest of their reasoning is questionable. It’s up to each of us to make our own choices in good conscience.

Similar discussions

You might also like