This methodology-heavy chapter builds an analytical framework that will be used throughout the book. I start by looking at the notions of experience and authenticity (and experiential authenticity) in heritage studies, heritage industry, and the experience economy. Then, I comment on the concept of historical accuracy or authenticity as it is employed in historical game studies. Most importantly, I align the conceptual map of heritage authenticities with the typology of role-playing immersions. The resulting mixed Calleja/Bowman/Schmitt/Wang model of authenticity+immersion will then structure my comparative studies of the formal and experiential affordances of SEV in Chapter 2, and RH+TRPG+LARP+SEV in Chapters 7 to 10.
1.1 The concept of authenticity in heritage studies
Selwyn (1996) describes âcool authenticityâ based on knowledge and âhot authenticityâ of feeling. The entry âAuthenticityâ (Agnew & Tomann 2020) in the recent Routledge Handbook of Reenactment Studies explains how notions of authenticity are either object-, or subject-focused. Following Bruner (1994), they link the object focus to mimetic verisimilitude: the primary concern of curators of heritage sites. The traditional Western museology, archaeology etc. favoured a âcoolâ materialistic view of authenticity: either original artefacts from the past, or perfect replicas created with period-accurate materials and techniques to the best of existing (academic) knowledge (Silverman 2015, 71â74). The Jorvik Viking Centre in York and Pigrimâs Way in Canterbury in Urry and Larsen (2011) exemplify the latter: âa curious mixing of the museum and theatre. Everything is meant to be authentic, even down to the smells, but nothing actually dates from the periodâ (153).
An alternative understanding prioritises the perceived authenticity of âhotâ experience, not necessarily connected to accuracy of objects. Discussing historical memory through the lens of Mortonâs idea of âemotional truthâ, Campbell (2006) argues that the feeling of authenticity does not necessarily need a detailed material accuracy or factual correctness. A heritage experience may be faithful in its representation of human emotional states, and may evoke analogical emotional responses in visitors (370). This is the subject-orientation (Agnew & Tomann 2020): on the experiencing self. Sometimes visitors/consumers realise that their feeling of authenticity is driven by popular accounts of history, which are factually inaccurate â and feel âtorn between a desire for authenticity⊠and for accuracyâ (Rosenzweig & Thelen 1998, 201). The liminal nature of tourism typically makes people open to âexistential authenticityâ (Wang 1999).
In contemporary social constructivist view, it matters not how products and experiences are related to the documented past. As Silverman (2015) puts it, âContemporary authenticity works from the premise that society generates new contexts in which human beings produce meaningful acts and objects without necessarily bringing the past âfaithfullyâ into the presentâ (85). According to Bagnallâs (2003) research, the emotional response (âmappingâ) to the physical contents of a heritage site plays an important role in visitorâs overall experience, with expectation of âemotional realismâ (88). What really matters is the subjective feeling of an authentic contact (meaningful relationship) with the past.
Agnew & Tomann (2020) take a âfour-part typologyâ of authenticity from Bruner (1994): object-based mimetic verisimilitude; subject-based feeling of truth; authority-based certification; and postmodern acceptance of the impossibility of reaching it. My own reading of Bruner does not validate it as a typology, though. The basic object vs. subject dichotomy certainly makes sense, but I find it hard to accept authentication as the third type. The question âwho authenticates?â cuts across the object-subject divide. The fourth part (impossibility) does not even pretend to be a type of authenticity. My choice of typology is Ning Wangâs âRethinking authenticity in tourism experienceâ (1999).
Wang (1999) explores the object-vs-subject dualism under the names of âobject-relatedâ and âactivity-relatedâ (359), with subtypes in both categories:
- Object-related âobjectiveâ: genuine originality of objects and places
- Object-related âconstructive, or symbolicâ: validated by (and mutually validating) the touristâs pre-conceptions formed by knowledge, beliefs, and media representations
- Activity-related, or âexistentialâ: driven by âbodily feelingsâ (363)
- Activity-related, or âexistentialâ intra-personal: driven by âself-makingâ attempts to ârealize their authentic selvesâ (363)
- As in 3 and 4, but âinter-personalâ: âin the dimension of inter-human relationshipsâ (364)
Overall, Wangâs model supports the idea of the complex interconnectedness of the physically tactile, the emotionally felt, and the cognitively imagined, as postulated by the 21st-century heritage studies (see Introduction). This view will reappear with Connertonâs (1989) ideas on the bodily-performative dimension of social remembering (Chapters 7 to 10).
