Empty Meeting Grounds by Dean MacCannell ( 1992 ) examines the new cultural forms and community patterns accompanying

the development of global tourism. More specifically, MacCannell discusses the effects of new forms of tourism such as the Highland Thai trekking tours of primitive villages as well as the New Guinea cannibal tours. He points to the irony in these developments noting that peoples formerly labeled as ``primitive'' are, thanks to this burgeoning industry, moving from their once peripheral position to Western centers of wealth and power.

here are many things wrong with tourism in today's society. Tourism is so widely spread that the effects are becoming even more prevalent. Tourism is seen by many as a way to have an adventure and learn about the many cultures in the world. Tourism can in fact teach better than almost any book, but the negative effects of tourism can out way the benefits. Tourism commodifies the culture, affects the environment, and can overlook or change the indigenous culture of a place (Tang). When watching the television, one sees many commercials for trips to many exotic places. These trips promise an authentic experience and lots of exciting activities. Tourism started as a way to visit where one's ancestors came from, discover a new place to live, or to learn about a different way of life. These commercials are using tourism and the destinations' culture as a way to make a profit. They tend to overlook the real reason to visit that destination. The commercials usually promote staying in a five-star resort and visiting shopping malls and other newly constructed tourism spots, such as souvenir shops. The true reason of tourism is lost. The traveler fails to experience the history and culture that lies outside of these commercial spots (Fiaux). When tourism is commodified, there are many negative effects on the environment. Tourism uses many of the destinations resources, including natural resources. Tourism also creates a large amount of waste, alters building places within the area, and can damage many habitats of the indigenous animals. These effects are trying to be avoided, but due to the large masses of people coming to the commodified locations planning committees can only limit them and try to plan better ways to avoid more damage. These plans then alter the historical sites by having to add garbages, trails, bathrooms, and other land altering objects (UNEP). Tourists can miss the indigenous culture of a place if they focus too closely

to the commercialized locations. This is the case in Salem, Massachusetts. The town of Salem has been converted into a hot spot for witch themed haunted houses. The culture of the town is lost in all the commercial promotion for haunted houses and ghost hunts. The visitor is bombarded with flyers for these attractions, but the historic sites are over-looked. This unfortunately is the case with many historic sites in the world. The tourist may miss the real learning experiences due to the humans' inherent need to make money out of every opportunity even if it means hurting the cultural aspect of a place.
the dictionary definition of commodification is to make something into an object for commercial use. In terms of tourism, commodification refers to using a place's culture and the cultural artifacts to make a large enough profit to support part of the area's economy (Fiaux). In today's tourism, commodification is prevalent everywhere one looks. Whether the tourist eats at McDonald's in China or buys souvenirs in India, they are participating in commodification. The problem with commodification is that it alters the tourists' abilities to have an authentic experience and introduces a false culture into the indigenous one. McDonald's is an American originated fast-food place and it has been globalized and introduced into the cultures of many countries. This does not allow travelers to experience the native foods because fast-food places like McDonald's are more common in tourist areas than the authentic food restaurants (Fainstein).

Another example of commodification in tourism is tourist attractions like Disney World and Disney Land. Disney parks are tourist attractions made to make money. There is minimal historical information exposed while visiting Disney parks. The history of some of the cartoon characters is shown along with the life of Walt Disney, but the basis of the park is entertainment and profit (Fainstein). Entertainment in tourism is fine, but Disney has threatened the habitats of many animals, created huge amounts of waste, and failed to incorporate an authentic historical aspect that is needed for true tourism. In terms of cultural tourism, Disney World and Disney Land do not meet the cultural requirements because of its lack of historical content (Ivanovic).

Commodification can be seen as a good thing, but in tourism the more authentic the experience the better it is not only for the tourist, but also for the indigenous culture. The more accurate the learning that can come from tourism, the more accurate the reporting or the tourists' responses can be. Tourists' responses can promote a place, and help that place's economy especially in developing countries (Rothman).

