Beyond authenticity and commodification

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 943–960, 20070160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.004www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

BEYOND AUTHENTICITYAND COMMODIFICATION

Stroma ColeBuckinghamshire Chilterns University College, UK

Abstract: Authenticity and commodification are central to academic debates in tourism.Previous analyses suggest that the commercialization of local identities leads to negative con-sequences. Based on a long-term study in Eastern Indonesia, this paper examines authenticityfrom three perspectives: government, tourists, and villagers. While the former two reflectviews highlighted in the literature, the villagers’ interpretation is different: tourism bringsa sense of pride and identity and also a political resource to manipulate. Seen in this context,the debates about authenticity should examine how the notion is articulated, by whom andfor what purposes, to reveal in what circumstances cultural tourism leads to positive responsesand empowerment. Keywords: authenticity, commodification, Indonesia, empower-ment. � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Au-dela de l’authenticite et la commodification. L’authenticite et la commodifica-tion jouent un role essentiel dans les discussions academiques du tourisme. Des analysesprecedentes suggerent que la commercialisation des identites locales mene a des consequenc-es negatives. Base sur une etude a long terme en Indonesie de l’est, cet article examinel’authenticite de trois perspectives: gouvernement, touristes et villageois. Tandis que les deuxpremieres refletent les opinions soulignees dans la litterature, l’interpretation des villageoisest differente: le tourisme apporte un sens de fierte et d’identite ainsi qu’une ressource pol-itique a manipuler. Vues dans ce contexte, les discussions sur l’authenticite devraient exam-iner comment la notion est exprimee, par qui et dans quelle intention, afin de reveler dansquelles circonstances le tourisme culturel mene a des reponses positives et a l’appropriation.Mots-cles: authenticite, commodification, Indonesie, appropriation. � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Authenticity and cultural commodification are closely related con-cepts frequently debated in the literature. This paper argues that thisis a Western cultural notion, and that the majority of analyses have ta-ken an etic and often Euro-centric view of the process of cultural com-modification. In so doing, they fail to ask the important questionsabout the interface between power and culture, and the strategic useof tourism and its processes by marginalized communities in less devel-oped countries.

Stroma Cole is Chair of Tourism Concern and Senior Lecturer at BuckinghamshireChilterns University College (Wellesbourne Campus, High Wycombe HP13 5BB, UnitedKingdom. Email <[email protected]>). Earlier, she had her own tour operatingbusiness in Indonesia and worked as a consultant for UNESCO and ADB. With researchinterests in responsible tourism development in less developed countries, as well as theanthropology of tourism, she has undertaken extensive research in Eastern Indonesia,examining the consequences of tourism development.

943

944 BEYOND AUTHENTICITY AND COMMODIFICATION

The paper reinforces Franklin and Crang’s suggestion to move awayfrom notions of ‘‘authentic place’’ towards ‘‘where tourism promoteslocal awareness’’ (2001:10). It argues that, while analyses that havedeconstructed the notion of authenticity have been fascinating froma theoretical perspective, they have failed to address issues fundamen-tal to destination communities: Why does touristic commodificationlead, in some communities, to disempowerment, while in others,authenticity is appropriated and becomes a powerful resource? This pa-per follows Olsen’s (2002) suggestion of examining the differentmeanings of authenticity and the competing voices in a particular so-cial context. By providing a nuanced analysis of a specific setting ithighlights how, if interpreted from a local perspective, tourism is sow-ing the seeds of social, psychological, and political empowerment.

The paper briefly examines authenticity, cultural commodification,and empowerment in the literature, not as a comprehensive reviewbut to give a flavor of how the arguments are presented. Next, the re-search setting and methodology are described. The paper then pre-sents the different views of tradition and authenticity from theperspectives of the state, the tourists and the villagers. It is acknowl-edged that the coverage is incomplete, because not all stakeholdervoices are presented in this paper, and the voices of the villagers ap-pear as if homogenous—a heuristic device for the purpose of the anal-ysis. Commodification is then decoupled from authenticity andexamined from an emic perspective. The locals’ views suggest a strategicuse of tourism and its power to provide an identity. With this comes aself-conscious awareness, knowledge, and pride, all-important inempowering a marginalized community.

AUTHENTICITY, COMMODIFICATION AND EMPOWERMENT

Since MacCannell (1976) initiated the debate on authenticity andtourism, it has been at the heart of discussions about sociocultural con-sequences. Authenticity is a Western cultural notion associated with thepast ‘‘primitive Other’’ articulated in opposition to modernity. Thedichotomy between a premodern (authentic) and modern (inauthen-tic) has been criticized (Meethan 2001; Olsen 2002), and further anal-yses have attempted to deconstruct the notion. For example, Selwyn(1996) differentiates between cool and hot authenticity, where the for-mer refers to the real, original, or genuine and the latter to acceptedbut enjoyed fake versions. Wang, on the other hand, differentiates be-tween objective authenticity (a museum version), constructive authen-ticity (something that can emerge or acquire social recognition asauthentic), and existential authenticity (‘‘a special existential state ofbeing in which individuals are true to themselves’’) (1999:56). Getz(1998), in relation to festivals, built a model of authenticity based onthree factors: community control and acceptance, cultural meanings,and tourists’ perceptions.

