摘要
麦坎内尔(MacCannell)掀起的"真实性"研究热已逾30年,其间,研究视角逐渐从"客观"转向"主观"。这既反映出真实性内涵的延展与变迁,亦凸显旅游主体—游客体验的重要性。然而,就研究者日渐褊狭的视域来看,旅游客体真实性对旅游体验真实性的影响从松散到几近断裂,旅游主体甚至以"悦纳万物"的信仰姿态视一切"存在"为真,从而收获真实的体验。客观真实与主观真实,究竟是谁决定或影响了谁?对此问题的探寻导致学界对旅游客体之"虚假"的重新界定和对旅游体验之"真实"的再度好奇,并因此形成旅游真实性研究的纷争局面。有鉴于此,对国内外真实性研究做一番缘起、视角、界定等方面的梳理和反思,或将对国内相关研究与应用有所裨益。
The study of authenticity in tourism has been gradually emphasized in some developed countries since the 1960s. During the years of 1990s, Chinese scholars began to concern the authenticity of historic buildings on and off. Then authenticity has become one of the hot topics in tourism studies stimulated by the movement of heritage applying and heritage tourism at the turn of the centuries. However, the translation of authenticity has not yet reached a consensus in Chinese academic. There are three different translations of the word ＂authenticity＂ which separately stresses the aspects of origin, truth, and existence, because the heritage field values the originality of heritage, the tourism research regards the truth of tourist attractions, while the sociology and folklore focus on tourist experiences. What caused this internal dissension is mainly the differences of toured objects and the involvement of tourist experiences. It is obviously unhelpful to further researches and communications that the scholars are not on the same platform of authenticity. Since tourism scholars use the word more frequently, perhaps the best choice is to follow them. From the varied usages and contexts of authenticity, it can be seen the ambiguous origins of authenticity issues. As for tourism, Boorstin regarded mass tourists as ＂ pseudo-events＂ pursuers, who directly caused the commoditization of cultures and subsequently the ＂inauthentic＂ phenomenon, while MacCannell viewed tourists as ＂quasi-pilgrim＂ for authenticity. But both of their tourists are doomed to find authenticity nowhere because they themselves are destroying authenticity as carriers of modernity which breeds mass tourism. Modernity makes tourists encounter the embarrassment of commoditization and authenticity, but commoditization is not the only criteria to judge authenticity. As tourists have paid more and more attention to their experiences, the views and perceptions about authenticity depend on varied rules. Thus the relationship between objective authenticity and subjective authenticity becomes the scholar＇s favorite topic. Four approaches of authenticity were identified from the literature： objective authenticity, constructive authenticity, postmodern authenticity and existential authenticity. The objectivism links authenticity to the properties of the toured objects to be perceived by tourists. It can be measured by objective and absolute criteria mainly similar to that of museums and authorities. The Constructivism consents that the toured object appears authentic not because they are inherently authentic. Authenticity is contextually determined by the tourists＇ perception and social construction. The postmodernism goes beyond the conventional understanding of authenticity and is characterized by deconstruction of authenticity. For postmodernist, inauthenticity is not a problem. The existentialism insists that tourists can get intra-personal authenticity and inter-personal authenticity through special activities and communications to stay in a ＂ liminoid state＂. It is suggested that these four approaches of authenticities coexist in or originate from tourist practices. Investigations into the authenticity should adopt multidimensional perspectives, as long as the relationship between subjective experiences and objective authenticity is still there.
出处
《旅游学刊》
CSSCI
2012年第4期11-20,共10页
Tourism Tribune
基金
国家社会科学基金(09XMZ058)资助~~
关键词
真实性
旅游研究
价值
authenticity
tourism research
value
