Paper Title

Authenticity and Patriotism—An Examination of Lincoln Heritage Attractions in Illinois

Start Date

7-1-2011 4:00 PM

End Date

7-1-2011 5:15 PM

Track

1. Track 1 – Formal Paper Presentation

Subject Area

Travel and Tourism

Faculty Member

Bruce Wicks bew@illinois.edu

Abstract

Authenticity and Patriotism—An Examination of Lincoln Heritage Attractions in Illinois

Yu Song (Charlotte)

Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ABSTRACT

Although leisure industry today is highly competitive, the demand for heritage tourism is continuously increasing. On the one hand, authenticity is an essential quality for heritage tourism as a product. In North America, with the decline of manufacturing industries, global capitalism imbues the rising heritage tourism with commodification, converting authenticity to marketing ploys. On the other hand, authenticity is a critical value in the social construction of heritage tourism sites. It is argued that the fabrication of heritage tourism attraction mandates the abuse and misinterpret of history in order to integrate a selective past into group identities. While Lincoln heritage attractions are promoted by tourism operators as embodiment of value, spirit and history of the nation, tourists did not blindly accept what is presented to them but instead can critically reflect on their heritage tourism experience. This study takes a qualitative approach to examine the double role of authenticity in the context of Lincoln heritage attractions in Illinois. It is the first in the literature to investigate authenticity as both a quality of product and as a value of social construction. Findings are expected to provide a better understanding of authenticity as a multi-dimensional principle in heritage tourism and reveal the interrelationship among factors determining the success of heritage tourism, including authenticity, historical accuracy, commodification and patriotism in the context of Lincoln heritage attractions in Illinois.

Key Words: authenticity, patriotism, heritage tourism, Lincoln, Springfield

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, the issue of authenticity has been identified as a central orienting principle in the studies of heritage tourism in both the fields of tourism and anthropology. While tourism literature concerns authenticity as an essential quality of tourism product, anthropology literature focuses on authenticity as a value in the social construction of heritage sties.

As widely acknowledged in tourism literature, authenticity is the most important aspect of travel experience and a major motive for coming to heritage tourism attractions (Pearce and Moscardo, 1986; Halewood and Hannam, 2001; Taylor, 2001). In North America, with the decline of manufacturing industries, tourism has been increasingly regarded as a vital business strategy for economic regeneration. Time-space compression and the development of communication technology further strengthen globalization capitalism force, inducing to manufactured heritage attractions that have falsified time and place (Goss, 1993; Urry, 1995). Authenticity is being converted to marketing ploys for heritage tourism branding and promoting.

In anthropology, authenticity is regarded as a central value in social construction of heritage sites. Lindholm (2008) defined authenticity as “original, real and pure; they are what they purport to be, their roots are known and verified, their essence and appearance are one. (p.2)” Suppose this statement stands, in order to prove something is authentic, it is necessary to establish a provenance for it, give it an identity, know its root to verify its origin. Only history can provide the evidence of roots, but history is subjective—the same period of past can be totally different in different versions of history textbooks. Even when history is clear and beyond doubt, heritage intentionally misread, selectively forget and purposefully make up history (Lowenthal, 1998). As a matter of fact, heritage mandates the abuse and misinterpret of history, since it is the only way for forging and integrating legacies into individual and group identities. Only by falsify the fact and mistakenly remember the past can we tell a story we need and in the way we want. Making up heritage, inventing heritage and fabricating heritage are especially obtrusive when a country wants to establish a national esteem, fortify a unique identity or strengthen patriotism among citizens (Hobsbawn, 1983). In this sense, heritage tourism celebrates the past in a tailored fashion only for the purpose of today. The judgment of heritage authenticity is therefore historically constrained and socially constructed.

Heritage is the focus of patriotism. It bounds groups, certifies identities, and tells us who we are. Heritage tourism attractions reflect the negotiation between tourism operators and consumers on how to define ourselves, about past, present and the future. By choosing to promote heritage sites that signify a particular value, spirit and history, we discard memories associated with the non-heritage. Heritage is about politics, the government selectively fund, maintain and promote certain sites that embody the value, spirit and history of the nation. Authenticity certifies heritage tourism attractions by giving it power to define who naturally owns more power than other individuals and parties, imposing an institutionalized hierarchical power distribution among different actors in the society (Parish, 2009).

Setting

Lincoln, being a national idol and deity, nourishes America’s moral identity by reiterating the nation’s history and traditional values, shaping the moral character of its citizens. This paper looks specifically into the Lincoln attractions at Springfield in the State of Illinois, including the newly built Abraham Lincoln Museum, the Lincoln Home and the Lincoln Tomb, targeting on discourses presenting the social construction process, the debate about its value on fortifying patriotism and the discrepancy of authenticity attributed by tourism operators and perceived by visitors.

