'Authenticity' in travel

[Cuellar]

I personally think "authentic" implies that you did something roughly similar to what a local would do there.

That being said, if you're in India, chances of you having an "authentic" experience probably involves being poor and having dysentery. It's pretty idiotic to sign up for that. Most locals hang out at their house, work, maybe a local bar/pub, with frequent trips to their house of religious worship. Travel would suck ass for me if all I did was have an "authentic" experience. LA is another example. The vast majority of people living in LA are poor... they don't go to the beach, the clubs, high end shopping, etc. The endless housing to the east is where the majority of Angelino's live... and tourists don't really make it out there.

[Cuellar]

One thought I found amusing was imagine some super rich guy (lets say Carlos Slim from Mexico) decides to have an "authentic" american experience. He comes to my house, drives around sitting in traffic all day, goes to the shitty sandwhich shop at the bottom of my office building, fucks around at the mall nearby, then sits in traffic on the way home (probably in his limo), stops by Domino's for dinner, and sits and watches TV for a couple hours.

Would I think "gee, how worldly of this Billionaire to live like us for a little while and experience real america!" or "Gee, what a fucking douche".

[ljkeane]

I don't think authentic has to mean just doing what the average resident of the area you're visiting does day to day. For me it just means not exclusively doing stuff that's manufactured for the tourist market so you have some experience of the local culture.

That's not to say touristy things can't be fun but there's also an appeal to doing less tourist orientated things as well.

[DaarioDontKnowSoftwareBugs]

One thought I found amusing was imagine some super rich guy (lets say Carlos Slim from Mexico) decides to have an "authentic" american experience. He comes to my house, drives around sitting in traffic all day, goes to the shitty sandwhich shop at the bottom of my office building, fucks around at the mall nearby, then sits in traffic on the way home (probably in his limo), stops by Domino's for dinner, and sits and watches TV for a couple hours.

Would I think "gee, how worldly of this Billionaire to live like us for a little while and experience real america!" or "Gee, what a fucking douche".

There are these type of things in the Middle East where tourists can observe these little villages that are 1000s of years old where the people are still living like they did 1000 years ago. I always think it has to piss a lot of those people off,

like these tourists come to gawk at us like its a museum or something

[Starkess]

I try to have fun when I travel. I like seeing cool things in person, ranging from ancient ruins to Times Square or even just a gorgeous strip of beach. I do try to eat some local cuisine, but it doesn't have to be like off the back of a cart or anything. And I like to create memories, which for me includes taking pictures. (I read an article the other day that insinuated that taking pictures while traveling was the #1 sign you weren't a true "traveler". wtf?)

[Arkhangel]

It's mostly what people tell themselves it is, as far as I can tell. (I did my undergrad seminar on authenticity and othering in tourism.) The desire for 'authenticity' in the first place is kind of a constructed thing. Why do you want an authentic experience, whatever that means to you? What's wrong with a comfortable tour bus that takes you between good meals at nice hotels and shows you the most extraordinary and interesting sights of a place? Why do you place more value on seeing the by-definition uninteresting run-down village or the run-down slum (or, if we're being really authentic, the really-not-that-bad lower-middle-class suburb?)

I'm not being rhetorical - why? Whatever the answer, it still comes back to you and the ideas of what a travel experience should be and what it should be for you. And that's ok, and it's also totally intrinsic to touristic travel. So, you know, stop worrying about it.

That sounds fascinating, I'd be interested in reading that.

I would say because the whole idea of authentic vs inauthentic in tourism and such is tied up in the idea that an inauthentic experience is one that doesn't give you any real sense of how the people there really live and thus leaves you going home with a colonialist "happy savages" outlook on the place in question. "Oh, they were so cute with their little necklace stands and their little hats!"

Which is, for many segments of the population, a thing to be avoided.

But in looking for an 'authentic' experience are tourists, in a way, still perpetuating a happy savages outlook? Is there a certain colonialist assumption that the tourist gets to decide which experiences are 'really real' and which are not? The tour bus is reality for the locals, as are the tourist attractions and Western restaurants. Tourism is a central part of the local economy in many places, even for those who don't directly draw their income from tourism, and on top of that, some locals like the Western restaurants (for example above about the 'special treat' of McDonalds in Beijing). So how is it that tourists can say that when they sit down to eat with locals in a Western restaurant it's somehow a lesser part of how the locals 'really live' than if they sit down with them in a local restaurant?

I suppose my opinion on it is that when people use words like 'authentic', they inherently judge authenticity against their own preconceptions about what they think a culture is or should be, and disregard facets of that culture which don't fit with their expectations as 'inauthentic'. Colonialist is a good word for it; they make the (subconscious) assumption that they know something about the happy savages before they've even met them, and so are qualified to judge what about the experience they have in tht country and culture is valid/real/'authentic' and what is not.

