This week, we'll be discussing Dean MacCannell's chapter, "Staged Authenticity"; Lucy Lippard's "The Tourist at Home" and the first part of Jamaica Kincaid's "A Small Place". All three take a critical look at how spaces and places are divided up in ways that relate to access and ideas of authenticity.
In staged Authenticity Lippard looks at sites from the perspective of front and backstage areas. The phenomena of turning sites into fish bowls for the appearance of truth to reality evokes the kind of x-ray vision that medical diagrams seem to suggest. As the backrooms become made "transparent" the labor becomes performative role playing. The back stage becomes a back staged area much like a stage set. There is a paradox that can never be quite reconciled where the better the simulation the further a tourist is likely to get from reality. In discussing the routine and everyday kinds of tourism Lippard states: "No one can "participate in his own life; he can only participate in the lives of others." This struck me as a much deeper question about the nature of our society.
A Small Place was a good narrative of what being a tourist actually means. It proposed questions that might get swept under the table when visiting such a place like Antiqua, but the best was the last page or two. The very last sentence stating that the natives are the ones with envy because you as a tourist have turned their banality into pleasure, that is the most interesting to me about tourism. In Stage Authenticity, the notion of back and front regions of tourism and places is very interesting. It is noticeable everywhere and I assume that everyone realizes that it exists because it seems so obvious. I have been in situations where I specifically don’t want to follow the guided tour, so I follow a different path and do my own thing, but it my experiences still only go so far, because my simple interactions with the natives are still somewhat staged by them and not specific to me. The notion of “the local” is also somewhat mystifying. I wonder when did the local and the everyday become an attraction. More or less, it’s the different that is the attraction to people, anything different. The role of the tourist at home, is then an interesting concept. What around me, do I find interesting and want to show people. These are things that are particular to my day and my interests and activities, so my initial thought is that people wouldn’t be interested, but then I think about Indian preservations and doing activities they were interested in and needed to do to survive, like hunting and making clothing, which are now tourist activities. So I continue to go about my everyday but with a different mindset, an outsiders mindset, to notice what the tourist might notice.
I thought the concept of being a tourist at home was an interesting perspective especially because I agree with the statement that ‘if we spend half the energy looking at our own neighborhoods, we’d probably learn twice as much’ (13). Just as when we meet people from Chicago who’s never visited the Sears Tower or Londers who haven’t been on the London Eye. Also, the ‘drawbridge syndrome’ made perfect sense because I personally experienced it as well. It’s inevitable that everything slowly becomes an attraction even if it wasn’t from the start as MacCannell stated. And that the tourists are always wanting to experience the authentic culture of its place even though they really are satisfied with just enough experience at most times. I thought Kincaid described what it is like to be a tourist in general on the dot, how we think when in the car to the hotel from the airport, dealing with the new environment and how the natives view tourists. When Kincaid stated that ‘the native does not like the tourist is not hard to explain’, it made me think about my personal experience.
I thought “Staged Authenticity” was very interesting in the author’s descriptions of the different social roles acquired through the front and back spaces. When citing examples of “mystification[s] designed to generate a sense of reality,” I was reminded of Walmart. My aunt works in their deli and said that the goods made in the “bakery” are actually frozen and made somewhere else. There is, however, an oven present to make it seem as though these cakes and cookies are made in this area when in fact they are not. The idea of quality and freshness are made to seem more “real” when it appears they are made directly in the store. Furthermore, I couldn’t help but think of reality television. We, the audience, are strictly prohibited from intruding in these back spaces for fear that the “reality” we see will be exposed for what it really is. The line between what is staged and what is authentic is very hazy but it is our attraction to know what is occurring in the back spaces that causes even more of an interest in some of these shows. Kincaid’s article was also very interesting and her interpretation of the local/tourist relationship. She addresses the tension between the two groups and that a large source of this is due to envy. The native envies the tourist for being able to escape their realities when they cannot and it is even more of a blow to see the tourist turn the natives’ everyday banality into “a source of pleasure for [themselves].” I have never thought of this relationship in terms of jealousy but it seems so obvious after thinking about it and I can definitely apply it to my own travel experiences.
