1Introduction
This chapter discusses the different dimensions of authenticity, its significance, and its authentication in heritage tourism. It argues that negotiated authenticity can offer a strategic pathway to support smart resilient authentication processes that are premised on ethical production and consumption of heritage. It also examines the potential of negotiated authenticity to promote resilience and sustainability and situates the discourse in the context of COVID-19.
The authenticity discourse has taken center stage in heritage tourism over the past several decades and has been the subject of various deliberations and analyses. Heritage tourism can be defined as a form of travel where travelers seek to view or experience ‘built heritage, culture or modern-day arts’ (Aas, Ladkin & Fletcher 2005; Frost 2006; Moscardo & Pearce 1999; Timothy 2011). It is a “phenomenon that focuses on the management of past, inheritance, and authenticity to enhance participation and satisfy consumer emotions by evoking nostalgic emotions; its underlying purpose is to stimulate monetary benefits for its various constituencies such as the museums, historic houses, festivals, heritage hotels and other stakeholders” (Chhabra 2010a, p. 5). On a positive note, heritage tourism can serve as a vehicle for conserving culture and landscape for a long time, although misuse of heritage resources (both tangible and intangible) often leads to compromise of authenticity and manipulation of the past for business goals (DeSoucey, Elliot, & Schmuz 2019; Park, Choi, & Lee 2019). Most contemporary issues in heritage tourism are associated with the following:
forging meaningful ties between cultural heritage management (CHM) and tourism;
viable use of heritage resources for the purpose of revenue and user-fee debate;
visitor engagement strategies and authentic interpretation; congestion management; heritage politics (dealing with dissonance and societal amnesia);
globalization effects (in terms of showcasing fragmented heritage);
effective use of technology to conserve and market heritage;
forging effective partnerships and stakeholder management; and
managing tension between commodification and conservation of heritage and increasing demand for an authentic experience (Aas et al. 2005; Arnold 2005; Chhabra 2010a; Chhabra & Zhao 2015; Du Cros 2008, 2009; Garrod & Fyall 2001; Hede & Thyne 2007; Lowenthal 2000; McKercher & du Cros 2002; Medina 2003; Parsons & Maclaran 2009; Timothy 2011; Timur & Getz 2009).
Additionally, authenticity is itself a problematic concept with multiple meanings, appropriations, and relocation issues associated with rescuing a heritage building that can fuel a debate between its in situ preservation and re-erection procedures (Reeves, Dalton, & Pesce 2020). In the latter case, controversy emerges in the manner the meaning is contested in that it is “partially derived from its intrinsic worth and partly from how various interest groups perceive the building” (2020, p. 4). From a positive standpoint, authenticity has become a cornerstone of effective and sustainable management of heritage resources. It is being increasingly regarded as a core attribute of heritage tourism experience (Andriotis 2011; Ateljevic & Doorne 2005; Beverland 2005; Chhabra 2005, 2010b, 2012b; Chhabra, Healy, & Sills 2003, Cohen & Cohen 2012; Crang 1996; DeLyser 1999; Grayson & Martinec 2004; Halewood & Hannam 2001; Kirillova, Lehto, & Cai 2016; Rickly-Bod 2012a, 2012b; Taylor 2001) and plays a key role in attracting visitors to heritage sites (Bendix 1997; Bunce 2016; Chhabra 2010c; Kolar & Zabkar 2010; Park et al. 2019; Rickly-boyd 2013a; Timothy 2011; Xie 2011). It is regarded as a viable economic resource in that it can serve as a sustainable path to achieve smart heritage tourism development (Cavanaugh 2019; Chhabra 2015; Desoucey et al. 2019; Lugosi 2016; Pine & Gilmore 2008; Thompson & Schofield 2009; Timothy 2011; Waitt 2000; Waller & Lea 1998; Xie & Wall 2003). Smart cultural heritage tourism refers to tourism to places and sites that promote cultural heritage by embracing smart technologies, knowledge, and sustainability (such as conservation and social inclusion) (Vattano 2013). Smart heritage approach, reliant on innovative and harmonious technology, can augment the value of culture/heritage by making it more accessible, both in visual and cognitive terms. As an instance, emerging mobile technologies are offering innovative digital services that provide location- and context-specific information to tourists. Furthermore, they have the potential to offer innovative ways to regulate tourist flows, cultural heritage conservation, and beneficial social change through enhanced/meaningful relationship with the host communities. This chapter touches on key aspects of the authenticity discourse to date, especially in the context of its multiple meanings, morality, economic value, marketing, sustainability, digitalization, and the process (authentication) through which tangible and intangible heritage are endorsed. It explores the notion of resilient authentication and closes with an overview of the manner in which heritage tourism is paused and disrupted by COVID-19. Important questions are posed with regard to the foreseeable path of the authenticity discourse and its possible direction during the post-pandemic times.
Authenticity has become a driving force of tourism consumption and qualifies as a crucial benchmark for the advancement of sustainable and smart heritage tourism (Chhabra 2009b, 2010a). Its centrality in heritage tourism is undisputed (Chhabra 2010a, 2010b; Kirillova et al. 2016; Naoi 2004; Sims 2009; Timothy 2011). Some studies have shown that authenticity enriches the quality of heritage tourism (Mrđa & Carić 2019; Park et al. 2019).
Furthermore, as pointed out by Ram, Björk, and Weidenfeld (2016, p. 110), “authenticity in the context of tourism suppliers is perceived as an essential asset of firms that provide services for consumers, which are not only satisfied with low costs and high quantity, but also seek genuine experiences (Pine & Gilmore 2008)”. A review of documented literature shows that authenticity has been examined immensely from both supply and demand perspectives (Chhabra 2008, 2010b; Park et al. 2019; Timothy 2011). It is a complex phenomenon because multiple views shape its discursive path. Based on antecedent viewpoints of special interest are essentialist/object (legitimate, true to the origin), constructivist (commodified for income), existentialist (optimal and euphoric), and negotiated authenticities (Chhabra et al. 2003; Chhabra, Zhao, Lee, & Okamoto 2012; Cohen 2002; DeSoucey et al. 2019; Kolar & Zabkar 2010; MacCannell 1973; 1992; Pine & Gilmore 2008; Reisinger & Steiner 2006; Wang 1999). The pure essentialist view focuses on cultural continuity. It refers to the traditional elements of culture (Taylor 2001). According to Taylor, authenticity is a kind of reproduction that holds a mirror to the original version of past. It is argued that everything authentic today is a symbol or signifier of past occurrences, eras, or ways of living (Rickly-Boyd 2012b; Salamone 1997; Timothy & Boyd 2003). In a nutshell then, the essentialist (also referred to as objective) version holds proxy to the true, original, genuine, actual, and unchanged version of heritage (de Bernardi 2019; Reeves et al. 2020; Timothy 2011). It is frozen in time and implies continuity in its most virtuous form. By the same token, several scholars also argue that essentialist authenticity is an impossible goal to accomplish (Salih 2020).
The constructivist view supports commodified forms of authenticity such as fake settings and deliberately constructed pseudo-backstages (Chhabra et al. 2003, 2012; MacCannell 1992; Medina 2003). It relates to a commodified version of culture (Trilling 1972). Because it is performed to please the markets, its true and original form gets distorted (Cohen 2002; du Cros 2009; MacCannell 1973, 1976, 1992; Silver 1993; Timothy 2011; Uriely 2005). It is argued that commodification changes the meaning of cultural markers in that they eventually become distanced from their initial worth (Chhabra et al. 2003). Nex...
