Educational dark tourism at an in populo site

Abstract

Based on a study at Yad Vashem, the Shoah (Holocaust) memorial museum in Jerusalem, a new term—in populo—is proposed to describe dark tourism sites at a population and spiritual center of the people to whom a tragedy befell. Learning about the Shoah in Jerusalem offers a different but equally authentic encounter with the subject as visits to sites in Europe. It is argued that a dichotomy between ‘authentic’ sites at the location of a tragedy and ‘created’ sites elsewhere is insufficient. Participants’ evaluations of seminars for European teachers at Yad Vashem indicate that the location is an important aspect of a meaningful encounter with the subject. Implications for other cases of dark tourism at in populo locations are discussed.

Introduction

“Dark tourism”—tourism to sites related to death and disaster (Lennon and Foley, 2000, Seaton, 1996) is not a new phenomenon; battlefields, cemeteries and sites of natural disasters have long drawn tourists (Ashworth and Hartman, 2005, Timothy and Boyd, 2002) and it has received increasing attention by researchers in recent years. Within this growing body of literature, authenticity of location has been addressed as one of the key elements (Belhassen et al., 2008, Miles, 2002, Tumarkin, 2005). The actual sites of disasters have been referred to as in situ or primary sites, while memorials and museums set up in other locations have been referred to as secondary or created sites (Lennon and Foley, 2000, Wight, 2006, Wight and Lennon, 2007).

In this article I argue that such a dichotomy is too simplistic to accurately describe the authenticity of dark tourism experiences. I propose a new term, in populo, to describe sites which embody and emphasize the story of the people to whom the tragedy befell. These may be located at population and/or spiritual centers of the victimized people, irrespective of the geographical distance from the events commemorated. The in populo concept responds to a theoretical gap in heritage or dark tourism research. As Li (2003, p. 250) suggests, there is a “… need for the development of a person-based category in an authenticity model…authenticity is therefore argued as being achieved either through environmental experiences or people-based experiences, or an interaction of the two.”

This article explores the perceived authenticity of an in populo dark tourism site using a case study of educational dark tourism; a seminar for European teachers hosted by the International School for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, Israel. Through this example, it is demonstrated that a dark tourism experience which is perceived as authentic and meaningful may be provided through interaction with the affected population at what may be referred to as an in populo site, even if it is physically distant from in situ sites. Additionally, the impact of the explicitly educational nature of the seminar-tour is explored.

This particular sub-population of tourists is presented because their documented responses to their experience at Yad Vashem are enlightening in understanding the phenomenon of an in populo site. Clearly, other populations of visitors to Yad Vashem, such as Israeli Jews (Auron, 2008, Cohen, 2009, Krakover, 2005), Diaspora Jews (Cohen, 2008a) and Israeli Arabs (Krakover, 2005, Shoham et al., 2003), would each have their own distinctive relationship to and perceptions of the issues and the interpretations offered at Yad Vashem. These populations were not addressed in the current study.

The present article postulates that Yad Vashem is perceived by the study population as an authentic site for learning about the Holocaust, referred to from here by the Hebrew word Shoah. Referring to the Nazi-era genocide with the word ‘holocaust’ is problematic because of its Greek etymology referring to religious sacrifices (Petrie, 2009) and because it is used to refer to many catastrophic events (Gerstenfeld, 2008), whereas Shoah refers specifically to the Nazi genocide.