Closely associated with authenticity is the notion of cultural com-modification. Based on his initial analysis of the Alarde festival of

STROMA COLE 945

Fuenterrabia in Spain, Greenwood concluded that a performance forparticipants had been turned into a show for outsiders (1978:133–135). A common view in the literature has followed: tourism turns cul-ture into a commodity, packaged and sold to tourists, resulting in a lossof authenticity. Researchers have examined how crafts, performance,photography, hospitality, and identity have been transformed by thepresence of tourists. Graburn has discussed the evolution of traditionalart to souvenirs, from ‘‘authenticity to memento’’ (1984:415). Perform-ing arts have also become commoditized. Just as art objects are minia-turized, performances have been shortened and made more varied toappeal to tourists (Soejono 1997). As difference and ‘‘Otherness’’ be-come consumable tourism commodities, one response to and conse-quence of this is the awareness and affirmation of local identity(Macdonald 1997) and the (re)creation of ethnicity (Adams 1997;MacCannell 1984; Wood 1997).

In relation to cultural tourism in less economically developed coun-tries (often referred to as ethnic tourism), Cohen (2001) argues thathospitality, performances, and the arts become commoditized or atleast oriented towards outsiders. MacCannell suggests that, when agroup sees itself as an ethnic attraction, the group members begin tothink of themselves as representatives of an ethnic way of life, andany change has economic and political implications for the wholegroup. The ‘‘group is frozen in an image of itself or museumized’’(1984:388). As Butcher (2001) discusses, cultural tourism can thus cre-ate a straitjacket for communities. Furthermore, differing levels of eco-nomic development are seen as part of culture, and inequality becomesreinterpreted as ‘‘cultural diversity’’. Following this logic, to preservethe tourism product, is to maintain the lack of economic developmentand hence to preserve poverty.

When culture is defined as an object of tourism its authenticity is re-duced (Taylor 2001:15). Furthermore, if a remote destination devel-ops, it modernizes, and becomes more like the tourist’s society. Lessdifferent and distinct, and no longer ‘‘primitive’’, it loses its appeal.As cultural assets are refined as consumables for tourists, culture be-comes commoditized. The destination appears less authentic and sothe value of the product is reduced (Dearden and Harron 1992; Go1997; Klieger 1990; Swain 1989). By implication ‘‘the benefits of mod-ernization should not be extended to the exotic Others, in case ‘they’lose what ‘we’ want’’ (Meethan 2001:110).

As authenticity has no objective quality, it is socially constructed andthus negotiable. It varies according to the tourists and their point ofview (Cohen 1988). It is a value placed on a setting by the observer(Moscardo and Pearce 1999). While it has long been recognized thatthe commodification of culture may not destroy the meaning of cul-tural products for either locals or tourists (Cohen 1988:383), the liter-ature still generally suggests that the power exercised by latterproduces negative consequences such as the commodification of cul-ture (Cheong and Miller 2000:372). However, this need not be auto-matically coupled with arguments about the loss of authenticity, andthe consequent negative ‘‘impacts’’ on remote societies. Understood


from the perspective of the local people, cultural commodification canbe positive.

Appadurai (1986) highlighted the power implications embedded inthe notion of authenticity. Both Bruner (1994) and Taylor (2001) havepointed at the important question: who has the right, authority, orpower to define what is authentic? Power relations in tourism are dy-namic and constantly changing, they work in many directions and onmany levels, and are interconnected with knowledge (Cheong andMiller 2000). This is no less so in remote marginal communities(Adams 2004). However, there has been little analysis to understandwhy, and in what circumstances, the power of tourism can beharnessed. While in some, the commodification of culture may be adis-empowering experience, in others, marginal cultures have appro-priated tourism as a political instrument in the construction of theiridentity (Bianchi 2003:20). There is a need to examine how notionsof authenticity are contested, and under what circumstances culturaltourism provides marginal people with a new identity and political re-source and under what circumstances this leads to empowerment.

Following Scheyvens (1999) and Di Castri (2004), empowerment inthis paper is taken to be the capacity of individuals or groups to deter-mine their own affairs, and a process to help them exert control overfactors that affect their lives. Scheyvens (2003) built a frameworkaround four dimensions of empowerment: economic, psychological,social, and political. The economic gains well documented in the liter-ature are signs of the first kind of empowerment. The psychologicalcomes from self-esteem and pride in cultural traditions. Social empow-erment results from increased community cohesion when its membersare brought together through a tourism initiative. Scheyvens’ concep-tualization of political empowerment can be regarded in the sense So-field (2003) discussed it: a multidimensional process, as well as anoutcome. It is about political and social power of which knowledge isan essential element. Empowerment, he argues, provides a shift inthe balance between the powerful and the powerless, between the dom-inant and the dependent.

Cultural commodification is frequently regarded negatively, as theobjectification by ‘‘the West’’ of a cultural other. However, this masksthe empowerment of the pride brought by tourism and the political re-source that a new definable identity may offer. While Western analystshave regarded the commodification of otherness ‘‘as a kind of institu-tionalized racism that celebrates primitiveness’’ (Mowforth and Munt1998:270), it needs also to be recognized as part of a process ofempowerment.

Research Setting

The research took place in two villages in Ngadha, approximately thesouthwest third of the Ngada regency of Flores, Nusa Tenggara Timor,Indonesia (see Figure 1). The Ngadha, like many inhabitants of theinterior of Indonesian islands, were a loosely structured, scattered

Figure 1. Location of Research Site

STROMA COLE 947

population and did not view themselves as a distinct ethnic group.Under the New Order government ethnic identity was de-recognizedin favor of a homogenizing discourse of development (Li 2000). TheNgadha, along with a million other rural people were classified as‘‘estranged’’ and ‘‘isolated’’ (Department of Social Affairs 1994). Theircultural distinction and livelihood practices were evidence of ‘‘back-wardness’’ and a ‘‘development deficit’’ the government would helpthem overcome (Li 2000).

