احراز هویت : گرم و سرد

Seeking to shift the discussion of the concept of authenticity in tourism scholarship from the dominant concern with tourist experiences to the more sociological problem of the processes of authentication of tourist attractions, we conceptualize two analytically distinct, but practically often intersecting, modes of authentication of attractions, “cool” and “hot”. Through a range of examples, we demonstrate the implications of the two modes for the dynamics of the constitution of tourist attractions, examine their interaction, and illustrate how “cool” and “hot” authentication can be conducive to different types of personal experiences of authenticity. We furthermore explore the crucial question of who is authorized to authenticate tourist attractions, and thereby uncover issues of power and contestation in the politics of authentication.

The sociological treatment of the relationship between tourism and modernity has been focused on the concept of “authenticity,” ever since MacCannell, 1973 and MacCannell, 1976 introduced it into the academic discourse of tourism in the 1970s, in his argument regarding the “staged authenticity” of tourist attractions. In the wide-ranging discussion following MacCannell’s opening, the concept has been interpreted and re-interpreted in various ways with regard to such issues as the nature of authenticity, its construction and experience (e.g. Belhassen et al., 2008, Bruner, 2005, Buchmann et al., 2010, Cohen, 1988, Cohen, 2007a, Crang, 1996, Knudsen and Waade, 2010, Lau, 2010, Olsen, 2002, Reisinger and Steiner, 2006, Rickly-Boyd, 2012 and Steiner and Reisinger, 2006). However, the discussion failed to lead to a broad consensus, which would make authenticity the anchor of a general paradigm for the study of modern tourism, but instead resulted in diverse theoretical perspectives (Rickly-Boyd, 2012). The three types of authenticity distinguished by Wang, 1999 and Wang, 2000, objective (object) authenticity (further discussed by Lau, 2010 and Reisinger and Steiner, 2006), constructed authenticity (Cohen, 1988 and Olsen, 2002) and existential (subjective) authenticity (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006) are still engendering separate discourses, despite some efforts at bridging them (e.g. Rickly-Boyd, 2012). It is important to note that the three discourses are not on the same level: while objective (object) authenticity and existential (subjective) authenticity denote different types of (personally experienced) authenticity, constructed authenticity does not; rather, it relates implicitly to the process of social construction of the other two types. But, though frequently deployed as a concept, the processes by which authenticity is constructed remain analytically under-developed. Several important questions are still un-explicated: Is there only one or are there several ways by which authenticity is established in the tourism domain? Is there a difference between the processes through which objective, as against existential, authenticity is established? Who has the power to endow tourist attractions with authenticity? In this article we shall approach these questions from a new perspective: the process of authentication. It should be noted that, whereas the concept of authenticity has been widely discussed in tourism studies, authentication, as the social process by which the authenticity of an attraction is confirmed, remains almost unexplored. The issue of authentication has, however, recently attracted the attention of several researchers (e.g. Alexander, 2009, Ateljevic and Doorne, 2005, Noy, 2009 and Xie, 2011). Jackson (1999, p. 101) in fact went so far as to “propose to abandon the search for ‘authenticity’ and to examine the more tractable question of ‘authentication’” instead. Xie (2011), in his discussion of ethnic culture, similarly advocates a shift away from authenticity to an emphasis on processes of authentication. However, such programmatic declarations did not yet lead to a systematic theoretical elaboration of the concept. In this article we start to do so, by distinguishing two contrasting modes of authentication, “cool” and “hot,” and discussing their wider implications. We define “authentication” as a process by which something—a role, product, site, object or event—is confirmed as “original”, “genuine”, “real” or “trustworthy”. We aim to show that, at least in the field of tourism, there exist two different, yet often co-constitutive, modes of that process: however, whereas “cool” authentication corresponds to accepted common-sense and dictionary definitions of the term, “hot” authentication differs from them. The conceptualization and documentation of the latter, with regard to the field of tourism, is thus the principal aim of this article. Second, we aim to show that these processes do not only differ in the manner in which they establish the