The Core of Heritage Tourism - Essay Example

Introduction Cultural tourism is basically tourism of the past. It is a way for tourists to examine the land in which they are touring by exploringthe customs and rituals of the native peoples, as these people hold the key to the heritage of the country. That said, authenticity is a complex word to define. Authenticity may be objective, which means that there is one way to define authenticity, and there is a standard and a measure of the same. It may also be constructive, which means that it is defined according to relative standards, and the meaning of the word can change according to politics and power. Or, it may be existential, in which it is entirely subjective and really depends upon how authentic the cultural display feels to the person experiencing it. The danger posed by cultural tourism is that culture may be lost. This is because the culture of the tourists and the culture of the natives may become intermingled, and there is no authenticity left. According to the view of those who coin the term “hyper-reality,” the result is that the distinction between inauthenticity and authenticity are collapsed. Therefore, authenticity is lost, and redefined according to a new paradigm that includes the mixing of tourist culture. This is obviously detrimental to the native populations, whose culture and rituals have been passed down from one generation to the next, and have a profound interest in keeping their culture alive. Another danger is that native people may be exploited through inauthentic cultural shows. A good example of this is the Maasai people who were on display at a Kenyan ranch owned by a wealthy Briton. The Maasai people put on a show for the wealthy visitors, and lived in mud huts on the property. They were not allowed to interact, and they were treated as one might treat animals in the zoo – strictly for display and entertainment. While the wealthy British people who viewed this spectacle politely clap, the Maasai are being stereotyped and humiliated. This is clearly the wrong way to go about cultural tourism. On the other hand, interactive experiences, where tourists immerse themselves in native culture, is authentic and allows natives to display their culture with pride. Other authentic displays of native rituals, such as the Balinese, who perform rituals not for the entertainment of the people but for the worship of their gods, is another good way for the natives to retain their culture while teaching tourists about the same. This paper will explore the theories behind cultural displays, why authenticity is important, what obstacles there are to authenticity, and will make a recommendation based on these findings. A theoretical discussion of authenticity and culture in tourism Authenticity in culture tourism takes place on a variety of planes and is impacted by a variety of things. Wang et al. (1999) posits that authenticity in cultural tourism is complex. The reason for the complexity is because authenticity may be either defined as objective, constructive or existential. Objective authenticity comes from the ability to judge authenticity in an objective manner. Therefore, even if the tourists feel that something is authentic, it may nevertheless be inauthentic if it is objectively judged to be so. Constructive authenticity, on the other hand, means that objects are judged to be authentic by shifting standards, according to power structures, points of view, beliefs or perspectives. Therefore, constructive authenticity cannot be objectively measured, as it is a relative standard, contextually determined and ever-evolving (Wang et al., 1999, p. 351). Moreover, cultural heritage may be politicized, in that heritage may defined or re-defined to serve national needs. Such is the case in China, and this contributes to constructive authenticity as well (Sofield & Li, 1998, p. 364). The third way that authenticity is defined, according to Wang et al. (1999) is existentially. This means that the person feels self-actualized while viewing these cultural items, and, basically, the person has had an “authentically good time” (Wang et al., 1999, p. 351). Culler (1990) states that the tourist has become reviled, partly because of the fact that tourist sites, which are built to attract them, are inauthentic of general culture, and this has a pejorative effect on the culture at large (Culler, 1990, p. 1). This inauthenticity may come from the process of inventing traditions. The concept of inventing traditions has been called “fakelore,” however, according to Bendix, scholars have recently revisited the concept of authenticity, or lack thereof, in the folklore traditions and have deconstructed it in such a way that manufactured traditions have become legitimate displays of expressive culture. This is because, while the traditional view of folklore and traditions holds that they must be something that has been passed down from one generation to the next, the current view is that these cultural expressions are a product of ideology, therefore they can be reinterpreted and changed. This allows for “invented traditions,” and this has become the norm as opposed to the rule (Bendix, 1989, p. 132). While this is one view of the intermingling between tourists and cultural attractions, there are other views, as this paper will examine, and