Annalsarticle 1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/223554883
Beyond authenticity and commodiﬁcation
Article in Annals of Tourism Research · October 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.004
CITATIONS READS
367 7,143
1 author:
Stroma Cole
University of Westminster
45 PUBLICATIONS 2,429 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Stroma Cole on 11 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ATR 1324 No. of Pages 18
25 June 2007; Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp. xxx–xxx, 2007
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1 Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.004
2 BEYOND AUTHENTICITY
3 AND COMMODIFICATION
F
4 Stroma Cole
OO
5 Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, UK
6 Abstract: Authenticity and commodification are central to academic debates in tourism.

7 Previous analyses suggest that the commercialization of local identities leads to negative con-
8 sequences. Based on a long-term study in Eastern Indonesia, this paper examines authenticity
9 from three perspectives: government, tourists, and villagers. While the former two reflect
PR
10 views highlighted in the literature, the villagers’ interpretation is different: tourism brings
11 a sense of pride and identity and also a political resource to manipulate. Seen in this context,
12 the debates about authenticity should examine how the notion is articulated, by whom and
13 for what purposes, to reveal in what circumstances cultural tourism leads to positive responses
14 and empowerment. Keywords: authenticity, commodification, Indonesia, empower-
15 ment. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. D
16 Résumé: Au-delà de l’authenticité et la commodification. L’authenticité et la commodifica-
17 tion jouent un rôle essentiel dans les discussions académiques du tourisme. Des analyses
18 précédentes suggèrent que la commercialisation des identités locales mène à des conséquenc-
TE
19 es négatives. Basé sur une étude à long terme en Indonésie de l’est, cet article examine
20 l’authenticité de trois perspectives: gouvernement, touristes et villageois. Tandis que les deux
21 premières reflètent les opinions soulignées dans la littérature, l’interprétation des villageois
22 est différente: le tourisme apporte un sens de fierté et d’identité ainsi qu’une ressource pol-
23 itique à manipuler. Vues dans ce contexte, les discussions sur l’authenticité devraient exam-
EC
24 iner comment la notion est exprimée, par qui et dans quelle intention, afin de révéler dans
25 quelles circonstances le tourisme culturel mène à des réponses positives et à l’appropriation.
26 Mots-clés: authenticité, commodification, Indonésie, appropriation. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All
27 rights reserved.
29
28
30
RR
31 INTRODUCTION
32 Authenticity and cultural commodification are closely related con-
33 cepts frequently debated in the literature. This paper argues that this
CO
34 is a Western cultural notion, and that the majority of analyses have ta-
35 ken an etic and often Euro-centric view of the process of cultural com-
36 modification. In so doing, they fail to ask the important questions
37 about the interface between power and culture, and the strategic use
38 of tourism and its processes by marginalized communities in less devel-
UN
39 oped countries.
Stroma Cole After operating her own tour business in Indonesia, Stroma Cole’s research
interests lie in responsible tourism development in developing countries, and in the
anthropology of tourism. She has undertaken extensive research in Eastern Indonesia
examining the consequences of tourism development. Chair of Tourism Concern, she is
senior lecturer at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College (High Wycombe HP13 5BB,
United Kingdom (email <Stroma.cole@bcuc.ac.uk>).
Please cite this article in press as: Cole, S., Beyond authenticity ..., Annals of
Tourism Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.004
2 BEYOND AUTHENTICITY AND COMMODIFICATION
40 The paper reinforces Franklin and Crang’s suggestion to move away

41 from notions of ‘‘authentic place’’ towards ‘‘where tourism promotes
42 local awareness’’ (2001:10). It argues that, while analyses that have
43 deconstructed the notion of authenticity have been fascinating from
44 a theoretical perspective, they have failed to address issues fundamen-
45 tal to destination communities: Why does touristic commodification
46 lead, in some communities, to disempowerment, while in others,
47 authenticity is appropriated and becomes a powerful resource? This pa-
48 per follows Olsen’s (2002) suggestion of examining the different
49 meanings of authenticity and the competing voices in a particular so-
F
50 cial context. By providing a nuanced analysis of a specific setting it
51 highlights how, if interpreted from a local perspective, tourism is sow-
OO
52 ing the seeds of social, psychological, and political empowerment.
53 The paper briefly examines authenticity, cultural commodification,
54 and empowerment in the literature, not as a comprehensive review
55 but to give a flavor of how the arguments are presented. Next, the re-
search setting and methodology are described. The paper then pre-
PR
56
57 sents the different views of tradition and authenticity from the
58 perspectives of the state, the tourists and the villagers. It is acknowl-
59 edged that the coverage is incomplete, because not all stakeholder
60 voices are presented in this paper, and the voices of the villagers ap-
61 pear as if homogenous—a heuristic device for the purpose of the anal-
ED
62 ysis. Commodification is then decoupled from authenticity and
63 examined from an emic perspective. The locals’ views suggest a strategic
64 use of tourism and its power to provide an identity. With this comes a
65 self-conscious awareness, knowledge, and pride, all-important in
T
66 empowering a marginalized community.

EC
67 AUTHENTICITY, COMMODIFICATION AND EMPOWERMENT

68 Since MacCannell (1976) initiated the debate on authenticity and
69 tourism, it has been at the heart of discussions about sociocultural con-
RR
70 sequences. Authenticity is a Western cultural notion associated with the

71 past ‘‘primitive Other’’ articulated in opposition to modernity. The
72 dichotomy between a premodern (authentic) and modern (inauthen-
73 tic) has been criticized (Meethan 2001; Olsen 2002), and further anal-
CO
74 yses have attempted to deconstruct the notion. For example, Selwyn

75 (1996) differentiates between cool and hot authenticity, where the for-
76 mer refers to the real, original, or genuine and the latter to accepted
77 but enjoyed fake versions. Wang, on the other hand, differentiates be-
78 tween objective authenticity (a museum version), constructive authen-
UN
79 ticity (something that can emerge or acquire social recognition as

80 authentic), and existential authenticity (‘‘a special existential state of
81 being in which individuals are true to themselves’’) (1999:56). Getz
82 (1998), in relation to festivals, built a model of authenticity based on
83 three factors: community control and acceptance, cultural meanings,
84 and tourists’ perceptions.
85 Closely associated with authenticity is the notion of cultural com-
86 modification. Based on his initial analysis of the Alarde festival of
STROMA COLE 3
87 Fuenterrabia in Spain, Greenwood concluded that a performance for