The area is one of the poorest in Indonesia. Poverty on Flores is suchthat 100% of villages receive grants paid to those ‘‘left behind by devel-opment’’. Tourism is considered the area’s best option for economicprogress (Umbu Peku Djawang 1991), partly due to its location, be-tween two of East Indonesia’s most renowned attractions. To the eastis Keli Mutu, a volcano with three different-colored lakes at its peak.To the west lies Komodo National Park, famed for its Varamus komodo-ensis (dragons). The villages lie in a rugged mountainous region with


steep slopes and poor soils. They are largely subsistence agriculturistsgrowing maize and vegetables for their own consumption. A varietyof cash crops are grown including beans, coffee, vanilla, and pepper.Variable agricultural production is supplemented by craft production,which is subject to village and gender specialization.

The villages began to be visited by ‘‘drifters’’ in the 80s and haveseen an increasing number of tourists ever since. Nearly all who visitFlores are of a ‘‘hardy type’’ (Erb 2000), within which there are a vari-ety of types that visit the area (Cole 2000). The most popular settle-ment received 9,000 tourists in 1997 (Regency Department ofEducation and Culture 1998). Whereas the majority of arrivals to Indo-nesia are Asians (Hall 1997), in the 90s the greatest numbers in Nga-dha were Dutch, followed by Australians and New Zealanders,British, Germans, and French. Tourism is also more seasonally markedin Ngadha than in Indonesia generally. The seasonal peak is betweenJune and October, with August arrivals reaching over four timesDecember levels.

The house is the central organizing principle of Ngadha society. Allmembers of this society belong to a named house and clan. Woodenhouses with high thatched roofs are arranged in two parallel lines oraround the sides of a rectangle to form a nua, the spiritual heart of aNgadha village. In the center are a number of ngadhu (a carved treetrunk with a conical thatched roof, associated with a clan’s first maleancestor) and bhaga (miniature house representing a clan’s first femaleancestor); and a number of megaliths. The complex of attractions pro-vides tourists with ‘‘a feeling of being enclosed in antiquity’’ (Cole1998:41).

Ngadha social organization is shaped by three conflicting structures.The Indonesian state, the Catholic Church, and adat (customary law) allexert an influence at the same time. Administratively, the republic is di-vided into provinsi (provinces), which are subdivided first into kabupaten(regencies), then into kecamatan (districts), and further into desa (vil-lages). The Dutch brought the Catholic Church to Ngadha in the 20s.Nearly all the villagers are now firm believers in God and are regularchurch-goers. Alongside Catholicism, the influence of the ancestors re-mains equally important. Considerable time and expense are dedicatedto ceremonies, of which animal slaughter is an essential element.

Originally from Arabic, adat meant customary law or custom (Wilkin-son, Cooper and Mohammed 1963). The term is accepted across theIndonesian archipelago to mean custom or tradition (Echols andShadily 1989), but, as Picard discusses, ‘‘it is essentially a religious con-cept, in the sense that it refers to a social order founded by the ances-tors to an unchangeable cosmic order’’ (1996:12). It exists to ensureharmony in the universe. It governs relationships between the individ-ual and community,gives guidance for relationships, and ‘‘is specific toa particular ethnic group’’ (1996:153). However, just as all cultureschange, adat is strategically manipulated, socially negotiated, and thussubject to change.

The word adat is used by the government in a secular sense to mean‘‘traditional’’, hence rumah adat (traditional house), or kampung adat

STROMA COLE 949

(traditional village). The government uses adat for those aspects of tra-dition that can be separated from religion, state rules for life, and val-ues. The term is then closely aligned with tradition as culture that canbe commoditized. Before examining its contested nature and howtourism gives it commercial value and new power, the study methodswill be outlined.

Study Methods

This study was based on long-term research over more than 10 years(1989–2000). The author operated tours in the area between 1989 and1994, which included a two-night stay in one of the villages in the study.The success of the tours influenced the research that followed. Bring-ing tourists, income, and piped water (Cole 1997) gave the researchercredibility, trust, and rapport with the villagers. In 1996, 30 question-naire-based interviews were carried out to explore their views and atti-tudes to tourists and tourism for an academic paper. Between July 1998and February 1999 the author spent eight months carrying out ethno-graphic fieldwork to investigate the values, attitudes, perceptions, andpriorities of the actors in tourism. This stage of the research employedan essentially action oriented approach due to the enduring ties andsense of responsibility that had developed over time. As discussed inCole (2004), there were distinct advantages returning to the same fieldsite over a number of years: re-entry was easier, culture shock was min-imized, and full engagement occurred only hours after arrival. Further-more, moving to and from the study site over a period of years allowedfor periods of reflection after periods of fieldwork, and social visitswere used to collect missing information.

As analyzed elsewhere (Cole 2004), the power relations between re-searcher and respondents changed over time. As relationships devel-oped, so did trust and respect, giving rise to rich insights and adepth of data. However, long-term relationships can be limiting as wellas helpful. As the researcher was adopted, she had the roles of daugh-ter, sister, niece, aunt, and the like, to fulfill. Her freedom was re-stricted and aspects of her research directed. Balancing roles offamily membership and research was a constant challenge.

The researcher lived in two villages. Study methods included partic-ipant observation, interviews, and focus groups with their residents.The latter, adapted to suit the setting, were held with women, men,and young people. The researcher moderated all the groups, eachbetween nine and 14 participants. The groups were affected by the rap-port, authority, and respect developed with the respondents. Thedynamics of the different groups were affected by age difference,gender, and amount of ‘‘stranger-value’’ between the researcher andparticipants. Being familiar was normally an advantage, but havinglong-established relationships made moderation difficult, especiallyas a woman dealing with a group of familiar men. The meetings weretranscribed the next day. Cole (2005a) provides an indepth analysis ofthe focus groups and their usefulness as a research technique.


