experiences. Can you match their responses and apply the tourist typologies and motivation theories?
References
Boorstin, D. (1961) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Harper and Row, New York.
Chen, J.S., Prebensen, N. and Huan, T.C. (2008) Determining the motivation of wellness travellers. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. 19, 103–115.
Clift, S. and Forrest, S. (1999) Gay men and tourism: destinations and holiday motivations. Tourism Management 20, 615–625.
Cohen, E. (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 39, 64–82.
Crompton, J. (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 408–424.
Dann, G. (1977) Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4, 184–194.
Gray, H. (1970) International Travel: International Trade. Heath, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982) Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research 9, 256–262.
Jang, S., and Wu, C. (2006) Seniors’ travel motivation and the infl uential factors: an examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management 27, 306–316.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (2010) Marketing for Tourism and Hospitality, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New York.
Maslow, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370–396.
McIntosh, R.W., Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1995) Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Wiley, New York.
Pearce, P. (1988) The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. Springer Verlag, New York.
Plog, S.C. (2001) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity – an update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 27, 13–24.
Ryan, C. (2002) The Tourist Experience. Continuum, London, UK.
Smith, V.L. (1989) Host and Guests – The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USA.
Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. Sage, London, UK.
© CAB International 2011. Research Themes for Tourism
(eds P. Robinson, S. Heitmann and P.U.C. Dieke) 45
4 Authenticity in Tourism
Sine Heitmann
Introduction
The concept of authenticity has been subject of a range of studies, not just in tourism.
Defi nitions and, more importantly, interpret- ations of the concept are abundant. Indeed, authenticity can be likened to jelly in your hand – depending on the way you look at it, it changes its shape and nature. This results in a variety of interpretations and applications, making it diffi cult to pinpoint its essence. However, it also presents an opportunity for discussions surrounding authenticity. Several debates have emerged and this chapter outlines the key discussions, starting with defi nitions and understandings that have been off ered. Later, the chapter looks at contemporary debates on the topic and places the discussion within postmodernity.
Context and Setting
From an etymological point of view, the word
‘authenticity’ is of classical Greco-Roman origin. It indicates a sense of a true, sincere or original element in a historical context. At its (very) simplest it refers to the genuine, unadulterated ‘real thing’. The original usage of authenticity comes from the context of museums, where the authenticity of an object is easy to judge if the cultural element is material (e.g. products, works of art, architecture, dress).
A certifi cate of origin or a certifi cate of authenticity can prove that the object has been untouched since its creation and has not been
subject to any modern infl uence. When referring to immaterial elements (e.g. language, festivals, rituals, or tourism experiences in general) the determination of authenticity becomes more diffi cult. Most commonly, something is considered as authentic if it is made, produced or enacted by local people according to customs and traditions or if the presentation or performance has a connotation of traditional culture and origin – a sense of the genuine, real or unique, ‘made by local hands’.
Authenticity in tourism is well discussed, as it is argued to be one of the key drivers for most tourist experiences and can be likened to the ‘holy grail’ for tourists. As briefl y highlighted in Chapter 3, a central element of any tourist experience is the juxtaposition of the normal day-to-day environment and the unusual and diff erent experience that tourists can encounter while on holiday. If diff erent destinations are visited, a very simple argument can be made in that tourist wants a true insight into the local culture and heritage in order to experience, learn about and understand the local life. Locals in turn provide performances and entertainment that seek to cater for the tourists’ quest and give an insight into their culture. While this sounds straightforward and easy to apply, several problems result from this exchange.
The fi rst question that arises is: who defi nes authenticity? As the defi nition implies, if a product or performance is made by local hands, it is the producer or creator (i.e. the local) who determines whether it is authentic. Further- more, when referring to products or objects, authenticity is easily determined by the material that is used and whether this is still the original
material. However, the defi nition and determin- ation become more fl uid if we take the function of an object into an account – if the material or the producer changes, but the function and original purpose are still the same, does that make it less authentic? Similarly, we could argue that as long as the concept (the idea of the creator) is still the same, the product is authentic. Furthermore, authenticity can also be determined by the history of an artefact, the ensemble (i.e. the integrity of the whole) or the context in which we fi nd the object in question (i.e. the location). In the context of museums, for example, the concentration camp in Auschwitz shows an original location of where the Holocaust took place. Hence, this museum can be considered an authentic museum in terms of representation. Does this make the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, USA, less authentic, as the context and location are diff erent? The purpose of educating people about the Holocaust is still the same.