88 participants had been turned into a show for outsiders (1978:133-
89 135). A common view in the literature has followed: tourism turns cul-
90 ture into a commodity, packaged and sold to tourists, resulting in a loss
91 of authenticity. Researchers have examined how crafts, performance,
92 photography, hospitality, and identity have been transformed by the
93 presence of tourists. Graburn has discussed the evolution of traditional
94 art to souvenirs, from ‘‘authenticity to memento’’ (1984:415). Perform-
95 ing arts have also become commoditized. Just as art objects are minia-
96 turized, performances have been shortened and made more varied to
F
97 appeal to tourists (Soejono 1997). As difference and ‘‘Otherness’’ be-
98 come consumable tourism commodities, one response to and conse-
OO
99 quence of this is the awareness and affirmation of local identity
100 (Macdonald 1997) and the (re)creation of ethnicity (Adams 1997;
101 MacCannell 1984; Wood 1997).
102 In relation to cultural tourism in less economically developed coun-
tries (often referred to as ethnic tourism), Cohen (2001) argues that
PR
103
104 hospitality, performances, and the arts become commoditized or at
105 least oriented towards outsiders. MacCannell suggests that, when a
106 group sees itself as an ethnic attraction, the group members begin to
107 think of themselves as representatives of an ethnic way of life, and
108 any change has economic and political implications for the whole
D
109 group. The ‘‘group is frozen in an image of itself or museumized’’
110 (1984:388). As Butcher (2001) discusses, cultural tourism can thus cre-
TE
111 ate a straitjacket for communities. Furthermore, differing levels of eco-
112 nomic development are seen as part of culture, and inequality becomes
113 reinterpreted as ‘‘cultural diversity’’. Following this logic, to preserve
114 the tourism product, is to maintain the lack of economic development
EC
115 and hence to preserve poverty.

116 When culture is defined as an object of tourism its authenticity is re-
117 duced (Taylor 2001:15). Furthermore, if a remote destination devel-
118 ops, it modernizes, and becomes more like the tourist’s society. Less
119 different and distinct, and no longer ‘‘primitive’’, it loses its appeal.
RR
120 As cultural assets are refined as consumables for tourists, culture be-
121 comes commoditized. The destination appears less authentic and so
122 the value of the product is reduced (Dearden and Harron 1992; Go
123 1997; Klieger 1990; Swain 1989). By implication ‘‘the benefits of mod-
CO
124 ernization should not be extended to the exotic Others, in case ‘they’
125 lose what ‘we’ want’’ (Meethan 2001:110).
126 As authenticity has no objective quality, it is socially constructed and
127 thus negotiable. It varies according to the tourists and their point of
128 view (Cohen 1988). It is a value placed on a setting by the observer
UN
129 (Moscardo and Pearce 1999). While it has long been recognized that
130 the commodification of culture may not destroy the meaning of cul-
131 tural products for either locals or tourists (Cohen 1988:383), the liter-
132 ature still generally suggests that the power exercised by latter
133 produces negative consequences such as the commodification of cul-
134 ture (Cheong and Miller 2000:372). However, this need not be auto-
135 matically coupled with arguments about the loss of authenticity, and
136 the consequent negative ‘‘impacts’’ on remote societies. Understood
137 from the perspective of the local people, cultural commodification can
138 be positive.
139 Appadurai (1986) highlighted the power implications embedded in
140 the notion of authenticity. Both Bruner (1994) and Taylor (2001) have
141 pointed at the important question: who has the right, authority, or
142 power to define what is authentic? Power relations in tourism are dy-
143 namic and constantly changing, they work in many directions and on
144 many levels, and are interconnected with knowledge (Cheong and
145 Miller 2000). This is no less so in remote marginal communities
146 (Adams 2004). However, there has been little analysis to understand
F
147 why, and in what circumstances, the power of tourism can be har-
148 nessed. While in some, the commodification of culture may be a dis-
OO
149 empowering experience, in others, marginal cultures have appropri-
150 ated tourism as a political instrument in the construction of their iden-
151 tity (Bianchi 2003:20). There is a need to examine how notions of
152 authenticity are contested, and under what circumstances cultural
tourism provides marginal people with a new identity and political re-
PR
153
154 source and under what circumstances this leads to empowerment.
155 Following Scheyvens (1999) and Di Castri (2004), empowerment in
156 this paper is taken to be the capacity of individuals or groups to deter-
157 mine their own affairs, and a process to help them exert control over
158 factors that affect their lives. Scheyvens (2003) built a framework
ED
159 around four dimensions of empowerment: economic, psychological,
160 social, and political. The economic gains well documented in the liter-
161 ature are signs of the first kind of empowerment. The psychological
162 comes from self-esteem and pride in cultural traditions. Social empow-
T
163 erment results from increased community cohesion when its members
164 are brought together through a tourism initiative. Scheyvens’ concep-
EC
165 tualization of political empowerment can be regarded in the sense So-

166 field (2003) discussed it: a multidimensional process, as well as an
167 outcome. It is about political and social power of which knowledge is
168 an essential element. Empowerment, he argues, provides a shift in
169 the balance between the powerful and the powerless, between the dom-
RR
170 inant and the dependent.

171 Cultural commodification is frequently regarded negatively, as the
172 objectification by ‘‘the West’’ of a cultural other. However, this masks
173 the empowerment of the pride brought by tourism and the political re-
CO
174 source that a new definable identity may offer. While Western analysts
175 have regarded the commodification of otherness ‘‘as a kind of institu-
176 tionalized racism that celebrates primitiveness’’ (Mowforth and Munt
177 1998:270), it needs also to be recognized as part of a process of
178 empowerment.
UN
179 Research Setting

180 The research took place in two villages in Ngadha, approximately the
181 southwest third of the Ngada regency of Flores, Nusa Tenggara Timor,
182 Indonesia (see Figure 1). The Ngadha, like many inhabitants of the
183 interior of Indonesian islands, were a loosely structured, scattered
STROMA COLE 5
F
OO
PR
D
TE
EC
Figure 1. Location of Research Site