Participant observation was carried out in a number of villages. Theresearcher’s role oscillated through the observer-participant spectrum(Gold 1958; Junker cited in May 1997), depending on time, place,and participants. The data were recorded via tape, photography, andwritten notes. The analysis of the ethnographic data involved a multiplearray of tasks, which often lacked a coherent order. Participant observa-tion involved two activities concurrently: the dual roles of participationand data collection. At times, there was reliance on memory, and noteswere written as soon as possible. Rough notes were turned into morecoherent notes under subtitles.

This was the beginning of the data analysis. The subtitles were emer-gent categories that began the process of coding, a type of domain anal-ysis (Spradley 1980). It was also a method employed to check therecording of data. Informants were asked to help check and recheck data,as the researcher tried to make sense of her observations and analysis.The analysis continued after the fieldwork, when the bulk of the datafrom the different stakeholders was reviewed. Categories were devisedmainly inductively, by identifying meaningful themes (Thomas 2004).

As different sets of data were collected over a 10-year stretch, the re-searcher was able to return to the field and discuss her analyses withthe villagers, to double-check her interpretation of their voices, andto fill in gaps. Furthermore, with the advent of global communicationthere has been regular email contact with a key informant who movedto Jakarta. This has allowed for ‘‘respondent validation’’, as accountsand analyses were tested with him. At times, he took sections of theanalysis and translated them to his uncles, elders respected for theirintimate cultural knowledge, in order to get further feedback. The de-tailed processes of data collection and analysis are published elsewhere(Cole 2005b).

Tourists were observed, interviewed, and surveyed at different pointsduring the study. They were surveyed in the gateway towns of LabuhanBajo and Maumere and in Bajawa, the local town, either prior to or aftertheir visit, to explore expectations and experiences. They were observedduring their village visits and there were numerous opportunities for‘‘spontaneous chats’’ (Selanniemi 1999). Government officials at theprovincial and regency level were also interviewed. The head of the Re-gency Department of Tourism and the head of the Regency Depart-ment of Education and Culture were each interviewed three times, atthe beginning, middle, and end of the fieldwork. All these interviewswere recorded and transcribed. The longitudinal nature of the researchhas enabled the researcher to return to the offices, recheck informa-tion, and obtain feedback on her interpretation of their narratives.The state’s perspective of tradition and authenticity is presented first be-fore examining the views of tourists and villagers.

The State’s Perspective

The Indonesian state perceives culture simultaneously as heritagethat should be looked after and as tourism capital to be exploited

STROMA COLE 951

(Picard 1997). It has been instrumental in the objectification of cultureand the reduction of it to the ‘‘cultural arts’’: dance, music, costumes,handicrafts, and architecture (King and Wilder 2003; Picard 1997).Once objectified, culture can be sold. The Provincial Department ofTourism staff suggested that culture could be sold for tourism. Thehead of the department actually used the words kebudayaan bisa dijual(culture can be sold) and his staff made numerous references to peo-ple and their tradition as attractions (obyek parawisata). ‘‘Tourists areinterested in ceremonies, customs and everyday activities that havebeen passed down for generations and the villagers are happy for thetourists to come because they know they don’t bring any problems’’,staff in the Provincial Tourism office said. The department was alsokeen to point out that cultural tourism (wisata budaya) was dependenton the villagers’ ‘‘maintaining their traditions’’.

In the past, the government (and the Church) has tried to limit thenumber of animals that can be slaughtered at rituals, justified on thegrounds that these rituals were costly and economically impoverishingthe villagers (Daeng 1988; Molnar 1998). It is through ritual sacrificethat they communicate with their ancestors, and the associated feastingis an essential part of maintaining social ties among villagers. Rituals alsoattract tourists. Observing sacrifice is especially prestigious for the touristseeking the authentic exotic that traveling to Ngadha potentially offers,as discussed later. If sufficient tourists are attracted to rituals involvingslaughter, it is possible that the government’s line could change: ratherthan being regarded as impoverishing, animal sacrifices may be funda-mental to the development of villages as traditional ones (kampungadat)/tourism attractions. Torajan funerals, for example, attract largenumbers of tourists whose visits have fuelled increasingly spectacularfunerals involving large-scale animal sacrifice (Volkman 1985).

In Ngadha, four of the villages have been assigned prime attraction(obyek wisata unggalan) status. The entire villages are regarded as na-tional assets. The nua and megaliths have been documented as partof the national heritage under the 1992 Law No. 5, Pemeliharaan BendaBenda dan Situs Benda Cagar Budaya (Preservation of Cultural Sites andObjects). The properties of the clans have become possessions of thestate, which has simultaneously become the custodian of theirpreservation.

As cultural villages must be kept ‘‘traditional’’, conflict arises overhow traditional, and the villagers are limited in what they can do totheir own homes. Each year two houses, in each settlement, are com-pletely refurbished. In 1998 conflict arose over methods of thatching.All villagers agreed that the houses in the nua must be thatched (tradi-tional). State officials, however, would like to specify the method ofthatching. Although many reasons were given in discussions about ahousehold’s autonomy to decide how to thatch their home, the con-sensus was that it should be done ‘‘the traditional way’’. Furthermore,a house that was refurbished in 1998 was built without any openingwooden windows. The headman’s rationale for this was ‘‘This is a tra-ditional village. From now on, all houses must be traditional, tradition-ally houses did not have opening windows’’.


Shortly after the author began taking tourists to stay in one of thevillages, electricity was installed. The poles were run, by the shortestroute, diagonally across the nua. In discussions with one of the mem-bers of the tourism department, the electricity poles were given as areason the village, despite far easier access, was less visited than themost popular one. Could it then be denied electricity, as it would de-tract from its attractiveness as a prime attraction? The villagers saw elec-tricity as a high priority for development. It ranked highest for youngpeople, second (after road improvements) for men and third (afterwater supplies to individual houses and road improvements) for wo-men. All the tourists that the author took to the village after the elec-tricity poles were erected commented negatively about this highlyvisible sign of modernization as it ‘‘spoilt’’ their village photographs.The promotion of traditional culture does not match the government’surge to pursue modernization. However, as discussed later, the state’sperspective echoes the tourists’ view: the villages should not change.

