Authenticity & Tourism

Materialities, Perceptions, Experiences

Jillian M. Rickly, Elizabeth S. Vidon, Jillian M. Rickly, Elizabeth S. Vidon

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781787548176
• eBook ISBN: 9781787548183
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

Debates around the concept of authenticity date to the earliest theories of tourism, as scholars attempted to understand motivations for traveling away from 'home' and touristic experiences of places far 'away'. Over time, theories of authenticity have burgeoned from epistemological to ontological notions drawing a broad range of philosophers into tourism research.  

This edited volume features chapters that engage with key debates about authenticity – its materiality, how it is perceived, and how it is experienced. The book is comprised of four sections thematically organized around popular trends in authenticity research in tourism, making this volume appropriate as both a comprehensive text and as individual investigations. Authenticity & Tourism: Materialities, Perceptions, Experiences includes chapters that engage with the pragmatic and the theoretical, including conversations on marketing and the production of tourism attractions, examinations of the constructive nature of authenticity, and the politics of authentication processes. Also included are contributions that revisit technological trends in tourism and advance debates of authenticity in souvenirs, photographs, and simulated experiences, as well as those more firmly anchored in the theoretical, pushing boundaries and establishing paths for future research. 

Across these chapters, the authors employ a range of methodologies, from autoethnography to photo and food-elicitation combinations to discourse and content analyses. Set against a backdrop of truly global case studies, this collection exemplifies the multiple facets of authenticity research in tourism.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

From Pseudo-Events to Authentic Experiences

Jillian M. Rickly

University of Nottingham, UK

Elizabeth S. Vidon

SUNY-ESF, USA

“Does authenticity even matter to tourists?” This was among the first questions disputed by scholars interested in theorizing the relations of tourism motivation and touristic experience. The inclusion of this concept into the earliest theories of tourism thus launched a set of debates that continue today and inspired research that has only further expanded the understanding of the multiplicitous ways in which authenticity is put into use in tourism. Authenticity & Tourism: Materialities, Perceptions, Experiences brings together contributions from authors who are actively engaged in authenticity research in a tourism context. In so doing, this book demonstrates the various trajectories research has taken toward understanding the significance of authenticity. In other words, these chapters support the many ways in which authenticity does matter.

Considering the ways authenticity matters to tourists and tourism practitioners, alike, means extending the interest in this concept beyond the question, what is authenticity? As Rickly-Boyd (2012a) suggests, inspired by the work of Bendix’s (1997) work on heritage studies, while this question has been at the heart of much research, it also frequently generates more arguments than solutions (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Mkono, 2012). By attending, instead, to questions of how authenticity is used, who wants or needs authenticity and why, who authenticates, and what authenticity does, one is better equipped to move theory forward and address the ways in which authenticity matters. To set the stage for the chapters that follow, the discussion begins with a review of the various conceptualizations and theoretical approaches to the study of authenticity.

AUTHENTICITY AND TOURISM STUDIES

It was Boorstin’s (1961) interpretation of tourism as comprised of pseudo-events that first brought authenticity into the realm of theory. His portrayal was, arguably, harsh, elitist, and overtly pessimistic, as he asserted that the “mass hordes” of tourists, later deemed turistas vulgaris by Löfgren (1999, p. 264), who descend upon destinations, are driven by the inauthenticity of their everyday lives. As such, the staged encountered authenticity is complicit in justifying their own alienation. Boorstin understood tourists as distinct from travelers who are willing to put in effort as they travel, in accordance with the French root of the word travail, whereas tourists bring with them expectations that hosts will cater to their needs. Thus, MacCannell’s (1973, 1976, 1999) articulation of the role of “staged authenticity” was a reaction to more than an analytical perspective; it was also an interrogation of the ways in which researchers viewed tourists. His work shifted the focus from the tourist as an Other, a faceless mass, to tourism as ritual in which we all partake. In particular, he suggested a Marxist interpretation in which tourists engage in the modern ritual of sightseeing and seek the authentic as an antidote to their alienated, everyday lives. “Staged authenticity” does not simply fool the uneducated tourist, but is the product of sophisticated marketing, cultural (mis)perceptions, and the desire of all alienated subjects to view something “real”.

Despite their disparate interpretations, what MacCannell and Boorstin, as well as many others (Cohen, 1979a, 1988; Pearce & Moscardo, 1986; Redfoot, 1984), have uncovered in researching authenticity and tourism is that the issue is not simply the need to determine the meaning of authenticity. Rather, it is put to use as a means to communicate a multitude of associations: a measure of quality, cultural perceptions, desire, motivation and expectation, an experience, and personal identity politics. Thus, Wang’s (1999) survey of the field provides a useful set of theoretical perspectives from which to understand the way researchers have approached the concept: objectivism, constructivism, postmodernism, and existentialism. Nevertheless, more recent research pushes beyond these boundaries toward psychological and performative interpretations, as well as the relationality of these approaches.

Objective Authenticity

As a “museum-linked usage”, objective authenticity focuses primarily on the genuineness of objects, artifacts, and structures (Wang, 1999, p. 213; see also Chhabra, 2008; Gable & Handler, 1996; Handler, 1986; Trilling, 1972). Accordingly, it engages the following synonyms of authenticity: original, genuine, and real, such that no copy could ever be authentic. This approach to authenticity reifies the power relations of so-called “experts”, as authenticity that must be certified, measured, evaluated, approved, and so forth (Barthel, 1996; Chhabra, 2008; Kidd, 2011; Coomansingh, Chapter 6; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Vidon, Chapter 13). For example, Barthel (1996) uses an objectivist perspective in her analyses of historic sites, determining authenticity based on the originality of the site, its structures, and its social context. Thus, Chhabra (2012) observes that while objectivist notions are most prominent in heritage tourism, in this context complexities regarding the means of authentication have been insufficiently developed and thus remain controversial. In other words, those who utilize objectivist perspectives are encouraged to ask questions of who authenticates and for whom is authenticity employed?

While this is an object-related approach to authenticity, Wang (1999) observes that some have attempted to draw a connection between the epistemological experience of the tourism object and the tourist’s experience (Waitt, 2000). Indeed, Boorstin (1961) made just such a claim, that an inauthentic object yields an inauthentic experience, when he theorized that tourists seek pseudo-events to justify the inauthenticity of their everyday lives. However, research into perceptions of authenticity has suggested tourism experiences have little or no relation to the originality of the objects toured and constructivist perspectives are particularly useful for elucidating these relationships.

Constructive Authenticity

A constructivist approach works from the premise that “tourists are indeed in search of authenticity; however, what they quest for is not objective authenticity but symbolic authenticity” (Culler, 1981; Wang, 1999, p. 217). Symbolic authenticity rejects a binary understanding of authenticity, and instead attends to the ways authenticity can be a judgment (Moscardo & Pearce, 1999), emergent (Cohen, 1988), contextual (Salamone, 1997), and can give rise to pluralistic interpretations (Bruner, 1994; DeLyser, 1999; Rickly-Boyd, 2012b). Bruner’s (1994) work at the boyhood home of Abraham Lincoln is particularly illustrative of a constructivist approach, as it uncovers multiple meanings of the concept at work by both tourists and staff at this site – originality, genuineness, historical verisimilitude, and authority.

Semiotically, constructivism justifies authenticity based on stereotypical images, expectations, and cultural preferences (Culler, 1981; Silver, 1993), while also demonstrating the agency of individuals and stakeholder groups in defining it in sometimes conflicting ways (Chhabra, Healy, & Sills, 2003; Crang, 1996; Evans-Pritchard, 1987; Lacy & Douglass, 2002; Metro-Roland, 2009; Moutela, Carreira, & Martínez-Roget, Chapter 7; Rickly-Boyd, 2013c; Wise & Farzin, Chapter 3). MacCannell’s (1973, 1976, 1999) development of six stages of tourism interaction, based on Goffman’s notion of social staging, engages a constructivist approach by demonstrating the use of staging, design, and atmospherics to encourage particular social interactions. In their comparison of literary tourism sites, Fawcett and Cormack (2001) focus on the use of staging to convey disparate histories related to the fictional story of Anne of Green Gables (similar cases in DeLyser, 2003; Halewood & Hannam, 2001; Salamone, 1997).

While Wang (1999) describes constructivist authenticity as an object-oriented perspective, Olsen (2002) suggests the incorporation of ritual and performance theory offers another means by which to understand experiential authenticity. Moreover, a constructivist perspective extends beyond perceptions to attend to touristic motivations and meaning-making processes (Bruner, 1994; Budruk, White, Woodrich, & Van Riper, 2008; DeLyser, 1999; Padilla, 2007; Rickly-Boyd, 2012b; Sims, 2009; Waller & Lea, 1998) and the ways broader cultural perceptions of what is “authentic” can emerge over time (Cohen, 1988). A useful illustration of emergent authenticity can be found in Disneyland Park in California, which has come to be recognized as the original, and thereby authentic, fantasy theme park of Walt Disney.

