AUTHENTICITY OF THEOBJECTIVELY AUTHENTIC

Deepak ChhabraArizona State University, USA

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 499–502, 20120160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 480–502 499

Authenticity continues to be an important criterion in the development and pro-motion of heritage tourism (Kolar & Zabkar, 2009; Xie & Wall, 2002). The discursivepath of authenticity can be traced to five prominent views (Chhabra, 2010; Ramkisson& Uysal, 2010; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006): objective, constructivist, negotiated,existentialist, and theoplacity. Objective advocates pure, frozen, original, made by lo-cals and genuine versions of heritage while the constructivist notion advocates theinfluence of capitalism and commercialization of genuine authenticity. The negoti-ated stance seeks to establish a tradeoff between objective and constructivist notionsof authenticity (Chhabra, 2010). The existentialist framework, on the other hand,supports a subjective version of authenticity (Wang, 1999; Poria, Butler, & Airey,2003) and refers to one’s state of mind and perceptions, self discovery, truth ofthe moment, and feelings of being touch with oneself (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).Theoplacity echoes a compromise between existentialist and objective ideologies(Belhassen, Caton, & Stewart, 2008) and argues that the existentialist notion is dee-ply entwined with the objective ideology and the compromise seeks to ‘‘integrate cul-tural and social meanings with physical objects’’ (Chhabra, 2010, p. 794).

Evidence thus exists of the continued primacy of the objective authenticity dis-course in heritage tourism. For instance, Littrell, Anderson, and Brown (1993)claim genuineness and historical integrity to be a crucial criterion for souvenir con-sumption. Furthermore, both negotiation and theoplacity versions of authenticitydraw heavily on this ideology. Quest for original authenticity in heritage tourism isa prominent trend today (Chhabra, 2010; Kolar & Zabkar, 2009; Ramkisson &Uysal, 2010) and the discursive vocabulary continues to hold that the original isbetter than the copied or modified versions (Bruner, 1994; Olsen, 2002) contraryto early claims that most tourists seek pseudo experiences (Boorstin, 1964). Extantrecent literature confirms that the objective manifestations of authenticity motivateheritage tourists to travel to distant places and times. However, this form of authen-ticity is complex, pluralist and is subject to pre-supposed multiple connotationssuch as genuine, actual, real, continuity, pristine, originality, made in the placeof origin, made by the indigenous people, and made by locals (Chhabra, 2005;Chhabra, 2010; Cohen, 2007). Without doubt then, the sources and influencesappropriated to endorse objective authenticity need to be investigated and exam-ined. For instance, Wiles and Stoep maintain that ‘the notion of objective truth orreality has been challenged by the idea that historians and the sources of historicalinformation with which they work, have inherent biases that influence what can beknown about the past’’ (2007, p. 292). The controversial nature of this term is alsonoted by Cohen who is of the view that, ‘‘the discourse of objective authenticity isblurred from genuine fakes to authentic reproductions’’ (1988, p. 77). Timothyand Boyd (2003) also note that a sanitized or selected version of real past is a piece-meal version of what a society or community wants to reveal or remember.

The concept of objective authenticity is therefore insufficiently developed in her-itage tourism literature in that its complexities and controversial nature remain un-

veiled. It is important to ascertain if it has served and will continue to serve a usefulpurpose in the sustainable use of heritage resources. Ultimately, the challenge is todevelop a new multifaceted methodological paradigm to analyze effectively the real-ist views of objective authenticity and critically examine their sanitized expressions.This research note suggests a model underpinned on a modified perspective of thehistoric-critical method by taking into consideration several issues pivotal to theunderstanding of the displayed orchestrations of objective authenticity.

The traditional historic-critical method is premised on a combination of multi-ple approaches, often referred to as data triangulation. It is concerned with an in-depth study of facts related to the past using a critical lens. Melkart and Vos arguethat ‘‘it is important to learn how to deal with historic sources (both primary andsecondary) in order to establish facts about the past’’ (2011:39). Primary sourcesinclude written material or visuals from the past such as letters, postcards, photo-graphs, travel journals, and autobiographies while secondary sources can consist ofbiographies. Tangible traces of heritage are included in ‘‘artifacts, buildings, pic-tures and changes in the landscape’’ and intangible heritage includes oral andwritten poems, language etc. Regardless of the source, the key objective is to‘‘try and understand how the source was understood in its own time. This alsoestablishes how representative a source is for the developments of the historicalperiod it dates from’’ (Melkart & Vos, 2011, p. 38).

