Dark Tourism Often Leaves Society in the Dark
“One of the most influential definitions delimits dark tourism as ‘the act of travel to sites associated with death, suffering and the seemingly macabre,’” (Young, pg. 68). In 2014, 1.53 million tourists went to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum in Poland, a record number of visitors that tripled the number of visitors in 2001, (Reynolds, pg. 2). This exponential increase in visitors is seen among all types of dark tourism sites such as, war zone tours, graveyards and cemeteries, places associated with genocide, places associated with natural disasters, and other historically significant landmarks. “Given the very large numbers of attractions which include dark elements in their promotion, it certainly seems plausible that there is a large and consistent appetite for such tourism amongst the paying (and non-paying) public,” (Powell, pg. 340). All experts acknowledge the growth of interest in macabre tourism, but few agree on why this is occurring or what effect this has on our modern society. Dark tourism can educate visitors about mass disasters, but it also gives rise to problems such as spreading historical inaccuracies, sensationalizing tragedies, and perpetuating cultural inequities.
Experts say the increasing commercialization of dark tourism sites can cause a potential loss of educational value that accompanies touring historical sites. “Constituting a vast population of so-called “dark tourists,” these travelers are frequently characterized by researchers as consumers of macabre spectacles, susceptible to sensationalized and inauthentic representations of historical events,” (Grinnell, pg. 1). However, I argue that this is not the case.
Visitors who are able to interact with an exhibit, whether it be through photography, speaking, visual methods, or even through social media are more likely to remember what they have seen and critically reflect on their experience in the exhibit. This is supported by Grinnell’s study where he looked at the information retained and shared by Holocaust concentration camp visitors. It was astoundingly detailed and thoughtful – especially when the tourist was engaged with photography. “…tourists play an undeniable, even indispensable role in Holocaust memorialization, particularly in an increasingly global era when tourism is the world’s largest industry. Their own testimony…ensures that the commemorative work that memorial sites undertake is not in vain, but rather is championed by those who visit them,” (Grinnell, pg. 14). Unfortunately, not all of the education tourists are receiving is historically accurate due to this rise in tourism and profit and entertainment-oriented business trends.
In a New York Times article written about an update to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, it is said that, “its story needs to be retold, in a different way for a different generation,”, citing, “the pressures of tourism,” as a cause for this renovation (Kimmelman, pg. A1). Features of this facelift include fixing the building structures that were shoddily assembled and more talk about the Nazis, which were left out by the victims who originally designed the museum to try and erase their memories. Additionally, they will change some of the information presented to make it more suited to the generations to come.
Although Marek Zajac, secretary for the International Auschwitz Council, insists that no authenticity will be lost, it is hard to see how they can change the exhibits and remove certain items or stories and not lose some of that purity. Auschwitz can no longer, “speak for itself,” and “needs to be made relevant for a new century,” (Kimmelman, pg. A3). This is a prime example of how the dark tourism industry, that is supposedly focused on history, is forced to adapt to entertain the tourists as well. If such renovations are needed to the Holocaust museum, one of the most famous sites in history, it surely must be occurring elsewhere. With this type of adaptation, historical value is often neglected. The significance of a site such as a Holocaust camp or cemetery can often be lost behind touch screens, videos, and glass walls that turn what used to be a solemn mourning site into an irreverent tourist attraction.
In London, a very historic city, “it is noticeable that despite the ready availability of sites teeming in cultural and heritage significance, London does not trade on the authentic, but rather chooses a more commercially successful approach,” (Powell, pg. 349). This can be seen by looking at the most popular dark tourism attractions in London and seeing that only 2 of the top 6 dark tourism attractions are considered authentic or historic. “…London, despite its long history with some dramatic episodes, and having a potential to offer authentic sites based on it, has, in fact developed inauthentic, dark attractions such as London Dungeon, ghost walks and the Tower Bridge Experience. (Powell, pg. 340). Stone, an author whose literature is cited in the paper, identifies that the desire to have a commercial advantage or manipulate a site for political reasons are the most common factors that determine whether a dark site is developed or not. Either way, these things lean towards a tourism experience driven and revolved around profit.
