Is there such a thing as an authentic culture? When cultural rites and rituals, such as traditional dance, are performed for money, for tourists, in a capitalist economy, is this still authentic culture?

Daniel (1996) questions the authenticity of dance forms, many of which have been commodified for the international arts market. She says that touristic dance performances everywhere often have "intentions that frame the 'exotic other' in traditional or extravaganza dance style, motivations that conserve and present national or ethnic cultures, and packaging that creates viable, mesmerizing products that generate profits" (781). The questions presented here is, are dance performances in tourism settings forms of "artistic commoditization," i.e. "a diminished authenticity, a limited if not absent sense of creativity, or an unvoiced, suppressed, or drastically changed layer of meaning" (781).

Daniel uses Handler and Saxton's distinctions between the various uses of the word "authenticity" to help clarify this question. Handler and Saxton argue that there are two kinds of authentic: "the one applied to visual arts is generally an external judgement by the spectator/analyst and the one applied to performing arts and their case of 'living history' is an 'experiential' authenticity. In the visual arts, authenticity is most often based on collectors' tastes, collectors' naming and categorization of genres and styles..., and more recently, whether or not artifacts are signed. On the other hand, experiential authenticity concerns itself with 'perfect simulation', replication of a past, an isomorphism or similarity of structural form '...between a living-history activity or event, and that piece of the past it is meant to re-create'" (Daniel 1996, 782-783).

These recreations of "living history" at times give rise to "magic moments" - "those times when the sensation of experiencing the past becomes present reality. In other words, in actively demonstrating the past, the past becomes 'really real'" (783). Yet it seems to me that authentic performances require more than just seeming at times to 'feel real' to the performers. I believe the why of the performance matters, at least for my feeling of what authenticity means. Why are the performers dancing? Are they dancing for the reasons why the dance was first intended? For example, are the dancers in the picture below really dancing to prepare for war, as the dance was originally intended for? And when this dance is performed for other reasons and with other motivations and meanings, is it still 'authentic'? Authenticity could be determined by historical, cultural, and geographic accuracy, and in

As culture increasingly becomes a commodity, a valued object worthy of preservation and presentation, the question arises: what parts of culture are worth preserving and showing off? As Conforti (1996) writes in his article, "Ghettos as Tourism Attractions," as the United States and other countries increasingly see value and meaning in historical culture, they are increasingly attempting to preserve, restore, and reconstruct historical sites. Conforti contends that the acceleration of such preservation in America in recent decades is reflective of the "maturation of America" as a place whose "age can now be stated in centuries" (830). Like "an individual approaching old age, Americans are increasingly looking backward, trying to extract from the past those things they want to preserve, those symbolic artifacts that reflect significant and proud moments in the development of their nation" (830).

However, this process necessarily requires selection. Different artifacts may be valued differently by different groups, and any attempt to restore some, but not all, artifacts may prove contentious. Conforti examines the positives and negatives of preserving ghettos, such as Little Italies in many American cities. He says that "it would seem unavoidable that if America is going to include the urban experience of its racial and ethnic groups in its historic preservation, then the ghetto must be included in that preservation, as a common part of the experience of those groups" (831).

But historic preservation, or recreation, as the case may be, is not only about preserving what may be difficult places or periods. It is about creating the past, creating culture by selection. Culture, as we have seen, is constantly changing, and any attempts to preserve culture end up creating it. Conforti sums this up well, writing that "Every instance of preservation, restoration, or reconstruction inherently contains the prospect of proprietary modification. That is, whoever gets the opportunity to preserve, restore, or reconstruct something that presumably reflects historical development or a historical accomplishment, in the absence of any competing record or depiction, determines, defines, and controls the information on which that history, or at least its image, is thereafter going to be based" (840).

It seems that Foucault's categories of power and knowledge can be used to lay claim to history and culture as well as other dominions.