these other views state that authenticity is important to culture, and the more pristine the cultural artifacts and rituals are, the better for the preservation of culture. Furthermore, Bendix (1989) talks about the symbiotic relationship between tourism and the host countries. Specifically, she found that the host country was so profoundly affected by the tourists that the culture began to change according to pressures of tourism. This results in a kind of “externally imposed authenticity” that may actually be in touch with actual cultural traditions. For proof of this, she cites the case of artists who are the business of tourist art, and found that these artists who are closely associated with such artistic endeavors actually produced word that was satisfying to his or her own cultural identity (Bendix, 1989, p. 133). While it is important that a host country maintain its traditions and culture, it must participate in tourism to remain vital, and this results in a kind of selling of the cultural image (Morris, 2002, p. 232). Morris (2002) states that selling cultural image results in the redefinition of culture, educational programs, and art forms (Morris, 2002, p. 232). Because of this, Morris says that the lines between authenticity and manufactured culture become blurred, so much so that the search for authenticity is defined by different cultural groups and institutions (Morris, 2002, p. 233). In other words, authenticity is no longer the province of becoming defined by one set group, but is, rather, in the eye of the beholder in many ways. Hughes (1995) further states that reality and representation may become blurred, so that a kind of “hyper-reality” may be created. This is when pseudo cultural artifacts and rituals are represented to the public in such a way that they reflect the clichéd representations which have been promoted by the media, and this has come to be what tourists might expect. Therefore, the authenticity of the objects are judged by the tourists against the media representation of the original, not the original itself. This kind of hyper-reality is seen in theme parks, malls and urban revitalization areas in the host country (Hughes, 1995, p. 782). Poria et al. (2003) echoes this when they state that a tourist’s perception of authenticity is influenced by the person’s understanding of what is real and authentic (Poria et al., 2003, p. 239). In other words, a tourist has a certain understanding of what is real and authentic, and whether or not they find something a real and authentic representation of a significant cultural artifact causes the person to perceive the object as real or authentic. A discussion on the importance of authenticity in developing cultural tourism destinations (1000) Authenticity is important in cultural tourism, and there are a variety of reasons why this would be so. One of the reasons for the importance of authenticity is from the perspective of the tourists themselves. Kim (2007) states the tourists are desperate for an authentic experience, because of the fact that the modern world seems increasingly artificial and inauthentic. However, because of modernity, which has commodified the culture, a process which is explained below, authenticity has increasingly become difficult to come by. This is exacerbated by the post-modern, in which the hyper-reality, explained above, has become the norm, and the distinction between the inauthentic and the authentic in culture has become collapsed and there is no longer a line between the two (Kim, 2007, p. 182). This may become a source of frustration for the tourist who is in search of an authentic experience. Another of the reasons is that retention of culture is important, particularly for certain subsets of society, like natives, and, if culture is to be retained, the cultural rituals cannot be corrupted by the outside world. Conservation of traditions, according to Kennedy (1998), is an important aesthetic and social movement (Kennedy, 1998, p. 179). Therefore, it is important that rituals and traditions retain a sense of authenticity, lest they become corrupted by the outside world. Picard (1990) discusses this concept in terms of the native Balinese. Bali is an island which was conquered by the Dutch in the middle of the 19th Century. By 1914, the country was put under Netherland Rule, and, by the 1920s, tourists began arriving to this island paradise. With the tourists came the fear that the culture of the native Balinese would be impacted by these interlopers in such a way that the natives would no longer be able to discern their own traditions from those of the visitors, and they would subsequently lose their traditions. This would, in turn, lead to the Balinese to adopt a tourist culture, and lose their own cultural traditions (Picard, 1990, p. 42). Picard (1990), however, asserts that these fears have been unfounded, largely because the Balinese performances for tourists have retained their authenticity, and they were not corrupted by a need to please the tourists. Specifically, the Bali dances are performed to please their gods, and the more authentic the dance, the better the gods are pleased. So, the rituals and dances are simultaneously a tribute to the gods and an entertainment for the people (Picard, 1990, p. 45). This allows for authenticity in performance, and shows why authenticity is important – because the Balinese did not corrupt their performances with inauthentic influences, ie the tourists, they were able to retain the cultural essence of these performances. This, in turn, helps the Balinese retain their culture, free from corrupting influences who might make their entire culture feel inauthentic. The Balinese have avoided becoming a commodity or simply a tourist object, which is a danger that is explained below, by retaining the authenticity of their rituals and practicing their rituals in such a way that they are not merely staged for tourists, but are authentic displays of the Balinese beliefs. Inauthentic displays of cultural tourism may lead to stereotypes of indigenous people, such as displays in New Zealand featuring the Maori people. Authentic displays, however, dispel these often-harmful stereotypes, and this is another reason why authenticity is important. The New Zealand-staged productions show the Maoris in a very artificial light, and promote the stereotype of the Maori as consisting of warriors and princesses. On the other hand, the tourists to New Zealand may also partake in a different experience that is more interactive between the tourists and the Maoris, and helps dispel stereotypes. Called the marae, in this experience, the tourists become absorbed in the Maori culture, as opposed to viewing the Maori people simply in a hotel or a museum. In this way, the tourists encounter the Maori in their own environment, thus being subjected to an authentic experience of the Maori. For instance, one of the stereotypes of the Maori is that there is a homogenized culture. This is incorrect, as the Maoris are tribal, and, as such, its culture is heterogeneous. This is one of the stereotypes that may be dispelled through this interactive experience. Moreover, the Maori people are able to provide an authentic display of their values to the tourists, and the tourists are better able to see the world through the eyes of the Maori through the interactive experiences (Taylor, 2001, p. 23). Thus, it becomes clear that authenticity in cultural tourism is important for a variety of reasons. Authenticity in cultural tourism is important to the native and indigenous populations because it helps them keep their culture intact, thus negating the effect that tourists might have in corrupting culture. Also, it helps in that the native people are not a stereotyped people on display, but, rather, a flesh and blood people whose values may be discerned and spread through the tourists. It thus becomes clear that it is increasingly important for cultural displays to not be separated from the naturalistic contexts. In other words, culture should not be something that is on a stage, to be watched like a play or examined as an object in a museum. These are living, breathing humans who are inhabiting these “roles” and they need to be seen as such. Taking cultural rituals and objects out of the artificial context, and into a naturalistic one, therefore seems to be the best way for tourists to experience native cultures. This has the added benefit of imparting more control to the native people, who might be oppressed by the dominant culture. This is because the tourists are invited to their environment, and, as such, they are no longer playing a stereotyped role but are able to act as naturally as possible and this gives them more control over the interaction with tourists. In turn, it is possible that these types of interactions may also provide more of economic benefit to the native populations, in that they would be more likely to be the owners of the businesses to which the tourists frequent, as these businesses would be located within the naturalistic compound that these interactions occur. An analytical discussion on the challenges and issues in retaining authenticity in cultural tourism One of the major challenges and issues in retaining authenticity in cultural tourism is the sense that these rituals and artifacts may realistically be seen as exploitation of a subset of culture, particularly if this subset has been oppressed. An excellent example of this is the Mayer’s ranch in Kenya, which produced elaborate shows for the well-heeled Britons who visited, starting in 1968. These shows featured the Maasai, which are a native people. The Maasai recreated traditional Maasai rituals for the guests, as well as enacting certain aspects of their cultures for the wealthy Britons. To enhance the authenticity, the Mayers had their Maasai actors live in mud huts, while the ranch itself was pristine, luxurious and well-manicured, with a large colonial-style house that housed the guests and the Mayers. The Maasai actors, despite the fact that they could, in life, speak perfect English, were not allowed to interact or talk with the guests, because this, too, was in keeping with the authentic experience (Bruner, 2001). The problem was, according to Bruner (2001), that the entire show was a little too authentic. An African-American group that visited this ranch and took in the show objected on the grounds that the show exploited the Maasai. As proof of this, they pointed to the fact that the Maasai lived in mud huts while the guests stayed in luxury. This smacked of neo-colonialism. Further, the Maasai actors were provided food as part of their