Page 26 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 26
Dark Tourism Theory and Discourse
and problematic ones from the academic point of view (Light, 2017, p.
281). From this theoretical perspective and according to Trauer’s (2006,
p. 188) ‘special interest tourism cycle,’ dark tourism can be placed in the
‘affinity group segments,’ together with, e.g., senior tourism, women’s
tourism, or gay tourism. The heterogeneity of this segment itself greatly
reflects modern society, where individuals seek excitement, pleasure, ex-
perience, knowledge and the like, even though this is related to death
and suffering (Best, 2007, p. 38; Šuran, 2016, p. 69); service providers re-
act with a customised offer. Nevertheless, dark tourism as a term and
research area cannot be equated with dark leisure, although there may
be many links between them (Stone & Sharpley, 2013). Visits to places
associated with death and human suffering are conceptualised as dark
tourism, while dark leisure is defined as ‘a form of leisure that is limi-
nal and transgressive’ (Spracklen, 2013, p. 204). When dark tourism is
discussed in its negative deviance from the expected norms of visitors’
behaviour, it is practically equal to the theoretical concept of dark leisure,
which is labelled with deviance, immorality, and similar terms (Light,
2017, p. 281; Stone & Sharpley, 2013).
2.1 The Concept of Dark Tourism: Definitions,
Recognisability and Critique
Visiting sites and events associated with death and suffering is not only a
modern habit, but has its roots in the distant past, in pre-modern times
(Stone, 2005; Stone & Sharpley, 2008, p. 574; Young & Light, 2016), which
clearly shows how strongly people and societies in general are interested
in ‘morbid topics.’ This consequently means that ‘morbid topics’ can con-
stitute a relevant reason for travel, which makes this activity a tourist ac-
tivity. Today, in the context of product diversity (thematic tourism), this
is denoted as dark tourism. The phenomenon itself may still be theoret-
ically limited, fragile and thus indeterminate (Martini & Buda, 2018, p.
3; Seaton & Lennon, 2004; Stone, 2011; Stone & Sharpley, 2008, p. 575;
Young & Light, 2016, p. 68). The reason is clear. We have been dealing
with serious academic studies of dark tourism no earlier than from the
mid-1990s (Light, 2017; Seaton, 2018), and in this period, as usual when
we start to develop new research areas, the need to develop definitions
that would define and limit a particular area was evident. Thus, the first
definitions of Foley and Lennon (1996, p. 198) define it as ‘the presenta-
tion and consumption (by visitors) of real and commodified death and
disaster sites,’ or as ‘the visitation to any site associated with death, dis-
26
and problematic ones from the academic point of view (Light, 2017, p.
281). From this theoretical perspective and according to Trauer’s (2006,
p. 188) ‘special interest tourism cycle,’ dark tourism can be placed in the
‘affinity group segments,’ together with, e.g., senior tourism, women’s
tourism, or gay tourism. The heterogeneity of this segment itself greatly
reflects modern society, where individuals seek excitement, pleasure, ex-
perience, knowledge and the like, even though this is related to death
and suffering (Best, 2007, p. 38; Šuran, 2016, p. 69); service providers re-
act with a customised offer. Nevertheless, dark tourism as a term and
research area cannot be equated with dark leisure, although there may
be many links between them (Stone & Sharpley, 2013). Visits to places
associated with death and human suffering are conceptualised as dark
tourism, while dark leisure is defined as ‘a form of leisure that is limi-
nal and transgressive’ (Spracklen, 2013, p. 204). When dark tourism is
discussed in its negative deviance from the expected norms of visitors’
behaviour, it is practically equal to the theoretical concept of dark leisure,
which is labelled with deviance, immorality, and similar terms (Light,
2017, p. 281; Stone & Sharpley, 2013).
2.1 The Concept of Dark Tourism: Definitions,
Recognisability and Critique
Visiting sites and events associated with death and suffering is not only a
modern habit, but has its roots in the distant past, in pre-modern times
(Stone, 2005; Stone & Sharpley, 2008, p. 574; Young & Light, 2016), which
clearly shows how strongly people and societies in general are interested
in ‘morbid topics.’ This consequently means that ‘morbid topics’ can con-
stitute a relevant reason for travel, which makes this activity a tourist ac-
tivity. Today, in the context of product diversity (thematic tourism), this
is denoted as dark tourism. The phenomenon itself may still be theoret-
ically limited, fragile and thus indeterminate (Martini & Buda, 2018, p.
3; Seaton & Lennon, 2004; Stone, 2011; Stone & Sharpley, 2008, p. 575;
Young & Light, 2016, p. 68). The reason is clear. We have been dealing
with serious academic studies of dark tourism no earlier than from the
mid-1990s (Light, 2017; Seaton, 2018), and in this period, as usual when
we start to develop new research areas, the need to develop definitions
that would define and limit a particular area was evident. Thus, the first
definitions of Foley and Lennon (1996, p. 198) define it as ‘the presenta-
tion and consumption (by visitors) of real and commodified death and
disaster sites,’ or as ‘the visitation to any site associated with death, dis-
26