The Tourists’ Perspective

Tourists made the following comments, some written in the villageguest books, some recorded during post-trip interviews or in numerousspontaneous chats. ‘‘The villages were beautiful’’ and ‘‘The peoplewere friendly’’ were the most frequent comments in guest books. Theyfrequently said the villagers should keep their settlements as they wereand their traditions alive. Some thought that the trip was the highlightof their travels. ‘‘Worth coming all the way to Flores for’’ (said Englishschool teacher); ‘‘The most beautiful villages we have visited in Indone-sia’’ (a Dutch couple); ‘‘The least spoilt villages we have seen’’ (aFrench engineer); and ‘‘The most traditional culture I have observed’’(a Norwegian).

Many tourists visited more than one Ngadha village. They usuallypreferred settlements that were less visited and made little attempt tomake money from tourism. Authenticity is a value sought by culturaltourists to Ngadha settlements, and commercialization was equatedwith the loss of authenticity. Many described the most popular villageas ‘‘spoilt,’’ ‘‘a bit spoilt’’ or, as one put it, having ‘‘a veneer of com-mercialism’’. The reasons given for these opinions were the ticket sales,the Coca-Cola sales, the large number of houses displaying ikat weav-ings for sale, the fact that children asked for sweets, and the requestsfor money to take photographs.

Tourists preferred villages that appeared economically poorer. Inseeking experiences far removed from their own lifestyle, they seek‘‘primitive’’ culture. Poverty is related to primitive in their minds, asis not being ‘‘economically-minded’’. In seeking a contrast with theirown culture (Rojek 1997), they have notions of how the villages shouldbe: rural, poor, primitive, dirty, and traditional in contrast with theirurban, rich, sophisticated, clean, and modern lives.

For some the villages seemed ‘‘too good to be true’’, ‘‘too perfect’’,‘‘unreal’’ or model-like. Tourists who had visited other settlements in

STROMA COLE 953

Ngadha that contained both concrete and wooden houses with a mixof both tin roofs and thatched roofs were more inclined to voice theopinion that the villages were ‘‘alive only for tourism’’ (a German tea-cher), ‘‘like walking into a show’’ (a Canadian scientist) ‘‘like a picturepostcard’’ (a middle-aged Belgium man). A lone French woman com-plained, ‘‘There was nobody around, it was dead, alive only for tour-ism’’. For others, the views were expressed due to the sales made totourists: ‘‘the village appeared unnatural’’(young English tourist),and ‘‘a model for tourists’’ (Australian traveling to the UnitedKingdom).

By contrast those that observed rituals did not think that the villageswere preserved for tourists. The rituals served as proof that they wereprimitive and their villages authentic. At rituals, just as the slaughteris the highlight for the locals, so is it for the tourists: ‘‘It’s great tosee their real culture’’ (a young German), ‘‘We used to do this: it’samazing to be somewhere it still happens’’, ‘‘I feel so privileged tosee true tradition’’ (a Dutch volunteer). Observing rituals adds tothe authenticity tourists strive to experience. Visiting a village allowsthe tourist to stand on the stage of the exotic culture. Visiting duringa ritual allows the tourists to stand shoulder to shoulder with the actors,to be extras in the play.

Local Perspective

In conversations and in the focus groups, the villagers denied therewas any conflict between tradition and modernization. They articulatedtradition as adat: the way of the ancestors. Unlike the state’s objectifiedconcept, the villagers’ notion is more religious, referring to the be-queathed social order. Adat manifests itself in house, clan, and nuarelations and the rituals to maintain them. Modernization is under-stood as electricity, education, and healthcare. None of these woulddiminish the value of adat. The cost of modernization did, however,compete for resources with rituals. Slaughtering fewer animals was con-sidered an essential compromise in order to pay for electricity bills,school fees, and medicine.

Villagers were not only happy for tourists to attend rituals, they ac-tively sought them to take part. It was common for guides to be in-formed of rituals ahead of time so that they could bring tourists.Ramai (the more the merrier) is a strong cultural value and the furtherguests travel to attend a ritual the more importance is attached to it.Locals were sometimes prepared to put on displays of music anddance. However, they disagreed with the idea of staging rituals for tour-ists. One woman expressed their strength of feeling as follows: ‘‘Adat issacred; it takes blood; it can’t be done just like that; the ancestorswould be angry’’. While the they were happy to commodify dance dis-plays, they disagreed with state officials that adat ceremonies could be‘‘sold’’.

Although the nua is considered the sacred center of a Ngadha vil-lage, the residents were not concerned about its commodification.


They are proud that their villages are considered as national heritage.One of the settlements sells tickets to tourists who wish to visit the nua.Many in other settlements wanted to introduce a ticket system. Thesesales were considered an important mechanism to ensure transparencyof tourists’ funds entering the village and to prevent conflict. Nua thatcould be ‘‘sold’’ are considered superior. Ticket sales are badges ofbeing traditional enough to attract tourists; they work to authenticatea village as traditional. In a similar way Erb (1998) found that thosepaying for tickets to visit a traditional house, in neighboring Mangga-rai, authenticated or ‘‘sacrilized’’ it for the locals.

