Authenticity in Cultural Tourism Sites: A Critical Discussion

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Understanding the Concept of Authenticity
Brief Overview of Cultural Tourism Sites
Authenticity & Cultural Tourism Sites
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The extent to which tourists search for authentic experiences in visiting new places and peoples has aroused much interest among tourism researchers and practitioners (Alberts & Hazen 2010; Leonard 2011). Indeed, the search for authenticity has become a predominant trend powering tourism because contemporary tourists are looking for experiences that are not only unique as part of their pulsating and diverse world (Canadatourism.com 2006), but symbolize a break from the normal routines of everyday life (Leonard 2011).

Today, more than ever, a significant number of tourists are visiting historically significant sites, also known as cultural tourism sites, to expose themselves to novel information and experiences that satisfy their cultural needs (Landorf 2009). It has been demonstrated in the literature that most tourists visit these sites due to their authentic experiences and integrity (Ivanovic 2008).

However, with the concept of authenticity receiving wide-ranging following among this group of tourists, its ambiguity, limitations and lack of conceptual clarity continue to be increasingly exposed (Kelner 2006). As acknowledged by Wang (1999), critics are increasingly questioning its value and validity, citing the reason that the motivating agents for tourists’ experiences cannot be fully extrapolated in the realms of the conventional paradigm of authenticity.

This paper explores the concept of authenticity as it relates to cultural tourism sites. The aim is to provide a critical understanding of whether it is important for cultural tourism sites to be authentic. Most important, the paper will attempt to add some new insights on the value of authenticity to cultural tourism sites. The paper will sample some cultural tourism sites to seek a deeper understanding of the concept of authenticity as it relates to these sites.

Understanding the Concept of Authenticity

Hillman (n.d.) notes that the concept of authenticity has evolved to become a guiding principle in tourism studies ever since it was brought into the limelight by Dean MacCannell. However, as noted in literature, authenticity is an ambiguous term that continues to resist definition (Kelner 2006), owing to both the vagueness of the concept and the cultural suppositions embedded in it (Alberts & Hazen 2010).

Despite the shortcomings in definition and conceptualization, available literature demonstrates the centrality and dominance of the concept not only in tourism development and research but also in affording unique experiences to tourists who wish to sample what other cultures have to offer (Ivanovic 2008).

MacCannell (1976) cited in Alberts & Hazen (2010) suggested that tourists have become increasingly disenchanted by the homogenization and contamination of tourist experiences and enthusiastically search for ‘authentic’ others who can afford real and unadulterated connections to the sites being visited.

MacCannell’s suggestion fails to illuminate the real meaning of authenticity or authentic experiences, but it definitely bolds the growing desire of contemporary tourists to seek experiences and products that are original and real, and are not tainted by impurities and perceptions of fakeness (Ivanovic 2008).

In tourism terms, therefore, authenticity can be defined as “…a desired experience or benefit associated with certain types of tourism destinations…It is presumed to be the result of an encounter with true, un-commercialized, everyday life in a culture different than that of the visitor” (Ivanovic 2008, p. 321).

Leonard (2011) identifies ‘authentic-seeking’ tourists searching for real and unadulterated experiences and products not only as a leading growth area in the tourism sector but also one of the most popular across gender, age and sociodemographic groups.

According to Alberts & Hazen (2010), the notion of authenticity avails an opportunity for understanding how particular perspectives of location, time and culture attain more influence than others and direct decision-making paradigms about land use and tenure.

Such ideas, according to these authors, are of substantial relevance to situations in which tourism practitioners, managers and other stakeholders protect heritage or cultural sites for tourist consumption. In such cases, it is always imperative to question whether the cultural tourism site or the tourist viewer is more dominant in delineating what is considered authentic (Ivanovic 2008). This issue can best be understood by framing the concept of authenticity as it relates to cultural tourism sites.

Brief Overview of Cultural Tourism Sites

Richards (1996) cited in Alberts & Hazen (2010) defines cultural tourism as entailing the movement of people from their routine places of residence to cultural and heritage sites, with the view to share in the new experiences and satisfy their cultural desires.

Available literature demonstrates that attractions drive tourism (Wang 1999), and cultural and heritage resources are ideally positioned to become the fastest growing tourist attractions as they encompass the exceptional characteristics of a place, are experiential in nature and assist in promoting the rich tapestry of a destination’s customs, values, ethnic backgrounds and landscapes (McKercher & Yo 2006).

As cultural tourism sites universally become of greater significance, tourism authorities and other relevant stakeholders have sought to highlight elements of local and regional heritage by a multiplicity of methodologies with the intention of emphasizing authentic connections between present and past landscapes, cultures and peoples, and so stimulate and inspire tourism (Alberts & Hazen 2010).

This view is reinforced by Ivanovic (2008), who suggests that the cultural and heritage resources available in a destination are not only positioned as the ‘turbines’ and the foundation for culture-based tourism development but are the principal justifications for culturally inspired tourism travel to the destination.

It therefore follows that the inherent, authentic significance of cultural and heritage resources is the dominant pull ‘muscle’ behind what is primarily considered as tourism generating acumen of cultural or heritage destination. This intersection forms the basis for discussing the concept of authenticity as it relates to cultural tourism sites.

