{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031746031746031744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015873015873015872, 'mean_word_length': 5.348993288590604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Placing Authenticity — On Being a Tourist: A Reply to Pearce and Moscardo

In their article 'The concept of authenticity in tourist experiences' (ANZJS, 22, 1, March 1986), Pearce and Moscardo asserted that the Heideggerian account of authenticity could be transformed into a classificatory framework for the description of 'the' 'touristic exper ience'. They alleged that this operation could be aided by the appropriation of the frontstage/backstage distinction employed by Goffman in his early study, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956 and 1959). This article questions the ease with which Pearce and Moscardo both 'find' and 'operationalise' Heidegger's and Goff man's work. It is suggested that a 'thick description' of the disparate experiences of tourists requires a sensitivity to the rich history of the concept of authenticity and an awareness of the methodological pro blems which its empirical application must overcome.