I am still grappling with Rei’s point that authenticity can only exist when there is some sort of other culture, in this case Western culture, that can be used as a point of contrast. On one hand, I can understand that logic.  It’s ironic that it is due to Western imperialism that the value of anthropologists’ ethnographic work can also be revealed: recognizing the ways in which communities are able to solidify their own understandings of themselves only by recognizing the difference between themselves in relation to the “others.” The “others” that very much pose a threat to that same sense of self – like the instance of the Brazilians encroaching on Kayapo’s community-oriented identity or even in the instance of Thai “national” culture being created in response to Western culture.

On another other hand, hasn’t authenticity always existed within communities prior to Western imperialism but has since then only been made more obvious through cultural differences? Turner makes a great point in his article that maybe we should stray away from this idea of preserving authenticity altogether: “The real issues (in relation to indigenous video production) are not the preservation of ‘culture,’ non-Western or Western, but the empowerment of social actors, whatever their degree of culture “purity” as defined by whatever standard, to produce their own cultural mediations (80).” In other words, Turner is trying to recognize that there is no such thing as authenticity because it’s constructed. Instead of focusing on authenticity’s very meaning being derived from difference between two communities, we should be focusing on how authenticity is defined by the community itself and is carried out through mediations, rituals, and actions.

I guess in conclusion, that the answer to authenticity could lie somewhere between both Turner’s and Rei’s point: authenticity is not only derived form within a community but also through recognizing the differences between that community and others.