With tourism comes an influx of people caring disease, using the resources of a place, and creating an increase in waste. The planning committees in

tourist rich areas build pathways, shops, and attractions in certain places to allow for optimal traffic flow while bringing in money from tourists. The planning committees create all these things, but in doing so they need to claim new land (UNEP). The main concern with the travel of humans is the spread of disease. Many diseases are introduced into countries by people who were unaware that they carried the disease. This is the case in the Galapagos Islands. Many of the animals have become sick and died from illnesses similar to those of humans. Many humans who wish to travel outside the country have to get the mandatory vaccines to prevent this type of situation. Unfortunately not all illnesses can be foreseen and prevented using vaccines. Besides illness, tourism creates a large amount of waste. Areas of increased population including tourist attractions produce waste from food, water bottles, and other one-time use goods. At historic sites and natural landscape attractions, the planners try to reduce the environmental impact of tourists by designating pathways, adding compost garbage cans, and adding bathrooms (Smith Culture). These objects, along with the buildings and attractions the planners build, can destroy the natural habitat for many animals. With more animals going instinct every year, tourisms footprints become even more prominent. At historic sites within parks planners try to keep the pathways to dirt or gravel to lessen the invasion caused by the paths. In Massachusetts along Paul Reveres Midnight Ride, tourists can see the many houses along the path. Tourists are not allowed to drive their cars onto the path. Tourists park and walk the path as far as the historic houses then they can move on to the next part of the path by either walking on the gravel path, or they can drive to the next parking lot. By not allowing cars, the planners are preserving the greenery and sites along Paul Reveres Midnight Ride. Another example of the planning of a city for tourism would be Washington D.C. Although the whole city was not built for tourism, the amount of museums and tours available are astounding. A tourist can spend a week in D.C. and never visit half the attractions the city has to offer. Because of the vast amount of buildings and highways, D.C. has very limited green

space and limited wildlife compared to less tourist prone cities.

For tourism to exist, a destination has to have some appealing history or attractions for humans to want to go and see it. This history has to begin somewhere. The history of a place begins with the indigenous cultures. From the indigenous cultures, expands many subcultures, and those sub-cultures are transformed by outside influences into what the tourist sees when they travel. The tourist themselves can have an impact on the sub-cultures or even the indigenous ones (Ivanovic). A familiar example of one culture altering another culture is the story of the First Thanksgiving. The British came over to America and found the Native Americans and their indigenous culture. The British started introducing aspects of their culture into that of the Indians and vice versa. The majority of the learning was done by the Indians, and this altered parts of their indigenous culture. Like tourists, the British came and learnt a lot about the culture they encountered, but not after leaving their footprint in the culture they just learned. Tourists may believe that by leaving to explore another culture they will learn a huge amount of information, and they will not be affecting the cultures they see. Tourists fail to see that even if they believe they are just observing the other culture is doing the same. The culture can adapt because of the actions they see the tourists make, or the way they speak (McKercher). This becomes a problem when the culture abandons huge aspects of their original culture, or when the tourism of an area modernizes and the original culture is forgotten. The tourists need to realize the effect they can have on the cultures they are observing, but the indigenous cultures need to see the effect and resist the changes if they are not necessary changes to make. To prevent the cultures from being forgotten, many cities have museums of new and old cultures, and they also make attractions that combined and compare the cultures (SmithIssues). Many cultures have started programs to teach the younger generations to embrace and participate in their indigenous roots. These programs teach not only the language, but also the unique practices of their culture (Euronews) .

Tourism is not all bad. The education that can come about when travelling and interacting can be greater than that gained from any textbook. Travelling does have its' downfalls which need to be made known so a solution can be found. Tourism commodifies cultures and their associated businesses and goods. It effects the environment in many harmful ways, including the

