Page 39 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 10(2) (2022)
P. 39
ia universitatisrable events that engage them in an inherently In this period of nearly 50 years, the discus-
what do you r eally want? 39 personal way. As paid-for experiences prolifer- sion of what authenticity really means has been
ate, people now decide where and when to spend going on in many different academic fields, from
their money and their time. But in a world in- questions about realism, representation and re-
creasingly filled with deliberately and sensation- ality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authen-
ally staged experiences, in an increasingly unreal ticity as idea” related to national identity and
world, consumers choose to buy or not buy based cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strat-
on how real they perceive an offering to be. They egy” in marketing and place branding. All these
claim that business today, therefore, is all about discussions influenced the question of authentic-
being real. Original. Genuine. Sincere. Authen- ity as a cultural concept in tourism and consum-
tic. Presenting the real past. And of course, this er culture from different analytical views, and re-
brings us back to the objects of dark tourism, el- lated the discussions of authenticity in tourism
ements of archaeological heritage linked to con- studies to other theoretical and academic fields
flicts and death as the optimal places to present – in our case archaeology as a specific constitu-
the authentic reconstruction of the past. tional element of cultural heritage.
Anticipating the future one might argue In the last two decades it was argued that
that as long as the tourist thinks a fantasy-lad- authenticity is a spent issue in tourism – that it is
en tourist site or experience is real, then this is no longer relevant to tourists, a redundant con-
simply inauthentic – if the tourist knows the site cept which they no longer concern themselves
is fake, and still likes it, perhaps even more than with. However, the fact that authenticity lacks
seeing the real thing, then this is hyper-reality. a universal definition does not prove its redun-
However, this taxonomy condemns as merely in- dancy. It simply shows that the concept has not
authentic many tourist sites and experiences that reached “basic concept status,” but then, it does
are so fantastic that the traveler should have re- not have to. As long as tourists continue to con-
alized they were fake, and perhaps did so on at cern themselves with evaluating authenticity of
least some level of consciousness (Cohen 2002). cultural objects and experiences by whatever cri-
teria they apply, then authenticity should remain
Conclusion: firmly embedded in the development of tourism
Participating – a dialogue with authenticity theory (Mkono 2012).
For tourism studies, allegations of inauthentic-
ity generally relate to staged events and touris- But is it still credible to consider and ana-
tic experience that fail the objective authentici- lyze consumer behavior as an expression of false
ty test – it assumes that there is an undistorted consciousness? If we accept that authenticity is
standard to determine what is or is not genuine never objective, but always constructed, then we
(Umbach and Humphrey 2018). But is it really should take seriously accounts whereby consum-
so? Here we can come to assess the appropriate- ers themselves perceive their experience as au-
ness of authenticity, not in terms of the appro- thentic. Empirical studies have explored con-
priateness of its explanatory and constitutive be- sumers’ own voices, and uncovered processes
liefs but instead in terms of whether an instance whereby consumers experience acts of consump-
of authenticity successfully plays the functional tion as helping them achieve moments, or subjec-
role that it is “meant” to play. And archaeology tive states, of authenticity. They see themselves
has a problem with that – as a discipline it has not as duped victims of false consciousness, but
a problem in defining what is it meant to do. To as active agents capable of framing and pursuing
preserve the authentic landscape, feature, item… life-goals with a degree of autonomy. Numer-
or to explain? It is easy to hide behind the pres- ous authors suggested that we ought to take such
ervation of the authentic but hard to explain it. positions seriously and treat consumers (in this
case tourists) as active agents in the production
what do you r eally want? 39 personal way. As paid-for experiences prolifer- sion of what authenticity really means has been
ate, people now decide where and when to spend going on in many different academic fields, from
their money and their time. But in a world in- questions about realism, representation and re-
creasingly filled with deliberately and sensation- ality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authen-
ally staged experiences, in an increasingly unreal ticity as idea” related to national identity and
world, consumers choose to buy or not buy based cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strat-
on how real they perceive an offering to be. They egy” in marketing and place branding. All these
claim that business today, therefore, is all about discussions influenced the question of authentic-
being real. Original. Genuine. Sincere. Authen- ity as a cultural concept in tourism and consum-
tic. Presenting the real past. And of course, this er culture from different analytical views, and re-
brings us back to the objects of dark tourism, el- lated the discussions of authenticity in tourism
ements of archaeological heritage linked to con- studies to other theoretical and academic fields
flicts and death as the optimal places to present – in our case archaeology as a specific constitu-
the authentic reconstruction of the past. tional element of cultural heritage.
Anticipating the future one might argue In the last two decades it was argued that
that as long as the tourist thinks a fantasy-lad- authenticity is a spent issue in tourism – that it is
en tourist site or experience is real, then this is no longer relevant to tourists, a redundant con-
simply inauthentic – if the tourist knows the site cept which they no longer concern themselves
is fake, and still likes it, perhaps even more than with. However, the fact that authenticity lacks
seeing the real thing, then this is hyper-reality. a universal definition does not prove its redun-
However, this taxonomy condemns as merely in- dancy. It simply shows that the concept has not
authentic many tourist sites and experiences that reached “basic concept status,” but then, it does
are so fantastic that the traveler should have re- not have to. As long as tourists continue to con-
alized they were fake, and perhaps did so on at cern themselves with evaluating authenticity of
least some level of consciousness (Cohen 2002). cultural objects and experiences by whatever cri-
teria they apply, then authenticity should remain
Conclusion: firmly embedded in the development of tourism
Participating – a dialogue with authenticity theory (Mkono 2012).
For tourism studies, allegations of inauthentic-
ity generally relate to staged events and touris- But is it still credible to consider and ana-
tic experience that fail the objective authentici- lyze consumer behavior as an expression of false
ty test – it assumes that there is an undistorted consciousness? If we accept that authenticity is
standard to determine what is or is not genuine never objective, but always constructed, then we
(Umbach and Humphrey 2018). But is it really should take seriously accounts whereby consum-
so? Here we can come to assess the appropriate- ers themselves perceive their experience as au-
ness of authenticity, not in terms of the appro- thentic. Empirical studies have explored con-
priateness of its explanatory and constitutive be- sumers’ own voices, and uncovered processes
liefs but instead in terms of whether an instance whereby consumers experience acts of consump-
of authenticity successfully plays the functional tion as helping them achieve moments, or subjec-
role that it is “meant” to play. And archaeology tive states, of authenticity. They see themselves
has a problem with that – as a discipline it has not as duped victims of false consciousness, but
a problem in defining what is it meant to do. To as active agents capable of framing and pursuing
preserve the authentic landscape, feature, item… life-goals with a degree of autonomy. Numer-
or to explain? It is easy to hide behind the pres- ous authors suggested that we ought to take such
ervation of the authentic but hard to explain it. positions seriously and treat consumers (in this
case tourists) as active agents in the production
