The Impact of the Need for “Authenticity”

The idea of “authenticity” has its stake in many different conversations and debates, including a push towards the truth in a time when facts are scarce, a quest for originality, and an emphasis on going back to the fundamentals behind embellishments created in our society. “Authenticity” becomes an important topic of discussion when focusing on culture, whether that be for cities of America or of a group of people in a lesser known country on the other side of the world. Sharon Zukin, in Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places, identifies this idea of authenticity as a type of culture used as a cause for waves of migrations of certain people in particular areas like Williamsburg (49-50), as an appropriate description of the hip hop cultures formed by African American communities of “black Brooklyn” (56), and the semblance of the history of Harlem used to create a specific image of the “dark ghetto” and the “Harlem Renaissance” (68-71). In trying to define the “authenticity” that attracted people to these areas, Zukin focused on the people and history of each of the areas as the basis for why they were considered authentic and why people fought to protect it or to follow it.

In my interpretation of her ideas, the people that made up each area, as they interacted with the events of their history from different time periods, slowly created a specific culture that eventually became an essential part of the reputation associated with the area. In Harlem, the idea of the “authentically black and poor” neighborhood (Zukin 72), surfaced from the problems that plagued the area, with effects from segregation and racism. These ideas interacted with the powerful images associated with the Harlem Renaissance to represent that has a rich culture to explore (Zukin 76). Eventually with impacts from developers who took advantage of the low prices of the land in Harlem as well as media influence, gentrification had a chance of anchoring for those who were fascinated by the stark reality presented by Harlem and its history. This idea of “authenticity” became a catalyst for people to move to Harlem once it became easily accessible thanks to the developers. As with Brooklyn, the people and cultural changes that occur in the neighborhood will erode away this original or “old authenticity” to create a new “authentic” culture that fits the new population, and it has already begun (69,71).

The controversy regarding cultural appropriation presents an important insight to this idea of “authenticity.” Cultural appropriation is when aspects of a minority culture, including “intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts,” are borrowed and used by a dominant culture without permission or regard for the significance of its original culture (Haka Tours). Most of the debates around cultural appropriation revolve around how appreciation for a culture can become harmful and result in cultural appropriation. This problem is especially apparent in tourism, who concern themselves with delivering the most “authentic” experience of different global locations to their customers (Haka Tours). In trying to do so, tourist agencies begin to disregard the people and the culture they are showcasing to attract tourists who have no true care nor understanding for the culture they want to experience. This dilemma is easily applicable to the “authenticity” of Brooklyn and Harlem’s cultures. The changes that have occurred in both areas, especially in terms of gentrification and in regards to each of their respective images, began as a result of people looking for “authentic” areas to be inspired by and to be exposed to. To a certain extent, it causes no harm and only shows an interest of others to understand the intricacies of another culture. However, now that the traces of the former culture of each area are being eroded away, at the expense of the former populations that lived there, it becomes an issue that needs to be dealt with. Furthermore, the history and struggles of the people who had led to the creation of these cultures are not being properly understood and appreciated. Instead, they become spectacles to be exploited and embellished by the media and museums meant for a very different population-the people who come looking for this “authentic culture”. Through this perspective, it becomes apparent why people protested the “Harlem On My Mind” exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum, located away from the populations of Harlem and meant for a completely different group of people (Zukin 72-73). Despite the possibilities of a greater amount of safety and introduction of new people, the negative impacts of this wave of gentrification on the populations that once inhabited these areas will take away the former “authenticity” that the area had once had, as it was created and maintained by them, causing this migration of people to continue looking for new areas, as had happened to SoHo and East Village.