[sperry]

I too think striving for "authenticity" just to avoid being "touristy" is foolish. People should just try to make their trips as enjoyable as possible, and oftentimes that will include doing tourist stuff.

At the end of the day, anything unique and interesting in the city you're going to is probably going to have tons of tourists around, because if it wasn't unique and interesting they could probably do/see it in their own city. Honestly, it's usually just overcrowding that's the problem anyway, not any flaw with the actual attraction people are going to see.

[Kat]

But in looking for an 'authentic' experience are tourists, in a way, still perpetuating a happy savages outlook? Is there a certain colonialist assumption that the tourist gets to decide which experiences are 'really real' and which are not? The tour bus is reality for the locals, as are the tourist attractions and Western restaurants. Tourism is a central part of the local economy in many places, even for those who don't directly draw their income from tourism, and on top of that, some locals like the Western restaurants (for example above about the 'special treat' of McDonalds in Beijing). So how is it that tourists can say that when they sit down to eat with locals in a Western restaurant it's somehow a lesser part of how the locals 'really live' than if they sit down with them in a local restaurant?

I suppose my opinion on it is that when people use words like 'authentic', they inherently judge authenticity against their own preconceptions about what they think a culture is or should be, and disregard facets of that culture which don't fit with their expectations as 'inauthentic'. Colonialist is a good word for it; they make the (subconscious) assumption that they know something about the happy savages before they've even met them, and so are qualified to judge what about the experience they have in tht country and culture is valid/real/'authentic' and what is not.

Just curious, would you say the same thing for people who seek "authenticity" in tourism within their own country? People who go to other cities and look for restaurants that the locals eat at? Or go to the countryside to see....er....rural stuff? Does it matter if you're doing it for your own culture or something that is not your own, e.g. a white person in the U.S. visiting an "ethnic" neighborhood? I have to admit there are aspects of the latter that weird me out. I'm born and raised in San Francisco and still live here, and Chinatown is one of the big tourist destinations. But I grew up in a predominantly Chinese neighborhood elsewhere in the city and no one ever went out there to do tourist stuff. I mean, we still had restaurants and stores and stuff, but they weren't marketed as such. The weirdest one to me is something I saw on my New York pass, Harlem baptist church tours. Like they take you in for a service and there's somewhere for tourists to sit and soak in the Black churchiness. I've been to various cathedrals and such in my travels, but this is the first time that the church service culture was the thing being advertised, and it just seemed disrespectful.

[kungtotte]

I suppose my opinion on it is that when people use words like 'authentic', they inherently judge authenticity against their own preconceptions about what they think a culture is or should be, and disregard facets of that culture which don't fit with their expectations as 'inauthentic'. Colonialist is a good word for it; they make the (subconscious) assumption that they know something about the happy savages before they've even met them, and so are qualified to judge what about the experience they have in tht country and culture is valid/real/'authentic' and what is not.

When I use the word authentic to describe my travels and experiences of other cultures, I mean that I am specifically not judging it against my own preconceptions. I don't go places and do things because I think that's what the locals are doing (or should be doing). I do plenty of touristy sightseeing when I travel, but that's because a lot of those touristy sightseeing places are interesting or worth seeing. Sagrada Familia was very interesting and worth seeing despite the fact that every tourist in Barcelona went there, same thing with Park Güell. Those are historically and culturally important sites that don't exist anywhere else; Park Güell isn't just a park and Sagrada Familia isn't just a church. When I was in NYC I went to Central Park and it's really just a park like any other. A big one, to be sure, and it has a striking contrast with the rest of Manhattan, but there's a park like that in nearly every major city I've been to and they're all pretty similar to each other. If I got teleported to Park Güell right now I would instantly be able to tell I was in Park Güell and not some generic park somewhere.

I guess what I mean is that as long as you go out and experience things that are different from what you can experience at home, it's been an authentic trip. One thing that's really common for people in the 18-30 age bracket here in Sweden is they go on a cheap trip to a 'party town' in Greece, Thailand, Spain, or some such similar place where all they do is go out partying in clubs that really could have been placed in any city on the planet. Only the weather is generally better than back home, the bartenders speak with an accent, and the booze is a lot cheaper. That's what I mean about an inauthentic trip.

They didn't experience anything they couldn't have experienced anywhere else. Partying your brains out on Rhodos, Greece is really much the same as partying your brains out in Bangkok, Thailand. You didn't really go to Rhodos or to Bangkok; you went to a club that just happened to be in another country.

[Datepalm]

Like they take you in for a service and there's somewhere for tourists to sit and soak in the Black churchiness. I've been to various cathedrals and such in my travels, but this is the first time that the church service culture was the thing being advertised, and it just seemed disrespectful.

