MÓDULO FORMATIVO 4: ATENCIÓN E INFORMACIÓN A LOS VIAJEROS DEL AUTOBÚS O AUTOCAR

Seaton and Lennon (2004) argue that dark sites are important because many sites are part of history and to neglect this would hinder our understanding about what it is like to be human. Ashworth and Hartmann (2005) claim that there is popular dismissal of visitors to sites of horror and disasters. For example, they say there is discussion that

that at best, strange weirdos and at worst seriously disturbed ghouls are attracted to sites of atrocity Ashworth and Hartmann, 2005:34. Dom Joly also hinted at a disapproving tone ‘…The Observer noted, the growing phenomenon of ‘Dark Tourism’ Joly (2011:4). Stokes (2013) despite describing her visit to Auschwitz as one of the most memorable trips she had ever made went on to say, ‘Still, there was also something very wrong with my experience.’ (Stokes 2013, Ethical Travel accessed 08^th August 2016). Even Seaton and Lennon (2004) detail how dark tourism motivations are linked to schadenfreude, the fascination and pleasure associated with viewing the misfortunes of others, and Kendle (2008) entitles her piece on dark tourism as ‘Dark Tourism: A Fine Line Between Curiosity and Exploitation’ (Kendle 2008, accessed 16^th August 2016).

Yet despite this, there is a growth in the number of visitors to dark tourism sites in recent years. For example, in 2010, nearly 800,000 tourists visited the Jewish Museum in Berlin, a record since its opening in 2001 (Plocki and Plagemann, 2011), while the Anne Frank House (Anne Frank Trust, 2016) and Alcatraz Prison (Rheenen, 2016) have received more than one million visitors annually. Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia (Arlington National Cemetery, 2011) has more than four million visitors, and perhaps the most iconic dark tourism site, the Auschwitz concentration camp reached another record number of visitors in 2016, with over two million visitors (Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum, 2017).

Academics have conducted a large number of supply-side-related studies on definitions of dark tourism, including labels of dark tourism and tourists, i.e. sub-categorisation, spectrums and typologies (Stone and Sharpley 2006, Seaton 1996, Seaton and Lennon

2004). Fewer studies have examined why tourists visits such sites and how they experience them, thus, a very small amount of literature exists on this topic, and this study will help inform and advance this area of academia. There is little literature on dark tourism motivations, and many academics stress that it is this side of the dark tourism debate that is lacking. Sharpley and Stone (2009:250) suggest that ‘there is a pressing need for empirical research into the ways in which dark sites are consumes, both in terms of tourists’ motivations and experience…’, and Poira, Butler and Airey (2003) have also noted that motivations are a key issue in discussing types of tourism.

Chapter one acknowledged, that it has been problematic to establish an agreed definition on what or who a dark tourist/tourism is, and this may be one of the reasons why empirical studies have not yet been conducted to establish motivations, thus, allowing only weak conceptualisations of dark tourism (Rami and Cakmak, 2016).

According to Rami and Cakmak (2016), this may because of the sheer diverse nature (as well as the issues with ascertaining what can be described as dark tourism sites as discussed in chapter one) or perceived dark tourism sties, from prisons, dark fun factories, sites of slavery, holocaust battlefields and so on, it could be hard to establish common motivations across all sites. They also argue that it could be that to date, visits to dark sites identified in literature have not been based on empirical research and are largely drawn from theoretical research (Rami and Cakmak, 2016).

Despite this, many academics have suggested that visits to dark tourism sites are motivated by a desire to see death to some degree or other. For example, a variety of dark motives for dark tourism have been proposed and conceptualised in the tourism literature (Rojek, 1997; Seaton, 1999; Tarlow, 2005; Wight and Lennon, 2007) and

Dann (1998). Dann (1998) suggests that ‘dicing with death’ – that is, seeking experiences that challenge tourists or heighten their own sense of mortality, may be considered one reason for participating in dark tourism (Joly, 2011; Pelton, 2003).

Stone and Sharpley (2008:576) point out that the identified eight ‘influences’ of dark tourism of Dann (1998), while insightful, are largely descriptive and may be related more to specific attractions, destinations, or activities rather than individuals’ motives’.

