Aries - Death Inside Out

8/13/2019 Aries - Death Inside Out

1/17

Death inside out

Author(s): Philippe Aris and Bernard MurchlandReviewed work(s):Source: The Hastings Center Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, Facing Death (May, 1974), pp. 3-18Published by: The Hastings CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527478.

Accessed: 23/05/2012 14:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Hastings Centeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hastings

Center Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hastingshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3527478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3527478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hastings


2/17

EIGHT CENTURIESOF DEATH IN THE WEST

e a t hi n s i e

o u tPHILIPPEARIES

T T I T U D E S c o mmonlyheld about deathby modernman-whethersociologists,psychologistsor doc-tors-are so novel and bewilderingthatscholars have not yet been able to detachthem fromtheirmodernityandsituatethemwithina broaderhistoricalperspective.Thisis whatI shallattempt o do in thefollowingarticle, with respect to three themes: thedispossessionof the dying person, the de-nial of mourningand the new funeralritesin America.I. HowtheDyingPerson sDeprivedof HisDeath

For thousandsof yearsman has been thesovereignmaster of his death and the cir-cumstancesattendingt. Todayhe no longeris and theseare the reasonswhy.First of all, it was always taken forgrantedthat man knew he was going to

die-whether he cameby this knowedgeonhis own or was told by somebodyelse. Thestory-tellersof former times assumed asa matterof coursethatmanis awareof hisforthcomingdeath. La Fontaineis an ex-ample.In those days,deathwas rarelysud-den, even in cases of accident or war.Sudden death was very much feared notonlybecause t did not allowtimeto repentbut more importantlybecause it deprivedman of his death. Most people were fore-warnedof theirdeath,especiallysincemostdiseaseswerefatal.One wouldhave had tobe a fool not to perceivethe signs of death;moralistsand satirists took it upon them-selvesto ridicule hose whorefused o admitthe obvious.Roland was awarethat deathwas aboutto carryhim off;Tristanfelt hislife ebbing away and knew that he wasgoing to die; Tolstoi'speasant,respondingto an inquiryabouthis health,says: "Deathis at hand."For Tolstoias for La Fontaine,men adopteda familiarand resignedatti-tude beforedeath.This does not meanthatthinking about death remainedthe sameover this long periodof history.Nonethe-less, some basic similaritiesurvived n cer-tain classesfromone age to anotherdespitethe emergenceof other attitudes.Whenthe dying personfailedto perceivehis lot, it fell to others to tell him. A pon-tificaldocumentof the MiddleAges madethis a responsibility f physicians,and forcenturies heyexecuted t faithfully.We find

This article was translated from the French byBernard Murchlland. Translation by permissionfrom the European Journal of Sociology VIII(1967), 169-95. An opening, brief bibliographiccommentary intended for a European audiencehas been deleted from this translation.HastingsCenterStudies,May 1974, Vol. 2, No. 2


3/17

4 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIESone at Don Quixote'sbedside:"A physicianwas sent for, who, after feeling his pulse,took a rathergloomyview of the case, andtold him that he should provide for hissoul's health,as that of his body was in adangerouscondition."The Artes Moriendiof the fifteenthcenturystipulateda "spirit-ual" friend for this task (as opposedto a"carnal"riend) who was calledthe nuntiusmortis,a title and a role that is more thana little shockingto our modernsensibility.As we advancethroughhistoryascendingthe social ladderin an urbanenvironment,we find that manadverts ess and less to hisimpendingdeath. He must be prepared orit by others upon whom he consequentlybecomesmore and more dependent.Prob-ably sometime in the eighteenth century,the physician renounced a role that hadlong been his. By the nineteenthcentury,the doctorspoke only whenquestionedandthen with certain reservations.Friends nolonger intervenedas they did in the timeof Gerson or even as late as Cervantes.From the seventeenthcenturyonward,thefamily assumed this responsibility,whichmay be taken as a sign of the evolution nfamilysentiment.For example:The year is1848 and we are with a family called LaFerronnays.Madame La Ferronnaysfallssick. A doctordiagnosesher case as seriousand shortlyafterwards alls it hopeless.Thewoman'sdaughterwrites: "Whenshe fin-ished her bath and as I was about to tellher what the doctorhad said, she suddenlysaid to me: 'I can no longer see anythingandfear I am goingto die.' Shethenreciteda short prayer.How consolingthose calmwordswere to me in that terriblemoment "The daughterwas relievedbecauseshe wasspared hepainfultaskof tellinghermotherthat she was going to die. Such relief is amoderntrait but the obligationto informanotherof imminentdeath s veryancient.The dying were not to be deprivedoftheir death. Indeed, they had to presideover it. As one was born in public so tooone died in public.This was true not onlyof kings (as is well known from Saint-Simon'scelebratedaccount of the deathofLouis XIV) but of everyone. Countlesstapestriesand paintingshave depictedthescene for us As soon as someonefell ill,the room filled with people-parents, chil-dren,friends,neighbors,ellowworkers.All

windows and doors were closed. The can-dles werelit. Whenpeoplein the streetsawthe priestcarryingviaticum,customas wellas devotion dictatedthat they follow himto the dying person'sbedside, even if theperson were a stranger. As death ap-proached,the sick-roombecame a publicplace. In this context we understand heforce of Pascal's words: "We die alone."They have lost much of their meaningformodern man because we literally do diealone. WhatPascalmeanswas that,despitethe crowdgatheredabout,the dyingpersonwas, in the end, alone. Progressivedoctorsin the late eighteenthcenturywere firmbe-lievers in the curativepowers of fresh airand complainedbitterlyabout this publicinvasionof the roomsof the dying.To theirminds,it would have been far healthier oopen the windows,put out the candles,andsend everyonehome.The publicpresenceat the last momentswas not a pious practice imposed by theChurch,as we mightthink.The clergy,orat least the more enlightenedof them, hadtriedlong beforethe doctors o restrain hismob in order to better prepare the sickpersonfor an edifyingend. Beginningwiththe fifteenth century, the Artes Moriendirecommended hat the dyingpersonbe leftalone with God so as not to be distractedfrom the care of his soul. As late as thenineteenthcentury,very pious individuals,having submitted to all these customarypractices,might requestthat the many on-lookers leave the room so that nothingwoulddisturb heir finalconversationswithGod. But these were cases of rareand ex-emplary devotion. Long-standingcustomdictated that death be the occasion of aritualceremony n whichthe priesthad hisplace, but so did numbersof otherpeople.The primaryrole in this ritualwas playedby the dying person himself. He presidedwith controlleddignity;havingbeen a par-ticipanthimself n manysuch occasions,heknew how to conducthimself.He spoke inturnto his relatives,his friends,his servants,including "the least of them," as Saint-Simon put it in describingthe death ofMadame de Montespan. He bade themadieu, asked their forgiveness,and gavethemhis blessing.Investedwith a sovereignauthorityby approachingdeath (this wasespeciallytrue in the eighteenthand nine-


4/17

DEATH INSIDE OUT 5teenth centuries), he gave his orders andmade his recommendations.This was thecase even whenthe dyingwas a very younggirl,virtuallya child.Today, nothing remainsof this attitudetoward death. We do not believe that thesickpersonhas a rightto know he is dying;nor do we believein the publicand solemncharacter accordedthe moment of death.What ought to be knownis ignored;whatought to be a sacred momentis conjuredaway.