Purpose of the study

The study aims to broaden the understanding of authenticity both as a quality of product and as a value in the social construction of heritage tourism sites. More specifically, this study concerns authenticity as a marketing ploy and as a socially constructed mechanism through which patriotism can be constructed and communicated.

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

This article utilizes two sources of data. One is the texts published on local newspapers, tourism promotion brochures, flyers, and websites. The other source is from ethnographic approaches including in-depth interview with tourism operators and planning professionals, conversation with tourists and staff.

Analysis

This article attempts to use critical discourse analysis. It looks critically at the ‘text’ or institutionalized ways of thinking heritage tourism as compared to visitor perception of what is presented to them. The original using of the term discourse by Foucault was referring to communication that requires specialized knowledge. By using the structure and messages embodied in the language surrounding heritage, we can better understand the dominant discourse of heritage and the way it both reflects and constitutes a range of social practices—not least the way it organizes social relations and identities around nation, class and culture.

CONCLUSION

Expected results and implications

The study is expected to provide a fuller view of the role of authenticity in heritage tourism production and consumption. These observations will inspire heritage tourism planners and practitioners by providing them suggestions and guidelines in building, branding and promoting of heritage tourism sites. Besides, it will also provide valuable insight into the way of efficient communication of patriotism through the medium of heritage tourism.

Limitation and recommendations

It has been recognized that studies of authenticity in tourism are restricted by the context being studied (Sedmak & Mihali, 2003) and the approach being used (Wang, 1999). To reduce the bias and make generalized results, future research will therefore need to integrate findings from different contexts and approaches.

Reference

Goss, J. D. (1993). Placing the market and marketing place: Tourist advertising of the Hawaiian Islands. Environment and Planning: Society and Space 11(6), 663-688.

Halewood, C. and Hannam, K. (2001).Viking heritage tourism: authenticity and commodification, Annals of Tourism Research 28(3), 565–580.

Hobsbawn, E. (1983). Introduction: Inventing traditions. In Hobsbawn, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and authenticity. Malden: Blackwell Publication.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating heritage. History and Memory 10(1), 5-24.

Parish, S. M. (2009). Review essay. Are we condemned to authenticity? Ethos 37(1), 139-153.

Pearce, P. and Moscardo, G. (1986). The concept of authenticity in tourists experiences, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 22, 121–132.

Sedmak, G.& Mihali, H. (2003). Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals of Tourism Research. 35(4), 1007–1031.

Taylor, J. (2001). Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28(1), 7–26.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349-370.

Keywords

authenticity, patriotism, heritage tourism, Lincoln, Springfield

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Jan 7th, 4:00 PM Jan 7th, 5:15 PM

Authenticity and Patriotism—An Examination of Lincoln Heritage Attractions in Illinois

Authenticity and Patriotism—An Examination of Lincoln Heritage Attractions in Illinois

Yu Song (Charlotte)

Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ABSTRACT

Although leisure industry today is highly competitive, the demand for heritage tourism is continuously increasing. On the one hand, authenticity is an essential quality for heritage tourism as a product. In North America, with the decline of manufacturing industries, global capitalism imbues the rising heritage tourism with commodification, converting authenticity to marketing ploys. On the other hand, authenticity is a critical value in the social construction of heritage tourism sites. It is argued that the fabrication of heritage tourism attraction mandates the abuse and misinterpret of history in order to integrate a selective past into group identities. While Lincoln heritage attractions are promoted by tourism operators as embodiment of value, spirit and history of the nation, tourists did not blindly accept what is presented to them but instead can critically reflect on their heritage tourism experience. This study takes a qualitative approach to examine the double role of authenticity in the context of Lincoln heritage attractions in Illinois. It is the first in the literature to investigate authenticity as both a quality of product and as a value of social construction. Findings are expected to provide a better understanding of authenticity as a multi-dimensional principle in heritage tourism and reveal the interrelationship among factors determining the success of heritage tourism, including authenticity, historical accuracy, commodification and patriotism in the context of Lincoln heritage attractions in Illinois.

Key Words: authenticity, patriotism, heritage tourism, Lincoln, Springfield

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, the issue of authenticity has been identified as a central orienting principle in the studies of heritage tourism in both the fields of tourism and anthropology. While tourism literature concerns authenticity as an essential quality of tourism product, anthropology literature focuses on authenticity as a value in the social construction of heritage sties.

As widely acknowledged in tourism literature, authenticity is the most important aspect of travel experience and a major motive for coming to heritage tourism attractions (Pearce and Moscardo, 1986; Halewood and Hannam, 2001; Taylor, 2001). In North America, with the decline of manufacturing industries, tourism has been increasingly regarded as a vital business strategy for economic regeneration. Time-space compression and the development of communication technology further strengthen globalization capitalism force, inducing to manufactured heritage attractions that have falsified time and place (Goss, 1993; Urry, 1995). Authenticity is being converted to marketing ploys for heritage tourism branding and promoting.

In anthropology, authenticity is regarded as a central value in social construction of heritage sites. Lindholm (2008) defined authenticity as “original, real and pure; they are what they purport to be, their roots are known and verified, their essence and appearance are one. (p.2)” Suppose this statement stands, in order to prove something is authentic, it is necessary to establish a provenance for it, give it an identity, know its root to verify its origin. Only history can provide the evidence of roots, but history is subjective—the same period of past can be totally different in different versions of history textbooks. Even when history is clear and beyond doubt, heritage intentionally misread, selectively forget and purposefully make up history (Lowenthal, 1998). As a matter of fact, heritage mandates the abuse and misinterpret of history, since it is the only way for forging and integrating legacies into individual and group identities. Only by falsify the fact and mistakenly remember the past can we tell a story we need and in the way we want. Making up heritage, inventing heritage and fabricating heritage are especially obtrusive when a country wants to establish a national esteem, fortify a unique identity or strengthen patriotism among citizens (Hobsbawn, 1983). In this sense, heritage tourism celebrates the past in a tailored fashion only for the purpose of today. The judgment of heritage authenticity is therefore historically constrained and socially constructed.

Heritage is the focus of patriotism. It bounds groups, certifies identities, and tells us who we are. Heritage tourism attractions reflect the negotiation between tourism operators and consumers on how to define ourselves, about past, present and the future. By choosing to promote heritage sites that signify a particular value, spirit and history, we discard memories associated with the non-heritage. Heritage is about politics, the government selectively fund, maintain and promote certain sites that embody the value, spirit and history of the nation. Authenticity certifies heritage tourism attractions by giving it power to define who naturally owns more power than other individuals and parties, imposing an institutionalized hierarchical power distribution among different actors in the society (Parish, 2009).

Setting

Lincoln, being a national idol and deity, nourishes America’s moral identity by reiterating the nation’s history and traditional values, shaping the moral character of its citizens. This paper looks specifically into the Lincoln attractions at Springfield in the State of Illinois, including the newly built Abraham Lincoln Museum, the Lincoln Home and the Lincoln Tomb, targeting on discourses presenting the social construction process, the debate about its value on fortifying patriotism and the discrepancy of authenticity attributed by tourism operators and perceived by visitors.

Purpose of the study

The study aims to broaden the understanding of authenticity both as a quality of product and as a value in the social construction of heritage tourism sites. More specifically, this study concerns authenticity as a marketing ploy and as a socially constructed mechanism through which patriotism can be constructed and communicated.

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

This article utilizes two sources of data. One is the texts published on local newspapers, tourism promotion brochures, flyers, and websites. The other source is from ethnographic approaches including in-depth interview with tourism operators and planning professionals, conversation with tourists and staff.

Analysis

This article attempts to use critical discourse analysis. It looks critically at the ‘text’ or institutionalized ways of thinking heritage tourism as compared to visitor perception of what is presented to them. The original using of the term discourse by Foucault was referring to communication that requires specialized knowledge. By using the structure and messages embodied in the language surrounding heritage, we can better understand the dominant discourse of heritage and the way it both reflects and constitutes a range of social practices—not least the way it organizes social relations and identities around nation, class and culture.

CONCLUSION

Expected results and implications

The study is expected to provide a fuller view of the role of authenticity in heritage tourism production and consumption. These observations will inspire heritage tourism planners and practitioners by providing them suggestions and guidelines in building, branding and promoting of heritage tourism sites. Besides, it will also provide valuable insight into the way of efficient communication of patriotism through the medium of heritage tourism.

Limitation and recommendations

It has been recognized that studies of authenticity in tourism are restricted by the context being studied (Sedmak & Mihali, 2003) and the approach being used (Wang, 1999). To reduce the bias and make generalized results, future research will therefore need to integrate findings from different contexts and approaches.

Reference

Goss, J. D. (1993). Placing the market and marketing place: Tourist advertising of the Hawaiian Islands. Environment and Planning: Society and Space 11(6), 663-688.

Halewood, C. and Hannam, K. (2001).Viking heritage tourism: authenticity and commodification, Annals of Tourism Research 28(3), 565–580.

Hobsbawn, E. (1983). Introduction: Inventing traditions. In Hobsbawn, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and authenticity. Malden: Blackwell Publication.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating heritage. History and Memory 10(1), 5-24.

Parish, S. M. (2009). Review essay. Are we condemned to authenticity? Ethos 37(1), 139-153.

Pearce, P. and Moscardo, G. (1986). The concept of authenticity in tourists experiences, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 22, 121–132.

Sedmak, G.& Mihali, H. (2003). Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals of Tourism Research. 35(4), 1007–1031.

Taylor, J. (2001). Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28(1), 7–26.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349-370.