Dark Tourism and Human Rights: A Philosophical Quandary?

Introduction

Not surprisingly, the dilemma of human rights has impregnated all levels of social sciences and beyond. Since the end of WWII, scholars interrogated furtherly the violence perpetrated against ethnic minorities as well as the urgency to make the necessary institution not to repeat “this holocaust” in the future (Keet 2012). Human rights have been thought to protect the lay-citizens from the abuse or crimes of the proper state. At a closer look, human rights, have been contemplated as a necessary step to protect not only the basic rights but also the privacy of lay citizens. The paradox seems to be given by the fact the same state which serves as the WatchGuard of human rights violates them under some conditions (Levy & Sznaider 2006). Of course, this debate is not new and remains open in the fields of humanism and the core of academic debate (Ignatieff 2011; Frezzo 2014). In consonance with this, human rights have certainly entered the core of tourism research as a result of different combined factors. At first glimpse, the lack of legal follow-up of governments to monitor clandestine and criminal activities such as human trafficking or child prostitution. It is very difficult for authorities to implement efficient policies that scrutinize closely and globally the demands of these activities. Eli Roth´s film Hostel amply narrates the sad story of three young tourists who are kidnapped, tortured and killed by millionaire tourists taking part in a dark and criminal network in Eastern Europe. Tourists not only are vulnerable to criminal activities but also in some cases, they are active players in atrocious acts; what is more important, leisure activities go a much deep sinister direction where the “Other´s pain” is the main commodity to exchange (Korstanje & Olsen 2011; Korstanje & Tarlow 2012). Having said this, human rights encompass not only the security of tourists but also locals. Over the recent years, some studies have alerted on the importance to instrumentalize “dark tourism” as an efficient form of recovery just after a disaster takes a hit. Dark, Thana or post-disaster tourism revitalizes obliterated zones while accelerating the recovery timeframe without mentioning the reciprocity between victims and outsiders (Miller, Gonzalez & Hutter, 2017; Martini & Buda 2020). Soulard et al (2022) argue convincingly that one of the main lessons given by dark tourism rests on activating a memorizing process for the traumatic event not to be repeated in the future. This process is very well applied to the Holocaust and other manslaughters. Dark tourism enhances efficiently social cohesion (among survivors) as well as solidarity equating all persons before the tragedy. In this vein, dark tourism shows potential for emotional mobilization in the context of genocide, ethnic cleansing and extreme violence. To some extent, dark tourism proffers a pedagogic nature educating visitors through dark experiences. In Phillip Stone´s terms, dark tourism exhibits a necessary attempt to understand the own finitude through the significant “Other death” (Stone 2012; Raine 2013). This begs a more than interesting question: is dark tourism seen as a mechanism to reaffirm the importance of human rights or simply an ideological driver that ultimately tergiversates the roots of events to protect status-quo?

The present book chapter centers on the dilemma of dark tourism and human rights, in the context of post-disaster, violence and genocide. This moot point remains overlooked by Academia as well as the specialized literature. The goals of this contribution are twofold. On one hand, we focused on the literature and emerging definitions of dark tourism. On another, we put a critical debate on how human rights and social memory can be molded to the economic interests of international demand.