See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232910710 Sámi Heritage at the Winter Festival in Jokkmokk, Sweden Article in Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism · May 2006 DOI: 10.1080/15022250600560489 CITATIONS READS 44 403 2 authors, including: Robert Pettersson Mid Sweden University 24 PUBLICATIONS 605 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Pettersson on 01 June 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Sámi Heritage at the Winter Festival in Jokkmokk, Sweden Dieter K. Müller a; Robert Pettersson b Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.54-69 Abstract Indigenous tourism is an expansive sector in the growing tourism industry. However, the tourist experience of the indigenous heritage is often delimited to staged culture in museums, exhibitions and festivals. In this paper, focus is put on the annual Sámi winter festival in Jokkmokk, Sweden. It is discussed to what extent this festival truly is an indigenous event. This is accomplished by scrutinizing the Sámi representation at the festival regarding its content and its spatial location. It is argued that the available indigenous heritage is highly staged, although backstage experiences are available for the Sámi and for the curious tourists. Keywords: Cultural event; indigenous festival; Sámi tourism; Sápmi; Jokkmokk Introduction Indigenous experiences are coveted, but often hard to catch. Thanks to a growing industry of indigenous tourism the accessibility increases. According to Smith (1996) there are four different elements which are influential in the development of indigenous tourism, and can be a part of the tourist experience: habitat, history, handicrafts and heritage. Particularly, access to non-commercialized heritage is difficult to find due to its allocation in space and time (Müller & Pettersson, 2001). Smith (1996 p. 290) writes that the heritage "comprises that body of knowledge and skills which ensure human survival together with the beliefs and values that give meaning to life ". Hence, heritage, i.e. the ethnographic tradition, is mainly presented in institutionalized forms for example in museums and exhibitions, or at other manifestations, more or less arranged to suit the tourists. Otherwise indigenous culture often remains invisible or inaccessible for the tourist gaze. This is particularly the case if the indigenous population is an invisible minority, well integrated into the surrounding society, as is the case for the Sámi population in Sweden. The recent decline in reindeer husbandry, the traditional economy of the Sámi, has entailed that tourism is identified as an alternative source of income. Even the Swedish Sametinget, the parliament of the Swedish Sámi, has consecutively pointed out tourism as a new Sámi industry with heritage as main asset. However, it is claimed by the Sámi that the Sámi themselves should control tourism development to guarantee an authentic tourist experience and a survival of Sámi culture. The annual winter festival in Jokkmokk is one out of rather few occasions where the general public has the opportunity to meet Sámi and see Sámi heritage. This makes the festival a good occasion to increase the visitors' knowledge about Sámi issues. There is a history of antagonism between Sámi and non-Sámi in Sweden (Lantto, 54 2000, 2003). The antagonism often springs from poor knowledge about each other, and the indistinct rules about the right to land, including hunting and fishing. Indigenous events form exceptional occasions where the otherwise invisible heritage is brought into the focus of tourists. Here heritage can be displayed and put up for sale in cultural shows presenting e.g. music, dance and traditional clothing. It can be traded in the form of handicrafts, art and food. It also can be presented and discussed in exhibitions and seminars. However, what is it that the tourists are observing and purchasing? Is it the authentic expression of a living culture or is it, as MacCannell (1976) asserts, a staged authenticity only and thus, a variation of the institutionalized displays of museums and exhibitions? Despite the rather high number of indigenous events, the academic attention for this expression of indigenous tourism has been limited. The research that nevertheless has been published predominantly focuses on economic concerns, and less attention is paid to the social context of the festivals (Hinch & Delamere, 1993; Hinch, 2003). This seems to be remarkable last, but not least with regards to the symbolic, medial and touristic importance of events (Hall, 1992). The purpose of this article is therefore to analyze how heritage is displayed at an indigenous festival: the winter festival in Jokkmokk, which is an annual gathering of Sámi and tourists in northern Sweden (this study focuses on non-Sámi tourists, although some of the festival visitors are Sámi themselves). This is done regarding two dimensions. First, the spatial distribution of Sami heritage at the festival site is mapped, and then the content of the displayed heritage is analyzed. Indigenous Heritage and Authenticity Carrying out a cultural festival like the winter festival in Jokkmokk is an act of balance between opportunities and risks. In this context the discussion of genuine cultural representations and authenticity is central. In his initial work on tourism MacCannell (1976) argued that striving for authentic experiences is crucial for tourism. However, tourists are usually exposed to staged authenticity and are only seldom able to reach back stage. This notion has often been contested in the tourism literature and hence, it is reasonable to ask what authenticity in tourism actually is all about (Wang, 1999). Current knowledge of the past is incomplete and selective, and consequently questions regarding the authenticity of heritage are always subject to societal negotiations (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). According to Hall and McArthur (1998) heritage is what society wants to keep from the past, or as Ashworth and Turnbridge (1999, p. 105) put it, it is the "contemporary use of the past". Hence, tourists always experience a distorted past only influenced by their demand, economic and business processes, and political pressures (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Consequently, indigenous heritage is socially constructed and thus, a dynamic representation of current values and beliefs (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). In other words it is dependent on what tourists would like to see and what indigenous people would like to display. 55 If heritage is dynamic, even authenticity becomes a relative concept dependent on various stakeholders' expectations (Fawcett & Cormack, 2001; Chhabra et al., 2003). Lowenthal (1985) goes even further stating that a comprehensive authentic heritage never can be achieved or experienced owing to a lack of knowledge about the past. Hence heritage places and attractions are often sanitized and idealized (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Therefore, heritage tourism is always staged. Still, tourists do not necessarily experience apparently staged experiences as inauthentic. McIntosh and Prentice (1999) therefore ask to allow people to create their own subjective experiences of "authenticity". Departing from Bruner (1994), Ryan and Huyton (2002) suggest that the term authorization may be a better term than authenticity as it redirects the questions to who authorizes and what is authorized instead of trying to define something permanently changing. Thus, indigenous heritage is not a comprehensive collection of past practices and commodities. It is a selection that is constantly negotiated, both within the indigenous group, and in wider society. Use of fur or indigenous hunt, for example, is contested by environmental organizations (Smith, 1996), and has sometimes disappeared from the heritage on display or for sale. However, there are also commodities and events which have been added to the heritage supply. Indigenous handicraft is produced for sale and display mainly and not for use by the indigenous community itself. Although the items are "authentic" in that sense that they follow traditional patterns and can be used in a traditional way, their meaning as well as the scale of production has changed and has been adapted to a touristic demand. This occurs partly owing to economic pressure and interests within the indigenous groups, partly owing to outside political pressure on the indigenous groups to widen their economic activities including an increase of commodified heritage supply. Indigenous heritage thus exists in a societal context implying a constant contesting of its content and meaning. It is strongly influenced by the ongoing ethnopolitical discourses on the role of indigenous peoples in contemporary societies. These discourses can be divided into two interlinked parts. One comprises the internal debate on ways of development for the indigenous group; the other is conducted by tourists, politicians, media and other outside stakeholders. Their perceptions of the indigenous group influences demand, but also political and economic pressure on the supply and display of indigenous heritage. Consequently, indigenous heritage tourism is always embedded in an ethnopolitical context influencing its content and scope. Studying this kind of tourism thus requires an acknowledgement of these discourses. First, however, a closer look is taken on the setting of the heritage display. Indigenous Heritage and