One example of this disrespectful tourism occurs in areas where natural disasters have occurred. What may have caused the loss of a loved one or a valuable possession, like a home, is seen as a way to capitalize to certain dark tourists. In these places, there is a trend of more Western tourists visiting shortly following a natural disaster compared to those from Asia. The media along with average people tend to sensationalize this type of trauma and use it to interest us. “Since media coverage of catastrophes increases ratings and circulation, news organizations may use the crisis to respond to the demands of their audience. Due to geographic distance, non-tourists and potential inbound tourists rely on media coverage as their information source to keep them aware of occurrences in distance places and to evaluate perceived risks associated with destinations”, (Rittichainuwat, pg. 439). In the case of Asian tourists, this will drive away their business. Western tourists, on the other hand, become more interested in a destination once they are aware of their dangers.
Rittichainuwat’s data showed, “Chinese and Thai tourists perceived higher risks due to beliefs in ghosts, unsafe destinations, images of site under reconstruction and uncomfortable feelings than did American, British and German tourists,” (Rittichainuwat, pg. 448). This could be because the Thai, Chinese, and other Asian cultures have strong preconceived notions concerning the dead which prevent them from visiting for weeks or months following the disaster. For example, “Belief in ghosts has been a travel barrier for tourists from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore who did not go to the tsunami- affected beach resorts immediately after the 2004 tsunami for fear of bringing bad luck, such as ‘ghost illness,’ home with them, since a place where a lot of people have been killed is considered a ‘bad luck location’,” (Rittichainuwat, pg. 442). In the Western area, people do not necessarily believe in being haunted by a ghost for the same, extensive, reasons that Asian people do. This derives from the culture such as religion and upbringing that teaches Westerners that spirits will not linger with them. It is possible that through exposure from media and other outside sources, we have been hardened to the idea of death. This makes it easy to see dark tourism as a money making scheme and entertainment device, when it is not always ethically correct to do so.
War-zone tourism is defined as when “people voluntarily travel to geopolitical areas/zones where military conflicts are active,” (Mahrouse, pg. 331). “A small body of literature on unconventional types of tourism such as war- zone tourism shows that a desire to set oneself apart from other tourists by seeking “authentic” encounters is a significant motivating factor,” (Mahrouse, pg. 334). However, it is written that people continue to travel on war-zone tours primarily for the adrenaline rush and the recreation it provides, rather than any historical or educational purpose. Instead of going to investigate the other countries and take a deeper look at their culture, they go because they want to be entertained. This makes a mockery of the strife and loss that the countries have endured, making it an irreverent form of tourism.
This growing entertainment value comes with many risks – but not in the way you might think. Humans are attracted to, “the curious combination of danger, seduction, aesthetics and the secure,” (Mahrouse, pg. 334). However, all war zone tours emphasize safety of the tourists. The war-zone tours change the perception of risk, making it seem more dangerous than it likely is. However, Mahrouse says that, “the most successful tourism operators are those who manage to reduce actual risk and increase the level of fear and thrill which are the subjective emotional responses to perceived risk (Mahrouse, pg. 334). The main risk presented with war-zone tours are societal. “Tours promote a culture of comfort with militarization and privatization of security services, and further demarcate Global North tourists from Global South ‘locals’,” (Mahrouse, pg. 340). This has lasting historical effects on the socio-economic classes and worldwide community.
Dark tourism can educate visitors on mass disasters, but it also leaves our society in the dark on many things. By spreading historical inaccuracies, sensationalizing tragedies, and perpetuating cultural inequities, dark tourism has a long term negative effect on the tourists, their fellow citizens, and even generations to come. The methods employed by tourists are often seen as an irreverent form of touring, but can often spread the message of the site – even though that message has often been altered and watered down to play to a certain audience. Dark tourist locations are adapting their ways to entertain visitors rather than educate them about the history behind the site. Companies and corporations feel the need to capitalize on the market rather than promote a message or tell a story. The media often sensationalizes tragedy, which deters certain tourists but attracts others. Macabre tourism has its strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to society to decide whether the amusement is worth the historical implications that accompany this growing form of tourism.