For some time now, I’ve been meaning to write to the editors of my favorite magazine, National Geographic Traveler to say this: I love you, but could you quit throwing the word “authentic” around? Nitpicky, obsessively literal, and probably very annoying, I know. But stick with me.
Here’s the definition of authentic from Webster’s via Dictionary, trimmed for the etymology and pronunciation details):
1. Having a genuine original or authority, in opposition to that which is false, fictitious, counterfeit, or apocryphal; being what it purports to be; genuine; not of doubtful origin; real; as, an authentic paper or register.
To be avenged On him who had stole Jove’s authentic fire. –Milton.
2. Authoritative. [Obs.] –Milton.
3. Of approved authority; true; trustworthy; credible; as, an authentic writer; an authentic portrait; authentic information.
4. (Law) Vested with all due formalities, and legally attested.
5. (Mus.) Having as immediate relation to the tonic, in distinction from plagal, which has a correspondent relation to the dominant in the octave below the tonic.
This is my deal: I don’t think you can describe a place as authentic as though it could be real or fake unless you’re talking about an actually facsimile of place, like the Venetian in Vegas or the Polynesian Cultural Center on Oahu. These are reproductions of places that exist in the real world as real places. The Venetian and the Cultural Center are freaky fake. The “authentic” places aren’t so scrubbed; the canals of Venice are stinky, Oahu has crazy traffic. There’s no Starbuck’s in Venice, but seven bucks for a cappucino? And the real Hawaii is covered with food chains, they’re everywhere.
I suppose that when we talk about “authentic places” we are talking about places where there are no fast food restaurants or mall stores. We are looking at places that don’t show the influence of globalization – no GAP stores, no Starbuck’s, no Burger King. But I think we’re mistaking the presence (or lack) of those things for an indicator of what’s authentic.
For the record, I object to the use of the word “unspoiled” too. Unless we’re talking about wilderness, spoiled is a value judgment in the eye of the beholder. And I’ve heard more than one traveler decry the presence of the chain joints and then, cave in, saying “F*ck it, I just want pizza.” I was in a Pizza Hut in New Delhi once, and in a Starbuck’s in Singapore, grateful at the time for air conditioning and a frappucino. Both experiences were weird disconnects, but I wouldn’t call them inauthentic, surreal is a better choice of adjective.
I guess I think tossing around the word “authentic” is a lazy way to describe a place. I want more. I want to know what, exactly, we mean. Do we mean that there’s no indoor plumbing? Do we mean that the locals wear traditional dress? Or do we just mean that we can’t get Tevas there?
This morning, I was reading a post on Metroblogging Seattle about Georgetown. The writer describes Georgetown as “authentic.” You won’t be surprised to learn that it didn’t fly with me. [I probably owe the writer an apology for my response. It’s a fine post, but I’m bogged down in semantics.]
I like Georgetown a lot. I go there regularly to meet with an editor friend to hash over the niceties and not so niceties of freelance life. We go to All City Coffee, a place that serves up some strong brew. All City is cool because of the diversity of the population in there – the tattooed scooter drivers, the suits, the Georgetown working guys and gals… last time we were there, a pilot in full uniform stood behind me in line. The old brewery across the street – all that still stands after the recent demolition – is made from stunning brick. The neighborhood is all over the place – there’s a little tiny naturopathic clinic in a triangular building across the street from the car parts place and there’s that classic old Seattle bar, Jules Maes. Georgetown has loads of character; the sound of diesel trucks and low flying airplanes, the tough looking inked up young women in tank tops, red lipstick, and Bettie Page haircuts, the lines of Vespas on the sidewalk.
All those things add up to make a neighborhood that isn’t like any other neighborhood in our city, but I’d don’t think using the word authenticity is enough to capture what Georgetown is. I’m not saying that Georgetown is fake, it’s a fabulously real place. I guess what I’m saying is that almost everywhere is authentic in the true meaning of the word, it’s ALL real.
But it’s also so much more. To call a place authentic, for me, just isn’t enough.
Photo: Rusting truck in a Georgetown parking lot.
I’m with you re “authentic.” I do not mind the use of “authentic” when describing a restaurant, i.e. a pizzeria in Cleveland that serves authentic Neapolitan-style pizza, or a Chinese restaurant that serves authentic Szechuan cuisine. This use makes an implicit comparison with American food that calls itself ethnic.
But I HATE it when people call places “authentic.” If a place itself is billing itself as authentic, it’s a sure sign that it isn’t, but is in fact pandering to the tourist trade. And if a writer is calling a place “authentic,” it’s usually code for rustic and perhaps not involving the use of indoor plumbing. In short, I usually find the use of the word to be at worst pretentious, and at best sloppy and vague, when used in a travel context.
That’s your inner editor talking, don’t let her sugar coat it. How do you really feel?
Hey, it’s just me being my genuine, original, authentic self.
I think when travel writers use a term like “authentic” they are using a kind of shorthand to refer to what the reader– the potential tourist or traveler– wants when they travel. It’s a stand-in for the ideal travel experience. I agree, it is completely meaningless and pretentious. But I think it’s trying to gesture at something that is, on the contrary, meaningful and pretension-free.
I don’t actually think it’s pretentious, I do think the sentiment that’s meant to be expressed is totally sincere or, um, authentic. 😛
But the term doesn’t have any definable meaning – even as the stand-in for the ideal experience because that’s totally varied, too. I guess if you think it’s the stand in for the writer’s ideal experience, things start to add up.
