Cultural Authenticity in Heritage Tourism

Before continuing on to the cultural impacts of CHT, It’s imperative to note that the subject of cultural authenticity can be problematic, in that it’s not possible to speak on behalf of every person belonging to that cultural group. Culture isn’t a homogenous or static concept, due to the fact that all cultural groups aren’t the same and unchanging. As such, generalizations tend to be made and arguments should be kept in perspective in that there will always be those with opposing positions/experiences. That being said, there are many arguments regarding the role of cultural authenticity as a product of cultural heritage tourism.

There are metaphorical and/or philosophical approaches that suggest cultural dynamics are constantly being renegotiated as they are a product of social construction. Malcolm Crick, for example, states, “Cultures are

In other words, the back region is a necessary effort to keep the tourists’ perceptions of their “authentic cultural experiences” intact. MacCannell states, “A back region, closed to audiences and outsiders, allows concealment of props and activities that might discredit Staged Authenticity the performance out front.” MacCannell continues the theory by explaining, “In other words, sustaining a firm sense of social reality requires some mystification.” In order to explain “mystification”, MacCannell uses the example of hams, in which hams are injected with chemical nitrates in order to appear more pink and appealing or as MacCannell explains, more “ham-like.” In a sense, it can be argued that various cultural groups will attempt to appeal more to tourists by perpetuating the tourists’ expectations of their culture by appearing more “exotic” or “foreign” within CHT performances as means to achieve economic