All of the assigned readings dealt with the idea of authenticity of place. Lippard discussed the tension between the local and the outsider. Even the tourist is a local or a native of some place. But she describes what binds the two are a sense of longing. This is further described in the Kincaid narrative. She talks about the tourist longing to get out of his/her everyday and enter someone's else's more authentic everyday. And the native longs to attain the freedom of the tourist to be able to travel out of the tourist's everyday. McCannell discusses this further. The modern tourist feels its life is unauthentic in some way, with a front and a back and mysticfication, and where ever they happen to be touring will give the tourist a glance at an authentic way of living. What I'm thinking though is can't we just accept our inauthenticities, such as cosmetic surgery, television, storefronts, and other phoniness, as our authentic modern ways of living. It's authentically inauthentic. Some of the struggles that it seemed Kincaid was having with traveling to her 3rd world island locale, reminded me very much so of some of the struggles I had with being a visitor in Africa. Some of what she was saying about the locals secretly hating the tourist I think has some truth, but isn't gospel. I don't think every locale is exactly full of that capability to hate every tourist. Some do, most are neutral, and some even reach out with love. I think she is underestimating the capacity of people to love strangers. There are instances though, where one does strongly feel that tension between the traveler and the local, especially when there is a potential exchange of money.
Both Kincaid and Lippard wrote about a sense of displacement. Lippard focused on the residents of a tourist town feeling this way and Kincaid more or less focused on our individual sense of displacement as tourists but also in our own lives. The focus really seemed to be on the local residents of tourist attractions, and it is sad because they cannot seem to seek refuge in the very same places that thousands flock to find. Attractions seem to evolve and the lives of the locals seem to be compromised. The idea of access is almost trivial because the truth in tourism we seek to find, isn’t navigable because of the capitalistic system we’ve encased authenticity into.
It seems as if authenticity is almost a euphemistic way of describing the social ills and very real economic downfalls of local cultures. As if by becoming an attraction, the local culture gets marginalized, victimized or displaced. As a tourist I had never really considered how my personal exploration was more of an invasion. It is really troubling when you consider your destination as a source of pleasure and also oppression. Lippard’s portrayal of tourism as economically positive, culturally negative, and resource depleting was quite a departure from the relatively positive nature that tourism is associated with. I had previously assigned a positive role with authenticity but after these readings, my perspective concurrently shifted. McCannell argues that modern tourists are searching for authenticity that is absent from their own everyday experiences. This search that has been undertaken by Modern Western society is meaningless because we have transformed truth into a commodity.
In the Tourist at Home, Lipman takes a PR campaign "be a tourist in your own home" to a level beyond going to your local museums and putting money into the town, but being activated by your home: finding out history, local issues, etc. This reminds me of being a tourist in Champaign Urbana. Over the years i have tried to gain knowldge of its hisotry and join community members in taking on issues that exist Although it has been four years and i still feel like i have not learned enough. While in New Orleans, I met a man who wanted college student coming to build houses, to instead take an interest in local human/civil rights issues, i though this was a wonderful idea, but at the same time, how is it possible to become involved in local issues when you do not live in that place? Maybe the issue is that we feel like tourists as soon as we leave certain borders, but if we felt as though all the world, or the US was our home we would be more interested in history and issues, and travel in order to connect with people and make changes. Stage Authenticity made me think about this idea as well...being comfortable taking on local issues when you are not from the area, or even making a friend with someone from a new place: If tourists go into an expirience thinking that they are different from the culture and people there, they may come out only with surface level touring, not gaining any understanding of there surroundings, meeting people for who they are in there home, instead of as the profession they have taken on.
