Authentication: Hot and cool

Authenticity and the Pseudo-Backstage of Agri-Tourism

“…The stage was prepared when the rural life and landscape of summer farming successively emerged as symbols of national identity and heritage during the romantic era. Further, when tourism developed, and partly originated from the same symbols, the staging dimension was updated and amplified, and especially through the process of 'cool authentication' (Cohen & Cohen, 2012) related to World Heritage candidacy in Bregenzerwald. Despite the fact that the farmers had relatively little influence on the process, they had been confronted with its results and consequences, as they, their places, and their products had become even more significant objects of touristic desire.…”

“…The process of authentication (Cohen & Cohen, 2012;Desmond, 1999;Peterson, 2005;) takes place within specific socio-cultural backgrounds and in different arenas, including media, politics, science, and in actual tourist settings, such as the summer farms examined in this study. Cohen & Cohen (2012) identify two modes of authentication: 'cool authentication', where the authenticity of a site or an event is certified through the act of experts or an authority (typically declared World Heritage sites); and 'hot authentication', which is enacted and confirmed by tourists' practices (such as tourists' notes in guest books or rituals that develop at tourism sites). This suggests that the permanent negotiation and fabrication of authenticity is an inherent characteristic of tourism itself -on a micro-level (e.g.…”

“…Prior to then several predecessors and related notions had given way to what is currently regarded as heritage (Harvey, 2001). However, it was in the mid-20th century that the concept of heritage received attention on a global scale and reached a (still growing) mass audience (Lowenthal, 1998 (Smith, 2006) or processes of certified 'cool authentication' (Cohen & Cohen, 2012), it is vital to acknowledge the regional and situational reinterpretations of heritage and how such heritage is negotiated locally (Smith, 2006). Smith states that heritage is a discourse per se and thus a socio-cultural process of meaning-making, not a 'thing'.…”

Ethnic boundaries and boundary-making in handicrafts: examples from northern Norway, Sweden and Finland

“…In contrast, representations of more complexity, such as local differences among Sámi or Kven and Torne valley origins, do not seem to be visible or to matter as much to the tourist. This may result in dynamics where other locals also work with -what can be interpreted as -Sámi symbols (Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes 2011) or where Sámi handicrafts become imitated, manufactured in faraway locations and then re-enter the local market (Cohen and Cohen 2012). As elaborated by Åhrén (2010) for the case of Sámi, such practices could violate laws concerning property rights and self-determination, as they might harm cultural identity.…”

“…They raise questions concern who can do what handicraft, who can use what symbols or what developments are "allowed". Studying the practices and discourses relating ethnicity and handicrafts, we consider it crucial to acknowledge both the specific historic, geographic context and claims about cultural ownership, as well as the more pragmatic understanding that no handicraft or culture has one unilineal tradition (Evans-Pritchard 1987;Cohen and Cohen 2012).…”