compensation, and this was determined to be paternalistic. Moreover, the very sight of the Maasai’s dancing and other rituals was considered to be anachronistic. Because of all this, the entire production was shut down by the Kenyan government (Bruner, 2001, p. 885). The spectacle of the Maasai show at the Mayer ranch, and other displays like it has been termed “imperialist nostalgia,” which refers to the yearning and longing by Western conquerors for the traditional cultures that were deliberately destroyed (Bruner, 2001, p. 885). Perhaps this is a manifestation of Western guilt. At any rate, these displays are understandably insulting to conquered peoples. Therefore, displays that, while retaining authenticity, are exploitative of a group of people, particularly a group of oppressed people, will not be countenanced because of political correctness, and this is a major challenge that is faced in the authenticity tourism industry. Taylor (2001) concurs with this. He speaks of the Maori displays in New Zealand with much the same language. The cultural representation of the Maori to New Zealand tourists have reduced the Maori people to the equivalent of a museum piece or an animal in the zoo. This is because the rituals become staged culture, in that these pieces are like acts in a play as opposed to scenes which are acted out for real, thus this culture is taken out of context and it becomes inauthentic. This is particularly true when the cultural rituals are taken out of their indigenous sphere, and put into a commercialized one, thus they are objects of tourism as opposed to a representation of deeply felt beliefs (Taylor, 2001, p. 15). Authenticity attempts in cultural tourism is also challenged by the fact that culture has become just another item to be bought and sold, and culture itself is lost. This is what Stronza (2001) refers to the “commodification of culture.” This occurs when a host country’s cultural artifacts and rituals become commodities, just like any other commodity, and this causes the rituals and artifacts to lose their long-held cultural meaning. The locals then lose the meaning of the cultural artifact or ritual, as it becomes the property of the highest bidder (Stronza, 2001, p. 270). Culture is even seen, somewhat cynically, as just another marketing ploy (Halewood & Hannam, 2001, p. 567). This is especially egregious, according to Stronza, because of the impact that tourism has on the locals. Specifically, tourism diverts resources to golf courses and hotels, resources that do not benefit the locals, and it produces a great stratification between the wealthy and the poor locals. Thus, natives do not benefit from tourism, in fact, they are hurt by tourism, and the commodification of the rituals and customs that they hold dear simply adds insult to injury (Stronza, 2001, p. 270). Thus, it is more difficult to produce an authentic cultural experience when that experience is commodified, and this hurts the indigenous populations. The challenge, then, is to display for the tourists the native people, their customs and beliefs, without exploiting them. This is especially important because the land is often a “tourist trap” with golf courses, resorts and other luxurious amenities, and well-heeled travelers who pay good money to see the spectacles put on by the native population. A good example of this would be Jamaica, where the rich go to play, and there is a great disparity between rich and poor due to the fact that the indigenous population lives in desperate poverty while the wealthy own the resorts, spas, casinos, golf courses, etc. It is insulting to the native population for them to be merely a tourist spectacle, and this is something that is a challenge for anybody who wants to purvey an aura of authenticity to their proceedings. A further challenge is that cultural proceedings may increasingly be seen as a mere product. Thus, what should be a point of pride for native populations – that they are demonstrating for the tourists their culture, way of life, rituals, etc. – becomes nothing but a product to be bought and sold to the highest bidder, and something that is used in marketing strategies. This is another challenge for individuals who want to show authenticity in their cultural rituals, as commodification of these kinds of shows might make a tourist a cynic. The tourist may simply see the fact that he or she has to pay a certain amount of money to see the ritualistic shows and conclude that there is no value to the proceedings aside from entertainment. This would, in turn, diminish the people putting on the shows and would also lead to the perception that the proceedings are inauthentic. A discussion on the implications of your findings to tourism policy makers It is clear from the literature that authenticity is very important in cultural tourism. The reason for this is because the native populations of countries are not a museum piece, they are not animals in a zoo to be on display, and they are not stereotyped caricatures. They are not commodities. They are a living people with living traditions, and it is important that they not be displayed in a manner that would show that they are on display. Because of this, in order to preserve the culture of the peoples, including their dignity, artificial shows must not be a part of the tourist proceedings. Countries