Sad Tourists?

When I call myself an everyday-tourist, I have to clarify what I mean by 'tourist'. Friends of mine introduced me to the works of Zygmunt Bauman, who characterizes the tourist as follows:
The tourist, “like the vagabond, he is everywhere he goes in, but nowhere of the place he is in.” The tourist has a home and moves purposeful: “The opposition ‘here I am but visiting, there is my home’ stays clear-cut as before, but it is not easy to point out where the ‘there’ is.” There is a home. But, where about? He concludes from this that tourists also are homesick in the same moment as they are afraid of home-boundedness, “of being tied to a place and barred from exit”. Altogether, it sounds really sad, being a tourist. The German movie “Nichts als Gespenster” (review) seems to take up the same argument. People in their thirties, tourists, are not able to establish relationships. (According to Mary Douglas relationships are actually what constitute a “home”.)
Perhaps, I am a total optimist, but is it not the other way round? By being a tourist people learn, that it is not the space which makes a home, but the relationships with others. Do not become relationships apart from those with our families more and more important in our lives? That would also enable us to judge differently networks like Facebooks and myspace, which enable us to take up contact with people again, which would have disappeared forever without those platforms.
A tourist in this more positive interpretation is a person which finds his/her home in relationships rather than in fixed places.