The Tourism Society in conjunction with the University of Central Lancashire and Kensington Close Hotel recently held a seminar event dedicated to the in-vogue subject area of ‘dark
tourism’. Attended by a range of individuals from the academic and commercial sectors, the seminar was intended to address
some of the issues and concerns that surround the phenomenon of dark tourism. On the panel, chaired by Brian Human FTS (English
Historic Towns Forum), were Professor John Lennon (Glasgow Caledonian University)
and Ria Dunkley (University of Wales
Institute). Unfortunately, Professor Tony Seaton (University
of Luton) who was due to speak at the seminar event could not attend.
Of course, all of us here at The Dark Tourism Forum wish him well and a speedy recovery.
Dark tourism,
the act of travel to sites, attractions or exhibitions which have death, suffering or the seemingly macabre as a main theme,
has received increasing attention from the academic community and media alike. Indeed this is the second seminar event held
by The Tourism Society, following a similar gathering held in Lancaster
in November 2004. The title of this event was ‘Dark Tourism – Cashing in on Tragedy’, although there was
very little debate on the actual ethical, moral and management dilemmas surrounding the ‘cashing in’ and subsequent
commoditisation of death and the macabre. Indeed during the seminar presentations and subsequent discussions, the quandary
of achieving mercantile advantage through ‘commercially milking the macabre’ was only alluded to, although it
may have well been the case that area was reserved for the absence Professor Seaton.
‘A
Tale of Two Camps’
Nevertheless
this was a useful forum to discuss some pertinent issues relating to dark tourism. Professor Lennon commenced proceedings
with a presentation on the distortion and selective approach to Holocaust interpretation. After a very brief general introduction to dark tourism, Professor Lennon focused on a ‘Tale of Two
Camps’ whereby he noted interpretative concerns within two former Nazi concentration camps. The first of these two camps, the infamous Auschwitz-Birkenau, now a ‘repackaged’ visitor centre came under scrutiny from several perspectives. Firstly, the temporal and spatial affinity of the site was noted with the
updating of camp boundaries and some refurbishment of buildings and camp defences. As the original Nazi death camp was built
for a specific purpose and timescale, and over a fairly wide geographical area, seemingly necessary repairs to the camp infrastructure
have called into question the authenticity of the physical environment. For instance, Professor Lennon quite rightly noted
that the original barbed wire, long since corroded, has been replaced to ensure an authentic feel. Other examples of the physical tampering with the camp infrastructure include the reconstruction of the notorious gate sign to the camp ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’
(Work Makes One Free), and the relaying of the railway lines which lead up to main camp entrance. Perhaps more disconcerting
is the transportation of victims hair, spectacles and other personal belongings from Birkenau to Auschwitz
I, apparently moved to ensure a good visitor experience. This ‘good’ visitor experience is also taken into account with the physical reconstruction of a crematoria, originally based in Birkenau, and subsequently
rebuilt in Auschwitz I to ensure a ‘tour culmination’.
With numerous
other illustrations highlighted of how the ‘place of death itself is dying’, Professor Lennon suggested that the
distortion of interpretation at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and indeed selective interpretation at the camp will lead not only to an inauthentic experience, with or without the visitors’ knowledge, but perhaps more importantly has consequences how we perceive the past and
thus address the future. With the official Birkneau guide stating – ‘At Birkenau it is not exhibitionary. All
is Real’ – is perhaps a slight contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, it appears real enough for most!
Lety
– ‘The Gypsy Camp and Pig Farm’
To provide
a counter balance to the well documented, if not somewhat distorted Auschwitz-Birkenau, Professor Lennon second ‘tale’
referred to Lety, a Nazi concentration camp where Roma and Sinti gypsies were persecuted. Lety, a small village in Bohemia (Czech
Republic) was at the centre of the Romany Holocaust and remains at the centre of political debate. The main issue here is the lack of commemoration and interpretation. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the site of the former death camp at Lety is now a pig farm. Despite centuries of Romany persecution, and especially by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, a distinct lack of interpretation and tangible evidence to
the crimes is apparent. With no visitor infrastructure or signage and against a backdrop of pig farming at Lety, a single interpretation board stands alone in a field, a rather forlorn symbol marking the site of Romany Holocaust by the Nazis.
It is this
contrast of interpretation of the Holocaust, Jewish and Romany, and the tourism infrastructure that surrounds it which Professor Lennon is seemingly most concerned with. Whilst recognising
the political ideology of interpretation and commemoration, Professor Lennon pointed out that the tourism industry generally
is a custodian of history in the shape of the heritage industry. With dark tourism and ‘heritage that hurts’,
this shaping and interpretation of history and the influence upon future generations is of paramount importance. The basic message of Professor Lennon’s presentation
was simple and important – the more we consume of what is ‘not real’ (including an absence of the 'real'),
the more we may believe it is ‘real’. With particular reference to the Holocaust and how one aspect of Nazi genocide
is heavily interpreted, distorted or otherwise, and another aspect is barely acknowledged, Professor Lennon quite rightly notes the profound implications for distorting death within historical discourse.
A
Skewed Perspective?