The discussion can be further complicated if we take immaterial performances into account, such as festivals, dances, religious rituals or similar culture or heritage perform- ances. There are many examples where these performances have been modifi ed and adapted for the tourist audience in order to make them more attractive and more suitable to the tourists’ itinerary. As the original meaning (religious, heritage or similar) can be argued to be lost (for an example, see Case Study 4.2),
many critics have lamented the loss of authenticity and blame tourism’s inherently economic nature for the commodifi cation of local culture and heritage (see below).
Identifying the determinants for authen- ticity results in interesting debates, but there is one key actor that we have to pay more attention to – the tourist. As we are looking at authenticity within tourism, we cannot only look at the supply side of products and performances; the tourist plays a key role when looking at authenticity. Furthermore, as is shown below, the perception of authenticity and the interaction between tourists and locals play a signifi cant role in understanding and grasping the idea of authenticity within tourism. The following sections look into this in more detail. The next section introduces one of the key debates on authenticity, namely Boorstin’s (1961) ideas on authenticity versus MacCannell’s (1999) understanding of authen- ticity. Later, Cohen’s (1988) concepts of authenticity are introduced to add further variable to the discussion, before we then move tourism and authenticity into contemporary, postmodern discourses on authenticity.
Boorstin versus MacCannell One of the key debates is between Boorstin’s understanding of authenticity and MacCannell’s interpretation. Both Boorstin (1961) and MacCannell (1999) took the inauthenticity of modern society as a starting point and argued that (American) people are infl uenced by the contrived and illusory modern society. As a result of globalization, societal changes and technological advances, modernity and modern society are characterized by features such as contradiction, confl ict, violence, risk, alienation and diff erentiation. Nowadays, the standard- ization of tourism products and services has resulted in beaches, hotels and destinations that look similar – no matter where in the world they are.
As a consequence, Boorstin (1961) argued that tourists do not experience reality, but thrive on ‘pseudo-events’. Consequently, tourists fi ll their experiences with pseudo-events and are satisfi ed with these experiences. Boorstin titled Case Study 4.1. South African souvenirs.
The indigenous communities in South Africa used to produce bowls using natural fi bres, but now the same bowls are produced using derelict fi bre cables that are available in abundance. The material has changed, but it is still produced by locals using the same techniques and the function and purpose are still the same.
Furthermore, the concept, history and context have not changed. We could argue that the purpose has changed slightly, as the bowls were originally intended to be used within the household but are now increasingly produced to be sold as souvenirs. The bowls are taken home by tourists who might use them in their original function or as decoration. Have these bowls lost their authenticity?
Authenticity in Tourism 47
his discussion the ‘lost art of travel’ and distinguished between the traveller and the tourist – while the former is active and exploring, the latter is a passive onlooker who seeks the strange, but from within familiar surroundings.
This (generalized) type of tourist travels in guided groups, thrives on contrived attractions and is isolated from the locals and host environment.
Furthermore, as tourists pay for the holiday, they expect their money’s worth in return and demand the whole world to be made a stage for pseudo-events. Tourism providers and locals have no choice but to cater with more contrived versions to satisfy these consumers, and media (through advertisements) reinforce the contrived images until tourists turn into a closed system of illusions that allows for no authenticity. It has to be noted that Boorstin was a historian and his discussion freely mixed observations with opinions. Nevertheless, his essay on the lost art of travel contributed signifi cantly to the study of tourism from a sociological perspective. For example, Cohen (1972) used Boorstin’s general insight for his typology on tourists (see Chapter 3). Boorstin’s image of the tourist coincides with the two conventional or institutionalized types of mass tourist who prefer to travel within an environmental bubble with less exposure to strange and unfamiliar sights, products and people. Tourism destinations such as Disney theme parks, Las Vegas and Dubai enjoy high popularity and can confi rm Boorstin’s idea.
Taking the defi nitions of authenticity above, these destinations do not cater for authentic experiences as they are produced and manu- factured purely with the aim of attracting tourists. The nature of the products and services they off er plays on the fake and the illusion.
These examples will be explored in more detail later on.
Similarly to Boorstin, MacCannell (1999) took the inauthenticity of modern life as the starting point for his discussion on authenticity.