A Reversal n SentimentWe take it for granted hat the firstdutyof the family and the physician s to keepthe dying personuninformed bouthis con-dition. He must not (exceptional casesapart) know that his end is near; he diesignorantof his death.This is not merelyanaccidental feature of our contemporarymores;on the contrary, t has takenon theforce of a moral rule. VladimirJank616vitchmade a clear statement n proof of this at

a recent medical conferenceon the theme:ShouldWe Lie to the Sick?1"Inmy mind,"he declared,"the liar is the one who tellsthe truth. I am againstthe truth,passion-ately againstthe truth.For me there is onelaw that takes precedenceover all othersand that is the law of love and charity."Since traditionalmoralitymade it manda-tory to inform the dying of their state,Janke1evitch'saw presumably as beenuni-versally violated until recent times. Suchan attitude s the measure of an extraordi-nary reversal in sentiment and thought.What has happened?How has this changecome about?Wemightsuppose hat modernsocieties are so fixed upon the goals ofaffluenceand materialwell-being, hat thereis no place in them for suffering, orrow,ordeath. But this would be to mistake theeffect for the cause.This changein attitudetowardthe dyingis linked to the changingrole of the familyin modern society and its quasi-monopolyover our emotional ives. We mustseek thecause of modern attitudestowarddeath inthe relationship etween he sickpersonandhis family. The latter does not considerit

dignifiedor a markof self-esteem o speakfranklyaboutthe imminenceof death.Howoften havewe heardit saidof a loved one:"I at least have the satisfactionof knowingthat he diedwithoutbeingawareof it." The"withoutbeing aware of it" has replacedthe "being aware of one's approachingdeath" of other times, when every effortwas madeto make the dyingawareof whatwas happening.In fact, it may be that the dying fre-quently know perfectlywell what is hap-pening,but remainsilent to sparethe feel-ings of those close to them. (Of course,thedead do not share these secrets.) In anycase, the modernfamilyhas abdicatedtherole playedby the nuntiusmortis,who fromthe MiddleAges until the dawn of moderntimes was not a memberof the immediatefamily.As a result,the dyinghave also ab-dicatedtheir role. Why?Becausethey feardeath? Hardly. Fear of death has alwaysexisted, and was always countered,oftenwithhumor.Despitea natural earof death,society obligatedthe dying to play out thefinal scene of farewell and departure.Thefear of death,it is said, is ancestral,but soare the waysof overcomingt. No, the fearof death does not accountfor the modernpracticeof denyingone's own death.Again,we must turn to the historyof the familyfor anexplanation.In the late Middle Ages (the age ofRoland which lives on in the peasantsofTolstoi) and the Renaissance,a man in-sisted upon participatingn his own deathbecausehe sawin it an exceptionalmoment-a momentwhichgavehis individualitytsdefinitive orm. He was only the master ofhis life to the extent thathe was the masterof his death.His deathbelonged o him,andto him alone.Fromthe seventeenth enturyonward,one began to abdicatesole sover-eigntyoverlife, as well as over death.Thesematterscame to be sharedwith the familywhich had previouslybeen excluded fromthe seriousdecisions;all decisionshad beenmade by the dying person,alone and withfull knowledgeof his impendingdeath.Last wills and testamentsprovide evi-dence of this. From the fourteenthto thebeginningof the eighteenthcentury, theywere a spontaneous nd individualmeansofexpression,as well as, a sign of distrust-or, at least, the absence of trust-toward

IVladimir Jankelvitch, Mddecine de France[177] (1966) 3-16; reprinted in La mort (Paris:Flammarion, 1966).


5/17

6 HASTINGSCENTER STUDIESthefamily.Todaythe lastwill andtestamenthas lost its characterof moral necessity;nor, is it any longera means of warmandpersonal expression. Since the eighteenthcentury, family affectionshave triumphedover the testator's raditionaldistrustof hisheirs. This distrusthas been replacedby atrust so absolute that written wills are nolonger necessary.Oral wills have recentlybecome bindingfor the survivors and arenow scrupulously espected.For their part,the dying confidentlyrely on the family'sword. This trustingattitude,whichemergedin the seventeenthand eighteenth enturies,and developedin the nineteenth,has be-come, in the twentieth,a prime source ofalientation.No sooner does a memberofthe familyfall mortallyll thantherestcon-spire to conceal his conditionfrom him,deprivinghim of information, s well as hisfreedom. The dying person becomes, ineffect, a minor like a child or mentalde-fective. His relativestake complete chargeof himandshieldhimfrom theworld.Theysupposedlyknow better than he what hemust do, and how much he should know.He is deprivedof his rights,particularlyheformerlysacredrightof knowingabout hisdeath,of preparingor it, andorganizingt.Now he allows this to be done for himbecause he is convincedthat it is for hisown good. He gives himself over to theaffectionof his family.And if, despiteall,he divineshis condition,he pretendsnot toknow.In formertimes,death was a tragedy-often lightenedby a comicalelement-inwhichone playedthe role of the dying per-son. Today, death is a comedy-althoughnot without its tragic elements-in whichone playsthe role of the "onewho does notknow" he is going to die.Of itself, the pressureof familysentimentprobablywould not havechanged he mean-ing of death so drastically,had it not beenfor theprogressof medicalscience. It is notso much that medicine has conquereddis-ease, however real its achievementsn thisrealm, but that it has succeeded in substi-tuting sickness for death in the conscious-ness of the afflicted man. This substitutionbegan to take place in the second half of thenineteenth century. When a sick peasant inTolstoi's Three Deaths (1859) is asked howhe is, he answers, "death is at hand." Onthe contrary, in The Death of Ivan Ilych

(1886), after overhearinga conversationthat leaves no doubt in Ivan'smind abouthis condition,he obstinatelybelieves thathis floatingkidney and infected appendixwill be cured by drugsor surgery.His ill-ness becomes an occasionfor self-delusion.His wife supports his illusion,blaminghisillness on his refusal to obey the doctor'sorders to take his medicineregularly.Of course, it is true, with advancesinmedical science, serious illness terminatesless frequentlyn death. And chancesof re-covery are greatly improved. Even whenrecoveryis partial,one can still count onmany years of life. Thus, in our society(wherewe so often act as thoughmedicinehad all the answers,or look upon deathassomething hathappens o others,butneverto oneself) incurabledisease,and especiallycancer,has takenon, in the popular magi-nation,all the frightening ndhideoustraitsdepicted n ancientrepresentationsf death.Even more than the skeletonsor macabremummies of the fourteenthand fifteenthcenturies,cancer is today the very imageof death. Disease must be incurable,andregardedas such, beforewe can admit therealityof death and give it its true name.But the anguishcausedby this kind of hon-esty is so greatthat it constrains ocietytohastily multiply hosemanyinducements osilencethatreducea momentof highdramato thebanalityof a Sundayafternoonpicnic.As a consequencewe die in virtualse-crecy, far more alone than Pascal couldhave imagined. This secretivenesscomesfrom a refusal to openly admit the deathof those we love and a proclivity o softenits realityby calling t a diseasethatmaybecured.There is anotheraspectto thisprob-lem that Americansociologistshave noted.In whatone mightbe tempted o regardasnothing more than illusory conduct, theyhave shownthe de facto presenceof a newstyle of death, in which discretionis themodernform of dignity.With less poetry,this is the kind of death approvedof byJankdlvitch in which the hard reality iscoated over with soothing words of decep-tion.