Authenticity & Cultural Tourism Sites

In recent years, there has been wide-ranging debate on whether cultural tourism sites should be authentic (Alberts & Hazen 2010), and the significance or value of authenticity in heritage tourism (Connell & Rugendyke 2010).

While some scholars underline the centrality and dominance of authentic experiences in heritage or cultural tourism sites, others are of the opinion that the concept is only a mirage that does not have a place in modern tourism. This section aims to analyze whether it is important for cultural tourism sites to be authentic and the value of authenticity in these sites.

Available literature demonstrates that “…heritage resource organizations that have advocated partnerships with heritage tourism have been explicit in their calls for authenticity” (Wiles & Stoep 2007, p. 292). Indeed, authenticity is not only viewed as an engine of growth and prosperity for many heritage sites but also as a necessary prerequisite for their survival and differentiation from other tourist attractions.

To be considered for listing as a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), for instance, cultural heritage sites must pass the test of “integrity” and/or “authenticity”, not mentioning that they must be of exceptional universal value (Alberts & Hazen 2010). This then implies that such properties must be able to primarily promote the true story of an area, alongside providing real value and objective appeal to visitors who desire to visit the sites.

A strand of existing literature (e.g., Wang 1999; Alberts & Hazen 2010; McKercher & Yo 2006) acknowledges that cultural tourism sites must have the capacity to provide objective, constructive and existential authenticity. In his seminal works on Authenticity and Tourism Experience, Wang (1999) argues that objective authenticity entails a traditional or conservative usage of the concept to denote an original object or product as the principle source of desired experiences by tourists.

Wiles & Stoep (2007) reinforce this view by suggesting that cultural tourism sites should be able to provide authenticity as an objective reality by stressing historic preservation and presentation of tangible, authentic products and artifacts to tourists.

Consequently, as noted by Ivanovic (2008), authenticity and distinctiveness as the dominant source of new cultural experiences and learning point to an overriding causal association between the critical aspects of an object or product of cultural tourism and gratification with the individual unique experience obtained from such consumption. These assertions lend credibility to the fact that it is of fundamental importance for cultural tourism sites to be authentic.

In their contribution to the debate on Authentic Tourist Sites, Connell & Rugendyke (2010) acknowledge that changes toward heritage tourism have resulted in the rejuvenation of culture and traditions, as well as development of tourist attractions that are to a large extent considered as authentic (re)presentations of ancient sceneries and peoples. These authors cite the Glen Innes region in northern New South Wales as a major cultural tourist site that projects objective authenticity.

For almost two decades, this region has asserted itself as the Celtic Country, with its magnificent standing stones, the stone monument, and predominantly Scottish culture. The basis for this Celtic Country link, according to these authors, derives from the fact that the Scots settled in Glen Innes town of Australia in 1838, and their tradition and culture has been authentically maintained and preserved to date.

Consequently, Glen Innes has managed to claim a leading position in Australian tourism, with its name being perceived by cultural visitors as a key link to uniqueness, distinctiveness and supported by a historical fact (Connell & Rugendyke 2010).

It is imperative to note that these attributes are the hallmark of objective authenticity, primarily because the authentic experience is triggered by the recognition of toured objects and products as authentic. Consequently, the importance of cultural tourist sites to be authentic cannot be ignored.

Alberts & Hazen (2010) acknowledge that “…authenticity is ascribed to a heritage resource that is materially original or genuine as it was constructed and as it has aged and weathered in time” (p. 60). For example, the cultural landscapes of Maasai Mara in Kenya and the intangible heritage of the Maasai people continue to attract millions of foreign tourists to the region due to the authentic nature of the experience (Leonard 2011).

The practices, representations and expressions which the Maasai recognize as part of their cultural heritage, coupled with the original and genuine cultural landscape in Savannah Africa, continue to provide unique experiences to tourists who pay huge sums of money in their desire not only to experience a different way of life but also to be part of a meaningful, quality educational experience.

Here, it is important to note that experiences are directly associated with the intensity of authenticity preserved in the products (Ivanovic 2008, p. 322). For example, travelers visiting the Constitution Hill Prison are likely to experience a deep sense of empathy when they learn about the anguish of prisoners in the now-preserved heritage site. These insights demonstrate the importance of cultural tourism sites to remain authentic.

Some cultural tourism sites come in the form of historic monuments or sites conceived as a work of art (Alberts & Hazen 2010). For example, the Statue of Liberty, Arlington National Cemetery, and the Liberty Bell are all historic monuments located in the United States, and which receive a significant number of cultural travelers annually (Leonard 2011).

In the United Kingdom, Stonehenge, the tower of London and the Trafalgar Square are historic monuments and sites that continue to attract millions of travelers each year in a desire to achieve a unique and distinctive experience (Adams 2012).

In all these sites and monuments, being authentic can be understood within the realm of an imaginative process entailing the production of these objects as genuine in time and space, and the effects of their passage through historical era (Alberts & Hazen 2010; Yeoman et al 2007). This can be understood as objective authenticity, implying that it is important for such sites and historic monuments to be authentic.