should be encouraged to have interactive experiences with the native population, as in New Zealand with the Maoris and Bali with the native Balinese. In these experiences, the tourists may live among the native peoples, and absorb the culture. They can eat in restaurants owned by the natives, learn the language of the natives, or at least key phrases, and observe the rituals in a natural setting. They can learn about the rituals and artifacts, as taught by the natives. They can even live among the natives if they so choose, and there should be options for this. The natives must not be hired as actors, they must not be given a script, and their actions must not be directed by a Westerner out to make a fast buck. Moreover, because too much commercialism associated with these experiences will necessarily reduce the experience to commodity status, tourist bureaus should be careful not to commercialise the experience to a great extent. For instance, gift shops should not be allowed to sell crass, tasteless items that would minimize the native people and enhance the perception that the native population’s culture is nothing but a commodity. The gift shops, on the other hand, should be allowed to sell items that are made by the native population, such as blankets, statuettes and the like. This would not only discourage the thought that the native culture is commodity, but would also encourage people to buy products from the natives, which would also enhance the native’s economic position in the country. These recommendations should be able to preserve the heritage of the native people, and keep the heritage from becoming mixed with the culture of the tourists. They should also discourage the perception that native culture displays are nothing but a commodity, which would necessarily cheapen the experience and affect the dignity of the natives. Conclusion It is clear that, in the realm of cultural tourism, authenticity is important. The reasons why it is important is because inauthentic displays of culture leads to a commodification of culture, and it also leads to a point where there is a hyper-reality. When there is a hyper-reality, the lines between the inauthentic culture and the authentic culture become blurred, to the point where there is not really an authentic culture left. This becomes apparent when the culture of the tourists mixes with the culture of the native populations, and it makes it more difficult for the native to retain any kind of semblance of cultural authenticity. Thus, encouraging authentic displays of culture is paramount in preserving native culture and preserving the dignity of the native population. This is shown in New Zealand, where tourists may live among the native and absorb native culture without having to resort to watching shows featuring native performers in a hotel or museum. Bali has also successfully integrated native shows for tourists, as these shows are authentic because they are not put on for the sake of the tourists but, rather, are put on for the sake of the natives, as these rituals are used to worship their gods. Therefore, it is important for tourist bureaus of countries to discourage exploitation through the use of inauthentic native shows that display native people as a kind of animal in a zoo, where the natives are not allowed to interact with guests and they have a script put on by the Westerner producing the show. Rather, it is important that the native people interact with tourists in a natural setting, in that the tourists live among the natives in their part of the land. This is the only way for there to be a semblance of an authentic display of native culture. Ballengee-Morris, C. 1989. Cultures for Sale. Studies in Art Education, vol. 43, no. 3: pp. 232-245. Bendix, R. 1989. Tourism and cultural displays: Inventing traditions for whom? The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 102, no. 404, pp. 131-146. Bruner, E. 2001. The Maasai and the Lion King. American Ethnologist, vol. 28, no. 4: pp. 881-908. Culler, J. 1990. Framing the Sign: Criticisms and Its Institutions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Franklin, A. & Crang, M. 2001. The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist Studies, vol. 1, no. 1: pp. 5-22. Halewood, C. & Hannam, K. 2001. Viking heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 3: pp. 565-580. Hughes, G. 1995. Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 4: pp. 781-803. Kennedy, D. 1998. Shakespeare and cultural tourism. Theatre Journal, vol. 50, no. 2: pp. 175-188. Kim, H. & Jamal, T. 2007. Tourist quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, no. 1: pp. 181-201. Poria, Y., Butler, R. & Airey, D. 2003. The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 30, no. 1: 238-254. Picard, M. 1990. Cultural tourism in Bali. Indonesia, vol. 49: pp. 37-74. Sofield, T. & Li, F. 1998. Tourism development and cultural policies in China. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 2: pp. 362-392. Stronza, A. 2001. Anthropology of tourism. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 30: pp. 261-283. Taylor, J. 2001. Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 1: pp. 7-26. Wang, N. 1999. Rethinking authenticity in the tourist experience. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2: pp. 349-370. Read More