- Veenat Arora
 |
Source: voanews.com |
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”
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
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
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
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
************
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.)
Comments
Post a Comment