I used to work with tour groups, particularly ones with an academic bent (like tours that were part of a course or just a more general university program) and we'd often try to find them a church service to attend for...I want to say Sunday Mass?...and always ended up going into a lot of slightly weird debate about which church to go to, and the most important aspect often ended up being the atmosphere. This church is livelier and better attended and has more locals than that church which is sober and dull, so lets go with this church. It's one of the things that people obviously want to experience here, so...they do.

And then, tourists/pilgrims and the whole infrastructure that serves them IS a big part of the city. "Watch people from all over the world walk the via dolorosa*" is a tourist thing to do, though the one that has ever amused me the most is that you can go on a tour of the backpacker district in Bangkok. I can completely understand the appeal - it's an interesting-looking enough couple of streets - but I can't for the life of me figure out who actually does. Non-backpacker tourists checking out other tourists? Backpackers revelling in the sense of their own exoticism? Heaven forbid, Thais? Who's authentic there?

*Made up out of whole cloth by the crusaders to attract tourists. Probably ones looking to authenticity. After all, you can generically feel the suffering of Jesus pretty much anywhere.

[Galactus]

Also, for those people dissing beaches: You obviously do not live close to the polar circle :p 30 degrees in the middle of winter and darkness is something worth savouring (and paying for)

[Arkhangel]

Just curious, would you say the same thing for people who seek "authenticity" in tourism within their own country? People who go to other cities and look for restaurants that the locals eat at? Or go to the countryside to see....er....rural stuff? Does it matter if you're doing it for your own culture or something that is not your own, e.g. a white person in the U.S. visiting an "ethnic" neighborhood? I have to admit there are aspects of the latter that weird me out.

Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with looking to eat or sleep or do whatever where and how the locals do;* it's just the labelling of some parts of the experience as authentic and others not that I object to.

But that being said, I do agree that there's something quite offputting about people who go about their travel, in or out of their own country, behaving as though the locals are exotic animals and they're on safari.

* as long as you remember that it doesn't make you superior or more local compared to other tourists who don't. You're still all tourists.

I guess what I mean is that as long as you go out and experience things that are different from what you can experience at home, it's been an authentic trip.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, although I think 'authentic' is a bit of a misleading word to use for the idea you're getting at. I guess by that definition, a package bus tour of, say, the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre would be an authentic experience for most people - but I can't imagine many other people would agree with that.

[Roose Seal]

Well if anyone wants a truly authentic Paris experience here's what I can guarantee:

-train rides in the overcrowded northbound RER B at 7am and 7pm. Expect delays, lots of grumpy people and if you're lucky, a knife fight.

-walk back to shitty housing complex, say hi to drug dealers and sex workers on the way

-go shop at a discount food shop for nigh-expired products, eat pasta and tomato sauce for a week

-never see the eiffel tower
-homeless people

what I can't guarantee:

-sip a 10€ espresso at the terrace of a café overlooking the eiffel tower
-see the Mona Lisa
-eat outrageously overpriced, dainty, faux-homemade pastries like ladurée macarons
-shop at Galleries Lafayette
-wander around on the banks of the Seine

People have a certain idea of authenticity. When they come to Paris, they expect wandering around carefreely, soaking up culture and art, getting lost in the cobblestone streets of Montmartre, eating duck...

Tourism, in and of itself, will never be authentic. You can never experience in a few days/weeks what people experience all year round. There's nothing wrong with being a tourist, especially if you encourage local economy.

However, be honest about why you go someplace, just say you want to see pretty things and don't do it under the guise of "soul-searching" or looking for a "simpler life". Be respectful to the people you encounter, know that while it may be your first time there, you're the 478982393th tourist they saw that day and they have no reason to be nice to you, don't treat people as safari animals and don't act like you're better than tour bus people because your experience is somewhat more "authentic".

Because as "authentic" and "raw" as your experience might be, you --just like the tour bus people-- leave it all behind when it's over, the people you encounter don't.

[Inigima]

I don't give a shit about living like the people who live there do, I just don't like things where I walk up, see something, and then leave because there is nothing else to do.

I've toured stuff like the huge cathedral in Sevilla and the Alhambra, and that was cool, especially since I was with a group being led by someone who knew the history and could talk to us about it. That kind of touristy I'm good with.

[kairparavel]

Authentic to me is getting of your vacation or visit what *you* want to get out of it, not what someone else thinks you should get out of it.

I wanted to experience Times Square, so I did. I wanted to eat a Thomas Keller pastry from Bouchon Bakery at Rockefeller Center, so I did. I wanted to lay on the white sands of Bavarro Beach and swim in the ocean for five days, so I did. I wanted to play a round of golf on a Robert Trent Jones course on Hilton Head Island, so I did. Would others have done things different in NYC or the Dominican or Hilton Head Island or anywhere else I have been? Possibly. Probably. Don't really care.