Of course
whilst visitor sites such as Auschwitz-Birkenau are an important component of the wider dark tourism sector, it perhaps worth
acknowledging that the Holocaust and so-called ‘Holocaust tourism’ perhaps skews the wider dark tourism debate, both to the layman and to the media. Indeed, during Professor Lennon’s
presentation, the BBC who were invited to the seminar event by the Tourism Society, filmed part of his speech for a forthcoming
television feature on dark tourism. Despite his presentation being over thirty minutes long, the BBC stayed for the initial
ten minutes and took a ‘snap shot’ of the main message. This snap shot will undoubtedly focus upon the main theme
of the presentation, namely the Holocaust. Without elaborating upon the wider and more fundamental issues of interpretation
and political ideology, it is likely that the media will continue to headline the more emotive and controversial aspects of
‘Holocaust tourism’ and portray these as key features of dark tourism, thus perhaps perpetuating a skewed vision
of the concept. Of course a critical response to this claim may be that dark tourism does not need to be ‘skewed’
because of the already highly controversial and emotive moral dilemmas surrounding it, and because it already sits on the
fringes of mainstream tourism.
Nevertheless
some clarification of the concept is required and the view that dark tourism is not centred upon the Holocaust suitably conveyed,
although admittedly it is an important feature of the phenomenon. Dark tourism
production is multi-faceted and multi-tiered and this needs to be more readily acknowledged, especially during events of this
kind. The Holocaust as an iniquitous period of history is perhaps an anomaly when it comes to discussing dark tourism, and therefore is conceivably ‘darker’ than dark. Despite some irritation
shown by the Panel over the ‘meaning of meaning’ and subsequent definitional and typological debates, it perhaps
worth noting that industry practitioners may dislike the term ‘dark tourism’ being associated with them for fear
of connection with places such as Auschwitz-Birkenau and the wider Holocaust debate. Of course they may simply dislike the
term because of the morbid undertones and the perceived morality subtexts. Therefore, without getting entrenched in a protracted
and prolonged debate, it is important to firmly establish the various ‘shades of dark tourism’ because this may
have important conceptual and pragmatic connotations, especially when trying to engage the purveyors of the various dark tourism
products. At present a comprehensive and measurable typology of dark tourism does not exist. Consequently the dark tourism
literature remains in an eclectic and theoretically fragile state.
Thanatourism,
Consumption and Beyond…
The second
of the seminar presentations was undertaken by Ria Dunkley, a doctoral student who is conducting research into the consumption
of dark tourism. Ria began the presentation with a justification why she used the more precise, if not clinical and awkward
term of ‘thanatourism’, as opposed to the more readily accepted term of ‘dark tourism’. She made the
valid and important point about the need to reduce stigma amongst industry practitioners who are labelled dark tourism producers,
and the various connotations it entails. Thus she claimed the term ‘thanatourism’ offered a less emotive and more
acceptable label to describe industry practitioners. Unfortunately, recognition that the rather complex term of ‘thanatourism’
is not particularly comprehended outside academia was not made. This alone perhaps
vindicates the claim for some further definitional debate. However, her use of the term ‘thanatourism’ which is
a hybrid word of ‘thanatology’, the social science approach to death and dying, perhaps
required more explicit acknowledgement of the wider social and cultural aspects of death in her use of the definition. This
became apparent when Ria outlined her thanatourist motivations which only briefly alluded to wider thanatological concerns
such as the contemplation of death whilst visiting dark tourism sites. Placing such motivations against a backdrop of the
wider cultural condition of society, and making this explicit would have been useful, and indeed prudent.
What was essentially
an outline of the initial stages of Ria’s PhD research, the main message of the second presentation was somewhat unsurprising
– that dark tourism (or thanatourism) was fragmented in both its production and consumption. However, despite providing
some useful, if not descriptive, typological research in the shape of an ‘umbrella of thanatourism sites’ and
a ‘flower petal of thanatourists motives’, the criteria used for arriving at these sites types and consumer motives
were not elaborated upon, although recognition that overlap would naturally occur was made. Even so, with little or no evidence
as to the construction or measurement of the typologies, which of course is required to ensure validity and rigour, is perhaps
a weakness that will be addressed in the future. In essence, the typologies put forward, whilst useful to build upon and validate,
have not at this point been interrogated but instead merely assumed.
Overall this
seminar event was both constructive and worthwhile. With plenty of time to network in a relaxed and informal atmosphere, the
event brought interested parties together. The task now is to progress the dark tourism debate within the literature and to
showcase various points of view. However, firstly it is suggested that a (re)focus upon the definitional debate and industry
responses to those definitions is made. For example do industry providers understand the terms used, and if so do they concur?
What practical implications does a definitional debate have in terms of accessing dark tourism producers and consumers? Of
course needless to say any definitional and typological debate requires focus and it would be foolhardy to turn any debate
of this type into an ‘academic cottage industry’ whereby turgid and protracted discussion is held on the ‘meaning
of meaning’. Nevertheless, this seminar event has thrown up some important aspects of dark tourism meaning, and it is
suggested that until clarification is both made and accepted, then the more fundamental research of consumer motives, the
relationship of dark tourism with contemporary society and the nature of interpretation at particular sites (Holocaust sites
notwithstanding), can the interrogation of dark tourism truly begin...
The Dark Tourism Forum