In addition to the idea of ‘dicing with death’, Dann's (1998) influences include: desire to celebrate crime or deviance; fear of phantom; the search for novelty; nostalgia, bloodlust, and interest in mortality. Best (2007:38) implied that visits to dark sites refers to ‘individuals who are motivated primarily to experience the death and suffering of others for the purpose of enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction’. More recently, Raine (2013) and Biran et al (2014) argue that tourists who visit such sites may have an interest in death or hold a morbid curiosity.

Seaton (1996) conceptualised five categories of travel behaviour regarding thanatourism: travel to witness public enactments of death; travel to sites of mass or individual death; travel to interment or memorial sites; travel to synthetic sites of material or symbolic representations of death; travel for re-enactments or simulations of death. Sharpley (2005) argues that interest or fascination with death by visitors is not the only motivation that brings visitors to a site, but nonetheless, a desire to see death is present. Furthermore, in light of these suggested motivations, Stone (2009a) has noted that it is important to acknowledge that the basis for tourists to visit dark sites can be driven by a ‘pseudo-relationship’ to the mediatisation of the person. Stone (2012) further appraises dark tourism from an experiential perspective, arguing that

many dark sites provide an opportunity for mediation, an opportunity for those who are alive to experience and construct meaning to the afterlife.

Dale and Robinson (2011) argue that at the heart of the dark tourism debate is the fear of death itself, as well as mankind’s mortality resulting in wanting to experience, albeit at arm’s length, some tangible components of death, ‘For one to pass over and experience the afterlife and return must itself be the ultimate in travel and with the absence of the authentic/here and now, a visit to a dark site, with all its manifestations of previous dark activities, arguably comes a close second to experiencing the afterlife’

(Dale & Robinson 2011:9).

Seaton (1996) implies that two aspects of dark tourism motivations exist. Firstly, thanatourism is behavioural, which means that tourists and their different motivations to visit attraction, distinguish whether a site is dark or not. The second aspect is that Thanatourism works on a continuum of intensity (Seaton 1996:240), which depends on whether a tourist has a single motivation or many, and whether the degree of interest in death is more general or person-specific. It can be assumed from this that the presence of tourists at death-related sites reflect to some degree’ thanatouristic’ motives (Slade, 2003), in essence meaning that all tourists to dark sites are seen as dark tourists.

Many dark tourism sites are themselves components of heritage. This is certainly true of Tuol Sleng and Choeung Ek described by The Rough Guide to Cambodia (2014:4) as ‘harrowing monuments to Cambodia’s grisly past during the Khmer Rough’s murderous rule’. It is possible that some heritage motivation literature may explain in some part, visits to dark tourism sites. For example, Poira et al (2006), in their research

into interpretation at heritage sites (based on visiting Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam), suggest that motivation to visit sites is increased if there is a connection to the visitor’s own heritage. Biran et al (2015) in their research titled ‘Sought Experiences at (Dark) Heritage Sites’, suggest that the interpretation at Auschwitz hosts and presents a heritage experience rather that a dark tourism one. Furthermore, Bryce et al (2015) suggest that heritage interpretation at visitors’ sites has a direct impact on motivations to visit and engage with heritage studies.

Ashworth and Isaac (2015) dismiss the terminology ‘dark tourism’ and instead choose to use ‘atrocity heritage’, and ‘dissonant heritage’. Logan and Reeves (2009) introduced the phrase ‘difficult heritage’ and more recently Light (2017) suggests that dark tourism is generally a sub-section of heritage tourism, and argues that some researchers have sought to redefine dark tourism in terms of particular types of heritage. Many authors when discussing the slave trade and the historic sites associated with it, use the term

‘slave heritage’, Alderman et al (2016), Stone (2016), Cook (2016) and Modlin (2008).

Alderman et al (2016), when discussing slave sites (arguable examples of dark tourism), suggest that heritage tourism plays a significant role in interpretation and motivations of such sites, and that often researchers explore the opportunities and challenges of addressing slavery through heritage tourism. Moreover, Carter et al (2014) when discussing museums of slavery, recognizes the role of interpretation has on emotions and motivations to visit.

A few studies have found that education, learning and the attributes of the site such as location, were important as well as interpretation methods (Mossberg et al, 2014), and Prentice et al (1998) suggests that visits to heritage sites may form part of a larger

heritage tour or trail in which other sites, waterfronts and other buildings associated with heritage will influence the visit. More recently, Light (2017) argued that on the whole tourists who visit dark sites are probably typically heritage tourists.