Stebbins (1997; 1996) believes that cultural tourism is a form of "serious leisure," as opposed to "recreational leisure." The distinction is akin to the distinction between high culture and mass culture.

Stebbins sees serious leisure as "the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer activity sufficiently substantial and interesting in nature for the participant to find a career there acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and experience" (1996, 948). Its counterpart, "casual leisure," is defined as "a considerably less substantial form that offers no career" (1996, 949). He further defines serious leisure in terms of six distinguishing qualities:

"One is the occasional need to persevere, which typically generates positive feelings about the activity by conquering adversity. Second... participants find a (nonwork) career in the endeavor, shaped by its own special contingencies, turning points, and stages of achievement or involvement. Careers in serious leisure are also shaped by substantial personal effort based on specifically acquired knowledge, training, or skill, and, indeed, all three at times. Fourth, several durable benefits of serious leisure have been identified: self-actualization, self-enrichment, self-expression, and regeneration or renewal of self, feelings of accomplishment, enhancement of self-image, and interation and belongingness. The fifth quality of serious leisure is the unique ethos and special social world that grow up around each instance of it. The sixth one flows from the preceding five: participants in serious leisure tend to identify strongly with their chosen pursuits" (1996, 948-949).

Though there are costs encurred by cultural tourists, including confusion, social awkwardness, and physical discomfort (Stebbins 1997, 450), on the whole, the benefits of serious leisure are tremendous, especially when compared to the "relatively short-lived pleasure" of casual leisure (Stebbins 1997, 450). If this is the distinction between serious leisure and casual leisure, why would anyone choose to engage in casual leisure? In the same way, one could ask, why would anyone choose to consume mass culture when they could choose high culture instead?

Yet others say that cultural tourism is "hip for the masses nowadays," as the quote from "Cultural Tourism Rides High" said at the beginning of this section. This article goes on to say that nationwide, cities are staging more cultural events because they do attract visitors. Mike Pina, a spokesman for the Travel Industry Association of America, a Washington trade group, is quoted as saying "Clearly they see a market there... Everybody wants to go to museums. Everybody's into opera and ballet" (6). And indeed, cultural tourism is big business, both in the United States and abroad. According to a 1997 poll by the Travel Industry Association of America, "More than 65 million Americans visited a historic site or museum, or attended a music, arts, or other cultural event in the past year" (Miller 1997, 7). That's a pretty big market, and it seems difficult to say that all of those people fall into the realm of high culture elitists. Indeed, 65 million represents one out five Americans.

The travel industry is well aware of the potential market that these travelers represent. William Norman, the president and c.e.o. of the Travel Industry Association of America, is quoted in Miller's article saying that "This report makes it clear that the historic/cultural traveler is a market to which the travel industry needs to pay close attention in the future... The sheer volume of travelers interested in arts and history as well as their spending habits, their travel patterns and demographics leaves no doubt that history and culture are now a significant part of the U.S. travel experience" (7). Apparently the World Tourism Organisation agrees, as they predicted at the Expo '98 World's Fair that "adventure and eco-tourism... and cultural tourism will be very big in the 21st century" (Ee 1998, 9).