There have been a worrying number of high profile
deaths of late. First there was Paul Walker, yesterday
we lost both Peter O’Toole and Joan Fontaine, even
Brian the dog from Family guy died (sort of). Most
high-profile of all was of course the recent passing of
Nelson Mandela .
High-profile deaths like these result in all manner
of reactions the world over, and these can become
quite formulaic, in that there seem to be a number of
stock reactions in the media and online (these days at
least).
Obviously you get those who make tasteless jokes
whenever someone dies, although I have noticed a
relative absence of this in the most recent cases. Peter
O’Toole’s hell-raiser reputation probably defeats most
cynical jokers, and Joan Fontaine’s peak of fame was a
while ago making relatable jokes difficult. As for
Mandela, it’s likely that his reputation was too much
even for the super-cynics to risk mocking. I’m sure
there are many out there with dozens of offensive
jokes ready to tweet, but all of them are waiting for
someone else to get away with it first. They could be
there a while.
But for most of these recent passings, especially
Mandela, the “correct” thing to say is hard to work
out. None of the stock responses seems to fit.
“He was so young”. No, he really wasn’t.
“It was so unexpected”. Not really, he was nearly a
century old and in ill health for quite some time.
“He left so much undone”. Definitely not, it’s hard
to imagine an individual who accomplished more in
the time allotted to him.
Obviously with a high-profile figure who had such
a lasting impact on the world, this is further
complicated by the effects of his life and works. People
of political persuasions of all sorts were praising his
memory and invoking it as an excuse to attack those
they disagree with in the same breath (or tweet if you
prefer). Praising Mandela’s legacy of tolerance and
forgiveness as an example to everyone before declaring
that David Cameron was a “nasty word” who
previously said Mandela was a terrorist is, even if
valid, demonstrates neither tolerance nor forgiveness.
But even if it’s not an influential person, like a
world leader or an A-list celebrity, the grieving process
is complicated. It is a well-studied psychiatric
phenomenon. There are strong links between
depression and grief and grief has many well-known
stages, such as the classic anger, denial, bargaining etc ,
or the four phases which can follow when a person
actually has died, as proposed by John Bowlby. There
are known therapies and strategies for limiting the
impact of intense grief, and grief that lasts too long can
be considered pathological and requires intervention.
However, all this is usually applied to terminal
patients and/or those close to them. When the grief is
not of a sort typically accepted by society, then it is
known as disenfranchised grief . This is grief that many
wouldn’t expect you to experience and/or wouldn’t be
particularly sympathetic if you did. For example, I’d be
surprised to hear if anyone in the UK took
compassionate leave because they were so affected by
Nelson Mandela’s passing. Even if they genuinely were
that affected, it would be an incredibly lenient boss
who would allow time off for it. When someone suffers
an illness or loss that is less than terminal, such as a
marriage breakdown, sensory impairment or even loss
of a home or residence, these things can cause grief
that isn’t exactly tolerated by others.
If you can’t go through the normal, prolonged
grieving process, you usually find another way to
process it. Humans have seemingly evolved the
grieving process for a variety of purposes, such as
increasing social attachment that enhances survival. As
a result, even if you’re not even remotely linked to a
recently deceased person, it feels the done thing to at
least respectfully and publicly acknowledge their
passing.
And here’s where things get tricky. How do you go
about respecting the views and principles of someone
you didn’t actually know? A media portrayal of a
person is often far removed from them, if they're lucky
(or unlucky) enough to have one. So an individual is
left with the option of doing or saying something that
conforms to their impression of the deceased.
Whatever this is, it is often justified with the phrase
“it’s what they would have wanted”. Presumably this
typically means what they would have wanted if they
hadn’t died, but it’s very unlikely anyone would want
someone to mourn them before they died, as that’s just
weird.
Obviously, what you think the person would have
wanted will differ from what someone else thinks they
would have wanted. One person’s caring tribute is
another’s desecration. And when this happens it’s hard
to deny that “It’s what they would have wanted”
suggests a caveat, as in “it’s what they would have
wanted … if they were different in some way”, which
defeats the point somewhat. And it seems the safest
option is to do nothing, but that in itself seems more
disrespectful to many. Really, the only person who
likely doesn’t mind anyway is the person who’s died,
for obvious reasons.
Grief is necessary but complicated. Combine it
with politics, the global media and the current social
networking age, and there’s no telling where you’ll end
up. The best you can do is make some aloof
observations about it on a niche blog on a mainstream
news website. After all, it’s what they would have
wanted.
Dean Burnett is available for eulogies.
Culled from the guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment