Jillian M.Rickly-Boyd (Indiana University, Department of Geography, Student Building120, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-7100, USA. Email ) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Geography at Indiana University.Her tourism research interests include landscape studies, notions of authenticity, and theintersections of travel experience and identity.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 269289, 20120160-7383/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.003www.elsevier.com/locate/atouresINTRODUCTION

Authenticity, as a multi-faceted concept, has long held a centralposition in tourism studies (see Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Belhassen,Caton, & Stewart, 2008; Bruner, 1994; Buchmann, Moore, & Fisher,2010; Cohen, 1988; DeLyser, 1999; Gable & Handler, 1996; Kim &Jamal, 2007; Lau, 2010; MacCannell, 1976, 1999; Metro-Roland, 2009;Oakes, 2006; Olsen, 2002; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Rickly-Boyd,2009; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006b; Wang, 1999). This academic engage-ment with authenticity has yielded multiple perspectives regarding itsrelationship to toured objects, tourism sites, and even touristic experi-ence. While the multiple conceptualizations of authenticity may beontologically problematic (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Reisinger &Steiner, 2006; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006a, 2006b), its prominence asa term used by tourists and tourism marketers alike suggests furtherexamination (Belhassen & Caton, 2006). Regina Bendix, respondingto Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett on this topic, argues, the crucialquestions to be answered are not what is authenticity? but whoneeds authenticity and why? and how has authenticity been used?AUTHENTICITY & AURAA Benjaminian Approach to Tourism

Jillian M. Rickly-BoydIndiana University, USA

Abstract: As a dynamic concept, authenticity has ignited many debates regarding its meaningand utility, thus resulting in several theoretical perspectives (objective, constructive, postmod-ern, existential) with various analytical focuses, from object to experience. In light of its con-ceptual variability, it should be askedWhat does authenticity do? This paper revisits WalterBenjamins notions of authenticity and aura; ideas introduced by MacCannell and worthy offurther consideration. Similar to its development in tourism studies, Benjamins theorizationsof the concept are complex and relationalauthenticity is established through ritual and tra-dition and is connected to aura. They are mutually constitutive and simultaneously productsof other phenomena. As it bridges analytical perspectives, his work offers a useful addition tothe authenticity discourse. Keywords: authenticity, aura, ritual, Walter Benjamin, tourismexperience. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.269

270 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289(1997, p. 21) In addition to these questions, it should be askedwhatdoes authenticity do?

Because of the vast assemblage of meanings and values associatedwith authenticity in relation to the tourism experience, it has receivedmixed responses from scholars. Some have proposed various ways ofsimplifying the concept. Whereas Reisinger and Steiner (2006) suggestabandoning the object-oriented forms of authenticity in favor of exis-tential authenticity, Lau (2010) advocates a social realist focus on theobjective forms and a redefinition of the relationship forms. Mean-while, other scholars call for an embracing of the concepts complexityand relational qualities (see Belhassen et al., 2008; Buchmann et al.,2010). This paper, likewise, proposes a way to hold authenticitys vari-ous constitute meanings together by presenting some of Walter Benja-mins writings on the concept. His theorizations of authenticity holdthe concept in relation to aura, ritual, and tradition, as he recognizedits complexity and was unable to tie it to one singular characteristic.This paper, therefore, aims to present a theoretical engagement withthe authenticity literature in tourism studies that endorses the con-cepts ability to bring the object, site and experience of tourism intoone framework.

In his well-known, essay, The Work of Art in the Age of MechanicalReproduction, [1935] Benjamin states that the presence of the ori-ginal is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity (1968d, p.220). However, he also suggests a more complex understanding ofauthenticity as tied to tradition and ritualThe authenticity of athing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its originson, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relat-ing to it (2008b, p. 22). Furthermore, aura, the unique value of theauthentic work of art always has its basis in ritual, argues Benjamin,[t]his ritualistic basis, however mediated it may be, is still recogniz-able as secularized ritual in even the most profane forms (2008b, p.24). Aura is an experience, an engagement, defined as a strangetissue of space and time: the unique apparition of a distance, howevernear it may be (2008b, p. 23). The desire to get in touch with thisuniqueness, to engage more closely with aura, is the catalyst for repro-duction; ironically however, it is the aura, and therefore authenticity,which deteriorates with mechanical reproduction, as it, detachesthe reproduced object from the sphere of tradition (2008b, p. 22).

While Benjamins argument in this piece seems quite clearmechanical reproduction degrades aura and therefore authenticityand thus suggests the great difficulty of relating his concepts toauthenticity in tourism today, it also seems worth noting that if WalterBenjamins writings are anything they are enigmatic. Benjamin scholarand philosopher, Andrew Benjamin, writes on this matter, [a]ny at-tempt to establish unity from a series of texts as clearly diverse as Ben-jamins will always be thwarted from the start (1986, p. 30). Perhapsthis is due in part to his premature departure from this world in1940 that left unfinished collections, manuscripts, and essays, orperhaps it is his metaphorical style and ability to make even the every-day no longer familiar (Arendt, 1968). The trouble with everything

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 271Benjamin wrote, notes Arendt (1968, p. 3) was that it always turnedout sui generis. It is because of this, that Benjamin will never becanonical but has rather emerged as the site of different canons(Benjamin, 1986, p. 30).

Consequently, this work is less concerned with Benjamins theoriesregarding the effects of mechanical reproduction on authenticity andaura and more so with the mechanisms that he suggests create suchphenomena. This requires moving beyond more well-known works tohis other writings on authenticity and aura. In doing so, one finds thathe was torn between the positive and negative responses to a loss of aura,a result of the political atmosphere of 30s Europe. Moreover, he couldnot have predicted the artistic expression and personal uses broughtabout through the evolution of photography and film. In fact, as Hansen(2008, p. 375) notes, despite Benjamins concern that aura, and there-fore authenticity, were perhaps historically belated and irreversiblymoribund, he imported fragments of the conceptsecularized andmodernizedinto his efforts to reimagine experience under the conditionsof technologically mediated culture (emphasis added). Unfortunately,he did not have the chance to fully develop these ideas. However, whatmost fascinated Benjamin were not ideas, but phenomena (Arendt,1968). It is the phenomena of ritual and authenticity as they apply totourism that will be the focus of this paper.

Walter Benjamins work has been interpreted and used across disci-plines, including sociology (Wolin, 1994), literary criticism (Eagleton,1981; Jennings, 1987), cultural studies (Benjamin, 2005; Hansen, 2006;Leslie, 1999; McRobbie, 1992), urban studies (Burgin, 1993; Savage,2000; Szondi, 1988), and tourism studies (Crang, 1999; Goss, 2004,2005; MacCannell, 1976, 1999). Therefore, I do not suppose to furtherdevelop our general understanding of his theories, but to revisit them.Using his work as an open-text, this paper suggests an addition to thetheoretical perspectives from which we approach the issue of authen-ticity in tourism studies.

In the context of tourism as a secular ritual (see Graburn, 1983,1989, 2004), authenticity of the tourist experience and the object ofthe tour have been judged differentlyontologically versus epistemo-logically. Benjamins theorizations of authenticity were derived fromart and are therefore object-oriented, however, his concept of aura,as an engagement with uniqueness and authenticity in the context ofritual, extend beyond the objective to the experiential. This is particu-larly why his work on authenticity is so useful for tourism studies. Hedid not isolate the concept, but rather discussed it in relation to otherphenomena. He argued that authenticity is connected to aura, as theyboth result from and are embedded in ritual and tradition, which arenot static, but highly dynamic as performative and communicative de-vices. Therefore, it will be argued that while the authenticity of the ob-ject/site is a result of its embodiment in a tradition of which tourism is aritual; the authenticity of the experience is a part of an engagement withaura. This connection between object and experience offers a tool tobridge this gap within tourism studies, as well as approach the ques-tionwhat does authenticity do?

272 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289AUTHENTICITY AND AURA FOR TOURISM STUDIES

Authenticity in Tourism Studies

Reacting to Boorstin (1961), MacCannell (1976) catapulted the con-cept of authenticity to the forefront of tourism studies. Boorstin (1961)argued that tourism is a pseudo-event in which tourists seek inauthentic-ity as a justification for their inauthentic lives. MacCannell (1976) re-sponded to these claims, arguing that as a result of the alienation ofmodernity tourists seek authenticity. These opposing theorizations ofthe basic motivation of tourism, with regard to authenticity, have argu-ably, been the catalyst for the copious amount of literature on the con-cept henceforth. Wang (1999) has surveyed this discourse in tourismstudies and observed several theoretical approaches to authenticityobjectivism, constructivism, postmodernism, and existentialism.

Objective authenticity focuses primarily on the genuineness of ob-jects, artifacts, structures, and the like. Wang (1999, p. 213) argues thatthis perspective involves a museum-linked usage of the authenticity ofthe originals (see also Trilling, 1972), which is judged, or measured,by experts (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Barthel (1996) uses theobjectivist perspective in her analyses of historic sites, determiningauthenticity based on the originality of the site, its structures, and itssocial context. According to this perspective, no copy could ever beauthentic. Experientially, objectivists argue that the search forauthentic experiences is thus no more than an epistemological experi-ence (Wang, 1999, p. 214). In this case, an inauthentic object yieldsan inauthentic experience. Boorstin (1961) set the trajectory ofauthenticity analysis in the field from this modernist, realist perspec-tive. And although it is less common in the academic community today,it still continues in business circles (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).

The constructivist approach accepts that tourists are indeed insearch of authenticity; however, what they quest for is not objectiveauthenticity but symbolic authenticity (Wang, 1999, p. 217; see alsoCuller, 1981). Because symbolic authenticity is not based on an exact,discoverable original, it allows tourists to determine what is authentic.As they reject the binary nature of authenticity, constructivist authen-ticity is, therefore, fluida judgment (Moscardo & Pearce, 1999),negotiable (Cohen, 1988) and contextual (Salamone, 1997)whichgives rise to pluralistic interpretations (Bruner, 1986; Schwandt,1994). Semiotically, constructivism justifies authenticity based on ste-reotypical images, expectations and cultural preferences (Culler,1981; Silver, 1993). Bruners (1994) use of the constructivist perspec-tive uncovered multiple meanings of the concept at work by both tour-ists and staff at his study siteoriginality, genuineness, historicalverisimilitude, and authority. While Wang (1999) describes constructiv-ist authenticity as object-oriented, Olsen (2002) suggests the incorpora-tion of ritual and performance theory into this perspective offersanother way to understand experiential authenticity. Moreover, thisperspective, argues Bruner (1994), is particularly important torevealing touristic motivations and meaning-making processes (seealso DeLyser, 1999). Constructivism also provides for emergent

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 273authenticity, that an inauthentic object or site may become authenticover time (Cohen, 1988; Graburn, 1976),

Postmodernists, although not unified in approach, do not considerinauthenticity a problem and, therefore, engage concepts such ashyperreality and simulacra. The hyperreal is a simulated experi-ence that fulfills the desire for the real (Eco, 1986), while simulacrais the increasing representation of the hyperreal with signs (Baudril-lard, 1983). Both concepts work on the acceptance that there is no ori-ginal, only simulations of a real without an original referent. Thus,postmodern approaches justify the inauthenticity of tourism spacestourists seek the inauthentic merely because it offers a better, morestimulating experience (Wang, 1999). Cohen (1995) suggests that inthe search for enjoyment, tourists accept staged authenticity asa protective substitute for the original. Moreover, they welcomemodern conveniences, albeit violations of historical or cultural accu-racy. According to postmodernist perspectives, authenticity is irrele-vant to many tourists, who either do not value it, are suspicious of it,[or] are complicit in its cynical construction for commercial purposes(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006, p. 66). Bolz, however, asserts that the inau-thenticity of the hyperreal and the simulacra are not so much decep-tive, but seductive (1998, p. 1, see also Eco, 1986; Ritzer & Liska,1997). Thus, Wang states, a postmodernist deconstruction of theauthenticity of the original implicitly paves the way to define existentialauthenticity as an alternative experience in tourism (1999, p. 358).

Existential authenticity has received much academic attention in re-cent years (see Belhassen et al., 2008; Buchmann et al., 2010; Kim &Jamal, 2007; Pons, 2003; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006b). As an activity-based approach, existential authenticity may have nothing to do withthe authenticity of toured objects (Wang, 1999, p. 212). Instead it re-fers to a state of Being, thus this approach is frequently grounded inHeideggerian philosophy. Wang summarizes, to ask about the mean-ing of Being is to look for the meaning of authenticity (1999, p. 220;see also Hughes, 1995; Pearce & Moscardo, 1986; Reisinger & Steiner,2006; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006b; Turner & Manning, 1988). Authen-ticity, therefore, is argued to reside in the subject, or in terms ofHeideggers Daseina fusion between the self and external world.According to Wang (1999, pp. 360361), an authentic self involvesa balance between two parts of ones Being: reason and emotion,self-constraint and spontaneity; Logos and Eros . . . inauthentic selfarises when the balance between these two parts of being is brokendown in such a way that rational factors over-control non-rational fac-tors. But, as Steiner and Reisinger point out, [b]ecause existentialauthenticity is experience-oriented, the existential self is transient,not enduring, and not conforming to a type. It changes from momentto moment. (2006b, p. 303) A search for existentially authentic expe-riences results in a preoccupation with feelings, emotions, sensations,relationships, and self. Therefore, Wang (1999) puts forth two aspectsof existential authenticityintrapersonal (bodily feeling and self-mak-ing) and interpersonal (family ties and communitas)that are centralto tourism. An authentic self is most easily realized in a liminal time

proach, based on the importance of a marker or sign as authenticatingthe tourist experience. Truth markers, which may or may not be fac-

274 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289tually correct, are created in touristic discourse and contribute to a so-cially constructed reality (MacCannell, 1976, 1999).

While there are distinct categories of analytical perspectives onauthenticity, most scholars cross these boundaries and include multi-ple approaches in tourism studies (see Buchmann et al., 2010; DeLyser,1999; Gable & Handler, 1996; Handler & Saxton, 1988; Heynen, 2006;Kim & Jamal, 2007; Rickly-Boyd, 2009). Indeed, it is rare when theauthenticity of experience is examined without an analysis of the objecttoured. There is a strong interaction between object, site, and experi-ence; they are not mutually exclusive. However, that is not to say thatone determines the others. The authenticity of an artifact can bejudged objectively, but that may have no merit in the preconceptionsand touristic perception of that artifact. Likewise the authenticity ofexperience may be separate from the authenticity of the site and ob-jects toured, as it is action- and emotion-based. This dynamic, multi-fac-eted concept suggests there is something more to the significance ofauthenticity in tourism studies and in tourists minds. Conceptuallyfunctioning simultaneously as a measurement, representation, experi-ence, and feeling it must be a register for something more. What doesauthenticity do? It is this interaction or exchange between object andexperience that suggests the strongest contribution from Benjaminstheories.

Benjamins Authenticity and Aura

On its own, Benjamins concept of authenticity is objectivist, as hiswritings on the concept are, for the most part, focused on works ofart. However, his theorization of the experiential connection betweenauthenticity, ritual and individual as an engagement with aura sug-gest the applicability of his work in understanding the authenticity ofthe tourism experience. While his ideas about authenticity are moresimple and easier to decipher, over the course of his life Benjaminstheories of aura grew more complex. His earliest writings on thisphenomenon outline aura as a property inherent in objects and feltby the viewer. His later writings, however, worked to tease out theand space in which societal constraints are suspended (Graburn, 1989,2004; Kim & Jamal, 2007). The ritual aspects of tourism facilitate theestablishment of liminal (or liminoid) zones (Graburn, 1989; Turner,1973).

While there are clearly multiple ontological and epistemological per-spectives of authenticity, few researchers use only one paradigm.Although MacCannells assessment of authenticity in the motivationand experience of tourists is among the earliest and most referenced,it is objectivist, constructivist and postmodern (Lau, 2010; Selwyn,1996). MacCannell (1976, 1999) argues that tourists seek out authenticexperiences, but in this quest for authenticity they are often victims ofstaged authenticity. Additionally, MacCannell takes a semiotic ap-

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 275intersubjective qualities of aura and overcome the subject-objectdichotomy. He began to think about the aura of cities, landscapes,and people, not just art objects, which led in his last writings to de-scribe aura as more of an expectation of reciprocity of ones gaze. Thisfurther inspired his work on another aspect of the auraafterlife. Theability of an object to exist outside its moment of time, to be reinter-preted facilitates the recuperation of experience (see Benjamin,1986; Hansen, 2008; Wolin, 1994). This becomes particularly impor-tant when considering his theories of authenticity and aura in lightof tourism objectssouvenirs, mementos, and photographs.

Benjamin never set a specific definition of aura but continued todevelop his ideas about the concept throughout his life. As an experi-ence it is a difficult phenomenon to understand and therefore define.In his earlier work, Hashish, Beginning of March 1930, he makesthree points on the subject: aura appears in all things, it encasesthe object, and it is a dynamic force that moves and changes withthe object (1999, p. 328; 2006). Interpreting this work, Boon (2006,p. 11) argues that it is aura which gives rise to feeling and emotion.The most well known definition of aura is found in Benjamins 1935essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, asa unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be(1968d, p. 243 n.5). Both spatial and temporal, it is described as a qual-ity that one can never quite grasp.

However, in Some Motifs in Baudelaire [1939] he writes, lookingat someone carries the implicit expectation that our look will be re-turned by the object of our gaze. When this expectation is met [. . .]there is an experience of the aura to the fullest extent. (1968c, p.188) He goes on to explain, [e]xperience of the aura thus rests onthe transposition of a response common in human relationships tothe relationship between the inanimate or natural object and man[...] to perceive the aura of an object we look at means to invest it withthe ability to look at us in return. (1968c, p. 188) This is among hislatest elaborations of aura; he died the following year. Andrew Benja-min argues that this elaboration not only broadens the definition ofaura by introducing its intersubjective nature, but also links it quitedramatically to the experience of the other (1986, p. 31).

Investigating the intersubjective aspects of Benjamins aura, Hansen(2008, p. 340) emphasizes its habituationthe aura of objects [. . .]stands in a metonymic relation to the person who uses them or hasbeen using them. While Benjamins early theories on aura suggestthat it is an aesthetic property inherent in objects, his later formula-tions recognize that the power of aura stems from its intersubjectivenature. Jacks (2007, p. 283) asserts, [a]ura is not a given propertyof the real; we create the experience of aura so that we might enjoythe sense of reciprocal experience.

Benjamin, however, was uncertain as to the significance of the loss ofaura as a result of mechanical reproduction and his writings on thesubject lack consistency (Benjamin, 1986; Buck-Morss, 1977; Wolin,1994). While in some writings he comments on the positive aspectsthe loss of aura as a result of reproduction frees art from tradition

urbanism, Savage argues, [v]isiting strange cities disrupts ones estab-lished routines and habits, allows established conventions to be placed

276 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289into question, and can restore the childhood experience of wonder,fear, and hope (2000, p. 45).

According to Benjamin, aura and authenticity are connectedthrough the act of ritual. Authenticity transcends mere genuineness(1968d, p. 244, n.6) but is tied to tradition and historical testimony.Tradition, he argues, is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable(2008b, p. 24). In accordance with McColes translation from Benja-mins Gesammelte Schriften volume one, experience is a matter of tradi-tion, in collective as in private life. It is built up less out of individualfacts firmly fixed in memory than of accumulated, often unconsciousdata that flow together in memory (1993, p. 2). What he meant bytradition, suggests McCole, was less a particular canon of texts orvalues than the very coherence, communicability, and thus the transmis-sibility of experience. (1993, p. 2)

By embedding an object in tradition, associated rituals establish auraand authenticity. Although ritual can have religious purposes, Benja-min contends that this process holds true even for the secularized rit-ual. Just as the unique value of the authentic work of art always hasits basis in ritual . . . [the] auratic mode of existence is never entirelysevered from its ritual function (2008b, p. 24). Jarkko notes that whilerituals, in general may have become secular, they have not lost theirability to generate sacredness between men and things (2006, p.11). Because tourism is a ritual, accompanied by various rites of pas-sage, (Graburn, 1989, 2004) with numerous aspects of authenticityassociated with its experience, Walter Benjamins theories are mostpertinent.