RR
184 population and did not view themselves as a distinct ethnic group. Un-
185 der the New Order government ethnic identity was de-recognized in fa-
186 vor of a homogenizing discourse of development (Li 2000). The
CO
187 Ngadha, along with a million other rural people were classified as ‘‘es-
188 tranged’’ and ‘‘isolated’’ (Department of Social Affairs 1994). Their
189 cultural distinction and livelihood practices were evidence of ‘‘back-
190 wardness’’ and a ‘‘development deficit’’ the government would help
191 them overcome (Li 2000).
UN
192 The area is one of the poorest in Indonesia. Poverty on Flores is such
193 that 100% of villages receive grants paid to those ‘‘left behind by devel-
194 opment’’. Tourism is considered the area’s best option for economic
195 progress (Umbu Peku Djawang 1991), partly due to its location, be-
196 tween two of East Indonesia’s most renowned attractions. To the east
197 is Keli Mutu, a volcano with three different-colored lakes at its peak.
198 To the west lies Komodo National Park, famed for its Varamus komodo-
199 ensis (dragons). The villages lie in a rugged mountainous region with
200 steep slopes and poor soils. They are largely subsistence agriculturists
201 growing maize and vegetables for their own consumption. A variety
202 of cash crops are grown including beans, coffee, vanilla, and pepper.
203 Variable agricultural production is supplemented by craft production,
204 which is subject to village and gender specialization.
205 The villages began to be visited by ‘‘drifters’’ in the 80s and have
206 seen an increasing number of tourists ever since. Nearly all who visit
207 Flores are of a ‘‘hardy type’’ (Erb 2000), within which there are a vari-
208 ety of types that visit the area (Cole 2000). The most popular settle-
209 ment received 9,000 tourists in 1997 (Regency Department of
F
210 Education and Culture 1998). Whereas the majority of arrivals to Indo-
211 nesia are Asians (Hall 1997), in the 90s the greatest numbers in Nga-
OO
212 dha were Dutch, followed by Australians and New Zealanders,
213 British, Germans, and French. Tourism is also more seasonally marked
214 in Ngadha than in Indonesia generally. The seasonal peak is between
215 June and October, with August arrivals reaching over four times
December levels.
PR
216
217 The house is the central organizing principle of Ngadha society. All
218 members of this society belong to a named house and clan. Wooden
219 houses with high thatched roofs are arranged in two parallel lines or
220 around the sides of a rectangle to form a nua, the spiritual heart of a
221 Ngadha village. In the center are a ngadhu (a carved tree trunk with
ED
222 a conical thatched roof, associated with a clan’s first male ancestor)
223 and bhaga (miniature house representing a clan’s first female ances-
224 tor); and a number of megaliths. The complex of attractions provides
225 tourists with ‘‘a feeling of being enclosed in antiquity’’ (Cole 1998: 41).
T
226 Ngadha social organization is shaped by three conflicting structures.

227 The Indonesian state, the Catholic Church, and adat (customary law)
EC
228 all exert an influence at the same time. Administratively, the republic
229 is divided into provinsi (provinces), which are subdivided first into kabu-
230 paten (regencies), then into kecamatan (districts), and further into desa
231 (villages). The Dutch brought the Catholic Church to Ngadha in the
232 20s. Nearly all the villagers are now firm believers in God and are reg-
RR
233 ular church-goers. Alongside Catholicism, the influence of the ances-

234 tors remains equally important. Considerable time and expense are
235 dedicated to ceremonies, of which animal slaughter is an essential
236 element.
CO
237 Originally from Arabic, adat meant customary law or custom (Wilkin-
238 son, Cooper and Mohammed 1963). The term is accepted across the
239 Indonesian archipelago to mean custom or tradition (Echols and
240 Shadily 1989), but, as Picard discusses, ‘‘it is essentially a religious con-
241 cept, in the sense that it refers to a social order founded by the ances-
UN
242 tors to an unchangeable cosmic order’’ (1996:12). It exists to ensure

243 harmony in the universe. It governs relationships between the individ-
244 ual and community,gives guidance for relationships, and ‘‘is specific to
245 a particular ethnic group’’ (1996:153). However, just as all cultures
246 change, adat is strategically manipulated, socially negotiated, and thus
247 subject to change.
248 The word adat is used by the government in a secular sense to mean
249 ‘‘traditional’’, hence rumah adat (traditional house), or kampung adat
STROMA COLE 7
250 (traditional village). The government uses adat for those aspects of tra-
251 dition that can be separated from religion, state rules for life, and val-
252 ues. The term is then closely aligned with tradition as culture that can
253 be commoditized. Before examining its contested nature and how
254 tourism gives it commercial value and new power, the study methods
255 will be outlined.
256 Study Methods
F
257 This study was based on long-term research over more than 10 years
258 (1989-2000). The author operated tours in the area between 1989 and
OO
259 1994, which included a two-night stay in one of the villages in the study.
260 The success of the tours influenced the research that followed. Bring-
261 ing tourists, income, and piped water (Cole 1997) gave the researcher
262 credibility, trust, and rapport with the villagers. In 1996, 30 question-
263 naire-based interviews were carried out to explore their views and atti-
PR
264 tudes to tourists and tourism for an academic paper. Between July 1998
265 and February 1999 the author spent eight months carrying out ethno-
266 graphic fieldwork to investigate the values, attitudes, perceptions, and
267 priorities of the actors in tourism. This stage of the research employed
268 an essentially action oriented approach due to the enduring ties and
D
269 sense of responsibility that had developed over time. As discussed in
270 Cole (2004), there were distinct advantages returning to the same field
TE
271 site over a number of years: re-entry was easier, culture shock was min-
272 imized, and full engagement occurred only hours after arrival. Further-
273 more, moving to and from the study site over a period of years allowed
274 for periods of reflection after periods of fieldwork, and social visits
EC
275 were used to collect missing information.

276 As analyzed elsewhere (Cole 2004), the power relations between re-
277 searcher and respondents changed over time. As relationships devel-
278 oped, so did trust and respect, giving rise to rich insights and a
279 depth of data. However, long-term relationships can be limiting as well
RR
280 as helpful. As the researcher was adopted, she had the roles of daugh-
281 ter, sister, niece, aunt, and the like, to fulfill. Her freedom was re-
282 stricted and aspects of her research directed. Balancing roles of
283 family membership and research was a constant challenge.
CO
284 The researcher lived in two villages. Study methods included partic-
285 ipant observation, interviews, and focus groups with their residents.
286 The latter, adapted to suit the setting, were held with women, men,
287 and young people. The researcher moderated all the groups, each be-
288 tween nine and 14 participants. The groups were affected by the rap-
UN
289 port, authority, and respect developed with the respondents. The
290 dynamics of the different groups were affected by age difference, gen-
291 der, and amount of ‘‘stranger-value’’ between the researcher and par-
292 ticipants. Being familiar was normally an advantage, but having long-
293 established relationships made moderation difficult, especially as a wo-
294 man dealing with a group of familiar men. The meetings were tran-
295 scribed the next day. Cole (2005a) provides an indepth analysis of
296 the focus groups and their usefulness as a research technique.
297 Participant observation was carried out in a number of villages. The

298 researcher’s role oscillated through the observer-participant spectrum
299 (Gold 1958; Junker cited in May 1997), depending on time, place, and
300 participants. The data were recorded via tape, photography, and writ-
301 ten notes. The analysis of the ethnographic data involved a multiple ar-
302 ray of tasks, which often lacked a coherent order. Participant
303 observation involved two activities concurrently: the dual roles of par-
304 ticipation and data collection. At times, there was reliance on memory,
305 and notes were written as soon as possible. Rough notes were turned
306 into more coherent notes under subtitles.
F
307 This was the beginning of the data analysis. The subtitles were emer-
308 gent categories that began the process of coding, a type of domain anal-
OO
309 ysis (Spradley 1980). It was also a method employed to check the
310 recording of data. Informants were asked to help check and recheck data,
311 as the researcher tried to make sense of her observations and analysis.
312 The analysis continued after the fieldwork, when the bulk of the data
from the different stakeholders was reviewed. Categories were devised
PR
313
314 mainly inductively, by identifying meaningful themes (Thomas 2004).
315 As different sets of data were collected over a 10-year stretch, the re-
316 searcher was able to return to the field and discuss her analyses with
317 the villagers, to double-check her interpretation of their voices, and
318 to fill in gaps. Furthermore, with the advent of global communication
ED
319 there has been regular email contact with a key informant who moved
320 to Jakarta. This has allowed for ‘‘respondent validation’’, as accounts
321 and analyses were tested with him. At times, he took sections of the
322 analysis and translated them to his uncles, elders respected for their
T
323 intimate cultural knowledge, in order to get further feedback. The de-
324 tailed processes of data collection and analysis are published elsewhere
EC
325 (Cole 2005b).

