Heritage Tourism as Leisure Expeditions - Essay Example

?Introduction Turnbridge and Ashworth (1996, p53) define heritage as “an inheritance or legacy that is transmitted from one generation to the next”. Since time immemorial, heritage has been used to mean a legal inheritance that an individual is entitled to from the will of a deceased. However, Bowen and Clarke (2007) noted that heritage tourism includes any kind of intergeneration relationship that is transferred from one generation to the next. This could include traumatic events occurring in a particular historical era and transferred to succeeding generations. However, every heritage contains real, underlying or symbolic importance that plays a critical role in terming its perception in society. This paper examines dark tourism, focusing on marketing and interpretation of House of Terror Museum in Hungary, a traumatic site as touring sites in the contemporary society. Smith and Robinson (2006, p105) defined heritage tourism as “leisure expeditions with the major objective of touring historic, natural, recreational and scenic sceneries to learn more about the past”. Dark tourism is one component of heritage tourism and it involves “visiting places associated with death, suffering and tragedy” (Cooper, et al 2008, p49). Heritage tourism is founded on the motivations and perceptions of the consumers or tourists rather than the particular characteristics that define the destination. According to Smith and Robinson (2006), the major motivation for touring heritage sites is the uniqueness of the tourism destination in relation to the tourists’ awareness or perception of their own heritage. Heritage tourism to a site with dark history evokes various emotions such as nostalgia, idealism, and a feeling of belonging in the time and space (Foley and Lennon1996). Stone (2006) argues that heritage tourism is both unique and universal, because it presents a heritage for all people at a given time. Although each site has its unique characteristic, dark tourism sites present a universal message to all persons, from the message of pain to suffering and anger among other feelings that characterize human beings. Heritage sites include various inherited localities such as historic buildings, artwork and scenic areas among others. A tourist travels to the heritage site with an objective of seeing the historical artefacts. These artefacts usually form an important connection between the cultural background of tourist and his or her history or past. However, the particular historical site or artefact elicits different emotions and reactions from various people. Holloway (2004) argues that it could elicit emotional encounter and make the individual feel closely connected with ancestors and the historical event, which makes the experience more than just a learning experience. Manino (1997) argues that dark tourism is a mysterious combination of heritage, history and tragedy. It evokes discussions of the past, present and future morals and ethics surrounding death of mankind. Some of the most popular sites for dark tourism include conflict sites and death camps which figuratively or literary embrace the memory of human suffering and violence that took place in a particular historical period (Manino 1997). Disastrous events such as the collapse of the world trade centre continue to elicit attention and curiosity from different people across the world. Similarly, scenes of accidents and large-scale loss of human lives usually become spontaneous attractions, where people gather to pay their respects or just to witness and experience the terrifying aftermath. The uncharacteristic connection between leisure and pleasure in dark tourism has been a matter of moral and ethical discussion in the hospitality industry especially when it comes to marketing and promotion of the sites. Some heritage tourism critics contend that tourism is an immoral and inappropriate practice for presenting disturbing events of human history, such as death and tragedies and other forms of suffering. According to MacCannell (1989: p73), “commodifying the history of human suffering for mass consumption in dark tourism trivializes the tragic events”. However Lennon and Foley (2000, p95) argue that it stimulates “expression of counter hegemonic tales and stories of injustices that pervade through the particular tragic historic event”. In spite of the criticism, tragic events continue attracting insatiable attention from tourists across the world. Stone and Sharpley (2008) argue that consumption of troubling past is driven by a combination of factors, which include marketing techniques, tastes of the tourists, in addition to changes in the culture and politics across the world. Therefore, motivation for dark tourism increases when defining events such as wars and collapse of oppressive regimes occur. These life-changing events are often characterized by media exposure through mediums such as memoirs, films, novels and other types of narratives that accord moral meanings to the sites of crime and death. When media presentation coupled with mass commemoration of the disturbing past occurs for a considerable length of time, the particular site of the