This discussion of the study population’s experience at Yad Vashem is guided by studies on the nature of authenticity particularly as it pertains to tourism (Cohen, 2008b, Golomb, 1995, Selwyn, 1996). Pioneer in the field, MacCannell (1976) notes the search for authenticity is an important motivation in contemporary tourism. Expanding on MacCannell’s work, Bruner (1991) describes tourists’ desire for self-transformation through encounters with ‘authentic’ cultures and Galani-Moutafi (2000) explores the process of self-discovery that takes places as tourists interact with the Other. Pearce and Moscardo (1986) find that satisfaction with a tour is linked to tourists’ search for authenticity. As can be seen, authenticity has been used to describe a wide range of tourist experiences, and several researchers have sought to clarify the meanings of the term. Selwyn (1996) differentiates between ‘cool’ authenticity, which relates to cognitive knowledge about objects or experiences and ‘hot’ authenticity, describing an emotional ‘alienation-smashing’ experience. Similarly, Wang (1999) differentiates between authenticity which is objective (such as museum artifacts), symbolic (socially constructed symbols of authenticity) and existential authenticity (providing the tourist with an authentic sense of Being). Taking a different view of the issue, Andriotis (2009) defines five core elements of authenticity: spiritual, cultural, environmental, secular and educational.

Despite attempts to define it, authenticity remains an elastic concept. Tourists’ perceptions of authenticity are affected by their social identities (Cohen, 1988, Sedmak and Mihalič, 2008, Timothy and Boyd, 2002). To the extent that authenticity is seen as subjective, individuals may differently perceive the authenticity of a place or activity; their belief in the authenticity of an experience or site accurately expresses their experience (Cohen, 2008b, Golomb, 1995). Following Cohen’s (1979) typology of tourists, how close the destination site is to the tourist’s spiritual center affects perceptions of authenticity and the meaning of the site. The same site will be experienced differently depending on the degree to which the tourist is psychologically and emotionally involved with the events memorialized. The experience will differ for tourists related to the victims, those related to the perpetrators or by-standers, and those who are not directly related to the event (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 1996). For tourists who have an intimate emotional involvement with the memorialized events, dark tourism may be more than simply ‘meaningful’; it may provide ‘peak experiences’—transient moments of self-actualization (Maslow, 1971) or ‘flow experiences’—recurrent moments of self-actualization occurring as one engages in an ongoing activity (Cohen, 2008b, Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). These experiences are similar to Wang’s (1999) existential authenticity.

Returning to the issue of locational authenticity, it must be noted that while the physical and social contexts of a site affect tourists’ perceptions of its authenticity, primary sites do not ensure authenticity and secondary sites do not preclude it. Simulations or re-enactments at primary sites may create a feeling of inauthenticity (Boorstin, 1964, MacCannell, 1973, Stone, 2006). Memorials located at the site of an atrocity may not enjoy the freedom to provide historical, political and educational contextualization and interpretation of events, (Bollag, 1999, Taum, 2005, Wight and Lennon, 2007, Williams, 2004).

Historic artifacts or testimonies of survivors at secondary sites such as museums or memorials may provide a sense of objective authenticity (Reisinger and Steiner, 2006, Wang, 1999). However, visiting historically authentic sites or viewing authentic relics do not automatically provide tourists with an experience that helps them to understand the events which took place. Cole (2000) notes that there is an inherent risk of distancing and objectifying the past if too much emphasis is placed on museum displays of relics as the primary means of preserving memory.

Furthermore, extremely disturbing elements in primary sites may not be appropriate for educational purposes. For example, some genocide memorials in Rwanda have retained unburied bones and display blood-stained stones, arguably the most authentic possible reminders of the atrocities, but groups of schoolchildren and visiting foreigners are not generally brought to them but rather to the Kigali Genocide Memorial. There, traditional museum displays using text, photographs, recorded testimonies and videos provide an “… encounter with something extraordinary which is nevertheless presented in a familiar way, very professionally done, extremely moving and eloquent,” (Caplan, 2007, p. 20).

Although dark tourism spans a spectrum of ‘shades of darkness’ including recreational and entertaining sites (Stone, 2006, Strange and Kempa, 2003), much dark tourism is part of a growing trend of personally meaningful tourism (Breathnach, 2006, Novelli, 2005, Stone and Sharpley, 2008). Dark tourism is often related to tourists’ identity or heritage; for example, African-American tourism to sites along slave trade routes (Bruner, 1996, Dann and Seaton, 2001, Essah, 2001), or tourism to battlegrounds and war memorials which affected one’s country or where one’s relatives fought (Chronis, 2005, Kiesling, 2000, Slade, 2003, Williams, 2004, Winter, 2009). For populations affected by major tragedies, memorials may be ‘sites of memory’ (Nora, 1998, Resnik, 2003, Winter, 1998).