326 Tourists were observed, interviewed, and surveyed at different points
327 during the study. They were surveyed in the gateway towns of Labuhan
328 Bajo and Maumere and in Bajawa, the local town, either prior to or
329 after their visit, to explore expectations and experiences. They were ob-
RR
330 served during their village visits and there were numerous opportuni-
331 ties for ‘‘spontaneous chats’’ (Selanniemi 1999). Government
332 officials at the provincial and regency level were also interviewed.
333 The head of the Regency Department of Tourism and the head of
CO
334 the Regency Department of Education and Culture were each inter-
335 viewed three times, at the beginning, middle, and end of the fieldwork.
336 All these interviews were recorded and transcribed. The longitudinal
337 nature of the research has enabled the researcher to return to the offi-
338 ces, recheck information, and obtain feedback on her interpretation of
UN
339 their narratives. The state’s perspective of tradition and authenticity is

340 presented first before examining the views of tourists and villagers.
341 The State’s Perspective

342 The Indonesian state perceives culture simultaneously as heritage
343 that should be looked after and as tourism capital to be exploited
STROMA COLE 9
344 (Picard 1997). It has been instrumental in the objectification of culture

345 and the reduction of it to the ‘‘cultural arts’’: dance, music, costumes,
346 handicrafts, and architecture (King and Wilder 2003; Picard 1997).
347 Once objectified, culture can be sold. The Provincial Department of
348 Tourism staff suggested that culture could be sold for tourism. The
349 head of the department actually used the words kebudayaan bisa dijual
350 (culture can be sold) and his staff made numerous references to peo-
351 ple and their tradition as attractions (obyek parawisata). ‘‘Tourists are
352 interested in ceremonies, customs and everyday activities that have
353 been passed down for generations and the villagers are happy for the
F
354 tourists to come because they know they don’t bring any problems’’,
355 staff in the Provincial Tourism office said. The department was also
OO
356 keen to point out that cultural tourism (wisata budaya) was dependent
357 on the villagers’ ‘‘maintaining their traditions’’.
358 In the past, the government (and the Church) has tried to limit the
359 number of animals that can be slaughtered at rituals, justified on the
grounds that these rituals were costly and economically impoverishing
PR
360
361 the villagers (Daeng 1988; Molnar 1998). It is through ritual sacrifice
362 that they communicate with their ancestors, and the associated feasting
363 is an essential part of maintaining social ties among villagers. Rituals also
364 attract tourists. Observing sacrifice is especially prestigious for the tourist
365 seeking the authentic exotic that traveling to Ngadha potentially offers,
D
366 as discussed later. If sufficient tourists are attracted to rituals involving
367 slaughter, it is possible that the government’s line could change: rather
TE
368 than being regarded as impoverishing, animal sacrifices may be funda-
369 mental to the development of villages as traditional ones (kampung
370 adat)/tourism attractions. Torajan funerals, for example, attract large
371 numbers of tourists whose visits have fuelled increasingly spectacular
EC
372 funerals involving large-scale animal sacrifice (Volkman 1985).

373 In Ngadha, four of the villages have been assigned prime attraction
374 (obyek wisata unggalan) status. The entire villages are regarded as na-
375 tional assets. The nua and megaliths have been documented as part
376 of the national heritage under the 1992 Law No. 5, Pemeliharaan Benda
RR
377 Benda dan Situs Benda Cagar Budaya (Preservation of Cultural Sites and
378 Objects). The properties of the clans have become possessions of the
379 state, which has simultaneously become the custodian of their
380 preservation.
CO
381 As cultural villages must be kept ‘‘traditional’’, conflict arises over

382 how traditional, and the villagers are limited in what they can do to
383 their own homes. Each year two houses, in each settlement, are com-
384 pletely refurbished. In 1998 conflict arose over methods of thatching.
385 All villagers agreed that the houses in the nua must be thatched (tradi-
UN
386 tional). State officials, however, would like to specify the method of
387 thatching. Although many reasons were given in discussions about a
388 household’s autonomy to decide how to thatch their home, the con-
389 sensus was that it should be done ‘‘the traditional way’’. Furthermore,
390 a house that was refurbished in 1998 was built without any opening
391 wooden windows. The headman’s rationale for this was ‘‘This is a tra-
392 ditional village. From now on, all houses must be traditional, tradition-
393 ally houses did not have opening windows’’.
394 Shortly after the author began taking tourists to stay in one of the
395 villages, electricity was installed. The poles were run, by the shortest
396 route, diagonally across the nua. In discussions with one of the mem-
397 bers of the tourism department, the electricity poles were given as a
398 reason the village, despite far easier access, was less visited than the
399 most popular one. Could it then be denied electricity, as it would de-
400 tract from its attractiveness as a prime attraction? The villagers saw elec-
401 tricity as a high priority for development. It ranked highest for young
402 people, second (after road improvements) for men and third (after
403 water supplies to individual houses and road improvements) for wo-
F
404 men. All the tourists that the author took to the village after the elec-
405 tricity poles were erected commented negatively about this highly
OO
406 visible sign of modernization as it ‘‘spoilt’’ their village photographs.
407 The promotion of traditional culture does not match the government’s
408 urge to pursue modernization. However, as discussed later, the state’s
409 perspective echoes the tourists’ view: the villages should not change.
PR
410 The Tourists’ Perspective
411 Tourists made the following comments, some written in the village
412 guest books, some recorded during post-trip interviews or in numerous
ED
413 spontaneous chats. ‘‘The villages were beautiful’’ and ‘‘The people
414 were friendly’’ were the most frequent comments in guest books. They
415 frequently said the villagers should keep their settlements as they were
416 and their traditions alive. Some thought that the trip was the highlight
T
417 of their travels. ‘‘Worth coming all the way to Flores for’’ (said English
418 school teacher); ‘‘The most beautiful villages we have visited in Indone-
EC
419 sia’’ (a Dutch couple); ‘‘The least spoilt villages we have seen’’ (a
420 French engineer); and ‘‘The most traditional culture I have observed’’
421 (a Norwegian).
422 Many tourists visited more than one Ngadha village. They usually
423 preferred settlements that were less visited and made little attempt to
RR
424 make money from tourism. Authenticity is a value sought by cultural

425 tourists to Ngadha settlements, and commercialization was equated
426 with the loss of authenticity. Many described the most popular village
427 as ‘‘spoilt,’’ ‘‘a bit spoilt’’ or, as one put it, having ‘‘a veneer of com-
CO
428 mercialism’’. The reasons given for these opinions were the ticket sales,
429 the Coca-Cola sales, the large number of houses displaying ikat weav-
430 ings for sale, the fact that children asked for sweets, and the requests
431 for money to take photographs.
432 Tourists preferred villages that appeared economically poorer. In
UN
433 seeking experiences far removed from their own lifestyle, they seek
434 ‘‘primitive’’ culture. Poverty is related to primitive in their minds, as
435 is not being ‘‘economically-minded’’. In seeking a contrast with their
436 own culture (Rojek 1997), they have notions of how the villages should
437 be: rural, poor, primitive, dirty, and traditional in contrast with their
438 urban, rich, sophisticated, clean, and modern lives.
439 For some the villages seemed ‘‘too good to be true’’, ‘‘too perfect’’,
440 ‘‘unreal’’ or model-like. Tourists who had visited other settlements in
STROMA COLE 11
441 Ngadha that contained both concrete and wooden houses with a mix
442 of both tin roofs and thatched roofs were more inclined to voice the
443 opinion that the villages were ‘‘alive only for tourism’’ (a German tea-
444 cher), ‘‘like walking into a show’’ (a Canadian scientist) ‘‘like a picture
445 postcard’’ (a middle-aged Belgium man). A lone French woman com-
446 plained, ‘‘There was nobody around, it was dead, alive only for tour-
447 ism’’. For others, the views were expressed due to the sales made to
448 tourists: ‘‘the village appeared unnatural’’(young English tourist),
449 and ‘‘a model for tourists’’ (Australian traveling to the United
450 Kingdom).
F
451 By contrast those that observed rituals did not think that the villages
452 were preserved for tourists. The rituals served as proof that they were
OO
453 primitive and their villages authentic. At rituals, just as the slaughter
454 is the highlight for the locals, so is it for the tourists: ‘‘It’s great to
455 see their real culture’’ (a young German), ‘‘We used to do this: it’s
456 amazing to be somewhere it still happens’’, ‘‘I feel so privileged to
see true tradition’’ (a Dutch volunteer). Observing rituals adds to
PR
457
458 the authenticity tourists strive to experience. Visiting a village allows
459 the tourist to stand on the stage of the exotic culture. Visiting during
460 a ritual allows the tourists to stand shoulder to shoulder with the actors,
461 to be extras in the play. D
462 Local Perspective
TE
463 In conversations and in the focus groups, the villagers denied there
464 was any conflict between tradition and modernization. They articulated
465 tradition as adat: the way of the ancestors. Unlike the state’s objectified
EC
466 concept, the villagers’ notion is more religious, referring to the be-
467 queathed social order. Adat manifests itself in house, clan, and nua
468 relations and the rituals to maintain them. Modernization is under-
469 stood as electricity, education, and healthcare. None of these would
470 diminish the value of adat. The cost of modernization did, however,
RR
471 compete for resources with rituals. Slaughtering fewer animals was con-
472 sidered an essential compromise in order to pay for electricity bills,
473 school fees, and medicine.
474 Villagers were not only happy for tourists to attend rituals, they ac-
CO
475 tively sought them to take part. It was common for guides to be in-
476 formed of rituals ahead of time so that they could bring tourists.
477 Ramai (the more the merrier) is a strong cultural value and the further
478 guests travel to attend a ritual the more importance is attached to it.
479 Locals were sometimes prepared to put on displays of music and
UN
480 dance. However, they disagreed with the idea of staging rituals for tour-
481 ists. One woman expressed their strength of feeling as follows: ‘‘Adat is
482 sacred; it takes blood; it can’t be done just like that; the ancestors
483 would be angry’’. While the they were happy to commodify dance dis-
484 plays, they disagreed with state officials that adat ceremonies could be
485 ‘‘sold’’.
486 Although the nua is considered the sacred center of a Ngadha vil-
487 lage, the residents were not concerned about its commodification.
488 They are proud that their villages are considered as national heritage.
489 One of the settlements sells tickets to tourists who wish to visit the nua.
490 Many in other settlements wanted to introduce a ticket system. These
491 sales were considered an important mechanism to ensure transparency
492 of tourists’ funds entering the village and to prevent conflict. Nua that
493 could be ‘‘sold’’ are considered superior. Ticket sales are badges of
494 being traditional enough to attract tourists; they work to authenticate
495 a village as traditional. In a similar way Erb (1998) found that those
496 paying for tickets to visit a traditional house, in neighboring Mangga-
497 rai, authenticated or ‘‘sacrilized’’ it for the locals.
F
498 The villagers of Ngadha like tourists for a number of reasons: they pro-
499 vide entertainment, bring economic benefits and service provision, pro-
OO
500 vide friends from far away places, and are a source of information.
501 Importantly, they make the locals proud of their cultural heritage. The
502 residents of Ngadha, in common with many peasants across the Indone-
503 sian archipelago, lack formal education and have a low opinion of them-
selves. This low self-worth is expressed as Saya hanya petani saja (I am only
PR
504
505 a peasant). This view results, at least in part, from 30 years of the New
506 Order Government labeling them as estranged, isolated, and backward.
507 Tourism is bringing the villagers dignity and confidence in their beliefs.
508 Many expressed the view that tourists make them feel bangga adat istiadat
509 dikenal oleh orang luar (proud that their culture is known to outsiders).
ED
510 Several villagers suggested that tourism mentebalkan adat istiadat (was
511 strengthening cultural values) and that their reverence and respect for
512 the ancestors could only be helped and not eroded by this business.
513 They were confident that their children would have the importance
T
514 of village custom reconfirmed by seeing tourists come from afar to

515 experience it. ‘‘If our culture is worth coming all the way from England
EC
516 to see, it is worthy of preservation’’, according to a local informant.