A New Model of DeathIn their Awareness of Dying Glaser andStrauss report on their study of six hospitals


6/17

DEATH INSIDE OUT 7in the San FranciscoBay area.2They re-corded the reactionsto death of an inter-relatedgroupthat includedthe patient,hisfamily,and the medicalpersonnel(doctorsandnurses).Whathappenswhenit becomesclear that the patientis near death?Shouldthe familybe told?The patient?And when?How long should a life be artificiallymain-tained?At what momentshouldthe patientbe allowedto die?How shoulddoctorsandnursesact in the presenceof a patientwhodoes not know, or at least appearsnot toknow, that he is dying?Or one that doesknow? Every modern family is certainlyconfrontedby such questions,but in a hos-pital context an importantnew factor ispresent: the power of modern medicine.Today, few people die at home. The hos-pital has become the place where modernman dies, and this fact lends added im-portanceto the Glaser and Straussstudy.But the interestof theirbook goes beyondits empiricalanalysis.The authors have infact uncoveredan ideal of death that hasreplaced ts traditionalpublic character,asmanifested for example in the theatricalpompof the Romanticera. We now have anew "styleof dying"or rather"an accept-able style of living while dying,""an ac-ceptable style of facing death." Theemphasisis on acceptable.What is impor-tant is that one die in a manner that canbe acceptedand toleratedby the survivors.Doctors and nurses (althoughthe latterless so) wait as long as possible beforetelling the family, and scarcely ever tellthe patient himself, because they fear be-coming involved in a chain of emotionalreactionsthat would make them lose self-control. To talk about death, and thusadmit it as a normaldimensionof socialintercourse,s no longersociallyacceptable;on the contrary, t is now somethingexcep-tional, excessive, and always dramatic.Death was once a familiarfigureand themoralistshad to makeit hideous n order toinspire fear. Today, mere mention of theword provokes an emotional tension thatjars the routine of daily life. An "accept-able style of dying" is, therefore, a stylewhich avoids "status forcing scenes," sceneswhich tear one from one's social role andoffend our sensibility. Such scenes are the

crises of despairthe sick go through, heirtears, their cries and, in general, any ex-ceptional emotive or noisy outburst thatwould interferewith hospital routine andtroubleothers.This is an exampleof whatGlaser and Strauss call, "embarrassinglygraceless dying," the very opposite of an"acceptablestyle of dying."Such a deathwould embarrasshe survivors.This is whatmust be avoided at all costs and this is thereasonwhy the patientis kept uninformed.What basicallymatters is not whetherthepatientknows or does not know; rather, fhe does know he must have the considera-tion and courage to be discreet. He mustconduct himself in such a way that thehospitalstaffis not remindedhathe knowsand can communicatewith him as thoughdeath were not in their midst. For com-munication s necessary.It is not enoughfor the dyingto be discreet; hey must alsobe open and receptiveto messages.Theirindifferencen this mattershould be as em-barrassing o the medicalpersonnelas anexcessive display of emotion. Thus, thereare two ways of dying badly: one can beeither too emotional or too indifferent.The authors itethecaseof anold womanwho was at first well behaved, in accordwithacceptable onventions;he cooperatedwith the doctors and nurses and bore herillness courageously.One day she decidedthatshe hadstruggled nough,thatthe timehadcome to give up. Whereuponhe closedhereyes, neverto open themagain,signify-ing in thiswaythat shehad withdrawn romtheworldandwished o awaither end alone.In former times, this withdrawalwouldhave been respectedand acceptedas nor-mal. But in a Californiahospital it dis-concertedthe medical staff so much thatthey flew in one of her sons from anothercity to persuadeher to open her eyes onthe groundsthat she was "hurtingevery-body."Sometimespatientsturnto the walland refuseto move. We recognize n suchacts one of the oldest gesturesof man inthe face of death. In this way did the Jewsof the Old Testament die. So died Tristanwho turned toward the wall and exclaimedthat he could no longer keep a hold on life.But in such ancestral reactions the Cali-fornia doctors and nurses saw only an anti-social refusal to communicate, a culpablerenunciation of the will to live.2B. G. Glaser and A. L Strauss,Awareness ofDying (Chicago: Aldine, 1965).


7/17

8 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIESLet us note that patientsare not blamedin such cases merelybecausethey have de-moralizedthe medical staff, or because offailure to perform heirdutybut moreseri-

ously because they are considered o havelessenedthe capacityto resist the sicknessitself-an eventuality hatbecomes as fear-some as a "statusforcing scene." That iswhy Americanand Englishdoctors are to-day less inclined to keep patients in thedark about their condition.But we mustnot exaggeratehe significance f suchsigns.They may indicateno more thanthe prag-matichopethatthepatientwill respondbet-ter to treatment f he knows his conditionand will, in the end, die as discreetlyandwithas muchdignityas if he knewnothing.In Reflectionson America,JacquesMari-tain describesthe good American'sdeath:The medical staff inducesin him a kind ofdream-like tate in which he thinks that todie amidst hesesmiling aces andtheseuni-forms,white and immaculate ike the wingsof angels,is a genuinepleasure,or at leasta momentof no consequence-"Relax,takeit easy, it's nothing."3Take away the pro-fessionalsmile and add a little music, andyou have the contemporaryphilosopher'sidealof thedignified,humanistic eath: "Todisappearpianissimoand, so to speak, ontiptoe"(Jankelvitch).

II. The Denial of MourningWe now see how modernsocietydeprivesman of his death. Whateverdignityremains

must be purchased at the price of nottroublingthe living. Reciprocally,modernsociety forbidsthe livingfrom showingtoomuchemotionoverthedeathof a lovedone;they are permittedneitherto weep for thedepartednor to appear o mourntheirpass-ing.In times past mourningwas the ultimateexpressionof sorrow.It was bothlegitimateand necessary.Grief over the death of aclose one was considered he strongestandmost spontaneousexpression of emotion.Duringthe MiddleAges, the most hardenedwarriors ndthe mostrenownedkingsbrokeinto tears over the bodies of friends andrelatives.Theywept,as we wouldsay today,

like hystericalwomen. King Arthur is agood example.He often fainted,struckhisbreast,and tore at his skin until the bloodflowed. On the battlefield,he fell to theground n a swoon beforehis nephew'sbodyand then set out in tears to find the bodiesof his friends. Upon discoveringone ofthem, he claspedhis hands and cried outthat he had lived long enough.He removedthe helmetfrom the dead man'sbody and,aftergazinguponhimfor a longtime,kissedhis eyes and mouth. We find many in-stances, in those times, of the most ex-traordinary nd uninhibited motionalout-bursts.But, with the exceptionof thosefewwhose sorrowwas so greatthattheyhad toretire to a monastery,the survivorssoonresumednormal ife.From the thirteenthcenturyon, we no-tice that expressionsof mourningbegin tolose theirspontaneity ndbecome moreandmoreritualized.The grandgesticulations fthe earlyMiddleAges are nowsimulatedbyprofessionalmourners(who can be foundin some partsof Europeeven today). TheSpanishhero, El Cid, requested n his willthat therebe no flowersor mournersat hisfuneral, as had been the custom. Theiconographyof fourteenth and fifteenth-centurytombs depict mournersaroundthebodyof thedeceased,clothed n blackrobeswith their heads buried in penitent-likecowls. We learn from sixteenth and seven-teenth-century ocumentsthat funeralpro-cessionswerecomposed argelyof substitutemourners:mendicantmonks,the poor, andorphans, all clothed for the occasion inblack robesfurnishedby thedeceased.Afterthe ceremony,each received a portion ofbread and a littlemoney.Apparentlyclose relativesdid not attendthe funeralservices.Friendswereofferedabanquet-banquets so excessively festivethat the Churchtried to suppress he prac-tice. Last wills refer to such festivities essandless, or mention hemonlyin censoriouslanguage. We notice that the dying fre-quently requested and sometimes insistedupon the presence of a brother or a son inthe funeral procession. Often this was achild, who was offered a special legacy forhis much desired presence. Would this havebeen the case had the family attendedfunerals as a matter of course? Under theold regime we know that women did not3Jacques Maritain, Reflections on America(New York: Scribner's, 1958).