To make tours to dark sites more meaningful and to enhance the perceived authenticity of the experience, explicit and implicit educational, heritage, political and historical messages are often included (Baker, 2009, Caplan, 2007, Yoneyama, 1999). Inclusion of an educational dimension may help distinguish meaningful dark tourism experiences from recreational or voyeuristic ones. Educational elements encourage tourists to be more ‘mindful’, which in turn increases their satisfaction with and perceived meaningfulness of the tour (Moscardo, 1996). The motivations for visiting dark tourism sites—particularly the ‘darkest’ and most emotionally disturbing sites related to wars and genocide—reflect a complex combination of sociological and psychological factors (Coles and Timothy, 2004, Sharpley and Stone, 2009). Similarly, sociological factors impact the ways in which events are presented and interpreted at different dark tourism sites.

There are numerous sites related to the Shoah, each with its own style of presentation and interpretation. Various sites have distinctive styles of presenting this darkest of issues, reflecting the viewpoints of the four interest groups of dark tourism as defined by Seaton (2001): subject community, host community, owners and tourists. In this article the site is considered from the perspective of the tourists, reflecting Sharpley and Stone’s (2009, p. 112) emphasis on the needs of this interest group: “… interpretation of dark sites should … commemorate in a manner which recognizes and responds to the emotions of potential visitors or visitor groups.”

Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is among the most visited sites related to the Shoah. It was established in 1953 by mandate of the Israeli Parliament as a memorial museum, and also as a resource for continued research and education on the Shoah. Yad Vashem (and other sites in Israel, such as the Ghetto Fighters’ Museum) played a pioneering role in memorializing and documenting the Shoah, establishing educational centers at a time when there were few such sites (Farago, 1982, Resnik, 2003). The museum and archives contain many primary sources, including original documents and objects as well as recorded testimonies of survivors. It hosts individual tourists, group tours, school trips, conferences and seminar programs. The extensive work invested in creating the memorial and archives of Yad Vashem has led to its international acclaim in the fields of research and documentation of the Shoah.

Yad Vashem may be said to embody contemporary Israelis’ social memories of the Shoah (Auron, 2008). The museum’s website describes the site as, “…the Jewish people’s living memorial to the Holocaust.” Interpretation at Yad Vashem portrays a classic Zionist theme regarding the Shoah of ‘destruction to redemption’—perennial persecution in Exile rectified by the survival of the Jewish People in an independent state in Israel. Interpretation has undergone transformation over the course of the past half century, reflecting changing attitudes among the Israeli public towards the Shoah and its victims and survivors (Porat, 2004, Resnik, 2003). From an early narrative which emphasized resistance to genocidal anti-Semitism and culminating in the founding of the State of Israel, more subtle and complex views of the history of the Shoah and its survivors in Israel have evolved. Yad Vashem was conceptually designed to personify and personalize history, showing Jewish life in Europe, its destruction and its continuation after the Shoah in Israel, with an intense focus on the individuality of those who suffered. In recent years Yad Vashem has launched projects to make the subject of the Shoah relevant to contemporary youth and adults from a wide variety of backgrounds, giving more emphasis to universal themes of the Shoah (Yad Vashem, 2010). The seminar for European teachers is one example of such a project. Nevertheless, at Yad Vashem there is an explicitly articulated connection between the attempted genocide and the subsequent continuation in Israel of the Jewish people—including but not limited to Shoah survivors. This view is at the heart of the in populo memorial. It is expressed in various ways by the Yad Vashem staff and teachers, and therefore impacts the experience of the non-Jewish European tourists taking part in the seminar series.

