The Authenticity of Cultural Heritage - Essay Example

Authenticity of Cultural Heritage Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx August 10th, 2012. Introduction Cultural tourism has been growing in the world since the concept was adopted in the 1970s (Wang 1999, pp. 349). This type of tourism is where tourists visit a particular destination as they are attracted by the cultural assets of the host community. Cultural assets are both tangible and intangible; tangible cultural assets include music performances, cultural rituals, and festivals while intangible one includes buildings, churches and shrines. Cultural tourists are usually motivated to visit a particular attraction if they perceive the cultural products they will interact as authentic. The uniqueness of the tourist products adds value and worth to the experience of a tourist on his vacation. This however brings up the question of what is an authentic tourist product and which one is not. The concept of authenticity in the tourist industry is a determinant of the popularity of a destination, but different stakeholders in the industry view the issue of authenticity differently. The definitions and concepts of authenticity also differ from culture to culture and from individual to individual. This paper explores the various definitions and perspectives of authenticity taken by various stakeholders of cultural assets. Secondly, it explores the impact the presentation and perception of a cultural asset as authentic has on the tourist product. Secondly, it explores how communities that benefit from a tourist product can influence the perception of others of the tourist product as authentic. Definitions and perspectives of authenticity Based on different cultural background and dynamism associated with the way of life of people, authenticity of cultural tourism has no specific definition. Authenticity as applied in tourism refers to the extent at which someone or something is true to his/her or its own spirit, character and personality regardless of any external forces/pressure that may influence it. The external forces conflict with the existing ones because they are not similar or identical. From this, there is no one culture that considers itself as having one of the many types of reality. However, driven the notion of different cultural background and dynamism we discuss the different definitions of authenticity concept. Authenticity according to Sharpley (1994) should not be given any tangible quality which can be associated with a particular event/ product and should not provide a basis of judging tourism. Nevertheless, as Rushdie (1991) pointed out, authenticity is a combination of the “old-fashion” language, style/s, forms, sources, and symbols that work homogenously under indivisible traditions. Here, without these elements working together without external pressures and in one simple tradition, then the concept of authenticity comes in. This definition concurs with Theobald (2006) definition for authenticity; which reads “authenticity means genuine, real thing, unadulterated. It is clear that all these definitions of authenticity have different concepts of approaching and addressing the issue of cultural or heritage tourism. However, we can combine the concepts relayed in these definitions and come up with our own definition of authenticity. Hence, authenticity can be defined as the experience which addresses the culture of others like the host society and the host people. In that sense, tourism is one of the concepts of authenticating human experiences of different cultures. As McCannell (1976) writes “tourism is the search for the authentic in human experience.” In addition, he claims that the failure of not seeing everything as ought to be seen is not a matter of being a bad or good tourist since the main desire for every tourist is to explore and have inner interaction with the society and culture of the host society to a certain degree. As defined earlier, authenticity includes the element of extent/degree. The question is, to what degree do a tourist need to interact and explore the culture of the host society for the experience to be termed authentic. Despite these definitions and concepts of authenticity, authors have devised three perspective of describing authenticity. The three cluster around theoretical basis of postmodernism, constructivism, and objectivism. Moreover, Wang (1999) has another approach called the existential authenticity. In existential authenticity, places, objects, and cultures that are toured are not termed as authentic. Cohen (2007) contends that due to deferent existing definitions of authenticity, the idea of simple tangible material quality of authenticity is no longer practical. Therefore, he introduced six other possible definitions of authenticity. One; authenticity as the custom practice with longer application; two, authenticity in respect to unadulterated products; authenticity of the validity of the relationship that exist between the two parties; authenticity of the creativity i.e. music and dance, and others. These definitions also are not satisfactory in the sense that they are terming authenticity in the light of external measurement with the aspect of interaction. Pearce (2007) concludes the definition by stating that authenticity is the connection of employers and customers of the word “authenticity” by relating it to other terms in tourism by applying innovative ideas so as to give authenticity a tourism breakdown. Impacts of presenting a tourist product as Authentic The post-modernism perspective of authenticity has reconciled itself with the idea of staged authenticity. The approach expands the knowledge boundaries of the authenticity by creating what is called a hyper reality in the minds of cultural travellers (Wang 1999, pp 357). By staging authenticity a culture is able to create new cultural assets which later become to be regarded as authentic. The Disney theme park is one of the examples where presentation of an asset as authentic has led to the birth of a new tourist attraction (Wang 1999, pp 356). The park is so popular that majority of people who grow up in America dream of one day visiting it. However, staged authenticity has a number of implications on the host, cultural heritage management, the tourism industry and tourist the main players associated with cultural tourism. These effects are both negative and positive depending on the perspective of the cultural tourist player. One of the positive effects of presenting an attraction as authentic is its increase in popularity. Western tourist main motivation for travel remains the search for authentic attractions. Its then follows that if heritage managers can be able to project their cultural assets as authentic then more tourists will visit their sites. The Maori culture in New Zealand continues to attract thousands of tourists every year even though the performances they see are not the authentic thing but rather present a reflection of traditional Maori rituals (Taylor 2001, pp 15). Secondly, staged authenticity revives the pride of communities regarded as backward in their own countries (Cole 2007, 952). By valuable cultural practice for marginalised communities this makes them more visible in decision making and they are recognized for their contribution to their own society. Another notable positive impact of perceived authenticity is the renewal and preservation of traditional practices. When a host community realizes the potential of their cultural assets they are encouraged to revert to this practice and uphold characteristics of their culture that promote the particular cultural product. Secondly, some cultures use staged authenticity to protect the original culture in the back regions by presenting a front that simulates the original culture to avoid interaction of tourists with the back regions (Taylor 2001, pp.17) . However, staged authenticity may also affect a tourist attraction negatively. According MacCanell (1999) the quest for authenticity is doomed as staged authenticity has taken the place of authenticity. Thus, a tourist travelling with the main motivation as authenticity will be disappointed with his excursion if he realizes the experience is not authentic. This will lead to decline of the cultural asset as loyalty to a tourist asset is dependent on his/her continued view it as authentic. Olsen (2002) notes that the presence of a foreigner in an authentic setting destroys the authenticity of the rituals and traditional ceremonies as traditional only members of those communities were supposed to attend. Over time as these rituals are performed in the presence of outsiders they lose their meaning leading to the erosion of the cultures of the hosts. Staged authenticity is also responsible for the stealing of the cultural rights of host communities and communities who are rich culturally. Commercialization of tourist products is responsible for this phenomenon. Staged authenticity has enabled the performance of traditional dances by non-members of communities who are custodians of the particular dance. This practice is common in African countries where tourist may travel to watch a traditional dance by the indigenous communities but in actual sense the dances are performed by individuals from another community (Taylor 2001, pp 20). In the case above the custodians of the cultural practice are denied their right to be compensated for the cultural asset they have developed. Staged authenticity also widens the gap cultures as it limits the contact between the host community and the tourists (Taylor 2001, pp 20). Where tourists have to watch as dance or rituals are performed they remain in the audience and are unable to interact with culture of the individuals in the performance. This lack of personal interaction with the custodians of culture reinforces ethnocentric views of tourists of the culture as nobody is able to expound the context and meanings of the performance. This unfortunate state of affairs is found in Maori performances for tourists which incorporate a lot of caricatures and stereotypes (Taylor 2001, pp 20). How can communities influence the perception of authenticity? When we look at the question whether community interfere with authenticity of cultural heritage, the concept of cultural assets comes handy. Cultural assets are those products that are created people way of life. They are not changed and they are valued for their “intrinsic” values. In addition, cultural assets differ from culture to culture and they must be perspective in the cultural context of the way of life of the host community (Taylor 2001, pp. 23). For example, the houses, monuments, landscape and jewellery connote different cultural assets. Moreover, different assets have different material or psychological values such as historic, spiritual, recreational and alike. These assets attract different interests of the tourist and can be changed to cultural tourism products. Cultural tourism can be defined as the visiting of cultural sites as well as interacting with the way of life of the people involved. It also encapsulates both present and the past tangible and intangible elements of the way of life of the people. In that respect, cultural tourism is the umbrella under which sites like heritage, museum, arts, and ethnic lays. Therefore, if these basic elements of the way of life differ, the authenticity of the cultural heritage will also differ. Since the assets are defined and created by a culture, they must be authentic. In that respect, the assets are not adulterated (pure) and it is real. Therefore, if a certain community fail’s to preserve its assets than there is no authenticity of tourism. It is also clear that if the cultural assets of a certain community are not well defined, then there will be no tourism and consequently there will be no authenticity of cultural heritage tourism. Generally, you cannot separate cultural assets with authenticity of cultural heritage (Reisinger & Steiner 2006, pp. 56). Therefore, if a community’s cultural assets are not attracting tourist’s interests, then the authenticity of the tourism in that community fails to meet the basic requirement for authenticity. Nevertheless, if the present and the past cultural assets and experience with other cultures are well defined, then the authenticity of the cultural heritage exist. However, if the cultural assets are not clear because of modification, the authenticity of the assets is also unclear. What follows is that, the authenticity of the cultural heritage lacks proper meaning. It is important to note that, not all communities regard the cultural heritage as a source of attraction of tourist hence disregarding their assets. With this in mind, some of the cultural heritages have not authenticity even to the slightest degree. It is taken that the host community must preserve the interest of the assets for it to be authentic (Olsen 2002, pp. 18). However, if the host community fails to preserve the interest of the assets the authenticity fails too. Moreover, it is observed that tourist only visit those assets that are popular and attractive. Hence, the community must see to it that its assets meet these basic requirements for its cultural heritage to be authentic. Finally, since the degree of interaction between two or more communities varies depending on the interests, so is the authenticity differ depending on the same interests. Conclusion The question of authenticity in cultural assets continues to be controversial and the debate of what constitutes an authentic tourist product is set to continue into the future. With the differing definitions and perspectives of authenticity available, most authors view the search for authenticity as just an illusion created in the tourists mind as authenticity can only be determined at the individual level. However, the importance of the perception of a tourist product as authentic is undeniable. Other than adding commercial value to a cultural asset, staged authenticity also promotes a sense of pride among marginalized host communities. It also increases their visibility in political decision making in their respective countries. Nevertheless, it has various negative effects on the tourist products, host culture and the tourist. These impacts include decline of cultural assets perceived as inauthentic, pilfering away of cultural assets of some communities and the promotion of ethnocentric attitudes. It can be concluded that staged authenticity has a positive impact on a tourist product and most importantly the host culture and thus communities and host community should present their cultural assets as authentic. References Cohen, E 2007,’Authenticity" in Tourism Studies: Apreś la Lutte’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol.32, no.2, pp.75-82. Cole, S 2007, ‘Beyond authenticity and commodification’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, no.4, pp. 943-960. MacCanell, D 1999, The ethics of sightseeing, University of California Press, Berkley. Olsen, K 2002, ‘Authenticity as a concept in tourism research – The social organization of the experience of authenticity’, Tourist Studies, vol 2, no.2, pp. 159-182. Pearce, P 2007, 'Persisting With Authenticity: Gleaning Contemporary Insights for Future Tourism Studies', Tourism Recreation Research,vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 86-89. Reisinger, Y & Steiner, C 2006, 'Reconceptualising Object Authenticity', Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 33, issue 1, pp. 65-86. 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 Tourism Experience', Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 349-370. Read More