The villagers of Ngadha like tourists for a number of reasons: they pro-vide entertainment, bring economic benefits and service provision, pro-vide friends from far away places, and are a source of information.Importantly, they make the locals proud of their cultural heritage. Theresidents of Ngadha, in common with many peasants across the Indone-sian archipelago, lack formal education and have a low opinion of them-selves. This low self-worth is expressed as Saya hanya petani saja (I am onlya peasant). This view results, at least in part, from 30 years of the NewOrder Government labeling them as estranged, isolated, and backward.Tourism is bringing the villagers dignity and confidence in their beliefs.Many expressed the view that tourists make them feel bangga adat istiadatdikenal oleh orang luar (proud that their culture is known to outsiders).

Several villagers suggested that tourism mentebalkan adat istiadat (wasstrengthening cultural values) and that their reverence and respect forthe ancestors could only be helped and not eroded by this business.They were confident that their children would have the importanceof village custom reconfirmed by seeing tourists come from afar toexperience it. ‘‘If our culture is worth coming all the way from Englandto see, it is worthy of preservation’’, according to a local informant.

In the most visited village, a management group has been set up. Thisdemocratic group (one member from each clan) decides how the fundsraised through tourism will be spent. It has been successful in revealing,and reporting to higher authorities, a corrupt state official, who wassiphoning off funds raised through ticket sales to tourists. The long his-tory of an authoritarian, hierarchical government has meant that theNgadha villagers, like so many Indonesians, are deferential and obedi-ent and fearful of authority. Tourism has changed their perceptions ofthemselves and is proving to be important in giving confidence to com-munities and their members. Furthermore, pulling together to bringabout this action strengthened the sense of cohesion and integrity,along with a sense of social empowerment (Scheyvens 2003).

Cultural Commodification and Empowerment

The ethnic pride resulting from tourists’ visits that is widely reportedelsewhere (Adams 1997; Crystal 1978; Van den Berghe 1992) is appar-ent in Ngadha; and this is a clear reason why tourists are appreciated.Wood (1997) uses the term ‘‘ethnic option’’ to refer to the reflection,debate, and conscious choice of ethnic labels, boundaries, and

STROMA COLE 955

contents. The Ngadha appear to have come into being, in the sense ofa discrete bounded group with an identifiable shared culture, as anethnic option in part as a response to, and consequence of, tourism.The clearest elements of Ngadha identity are their houses, cloth, ngad-hu and bhaga, megaliths and annual festivals. These elements are notonly identified by the locals but are also the symbols taken and usedin tourism. These tangible markers can be photographed and mar-keted. They have become objectified and externalized, and this in itself‘‘tends to make people self-conscious and reflexive about the ‘culturalstuff’ which, before, they may have taken for granted’’ (1997:19).

The Ngadha have never formed a unified political group. Tourism iscreating the internal recognition of a defined group based on theabove set of markers. The notion of a bounded, localized, culturalwhole of Ngadha is a creation of outsiders, in part at least, in responseto tourism. The villagers in this study had, in their daily lives, identifiedthe local at the nua level whereas now they are aware of the broaderwhole. Tourism is providing them with the pride of a broader identity.Minor ambitions, for example to be included in provincial level tour-ism marketing material, will be an initial step in being recognized.

The cultural commodification of their difference has led to a recog-nizable ‘‘ethnic group’’ identity. This process of commodification ofthe villagers’ identity is bringing them pride and a self-conscious aware-ness of their traditional culture, which has become a resource that theymanipulate to economic and political ends. Tourism is used as a rhe-torical weapon to underscore the power of adat: reinforcing it andworking to counterbalance the power of the state and church. Despitethe devaluing of adat by both the church and the state, the power ofthe ancestors of Ngadha has been resilient. Tourism is now used to bol-ster their power.

Analysts have criticized tourism as leading to the reinterpretation ofpoverty, suffering, and inequality as cultural diversity. This suggeststhat residents are passive. While the Indonesian state may be responsi-ble for ‘‘museumizing’’ them and creating a straitjacket for their visiblecultural assets (such asarchitectural styles), tourists’ visits per se bringpride and a self-conscious awareness of their traditional culture. Thevillagers are mobilizing their new ethnic identity and its external recog-nition as a resource. These are important steps towards empowerment.

CONCLUSION

This research reveals that tourists do indeed make judgments aboutauthenticity in relation to poverty. Any obvious attempts to derive eco-nomic benefits from tourism resulted in the villages being described as‘‘spoilt’’. The commodification of culture (ticket sales, sales of souve-nirs, or paying to take photographs) was viewed negatively, as is fre-quently reflected in the academic literature.

At the same time, the local government, in order to attract tourists,has legislated to protect material traditional culture. In order to re-main traditional, villagers are being denied the rights to have windows


in their homes. It is possible some villages will also be denied electric-ity, as it is considered to have ‘‘spoilt’’ a settlement where it has beeninstalled. Complete nua and the Ngadha megaliths are preserved asheritage by the state; the villagers’ megaliths are reified and consignedto the past by government and tourists (Cole 2003). Will basing cultureon markers related to the past, on tradition as unchanging, or on fixedmaterial elements, work to preserve the residents’ underdevelopmentrather than being a tool for development?

As the property of the clans is appropriated as national heritage, itbecomes the property of the state. This raises questions over owner-ship. The difficulties experienced by villagers in Lombok reported byFallon (2001), Cushman (1999), and Bras (2000) all suggest that own-ership of the resource base is crucial to maintaining control over tour-ism development. If the state can appropriate the clans’ property, theycould lay claim to other aspects of the villages. Furthermore, who ben-efits from the economic growth of tourism is directly related to controland ownership (Gunn 1994).

The villagers articulate tradition as adat and believe that tourism willreinforce its importance. Tourism is making them self-conscious andproud of their culture. Their new identity, (re)created through tourism,has given the local groups new political (and potential economic) capitalto manipulate. Identity and pride are important steps to empowerment.