Although many tourists are satisfied with a gift shop vacation, tourists want to come away with real and valuable experiences that gift shops simply can’t offer. Tourists are always fascinated with “real life” experiences. This search for authenticity usually manifests itself in clichés like ‘getting off the beaten path.’ The sights that are not constructed for the tourist are exactly what the tourist wants to see. In Dean MacCannell’s "Staged Authenticity" he explores how even these ‘back regions’ of reality are staged for tourism. He differentiates between ‘back stage’ and ‘staged back’: Most experiences designed for tourists try to create the intimacy and truth of life behind the scenes, but this is merely another façade. MacCannell argues that this search for authenticity is a “potential stake driven into the heart of local cultures.” Lucy Lippard uses this quote to describe how tourism adversely effects indigenous cultures. All experiences are mediated for tourists. Even anthropologists who try to immerse themselves in foreign cultures can never truly understand what it is to be ‘behind the scenes’. There’s no denying that vibrant indigenous cultures have sadly been muted due to their assimilation into western culture, but that has more to do with imperialism than a tourist’s desire for authenticity. Tourists are treated as invaders and in some respects they are… but as Jamaica Kincaid describes the way natives hate tourists, she concludes that “every native of every place is a potential tourist.” Any bitterness is not over the tourist as a person, but over class mobility. Everyone would like to go on a tour, but not everyone can afford a vacation. In these three excerpts the concept tourism is seen as a necessary evil. I agree that tourism can be an ugly pastime, but it is valuable to glean some kind of truth from tourism because tourism is really the only way we know where we are.
Lippard, MacCannell, and Kincaid address the issue of "authenticity" in tourism. For Lippard, tourist attractions are the recontextualization of some ordinary spots in local's daily life. This situation happens because people are less interested in the visual impact of architectural container and more interested in "something different from the corporate style and "high quality product and service within the container." Therefore, tourists resist the conventional tourist spots and want to see some local "authentic" spots, such as ordinary neighborhood or scenes of local's daily life. This notion is close to MacCannell's argument. MacCanell argues that, In modern society, the establishment of social structure is divided into "front" and "back" stage. He states,"The front is the meeting place of hosts and guests or customers and service persons, and the back is the place where members of the home team retire between performances to relax and to prepare." In industrialized society, our daily lives mostly rely on the cooperation and institutionalization, our food and commodity, for example, produced by the productline in factories. When watching a stage performance in person, audience have to buy tickets through the agency. The "authenticity" tourists pursue, might be something without layers of cooperation and institutionalization. Tourists are not happy to see their tourism experience become another institutionalized experience as their daily life. They want a real experience of the local life, eating food, viewing scenery, listening, and acting like locals. However, can tourists really find their authenticity? Back to Lippard's article, she indicates, "Travel is the only context in which some people ever look around." I'd like to ask, "if tourists can not resist the institutionalization in their own everyday life, how can they become a bold and curious discovers in a new environment?" Toursim is just an escape from everyday life. Kincaid's "small place" is an example of this escape. He argues that tourists spend money visitng a new place to escape from their bored and ordinary lives. Kincaid argues, "every native would like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a rest." For me, tourism as an escape is just an illusion. Nowadays, we can not travel without cooperation and institutionalization (the arrangement of transportation, accomodation, and travel schedule are really bothering). Also, no matter we are tourists or natives, we are always in the front stage somehow. Anthenticity is only a subjective term.It is hard to define and persue authenticity in contemporary life.
Justine, I wonder if your critique of institutionalization in terms of tourism (the "really bothering" parts of travel) are really a critique of social process? The "really bothering" parts of travel that you name, which are certainly bureaucratically organized, are also the parts of travel where we must acknowledge that our desires to go places confront the desires of others to also go places (such as not getting the seat you want on a flight). This is certainly part of the problematic concept of authenticity addressed by MacCannell and Lippard, and what you name in your statement that "Tourists are not happy to see their tourism experience become another institutionalized experience as their daily life." Our desire for an authentic, unmediated (read unpackaged, spontaneous, not manipulated) experience parallels our desire for autonomy - both desires that come out of modernity. Think about the way that things like automobiles and the internet have allowed many of us to assume that we (as mobile citizens of post/modern industrial economies) can go wherever we want, when we want - without negotiation. When we come up against a situation that requires negotiation over our mobility, it challenges our assumptions about individual autonomy, and hence, as you put it, reveals any "escape" from the social to be an illusion. But to think that such an escape was ever possible, is probably mostly nostalgia for some fictional past.