Abstract
This article seeks to deflect the discourse on the built heritage from the conventional definitional and methodological issues to the more political question of who has the power or authority to authenticate it. Deploying Cohen and Cohen's distinction between two modes of authentication-hot and cool-it inquires which of these modes was dominant in the authentication of the built heritage of three small towns in Thailand, and how each influenced the extent of preservation of that heritage. The article concludes that the 'cool' mode of authentication of the built heritage provided a more secure and more permanent basis for the preservation of the built heritage than the 'hot' mode of authentication, which, because it makes preservation contingent on the continuous reiteration of perfomative authenticating acts by visitors, proved too fickle to pose serious obstacles to the modification or destruction of the built heritage. But in the cases under consideration, eventually neither mode of authentication proved powerful enough to prevent outside developers from interfering with the built heritage and changing the ambience of the old towns.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-15 |
Number of pages | 15 |
Journal | Tourism, Culture and Communication |
Volume | 14 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2014 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Keywords
- Authentication
- Built heritage
- Heritage tourism
- Thailand