517 In the most visited village, a management group has been set up. This
518 democratic group (one member from each clan) decides how the funds
519 raised through tourism will be spent. It has been successful in revealing,
520 and reporting to higher authorities, a corrupt state official, who was
RR
521 siphoning off funds raised through ticket sales to tourists. The long his-
522 tory of an authoritarian, hierarchical government has meant that the
523 Ngadha villagers, like so many Indonesians, are deferential and obedi-
524 ent and fearful of authority. Tourism has changed their perceptions of
CO
525 themselves and is proving to be important in giving confidence to com-

526 munities and their members. Furthermore, pulling together to bring
527 about this action strengthened the sense of cohesion and integrity,
528 along with a sense of social empowerment (Scheyvens 2003).
UN
529 Cultural Commodification and Empowerment

530 The ethnic pride resulting from tourists’ visits that is widely reported
531 elsewhere (Adams 1997; Crystal 1978; Van den Berghe 1992) is appar-
532 ent in Ngadha; and this is a clear reason why tourists are appreciated.
533 Wood (1997) uses the term ‘‘ethnic option’’ to refer to the reflection,
534 debate, and conscious choice of ethnic labels, boundaries, and con-
STROMA COLE 13
535 tents. The Ngadha appear to have come into being, in the sense of a
536 discrete bounded group with an identifiable shared culture, as an eth-
537 nic option in part as a response to, and consequence of, tourism. The
538 clearest elements of Ngadha identity are their houses, ngadhu (cloth),
539 and bhaga (megaliths), and annual festivals. These elements are not
540 only identified by the locals but are also the symbols taken and used
541 in tourism. These tangible markers can be photographed and mar-
542 keted. They have become objectified and externalized, and this in itself
543 ‘‘tends to make people self-conscious and reflexive about the ‘cultural
544 stuff’ which, before, they may have taken for granted’’ (1997:19).
F
545 The Ngadha have never formed a unified political group. Tourism is
546 creating the internal recognition of a defined group based on the
OO
547 above set of markers. The notion of a bounded, localized, cultural
548 whole of Ngadha is a creation of outsiders, in part at least, in response
549 to tourism. The villagers in this study had, in their daily lives, identified
550 the local at the nua level whereas now they are aware of the broader
whole. Tourism is providing them with the pride of a broader identity.
PR
551
552 Minor ambitions, for example to be included in provincial level tour-
553 ism marketing material, will be an initial step in being recognized.
554 The cultural commodification of their difference has led to a recog-
555 nizable ‘‘ethnic group’’ identity. This process of commodification of
556 the villagers’ identity is bringing them pride and a self-conscious aware-
D
557 ness of their traditional culture, which has become a resource that they
558 manipulate to economic and political ends. Tourism is used as a rhe-
TE
559 torical weapon to underscore the power of adat: reinforcing it and
560 working to counterbalance the power of the state and church. Despite
561 the devaluing of adat by both the church and the state, the power of
562 the ancestors of Ngadha has been resilient. Tourism is now used to bol-
EC
563 ster their power.

564 Analysts have criticized tourism as leading to the reinterpretation of
565 poverty, suffering, and inequality as cultural diversity. This suggests
566 that residents are passive. While the Indonesian state may be responsi-
567 ble for ‘‘museumizing’’ them and creating a straitjacket for their visible
RR
568 cultural assets (such asarchitectural styles), tourists’ visits per se bring
569 pride and a self-conscious awareness of their traditional culture. The
570 villagers are mobilizing their new ethnic identity and its external recog-
571 nition as a resource. These are important steps towards empowerment.
CO
572 CONCLUSION
573 This research reveals that tourists do indeed make judgments about
UN
574 authenticity in relation to poverty. Any obvious attempts to derive eco-

575 nomic benefits from tourism resulted in the villages being described as
576 ‘‘spoilt’’. The commodification of culture (ticket sales, sales of souve-
577 nirs, or paying to take photographs) was viewed negatively, as is fre-
578 quently reflected in the academic literature.
579 At the same time, the local government, in order to attract tourists,
580 has legislated to protect material traditional culture. In order to re-
581 main traditional, villagers are being denied the rights to have windows
582 in their homes. It is possible some villages will also be denied electric-
583 ity, as it is considered to have ‘‘spoilt’’ a settlement where it has been
584 installed. Complete nua and the Ngadha megaliths are preserved as
585 heritage by the state; the villagers’ megaliths are reified and consigned
586 to the past by government and tourists (Cole 2003). Will basing culture
587 on markers related to the past, on tradition as unchanging, or on fixed
588 material elements, work to preserve the residents’ underdevelopment
589 rather than being a tool for development?
590 As the property of the clans is appropriated as national heritage, it
591 becomes the property of the state. This raises questions over owner-
F
592 ship. The difficulties experienced by villagers in Lombok reported by
593 Fallon (2001), Cushman (1999), and Bras (2000) all suggest that own-
OO
594 ership of the resource base is crucial to maintaining control over tour-
595 ism development. If the state can appropriate the clans’ property, they
596 could lay claim to other aspects of the villages. Furthermore, who ben-
597 efits from the economic growth of tourism is directly related to control
and ownership (Gunn 1994).
PR
598
599 The villagers articulate tradition as adat and believe that tourism will
600 reinforce its importance. Tourism is making them self-conscious and
601 proud of their culture. Their new identity, (re)created through tourism,
602 has given the local groups new political (and potential economic) capital
603 to manipulate. Identity and pride are important steps to empowerment.
ED
604 The analysis not only reveals very different interpretations of authen-
605 ticity; it also suggests that there are more important questions to be
606 asked in the debates about the sociocultural consequences of tourism.
607 Rather than unpacking authenticity into hot, cold, objective, construc-
T
608 tive, or existential, analysts need to be asking questions about how the
609 notion is articulated and by whom. A better understanding is needed
EC
610 of how cultural tourism is used by marginalized groups to gain power

611 and how they can use the identity and pride that commodifying their
612 cultural identity appears to bring. The interface between cultural com-
613 modification and ownership may be crucial to marginalized people
614 gaining or maintaining control of tourism in their midst.
RR
615 As some commentators have noted, people can use cultural com-
616 modification as a way of affirming their identity, of telling their own
617 story, and of establishing the significance of local experiences (Mac-
618 donald 1997). Far from rendering culture superficial and meaningless,
CO
619 commodification can be seen as ‘‘part of a very positive process by