A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism Experience

Tourism is one of those necessary structured breaks from ordinarylife which characterizes all human societies (Graburn, 1983, p. 11);it is a secular ritual (Graburn, 1983, 1989, 2004). While tourism doesnot exist universally, argues Graburn, it is in many ways functionallyand symbolically equivalent to other institutionscalendrical festivals,holy days, sports tournaments that humans use to embellish and addmeaning to their lives, as well as to mark the modal, linear passageof time (2004, p. 23). Its basic structurerituals of preparation forand ritual and therefore it can become more democratic (Benjamin,1968d)in other writings he is more negative, suggesting that this re-sults in a loss of autonomy and is symptomatic of changes in societythe disintegration of the capacity for experience (Buck-Morss, 1977,p. 161). Yet, his work on the experience of urban landscapes as op-posed to works of art, argues that media representations cannot stripthe aura from cities; they always retain their uniqueness (Benjamin,1968a). This is because the landscape requires more than vision toexperience it, the other senses contain the potential for the recoveryof memory (Savage, 2000, p. 46). Interpreting Benjamins works on

departure, travel away from home, liminal duration, rituals of the re-

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 277turn and rites of re-entryis nearly identical to all ritual behavior(Graburn, 1983). In the performance of this ritual, there is likewise,the distinction between the profane and the sacred, the mundaneand the liminal/liminoid (Smith, 1987; Turner, 1969). While thetourism ritual and resulting experience is not entirely opposite fromthe everyday, it is different and characterized by various individualand societal motivations. In reference to Walter Benjamins theories,which will be developed further, it is ritual that establishes authentic-ity and aura.

MacCannell analogously examines sightseeing as modern ritual, sug-gesting, [t]he ritual attitude of the tourist originates in the act of tra-vel itself and culminates when he arrives in the presence of the sight(1999, p. 43). This may be the case for sightseeing as ritual, but in termsof tourism more broadly, the ritual culminates in the return home.Therefore the ritual of tourism engages a liminal zone and embedsboth the object of tour and the act of touring in a tradition, so to speak,not exclusively as a particular canon of texts or values but also in thecoherence, communicability, and transmissibility of experience(McCole, 1993, p. 2; see also Olsen, 2002). Moreover, in the case ofsacred space (from religious to civil sacred space) it is the ritualizationof the space that consecrates it (Chidester & Linenthal, 1995; Lane,2001; Smith, 1987). The active ritualization of space distinguishes itfrom the profane (Smith, 1987). The ritual of tourism establishessacred/liminal space and time, which begins with departure from aprofane/home space of everyday institutions as well as ends there(Graburn, 1983, 1989, 2004).

Tourism, even of the recreational sort [. . .] is a ritual expressionindividual or societalof deeply held values about health, freedom,nature and self-improvement, a re-creation ritual which parallels pil-grimages (Graburn, 1983, p. 15) This is most strongly seen in annualfamily vacations, summer road trips and rites of passage tours, inwhich the act of tourism becomes a tradition. For example, the seeAmerica first campaigns used tourism to establish a national traditionand tourism ritual, as can Birthright Israel and other diaspora tours to-day. Participation in the rituals of tourism of this nature embeds it in atradition, authenticating the tourist experience. The tourists engage-ment with the uniqueness of the journey and the destination allowsfor an engagement with aura. Benjamin was not an existentialist, thushe does not provide a framework for examining the authenticity ofbeing a tourist. However, his concept of aura is quite appropriate forlinking objective authenticity to an authenticated tourist experiencebecause it is a concept developed around the idea of an interaction,an engagement, an experience between person and object/site.

Authenticity and Aura in Tourism Experience. MacCannell introducedBenjamins theories of authenticity and aura to tourism studies; how-ever, he asserts that Benjamin inverted all the basic relations(1999, p. 47).

seek eyoff na-tion calrela ity(un pe-rien elf-cha is

278 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289authenticity, it is the ritual of their non-conventional journthe beaten track that helps to establish an aura of their desti

s as untouched and exotic. For these backpackers, a cyclitionship of authenticity is observeda constructed authenticiqueness of the destinations), the authenticity of the tourists exce (existential authenticity), and the authentication of a snge narrative (Noy, 2004, p. 91). This self-change narrativeHe should have reversed his terms. The work becomes authenticonly after the first copy of it is produced. The reproductions are theaura, and the ritual, far from being a point of origin, derives fromthe relationship between the original object and its socially con-structed importance. I would argue that this is the structure of theattraction in modern society, including the artistic attractions, andthe reason the Grand Canyon has a touristic aura about it eventhough it did not originate in ritual (1999, p. 48)

This paper argues that Benjamins relations were not entirely inverted(see also Frow, 1991). MacCannell was correct in his assertion that atourism sites socially constructed importance, such as the GrandCanyons, inspires ritualthe secular ritual of tourism. Insofar as its so-cially constructed importance places the site/object in a tradition, how-ever mediated, whether it is for example a national or a familytradition, it will inspire ritual. However, MacCannell also suggests thatthe ritual of tourism ends at the destination with the act of sightseeing;yet, there is more to this ritual. The ritual of tourism is not only aboutthe destination, but also about the journey, for which the site is liminal(Graburn, 1983, 2004; Graburn & Barthel-Bouchier, 2001; see alsoGarlick, 2002). The destination cannot be severed from its ritual func-tion as tourism involves both the going to and coming back from thedestination and the rites of passage that accompany each of thesephases. So while MacCannells contention that the aura of socially con-structed sites is a result of their reproduction supports his originalargument for tourism as sightseeing, if one examines the process oftourism as ritual its structure allows for a different interpretation ofthe possibilities of authenticity and aura. In other words, the presenceof a discrete destination for sightseeing may undermine the spiritualityof the experience, but when considered at the level of the tour, thespirituality has the potential to reappear.

Aspects of this process have been illustrated in numerous studies onauthenticity in the tourism experience. MacCannell (1999), in fact,maintained the ambiguity of the term attraction as both an objectof regard and a feeling. And while the process behind his ritual atti-tude is contested here, there is a similar underlying structure. Obe-nour (2004), for example, found that for budget travelers, thejourney is most important to establishing authenticity. While visualcues suggest varying degrees of authenticity of the objects of the tour,it is the journey as whole that gives the attractions and their experi-ence aura, as it includes a state of mind, eventual physical movement,engagement with a liminal world, and emergent nature of experience(Obenour, 2004, p. 1).

Likewise, Noys (2004) study of backpackers shows that while they do

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 279essential, as both Noy (2004) and Shaffer (2004) provide evidence thatbackpacking functions as a rite of passage to adulthooda traditionfor Israelis (Noy, 2004) and western youth in general (Shaffer, 2004).Shaffer (2004) further notes rituals of this rite of passagejournaling,sending postcards, photography, boarding in hostels, and buildingsmall, ephemeral communitas.

The establishment of communitas in a liminal tourism space is alsoessential to the renaissance festival tourists examined by Kim and Jamal(2007). In fact, the authors observe a tradition of seriously committedrepeaters, some of whom have extended these spontaneous tourismcommunitas to normative ones. Repeat ritualistic participation in thismedieval themed festival may be understood as a quest for authenticself and human relationships via a socially constructed alternative real-ity (p. 198). The aura of the festival, thereby, comes from collectiveenactment of the carnivalesque atmosphere facilitated by props, cos-tumes, and suspension of societal constraints.