atrocities enhances its commercial appeal to tourism (Cooper, et al 2008). Therefore, it is not surprising that sites of death, suffering and wickedness are increasingly becoming attractive destinations for global tourists. Some of the most popular sites include prisons where deliberate state perpetrated torture for rebels who opposed oppression and other dehumanizing policies of the government were once held and punished. Some of the features that enhance the allure of these confinements to tourism include curiosity to establish the hidden forms of torture and various types punishment meted to discourage and contain the former inmates (Poria, et al 2006). Dark tourism elicits intense social and political emotions in every society. In research studies, dark tourism is often referred as thanatourism, a term derived from Greek word “thana” which means death (Leming and Dickinson 2002). The issue of death produces strong reactions in the society, but with different intensities. Manino (1997, p116) argues that ignorance of death is tantamount to ignoring one of the few universal parameters in life from which collective and individual self is construed. For a long time, death and discussion of bereavement in society has been a taboo in most societies. However, as the societies are becoming more socially, economically and technically informed, death taboos are constantly being challenged and it is increasingly being perceived as an important process linking the dead and the living. Leming and Dickinson (2002) note that death is currently getting a greater access to social consciousness and attracting non-prejudicial examination. Although the modern society tries to insulate and protect people from death, Holloway (2004, p74) argues this practice creates “a craving in human beings, for news and more information pertaining to death”. In addition, death is increasingly being portrayed in the popular culture and this trend has reduced the taboos drastically. This implies that mortality is increasingly becoming a source of entertainment, a concept that has brought death to greater social awareness. Stone (2006) argues that by creating humour from death, the society reduces the severity associated with it and it becomes less threatening in popular culture and in the media. Hence, the concept of dark tourism has developed from the gradual acceptance and neutralization of death in the society, although the extent at which it is embraced is varied. Stone (2006) argues that the neutralization of death in society enables people to alleviate the unsettling effect of bereavement. However, the response of contemporary society towards dark tourism is still emotive and pervasive depending on the political, cultural and social context. The ethical and political issues associated with marketing, interpreting and producing dark tourism mainly originate from the psychological impact that such site generates. According to Sigala and Leslie (2005), four major emotions occur in a dark tourist’s psychological state. They include gratitude, insecurity, superiority and humility. Visiting a battlefield for instance could arouse romanticism while barbaric sites provoke compassionate feelings towards the victims. In addition, touring sites of human atrocities could make the visitor feel superior and more humane in comparison to the perpetrators of the horrific deeds (Sigala and Leslie 2005, p122). For example, while visiting the Nazi concentration camps that have become popular destinations for dark tourism, Lennon and Foley, (2000) noted that many visitors opined that they felt proud and a sense of triumph against the evils associated with Nazism. MacCannell (1989) notes that visiting a catastrophic site could rekindle sense of mysticism or spirituality particularly in situations where a strong religious connection exists between the visitor and the victim(s). The House of Terror Museum in Budapest, Hungary is an apt example of a dark tourism site. According to Smith and Robinson (2006), the museum was established as a memorial for the victims of both the communist and Nazi atrocities in Europe. The museum presents the state of life in the country during the times of the two most brutal regimes in the past century. In 1940s, the building at 60 Andrassy Boulevard was the headquarters for Hungarian Nazis. After the end of the Second World War, from 1945 to 1956, the building became the centre of communist terror organizations, namely the State Security Office (AVO) and the State Security Authority (AVH) (Poria, et al 2006, p88). During the time, Hungary was in the middle of two antagonizing powers, namely the Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union. When Hungary fell under Nazi occupation, the building became the centre for rounding and torturing Jews in the country. According to Smith and Robinson (2006 p256), Hungarian Jews were compelled to wear “yellow star” and the house formed an important link of transferring the captured Jews to concentration camps spread across the regions under Nazi influence. In the cellar of the museum, Hungarian Nazis tortured and annihilated hundreds of people during the reign that brought unprecedented destruction in Hungary. In 