Homo sapiens are the only species capable of reflecting upon its mortality. People have sought to make sense of death throughout the history of humankind. It has been the muse of religion, philosophy and art. In this essay, I shall focus on changing the perception of death from pre-industrial to modern times and draw attention to the ongoing pandemic and its role in reinforcing the perception of death that emerged in the modern era.
Death and Religion in the Pre-industrial Times
In the distant past of simple societies, people devised their ways and rituals to make sense of and mark death. They perceived death as the separation of some essence (that was called spirit in some cases) of the person from the flesh. Early humans had their cosmic ideas of spirits leaving the body and travelling to other realms.
When societies transited from nomadic ways to agricultural settlements, the organized system of religion evolved, and a concrete death philosophy evolved. Death and religion are so deeply connected that death is considered by some as the prime source for the origin of organized religious beliefs, and it is believed that without death, there was no need for religion. Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski puts forth the idea that religion was born from the “forebodings around death and immortality”. This Strenski (2015) argues, is what Malinowski thought “forms the nucleus of religious belief and practice” (Malinowski 1992, p.48).
The philosophy of various organized religions largely portrays death as a transitional moment towards a new beginning. Religion brought the concepts of reincarnation, resurrection, and salvation. that guided people not only about death but life, for they defined the parameters to lead life so that the post-death fate of the believers is good.
In pre-modern times, when religion was the central pillar of society and monopolized knowledge about death and dying. Death was looked upon positively. Life and death were not seen as two different realities. Death was seen as a part of life and was embraced with submission. Explaining the attitudes of western people towards mortality, Aries (1975) calls the death before the seventeenth century as tame. In the last phase of life, people would accept that their end was near and dying individuals would prepare themselves for it with the help of religious rituals. Death was accepted with normalcy, both by the dying person and the kin of that person. Loved ones surrounded the dying person. The story in many parts of India would be similar. Death was not feared or considered a taboo, and there was no attempt to hide it.
“Death was a ritual organized by the dying person himself, who presided over it and knew its protocol” (Ariès, 1975, p. 11)
The evolutionary and functional approaches on the social aspect of death and dying in pre-modern societies also focused on positive aspects of death. For instance, anthropologists like Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown looked at death rituals as instruments for restoring social order and continuity. Durkheim explained that death rituals help in regulating social bonds (Durkheim, 1912). The focus was on the functional aspect of death-related practices.
Death in the Modern Era
Modernity heralded an era of science and rationality. Religion continued to matter but no longer occupied its central place and legitimacy it once had. With the growth of science and technology, modern man perceived himself to be much stronger and more secure against the forces of nature. Many diseases were eradicated, life expectancy increased, insurance schemes covered uncertain events, and cosmetic technology controlled ageing etc.
Ever since human beings became medically more advanced, every attempt has been made to conquer death. Now, that could not happen. We managed to prolong life and delay death but have not defeated it. Therefore, in modern times, the attitude of death denial emerged. So unlike earlier times, from being a part of life, death became an enemy of life and a failure of the doctors. Foucault, in his very famous medicalization critique, has stated that the use of western medicine led to the objectification of death, deeming it as finite and measurable (Lupton, 2009). Medicalization and technology in modern times focus on conquering death. While traditional medicine systems prescribed healing methods that focused on rejuvenating body’s capacity to heal itself and never countered death. In the nineteenth century, medical attention has shifted from illness of body to disease, resulting in anthologizing of mortality. Advanced medicalization has led to the removal of death and dying from the community and has relocated it to institutions like hospitals and hospice (Littlewood, 1993).
In his documenting attitudes towards death, Aries (1975) calls death in modern times ‘forbidden’; where every possible attempt is made to deny, hide and sequestrate it. Fear of one’s mortality is so deeply rooted amongst people in modern times that they devise mechanisms to avoid it; else death anxiety would not let them lead a peaceful life. Thus, one of the important functions of society is to provide ways to avoid death (Becker, 1973). Hence, in this modern era, death became a pathological reality and was viewed as a negative subject. Baudrillard (1993) coined the term ‘Dead Ghetto’ (dictionary meaning: segregated as something cheap, low class, inferior). As societies evolved into complex forms, death has been denied or abolished by segregating the dead in the graveyards, which become ‘ghettos’ and have no role, to play in the community of the living.
