|
|
By necessity, inherited Dutch traditions interacted with the American “demands of the host society” (261). Thus, for a subculture such as Dutch-Americans, “it is hard to define a pure or authentic culture,” a difficulty compounded by the fact that “cultural forms of both diasporic and nondiasporic groups constantly change as a consequence of external cultural influences” (262). But if we set aside notions of objective authenticity—either because there is no such thing, because it is impossible to ultimately quantify or define, or because a hybrid culture cannot have a static original to conform to—alternative conceptions of authenticity emerge. Che touches on three such alternative conceptions. Wang Ning promotes the concept of existential authenticity “in which the authentic self is realized and an existential state of being is an outcome of tourists’ performance in events outside the routine,” thereby allowing “for authenticity even if the tourism objects themselves are inauthentic” (262). McIntosh and Prentice put forward a view of authenticity in which “authenticity is realized as tourists attain personal insights and associations through their experiences” (262). Most importantly, Erik Cohen advances “emergent authenticity,” wherein “crafts and festivals that were initially produced for tourists and considered contrived or inauthentic can acquire new meanings for locals as a means of self-representation before tourists” (263). In this formulation, Che observes, “[T]ouristic events may eventually be recognized as ‘authentic’ local customs and products of an ethnic group or region” (263). In all of these alternative conceptions, “authenticity” is more of a dynamic process than an “original” to be emulated. George Hughes, also approaching issues of authenticity from a tourism research perspective, advocates a conception of authenticity joined to an existential perspective: