I found myself at the USS Arizona memorial not grieving for the dead sailors but, for the inability of nation states to work toward a common goal. At the University of Texas, I would walk near the Tower and find myself wondering where in the dark recesses of a human mind could come such inhumanity!

Most of you would not think of Camp David as a site of grief. I do when I think of the inanity of the “Accords” that supposedly would bring peace to the Middle East. When, in actuality, they have prolonged the conflicts!

If you want a site of “Pure Grief”, drive along a Texas highway and stop at one of the crosses where a person has lost their life due to a pure accident. Not at a sight where some terrorist,megalomaniac or nation state has wielded whatever power they could against unsuspecting human beings.

“Grief Tourism” is probably a better label than “Reflective Tourism”!

Keep up the good work. I enjoy Sharon’s articles.

Sincerely,

Ken Skaggs

What I mean to say is that while the term grief tourism may have a convoluted meaning this is because no clear pattern of use has emerged.

There are a few other things I’d like to clarify. First, regarding Chris’ comment: “You say that grief tourism in England is limited to the Soham horrors.” Where do I say that? I certainly don’t mean it!

Regarding Philip’s statement, “It could be argued of course, that so called grief tourism is nothing more than ‘recreational rubbernecking’”, I see grief tourism being used for more than that. For example Ground Zero in NYC has been described as a grief tourism destination. To many Americans, this is a far more meaningful experience than recreational rubbernecking.

Regarding Philip’s question, “Could a visit to Gracelands, the site of Elvis Presley’s death, be construed as grief tourism?” (this will repeat my point above about being descriptive rather than prescriptive): whether visiting Graceland is grief tourism or not is for people who use English to decide collectively.

In other words, the answer is: Yes, visiting Graceland could be construed as grief tourism if that’s how people refer to it. However, I’ve never heard of Graceland used as an example of grief tourism. In some ways I doubt that visiting Graceland will ever be considered grief tourism. There was no tragedy there (since Elvis never died). On the other hand some people do go there to have a good cry…

Finally, to anser Chris’ questions: “So, is time a factor in grief tourism, how does memory work in your definition. You seem to hold to a popular culture view of the recent in the examples given?”

I have seen people refer to visiting former Nazi concentration camps as grief tourism even if they were not alive during the 1930s and 40s. Some factors that seem to influence the use of grief tourism include time, memory, nationality, and religion. Regarding popular culture, I’ll have to think about that one some more. Since I’m looking to current language use to describe how grief tourism is used, though, I think it’s safe to say that popular culture will be a great influence on this site.

I would tend to agree with Chris’s assessment of the term ‘grief tourism’. The term, journalistic in nature, is rather bespoke as it appears to describe a particular facet of the wider dark tourism phenomenon. I’ve called this (narrow) type of product ‘Dark Shrines’ in a recent journal paper, which outlined a conceptual framework under the banner of a ‘Dark Tourism Spectrum’ (see http://www.dark-tourism.org.uk ). This conceptual framework highlights the temporal, spatial and political apsects of dark tourism supply, as well as outlining particular ‘dark product’ features and characteristics. The paper essentially examines the notion of ‘dark’ and ‘darker’ tourism….

‘Dark Shrines’ or grief tourism, or whatever you wish to call it, has wider implications and consequences for society in which we reside. It could be argued of course, that so called grief tourism is nothing more than ‘recreational rubbernecking’. The case of Soham in the UK is an often cited example of grief tourism. Whilst there was undoubted grief and anger at the time, the status of Soham as a ‘grief’ destination is perhaps unfounded ensuring the longevity of these ‘grief sites’, for the masses in any case, are temporal and fickel in nature - in the same way Gloucester (UK) was when in the mid 1990’s the Cromwell Street murders were discovered. The media and some of the moral panics they instill is often at the heart of so-called grief tourism. In a ever fractious and fragmented world that appears to spin ever faster, the media, through their coverage and tapping into a national psyche, perhaps ‘emotionally invigilates’ our behaviour in cases like Soham. As Chris states, how then does memory work in the ‘grief tourism’ concept? Perhaps we become less emotionally inviligated as Lennon and Foley’s ‘chronological distance’ sets in (??).

On the other side of the coin, and using the defintion of grief tourism on this site, could a visit to Gracelands, the site of Elvis Presley’s death, be construed as grief tourism? In some cases perhaps, but many who visit Gracelands (my wife included) are more interested in his life (and end of life). Similarily, as Chris Wibert noted, the same reasoning could be applied to Frankie Howard and his ‘memorial house’.

Many issues remain, and without getting into a protracted debate over the meaning of meaning, it is important to consider terminology and the parameters of that terminology. I personally consider grief tourism as a subset of the wider dark tourism phenomenon - but even this term is emotive. Perhaps, Tony Seaton’s use of the term ‘thanatourism’, if not awkward, is more precise.

Whatever terminology we use, websites like this one, which seek to explore and expose tourism products with a death, suffering or a macabre theme, are worthwhile and useful. Keep it up….

Regards
PHIL STONE
University of Central Lancashire, UK