The analysis not only reveals very different interpretations of authen-ticity; it also suggests that there are more important questions to beasked in the debates about the sociocultural consequences of tourism.Rather than unpacking authenticity into hot, cold, objective, construc-tive, or existential, analysts need to be asking questions about how thenotion is articulated and by whom. A better understanding is neededof how cultural tourism is used by marginalized groups to gain powerand how they can use the identity and pride that commodifying theircultural identity appears to bring. The interface between cultural com-modification and ownership may be crucial to marginalized peoplegaining or maintaining control of tourism in their midst.

As some commentators have noted, people can use cultural com-modification as a way of affirming their identity, of telling their ownstory, and of establishing the significance of local experiences (Mac-donald 1997). Far from rendering culture superficial and meaningless,commodification can be seen as ‘‘part of a very positive process bywhich people are beginning to re-evaluate their history and shake offthe shame of peasantry’’ (Abram 1996:198). Elements of culture maybe commoditized through tourism, but self-conscious awareness of tra-ditional culture as something local people possess, and that attractstourists, can bring political legitimacy (where traditional culture andthe identity associated with it, have hitherto been debased). Tourismcan thus provide marginalized communities with a political resourceto manipulate. The questions that need to be asked are in what circum-stances does cultural commodification lead to positive responses incommunities, and what factors lead cultural commodification to bringempowerment to marginalized people in less economically developedcountries.

STROMA COLE 957

Acknowledgements—An earlier version of this paper was presented at Tourism: State of the ArtII in Strathclyde in June 2004. The author wishes to thank those that made positive, useful,and critical comments.

REFERENCES

Abram, S.1996 Reactions to Tourism: A View from the Deep Green Heart of France. In

Coping with Tourists. European Reactions to Mass Tourism, J. Boissevain, ed.,pp. 174–203. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Adams, K.2004 The Genesis of Touristic Imagery: Politic and Poetics in the Creation of a

Remote Indonesian Island Destination. Tourist Studies 4(2):115–135.1997 Touting Touristic ‘‘Primmadonas: Tourism Ethnicity and National Inte-

gration in Sulawesi, Indonesia. In Tourism Ethnicity and the State in Asianand Pacific Societies, M. Picard and R. Wood, eds., pp. 155–180. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.

Appadurai, A.1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In The Social Life of

Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, A. Appadurai, ed., pp. 3–63.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bianchi, R.2003 Place and Power in Tourism Development: Tracing the Complex Artic-

ulations of Community and Locality. PASOS 1:13–32.Bras, K.

2000 Image Building and Guiding on Lombok: The Social Construction of aTourist Destination. Amsterdam: Cocktail Communications.

Bruner, E.1994 Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of Postmodern-

ism American Anthropologist 96:397–415.Butcher, J.

2001 Cultural Baggage and Cultural Tourism. In Innovations in CulturalTourism, J. Butcher, ed., Proceedings of the 5th ATLAS InternationalConference Innovatory approaches to Culture and Tourism 1998, Rethym-non, Crete, Greece, pp. 2–25. ATLAS, Tilburg.

Cheong, S., and M. Miller2000 Power and Tourism: A Foucauldian Observation. Annals of Tourism

Research 27:371–390.Cohen, E.

1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of TourismResearch 15:371–386.

Cohen, E.2001 Ethnic Tourism in Southeast Asia. In Tourism, Anthropology and China,

C-B. Tan, C-H. Sidney, Y-H. Cheung, eds., pp. 27–53. Singapore: White LotusPress.

Cole, S.1997 Anthropologists, Local Communities and Sustainable Tourism Develop-

ment. In Tourism and Sustainability, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 219–230. Oxford:CABI.

1998 Tradition and Tourism: Dilemmas in Sustainable Tourism Development—A Case Study from Ngada Region of Flores, Indonesia. AnthropologiIndonesia 56(22):37–46.

2000 Post-modern Tourist Typologies: Case Study from Ngadha Flores.Indonesia. In Motivation, Behavior and Tourist Types, M. Robinson, P. Long,N. Evans, R. Sharpley and J. Swarbrooke, eds., pp. 71–82. University ofNorthumbria and Sheffield Hallam University, Sunderland: Center of Traveland Tourism and Business Education Publishers.

2003 Appropriated Meanings: Megaliths and Tourism in Eastern Indonesia.Indonesia and the Malay World 31(89):140–150.


2003 Shared Benefits: Longitudinal Research in Eastern Indonesia. In Quali-tative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, J.Phillimore and L. Goodson, eds., pp. 292–310. London: Routledge.

2005a Methodological Innovations in Tourism Research: Action Anthropol-ogy—New Fieldwork Methods. Tourism Recreation Research 30:65–72.

2005b Action Ethnography: Using Participant Observation. In TourismResearch Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice, B. Ritchie, P. Burnsand C. Palmer, eds., pp. 63–72. Wallingford: CABI.

Crystal, E.1978 Tourism in Toraja (Sulawesi Indonesia). In Hosts and Guests: The

Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 109–125. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Cushman, G.

1999 Independent Entrepreneurship: The Case of Gili Air, Lombok, Indonesia.In Entrepreneurship and Education in Tourism, K. Bras, H. Dahles, M.Gunawan and G. Richards, eds., pp.173–184. Proceeding ATLAS AsiaInauguration Conference.

Daeng, H.1988 Ritual Feasting and Resource Competition in Flores. In The Real and

Imagined Role of Culture in Development, M. Dove, ed., pp. 254–267.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Dearden, P., and S. Harron1992 Case Study: Tourism and the Hill Tribes of Thailand. In Special Interest

Tourism, B. Weiller and M. Hall, eds., pp. 95–104. London: Belhaven.Department of Social Affairs

1994 Isolated Community Development: Data and Information. Jakarta:Directorate of Isolated Community Development, Directorate General ofSocial Welfare Development, Department of Social Affairs.

