Authentic [aw-then-tik] – adjective
- not false or copied; genuine; real
- having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified
Throughout the chapters “How Brooklyn Became Cool” and “Why Harlem is Not a Ghetto” in Sharon Zukin’s book, Naked City, there are a number of repeated concepts, primarily what factors come into play in drawing people to certain cities or neighborhoods. These factors tend to run along the lines of introducing new residential or commercial places to a given area. Part of this in itself come a number of preliminary questions, some being what should be introduced and for what audience, each of which have their own questions to answer. One thing that was continuously emphasized by Zukin in terms of what generally draws people to an area is authenticity- a term clearly defined as genuine or having an unquestionable origin- yet, upon reading, the question remains: what does it really mean to be authentic?
Zukin repeats the word authentic in a number of contexts in both chapters, beginning with its meaning, which precedes her discussion of Williamsburg. She remarks that authenticity has little to do with origins as it used to, and that it is rather a subject of style- migrating from being about the quality of people and things to the quality of experiences- a city is labelled “authentic” if it can “create the experience of origins.” The reason why this comes off to me as such a broad definition is that from person to person, cities have a number of different origins, alongside different experiences that make up those origins. When it comes to rebuilding an area in light of making it more “authentic,” as it happened with Harlem, whose experiences are to be trusted? Not only that, but the subjectivity of authenticity comes into play. In the late 1980s, for instance, Harlem underwent redevelopment as past residents of the area began to “tough it out” and invest in spaces, which was followed by investment by larger companies. Many of these people described their origins as within the Harlem Renaissance rather than within their actual, direct experiences, when Harlem was seen as a “risky investment” due to crime and the illegal drug trade. This subjectivity of origins, whereas selective experiences are considered, further complicates the definition of authenticity, which can prove to be a problem amongst people in times of redevelopment.
A New York Times article titled “The Williamsburg Divide” seems to reflect this issue as residents of what is called North Williamsburg, characterized by newly developed high-rise buildings, and South Williamsburg, described by the article as “the gritty, multiethnic side,” come into conflict over urban renewal. The comments section of this article continues the argument, in which people in support of the north side of Williamsburg argue that it captures the authenticity of New York City as a whole to outsiders, whilst the South side says the authenticity lies in its roots, referring to when multiethnic cuisines and residents first came together in the making of the neighborhood. Again, the issue arises- Williamsburg’s roots, as described by Zukin, were those of an area soon changed into what became the escape from Manhattan for artists and the like. There is no solid agreement as to what the “roots” of a neighborhood may be. The second video in the article captures this conflict as, towards the end, people either agree with or criticize a film regarding the changes made to Williamsburg, the last interviewee of which calls it a complicated question to answer. With that, I propose the following questions:
- Who has the right to determine whether or not a given area is authentic- longtime residents, newcomers, or is it a matter of history? In the last case, whose historical experience should be primarily considered?
- Have you ever used the term authentic in regards to a given neighborhood or place? If so, why?
- Harlem, in its renewal that occurred in the late 1980s, was made less of a “risky investment” through a number of means, many of which caused local businesses and residents to be pushed out. However, many argue that it was made “better” in that investment caused crime and poverty rates to decline and city services to increase in the area. In the name of authenticity, new businesses often recreate the culture of those that were pushed out, or of previous local residents. Does this count as authenticity? Why or why not?
