A long time ago, we talked about the problems of establishing, in analytical terms, clear differences between tourists and backpackers/travelers. In his article, Backpacker types, which can be downloaded here, Camille O’Reilly tries to define a taxonomy of the backpacker. She begins by analyzing the problem from a point of vew we already know: that the limits that separate “traditional” tourists from “backpackers” is quite unaccurate. Still, some countries make efforts to separate them from an statistical point of view. For instance, Australia defines a backpacker as anyone who spends the night in a lodge. Even when it is statistically useful, such information only defines as central one of the backpacker’s practices, the use of economic lodges. But it doesn’t use any other relevant indicator to stablish the difference between both categories. The most traditional, which states that the traditional tourist spends more money at the place he’s visiting than a backpacker does, has been questioned by economists long ago (in spanish).

O’Reilly proposes two other practices to be considered as relevant when establishing the distinction between tourist and backpacker: the number of days of the travel -usually larger in the case of the backpacker- and the means of transportation used, cheaper in the same case.

But, at the same time, the author adds a category that can only be defined from the agent’s point of view; the hypothesis is that the backpacker considers the trip important in itself, independently of the destination. According to O’Reilly, the backpacker’s trip, in itself, has a flexible schedule and is open to permanent change.

The author defines at least four types of backpackers: the pro (or hippie traveler); the Gap Year backpacker, who uses the end of any life period (for example, the end of his college years) to take a time off to travel; the Life Crisis backpacker, who travels out of insatisfaction for his sedentary life; and the Partyer, interested in finding beach, sun, alcohol and, eventually, drugs. A fifth category, not well defined by O’Reilly, consist of people who take short periods of vacations to travel backpacker-style to places not to far away from the place they live.

As you can see, O’Reilly’s classification still has its problems. For example, it still doesn’t treat the evident cross between the representation of the tourist and the traveler/backpacker -which become evident in the partyer. Nevertheless, I like the idea of valuating the trip as much as the destination itself; it’s an idealized image of the backpacker, but it can be a good starting point to analyze the imaginarium and common senses that inform this representation.