Di Castri, F.2004 Sustainable Tourism in Small Islands: Local Empowerment as a Key Factor

www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/island/insula-tour-em (5 July 2004).Echols, J., and H. Shadily

1989 Kamus Indonesia Inggris (3rd ed.). Jakarta: Gramedia.Erb, M.

1998 Tourism Space in Manggarai, Western Flores, Indonesia: The House as aContested Place. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 19:177–192.

2000 Understanding Tourists: Interpretations from Indonesia. Annals ofTourism Research 27:709–736.

Fallon, F.2001 Land Conflicts and Tourism in Lombok. Current Issues in Tourism

4:401–481.Franklin, A., and M. Crang

2001 The Trouble with Tourism and Travel Theory? Tourist Studies 1:5–22.Getz, D.

1998 Event Tourism and the Authenticity Dilemma. In Global Tourism, W.Theobald, ed., pp. 409–427. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.

Go, F.1997 Entrepreneurs and the Tourism Industry in Developing Countries. In

Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs and Sustainable Development, H. Dahles, ed.,pp. 5–22. Tilburg: ATLAS.

Graburn, N.1984 The Evolution of Tourist Arts. Annals of Tourism Research 11:393–419.

Greenwood, D.1978 Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as

Cultural Commoditization. In Host and Guests: The Anthropology ofTourism, V. Smith, ed., pp. 129–138. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gunn, C.1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Hall, M.1997 Tourism in the Pacific Rim: Developments, Impacts and Markets (second

ed.). Melbourne: Addison Wesley-Longman.

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/island/insula-tour-em

STROMA COLE 959

King, V., and W. Wilder2003 The Modern Anthropology of South East Asia: An Introduction. London:

Routledge-Curzon.Klieger, P.

1990 Close Encounters: ‘‘Intimate’’ Tourism in Tibet. Cultural Survival Quar-terly 14:2–5.

Li, T.2000 Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the

Tribal Slot. Comparative Studies in Society and History 42:1–31.MacCannell, D.

1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken.1984 Reconstructed Ethnicity: Tourism and Cultural Identity in Third World

Communities. Annals of Tourism Research 11:375–391.MacDonald, S.

1997 A People’s Story: Heritage, Identity and Authenticity. In Touring Cultures:Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry, eds., pp. 155–175.London: Routledge.

May, T.1997 Social Research: Issues, Methods and Processes. Buckingham: OUP.

Meethan, K.2001 Place, Culture, Consumption. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Molnar, A.1998 Considerations of Consequences of Rapid Agricultural Modernisation

among two Ngadha Communities. Anthropologi Indonesia 56:47–59.Moscardo, G., and P. Pearce

1999 Understanding Ethnic Tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 26:416–434.Mowforth, M., and I. Munt

1998 Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London:Routledge.

Olsen, K.2002 Authenticity as a Concept in Tourism Research. Tourist Studies 2:159–

182.Picard, M.

1996 Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: ArchipelagoPress.

1997 Cultural Tourism, Nation-building, and Regional Culture: The Making of aBalinese Identity. In Tourism Ethnicity and the State in Asian and PacificSocieties, M. Picard and R. Wood, eds., pp. 181–214. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

Rojek, C.1997 Indexing, Dragging and the Social Construction of Tourist Sights. In

Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry,eds., pp. 52–74. London: Routledge.

Scheyvens, R.1999 Ecotourism and Empowerment of Local Communities. Tourism Manage-

ment 20:245–249.2003 Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.Selanniemi, T.

1999 Being a Tourist among Tourists: Ethnography and the Study of CharterTourists. International Conference on Anthropology. Kunming: ChineseSociety and Tourism.

Selwyn, T.1996 Introduction. In The Tourist Image. Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,

T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 1–32. Chichester: Wiley.Soejono, S.

1996 Dampak Industri Parawisata Pada Seni Pertunjukan Jurnal Masyarakat SeniPertunjuk Indonesia Th VIII, pp. 101–115.

Sofield, T.2003 Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development. Oxford: Pergamon.


Spradley, J.1980 Participant Observation. New York: Rinehart and Winston.

Swain, M.1989 Developing Ethnic Tourism in Yunan China: Shalin Sani. Tourism

Recreation Research 14:33–40.Taylor, J.

2001 Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research28:7–26.

Thomas, K.2004 The Research Process as a Journey. In Qualitative Research in Tourism:

Ontologies. Epistemologies and Methodologies, J. Phillimore and L. Goodson,eds., pp. 197–214. London: Routledge.

Umbu Peku Djawang1991 The Role of Tourism in NTT Development. In Nusa Tenggara Timor: The

Challenge of Development Political and Social Change, C. Barlow, A. Bellisand K. Andrews, eds., pp.155–164. Monograph 12, Canberra: ANU University.

Volkman, T.1985 Feasts of Honor: Ritual and Change in the Toraja Highlands. Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.van den Berghe, P.

1992 Tourism and the Ethnic Division of Labor. Annals of Tourism Research19:234–249.

Wang, N.1999 Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Annals of Tourism

Research 26:349–370.Wilkinson, R., A. Cooper, and M. Mohamed

1963 An Abridged Malay-English English-Malay Dictionary. London: Macmillan.Wood, R.

1997 Tourism and the State: Ethnic Options and the Construction of Otherness.In Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, M. Picardand R. Wood, eds., pp. 1–34. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Submitted 19 October 2005. Resubmitted 14 March 2006. Resubmitted 15 August 2006.Resubmitted 13 March 2007. Final version 13 March 2007. Accepted 15 April 2007.Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Ning Wang

Documents

Beyond authenticity and commodification