Page 31 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 31
2 The Concept of Dark Tourism: Definitions, Recognisability and Critique
deviant, troubling and immoral (Seaton & Lennon, 2004). Another
problematic issue is the clumsy linking with other concepts, e.g. pil-
grimage (Korstanje & George, 2015);
• Light (2017, p. 280) found that dark tourism as a research area does
not enjoy general acceptance or a ‘monopoly’ in the death-tourism
connection research, which means that a substantial body of re-
search eschews this concept. Dark tourism is thus just one possi-
ble framework for understanding the death-tourism connection.
Many scholars find it especially problematic to clearly distinguish it
from heritage tourism in order to offer an independent explanatory
framework. One of the most determined is Ashworth and colleagues
– see Ashworth and Isaac (2015) and Ashworth and Hartmann
(2005a) – who have a negative disposition towards dark tourism
and use other frameworks in their works, e.g. ‘dissonant heritage,’
‘atrocity tourism,’ or ‘atrocity heritage;’ similarly, Logan and Reeves
(2009) use the term ‘difficult heritage;’
• the use of the postmodernist framework is questionable. Some au-
thors find problematic the attitude to anxiety and the uncertainty
about the contemporary world and modernity which remains un-
explored (Bowman & Pezzullo, 2010) and is not linked exclusively
to the present day (Casbeard & Booth, 2012). This also extends to
the postmodern neglecting of psychological issues related to the in-
terest in visiting sites associated with death and suffering (Dunkley
et al., 2007). Therefore, blindly following Lennon and Foley (2000)
in treating dark tourism in the postmodern context is not something
axiomatic. Light (2017, p. 279) claims that this is, to a certain degree,
a reflection of postmodernism, which is also limited in understand-
ing the visitors of sites related to death and suffering or in managing
such places.
Finally, we would like to highlight ‘phoenix tourism,’ which is not a
tourism niche, but refers to a process of rebuilding, remaking and recon-
ciliation of the post-conflict areas where dark tourism forms a significant
part of that process (Causevic & Lynch, 2011). In this sense, many areas in
Croatia are more suitable for these development processes than in Istria,
where the last serious military conflicts occurred during wwii. However,
social reconciliation especially, as will be described in the following chap-
ters, is still a topic of interest in multicultural Istria after the end of the
very dynamic and conflicting 20th century.
31
deviant, troubling and immoral (Seaton & Lennon, 2004). Another
problematic issue is the clumsy linking with other concepts, e.g. pil-
grimage (Korstanje & George, 2015);
• Light (2017, p. 280) found that dark tourism as a research area does
not enjoy general acceptance or a ‘monopoly’ in the death-tourism
connection research, which means that a substantial body of re-
search eschews this concept. Dark tourism is thus just one possi-
ble framework for understanding the death-tourism connection.
Many scholars find it especially problematic to clearly distinguish it
from heritage tourism in order to offer an independent explanatory
framework. One of the most determined is Ashworth and colleagues
– see Ashworth and Isaac (2015) and Ashworth and Hartmann
(2005a) – who have a negative disposition towards dark tourism
and use other frameworks in their works, e.g. ‘dissonant heritage,’
‘atrocity tourism,’ or ‘atrocity heritage;’ similarly, Logan and Reeves
(2009) use the term ‘difficult heritage;’
• the use of the postmodernist framework is questionable. Some au-
thors find problematic the attitude to anxiety and the uncertainty
about the contemporary world and modernity which remains un-
explored (Bowman & Pezzullo, 2010) and is not linked exclusively
to the present day (Casbeard & Booth, 2012). This also extends to
the postmodern neglecting of psychological issues related to the in-
terest in visiting sites associated with death and suffering (Dunkley
et al., 2007). Therefore, blindly following Lennon and Foley (2000)
in treating dark tourism in the postmodern context is not something
axiomatic. Light (2017, p. 279) claims that this is, to a certain degree,
a reflection of postmodernism, which is also limited in understand-
ing the visitors of sites related to death and suffering or in managing
such places.
Finally, we would like to highlight ‘phoenix tourism,’ which is not a
tourism niche, but refers to a process of rebuilding, remaking and recon-
ciliation of the post-conflict areas where dark tourism forms a significant
part of that process (Causevic & Lynch, 2011). In this sense, many areas in
Croatia are more suitable for these development processes than in Istria,
where the last serious military conflicts occurred during wwii. However,
social reconciliation especially, as will be described in the following chap-
ters, is still a topic of interest in multicultural Istria after the end of the
very dynamic and conflicting 20th century.
31
