在美国,“本真性”这一概念是一个精致而复杂的建构,是民俗工作和文化自身中定义合法性的核心。假定“本真性”是民俗学理性研究数十载的成果以及学术推论,它也可被视作一些民俗学者及其拥护者发明和部署的一种策略,以便将物质素材、社区和与中产阶级的精致性、政治意识形态、商业实体和大众传播机制相关的实践活动进行恰当的定位。和直观的或“自然的”不同,本真性本身是人为制造的。尽管这一概念符合一些学者和活动家的需要,但是当被僵化地使用时,本真性也对功能性的概念提出质疑,即传统行为实际上如何为个人和社区服务。在美国语境中,什么是“本真性”明确和暗含的标识?美国的本真性概念是否太过狭隘和条框化?在面对21世纪的文化保护与实践问题时,在全世界对非物质文化遗产的标识有一种共识时,美国民俗学者是否能够或者是否应该找到办法调整本真性的理念? In the United States, the notion of “authenticity” is a delicate and complex construct that is central to the definition of legitimacy in folklore and culture itself. Assuming that “authenticity” is the result of decades of rational research in folklore and academic reasoning, it can also be seen as a tactic invented and deployed by folklorists and their advocates to integrate material material, community, and Middle class sophistication, political ideology, commercial entities and mass communication mechanisms related to the practice of appropriate positioning. Unlike intuitive or “natural ”, authenticity is itself artificially made. Although this concept fits the needs of some scholars and activists, when it is rigidly applied, so does question the notion of functionality, which is how traditional conduct actually serves individuals and communities. In the American context, what is the “explicit” and “implicit” identity of “authenticity”? Is the concept of genuineness in the United States too narrow and framed? In the face of cultural protection and practical problems in the 21st century, When there is a consensus on the marking of intangible cultural heritage, can American folklorists find, or should they, find a way to adjust their authenticity?