habitats of many endangered animals. Tourism can also overshadow or in the opposite direction drastically change the indigenous cultures of a place. Tourists need to make sure they do everything in their power to prevent these negative effects of tourism. They should get vaccines, stay in designated areas, and respect and preserve the culture put before them. With these simple measure travelers of all ages can help reduce the footprints left behind by tourism.
he issues ofauthenticity in relation to the commodification of culture are present in many sectors of the tourism industry (e.g. heritage tourism, ethnic tourism) and are relevant to most destinations worldwide, in the developing as well as the Western world (Chhabra et al., 2003; Gjerald, 2005; McIntosh and Prentice, 1999; Silver, 1993; Van den Berghe, 1995). This review will however focus on developing world destinations in order to highlight the power imbalance created by western defined criteria of authenticity in tourism and its subsequent staging. Since cross-cultural encounters have been designated as one of the drivers of the commodification of culture in host societies (Shepherd, 2002),the global context in which such encounters take place highlights the relevance of the debate on authenticity for tourism studies. Indeed, many host-guest encounters occur as a result of the tourists quest for authenticity as described by MacCannell (1973). Many authors have contributed to the debate on authenticity and the commodification of culture in the academic literature since MacCannells (1973) work. The debate starts around the definition of authenticity, a wide and complex concept used by academic writers with different meanings. This review will start by clarifying some of the uses of the term in the academic literature with regard to object, staged and emergent authenticity, but will be centredon the concept of the quest for authenticity. Once the concepts of authenticity used in this context have been clarified, the review will move on to consider the positive and negative impacts of culture commodification and staging authenticity, as well as the use of staged authenticity as a resistance tool by host communities. It will attempt to highlight the shortcomings of the literature in considering the impacts of culture commodification on locals existing outside the tourism industry and the need to update the debate on authenticity and culture commodification in the light of new tourism trends such as poverty tourism. The review will focus mainly on the perspective of the host (including both locals existing within and outside the tourism industry) to consider these impacts. This review centres the debate regarding authenticity and commodification on culture. It is therefore important to define what is meant here by the term culture. Culture will include both the arts perspective namely performances of theatre, dance or music and displays of fine art, and other expressions of culture (George and Reid, 2005:89), as well as Meethans (2003:13) definition of culture in a more holistic sense to a way of life.

The issue of authenticity in tourism starts with the tourist quest for authenticity as claimed by MacCannell. Because tourists are concerned with the shallowness and inauthenticity of their everyday lives, tourism becomes a quest for authenticity, to be found in primitive societies (MacCannell, 1973).Handler (1986:2, as cited in McIntosh and Prentice, 1999) describes the quest for authentic cultural experiences as a search for the unspoiled, pristine, genuine, untouched and traditional.Connell (2007) also echoes MacCannells view and emphasises the otherness and exoticism sought by tourists in primitive societies as part of this quest, which is grounded in the belief that western societies have lost this authenticity. Authenticity can however be found in many forms, in objects / events or in tourist experiences. One of the angles from which the concept of authenticity can be considered relates to object authenticity, which Steiner and Reisinger (2006:299) define as the genuineness of artifacts or events. Object authenticity appears as a simple concept in which the real has to be distinguished from the false. It is however a subjective attribute, as the criteria for authenticity are set by tourists (Connell, 2007; Fesenmaier and MacKay, 1996; Steiner and Reisinger, 2006) from a western perspective in this context. Cole (2007) notes that the same western or euro-centric perspective has been used in most academic studies on authenticity and cultural commodification. Since most tourism promotion portrays hosts and culture in developing countries in a post colonialist light as static and unchanged in order to maintain a power imbalance between hosts and guests (Echtner, 2002; Echtner and Prasad, 2003), modernity and change in indigenous societies are often considered as inauthentic (Connell, 2007; Green, 2002; MacCannell, 1999 in Olsen, 2002; Silver, 1993; Wang, 1999). In order to fulfil those western criteria, host populations often resort to staging authenticity. Modernity is excluded from staged performances (Connell, 2007) to fulfil the tourists quest. Staged authenticity can be seen as inherently inauthentic, in the sense that the objects [also referring to cultural performances] lack the genuineness characteristic of object authenticity. However, this is not always the case. First, as authenticity is a subjective concept, its staging cannot always be recognised by tourists (Connell, 2007). In this case, the staged event / product can therefore still fulfil the t ourists quest, as the authenticity of experience is not necessarily linked to object authenticity (Fesenmaier and MacKay, 1996).Additionally, Cohen suggests the concept of emergent authenticity, whereby a cultural product, or a trait thereof, which is at one point generally judged as contrived or inauthentic may, in the course of time, become generally recognized as authentic, even by experts (Cohen, 1988:379), demonstrating that authenticity is not indeed static, but evolves in response to changing circumstances (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006). In most cases, culture is staged to satisfy tourists in order to create an income for host populations. It is therefore commodified. Cohen (1988:380) defined the process of commodification (or commoditization) as the process by which things (and activities) come to be evaluated primarily in terms of their exchange value, in a context of trade, thereby becoming goods (and services). This process of culture commodification is not without consequences, which have been repeatedly

discussed in the academic literature (Cohen, 1988; Cole, 2007; Edensor, 2001; Fesenmaier and MacKay, 1996; George and Reid, 2005; Green, 2002; Medina, 2003; Steiner and Reisinger, 2006).The question of ethics in the search for authenticity can therefore be raised. In the words of MacCannell (2011:10), authenticity as a substitute for ethics can be regarded with suspicion that it is either intentionally or unwittingly unethical . Since the criteria of [object] authenticity are imposed by western perspectives, the ethical nature of such a quest can be questioned with regards to thepower imbalance involved, particularly when the impacts of staging authenticity and culture commodification are considered. Extensive academic literature exists on the impacts of staging authenticity on tourist satisfaction (Connell, 2007; Pearce and Moscardo, 1986; Wang, 1999). However this review is primarily concerned with the impacts on host populations.Various positive impacts of culture commodification on hosts in tourism destinations have been noted by academics (Cohen, 1988; Cole, 2007; Edensor, 2001; Green, 2002; Medina, 2003). One of those impacts relates to the preservation of host cultures and traditions. By giving them an economic value, commodifying cultures motivates locals to revive, preserve and reconfirm belief in tradition for future generations (Cohen, 1988; Cole, 2007; Edensor, 2001; Medina, 2003). In that sense, commodifying culture does not destroy it, but simply changes it overtime (Cohen, 1988). The benefits of commodifying cultures has also been acknowledged beyond its economic aspect and considered for its power to generate pride for locals. Cole (2007) argues that tourism works as an authenticating agent generating a sense of self pride and identity for locals in marginalised primitive societies that have been labelled as isolated and backwards by their own society and government, while Green (2002) argues the worth of tourism to generate pride in host societies at a national level. Bruner (1991) also argues the sense of self hosts can gain through tourism, by displaying a culture they are proud of to the western world. However, Bianchini (1993, as cited in Steiner and Reisinger, 2006) argues that there are tensions between the use of culture for economic purposes and community identity expression in tourism settings. Such tensions mainly lie in the limits host populations put on what can be staged and commodified. Cole (2007) found that some host populations disagree with the idea of staging sacred, religious rituals for tourists, whilst staging other cultural performances such as dance displays is acceptable. The literature also deals with the use of staged authenticity as a resistance tool used by locals in an attempt to limit the negative impacts of culture commodification and re-establish some balance in host guest-power relationships. This happens by staging what Goffman (1959, in MacCannell, 1973) has described as front regions [in which hosts and tourists meet] in order to make them appear as back regions [where tourists are normally not present], thereby protecting the true back regions from tourists.Some host communities use staged authenticity to prevent direct contact with outsiders (Buck, 1978 as cited in Pearce and Moscardo, 1986),since they see tourists as shallow and therefore not truly seeking authenticity (Maoz, 2006). In such societies, the possibility that a stranger might enter a back region is a source of concern (MacCannell, 1973). Connell (2007) indeed explains that the inauthentic