However, driven the notion of different cultural background and dynamism we discuss the different definitions of authenticity concept. Authenticity according to Sharpley (1994) should not be given any tangible quality which can be associated with a particular event/ product and should not provide a basis of judging tourism. Nevertheless, as Rushdie (1991) pointed out, authenticity is a combination of the “old-fashion” language, style/s, forms, sources, and symbols that work homogenously under indivisible traditions.

Here, without these elements working together without external pressures and in one simple tradition, then the concept of authenticity comes in. This definition concurs with Theobald (2006) definition for authenticity; which reads “authenticity means genuine, real thing, unadulterated. It is clear that all these definitions of authenticity have different concepts of approaching and addressing the issue of cultural or heritage tourism. However, we can combine the concepts relayed in these definitions and come up with our own definition of authenticity.

Hence, authenticity can be defined as the experience which addresses the culture of others like the host society and the host people. In that sense, tourism is one of the concepts of authenticating human experiences of different cultures. As McCannell (1976) writes “tourism is the search for the authentic in human experience.” In addition, he claims that the failure of not seeing everything as ought to be seen is not a matter of being a bad or good tourist since the main desire for every tourist is to explore and have inner interaction with the society and culture of the host society to a certain degree.

As defined earlier, authenticity includes the element of extent/degree. The question is, to what degree do a tourist need to interact and explore the culture of the host society for the experience to be termed authentic. Despite these definitions and concepts of authenticity, authors have devised three perspective of describing authenticity. The three cluster around theoretical basis of postmodernism, constructivism, and objectivism. Moreover, Wang (1999) has another approach called the existential authenticity.

In existential authenticity, places, objects, and cultures that are toured are not termed as authentic. Cohen (2007) contends that due to deferent existing definitions of authenticity, the idea of simple tangible material quality of authenticity is no longer practical. Therefore, he introduced six other possible definitions of authenticity. One; authenticity as the custom practice with longer application; two, authenticity in respect to unadulterated products; authenticity of the validity of the relationship that exist between the two parties; authenticity of the creativity i.e. music and dance, and others.

These definitions also are not satisfactory in the sense that they are terming authenticity in the light of external measurement with the aspect of interaction. Pearce (2007) concludes the definition by stating that authenticity is the connection of employers and customers of the word “authenticity” by relating it to other terms in tourism by applying innovative ideas so as to give authenticity a tourism breakdown. Impacts of presenting a tourist product as Authentic The post-modernism perspective of authenticity has reconciled itself with the idea of staged authenticity.

The approach expands the knowledge boundaries of the authenticity by creating what is called a hyper reality in the minds of cultural travellers (Wang 1999, pp 357). By staging authenticity a culture is able to create new cultural assets which later become to be regarded as authentic. The Disney theme park is one of the examples where presentation of an asset as authentic has led to the birth of a new tourist attraction (Wang 1999, pp 356). The park is so popular that majority of people who grow up in America dream of one day visiting it.

However, staged authenticity has a number of implications on the host, cultural heritage management, the tourism industry and tourist the main players associated with cultural tourism.

Read More