1945, Hungary fell to the Soviet Union control after the defeat of the Nazis and once again, the building became security headquarters for the new regime (Stone and Sharpley, 2008). For a period of over ten years under the communist control, the building was the centre for large-scale torture, and death, targeting individuals that were considered a threat to the regime. Marketing and interpreting exhibitions at the House of Terror Museum to tourists has elicited political and ethical controversies in Hungary and other parts of the globe. Although the museum was established to honour the memories of the victims under the two oppressive regimes, it raised several political and ethical concerns. The timing of its opening in 2002 coincided with an important period in Hungary, leading to criticism that it was a project for attaining political goals. For a period of two years between 2000 and 20002, Hungarian right wing government invested heavily in construction and refurbishment of the museum that was opened at the end of closely contested political campaigns (Smith and Robinson 2006). Sigala and Leslie (2005) argue that the timing of the museum was aimed at swaying the public opinion by inciting the electorate against the socialist opposition. Construction of the house of terror museum therefore conveyed the message that the socialist opposition in Hungary intended to perpetuate the atrocities perpetrated in Hungary by the communists shortly after the end of the Second World War. Therefore, Poria et al (2006) argues that construction of the museum was an indirect warning to the Hungarian people on the dangers of voting for a party that was inclined towards communism and socialism. The political issues persisted after the socialist party won the elections in 2002, which demonstrates presence of other hidden objectives under the guise of honouring the victims of the historic atrocities. The presentations mainly focus on dictatorial and oppressive heritage of the Soviet Union regime. This is reflected in the exhibitions, which end in 1956, the year the Soviet Union forces withdrew from Hungary. Critics interpret the exhibition as attempt to absolve the Hungarians from the atrocities, while crediting the soviets and Nazis with the blame. This portrays Hungary as a victim of foreign aggression, which is misleading because fellow Hungarians were also actively involved in the atrocities against fellow citizens. In addition, the exhibition does not credit the communist regime for the positive developments in Hungary, such as improvement of housing, healthcare and education (Bowen and Clarke 2007). Conclusion According to Smith and Robinson (2006), the gallery at the museum contains images of Hungarian people alleged to have committed the heinous crimes and critics argue that by portraying these images, the museum becomes judgmental, a role that is not within the jurisdiction and objectives of dark tourism. Social groups, especially the Jews are concerned that the museum places greater emphasis on the atrocities of communism rather than Nazism, a situation that trivializes the suffering of Hungarian Jews during the holocaust. Although virtually all segments of Hungarian society suffered under Nazism and communism, the Jews were certainly the most affected (Smith and Robinson 2006. Therefore, the disturbing heritage in the country ought to be shared equally by all people in the society, without apportioning blame to foreigners. Bibliography Bowen, D., and Clarke, J. (2007). Contemporary tourist behavior: Yourself and other as tourists. London: CABI. Cooper, C., et al.(2008). Tourism: Principles and practices. 4th ed. Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited. Foley, M., and Lennon, J.(1996). JFK and dark tourism: Heart of darkness. Journal of International Heritage Studies, 2(2):190-198. Holloway, J.(2004). Marketing for tourism. 4th ed. Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited. Leming, M., and Dickinson, G. (2002). Understanding death, dying and bereavement. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt College. Lennon, J., and Foley, M.(2000). Dark tourism: the attraction of death and disaster. London: Continuum. MacCannell, D. (1989). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. 2nd ed. New York: Shocken Books Manino, J. (1997). Grieving days, healing days. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Poria, Y., et al.(2006). Heritage site management: motivations and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 161-179. Sigala, M., and Leslie, D.(2005). International cultural tourism: Management, implications and cases. London: Heinemann. Stone, P.(2006). A dark tourism spectrum: towards a typology of death and macabre related sites, attractions and exhibitions. An Interdisciplinary International Journal, 54(2):145-170. Stone, P., and Sharpley, R.(2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2): 570-600. Smith, M., and Robinson, M. (2006). Cultural tourism in a changing world: politics, participation and representation. New York: Channel View Publications. Turnbridge, J., and Ashworth, G.(1996). Dissonant heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict: Chichester: Wiley. Read More