Postmodern Authenticity

The example of Disneyland also serves as illustration of the significance of the inauthentic in some tourism environments. Postmodern perspectives on authenticity thus justify the inauthenticity of tourism spaces – tourists seek the inauthentic merely because it offers a better, more stimulating experience (Wang, 1999) – through the concepts of “hyperreality” and “simulacra”, which assume that there is no original, only simulations of a real without a referent. The hyperreal is a simulated experience that fulfills the desire for the “real” (Eco, 1986), while simulacra is the increasing representation of the hyperreal with signs (Baudrillard, 1983; Lovell, Chapter 11). This can be extended to include the significance of souvenirs and photographs to the recollection of authentic moments of travel (Anastasiadou & Vettese, Chapter 10; Goss, 2004; Morgan & Pritchard, 2005; Rickly-Boyd, 2012a; Ruane, Quinn, & Flanagan, Chapter 9).

In the tourism context, Cohen (1995) suggests that in the “search for enjoyment”, tourists may accept “staged authenticity” and atmospherics as a protective substitute for the “original”. For example, zoos not only stage the enclosures of animals to mimic their natural environments, but the use of theming throughout walkways and “nature” sounds (birds, crickets, frogs, rain, and wind) on hidden speakers foster imaginative engagement for the visitor who may never travel to see these animals in their natural habitat. Indeed, Reisinger and Steiner contend, “authenticity is irrelevant to many tourists, who either do not value it, are suspicious of it, [or] are complicit in its cynical construction for commercial purposes” (2006, p. 66). However, the hyperreal and the simulacra are not always deceptive, but can also be seductive (Bolz, 1998, p. 1; Eco, 1986; Ritzer & Liska, 1997), as they draw the tourist’s imagination into a fantasy experience that breaks from the everyday (Lovell, Chapter 11).

More than seductive, some argue that authenticity is a fantasy (Knudsen, Rickly, & Vidon, 2016; Vidon, 2017) or an abyss (Oakes, 2006) that will always remain just outside the tourist’s grasp. This elusive quality has less to do “staged authenticity”, but is instead situated in the human psyche that will never be satisfied with the immediate experience. Oakes (2006) observes of self-proclaimed “humanitarian” tourists fleeing a village in southern China, that rather than face ourselves through tourism in “Other” places, tourists will turn and run to the next “authentic” place, so certain that authenticity does, that it must, exist. Knudsen et al. (2016) further elaborate on this fantasy of authenticity as crucial to driving tourists’ imaginations and the tourism industry, more broadly.

Existential Authenticity

Objective, constructive, and postmodern perspectives on authenticity are object-oriented, argues Wang (1999), thus leaving much underexamined in terms of an activity-based understanding of authenticity. As a result, existential authenticity has received much academic attention in recent years (Belhassen, Caton, & Stewart, 2008; Buchmann, Moore, & Fisher, 2010; Kim & Jamal, 2007; Pons, 2003; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006b) as a means to investigate the experiential aspects of authenticity. Specifically, Wang (1999) identified four components of existential authenticity that have been further evidenced in numerous studies: intrapersonal (bodily feeling and self-making) and interpersonal (family ties and communitas) (see also Kim & Jamal, 2007; Rickly-Boyd, 2012c). These facets suggest the significance of feelings, emotions, sensations, relationships, and the intersubjective to a sense of authenticity.

Intrapersonal Authenticity.

As one component of the intrapersonal dimension of existential authenticity, “bodily feelings” relate to central motivations and experiences of tourism (recreation, relaxation, adventure, rejuvenation, pleasure). For example, Cook (2010) highlights the importance of embodiment to existential authenticity in medical tourism. “Self-making” is the other component of intrapersonal authenticity (Wang, 1999). Tourism prioritizes attention to the self, which the constraints of daily routines and societal institutions often overwhelm, resulting in feelings of alienation (MacCannell, 1976, 1999). Thus, breaking from these norms, tourism can provide a structure in which individuals can act spontaneously, in line with their true feelings and authentic self. Oakes (2006) demonstrates the significance of self-making through cultural tourism by interrogating the disappointment of some American tourists to Miao villages in China, wherein they were greeted with exuberant commercial exchanges rather than as humanitarian guests.

Interpersonal Authenticity.

The second dimension of existential authenticity is composed of family ties and communitas which emphasize intersubjectivity. Tourists do not just seek just an authentic Other, or a “true” self, but also desire authenticity with others (Wang, 1999, p. 364). This includes family-oriented experiences that reinforce such bonds (Haldrup & Larsen, 2003; Redfoot, 1984), companionship and friendship (Buchmann et al., 2010; Crang, 1996), as well as communitas or spontaneous, temporary, informal communities (Esposito, 2010; Turner, 1969; Wang, 1999).