Interestingly, Wang combines the corporeal dimension of embodied sensation with the philosophy of âexistential state of Beingâ (359). Similarly, role-playing studies highlight the power to develop oneâs Self through role-play (BeltrĂĄn 2013; Bowman 2017a). A more recent study on visitorâs own perception of âThe Real Thingâ [TRT] in museums in the USA exposed âSelfâ as one of four dimensions: Self (âThe Real Thingâ resonates with the personâs self); Relation (experienced as a connection to other people, objects, stories, events); Surround (realism achieved by the surrounding audio, visual, space, and means of communication); and Presence (âan actual physical thing that was there and is right here in front of me nowâ (Latham 2015, 5)).
Many more reflections on authenticity have been produced by heritage and tourism studies (see Matos & Barbosa 2018) and philosophy (Varga & Guignon 2020), and this is no place to discuss them at length. The most visible trend since the late 20th century is the declining emphasis on factual in favour of experiential authenticity. Dealing with performative media, âwe can observe and critique an explicitly âstagedâ authenticity in moments of performanceâ (Kidd 2011, 24). As Waterton & Watson (2015, 8) have it,
We are all judges of authenticity, and where it resides is ultimately less important than where we find it. We are just likely to feel it in the commodifications of an âolde worldeâ teashop or a theme park as in an unearthed object cleaned up, selected and displayed by an expert for our pleasure.
Judging by this principle, even an incomplete costume of a historical reenactor, awkward fake-combat with latex weapons in a larp, or fictionalised and historically erroneous game setting can facilitate meaningful (authentic!) heritage experiences â if so experienced by participants (Gapps 2020).
On the other hand, against the constructivist theorisations, 2010s research on visitor behaviour is said to repeatedly demonstrate that âpeople value original objects over replicas, looking at them for longer and differentlyâ (Dudley 2018, 196). This should be kept in mind in further considerations.
As outlined by Matos & Barbosa (2018), all debates on authenticity can be categorised along the lines of Wangâs (1999) three types: objective, constructive, or existential. They often correlate with competing philosophical stances positivism, constructivism, and existentialism â and much of the debate consisted in arguing about which type was superior. As a way out of this insoluble conflict, Matos & Barbosa (2018) propose an integrative approach based on Edgar Morinâs complexity theory. The nature of authenticity, as they argue, cannot be reduced to a fixed model. The experience of authenticity is a complex multi-layered whole, with objective, constructive, and existential aspects interrelated. Moreover, they are affected by social and situational contexts, including marketing and branding. In my research, the social context includes the hobbyist communities of role-playing and reenactment, as well as the commercial market of gaming and heritage industry. This is why I include the lens of experiential marketing in the picture.
1.2 Authentic heritage experiences in the experience economy
While Holbrook & Hirschman (1982, 132) locate the origins of âthe experiential viewâ in consumer studies as early as the 1970s, the full-fledged concept of experience economy comes from Pine and Gilmore at the turn of the millennium (1998, 1999). In their view, the Western economy has shifted its emphasis from offering services to staging experiences. This was the fourth evolutionary stage: from 1. Agrarian Economy based on commodities to 2. Industrial Economy based on goods, then 3. Service Economy and 4. Experience Economy. (Later, they (2011, xvi) added 5. Transformations, heralding the ânascent Transformation Economyâ (2011, 297).) What has emerged as one of the top qualities 21st-century consumers expect in experiences is authenticity.
According to Gilmore & Pine (2007), authenticity-driven customers make decisions âbased on how well those purchases conform to their own self-image. What they buy must reflect who they are and who they aspire to be in relation to how they perceive the worldâwith lightning-quick judgments of ârealâ or âfakeâ hanging in the balanceâ. Importantly, as the authors repeatedly assert thr...