620 which people are beginning to re-evaluate their history and shake off
621 the shame of peasantry’’ (Abram 1996:198). Elements of culture may
622 be commoditized through tourism, but self-conscious awareness of tra-
623 ditional culture as something local people possess, and that attracts
UN
624 tourists, can bring political legitimacy (where traditional culture and
625 the identity associated with it, have hitherto been debased). Tourism
626 can thus provide marginalized communities with a political resource
627 to manipulate. The questions that need to be asked are in what circum-
628 stances does cultural commodification lead to positive responses in
629 communities, and what factors lead cultural commodification to bring
630 empowerment to marginalized people in less economically developed
631 countries.
STROMA COLE 15
632 Acknowledgements—An earlier version of this paper was presented at Tourism: State of the Art
633 II in Strathclyde in June 2004. The author wishes to thank those that made positive, useful,
634 and critical comments.
635 REFERENCES
636 Abram, S.
637 1996 Reactions to Tourism: A View from the Deep Green Heart of France. In
638 Coping with Tourists. European Reactions to Mass Tourism, J. Boissevain, ed.,
639 pp. 174–203. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
F
640 Adams, K.
641 2004 The Genesis of Touristic Imagery: Politic and Poetics in the Creation of a
OO
642
643 Remote Indonesian Island Destination. Tourist Studies 4(2):115–135.
644 1997 Touting Touristic ‘‘Primmadonas: Tourism Ethnicity and National Inte-
645 gration in Sulawesi, Indonesia. In Tourism Ethnicity and the State in Asian
646 and Pacific Societies, M. Picard and R. Wood, eds., pp. 155–180. Honolulu:
647 University of Hawaii Press.
648 Appadurai, A.
PR
649 1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In The Social Life of
650 Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, A. Appadurai, ed., pp. 3–63.
651 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
652 Bianchi, R.
653 2003 Place and Power in Tourism Development: Tracing the Complex Artic-
654 ulations of Community and Locality. PASOS 1:13–32.
655 Bras, K.
D
656 2000 Image Building and Guiding on Lombok: The Social Construction of a
657 Tourist Destination. Amsterdam: Cocktail Communications.
658 Bruner, E.
TE
659 1994 Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of Postmodern-
660 ism American Anthropologist 96:397–415.
661 Butcher, J.
662 2001 Cultural Baggage and Cultural Tourism. In Innovations in Cultural
663
EC
Tourism, J. Butcher, ed.,. Proceedings of the 5th ATLAS International

664 Conference Innovatory approaches to Culture and Tourism 1998, Rethym-
665 non, Crete, Greece, pp. 2–25. ATLAS, Tilburg.
666 Cheong, S., and M. Miller
667 2000 Power and Tourism: A Foucauldian Observation. Annals of Tourism
668 Research 27:371–390.
RR
669 Cohen, E.
670 1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism
671 Research 15:371–386.
672 Cohen, E.
673 2001 Ethnic Tourism in Southeast Asia. In Tourism, Anthropology and China, C-
674
CO
B. Tan, C-H. Sidney, Y-H. Cheung, eds., pp. 27–53. Singapore: White Lotus
675 Press.
676 Cole, S.
677 1997 Anthropologists, Local Communities and Sustainable Tourism Develop-
678 ment. In Tourism and Sustainability, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 219–230. Oxford:
679 CABI.
UN
680 1998 Tradition and Tourism: Dilemmas in Sustainable Tourism Development—

681 A Case Study from Ngada Region of Flores, Indonesia. Anthropologi
682 Indonesia 56(22):37–46.
683 2000 Post-modern Tourist Typologies: Case Study from Ngadha Flores.
684 Indonesia. In Motivation, Behavior and Tourist Types, M. Robinson, P. Long,
685 N. Evans, R. Sharpley and J. Swarbrooke, eds., pp. 71-82. University of
686 Northumbria and Sheffield Hallam University, Sunderland: Center of Travel
687 and Tourism and Business Education Publishers.
688 2003 Appropriated Meanings: Megaliths and Tourism in Eastern Indonesia.
689 Indonesia and the Malay World 31(89):140–150.
690 2003 Shared Benefits: Longitudinal Research in Eastern Indonesia. In Quali-

691 tative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, J.
692 Phillimore and L. Goodson, eds., pp. 292–310. London: Routledge.
693 2005a Methodological Innovations in Tourism Research: Action Anthropol-
694
695 ogy—New Fieldwork Methods. Tourism Recreation Research 30:65–72.
696 2005b Action Ethnography: Using Participant Observation. In Tourism
697 Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice, B. Ritchie, P. Burns
698 and C. Palmer, eds., pp. 63–72. Wallingford: CABI.
699 Crystal, E.
700 1978 Tourism in Toraja (Sulawesi Indonesia). In Hosts and Guests: The
701 Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 109–125. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
702 Cushman, G.
F
703 1999 Independent Entrepreneurship: The Case of Gili Air, Lombok, Indonesia.
704 In Entrepreneurship and Education in Tourism, K. Bras, H. Dahles, M.
OO
705 Gunawan and G. Richards, eds., pp.173–184. Proceeding ATLAS Asia
706 Inauguration Conference.
707 Daeng, H.
708 1988 Ritual Feasting and Resource Competition in Flores. In The Real and
709 Imagined Role of Culture in Development, M. Dove, ed., pp. 254–267.
710 Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
PR
711 Dearden, P., and S. Harron
712 1992 Case Study: Tourism and the Hill Tribes of Thailand. In Special Interest
713 Tourism, B. Weiller and M. Hall, eds., pp. 95–104. London: Belhaven.
714 Department of Social Affairs
715 1994 Isolated Community Development: Data and Information. Jakarta:
716 Directorate of Isolated Community Development, Directorate General of
717 Social Welfare Development, Department of Social Affairs.
ED
718 Di Castri, F.
719 2004 Sustainable Tourism in Small Islands: Local Empowerment as a Key Factor
720 www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/island/insula-tour-em (5 July 2004).
721 Echols, J., and H. Shadily
722 1989 Kamus Indonesia Inggris (third ed.). Jakarta: Gramedia.
T
723 Erb, M.
724 1998 Tourism Space in Manggarai, Western Flores, Indonesia: The House as a
725
726
EC
Contested Place. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 19:177–192.

727 2000 Understanding Tourists: Interpretations from Indonesia. Annals of
728 Tourism Research 27:709–736.
729 Fallon, F.
730 2001 Land Conflicts and Tourism in Lombok. Current Issues in Tourism
731 4:401–481.
RR
732 Franklin, A., and M. Crang

733 2001 The Trouble with Tourism and Travel Theory?. Tourist Studies 1:5–22.
734 Getz, D.
735 1998 Event Tourism and the Authenticity Dilemma. In Global Tourism, W.
736 Theobald, ed., pp. 409–427. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.
CO
737 Go, F.
738 1997 Entrepreneurs and the Tourism Industry in Developing Countries. In
739 Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs and Sustainable Development, H. Dahles, ed.,
740 pp. 5–22. Tilburg: ATLAS.
741 Graburn, N.
742 1984 The Evolution of Tourist Arts. Annals of Tourism Research 11:393–419.
UN
743 Greenwood, D.
744 1978 Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as
745 Cultural Commoditization. In Host and Guests: The Anthropology of
746 Tourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 129–138. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
747 Gunn, C.
748 1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. New York: Taylor and Francis.
749 Hall, M.
750 1997 Tourism in the Pacific Rim: Developments, Impacts and Markets (second
751 ed.). Melbourne: Addison Wesley-Longman.
STROMA COLE 17
752 King, V., and W. Wilder