According to Wang, an “‘authentic self’ involves a balance between two parts of one’s Being: reason and emotion, self-constraint and spontaneity; Logos and Eros … inauthentic self arises when the balance between these two parts of being is broken down in such a way that rational factors over-control non-rational factors” (1999, pp. 360–361). This understanding of the experience of authenticity has been developed from existentialism broadly, and Heidegger’s theories generally, which argue that authenticity resides within the subject as a state of Being. Pearce and Moscardo (1986) were among the first scholars to suggest a Heideggerian perspective to authenticity, asserting that it can come from experiences with people and places, in accordance with Heidegger’s concepts of self-actualization and Dasein (Turner & Manning, 1988). Importantly, this potential for existential authenticity is, arguably, the result of the liminal nature of tourism, which offers the tourist a break from their everyday (Brown, 2013; Graburn, 1989, 2004; Turner, 1973).

However, existential authenticity is not something that is realized or enduring, but is fleeting. As Steiner and Reisinger point out, “[b]ecause existential authenticity is experience-oriented, the existential self is transient, not enduring, and not conforming to a type. It changes from moment to moment” (2006b, p. 303). Therefore, Heidegger’s (1996) three characteristics of authenticity (mineness, resoluteness, and situation) become important. According to Heidegger, existential authenticity happens in the rare experiences (situations) in which one recognizes the possibilities of the self (mineness) and acts with tenacity to claim one’s potential (resoluteness), rather than embrace “thy-self”.

With the increasing attention paid to existential authenticity has come greater engagement with existentialist philosophies. Collectively, these challenge the basic assumptions upon which “existential authenticity” in tourism has been built and suggest that what one has more likely been examining are notions of authentic experience, rather than the existentially authentic (Brown, 2013; Savener & Franzidis, Chapter 14; Shepherd, 2015; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006b).

Authentication and the Performative Turn

While there are growing critiques of the way existential authenticity has been so broadly applied in research, this perspective has brought with it greater attention to the performative nature of tourism and the enactment of authenticity. This aligns with the performative turn in the social sciences, more broadly, which challenges essentialist understandings by attending to the ways meaning is performed, enacted, processual, and always becoming. Shaffer’s (2004) autoethnographic study of performative authenticity in backpacking tourism offers rich, descriptive accounts of the semiotic interactions among the materialities of backpacking culture (a backpack, a journal, and a budget guidebook) and their performative enactment toward identification as either a leisure backpacker or a cultural backpacker. Similarly, Senda-Cook (2012) sheds light on the role of embodiment to performing authenticity and a sense of belonging. Examining hiking practices and their interpretations by other hikers, she demonstrates that performances of authenticity are about how other people’s behaviors are read and how this informs one’s own individual practice.

Focusing on authenticity as something that tourists and practitioners do and authenticity as an experience, Knudsen and Waade’s (2010b) edited volume of case studies demonstrates that existential authenticity should not be isolated as a type of authenticity, but rather phenomenological experiences and social constructionist meaning-making inform one another toward a performative notion of authentic experiences. By highlighting the processual aspect of authenticity, they also take up the social processes by which objects, sites, and encounters are authenticated (Gregorash, Chapter 9; Matos & Barbosa, Chapter 4; Pearce & Mohammadi, Chapter 5; Vidon, 2016, Chapter 13). This is a crucial and underexamined aspect of authenticity research, as it challenges the power structures by which authenticity is communicated.

Authentication is “the social process by which the authenticity of an attraction is confirmed” (Cohen & Cohen, 2012a, p. 1296). Inspired by Selwyn’s (1996) “hot” and “cool” authenticity, Cohen and Cohen (2012a) use these distinctions in slightly different ways. They build from Selwyn’s articulation of “hot” authenticity as social or emic and “cool” authenticity as scientific or etic, redirecting tourism discourse away from sociopsychological interests in experience and toward the social and political processes associated with each mode of authentication. Thus, authentication is about power relations. Xie’s (2011) study of ethnic tourism in China examines the various stakeholders (tourists, communities, government officials, and businesses) that make claims to cultural attractions and use their social and/or political power to influence the construction of ethnic identity (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2005; Cohen, 2002; Coomansingh, Chapter 6; L'Espoir Decosta & Andéhn, Chapter 2; Vidon,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Chapter 1 Introduction: From Pseudo-Events to Authentic Experiences
• Marketing Maneuvers
• Cultural (Mis)Interpretations
• Technological Interventions
• Theoretical Inquiries
• References
• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• Index