Belhassen et al.s (2008) observations of Christian pilgrims in theHoly Land gave rise to a theoplacity conceptual framework, whichhighlights the intersection of authenticated physical places, sharedtheopolitical beliefs, and collective ritual actions of the journey. Therelationship of these aspects results in existential authenticity for theseevangelical tourists/pilgrims. Authenticity is complex, they argue,it not only points to ones experiences and constructed meanings,but also connects with the act of touring a destination. (p. 673) Buch-mann et al. (2010) adapt the theoplacity model to Lord of the Rings filmtourism. These tourists, the authors find, are a community of Tolkienfans seeking active participation in mythological themes from his sto-riesfellowship, adventure, sacrificeby traveling to New Zealandand touring film sites. The sites have an aura when their objectiveauthenticitythe spot where that scene was filmed (p. 244)en-gages the tourists imagination with Tolkiens mythic themes. Thetour is a collective creation and, in that purposeful and creative pro-cess, the authenticity of the experience is judged. (p. 242).

Benjamins writings suggest that an objects aura inspires its repro-duction, yet MacCannell argues that in regards to a tourism sites so-cially constructed importance, the reproductions are the aura(1999, p. 48). Likewise, Gable and Handler (1996, p. 568) assert muse-ums have become the repositories for cultural artifacts, the physicalremains [. . .] the auras of the really real. Once again, however, ifwe focus on the entirety of tourism as a ritual, rather than just sightsee-ing, we find that Benjamins original formulation holds strong and theaura of the object/site of tourism is generated through this perfor-mance. The ritual of the act of tourism requires further rituals of entryand exit, between home and liminal tourism space (Graburn, 1983,1989, 2004). The experience of the tourism destination could not bepossible without the entire tourism ritual. Therefore, the aura engagedwith at the site is a culmination of this ritual and the experience of itsaura inspires its reproduction. In this instance a later formulation ofaura is more appropriatethe experience of an expectation or apossibility (Benjamin, 1986, p. 33).

It is important to note that, for Benjamin, the experience of the aura

280 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289of a site or a landscape, as opposed to an object, is one of a spatializedtime (Benjamin, 1973; Savage, 2000, p. 40). The textual juxtapositionof modern and old in the landscape along with multiple senses used inits perception inspires an emotional response which contains the po-tential for the recovery of memories, it is precisely the modern whichalways conjures up pre-history (Benjamin, 2002, p. 40; see also Jacks,2007; Mali, 1999; Savage, 2000). Touring unique landscapes disruptsestablished routines, habits and conventions and brings about renewedemotional experiences (Graburn, 2004; Graburn & Barthel-Bouchier,2001; Savage, 2000). Therefore, neither landscapes nor their mediareproductions can be entirely stripped of aura, suggests Benjaminswritings. Thus, while the authenticity of the object/site is a result of itsembodiment in a tradition of which tourism is a ritual, the authenticityof the experience is a part of the engagement with aura.

Benjamins writings on authenticity, and its connection to aura, rit-ual and tradition, highlight the relational quality of the concept andits widespread applicabilityas a measurement, representation, experi-ence, and feeling. This has important implications for tourism studiesand the multifaceted consideration of authenticity. While research inthe field tends to focus on authenticity as an either/or, epistemologicalor ontological quality (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Bruner, 1994; Reisinger& Steiner, 2006; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006a, 2006b), numerous studiesalso move across such categories to discuss both the authenticity of theobject/site to the authenticity of experience (see e.g. Belhassen et al.,2008; Buchmann et al., 2010; DeLyser, 1999; Gable & Handler, 1996;Handler & Saxton, 1988; Kim & Jamal, 2007).

While Walter Benjamins writings are inconsistent in regards to thecause and effect relations of modernity on authenticity/aura/ritual,his discussion of relations among these phenomena are pertinent asthey allow a transition between the object-oriented definitions ofauthenticity and the experiential. Furthermore, while Benjamin wasgrappling with these issues in the early modern era, we must considertheir implications for a postmodern era (see also Frow, 1991; Hansen,2008). Indeed, it is argued that these phenomena, although in a newcontext today, are quite valuable to our understanding of authenticity.Therefore, additional aspects of Benjamins notions of authenticityand aura can be considered for their implications to tourism studies,particularly the material embodiment of tourism experiences into sou-venirs, photographs, and the like.

Material Embodiment of Tourism Experience. An important aspect of thetourism experience and touristic efforts at meaning making is theembodiment and recollection of memories through souvenirs, photo-graphs, and even home movies (see Gordon, 1986; Haldrup & Larsen,2003; Morgan & Pritchard, 2005). While mechanical reproduction hasallowed for the production of objects in which we embed these experi-ences and memories, at the most basic level Benjamins writings wouldsuggest that the very mechanical/mass production of such objects

degrades their aura. Benjamins theory of the degradation of aura

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 281through mechanical reproduction may further suggest complicationsin regard to the concepts utility when concerned with the materialityof the tourism experience. It is, however, not incompatible with theaffective qualities of souvenirs, as demonstrated by the ritual aspectsof tourism and his later formulations of aura. These material embodi-ments of tourism experience have their own aura, not in the here-now of art that Benjamin (2006a) theorized, but as they representthe there-then (Barthes, 1977).

The tourism ritual, similar to Benjamins religious ritual (the struc-ture of which he notes still holds true even for the most secularizedof rituals (Benjamin, 2008b, p. 24)), places the memory object in a tra-dition (performative and communicative devices), reestablishing itsaura and authenticity; however, in the case of tourism, this is on anindividual, personally affective level (see also Edwards, 1999). A partic-ularly important and unique characteristic of tourism in the postmod-ern age is self-reflexivity (see Feifer, 1985; Haldrup & Larsen, 2003;Handler & Saxton, 1988; Ritzer & Liska, 1997). The post-tourist isself-aware in their movements and experiences; this is revealed in theirphotographic practices (Haldrup & Larsen, 2003; Larsen, 2005; Sather-Wagstaff, 2008) and is significant when examining authenticity in tour-ism experience. Their self-reflexivity in the production of photographsand accumulation of souvenirs facilitates a reciprocity of gaze that is acharacteristic of aura.

As a ritual of the domestic cult, families use the camera to displaysuccess, unity, and love; it is put to work to immortalize and celebratethe high points of family life (Haldrup & Larsen, 2003, p. 26; see alsoCrang, 1999). Thus, travel souvenirs and photographs are not the auraof the tourism destination, as MacCannell has suggested, but are in-spired by the aura of the object/site/experience. Furthermore, thesememory objects have aura. The authenticity resides, Harkin (1995, p.660) argues, in the context and the conditions of its acquisition, thatis, of the experience it frames. Photographs, as powerful communica-tive technologies, construct identities and subjectivities by bridging theindividual, experiential, and private realms with collective, public ones(Sather-Wagstaff, 2008, p. 91). Photographs, and souvenirs, result fromthe desire to capture the aura of the tourism experience, an aura whichis made manifest through the collective tourism ritual.