In contrast to Boorstin’s idea, MacCannell viewed tourists as a model for the modern man in general, seeking to address their predicament and in a constant search for authenticity. He likened the tourist to a pilgrim who is seeking authenticity in other times and other places. As modern society and normal day-to-day life does not satisfy, people use their holidays to search
for an experience on holiday that closes this gap:
tourists want to experience a diff erent way of life, learn how a destination diff ers from one’s own and discover places that remain untouched by modernism and still maintain traditional methods and ways of life.
Here we fi nd an overlap with general tourist motivation and authenticity serves as a motivator. Authenticity is thought to be found in other times or other places. Other times can refer to premodern times (i.e. history). This can be the tourists’ own history or another culture’s history, hence explaining the popularity of heritage tourism. However, other places can also present opportunities for experiencing authen- ticity – in societies that are thought to be less developed than one’s own (modern) society, hence explaining the popularity of tourist destinations in the developing world. As a result, tourists display a fascination for other people’s real lives. The more alienated from modern society and a shallow existence, the greater the desire that drives the search for authenticity.
Again, authenticity becomes a motivator for tourists. The search for authenticity refl ects the needs of urban tourists from industrial countries – they seek something outside their daily lives, something innovative and diff erent. MacCannell’s idea is also mirrored in Iso-Ahola’s (1982) concept of escape-seeking as a holiday as the search of authenticity in other times and places also serves as an escape from the day-to-day routine of the tourist’s home environment.
This paints a more positive (but still generalized) picture of the tourist, and MacCannell’s work has been one of the most infl uential studies at the beginning of academic research into tourism and its sociology.
However, MacCannell also expanded his concept and introduced the concept of staged authen- ticity to discuss experiences of a tourist searching for authenticity while on holiday.
First though, it is important to outline the idea of commodifi cation, which is argued to make the search for authenticity impossible.
Commodifi cation/Commoditization Tourism is a competitive industry in which the suppliers (tour operators, travel agencies and
host communities) seek to exploit every opportunity in order to provide a unique travel experience to the consumers. Within the process of ‘commoditization’, things and activities are evaluated in terms of their exchange value;
thus, they become goods (Cohen, 1988). As a result, any object or subject that might appeal to tourists is commodifi ed, packaged and consumed. Within this process objects, places and settings of touristic interest are identifi ed and marked in order to claim them extra- ordinary and worthy for tourists to gaze upon (MacCannell, 1999). This applies not only to tangible products such as artefacts, souvenirs and handicrafts, but also to intangible products such as performances, culture and lifestyles.
The local community – itself a very central part of the tourist experience and subsequently subject to the tourist gaze – joins the industry to cater for tourists’ needs and package their heritage and culture into bite-sized pieces that give tourists the experience they are looking for.
To the local community, this has several outcomes. On a negative note, commoditization and the subsequent commercialization have an impact on the original meanings of these objects and subjects (particularly religious, cultural and social). Once an ‘authentic’ ritual of a culture becomes commoditized and a staged perform- ance for money, it loses its intrinsic meaning and signifi cance to the locals (Greenwood, 1989; see also Case Study 4.2). On the other hand, the staging of performances can protect the local culture and heritage – while an aspect of local heritage and culture is adapted for
tourist entertainment, the original version is kept for the locals and away from the tourists.
When discussing commoditization, it also worth pointing out that the tourism industry has jumped on the bandwagon and recognizes the value of authenticity as a unique selling point in marketing activities. Tour operators and destination marketing organizations fre- quently use authenticity or similar promotional slogans such as ‘unique’, ‘true’ or ‘the real thing’ to sell their products and services by appealing to the tourist’s quest for authenticity.
Referring back to the defi nitions above and the question of who defi nes authenticity, tour operators can be considered to be the vendors of experiences, who consider authenticity to diff erentiate their products over others. While this can be considered to be a sensible marketing strategy, ethical concerns regarding the locals’
position and the potential loss of authenticity apply, adding further interpretations of the concept within a tourism context.
Staged Authenticity
Expanding on his idea that tourists are in a constant search for authenticity, MacCannell (1999) coined the term ‘staged authenticity’, based on Goff man’s (1959) ‘structural division of social establishments into what he terms front and back regions.’ Front regions are where performances are given in front of customers, while back regions pertain to where performers retire, recuperate and prepare for future
Case Study 4.2. Alarde de Fuenterrabia.
Greenwood’s study (1989) investigated the Alarde de Fuenterrabia, a major public ritual of a recreation of Fuenterrabia’s victory over a French siege in the 17th century. The festival involves the locals in the celebrations, the reenactment of the siege and the parade, which is one of the highlights. The festival is a central element of the local culture, which provides the locals with a chance to celebrate local history, dissolve everyday conventions and rules and an opportunity for communal enjoyment. The importance of the ritual within cultural life is evidenced in the entire town’s participation and in the fact that the performance is for the participants.
As the festival takes place during the tourist season, the festival became more and more popular with tourists. Subsequently, under the pressure of tourism development and the local council resulting from national attention, certain aspects of the festival (such as the parade) were put on not just once, but several times in order to allow as many tourists as possible to attend. As a result, locals became opposed to the festival and did not enjoy it for its original meaning of celebrating local heritage, but came to see it as a presentation and performance that catered purely for tourists.
Authenticity in Tourism 49
performances. MacCannell adapted the concepts to tourism, choosing instead, the following:
(i) ‘frontstage’ (i.e. front regions) describes spaces manipulated and managed to accom- modate tourists; and (ii) ‘backstage’ (i.e. back regions) refers to spaces where private, everyday lives of the locals are given priority. Back regions provide the ultimate experience as they present the authenticity of local life that tourists seek to experience; instead, tourists encounter front regions, which are staged by locals for touristic entertainment. This front–back dichotomy can be expanded into a continuum, within which six diff erent stages can be identifi ed (MacCannell, 1999; Sharpley, 2008):
• Stage 1: the front region, a social space that the tourist attempts to overcome or pene- trate.
• Stage 2: a front region that has been deco- rated to appear as a back region in some aspects.
• Stage 3: a front region that is totally organ- ized in order to resemble a back region.
• Stage 4: a back region that is open to outsid- ers and which tourists are permitted to move into.
• Stage 5: a back region that is somewhat altered or cleaned up as occasionally some tourists are allowed to glimpse in.
• Stage 6: the back region, which is the ulti- mate goal of the tourist, but rarely – if ever – reached.
The divisions of the stages are blurred and the tourist can break through what is pseudo and the ‘tourist’s quest for authenticity can progress along the continuum’ (Sharpley, 1999), until he/she reaches the back region at the fi nal stage. This is said to be unlikely as the tourist rather encounters ‘staged authenticity’, which is within stages 2–5 (Sharpley, 1999).
Depending on the tourist setting, the divisions between back and front regions can be clearly visible. If we compare this to a theatrical performance, the tourists are the audience members who are not allowed into the dressing rooms or behind the stage where the actors are preparing for their performance. This idea can easily be applied to cultural and heritage performances of locals, where the tourist is allowed to watch but not permitted behind the
stage to see locals dress up for the performance.
Within visitor attractions such as museums, the division between visitors and local employees is visible and clearly marked as employees wear uniforms and tourists are not allowed to enter display areas or storage rooms. In Arabic countries, certain mosques are only open to locals and access is only granted for those in local dress. However, there are less visible and more subtle divisions within other tourist settings. For jungle tours, you need expert knowledge to understand fl ora and fauna and you need basic survival skills in order to not get lost – the division here is less visible as local expertise and knowledge is needed. Finally, MacCannell also suggested that the tourist’s role itself prevents the ultimate authentic experience.
Tourists from Western countries travelling to African or Asian tourism destinations stand out among the locals due to their appearance and are therefore immediately considered to be outsiders. Further divisions can include language, behaviour and similar invisible dif- ferences between locals and tourists.
Negotiating Authenticity
Staged authenticity implies that authenticity means the same to everyone, like a label that can be attached to an object, subject or experience. However, authenticity is not a given, measurable quality, applicable to a particular event or product, nor is it a fi xed, static concept;
it is negotiable, depending on the individual tourist and his/her perception of authenticity (Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, authenticity can change over time and ‘a cultural product, or a trait thereof, which is at one point generally judged as contrived and inauthentic may, in the course of time, become generally recognized as authentic’ (Cohen, 1988). This process is referred to as ‘emergent authenticity’ (Cohen, 1988). Cohen combined the structural approach adopted by MacCannell with a micro, social action perspective in order to achieve a more realistic model of staged authenticity. Two types of setting (staged and real) and two tourists’ impressions of the setting are combined to identify four diff erent relationships (see Table 4.1).