Thanks for indulging in my picky language discussions.
Hi,
I enjoyed reading your post about use use of the word “authentic” when used to market destinations. I used to work at the Polynesian Cultural Center for 17 years. They strive to be authentic as much as possible by employing 700 Polynesian students from their respective island nations to represent their cultures to visitors.
My wife is from Tahiti and when she was young, she was abused in school in her own country for practicing her Tahitian culture and speaking her native tongue. It was only when she came to PCC that she could finally learn about her own culture and history and share it with visitors. (she only learned French history in school).
PCC was opened in 1963 on the island of Oahu. Even in the US, Hawaiians were frowned upon for having Hawaiian names, speaking Hawaiian and practicing their culture. Only 10 years ago, there were only 50 children left who could speak Hawaiian. Thankfully, recent measures have been enacted to offset this trend.
Also, most of those 700 PCC students would have a difficult time getting 100% of their college education paid by someone else. The families of Polynesian students are very grateful for the opportunity that they have to attend school.
PCC tries as much as possible to build thire villages according to custom but they have to abide by ADA regulations. There also has to be a balance of comfort and safety for the visitors. (only one building is air-conditioned though).
There is a lot of effort going on “behind the scenes” to promote authenticity and it is great to see native islanders given the opportunity to share their culture with the world and receive a free education at the same time.
At least PCC is located in Hawaii which is part of Polynesia.
I have to hold up my hand and plead guilty to using the word authentic in the strap line of my travel site. I did attempt to define what I meant by this:
http://www.europealacarte.co.uk/blog/2008/03/09/what-is-authentic-travel/
Karen, I applaud your attempt at definition, but I’d say that you’re pitching is slow or off the beaten path travel rather than authentic. And that selecting a less touristy destination can be a matter of timing rather than geography…
When we talk about traveling, we often talk about the authenticity of a place. I take issue with the misuse of this word. Just a little bit.
What does authenticity mean in today’s globalized, plastic world? Is it merely the absence of chain restaurants and shopping malls? For a short and simple answer, yes.
But there are subtleties surrounding this idea.
If you use this description of authenticity, you eliminate the entire continent of North America. What would New York City or Los Angeles be without chain restaurants and shopping malls? There wouldn’t be a whole lot left.
Pam makes a good point when she says that the only place that can’t be authentic are actual facsimiles of specific places, like The Venetian in Las Vegas.
I think she’s got the right idea, but I don’t think we need a new word for the feeling of inauthenticity. (Is that a word?)
Anyway, I think the casual usage of authentic is just fine. It’s more of a feeling than an actual description. If I was visiting Tokyo, (probably the most “inauthentic” place on the planet) I think I would feel like I was in the “real Tokyo”, no matter how many chain stores and shopping malls were around!
On the other hand, if I found myself in suburban Toronto, with big-box stores and freeways all around, I would feel like I was not in the “real Toronto”. I think it’s a matter of familiarization. I’ve been to Toronto more than enough times to know what the city “should” feel like. North York does not “feel” like Toronto.
When I was in Paris, and staying in a suburban hotel, I still felt like I was in Paris, just because it was so foreign to me. There were chain stores and fast food all around. But I’m sure a local Parisian would’ve felt just as disenchanted as I would in North York.
And that’s my word on the subject of authenticity.
Louise, thanks for your thoughts on this – and the links at Travelpod – but I still disagree with you.
It’s the subjectivity of the word that makes me think we need to use something else. Plus, check it out, my husband comes from a small town in Austria where there’s not a lot of shopping, unlike me, he loves the mall, he genuinely enjoys it. He’s always delighted to go shopping and I don’t think he’d ever call that experience “inauthentic” just because he can get khakis at the GAP.
I think the overwhelming subjectivity of the word authentic as pertaining to travel is the reason we need to stop throwing it around and describe what, exactly, we mean. You’ve done that in your “absence of chain restaurants and shopping malls” remark – defined exactly what it means for you. I think that’s all I want.
Think about it like food, maybe. We don’t let food writers get away with just saying, oh, the food was good, we make them tell us what good MEANS to them. What was it that made the food good? “I went to this village in France, it was authentic” implies some stuff, but I’ve been to immigrant neighborhoods in Vienna where there were chain stores on every corner, side by side with Halal markets, kebab carts, and women in head scarves. The presence of an Eduscho (coffee shop/housewares chain in Austria) didn’t make the neighborhood less “real.”
I rather agree with you on the use of the word ‘authentic’. I also rather dislike when it’s used to describe ethnic food. I know a blogger who writes about Thai food who often uses the words ‘authentic’ or ‘not authentic’ as a form of judgment in his reviews. Given that cuisine is always evolving and changing, I think his usage is kind of limiting. Beyond that, I think it’s a form of trying to appear authoritative, to be able to judge what ‘authentic’ Thai food is. -X
Interesting. When we were in Vietnam we talked a lot about how the food is so much like the food we can get here in Seattle, so I guess we could have said that the restaurants here serve up “authentic” Vietnamese food… but seeing as how I don’t like the word in the first place, it’s something I’d be inclined to avoid.
But, like with travel, I see how it gets used that way. Your blogger probably means “it’s like Thai food in Thailand” or the Thai equivalent of home cookin’. I feel a little more lenient when talking about food, but that’s because descriptions don’t usually stop at “authentic.”
I feel it is important to carefully evaluate how and why people interpret cultural authenticity on a periodic basis.