While the proposed historic-critical method by Melkart and Vos (2011) offersmultiple dimensions, it falls short of outlining the socio-cultural environmentand dissonance manifested in selected heritage. Objective authenticity needs tobe critically examined in conjunction with the sources from where idealized andsanitized verifications are sought. To this end, further research opportunity existscalling for a holistic critical-history methods approach to confirm objective claimsof authenticity. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to suggest a modified ver-sion of the historic critical method to investigate the authenticity of heritageclaimed to be objectively authentic. Figure 1 presents the threefold path for objec-tive authenticity investigations: (1) identify multiple meanings/definitions such asthe ones offered in the figure; (2) verify through the identification of multifacetedsources and (3) unfold the complete backdrop reality guiding sources and mean-ings through the lens of dissonance, multiple realities, prevailing traditions, andvalue judgments. Also, understand the author position (identity) by examiningthe chronological distance and influence of socio-cultural/economic/politicalenvironments and understanding the extent to which they explain compromisesto truth, accuracy, and originality.

Therefore the path to objective authenticity is complex and fluid. For instance,truth about traditions is contestable (Timothy & Boyd, 2003) in that traditions ex-tend a personal interpretation of the subject matter such as memoirs, travel re-cords, and essays. Also, it is important to determine the socio-cultural position ofthe author. The truth moreover of the un-interpreted material (such as bills, notes,letters, contracts etc.) needs to be questioned because it is likely to be contrived orpresented as a distorted version of the period of history, hide elements that a soci-ety might not feel proud of or may tend to avoid controversial issues or have a hid-den agenda (Melkart & Vos, 2011, p. 39).

Several controversies cloud the influence on realism and palatable versions ofhistory, thereby implying distortions, dissonance, and multiple realities. For in-stance, Timothy and Boyd state that heritage ‘‘involves choices from a vast arrayof pasts, many of which will not be selected’’ (2003: 257). In line with this perspec-tive, Cohen (2007) raises a noteworthy question in his paper: which one is moreobjectively authentic—an old church or a church converted into a museum? Thisimplies that whichever direction the decision is slanted, investigation and verifica-tion of objective authenticity is an equally complex task. The proposed frameworkaims to fit the claimed objectively authentic subject matter to research history and

500 Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 480–502

past in that it will employ innovative methodological techniques to know the truthabout claimed authenticity. More specifically, it can prove to be a valuable mech-anism in determining the authenticity of the authentic and help generate aware-ness of the pitfalls associated with primary and secondary historical sources byexamining them in the context of the author’s, and knowledge of how and wherethe source was written or produced. An advanced data verification technique usingmultiple perspectives can unveil crucial and forgotten or biased claims to objectiveauthenticity and also attempt to explain what created them, thereby enhancingheritage equity for present and future generations. It can offer guidance towardsan objective authenticity blueprint and an exemplar to build upon.

Deepak Chhabra: Arizona State University, Arizona, United States. Email <deep-ak.chhabra@asu.edu>

REFERENCES

Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. (2008). The search for authenticity in thepilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668–689.

Boorstin, D. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:Atheneum.

Bruner, E. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A critique ofPostmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397–415.

Chhabra, D. (2005). Defining authenticity and its determinants: Toward anauthenticity flow model. Journal of Travel Research, 44, 64–73.

Objective authenticity today

Sources: Organizations/institutions Programs Books Historians Scholars Historic documents Information provided by the donor Photographs Things related to the specific geographic area of the object

Definitions (Supply or Demand Versions or Independent Entities): Real not manufactured True to the original object -replication Verified by historians Made by locals in a traditional manner Should have a documented history Should be from the actual period

Heritage/tradition versions - Complete reality

Socio-cultural/economic Context -identity

Figure 1. Authenticity of the Authentic.

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 480–502 501

Chhabra, D. (2010). Back to the past. A sub-segment of generation Y’s perceptionsof authenticity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 793–809.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 15, 371–386.

Cohen, E. (2007). Authenticity in tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research,32(2), 75–82.

Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2009). A consumer-based model of authenticity: AnOxymoron or the Foundation of Cultural Heritage Marketing. TourismManagement, 31, 652–664.

Littrell, M., Anderson, L., & Brown, P. (1993). What makes a craft souvenirauthentic?. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 197–215.

Melkart, M., & Vos, K. (2011). A comparison of quantitative and qualitativeapproaches: Complementarities and trade-offs. In G. Richards & W. Munsters(Eds.), Cultural tourism research methods (pp. 33–40). UK: CABI.

Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The socialorganization of the experience of authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2, 159–182.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 30(1), 238–254.

Ramkisson, H., & Uysal, M. (2010). Testing the role testing the role of authenticityin cultural tourism consumption: A case of mauritius. Tourism Analysis, 15(5),571–583.

Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(1), 65–86.

Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice Hall.Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism

Research, 26, 349–370.Wiles, C., & Stoep, G. (2007). Consideration of historical authenticity in heritage

tourism planning and development. In Proceedings of the 2007 northeasternrecreation research symposium (pp. 292–297).

Xie, P., & Wall, G. (2002). Visitors’ perceptions of authenticity at cultural attractionsin Hainan, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 353–366.

Received 21 February 2011. Revised 27 July 2011. Accepted for publication 08 September 2011

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.09.005

502 Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 480–502