Souvenirs, broadly, are the exemplar objects of touristic consump-tion. It is a thing that refers metonymically to a temporally and spa-tially distant origin, and metaphorically evokes collective narratives ofdisplacement and personal stories of acquisition (Goss, 2004; Goss,2005, p. 56). Just as the sacred sites of pilgrimage were always placesof commerce, where pilgrims could purchase provisions, absolution,and reproductions of holy relics so too are tourism landscapes similarlysacred (Goss, 2005, p. 67). In landscapes of tourism experience thesouvenir is found at the material-symbolic center, it inherits a certainsacredness as an intermediate form between transcendent essenceand mundane materiality (Goss, 2005, p. 57).

282 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289Photographs, and souvenirs in general, allow the possibility of acapalisation of experience, argues Crang (1999, p. 251), and thememory that accompanies it is an intentional memory, suggests Benja-min. Souvenirs, he writes, are complements of erlebnis, a type of shockexperience identified with the rise of modernity which has replacederfahrung, which is a deeply rooted, practiced knowledgeit signalssomething discontinuous, eventful, and fractured (Leslie, 1999, p.115; see also Benjamin, 2003). Benjamin is arguing that the souveniris the schema of the commoditys transformation into an object for thecollector (2003, p. 190), yet in his essay, Unpacking My Library: Atalk about book collecting [1931], his thoughts on collecting andengaging with collections are much more positive. Thus he writes ofthe tactile sphere upon engaging with his collection, as well as atopography of memory (Leslie, 1999)spring tide of memorieswhich surges toward any collector as he contemplates his posses-sions . . . dates, place names, formats, previous owners, bindingsand the like (1968b, pp. 6063). Their authenticity is a result of theirritual acquisition as well as their historical testimony.

Moreover, in his diary notes on travelling the Northern Sea[1930], his child-like desire for a particular souvenir hints at his inabil-ity to resolve the desire for experience with the alienating affects ofmodernity (see Leslie, 1999). Leslie further interprets his impressionsof this travel experience[t]he journeys were all along not into anout there, but a trip inside into memory and time. And the land-scapesand the objects foundmay be read as allegorical hiero-glyphs (p. 120). And his souvenirs (commodities turned collectorsitems) are at the meeting point of the recollector and the object[t]he recollectors moment, history, intersects with the encryptedmeanings of the object as historical witness, to produce a spark ofcharged memory. (Leslie, 1999, p. 114)

The ability of such objects to facilitate the recuperation of experi-ence through memory is essential to their having aura, suggests Benja-mins writings. The snapshot, like all souvenirs, is not simply apictorial form but an object. An object that connects us to other timesand spaces by its material presence. The logic is not purely metaphoricand iconic but also metonymicits presence reminds us of a largerwhole (Crang, 1999, p. 253). Wolin, interpreting Benjamins writing,argues that souvenirs, as personifications of allegory, have the ability toreturn our gaze of expectation, suggesting they are manifestations ofaura (1994, p. 237; see also Goss, 2005). Likewise, Strathausen writesof Benjamins aura as, an aesthetic projection that both soothesand rekindles the desire for a more immediate contact with things be-yond the subject-object dichotomy. (2001, p. 9) As Barthes suggests,while the original here-now of the place and moment is gone, theaura of the experience is notthe there-then becomes the here-now (1977, p. 44; see also Edwards, 1999).

Post-tourists are self-reflexive in their performances and practices. InHaldrup and Larsens study of the family gaze, the authors find thatfor vacationing families recreating postcard images that do not con-vey personal experiences and stories has little appeal, instead their aim

the images are humanized and therefore are auratic, as a result ofthe reflexive nature of their production.

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 283Through the photographic practices of tourism, post-tourists returnthe gaze of the camera (Crang, 1999) so that looking at the faces inphotographs returns our gaze, a characteristic of aura described byBenjamin (1968c; see also Hansen, 2008). Moreover, since these pho-tographs have enduring afterlife, as they become a vital part ofpeoples life-stories and spaces of everyday (Haldrup & Larsen,2003, p. 42), they go on, open for re-interpretation, recall of memories,and recuperation of experience. Andrew Benjamin suggests that a keyto the experience of the aura of an object is after life, the potential toexist beyond the restriction of any instant (1986, p. 34). Photographyconcerns not only time, but space; [w]hen we look at a photographwe reopen a particular space of experience, there is a relation existingthrough both time and space to the moment encapsulated [. . .] thismoment is at once eternal, and at the same time ephemeral, it haspassed and yet it continues to exist in the present. (Garlick, 2002,p. 296).

Therefore, while Benjamins distaste for photography arose out ofhis suspicion of its ability to fix the image of a thing at a given mo-ment in time (Wolin, 1994, p. 238), the way contemporary touristsuse personal photography is in actuality quite different; it is not fixedat all, but dynamic and continually recast in self-constructions, existingin the present therefore recuperating the experience. Tourist photog-raphy can potentially have the effect of opening up mini-liminalspaces each time the photographs are subsequently viewed and reinter-preted in which events located in another time and space bring theirforce to bear on the present (Garlick, 2002, p. 302). This use of tourismphotography, and souvenirs, as objects of identity construction sug-gests their authenticity to those personally affected by them.

CONCLUSIONS

Some have suggested that it is not appropriate to ask a single termto represent myriad conflicting and irreconcilable meanings, and wewould be well served, therefore, to agree to limit authenticity to aHeideggerian, existential usage (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006, p. 81). Oth-ers advocate for object authenticity to be constituted as a completelyindependent concept, instead of being made parasitic upon other con-cepts (MacCannells alienation and Cohens spiritual meanings)is to produce personalized postcards: to stage the family within theattractions socially constructed aura (2003, pp. 3132). In these tour-ism activities, families are the producer, performer and audienceand because the family is both in front of and behind the camera theydo not see a photograph of a loved one, only the person (Haldrup &Larsen, 2003, p. 41). So while Benjamins basic argument that photo-graphs are non-auratic because they result from mechanical produc-tion (2008a; see also Wolin, 1994), one finds that the way touristsuse photography today, particularly when photographing loved ones,

284 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289(Lau, 2010, p. 494). Indeed, authenticity as a concept has come to beused simultaneously as measurement, representation, experience, andfeeling, which, no doubt has been the cause of such rigorous debateover its meaning and utility. However difficult it may be, authenticity,in all its forms, is nevertheless alive and well in the minds of manytourists, tourism brokers, and members of host communities (Belhas-sen & Caton, 2006, p. 853). Thus, while debates over the meaning andutility of authenticity could very well never find a resolution, perhapswe would be better served to address other questions surroundingthe concept.

Tourism scholars are quite close to answering the questionhow hasauthenticity been used? Tourists, tourism developers and marketers,and researchers have used its multiple forms to describe and explainexperiences, feelings, representations, and objective properties. How-ever, the questions who needs authenticity and why? and what doesauthenticity do? are more complex. While these questions may neverbe fully answered, to approach the issue it is important to consider therelation of authenticity to other phenomena, namely tradition, ritual,and aura.