8/17

DEATH INSIDE OUT 9attendfunerals.It is probable hat fromtheend of the MiddleAges with the increasingritualizationof mourningrites, society im-posed a period of seclusionupon the im-mediatemembersof the family,a seclusionwhichwould have excluded them from theobsequies.Theywererepresented y priestsand professionalmourners,religious,mem-bers of pious organizations, r simplythosewho were attractedby the alms distributedon such occasions.Theperiodof seclusionhadtwopurposes.First of all, it gave the bereaved someprivacy n whichto mourn heirloved ones.Protected rom the gaze of the world, theywaited for their sorrow to pass as a sickpersonwaits for his illness to abate. One,Henri de Campion,makes mentionof thisin his Memoires. In June, 1659, his wifedied in childbirthandthe child,a daughter,died shortlyafterwards.He wrote:

I was heartbrokennd fell into a pitifulstate.Mybrother ndmysister ookme toConcheswhereI remainedeventeendaysand thenreturnedo Baxfereio putmyaf-fairs n order.Not beingableto inhabitmyhousebecause t remindedme too muchofmy belovedwife, I boughta propertynConchesand lived there until June, 1660(whichis to say untilthe firstanniversaryof my wife'sdeath) at which time I per-ceived hatmysorrowhad followedme.SoI returned o my formerhomein Baxfereiwithmychildren,where ampresentlyiv-ingingreat adness.Second,the periodof seclusionpreventedthe survivorsfrom forgettingthe deceasedtoo soon. It was in fact a time of penanceduringwhich they were not permittedtheactivitiesand pleasuresof normal ife. Thisprecautionwas not unhelpful n preventinga hasty replacementof the dead person.Nicolas Versoris,a Parisianmerchant, osthis wife to theplagueon September , 1522,one hour after midnight.On December30of thatsameyear,he was engaged o a doc-tor's widow, whom he marriedas soon ashe could, which is to say on January13,1523, "the firstfestivedayafterChristmas."This customcontinued hrough he nine-teenth century. When someone died theimmediatefamily, servants,and often thedomestic animals as well, were separatedfrom the rest of society by drawncurtains

and black mourning crepe. By this time,however,the periodof seclusionwas morevoluntary hanobligatory: t no longer pro-hibitedclose relativesfrom participatingnthe funeral ervice,pilgrimageso the grave-side, or the elaboratememorialcults thatcharacterizedhe RomanticAge. Nor werewomen any longer excluded from the ob-sequies.In this regard, he bourgeoisiewerethe first to break with tradition,followedsome time later by the nobility, amongwhomit had been consideredgoodtastefora widownot to attendherhusband'suneral.At firstthe nobilitycededto the newprac-ticesdiscreetly,usuallyhidden n somedarkcorner of the church with ecclesiasticalap-proval.Littleby littlethe traditional ustomof seclusiongave way to the new practiceof honoringthe dead and venerating heirtombs.Women'spresenceat funerals,how-ever, did nothingto radicallychange theprivate character of mourning: entirelyclothed in black, the mater dolorosa, sheis hiddenfrom the world'ssight except assymbolof sorrowand desolation.Nonethe-less, mourningwas now more moral thanphysicalin nature. It was less a protectionof the dead from oblivionthan an affirma-tion that the living must rememberthem,that they could not go on living as before.The dead no longerneededsociety to pro-tect themfromtheindifference f theircloserelatives;nordid the dying any longerneedwrittentestaments to make their last willknown o theirheirs.The new family sentiment of the lateeighteenth and early nineteenthcenturiesthus combinedwith the ancienttraditionofseclusionto transformhe mourningperiodfrom an imposedquarantinento a righttoexpress,with all due propriety,deeplyfeltsorrow.This markeda returnto the spon-taneity of the high Middle Ages whileconserving he formalritualsthathad beenintroduced round he twelfthcentury. f wewere to tracethe historicalcurveof mourn-ing it would look like this: until the thir-tenth century, a time of uninhibited andeven violent spontaneity, ollowed throughthe seventeenth enturyby a long periodofritualization,which gave way in the nine-teenth to an age when sorrow was givenfull anddramatic xpression. t is likelythatthe paroxysmof mourningn the nineteenthcenturystands in some direct relationship


9/17

10 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIESto its attenuationn the twentieth entury nsomewhat he samewayas the "dirtydeath"of Remarque,Sartre,and Genetin the post-warperiodemergedas the other side of the"noble death"celebratedby Romanticism.Thus, the significanceof Sartre'sgesture,more laughable han scandalous,of urinat-ing on Chateaubriand's omb. It took aChateaubriando produce such a Sartre.It is a relationshipof the sort that linkscontemporaryroticismto Victoriansexualtaboos.

MourningBecomesForbiddenSome form of mourning,whetherspon-taneousor obligatory,has alwaysbeenman-datory in human society. Only in thetwentieth enturyhas it beenforbidden.Thesituation was reversedin a single genera-tion: what was alwayscommandedby in-dividualconscience,or the generalwill, isnow rejected. And what was, in formertimes, rejectedis now recommended. t isno longer fittingto manifest one's sorrowor even give evidenceof experiencingany.Credit for uncovering his unwritten awof our civilizationgoes to the Britishsoci-ologist,GeoffreyGorer.He was the firsttounderstand hat certainfacts, neglectedorpoorlyunderstoodby the humanisticmoral-ists, did, indeed, constitute a characteristicattitude owarddeathin industrial ocieties.In an autobiographicalntroduction o hisDeath,Griefand Mourning,Gorer recountssome personalexperienceswhich led him

to the discoverythat deathis the principaltabooof our time.4The sociological nquiryhe undertook n 1963 on attitudes towarddeath andmourningn Englandmerelycon-firmed,detailed,and enriched deas he hadalreadypublished n his "ThePornographyof Death,"a remarkable rticlebaseduponhis personalexperiencesand reflection.5Gorerwas born in 1910. He recalls thatthe whole family mourned the death ofEdward VII. He learned, as do Frenchchildren,to take off his hat when a funeralprocessionpassedin the street and to treatthose in mourningwith special respect--practiceswhichseem strangeto the British

today. In 1915, his fatherwas lost in thesinkingof the Lusitania,and Gorerwas, inhis turn, given special attention. "I wastreatedwithgreatkindness, ike an invalid;no demandswere made on me, I was in-dulged, conversationwas hushed in mypresence."One day duringa walk, he at-temptedto conveyhis desolationby tellinghis Nanny that he would never be able"to enjoy flowers again," whereuponshereprimandedhim and told him not to bemorbid.Because of the war his motherwas al-lowed to take a job where she founddiver-sion from her sorrow.She would not havehad such a recourse at any earlier date;but at a later date she would not have hadthe support of the mourningritual. ThusGorerexperiencedn his childhood he tra-ditional manifestationsof mourning andthey must have made a strong impressionon himfor theyremainedvivid in his mem-ory many years later. Duringhis youth inthe postwarperiod,he had no further ex-perienceof death. Once he saw a cadaverin a Russian hospitalhe visited in 1931;unaccustomed o the sight of death, thischance viewing seems to have capturedhis imagination.Gorer'scase was not un-usual.Unfamiliaritywith death is commontoday-the long, unnoticedconsequenceofgreater longevity.J. Fourcassi6has shownhow it is possible for today's childrentogrowto adulthoodwithoutever seeingany-one die. Gorer was, however, surprisedwhenhis inquiryrevealed hat morepeoplehad witnesseddeath than he would havesuspected.But he also observedthat theyquite spontaneouslyadoptedthe same be-havior patterns as those who had neverseen a death,andforgotit with all possiblehaste.Gorer was later surprised when hisbrother,a well-knownphysician, ell into astate of depressionafter his wife's death.Intellectuals n Englandhad alreadybegunto abandon he traditionaluneralrites andexternal manifestations of sorrow as so manyprimitive and superstitious practices. ButGorer did not at the time see any connec-tion between his brother's pathological de-spair and the absence of mourning rituals.The situation was different in 1948 when helost a close friend who left a wife and threechildren. Gorer wrote:

4Geoffrey Gorer, Death, Grief and Mourning(New York: Doubleday, 1965).51bid., pp. 192-99. See Gorer, for this articleand subsequentquotes.


10/17

DEATH INSIDE OUT 11When I went to see her some two monthsafter John's death, she told me, with tearsof gratitude, hat I was the first man to stayin the house since she had become a widow.She was being given some good professionalhelp from lawyers and the like who werealso friends; but socially she had been al-most completely abandoned to loneliness,althoughthe town was full of acquaintanceswho considered themselvesfriends.

Gorer then strongly suspected that thechanges that had taken place in mourningcustoms were neither anecdotal or insignifi-cant. He was discovering the importanceand serious consequences of these changes,and a few years later, in 1955, he publishedhis famous article.Decisive proof came in 1961 when hisbrother, who had remarried, was diagnosedas suffering from incurable cancer. Hisbrother's doctor, a friend since they werein medical school together, "asked me todecide whether his wife, Elizabeth, shouldbe informed; he had already decided tohide the truth from Peter; and he and hiscolleagues engaged in the most elaborateand successful medical mystification to hidefrom Peter's expert knowledge the facts oftheir diagnosis." He consulted an old andrespected friend about his dilemma and wasadvised that Elizabeth should be told. "Oneof the arguments he advanced was that, ifshe were ignorant, she might show impa-tience or lack of understanding with hisprobably increasing weakness, for whichshe would reproach herself later; she coulduse the final months of their marriagebetterif she knew them for what they were." Theprognosis was for a lingering illness butmuch to everyone's surprise Peter died sud-denly in his sleep. Everyone concerned con-gratulated themselves that he had diedwithout knowing it, an eventuality widelyregarded as a desirable one in our culture.In this family of intellectuals, there wouldbe no funeral vigil and no exposure of thebody. Since his death took place at home,the body would have to be prepared. Gorerevokes what took place in colorful lan-guage:

It was arrangedfor a pair of ex-nurses tocome to lay out the body. They imparteda somewhatDickensiantone; they were fatand jolly and asked in a respectful but

cheerfulone,"Wheres thepatient?"omehalf hourlater their workwas done,andthey came out saying,"Thepatient ookslovely now. Come and have a look " I didnot wish to, at whichtheyexpressedur-prise. I gave them a pound for their pains;the leader,pureSarahGamp,said,"Thatfor us duck? Cheers "and went throughthe motions of raisinga bottle andemptyingit intohermouth.No mentionwas madethroughall of thisof eitherdeathor the corpse.Peter was stillregardedas a "patient" despite the bio-logicaltransformationhat had takenplace.Preparing he body for burialis an ancientrite. But its meaninghas changed.It for-merlyhad as its object to make the bodyreflect the ideal image of death prevalentin society; the intention was to create asense of dependency,to present the bodyin a helpless state, with crossed hands,awaitingthe life to come. The RomanticAge discovered the original beauty thatdeathimparts o the human face and theselast ablutionswere designedto rescue this

beautyfromthe pain thathad generatedt.In both cases, the intention was to createan image of death: to presenta beautifulcorpsebut a corpsenonetheless.Today weno longerhave a corpsebut somethingal-most alive. "Thepatient ooks lovely now."Our fairy's touch has given it the ap-pearanceof life. All signsof painhave beenerased,not in order to capturethe hieraticbeautyof the dead or the majestyof thosein repose,but to presenta cadaver hat re-tainsthe charmsof something iving,some-thing "lovely"and not at all repulsive.Thepreparationof the body is today intendedto mask the realityof death and give thepleasing llusionof life. We must rememberthat in Gorer'sEnglandthis practicewasjustemerging,which s whythefamilycouldnot share the old nurses' enthusiasm fortheir handiwork.In the United States, onthe otherhand,embalmings a fine artandcorpsesare exhibited n funeralhomes withgreat pride.

The Meaning of CremationGorer's family was deluded by neitherthe beliefs of another age nor the flashytalents of American morticians. Peter's bodywas to be cremated, and cremation in Eng-


11/17

12 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIESland (and no doubt in NorthernEuropegenerally) has a special meaning whichGorer'sstudy clearlybroughtout. Crema-tion is no longer chosen, as was long thecase, in defianceof the Church and tradi-ditionalChristian ustoms.Nor is it chosensolely for reasonsof convenienceor econ-omy, reasonswhich the Churchwould bedisposedto respect in memoryof a timewhenashes, ikethoseof Antigone'sbrother,were as venerableas a body that was bur-ied. The significance f cremationn modernEnglandcuts deeper; t reflectsthe rationalspirit of moderntimes and is nothinglessthan a denial of life after death, althoughthis was not immediately pparent rom theresultsof Gorer's nquiry.Of sixty-fourper-sons interviewed,forty favored cremationover burialand they offeredtwo basic rea-sons for this preference.It was first of allconsidered he most efficientmeans of dis-posing of the body. Thus one of the re-spondents n the studyhad her mothercre-matedbecause t was "healthier" ut stated,"I thinkfor my husband,who was buried,cremationwould have been too final."The second reason is connectedto thefirst:cremationmakescemeteryrituals andperiodic visitationto the gravesideunnec-essary. But it should be noted that suchpracticesare not necessarilyeliminatedbycremation.On the contrary he administra-tors of crematoriums o everythingn theirpower to enable families to venerate theirdeadjust as they do in the traditional em-eteries. In the memorialrooms of crema-toriums one can have a plaque installedwhichperformsa functionanalogous o thatof the tombstone.But of the forty personsinterviewedby Gorer,only one had optedfor such a plaqueand only fourteenwrotetheirnamesin the memorialbook which isopenedeach day to commemoratehe dayof the death.Thismaybe seen as a kindofintermediary solution between completeoblivion and the permanencyof the en-graved plaque. If families choose not toadopt commemorative practices availableto them it is because they see in cremationa sure means of avoiding any form of cultichomage to the dead.It would be a serious mistake to see inthis refusal to commemorate the dead a signof indifference or insensitivity. The resultsof Gorer's study and his autobiographical

testimony s evidence to the contrarythatthe survivorsare andremaindeeplyaffectedby a deathin the family.For furtherproofof this let us turn to Gorer'saccount of hisbrother'scremation.Elizabeth,the widow,decidednot to come to the cremation er-self-she could not bear the thought hatshemight ose controlandotherpeopleob-servehergrief;andshewished o spare hechildrenthe distressing xperience.As aconsequence,heir father'sdeathwas quiteunmarkedor themby ritualof anykind,and was nearlyeven treatedas a secret,for it was severalmonthsbeforeElizabethcould bear to mentionhim or have himmentioned n her presence.Notice that her absencewas not due to anyof the traditional easonsor to indifferencebut to a fear of "losingcontrol."This hasbecomea new form of modesty,a conven-tionwhichrequiresus to hide whatwe wereformerlyobligedto manifest,even if it hadto be simulated:one's sorrow.Notice, too, that children are also af-fected by this modern mandate.Even inFrance,wheretraditional racticesare morein evidence,middle-class hildrenrarelyat-tend the funeralsof theirgrandparents.Oldpeople who are severaltimes grandparentsare buriedby adultswho are more rushedand embarrassedthan grieved, with nograndchildrenpresent. I was especiallystruckby this when in the course of myresearchI came across a numberof docu-ments datingfrom the seventeenthcenturyin which the testator insisted that at leastone of his grandchildren e in his funeralprocession,althoughhe may have been in-different o the presenceof other relatives.At that time, we might recall, mournerswereoftenrecruitedamongorphans.In nu-merous representationsof the dying, thepainteror engraveralwaysincludeda childamong those gatheredabout the deathbed.So Elizabethand her childrenstayedintheircountryhome on the day of her hus-band's cremation. Geoffrey joined them thatevening, overcome with grief and fatigue.His sister-in-law welcomed him in her usualself-assured manner. She told him that shehad passed a pleasant day with the children."They had taken a picnic to the fields wherethe grass was being cut for silage." Eliza-beth, who was born in New England, quite


12/17

DEATHNSIDEOUT 13naturallyadoptedthe conductshe had beentaught in America and which the Englishexpectedof her: she actedas if nothinghadhappenedand so made it easierfor othersto do the same and thus permitsocial lifeto continue without even momentary nter-ruption by death. Had she riskeda publicdemonstration f her sorrow,societywouldhave censoredher like a fallenwoman. Shewas, moreover,avoidedby her and Peter'sfriends.They treatedher, she said, "like aleper."Onlyif she actedas thoughnothingof consequencehadhappenedwas she againsociallyacceptable.Gorer observesthat "atthe periodwhen she most neededhelp andcomfort from society she was left alone."It was in the months ollowingPeter'sdeaththat he decidedto undertakea studyof themodernrefusalto mournand its traumatiz-ing effects.

FromtheCabbagePatchto theFlower GardenGorer argues that this state of affairs

beganwiththe decline of social support orfunerealritualsand the specialstatusof themourningperiod. He perhapsaccords toomuch importanceto the two World Warsas catalystsin this evolution.New conven-tions made their appearancegradually,al-most imperceptiblyn such a way thattheiroriginalitywent unnoticed.Even today theyare not formalized n the mannerof tradi-tionalcustoms.Yet theyarejustas powerfulan influenceon behavior. Death has be-come a taboo,an unmentionableubject(asJank61evitchays over and over again inhis book on death), somethingexcludedfrompolite conversation.Gorer mounts m-pressiveevidence to show thatin the twen-tieth centurydeath has taken the place ofsex as the principaltaboo. He writes thatin ourtime,

there has been an unremarked shift inprudery; whereas copulation has becomemore and more "mentionable"...death hasbecome more and more "unmentionable"as a natural process .... The natural pro-cesses of corruption and decay have be-come disgusting,as disgustingas the naturalprocesses of birth and copulation were acenturyago; preoccupationaboutsuch pro-cesses is (or was) morbid and unhealthy,to be discouraged n all and punished n the

young. Our great-grandparentswere toldthat babieswere found undergooseberrybushesor cabbages;urchildren relikelyto be told that those who havepassedon(fie on the gross Anglo-Saxon monosyl-lable) are changed nto flowers,or lie atrest in lovely gardens.The ugly facts arerelentlessly idden;he artof the embalm-ers is an art of complete denial.Children used to be told that a storkbroughtthem but they could be presentatdeathbeds and attend funerals Sometimeafter the middle of the nineteenthcentury,theirpresencecaused a kind of malaiseandthere was a tendencyto at least limit theirparticipationwhen in fact it was not pro-hibitedaltogether.Childrenwere presentatthe deathsof EmmaBovaryandIvan Ilychbut they were permittedonly a brief visitand then escorted from the room on thepretextthat the agoniesof the dyingwouldbe too much for them to bear. Althoughtheirpresenceat the deathbedwas graduallyprohibited,they were allowed their tradi-tionalplace at the obsequies,clothed from

head to foot in black.Today children are initiated at an earlyage into the physiologyof love and birth,but when they expresscuriosityaboutwhythey no longer see their grandparentsheyare told (at least in France) that theyhavegone on a long trip or (in England) thatthey are restingamongthe flowers.It is nolongera case of babiesbeing found underthe cabbagesbut of grandparentswho dis-appearamongthe flowers Relativesof thedeceasedare thus forced to feign indiffer-ence. Society demands of them a form ofself-control imilarto thatdemandedof thedying themselves. For the one as for theother,whatis importants to showno signof emotion.Societyas a wholebehaves ikea hospitalstaff.Just as the dyingmust con-trol their feelings and cooperatewith thedoctors and nurses, so must the bereavedhide their sorrow,rejectthe traditionalpe-riodof seclusion(becausethiswouldbetraytheir feelings), and carry on their normalactivities without so much as missing astep. Otherwise, they would be ostracizedby society, a form of seclusion that wouldhave consequences quite different from thetraditional mourning period. The latter wasaccepted by all as a necessary transitionperiod and carried with it forms of be-


13/17

14 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIEShaviorthat were equallyritualistic uch asobligatoryvisits of condolence, letters ofsympathy, and the succors of religion.Today the bereavedare treated ike sexualdeviants, hose afflictedwithcontagiousdis-eases, or other asocial types. Whoeverwishes to spare himself this stigma musthide his true feelings in public and revealthem only to his closest friends.As Gorerputs it, one weeps in private just as weundressand go to sleep in private,"as if itwere an analogueof masturbation."Society today refuses to recognize thatthe bereavedare sickpeoplewho needhelp.It refuses o associatemourningwithillness.The traditionalcustom was in this respectmore comprehensive,perhapsmore "mod-ern,"more sensitiveto the pathologicalef-fects of repressedmoral suffering.Gorerconsiders it a mark of cruelty to depriveanyoneof the beneficence uaranteed y theancient custom. In their mourning,Gorernotes,thosestrickenby the deathof a lovedone need society'shelp more than at anyother time, but it is preciselythen that so-cietywithdraws ts assistanceand refusestohelp. The price of this failureis very greatin misery, oneliness,despair,andmorbidity.This prohibition of a decent period ofmourning orces the bereavedto buryhim-self in work;or to push himselfto the verylimits of sanity by pretending hat the de-ceased is still living, that he never wentaway; or, what is worse, to imagine thathe himself is the deadperson,imitatinghisgestures,his voice, his idiosyncrasies,andsometimessimulating he symptomsof thesicknessthatcarriedhim off. This is clearlyneuroticbehavior.We see in such behaviorinstancesof those strangemanifestations fexaggeratedgrief which seem new andmodernto Gorer but are nonetheless amil-iar to the historianof customs.They oncefound an outlet in ritualswhich were ac-knowledged, recommended, and, indeed,even simulatedduring he prescribedperiodof mourning n traditional ocieties.But itmust be admitted that only the appearancesare the same. In former times such ritualshad the purpose of liberating. Even when, asoften happened in the Romantic Age, theyexceeded the limits of custom and becamepathological, they were not repressed assomething monstrous but were patientlytolerated. This tolerance appears in a strik-

ing mannerin a novel by Mark Twain inwhicha woman refusesto acceptthe deathof her husbandand each year lives out hisimpossiblereturn.Her friendsconspiretosupport hisillusion.Todaywe can't magineanyone participatingn such a dark com-edy. Twain's charactersacted out of kind-ness and generositybut their action wouldbe viewed by today's society as somethingembarrassingand shamefullymorbid, in-deed, a sign of mentalillness.We thus askourselves, with Gorer, whether or not alarge partof contemporaryocialpathologydoes not originaten our refusal o confrontthe realityof death-in society'sdenial ofmourningand the right to weep for thedead.

III. New FuneralRites in theUnited StatesBasedon theforegoinganalysis,we mightbe tempted o conclude hat oursuppressionof the realityof death is part of the verystructureof contemporary ivilization.The

eliminationof deathfrom conversationandfrom the communicationsmediagoes hand-in-handwith the priorityof material well-being as the principal trait of industrialsocieties. This is especially the case inNorthernEurope and America, the maingeographicalareas of modernity,althoughthere are exceptionswhere older thought-patternsstill prevail.I am thinkingof somesectors of Catholic France and Italy, ofPresbyterianScotland, and of the lowerclasses even in countries that are indus-triallyadvanced.Modernitydependson so-cial conditions as much as geographyandeven in the most progressivecountries islimited to the educated classes, whetherbelievers or sceptics.Wheremodernityhasnot penetratedwe find that eighteenthandnineteenth century Romantic attitudestowarddeath still prevail,such as the cultof the dead and veneration n cemeteries.We should not be misled by the survivalof such attitudes, however; while they char-acterize large numbers of people, they areseriously threatened today. They aredoomed to inevitable decline, along withthe earlier, less developed mentalities withwhich they are linked. They are also jeop-ardized by a model of future society whichwould continue the process of emptying


14/17

DEATHINSIDE OUT 15deathof all existentialmeaning, modelthatalreadydominatesmiddle-classamilies,whether liberal or conservative.We neednot be entirelypessimisticaboutthis evolu-tion because it is probablethat the denialof death s so boundup with industrial ivil-izationthat the one will disappearwiththe other.Nor is the denialof deathuni-versallyhecase,as wepointed ut,becauseit is not found n manysectorsof society.I am notthinkingowof backwardartsofOld Europebut of that strongholdofmodernity,he UnitedStates.Americahasbeen he firstamongmodern ocietieso at-tenuate hetragic enseof death.Therewecan observe firsthand he new attitudestowarddeath.Someof theseweresatirizedin TheLovedOne,Waugh's ovel,writtenin 1948.6In 1951, RogerCaillois aw intheman exampleof hedonistic leightofhand:

Deathcanbe facedwithoutear,not be-causeof somemoralability o transcendthe fear it provokes,utbecauset is in-evitable ndbecausen fact there s noreasonto dreadit. Whatwe must do issimply not think or talk about it.7Everything e havesaidaboutdeath nthe preceding ages-the alienation f thedyingperson,hedenial f mourning,tc.-holds rue orAmericawiththe oneexcep-tionofburial ractices. heAmericansavenot simplifieduneral ites as muchas theEnglish.To understandhis singularity emustcontinueour earlieraccountof howmodemmandies,with heemphasisowonthe time betweendeathand burial.Thetimebeforedeathandafterburial, ogetherwith the peculiarmourning ites modernmanaffects,s no differentn Americahanin anyothermodernociety.Thedifferencecomes in the intermediaryeriod.We re-call howthe two nurses hargedwithpre-paringhebodyof Gorer's rother dmiredtheirownwork.But in Englandhiskindof enthusiasms not sharedby societyat

large.Whatmatters o the English s toget rid of the body as decently and asquicklyas possible.That is why they favorcremation.

In America,on the other hand, the artof laying out the body forms part of aseriesof new ritesthatare both complicatedandsumptuous.Theseinclude:theembalm-ing of the body, its exhibition n a funeralparlor, visitationby friends and relatives,flowersand music, solemn obsequies,and,finally, interment n a cemeterythat lookslike a park. The latter is embellishedwithmonumentsand is intendedfor the moraledification of visitors who are more liketouriststhanpilgrims.There is no point indescribingheserites further.They are wellknown to a wide public as a result ofWaugh'sbook, which has been made intoa film, and Jessica Mitford'sThe Ameri-can Way of Death.8 Such books are mis-leading, however, insofar as they suggestthat these rituals are no more than a formof commercialexploitationor a perversionof the cult of happinesshelddearby Ameri-cans. More deeply,they testifyto a refusalto have deathemptiedof all meaning,a re-fusal to let deathpass withoutsolemnizingthe occasionritualistically.This is one rea-son whycremations less widespreadn theUnitedStates.American society is very attached tothese rituals,althoughthey seem somewhatridiculousto Europeansand American in-tellectuals(whose attitudesare reflected nMitford'sbook). So much so that for atimedeath is something amiliar,somethingone can talk about. Ads of this sort arecommonin America:"The dignityand in-tegrityof So-and-SoFuneralHomecosts nomore. Easy access. Private parking forover one-hundred ars."Of course,thereisno doubtthat death is a consumerproduct.But what is noteworthy s that it has be-come so, togetherwith all the publicityat-tendantupon its commercial tatus,despitethe banishmentof death elsewhere in so-ciety. Americanattitudes toward the im-mediatelydeceasedconstitute an exceptionto modern attitudestowarddeath in gen-eral. In this case, they break the normalpattern of modernity and grant the deceasedthe social space traditional societies had al-ways reserved for them, space that has beenpractically eliminated in industrial societies.In their way, Americans are carrying on theEvelyn Waugh, The Loved One (London:Chapmanand Hall, 1950).TRoger Caillois, Quatre essais de sociologiecontemporaine (Paris: Perrin, 1951). 8JessicaMitford, The American Way of Death(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963).


15/17

16 HASTINGSCENTER STUDIEStradition of bidding a solemn farewell tothe dead, and this in spite of the iron-cladrule of expediencythat governsconductintechnologicaland consumer societies. InFrancemanyof the hospitalsdatefromtheseventeenthcentury (when the sick were

idea of makinga dead person appearalive as a wayof paying one's last respectsmaywellstrikeus as puerile andpreposterous.As is often the case in America, thispracticeis part andparcel of a syn-drome that includes commercialinterests and the languageof adver-tising. But it also testifies to a rapidand unerring adaptation to complexand contradictoryconditions ofsensibility. This is the first time inhistory that a whole society hashonoredthe dead by pretendingthat they were alive.subjectedto humiliatingand coarse treat-ment at the hands of vagabondsand de-linquents) and the bodies of the dead arestill kept in cold roomslike so muchmeat.The French are, consequently, n a goodpositionto appreciate he need for a timeof recollectionand solemnitythat strikes abalancebetween the anonymityof a collec-tive morgueand the finalityof burial.In anotherage such a time could havebeen observed n the home. But modernat-titudesare set againsthavingthe corpsetooclose to the living. In Europe the intelli-gentsiararelykeep the body in the house,

even if the deathoccurs there.This is partlyfor hygienicreasons,but more because ofa nervous earof losingcontrol.The Ameri-can solution s to depositthe bodyin a neu-tral place, halfwaybetween the anonymityof thehospitalandthe privacyof the home.This place is called a funeralhome, a spe-cial buildingthat is in chargeof a kind ofinnkeeperwho specializes n welcoming hedead. The time spenthere is a compromisebetween the decentbut hasty and deritual-ized servicesof NorthernEurope and themore archaic ceremonies of traditionalmourning.The new funeralrites createdbythe Americansare also a compromisebe-tween their desire to observe a period ofsolemnityafter death and theirgeneralac-ceptanceof society's taboos. That is whythese rituals are so different rom those weare used to and why, consequently,theystrikeus as somewhat omical,even thoughthey retainsome traditional lements.Thehalf-closedcoffin exposing the upper halfof the bodyis not an inventionof Americanmorticians. It is a practice dating fromthe MiddleAges and can still be found inMediterraneanareas like Marseilles andparts of Italy. A fifteenthcenturyfresco inthe church of St. Petronius in Bolognadepictsthe remainsof SaintMarkreposingin a coffin of this type.

TheMortician'sArtStill, it mustbe borne in mind that thesefuneral home rituals have quite radicallychangedthe meaningof death.In fact, it isnot deaththatis celebratedn theserituals;it is ratherdeath transformed nto the ap-pearanceof life by the mortician's rt. For-merlyembalmingwas intendedprimarilyoimpartsomethingof the incorruptibilityfthe saints to the dead,especiallythosewhohad been celebratedand venerated n life.One of the miraclesrequired or sainthoodis an uncorrupted ody. By helping o make

the bodymoreincorruptible,mbalmingwaslooked upon as a way of cooperating in thework of sanctification.In modern America chemical techniquesfor preserving the body make us forgetdeath by creating an illusion of life. Whatfriends and relatives pay respect to amidstthe banks of flowers and the soothing musicis the life-like appearance of the deceased.


16/17

DEATH INSIDE OUT 17The idea of death is banishedfrom thisritual as is all deep sorrow.Roger Cailloisgraspedthis point so well when he notedthatthosefullyclothedcorpsesgive the im-pressionthat they are merelytakinga nap.While it is a fact that this illusion is dis-pensed with in those sectors of Englishsociety described by Gorer and in theAmerican intelligentsia, t is also a factthat the generalpublic goes along with itandthis is no doubt evidenceof a profoundtrait in the Americancharacter.The idea of makinga deadperson appearalive as a way of payingone's last respectsmay well strikeus as puerileandpreposter-ous. As is often the case in America,thispracticeis part and parcel of a syndromethat includes commercial nterestsand thelanguageof advertising.But it also testifiesto a rapidand unerringadaptation o com-plex and contradictory onditionsof sensi-bility. This is the first time in historythata whole society has honoredthe dead bypretendinghattheywere alive.Somethinglike this happenedonce be-fore in history, but involved one persononly. I refer to LouisXIV, Kingof France.Whenhe diedhe was embalmed, lothed nthe purple robes of his consecration, aidout on a bed that looked something ike ajudge'sbench-all as thoughhe would wakeup at any moment.Banquettables were setup, no doubt reminiscentof the ancientfuneralfestivitiesbut morea symbolof therejectionof mourning.The kingdid not diein the mindsof his subjects.Dressedin fes-tive garments, ike a rich Californiann afuneralparlor,he receivedhis court for alast time. The idea of the continuityof theCrowndictateda funeral rite that was, ineffect, much like those of contemporaryAmericadespitea timedifference f severalcenturies,and like them it maybe regardedas a compromisebetween the desire tohonorthe dead and the desireto put themout of mind as somethingunmentionable.The Americans,who believein theirwayof death (including the practices of theirfuneral directors) as they do in their way oflife, give these rituals a further justificationthat is very interestingbecause it bears outin an unexpected way Gorer's theory aboutthe traumatizing effects of the denial ofmourning. Jessica Mitford reports this case:"Recently a funeral director told me of a

womanwho neededpsychiatricreatment e-cause her husband's funeral was with aclosed casket, no visitation,and burial inanother state with her not present." (Ineffect, this representsthe practice of theprogressiveEnglishman.)"Thepsychiatristcalled him (the funeraldirector) to learnabout the funeral or lack of one. The pa-tient was treatedand has recoveredand hasvowedneverto be partof anothermemorial-type service," that is to say a simplifiedcommemorationf thedead.9Funeral directors, whose interests arethreatenedby a trend toward simplicity,drawupon expertpsychologicalopiniontodefend their business.They argue that byreplacingsorrow with sweet serenitytheyare providingan importantpublic service.Because it tempersthe anguishof the be-reaved and designscemeteries or the hap-pinessof the living,the funeral ndustry eesitself as havinga beneficientmoraland so-cial function.In America today cemeteriesplay a role that was intended for futurenecropolisesby French urban-planners tthe end of the eighteenthcenturywhen aroyaledict prohibitedburialwithinthe citywalls. As a result,provisions or new cem-eteries had to be made,and a vast literaturedescribed what they should be like andwhat in particularPare Lachaise of Paris(which became the model of all moderncemeteries in both Europe and America)should be like. One is struckby the resem-blance between these eighteenth centurytexts and the prose of modern Americanfuneral directors and the moralists whosupportthem. Mitford'sbook offers abun-dant evidence of this similarity.America srediscoveringhe tone and style of the Ageof Enlightenment.Rediscovering?Perhapswe should say that they have never lostthem. Some historiansof Americansocietythink that the Puritanismof the eighteenthcenturyimpededthe developmentof a he-donistic attitude toward death and thatcontemporaryoptimism does not predatethe twentieth entury.Whether he influenceis direct, then, or a repetition, after a cen-tury's interlude, in either case the similarityis striking.Had it not been for the influence ofRomanticism, Pire Lachaise would have

9lbid., p. 93.


17/17

18 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIESbecome anotherForest Lawn, the famouscemetery in Los Angeles caricaturedbyWaugh.Romanticism hwarteda develop-ment in this directionand its influencestillpersists in the popular representationsofdeath and in gravesidecults. On the otherhand,we get theimpressionhatin Americathe Romantic nfluencewas short-livedandthatthespiritof theEnlightenment, lthoughdiminishedby Puritanism,was more influ-ential. If this is the case, Puritanismwouldhavehad the samebraking ffect n Americaas Romanticismdid in Europe,but wouldhave died out earlier,thus fosteringa men-talitymuch like that of the Enlightenment,the seedbedof so many modern attitudes.We cannothelp thinking hat in this matteras in so manyothers(in Constitutionalaw,for example) America is closer to theeighteenthcenturythan Europeis.

TheCrisisof Death and the Crisisof IndividualityWe conclude that in the last third of the

twentiethcenturysomethingof monumentalsignificances taking place of which we arejust becoming aware: death, that familiarcompanionof yore, has disappeared romour language.His name is anathema.Akind of vague and anonymousanxietyhastaken the place of the words and symbolselaboratedby our ancestors.A few writerslike Malraux and Ionesco make some at-temptto restoredeath'sancientname whichhas been obliterated rom our languageandsocial conventions.But in normalexistenceit no longer has any positive meaningatall. It is merely the negativeside of whatwe really see, what we really know, andwhat we really feel.This representsa profound change inattitude. In truth, death did not occupya large place in the minds of men duringthe high Middle Ages or for some timeafterwards.t was not outlawedby edict asit is today;rather ts powerwas weakenedby reason of its extreme familiarity. Butfrom the twelfth century onwards, peoplebecame more and more preoccupied withdeath, at least this was the case among the

clergy and the educated classes. This con-cern emerged gradually n connectionwithtwo distinct themes: in the twelfth andthirteenthcenturies n connectionwith thetheme of the Last Judgmentand in thefourteenthand fifteenthcenturiesin con-nection with the themeof the art of dying.The Artes Moriendi depicted the wholeuniverse in the death-room:the living ofthe earth, the blessed of heaven, and thedamnedof hell, all in thepresenceof Christand his heavenly court. The life of thedying person was thus summedup for alltime and, whoeverhe mightbe, he was inthis restricted pace and for this brief mo-ment the very center of the natural andsupernatural orlds.Death was theoccasionfor individualself-awareness.We know from several sources that thelate Middle Ages was a time of emergingindividuality,when men began to definethemselvesas entities distinctfrom the col-lective representations f the human race.It was a time of rampant ndividualismnreligion, in economics (the beginningsofcapitalism), and in culture at large. Themost conclusiveevidenceof this individual-ism is, in my opinion, to be found in thewills and last testamentsof the time. Thesebecame a literaryform in their own rightand a means of individualself-expression.When a will is reduced o a mere meansofdisposingof the deceased'swealth as it istoday,it is a signof a declineor at the veryleast of a changein our conceptionof in-dividuality.The progress of science, theaffirmation f therightsof man,and the riseof the middleclass in the eighteenth enturytestify that that age was also a heydayofindividualism.But it was an individualismalready n eclipse, for in the unnoticed n-timacyof dailylife, individual reedomwasalready threatened,on the one hand, byfamilyconstraints nd, on the other,by thedemandsof professionalife. The clear cor-respondence etween hetriumph verdeathand the triumphof individuality uringthelate MiddleAges invitesus to ask whethera similarbut inverserelationshipmightnotexist today between the "crisis of death"and the crisis of individuality.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	felipe-ghiardo
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Aries - Death Inside Out

Documents