Therefore, in modern times the belief system has been shaped in a way that humans can control nature. Since death could not be abolished, it was better to push it to the background. The front stage of life was imbued with a sense of security. Anthony Giddens believes that a distinguishing feature of modernity is purchasing of ontological security through institutions and routines that protect us from direct contact with madness, criminality and death (Giddens, 1991). By ontological security, he means the sense of order and continuity in relation to the events in which human beings participate, and the experiences they have, in their day to day lives. For instance, we are so deeply involved in our daily schedules at home and office that we never expect any uncertain incident to happen. For Giddens, this sense of order develops meaningfulness in life. Due to the illusion created by the ontological security, while encountering anyone’s death, the common perception has been that it happens to others and not to one’s self. Besides, the literature written in modern times that focused on the non-medical aspect of death has been morbid, contributing to the denial and sequestration of death.
************
Similar
Covid-19: Breaching of Ontological Security
In this meaningful life, everything appeared to move smoothly. Death was something that happened to others to be witnessed from a far off and safe distance. The sudden entry of the COVID-19 virus and the ensuing pandemic brought death close and near. This reality of death shook the ever-progressing dream of the modern world. As the whole world stalled, individuals and societies got an opportunity to reflect upon the imperishable nature of human existence. Worldwide lockdowns provided time to develop an attitude of acceptance and preparedness for death as an unavoidable truth, which was covered by the illusionary sense of security for long.
I argue, however, that the modern attitude to death has not changed. Awareness and visibility of death appear to have made a comeback but only in figures and statistics. These numbers are given importance because these contribute to countering the disease. The realisation that death is inevitable has still eluded us. The visuals of death around us may have increased many folds. However, instead of making death a part of life, COVID-19 has further ghettoised it. Dying in absolute isolation and practices like treating the corpse merely as a virus container has contributed to making death more fearsome and morbid. The entire global sentiment is focusing on defeating death as that would be an indicator of conquering the virus. Extensive research and enormous capital is being spent on developing the antidote, expanding health infrastructure, devising measures to prevent the contagion, bringing the economy back on track and restoring normalcy to every possible extent or to create a new normal. There is so much effort and rush to establish our ontological security again.
Although all these measures are important to keep the human civilisation going and reassuring the faith of people in the stability of society, there is a dire need to prepare people to accept death as their ultimate fate, as religion did in the pre-industrial times. While all the agencies like media, law, medical associations, and WHO etc. are issuing directives for the preventive measures for the disease, there is little attention paid to death socialisation. None of the agencies is focusing on orienting people towards preparedness for death through making a will, deciding about the heirs, and sharing one’s financial assets/liabilities etc. with the close kin. Evolving mechanisms of death socialisation through both formal and informal agencies is the need of the hour as death may knock at any time, inadvertently. Today, it could be due to COVID-19, tomorrow it could be something else and human beings, no matter how much they advance have to die one day.
The pandemic, therefore, has shaken our existing ontological security. But at the same time, it has reinforced the prevailing attitude of death denial. Instead of becoming receptive towards death, the modus operandi to deal with coronavirus crises has slightly aggravated our enmity for it.
References:
Ariès, P. (1975). Western Attitudes toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present (The Johns Hopkins Symposia in Comparative History). (P. Ranum, Trans.) London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death. (I. H. Grant, Trans.) London: Sage.
Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Dover Publications.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Standford: Standford University Press.
Littlewood, J. (1993). The Denial of Death and Rites of Passage in Contemporary Societies. In D. Clark, The Sociology of Death: Theory, Culture and Practice (pp. 69-86). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Lupton, D. (2009). Foucault and Medicalisation Critique. In S. Earle, C. Kamaromy, & C. Batholomew (Eds.), Death and Dying A Reader (pp. 20-24). London: Sage.
Palgi, P., & Abramovitch, H. (1984). Death: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 385-417.
Strenski, I. (2015). Understanding Theories of Religion: An Introduction. U.K.: Willey Blackwell.
***
(Veenat Arora is an Assistant Professor in Sociology at Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh.)