authenticity of attractions, but also in the manner in which they influence the cultural, social and political dynamics of the authenticated phenomena. Third, we shall seek to demonstrate that the two kinds of authentication are conducive to different kinds of personal experiences of authenticity. Finally, we shall examine the patterns of interaction between the two modes of authentication in several actual situations. Many of our examples are drawn from the previous empirical research of one of the present authors. As much of this research has taken place in non-Western contexts, the examples offer a fresh alternative to the Occidentalocentric focus that has characterized the majority of past studies of authenticity in tourism. We have built our conceptual approach on Tom Selwyn’s (1996, p. 21–28) seminal distinction between “hot” and “cool” authenticity. Though possibly similar aims underpin both our distinctions, we employ the dichotomy in somewhat different ways than Selwyn did, and draw from it different implications. Selwyn (1996, p. 20–21) conceived of “hot” authenticity as that “aspect of the imagined world of tourist make-believe … concerned with questions of self and society,” in particular with the quest for an “authentic self” and “authentic other.” Selwyn (ibid, p. 24) exemplifies the concept of hot authenticity through Golden’s (1996) case study of the Diaspora Museum in Tel-Aviv, which enables (Jewish) visitors to plot “their individual genealogies back through several generations [and thereby] locate themselves … within a wider framework of the diaspora,” a proceeding by which “the authenticity of the visitors’ selves is confirmed in relation to the social life depicted by the museum.” In contrast, Selwyn distinguishes the concept of “cool” authenticity as “reserved for propositions which aim to be open to the kinds of procedures described by Popper [i.e. are subject to falsification] … which would like to claim a different kind of legitimacy from those in the former category [i.e. that of hot authenticity].” Selwyn thus seems to distinguish between a “social” and a “scientific” version of authenticity, or in more theoretical terms, an “emic” and an “etic” one—one espoused by the tourists, the other representing a theoretical top-down approach. We retain the terms “hot” and “cool”, however, in constructing our present argument, rather than for instance “emic/etic” or “social/scientific”, because these terms are loaded with an emotive power that we seek to harness. While making a parallel conceptual distinction with regard to processes of authentication, our aim goes beyond Selwyn’s: we seek to re-direct the discourse of tourism away from the dominant socio-psychological concern with the tourists’ experience and focus instead on the distinct social and political processes associated with each mode of the authentication of tourist attractions.

The sociological treatment of the relationship between tourism and modernity has been focused on the concept of “authenticity,” ever since MacCannell, 1973 and MacCannell, 1976 introduced it into the academic discourse of tourism in the 1970s, in his argument regarding the “staged authenticity” of tourist attractions. In the wide-ranging discussion following MacCannell’s opening, the concept has been interpreted and re-interpreted in various ways with regard to such issues as the nature of authenticity, its construction and experience (e.g. Belhassen et al., 2008, Bruner, 2005, Buchmann et al., 2010, Cohen, 1988, Cohen, 2007a, Crang, 1996, Knudsen and Waade, 2010, Lau, 2010, Olsen, 2002, Reisinger and Steiner, 2006, Rickly-Boyd, 2012 and Steiner and Reisinger, 2006). However, the discussion failed to lead to a broad consensus, which would make authenticity the anchor of a general paradigm for the study of modern tourism, but instead resulted in diverse theoretical perspectives (Rickly-Boyd, 2012). The three types of authenticity distinguished by Wang, 1999 and Wang, 2000, objective (object) authenticity (further discussed by Lau, 2010 and Reisinger and Steiner, 2006), constructed authenticity (Cohen, 1988 and Olsen, 2002) and existential (subjective) authenticity (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006) are still engendering separate discourses, despite some efforts at bridging them (e.g. Rickly-Boyd, 2012). It is important to note that the three discourses are not on the same level: while objective (object) authenticity and existential (subjective) authenticity denote different types of (personally experienced) authenticity, constructed authenticity does not; rather, it relates implicitly to the process of social construction of the other two types. But, though frequently deployed as a concept, the processes by which authenticity is constructed remain analytically under-developed. Several important questions are still un-explicated: Is there only one or are there several ways