nature of staged performances can be perceived by tourists, who will then attempt to enter the back regions of the destination to fulfil their quest for authenticity. Lau (2010) exposes MacCannells (1975:21) argument that hosts who live their lives totally exposed to their relevant others do not need to question the authenticity of their lives, as the very survival of their society demonstrates the victory of real over false (MacCannell, 1973). However, MacCannells argument does not take into accoun t the western definition of authenticity imposed on developing countries destinations, whereby exposing locals lives also involves exposing levels of modernity and industrialisation which tourists do not associate with authenticity, pushing hosts to adapt their culture to western expectations. This issue is raised by Fesenmaier and MacKay (1996) who explain that locals often have to live a lie generated by false realities created by western societies, and thereby see their culture robbed of its authenticity. Boorstin (1961, 1964, as cited in Steiner and Reisinger, 2006) argues that hosts cannot be authentic since they must conform to tourist expectations, and see their culture distorted. Eventually, host society structures are changed as a result from the corrosive effect of culture commodification, and the traditional culture may even die and be reborn in the form of a new culture created based on the [western defined] icons of the traditional one (George and Reid, 2005).

Although the academic literature surrounding the topics of authenticity and culture commodification is broad, some considerations have been given insufficient attention. As previously stated, it widely considers how change and development (in the sense of modernity and industrialisation) in host societies can affect the success and attractiveness of the tourism product in developing countries. It also examines the extent to which tourism hinders the potential for host societies to develop and modernise themselves, but it frequentlymerely takes into account the participants in the tourism industry. MacCannell (1973) quotes Goffman (1959:590) to categorise the people who need to be considered when examining staged authenticity and culture commodification in tourism, namely: those who perform; those performed to; and outsiders who neither perform in the show nor observe it. The impacts of staging and commodifying culture on the latter categorys potential to develop and modernise their societyis often overlooked, although the locals existing outside of the tourism industry are also affected by the myths and stereotypes of primitivism associated with such processes. Furthermore, the change and damage to rituals and traditions in host societies areaffecting the tourists quest for authenticity itself. According to MacCannell (1999, as cited in Olsen, 2002), this quest is bound to fail because the tourist, by his/her mere presence into authentic back regions, destroys what he/she was looking for (the authenticity of the object he/she has come to see). Nevertheless, tourists are still on this quest for authenticity, but the (western) criteria defining it have changed since the origins of the academic discussion on authenticity. For some time, as explained by Silver (1993), the representation of developing countries was based on escapism and obscured the inherent realities of these destinations such as levels of industrialisation and poverty, based on the principle that one cannot sell poverty (Mowforth and Munt, 1998:146). However, the debate on

authenticity must be reconsidered in the light of relatively new forms of tourism such as poverty tourism (comprising of slum, favela and township tourism), a trend that emerged in the 1990s (Meschkank, 2011). Poverty has only been recently recognised as part of the tourist quest for authenticity. Poverty tourists indeed seeks to explore the less visited parts, or back regions of the developing world (Mowforth and Munt, 1998). Additionally, slums, favelas and townships are relevant to the definition of object authenticity as they represent the real, genuine life of the destination. Meschkank(2011) has indeed revealed that the quest for authenticity constitutes a central motivation for poverty tourism, and concludes that authenticity and poverty are closely related. The debate on authenticity and culture commodification needs to evolve in the light of new trends such as poverty tourism.In this type of tourism, the traditional balance between positive and negative impacts of culture commodification can potentially change quite drastically. Although the economic benefits for the hosts can be debatedas poverty is then commodified, the generation of pride and (positive) self-identity is less inherent to poverty tourism than cultural or ethnic tourism. Moreover, the staging of authenticity is not relevant to poverty tourism (poverty is not staged), it cannot be used by locals as a resistance tools in a similar way to other types of tourism (cultural, ethnic). The impacts on hosts and the ethical implications of such new trends in tourism therefore need to be considered in the academic debate on culture commodification, as tourists move away from rituals and traditions to explore the back regions of the hosts living conditions to satisfy their quest for authenticity.

According to Theobald (1998:411) authenticity means genuine, unadulterated or the real thing. In modern times tourism is frequently accused of destroying authenticity ((a notion which is problematic in its own term), through commoditization of cultures, such as festivals, dance rituals and food which is produced for monetary gain. The definition of authenticity is debatable by many academics; I will try to explore their views on this subject in this essay.