There exists another dimension of authenticity known as constructive authenticity. Debate is ongoing about the relative value of constructive authenticity to cultural and heritage sites and responses have been varied on its relationship to cultural tourist sites (Shen 2011).

According to Ivanovic (2008), constructive authenticity refers to the authenticity anticipated in toured cultural or heritage products by tourists or tourism stakeholders in terms of their similes, values, expectations, inclinations, beliefs, powers etc.

The school of thought believes there exist a variety of versions of authenticities concerning the same object and, correspondingly, authenticity can only be perceived as a socially constructed interpretation of the realness of toured objects or products (Shen 2011). Put in another way, this notion of authenticity assumes that every single object or a product can be presented and interpreted in diverse ways depending on the interpreter’s point of view, values, beliefs, perspectives or powers (Wang 1999).

When this notion of authenticity is illuminated under the prism of cultural tourism sites, it can be argued that the actual interface between host community and tourists creates the notion of authenticity toward toured cultural and heritage objects (Shen 2011). This interface forms the basis for the tourists to construct the authenticity of the toured object through subjective means depending on their beliefs and attitudes; that is, the meaning and interpretation of the cultural settings vary depending on the contexts and the individual tourists.

For example, two tourists visiting the Tower of London in Britain may have diverse interpretations of its authenticity depending on their points of view, beliefs, attitudes, values or expectations. However, the subjective interpretations do not imply that authenticity is not central to forming the unique experiences desired by tourists, thus its importance in relation to cultural tourist sites.

Wang (1999) introduces yet another typology by suggesting that people may visit heritage sites not because they find toured objects and products authentic but simply because they desire to engage in new and more fulfilling activities and experiences, away from the limitations of their everyday lives.

Here, the deviation from everyday life to experience something new triggers a stimulating experience that makes individuals to think that they are much more authentic and more liberally self-articulated by engaging in tourist activities and by sampling new cultures and way of life.

A strand of existing literature (e.g., Landorf 2009; Wang 1999) refers to this type of authenticity as existential because it is not achieved by touring the objects and products in the heritage site; rather, it comes as an existential state of being primarily activated by tourist activities.

It is often difficult to relate this typology of authenticity to cultural tourist sites as it reframes authenticity in terms of the tourists rather than the toured cultural or heritage products. However, some scholars have argued that this form of authenticity not only enhances self-actualization but also enhances consumption of experiences derived from the external sphere of cultural tourism (Leonard 2011; Yeoman et al 2007).

Conclusion

This paper has sufficiently discussed the broad topic of authenticity and demonstrated how this concept relates to cultural tourism sites. It has been demonstrated that tourists highly value encounters and experiences with ‘authentic’ others, prompting the subject to become a dominant agenda for tourism study (Wang 1999).

The various typologies of authenticity have been comprehensively discussed, with objective authenticity coming out as the critical guiding principle in explaining why cultural tourism sites need to be authentic.

However, other typologies, namely constructive and existential authenticity, have provided useful insights into understanding the concept of authenticity and how it relates to heritage and cultural sites. This paper opens up broad prospects for cultural tourism sites to justify and increasingly adopt and reinforce authenticity as the foundation of tourist motivations.

Reference List

Adams, S., 2012, Historic monuments in England. Web.

Alberts, H. C. & Hazen, H. D., 2010, ‘Maintaining authenticity and integrity at cultural world heritage sites’, Geographical Review, vol. 100 no. 1, pp. 56-73.

Canadatourism. 2006, Authenticity – what do they (tourists) really want? Web.

Connell, J. & Rugendyke, B., 2010, ‘Creating an authentic tourist site? The Australian standing stones, Glen Innes’, Australian Geographer, vol. 41 no. 1, pp. 87-100.

Hillman, W., Revisiting the concept of (objective) authenticity. Web.

Ivanovic, M., 2008, Cultural tourism, Cape Town: Juta & Company, Ltd.

Kelner, S., 2006, Narrative construction of authenticity in pilgrimage touring, Paper presented at the 96^th Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Anaheim, California. Web.

Landorf, C., 2009, ‘Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural world heritage sites’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 17 no. 1, pp. 53-70.

Leonard, M., 2011, ‘A tale of two cities: authentic tourism in Belfast’, Irish Journal of Sociology, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 111-126.

McKercher, B., & Ho, P. S. Y., 2006, ‘Assessing the tourism potential of smaller cultural and heritage attractions’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 14 no. 5, pp. 473-488.

Shen, M. J., 2011, ‘The effects of globalized authenticity on souvenir’, International Journal of Innovative Management, Information & Production, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 68-76.

Wang, N., 1999, ‘Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26 no. 2, pp. 349-370.

Wiles, C., & Stoep, G. V., 2007, Considerations of historical authenticity in heritage tourism planning and development, Proceedings of the 2007 northeastern recreation research symposium GTR-NRS-P-23. Web.

Yeoman, I., Brass, D. & McMahon-Beattie, U., 2007, ‘Current Issue in Tourism: The authentic tourist’, Tourism Management, vol. 28, pp. 1128-1138.

Click Here To Order Now!