753 2003 The Modern Anthropology of South East Asia: An Introduction. London:
754 Routledge-Curzon.
755 Klieger, P.
756 1990 Close Encounters: ‘‘Intimate’’ Tourism in Tibet. Cultural Survival Quar-
757 terly 14:2–5.
758 Li, T.
759 2000 Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the
760 Tribal Slot. Comparative Studies in Society and History 42:1–31.
761 MacCannell, D.
762
763 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken.
764 1984 Reconstructed Ethnicity: Tourism and Cultural Identity in Third World
F
765 Communities. Annals of Tourism Research 11:375–391.
766 MacDonald, S.
OO
767 1997 A People’s Story: Heritage, Identity and Authenticity. In Touring Cultures:
768 Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 155–175.
769 London: Routledge.
770 May, T.
771 1997 Social Research: Issues, Methods and Processes. Buckingham: OUP.
772 Meethan, K.
PR
773 2001 Place, Culture, Consumption. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
774 Molnar, A.
775 1998 Considerations of Consequences of Rapid Agricultural Modernisation
776 among two Ngadha Communities. Anthropologi Indonesia 56:47–59.
777 Moscardo, G., and P. Pearce
778 1999 Understanding Ethnic Tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 26:416–434.
779 Mowforth, M., and I. Munt
D
780 1998 Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London:
781 Routledge.
782
TE
Olsen, K.
783 2002 Authenticity as a Concept in Tourism Research. Tourist Studies 2:159–
784 182.
785 Picard, M.
786 1996 Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: Archipelago
787
EC
Press.
788 1997 Cultural Tourism, Nation-building, and Regional Culture: The Making of a
789 Balinese Identity. In Tourism Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific
790 Societies, M. Picard and R. Wood, eds., pp. 181–214. Honolulu: University of
791 Hawaii Press.
792 Rojek, C.
RR
793 1997 Indexing, Dragging and the Social Construction of Tourist Sights. In
794 Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry,
795 eds., pp. 52–74. London: Routledge.
796 Scheyvens, R.
797 1999 Ecotourism and Empowerment of Local Communities. Tourism Manage-
CO
798
799 ment 20:245–249.
800 2003 Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. New Jersey:
801 Prentice Hall.
802 Selanniemi, T.
803 1999 Being a Tourist among Tourists: Ethnography and the Study of Charter
804 Tourists. International Conference on Anthropology. Kunming: Chinese
UN
805 Society and Tourism.

806 Selwyn, T.
807 1996 Introduction. In The Tourist Image. Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,
808 T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 1–32. Chichester: Wiley.
809 Soejono, S.
810 1996 Dampak Industri Parawisata Pada Seni Pertunjukan Jurnal Masyarakat Seni
811 Pertunjuk Indonesia Th VIII, pp. 101–115.
812 Sofield, T.
813 2003 Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development. Oxford: Pergamon.
814 Spradley, J.
815 1980 Participant Observation. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
816 Swain, M.
817 1989 Developing Ethnic Tourism in Yunan China: Shalin Sani. Tourism
818 Recreation Research 14:33–40.
819 Taylor, J.
820 2001 Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
821 28:7–26.
822 Thomas, K.
823 2004 The Research Process as a Journey. In Qualitative Research in Tourism:
824 Ontologies, J. Phillimore and L. Goodson, eds.,. Epistemologies and Meth-
825 odologies pp. 197–214. London: Routledge.
F
826 Umbu Peku Djawang
827 1991 The Role of Tourism in NTT Development. In Nusa Tenggara Timor: The
OO
828 Challenge of Development Political and Social Change, C. Barlow, A. Bellis
829 and K. Andrews, eds., pp.155–164. Monograph 12, Canberra: ANU University.
830 Volkman, T.
831 1985 Feasts of Honor: Ritual and Change in the Toraja Highlands. Chicago:
832 University of Illinois Press.
833 van den Berghe, P.
PR
834 1992 Tourism and the Ethnic Division of Labor. Annals of Tourism Research
835 19:234–249.
836 Wang, N.
837 1999 Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Annals of Tourism
838 Research 26:349–370.
839 Wilkinson, R., A. Cooper, and M. Mohamed
840 1963 An Abridged Malay-English English-Malay Dictionary. London: Macmillan.
ED
841 Wood, R.
842 1997 Tourism and the State: Ethnic Options and the Construction of Otherness.
843 In Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, M. Picard
844 and R. Wood, eds., pp. 1–34. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
845
T
846 Submitted 19 October 2005. Resubmitted 14 March 2006. Resubmitted 15 August 2006.
EC
847 Resubmitted 13 March 2007. Final version 13 March 2007. Accepted 15 April 2006.
848 Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Ning Wang
RR
849
CO
UN
View publication stats

Annalsarticle 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annalsarticle 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Beyond authenticity and commodiﬁcation

Article in Annals of Tourism Research · October 2007

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

6 Abstract: Authenticity and commodification are central to academic debates in tourism.

40 The paper reinforces Franklin and Crang’s suggestion to move away

66 empowering a marginalized community.

67 AUTHENTICITY, COMMODIFICATION AND EMPOWERMENT

70 sequences. Authenticity is a Western cultural notion associated with the

74 yses have attempted to deconstruct the notion. For example, Selwyn

79 ticity (something that can emerge or acquire social recognition as

87 Fuenterrabia in Spain, Greenwood concluded that a performance for

115 and hence to preserve poverty.

165 tualization of political empowerment can be regarded in the sense So-

170 inant and the dependent.

179 Research Setting

Figure 1. Location of Research Site

226 Ngadha social organization is shaped by three conflicting structures.

233 ular church-goers. Alongside Catholicism, the influence of the ances-

242 tors to an unchangeable cosmic order’’ (1996:12). It exists to ensure

256 Study Methods

275 were used to collect missing information.

297 Participant observation was carried out in a number of villages. The

325 (Cole 2005b).

339 their narratives. The state’s perspective of tradition and authenticity is

341 The State’s Perspective

344 (Picard 1997). It has been instrumental in the objectification of culture

372 funerals involving large-scale animal sacrifice (Volkman 1985).

381 As cultural villages must be kept ‘‘traditional’’, conflict arises over

424 make money from tourism. Authenticity is a value sought by cultural

514 of village custom reconfirmed by seeing tourists come from afar to

516 to see, it is worthy of preservation’’, according to a local informant.

525 themselves and is proving to be important in giving confidence to com-

529 Cultural Commodification and Empowerment

563 ster their power.

574 authenticity in relation to poverty. Any obvious attempts to derive eco-

610 of how cultural tourism is used by marginalized groups to gain power

619 commodification can be seen as ‘‘part of a very positive process by

Tourism, J. Butcher, ed.,. Proceedings of the 5th ATLAS International

680 1998 Tradition and Tourism: Dilemmas in Sustainable Tourism Development—

690 2003 Shared Benefits: Longitudinal Research in Eastern Indonesia. In Quali-

Contested Place. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 19:177–192.

732 Franklin, A., and M. Crang

752 King, V., and W. Wilder

805 Society and Tourism.

You might also like