As the multiple perspectives used to address the concept in tourismstudies (objective, constructive, postmodern, existential) have shown,authenticity is relational. It is measured, perceived, experienced, andfelt in relation to other phenomena. This is particularly why WalterBenjamins work on authenticity is so useful for tourism studies. Hedid not isolate the concept, but rather discussed it in terms of otherphenomena, namely aura. He argued that authenticity is connectedto aura, as they both result from and are embedded in ritual and tradi-tion. Thus, while the authenticity of the object/site is a result of itsembodiment in a tradition of which tourism is a ritual; the authenticityof the experience is a part of the engagement with aura. Therefore, inBenjaminian terms, authenticity is and can be simultaneously mea-sured, experienced, and felt. In regard to the tourist experience, it be-comes a register for the participation in a tradition (howevermediated), its rituals (however secularized), and an experience of aurawhich is a result of this participation. And for that reason, we all needauthenticity, as it conceptually represents a whole complex of relations.Therefore, while some have suggested a breakdown the concept ofauthenticity to various, more manageable pieces (see Lau, 2010; Rei-singer & Steiner, 2006) this paper advocates authenticity be recognizedfor all its complexity (see also Belhassen et al., 2008).

Because this paper relates Benjamins theories of authenticity andaura to Graburns structuralist perspective of tourism as a secular rit-ual, it does not address the dynamic performances of being a touristwithin each of the phases but aims to highlight the overarching jour-ney, the entirety of the tour. Thus as rituals must be performed, tour-ism as a ritual break from the everyday is also a performance.Benjamins conceptualizations provide a way to explore the relationsof authenticity to other phenomena in the context of ritual; however,the subjective performances of being tourist in the midst of thesebroader rituals and traditions are in need of further study. Yet, the

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Daniel Knudsen, Charles Greer, JonSimon, and Lisa Braverman for comments on earlier drafts of this paper, as well as theanonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

REFERENCES

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 285Arendt, H. (1968). Introduction: Walter Benjamin: 18921940. In H. Arendt (Ed.),Illuminations (pp. 158). New York: Schocken Books.

Barthel, D. (1996). Historic preservation: Collective memory and historical identity. NewBrunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image music text. New York: Hill and Wang.Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity matters. Annals of Tourism Research,

33(3), 853856.Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the

pilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668689.Bendix, R. (1997). Search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin Press.Benjamin, W. (1968a). Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.). New York: Schocken Books.Benjamin, W. (1968b). Unpacking my library: A talk about book collecting (H.

Zohn, Trans.). In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 5968). New York:Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (1968c). On some motifs in Baudelaire (H. Zohn, Trans.). In H.Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 155200). New York: Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (1968d). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (H.Zohn, Trans.). In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 217252). New York:Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (1973). Charles Baudelaire: A lyric poet in the era of high capitalism. NewYork: New Left Books.

Benjamin, A. (1986). The decline of art: Benjamins aura. Oxford Art Journal, 9(2),3035.material embodiment of tourism experiences in souvenirs and photo-graphs suggest that the dynamics of meaning making are not incom-patible with Benjamins theories of authenticity and aura. Becausesouvenirs are both metonymic and metaphoric they refer to the ritualof tourism, the collective narratives of the tourists, and the personalexperiences. While souvenirs and photographs are obtained at sitesof socially constructed importance, it is the embodiment of experi-ences that gives them the ability to return our gazeaura and authen-ticity. Because these objects go on and continue to build meaning inour lives, they have after life, which further builds their aura and there-fore authenticity as objects of ritual.

The arguments presented in this paper are not intended to overruletheories of authenticity at work in tourism studies, but to offer an addi-tional perspective from which to approach the issue and bring them to-gether. While the debate over authenticity goes on, it is important torecognize that authenticity is relational. Benjamins work offers a usefulperspective from which to consider the analysis of authenticity in tour-ism studies because his theories of authenticity incorporate tradition, rit-ual, and aura. His perspective, therefore, crosses theoretical perspectivesand bridges the gaps between object, site, and experience.

Benjamin, W. (1999). Hashish, beginning of March 1930 (R. Livingstone, Trans.).

286 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289In M. W. Jennings, H. Eiland, & G. Smith (Eds.), Selected Writings: Volume 2,Part 1 19271930 (pp. 327330). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.

Benjamin, W. (2002). Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century (E. Jephcott &H. Eiland, Trans.). In H. Eiland & M. W. Jennings (Eds.), Selected Writings:Volume 3, 19351938 (pp. 3249). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.

Benjamin, W. (2003). Central Park. In H. Eiland & M. W. Jennings (Eds.), Selectedwritings: Volume 4, 19381940 (pp. 161199). Cambridge, MA: The BelknapPress of Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, A. (Ed.). (2005). Walter Benjamin and art. London: Continuum.Benjamin, W. (2006). On Hashish. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.Benjamin, W. (2006a). A small history of photography. In One way streetAnd other

writings (pp. 240257). London: Verso.Benjamin, W. (2008a). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and

other writings on media. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Benjamin, W. (2008b). The work of art in the age of its technologicalreproducibility: Second version. In M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin(Eds.), The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writingson media (pp. 1955). Cambridge: The Belknap Press.

Bolz, N. (1998). The user-illusion of the world (1): On the meaning of design.Mediamatic. (accessed 15.06.02).

Boon, M. (2006). Walter Benjamin and drug literature. In H. Eiland (Ed.), OnHashish: Walter Benjamin. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress.

Boorstin, D. J. (1961). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:Harper and Row.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique ofpostmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397415.

Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing film tourism:Authenticity and fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 229248.

Buck-Morss, S. (1977). The origin of negative dialectics. New York: The Free Press.Burgin, Z. (1993). The city in pieces. New Formations, 20, 123144.Chidester, D., & Linenthal, E. T. (Eds.). (1995). American sacred space. Blooming-

ton, IN: Indiana University Press.Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 15, 371386.Cohen, E. (1995). Contemporary tourismTrends and challenges: Sustainable

authenticity or contrived post-modernity?. In R. Butler & D. Pearce (Eds.),Change in tourism: People, places, processes. London: Routledge.

Crang, M. (1999). Knowing, tourism and practices of vision. In D. Crouch (Ed.),Leisure/tourism geographies: Practices and geographical knowledge (pp. 238256).London: Routledge.

Culler, J. (1981). Semiotics of tourism. American Journal of Semiotics, 1(12),127140.

DeLyser, D. (1999). Authenticity on the ground: Engaging the past in a CaliforniaGhost Town. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 602632.

Eagleton, T. (1981). Walter Benjamin. London: Verso.Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality. London: Picador.Edwards, E. (1999). Photographs as objects of memory. In M. Kwint, C. Breward, &

J. Aynsley (Eds.), Material memories (pp. 221236). Oxford: Berg.Feifer, M. (1985). Going places. London: Macmillan.Frow, J. (1991). Tourism and the semiotics of nostalgia. October, 57, 123151.Gable, E., & Handler, R. (1996). After authenticity at an American heritage site.

American Anthropologist, 98(3), 568578.