Upon leaving Yad Vashem, the tourist can see and experience modern Jewish life in the State of Israel. This is a critical aspect of the visit. The interpretation at Yad Vashem may be contrasted with tours to Shoah-related sites in Europe and in the USA. Sites in Europe such as former concentration and death camps offer the ‘darkest’ experience due to their ‘locational authenticity’ (Miles, 2002, p. 1177). This is undeniably a critical aspect. Jewish tourism to Shoah sites in Europe represents a type of pilgrimage (Kugelmass, 1994). A growing number of Israeli students (essentially all of whom previously visited Yad Vashem) participate in pilgrimage-tours to sites in Poland (Cohen, 2009, Feldman, 2001, Feldman, 2008, Vargen, 2008). However, many of the Shoah-related sites in Eastern Europe are owned, maintained and guided by local non-Jewish populations and their relationship to the sites and their history may be ambiguous, as they struggle with their memories and social representations of the Shoah era (Ashworth, 2002, Beech, 2000, Huener, 2001, Macdonald, 2006, Rosenthal, 1998). Tourists to Shoah sites in Eastern Europe experience a society in which Jewish life essentially no longer exists, making presentation of the issue of the Shoah particularly difficult (Gruber, 2002, Hartmann, 2005). Marcuse suggests that while memorials at former concentration camps play a crucial role in preserving the memory of the Shoah, they may not be the most appropriate places for Shoah education: “…memorial sites…should draw especially on their unique strength, namely the emotional appeal of a genuine historical site with authentic remains, and leave most of the intellectual learning for other, more suitable, situations” (Marcuse, 2001, p. 391).

Additionally, primary sites in Europe do not automatically provide the necessary interpretation to help tourists understand the events that transpired there. For example, no memorial has been established at Babi Yar, a ravine in the Ukraine where over 100,000 people (mainly Jews) were killed in 1941 by the SS-trained Einsatzgruppe squads (Epstein & Rosen, 1997); a tour to this site is not educational and gives no insight into the people who lived in the area and were killed there.

In the United States, home to millions of Jews, a number of Shoah memorials and museums have been established which do effectively and powerfully inform tourists about the magnitude of the Shoah and its historical context. Shoah museums in the USA often include certain in populo features, such as recorded testimonies, talks by and with survivors and even tours guided by survivors or their descendents (Saulny, 2009). However, the interpretation of the events they present differs from that at Yad Vashem. Here a few examples of Shoah museums in the USA (not meant to be exhaustive) are cited as illustrations. Extensive Shoah-related exhibits at the Jewish Museum in New York City highlight post-war Jewish life in America, although in recent years Israel’s role in post-Shoah Jewish life has begun to be addressed also. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC embodies an American ethos of democracy, universal values and rights of the Other (Flanzbaum, 1999). The presentation at the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust (2010) is less personal that that at Yad Vashem, as stated on their website: “The Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust presents the history of the Holocaust as objectively as possible. For this reason its exhibits present as many original artifacts as possible and display them in a way that allows them to tell the individual stories they contain.” This museum also presents a narrative of various populations who suffered at the hands of the Nazis including, in addition to Jews, the Roma people, homosexuals, Catholics, disabled people, and those who resisted the Nazis.

Yad Vashem intentionally and explicitly offers a distinctly different approach to learning about the Shoah. One factor in this is that at Yad Vashem, the four interest groups are linked in terms of identity: victims of Shoah (subject community), Israelis (host community), the State of Israel (owners), and the Diaspora and Israelis Jews tourists who make up a large percentage of the museum’s visitors. Thus, interpretation at Yad Vashem is from a Jewish perspective, and the narrative is one of the victimized people telling their own story. While the current case deals with a population of non-Jewish tourists, the presentation at the museum is largely geared towards people with a personal link to the Shoah; for example, the Hall of Names provides a place for family members to record personal details about victims. Programs like the seminar series discussed in this article include planned encounters with Israelis—not only Shoah survivors and their descendants—as part of the curriculum. It is these elements which indicate the in populo nature of the site.