Page 30 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 30
Dark Tourism Theory and Discourse
cover only a certain segment of death- and suffering-related sites/arte-
facts/events. War tourism⁴ is only one example including all the sites,
artefacts and events which are directly connected to the military conflict
(war) and violence in a certain area, as well as to the death system de-
scribed below. Since it is a globally recognisable sub-form of dark tourism
(see Figure 2.1) and relevant in the case of Istria, it will be further elabo-
rated in one of the following sub-chapters.
As with any relatively new research area, dark tourism also faces many
concerns, doubts, uncertainties and criticisms, which means that there
are many interesting issues ahead of researchers and developers. Let us
highlight some of the most significant ones:
• Dark tourism is a form of mass tourism and mostly developed for
Western tourists (Dann, 1998; Lennon & Foley, 2000), and reflects
primarily the Western perception of death and suffering;⁵
• as already mentioned before, there is no universal definition and ty-
pology of dark tourism yet (Stone, 2012, p. 1569);
• a special issue and subject of a broader critique is the term ‘dark
tourism’ itself and its introduction into the tourism domain (Stone,
2006, p. 146), which was done without the consent of the tourism
industry (Wight, 2009), resulting in many experts and managers re-
sponsible for the management of death- or suffering-related sites not
being impressed (Baldwin & Sharpley, 2009; Kravanja, 2018, p. 114;
Magee & Gilmore, 2015). Many other scholars have expressed fur-
ther criticism of the name. Jamal and Lelo (2010) argue that ‘dark-
ness’ is nothing more than a socially constructed term with an un-
convincing background and contextualisation, with Bowman and
Pezzullo (2010, p. 191) being disturbed by ‘a complicated matter of
perspective and privilege,’ as well. The adjective ‘dark’ implicitly ex-
poses a contrast and, as such, attaches a negative connotation to the
term (Seaton, 2009, p. 525) as well as to the visitors of such types
of sites (Bowman & Pezzullo, 2010); dark tourism is perceived as
⁴ As well as other above-mentioned variations like war-related, post-war, warfare and bat-
tlefield tourism.
⁵ Seaton (2009) claims that dark tourism as traditional travel is based on the history of
European culture which includes the influence of Christianity, Antiquarianism, and Ro-
manticism; see also Kang et al. (2012). Moreover, Anglo-Western centrism is a general
characteristic of tourism studies, despite the evident ongoing rise of Asian tourism (Win-
ter, 2009).
30
cover only a certain segment of death- and suffering-related sites/arte-
facts/events. War tourism⁴ is only one example including all the sites,
artefacts and events which are directly connected to the military conflict
(war) and violence in a certain area, as well as to the death system de-
scribed below. Since it is a globally recognisable sub-form of dark tourism
(see Figure 2.1) and relevant in the case of Istria, it will be further elabo-
rated in one of the following sub-chapters.
As with any relatively new research area, dark tourism also faces many
concerns, doubts, uncertainties and criticisms, which means that there
are many interesting issues ahead of researchers and developers. Let us
highlight some of the most significant ones:
• Dark tourism is a form of mass tourism and mostly developed for
Western tourists (Dann, 1998; Lennon & Foley, 2000), and reflects
primarily the Western perception of death and suffering;⁵
• as already mentioned before, there is no universal definition and ty-
pology of dark tourism yet (Stone, 2012, p. 1569);
• a special issue and subject of a broader critique is the term ‘dark
tourism’ itself and its introduction into the tourism domain (Stone,
2006, p. 146), which was done without the consent of the tourism
industry (Wight, 2009), resulting in many experts and managers re-
sponsible for the management of death- or suffering-related sites not
being impressed (Baldwin & Sharpley, 2009; Kravanja, 2018, p. 114;
Magee & Gilmore, 2015). Many other scholars have expressed fur-
ther criticism of the name. Jamal and Lelo (2010) argue that ‘dark-
ness’ is nothing more than a socially constructed term with an un-
convincing background and contextualisation, with Bowman and
Pezzullo (2010, p. 191) being disturbed by ‘a complicated matter of
perspective and privilege,’ as well. The adjective ‘dark’ implicitly ex-
poses a contrast and, as such, attaches a negative connotation to the
term (Seaton, 2009, p. 525) as well as to the visitors of such types
of sites (Bowman & Pezzullo, 2010); dark tourism is perceived as
⁴ As well as other above-mentioned variations like war-related, post-war, warfare and bat-
tlefield tourism.
⁵ Seaton (2009) claims that dark tourism as traditional travel is based on the history of
European culture which includes the influence of Christianity, Antiquarianism, and Ro-
manticism; see also Kang et al. (2012). Moreover, Anglo-Western centrism is a general
characteristic of tourism studies, despite the evident ongoing rise of Asian tourism (Win-
ter, 2009).
30