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 287Garlick, S. (2002). Revealing the unseen: Tourism, art and photography. CulturalStudies, 16(2), 289305.

Gordon, B. (1986). The souvenir: Messenger of the extraordinary. Journal ofPopular Culture, 20(3), 135147.

Goss, J. (2004). The souvenir: Conceptualizing the object(s) of tourism consump-tion. In A. A. Lew, M. C. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism(pp. 327335). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Goss, J. (2005). The souvenir and sacrifice in the tourist mode of consumption. InC. Cartier & A. A. Lew (Eds.), Seductions of place: Geographical perspectives onglobalization and touristed landscapes (pp. 5672). London: Routledge.

Graburn, N. H. H. (1976). Introduction. In N. Graburn (Ed.), Ethnic and touristarts: Cultural expressions of the fourth world (pp. 132). Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Graburn, N. H. H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,10(1), 933.

Graburn, N. H. H. (1989). Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hostsand Guests (2nd ed., pp. 2152). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Graburn, N. H. H. (2004). Secular ritual: A general theory of tourism. In S. B.Gmelch (Ed.), Tourists and tourism: A reader (pp. 2335). Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press, Inc.

Graburn, N. H. H., & Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2001). Relocating the tourist.International Sociology, 16(2), 147158.

Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2003). The family gaze. Tourist Studies, 3(1), 2345.Handler, R., & Saxton, W. (1988). Dyssimulation: Reflexivity, narrative, and the

quest for authenticity in living history. Cultural Anthropology, 3(3), 242260.Hansen, M. B. (Ed.). (2006). Walter Benjamin and the arcades project. London:

Continuum.Hansen, M. B. (2008). Benjamins Aura. Critical Inquiry, 34(Winter), 336375.Harkin, M. (1995). Modernist anthropology and tourism of the authentic. Annals of

Tourism Research, 22(3), 650670.Heynen, H. (2006). Questioning authenticity. National Identities, 8(3), 287300.Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22,

181203.Jacks, B. (2007). Walking and reading in landscape. Landscape Journal, 26(2),

270286.Jarkko, L. (2006). Death and resurrection of ritual. Paper presented at Annual

Meeting of American Sociological Association. Montreal, Canada, August 10, 2006.Jennings, M. (1987). Dialectical images: Walter Benjamins theory of literary criticism.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of

Tourism Research, 34(1), 181201.Lane, B. C. (2001). Landscapes of the sacred: Geography and narrative in American

spirituality. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Larsen, J. (2005). Families seen sightseeing: Performativity of tourist photography.

Space and Culture, 8(4), 416434.Lau, R. W. K. (2010). Revisiting authenticity: A social realist approach. Annals of

Tourism Research, 37(2), 478498.Leslie, E. (1999). Souvenirs and forgetting: Walter Benjamins memory-work. In M.

Kwint, C. Breward, & J. Aynsley (Eds.), Material memories (pp. 107124).Oxford: Berg.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory for the leisure class. New York:Schocken Books.

MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Mali, J. (1999). The reconciliation of myth: Benjamins homage to bachofen.Journal of the History of Ideas, 60(1), 165187.

McCole, J. (1993). Walter Benjamin and the antinomies of tradition. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press.

McRobbie, A. (1992). The passagenwerk and the place of Walter Benjamin incultural studies: Benjamin, cultural studies, Marxist theories of art. CulturalStudies, 6, 147169.

Metro-Roland, M. (2009). A needle in a hay stack: Finding authenticity in localprovenance at the John Hay Center, Salem, Indiana. Journal of Heritage

288 J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289Tourism, 4(2), 145156.Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2005). On souvenirs and metonymy: Narratives of

memory, metaphor and materiality. Tourist Studies, 5, 2953.Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. (1999). Understanding ethnic tourists. Annals of

Tourism Research, 26, 416434.Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: Backpackers narratives of self-change.

Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 78102.Oakes, T. (2006). Get real! On being yourself and being a tourist. In C. Minca & T.

Oakes (Eds.), Travels in paradox: Remapping tourism. Lanham: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Obenour, W. L. (2004). Understanding the meaning of the journey to budgettravellers. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 115.

Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The socialorganization of the experience of authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159182.

Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1986). The concept of authenticity in touristexperience. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22(1), 121132.

Pons, P. O. (2003). Being-on-holiday: Tourist dwelling, bodies and place. TouristStudies, 3(1), 4766.

Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annalsof Tourism Research, 33(1), 6586.

Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2009). Establishing authenticity in a tourist landscape: SpringMill pioneer village. Material Culture, 41(1), 116.

Ritzer, G., & Liska, A. (1997). McDisneyization and post-tourism: Complemen-tary perspectives on contemporary tourism. In C. Rojek & J. Urry (Eds.),Touring cultures: Transformations of travel, theory (pp. 96112). London:Routledge.

Salamone, F. A. (1997). Authenticity in tourism: The San Angel inns. Annals ofTourism Research, 24(205321).

Sather-Wagstaff, J. (2008). Picturing experience: A tourist-centered perspective oncommemorative historical sites. Tourist Studies, 8(1), 77103.

Savage, M. (2000). Walter Benjamins urban thought: A critical analysis. In M.Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking space (pp. 3353). London: Routledge.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.In N. K. Denzin & Y. C. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 118137). London: Sage.

Selwyn, T. (Ed.). (1996). The tourist image: Myths and myth making in tourism.Chichester: Wiley.

Shaffer, T. S. (2004). Performing backpacking: Constructing authenticity everystep of the way. Text and Performance Quarterly, 24(2), 139160.

Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of TourismResearch, 20, 302318.

Smith, J. Z. (1987). To take place: Toward theory in ritual. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006a). Reply to Belhassen and Caton. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(3), 856858.

Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006b). Understanding existential authenticity.Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 299318.

Strathausen, C. (2001). Benjamins aura and the broken heart of modernity. In L.Patt (Ed.), Benjamins blind spot: Walter Benjamin and the premature death of aura(pp. 114). Topanga, CA: Institute of Cultural Inquiry.

Szondi, P. (1988). Dialectics at a standstill: Approaches to the Passagenwerk. In G.Smith (Ed.), On Walter Benjamin: Critical essays and reflections (pp. 1832).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. London: Oxford University Press.Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.Turner, V. (1973). The center out there: Pilgrims goal. History of Religions, 12(3),

191230.

Turner, C., & Manning, P. (1988). Placing authenticityOn being a tourist: Areply to Pearce and Moscardo. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 24,136139.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. In S. Williams(Ed.), Tourism: Critical concepts in the social sciences (pp. 210234). London:Routledge.

Wolin, R. (1994). Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Submitted 6th July 2010. Resubmitted 31st October 2010. Final Version 28th April 2011.Accepted 12th May 2011. Refereed Anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Ning Wang

J.M. Rickly-Boyd / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 269289 289

Authenticity & auraIntroductionAuthenticity and aura for tourism studiesAuthenticity in Tourism StudiesBenjamins Authenticity and AuraA Benjaminian Approach to Tourism ExperienceAuthenticity and Aura in Tourism ExperienceMaterial Embodiment of Tourism Experience

ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences