Page 27 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 27
1 The Concept of Dark Tourism: Definitions, Recognisability and Critique
aster and tragedy for remembrance, education or entertainment’ (1997, p.
155), or as ‘tourism associated with sites of death, disaster, and deprav-
ity’ (1999, p. 46). Many other definitions were created in the following
years. Tarlow (2005, p. 48) described dark tourism as ‘visitations to places
where tragedies or historically noteworthy death has occurred and that
continue to impact our lives,’ while Preece and Price (2005, p. 192) de-
fined it as ‘travel to sites associated with death, disaster, acts of violence,
tragedy, scenes of death and crimes against humanity.’ Dark tourism is,
according to Ashworth (2008, p. 234), a concept ‘where the tourist’s ex-
perience is essentially composed of “dark” emotions such as pain, death,
horror or sadness, many of which result from the infliction of violence
that are not usually associated with a voluntary entertainment experi-
ence.’ It ‘involves visiting destinations at which violence is the main at-
traction’ (Robb, 2009, p. 51). Also very relevant and interesting are two of
Stone’s definitions: dark tourism is ‘the act of travel to sites associated with
death, suffering and the seemingly macabre’ (2006, p. 146) and later, ‘dark
tourism is concerned with encountering spaces of death or calamity that
have political or historical significance, and that continue to impact upon
the living’ (2016, p. 23). All these definitions clearly indicate the breadth
of the research area, as well as its essence, which are human death and
suffering. Hence, it is also evident from newer definitions how important
the first definitions of the above-mentioned authors, Foley and Lennon,
were. With respect to mass citations, we can also deduce that there is a
significant degree of consensus in the academic community on these two
authors having defined the phenomenon and, consequently, having cor-
roborated the concept as a research area. Furthermore, their recognis-
able foundational monograph entitled Dark Tourism: The Attraction of
Death and Disaster (2000) conceived dark tourism as a subset of cultural
tourism and shifted it conceptually from heritage tourism (Bowman &
Pezzullo, 2010; Kravanja, 2018).
The creativity of the other authors can be problematic, even though
the connection of all subsequent definitions to the first ones is very evi-
dent. Definitions, however, neglect that dark tourism also stimulates feel-
ings, thoughts and perspectives of others, which, according to Dermody
(2017, p. 207; Martini & Buda, 2018, p. 2), calls for additional surveys
which should supplement the theoretical definitions. The author suggests
further exploring the processes of transmitting emotions among people,
which is also in line with the claims of Lennon and Foley (2000) who say
that emotions must go beyond memories – see also Ashworth (2008, p.
27
aster and tragedy for remembrance, education or entertainment’ (1997, p.
155), or as ‘tourism associated with sites of death, disaster, and deprav-
ity’ (1999, p. 46). Many other definitions were created in the following
years. Tarlow (2005, p. 48) described dark tourism as ‘visitations to places
where tragedies or historically noteworthy death has occurred and that
continue to impact our lives,’ while Preece and Price (2005, p. 192) de-
fined it as ‘travel to sites associated with death, disaster, acts of violence,
tragedy, scenes of death and crimes against humanity.’ Dark tourism is,
according to Ashworth (2008, p. 234), a concept ‘where the tourist’s ex-
perience is essentially composed of “dark” emotions such as pain, death,
horror or sadness, many of which result from the infliction of violence
that are not usually associated with a voluntary entertainment experi-
ence.’ It ‘involves visiting destinations at which violence is the main at-
traction’ (Robb, 2009, p. 51). Also very relevant and interesting are two of
Stone’s definitions: dark tourism is ‘the act of travel to sites associated with
death, suffering and the seemingly macabre’ (2006, p. 146) and later, ‘dark
tourism is concerned with encountering spaces of death or calamity that
have political or historical significance, and that continue to impact upon
the living’ (2016, p. 23). All these definitions clearly indicate the breadth
of the research area, as well as its essence, which are human death and
suffering. Hence, it is also evident from newer definitions how important
the first definitions of the above-mentioned authors, Foley and Lennon,
were. With respect to mass citations, we can also deduce that there is a
significant degree of consensus in the academic community on these two
authors having defined the phenomenon and, consequently, having cor-
roborated the concept as a research area. Furthermore, their recognis-
able foundational monograph entitled Dark Tourism: The Attraction of
Death and Disaster (2000) conceived dark tourism as a subset of cultural
tourism and shifted it conceptually from heritage tourism (Bowman &
Pezzullo, 2010; Kravanja, 2018).
The creativity of the other authors can be problematic, even though
the connection of all subsequent definitions to the first ones is very evi-
dent. Definitions, however, neglect that dark tourism also stimulates feel-
ings, thoughts and perspectives of others, which, according to Dermody
(2017, p. 207; Martini & Buda, 2018, p. 2), calls for additional surveys
which should supplement the theoretical definitions. The author suggests
further exploring the processes of transmitting emotions among people,
which is also in line with the claims of Lennon and Foley (2000) who say
that emotions must go beyond memories – see also Ashworth (2008, p.
27
