Untitled

destination, their quest is frustrated through the
emergence of a `tourist space ' within which
the locals `stage authenticity' �see staged
authenticity), in that they construe spurious
attractions which are then represented or promoted
as `real'. The tourists' quest is thus
frustrated, since they are unable to penetrate the
`fronts' and `false backs' with which they are
confronted and reach into the back, the `real' life
at the destination.
MacCannell's paradigm engendered considerable
controversy and criticism as well as empirical
research. Central to it was his concept of
`authenticity'. The discussion focused on three
principal topics. The first is the empirical question
of the extent to which tourists are in fact motivated
by a quest for authenticity; this appears not to be
generally the case, even though such a quest may
be a central cultural theme of modernity �Trilling
1972; Cohen 1988). The second is a critical
examination of the concept of authenticity; it was
claimed that the concept is socially constructed,
and hence may have a different connotation for
various types of tourists �Cohen 1988). Rather than
to posit the concept as given, some researchers thus
turned to the empirical examination of the tourists'
own perceptions of authenticity. Such an
operationalisation of the concept of authenticity
weakens the analytical power of MacCannell's
paradigm. The third is a shift away from
authenticity as the focal topic in the sociological
discourse of tourism, which occurred under the
joint impact of gradual changes in the nature of
tourism and the employment of new, especially
postmodern theoretical approaches to its analysis.
This is the trend which characterised the 1990s.
Under emergent `postmodern' conditions, the
notions of `beginnings' or `origins' are being denied
their aura of sacrality. In turn, the centrality of
authenticity as a cultural theme has been weakened.
Consequently, `post-tourists' �Urry 1990:
93ff) tend to engage more readily in the playful
enjoyment of explicitly contrived attractions rather
than in a serious quest for authenticity in some
unmarked back regions of their destination. This
cultural shift has led to the growing popularity and
proliferation of new kinds of attractions, most of
which are sanitised simulations of reality �Jules-
Rosette 1994), such as large-scale amusement
sociology 545
parks, emblematically represented by the Disneylands,
theme parks, living museums, reconstructed
prehistoric environments and renovated
heritage sites. To many of these, the concept of
`authenticity' can no longer be unequivocally
applied. Indeed, some were treated as `authentic
copies' �Eco 1990: 20) or `authentic reproductions'
�Bruner 1994). While facilitating an effortless and
playful postmodern enjoyment of surfaces, such
simulated sites in fact lead to a progressive
segregation of tourism from the daily reality of
destinations and to the erosion of the boundary
between tourism and ordinary leisure �Cohen
1995; Moore et al. 1995). This process culminates
in the application of the technology of `virtual
reality' to the simulation of travel, which the
`virtual tourist' can enjoy in his or her home
environment.
These trends have been accompanied by a shift
in the theoretical focus of the sociological
discourse of tourism to another of the leads in
MacCannell's �1976, 1989) early work: semiotics.
Ironically, however, the adoption by some
students of tourism of the more radical views of
`postmodern' semioticians such as Baudrillard
�1981b) and Eco �1990) led to the ultimate
subversion of the basis of MacCannell's paradigm.
The contemporary tourist travels in `hyperreality'.
This is a world of simulacra, of fakes which
appear more real than the original, or of endlessly
reproduced copies, without origins. Representation
is all, reality is problematised. Tourists engage
in the interpretation and consumption of signs of
this problematised reality, with them being
perceived as `consumers of signs' �Urry 1990: 83
ff). Commodified tourist objects and activities are
said to possess `sign value' �Watson and Kopachevsky
1994: 645±7), rather than use value or
exchange value. A new research programme, if
not a paradigm, for the study of tourism in terms
of a `political economy of [touristic] signs'
�Baudrillard 1981a, 143±163; Watson and Kopachesvsky
1994) thus emerges.
The semiotic turn in the sociology of tourism
engendered a growing concern with the construction
of touristic representations, images and
performances �Dann 1966; Selwyn 1996). Significantly,
however, such constructions are frequently
contested, by bearers of contrasting cultural and