Page 37 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 37
2.3 Dark Tourism and the Death System
marginalised and ignored by Western academia and society over the last
few centuries,⁹ they are becoming more visible/present in contemporary
society, through different practices and in a greater range of contexts,
which include culture, media, and tourism (Mionel, 2019; Stone & Sharp-
ley, 2008; Young & Light, 2016, p. 61);¹⁰ ‘death is the one heritage that
everyone shares and it has been an element of tourism longer than any
other form of heritage’ (Seaton, 1996, p. 234). Death-related sites provide
visitors with an opportunity to contemplate and reflect upon their own
death through the mortality of others in a ‘context that does not involve
terror or dread, but which instead allows understanding and acceptance’
(Young & Light, 2016, p. 69).¹¹ Indeed (Harrison, 2003, p. i x),
[. . .] our basic human institutions – religion, matrimony, and burial,
if one goes along with Giambattista Vico, but also law, language, lit-
erature, and whatever else relies on the transmission of legacy – are
authored, always and from the very start, by those who came before.
This legacy is present in many aspects of people’s lives: from seman-
tics to memorialisation and artwork (Harrison, 2003). In this context, the
commodification of death for tourist consumption has become an impor-
tant element for tourism providers who follow the contemporary trend
(Stone, 2013), Naef and Ploner (2016), Belhassen et al. (2014), and Naef
(2013) use the term ‘touristification.’
Despite the fact that the death system defined by Kastenbaum in 1977
as ‘the interpersonal, sociocultural, and symbolic network through which
an individual’s relationship to mortality is mediated by his or her soci-
ety’ has not received widespread attention among social scientists (Doka,
n.d.), it is a meaningful reminder of the complex placement of death in
a social context. Kastenbaum’s (2007) death system in a society has five
components, which are supported by illustrative examples in Table 2.1.
Although often overlooked, the death system has many applicative char-
acteristics/functions, which could be accepted at least in academia, i.e.
making sense of death, warning of and predicting life threatening events
or death, caring for the dying, disposing of the dead, preventing death,
achieving social consolidation after death and setting rules about killing
(Kastenbaum, 2007). If we take into account the stated definitions and
⁹ Marginalisation of death (sociology of death) is a general characteristic of Western soci-
ology (Mellor, 1992).
¹⁰ More can be found in Harrison (2003).
¹¹ A mixture of philosophical perspectives can be found in Kirn (1986).
37
marginalised and ignored by Western academia and society over the last
few centuries,⁹ they are becoming more visible/present in contemporary
society, through different practices and in a greater range of contexts,
which include culture, media, and tourism (Mionel, 2019; Stone & Sharp-
ley, 2008; Young & Light, 2016, p. 61);¹⁰ ‘death is the one heritage that
everyone shares and it has been an element of tourism longer than any
other form of heritage’ (Seaton, 1996, p. 234). Death-related sites provide
visitors with an opportunity to contemplate and reflect upon their own
death through the mortality of others in a ‘context that does not involve
terror or dread, but which instead allows understanding and acceptance’
(Young & Light, 2016, p. 69).¹¹ Indeed (Harrison, 2003, p. i x),
[. . .] our basic human institutions – religion, matrimony, and burial,
if one goes along with Giambattista Vico, but also law, language, lit-
erature, and whatever else relies on the transmission of legacy – are
authored, always and from the very start, by those who came before.
This legacy is present in many aspects of people’s lives: from seman-
tics to memorialisation and artwork (Harrison, 2003). In this context, the
commodification of death for tourist consumption has become an impor-
tant element for tourism providers who follow the contemporary trend
(Stone, 2013), Naef and Ploner (2016), Belhassen et al. (2014), and Naef
(2013) use the term ‘touristification.’
Despite the fact that the death system defined by Kastenbaum in 1977
as ‘the interpersonal, sociocultural, and symbolic network through which
an individual’s relationship to mortality is mediated by his or her soci-
ety’ has not received widespread attention among social scientists (Doka,
n.d.), it is a meaningful reminder of the complex placement of death in
a social context. Kastenbaum’s (2007) death system in a society has five
components, which are supported by illustrative examples in Table 2.1.
Although often overlooked, the death system has many applicative char-
acteristics/functions, which could be accepted at least in academia, i.e.
making sense of death, warning of and predicting life threatening events
or death, caring for the dying, disposing of the dead, preventing death,
achieving social consolidation after death and setting rules about killing
(Kastenbaum, 2007). If we take into account the stated definitions and
⁹ Marginalisation of death (sociology of death) is a general characteristic of Western soci-
ology (Mellor, 1992).
¹⁰ More can be found in Harrison (2003).
¹¹ A mixture of philosophical perspectives can be found in Kirn (1986).
37