[Gertrude]

I have an anecdote to share. My mom's best friend always said our family vacations looked like so much fun and we did interesting things. We got the chance to travel with her - her daughter got married in England and we all went out for the wedding. The times we spent with (call her Mary) were ... interesting. We spent time in smaller towns outside Manchester and she would compare everything to the way she does things. It was a travesty that they didn't have air conditioning, the backyards of the houses were so small - she didn't want her grandkids to have to play in such a small yard, etc. She is the Ugly American.

We went to see an old church with Viking graves - totally cool, beautiful location by the sea. She was bored out of her mind and were we done yet? (We ended up coming back on our own and spending most of the afternoon walking along the beach and picking raspberries, honestly one of the highlights of the trip.) So you can see our styles vary wildly and we've never traveled together since.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but Mary had an authentic trip - she stayed with the groom's family, helped with the shopping and cooking, groom's family operated a pub so tons of locals each night, local areas of interest for the most part. She had the most fun traveling by tour bus to England for a few days, and the bus tour in York. So authentic does not equal 'good'. Agreed, she wasn't really looking for authentic, just got slotted into it by default, but she didn't make the most of it, nor was she really capable of it I think.

Not sure what the point of this is, but after reading the thread, this is what comes to mind for me. I think that by default if you call it an 'authentic' vacation, you're probably a pretentious douchebag. It'a a very judgy thing to say like that's the better way to do things. My family prefers to go local, Mary's family prefers to go touristy - we both had a blast, I also agree that Kat's example of visiting the church borders on disrespectful. I dunno - maybe that's the difference? Having respect for the people whose home you are visiting. The locals respect their culture and traditions, so if you want to be authentic, you should too.

[Winterfell is Burning]

While I tend to dislike doing the standard tourist packages and nothing else, I also see this "authentic" tourist routes with some suspicion, based on what I see here in Rio: here one of those packages would include a visit to favelas and tourists get all giddy that they're seeing the real Rio de Janeiro.

However, the favelas visited are in 99,9% of the time already prepared for tourists, have more police than the less visited places, etc, and in anyway only 10-15% of the population at most lives in favelas anyway.

So, when I travel I just ignore both the official and "alternative" programs and make my own schedule, not worrying too much about it.

[MinDonner]

A lot of it, I think, is attitude as well as itinerary. A group of tourists who (eg) showed up at my local pub and sat down, tried the beers, chatted with the bar staff, joined in with the pub quiz, etc - those are the ones getting the "authentic" British experience. If the same group turned up and just took photos of the quaint English pub-goers, then left - not so much. For a while, the sidebar ads here had this "Visit Ireland" campaign that was saying much the same thing - don't just go and look at stuff, join the fuck in - and I reckon that's pretty important if part of what you want to see is the "culture" or the "atmosphere". The pyramids don't give a crap if you just photograph them and walk away, but if you start treating the local people as static tourist attractions then you have a problem.

[Arkhangel]

While I tend to dislike doing the standard tourist packages and nothing else, I also see this "authentic" tourist routes with some suspicion, based on what I see here in Rio: here one of those packages would include a visit to favelas and tourists get all giddy that they're seeing the real Rio de Janeiro.

However, the favelas visited are in 99,9% of the time already prepared for tourists, have more police than the less visited places, etc, and in anyway only 10-15% of the population at most lives in favelas anyway.

So, when I travel I just ignore both the official and "alternative" programs and make my own schedule, not worrying too much about it.

Poverty/conflict tourism is a whole can of worms all on its own.

<irrelevant> I went to an interesting peacebuilding conference a few weeks ago in which one of the presenters talked about conflict mediation and resolution between armed actors in the favelas. When the floor was opened to questions, a lady who worked in the Brazilian consulate stood up, emphasised that she was there in her personal capacity but then began using the royal 'we' when reading out a pre-prepared five minute speech to say that the consulate disapproved of the inclusion of this talk, that violence in the favelas and in Brazil as a whole was greatly overstated by the international community and that Rio was a thriving, prosperous and safe city. Then another Brazilian lady, in Geneva working for UNOCHA, also stood up and said that although she loves her country, she personally would never take her family back to live in Brazil because of the levels of crime and violence. </irrelevant>

So it seems that even nationals disagree on whether or not violence in the favelas is a significant part of Brazilian life.

[Winterfell is Burning]

So it seems that even nationals disagree on whether or not violence in the favelas is a significant part of Brazilian life.

No, all Brazilians agree; however there's a lot of people here that go tribal at the thought of a foreigner criticizing Brazil, or Brazil being seeing as "lesser in the international community" if negative points about the country are discussed publicly in other countries, even if it's something everyone agrees on, like recently the mayor of Manaus getting mad that the coach of English Football National Team said the city was too hot in June, even though that's like saying the Sahara has a lot of sand.

This is most likely influence of the nationalistic dictatorships Brazil had in the past, first in the 30's-40's, and later in the 60's-80's.