by which authenticity is established in the tourism domain? Is there a difference between the processes through which objective, as against existential, authenticity is established? Who has the power to endow tourist attractions with authenticity? In this article we shall approach these questions from a new perspective: the process of authentication. It should be noted that, whereas the concept of authenticity has been widely discussed in tourism studies, authentication, as the social process by which the authenticity of an attraction is confirmed, remains almost unexplored. The issue of authentication has, however, recently attracted the attention of several researchers (e.g. Alexander, 2009, Ateljevic and Doorne, 2005, Noy, 2009 and Xie, 2011). Jackson (1999, p. 101) in fact went so far as to “propose to abandon the search for ‘authenticity’ and to examine the more tractable question of ‘authentication’” instead. Xie (2011), in his discussion of ethnic culture, similarly advocates a shift away from authenticity to an emphasis on processes of authentication. However, such programmatic declarations did not yet lead to a systematic theoretical elaboration of the concept. In this article we start to do so, by distinguishing two contrasting modes of authentication, “cool” and “hot,” and discussing their wider implications. We define “authentication” as a process by which something—a role, product, site, object or event—is confirmed as “original”, “genuine”, “real” or “trustworthy”. We aim to show that, at least in the field of tourism, there exist two different, yet often co-constitutive, modes of that process: however, whereas “cool” authentication corresponds to accepted common-sense and dictionary definitions of the term, “hot” authentication differs from them. The conceptualization and documentation of the latter, with regard to the field of tourism, is thus the principal aim of this article. Second, we aim to show that these processes do not only differ in the manner in which they establish the authenticity of attractions, but also in the manner in which they influence the cultural, social and political dynamics of the authenticated phenomena. Third, we shall seek to demonstrate that the two kinds of authentication are conducive to different kinds of personal experiences of authenticity. Finally, we shall examine the patterns of interaction between the two modes of authentication in several actual situations. Many of our examples are drawn from the previous empirical research of one of the present authors. As much of this research has taken place in non-Western contexts, the examples offer a fresh alternative to the Occidentalocentric focus that has characterized the majority of past studies of authenticity in tourism. We have built our conceptual approach on Tom Selwyn’s (1996, p. 21–28) seminal distinction between “hot” and “cool” authenticity. Though possibly similar aims underpin both our distinctions, we employ the dichotomy in somewhat different ways than Selwyn did, and draw from it different implications. Selwyn (1996, p. 20–21) conceived of “hot” authenticity as that “aspect of the imagined world of tourist make-believe … concerned with questions of self and society,” in particular with the quest for an “authentic self” and “authentic other.” Selwyn (ibid, p. 24) exemplifies the concept of hot authenticity through Golden’s (1996) case study of the Diaspora Museum in Tel-Aviv, which enables (Jewish) visitors to plot “their individual genealogies back through several generations [and thereby] locate themselves … within a wider framework of the diaspora,” a proceeding by which “the authenticity of the visitors’ selves is confirmed in relation to the social life depicted by the museum.” In contrast, Selwyn distinguishes the concept of “cool” authenticity as “reserved for propositions which aim to be open to the kinds of procedures described by Popper [i.e. are subject to falsification] … which would like to claim a different kind of legitimacy from those in the former category [i.e. that of hot authenticity].” Selwyn thus seems to distinguish between a “social” and a “scientific” version of authenticity, or in more theoretical terms, an “emic” and an “etic” one—one espoused by the tourists, the other representing a theoretical top-down approach. We retain the terms “hot” and “cool”, however, in constructing our present argument, rather than for instance “emic/etic” or “social/scientific”, because these terms are loaded with an emotive power that we seek to harness. While making a parallel conceptual distinction with regard to processes of authentication, our aim goes beyond Selwyn’s: we seek to re-direct the discourse of tourism away from the dominant socio-psychological concern with the tourists’ experience and focus instead on the distinct social and political processes associated with each mode of the authentication of tourist attractions.