Commentators

8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Johann Hari: We've forgotten how to face death

A culture that believes it it sick and spooky to see its dead forgets how to live

In our taboo-less, porn-soaked culture, we have one subject left that makes us fall silent and look away. Nobody wants to discuss death. We view anybody touched by it – the bereaved, undertakers, morticians – with wriggling discomfort. Images of death are the only ones scrubbed from our news reports.

We demand our own dead be whisked away unseen. We are the first human society in history to insulate ourselves like this from the inevitable end of our own stories – and it is a taboo that disfigures our lives.

I have been thinking about this partly because of the retching response to the public dying of Jade Goody – and because I just spent a day staring at corpses.

I went to the Body Worlds exhibition in the Millennium Dome, where the dead – from foetuses to the elderly – are preserved and posed for us all to see. The meat that once was a pregnant woman, or a sportsman, or a baby, is stripped down, its inner workings explained.

The man who created this exhibition, Professor Günther von Hagens, is regarded by many as strange, or even sick. Yet in historical terms, we are the strange, sick exception. Every other wave of human beings has stared at corpses and the cold reality of death as a matter of course. You don't have to read much Victorian fiction, for example, to see how death was an everyday presence. Every child saw his dead relatives, and spent swathes of his life in mourning dress as a public marker of grief.

A popular Victorian hymn went: "There are short graves in the churchyard, round/ Where little children buried lie,/ Each underneath his narrow mound,/ With stiff cold hand and close shut eye." You don't have to spend much time in sub-Saharan Africa to see how death is held close and seen raw.

The sealing-off of death is a recent shift in Western culture, born in the mud and blood of the trenches. The scale of the First World War slaughter was so vast that mourning dress had to be abandoned, and the battalions of bodies couldn't be returned to their families. This is when mourning shifted from being based on the corpse to being based on memory – and death began to be hidden away.

Gradually, we have taken this further and further. I didn't see a dead body until I was 23, and even then, it was only because I was a journalist. Of course, this is in part a side effect of a totally positive development. We all live longer thanks to the dazzling advances of medical science, and most of us die in hospitals receiving treatment. But this has enabled us to take a natural human instinct – the denial of death – too far.

Death will always be hard to contemplate, particularly when we abandon the anaesthetics offered by religion. As Philip Larkin put it: "Not to be here,/ Not to be anywhere,/ And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true." But it only becomes more frightening – and more corrosive – if we suppress our fears, and it produces strange dysfunctions in how we live.

This occurred to me when I saw my grandfather's corpse last year. He was waxy and absent, and all his complex experiences and thoughts were simply gone. This is it, I thought. This is what you are: a slab of meat, invested with meaning by other hunks of meat, until you too rot. This is what Von Hagens's corpses say as they show you their sinews and synapses so emptily.

Yes, there is something depressing about this. Of course there is. In his autobiographical book about death, Nothing to Be Frightened Of, Julian Barnes writes: "It is difficult for us to contemplate, fixedly, the possibility, let alone the certainty, that life is a matter of cosmic hazard, its fundamental purpose mere self-perpetuation, that it unfolds in emptiness, that our planet will one day drift in frozen silence, and that the human species will completely disappear and not be missed, because there is nobody and nothing out there to miss us. That is what growing up means. And it is frightening prospect for a race that has for so long relied on its own invented gods for consolation."

Yet there is something exhilarating in the truth of it too. When you rush around pretending your life is eternal and for ever, you use it casually and wastefully, like any other resource you imagine is not going to run out. But when you are forced to see how finite it is, this seems almost scandalous. A culture that doesn't see its dead – that believes it is sick and spooky to do so – forgets how to live.

The most powerful explanation of this view that I know is the 1999 novel Being Dead by Jim Crace. It opens with two doctors of zoology – Joseph and Celice – wandering to some remote sand dunes, where they are suddenly and inexplicably beaten to death.

We expect to be told the story of their lives and murder, but instead, we simply watch as their bodies rot. Crace writes: "No one could tell what kind of man he was, what kind of woman she had been. Their characters had bled out on the grass... The plain and unforgiving facts are these. Celice and Joseph were soft fruit. They lived in tender bodies. They were vulnerable. They did not have the power not to die. They were, we are, all flesh, and then we are all meat."

Their daughter identifies the bodies, and realises: "This was not death as it was advertised: a fine translation to a better place... They were insensible as stones, imprisoned by the viewless wind." But she does not see as a recipe for despair. No. She concludes: "No one transcends. There is no remedy for death – or birth – except to hug the spaces in between. Live loud. Live wide. Live tall."

It's a healthier attitude than our quiet, delusional shunning of death. Bring out your dead. See them. Stare at them. Our culture will live better if we gaze upon death, instead of burying it six feet deep in our psyches, along with our unviewed and uncomprehended corpses.

More from Johann Hari

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

the death taboo
[info]ozcaro wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 01:54 am (UTC)
hear, hear - we go through life knowing our birth date but until the day arrives, no one knows the complementary date of our demise, nor the circumstances. it's the space in between that counts - and it's not a dress rehearsal for some better/different afterlife, so get on with it!
Re: the death taboo
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 10:16 pm (UTC)
How do you know there isnt an afterlife?
Consider this - just because you dont believe in it, doesnt mean it wont happen....
Death makes live much moe valuable
[info]sergio_montes wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 02:23 am (UTC)
If we were immortals it wouldn't mind what we are doing right now, but knowing that live could finish today makes every stroll, meal, or any kind of experience precious. It gives you a sense of urgency or, even better, as McMurphy expresses in "once flew over the cuckoos nest": "gut balls", in the sense that to be aware of the inevitability of death helps you to realize that life's too short to don't do what you want. The idea of judgment at the end of life comes from very discredited companies (the ones commercializing mysticism); there's no evidence of judgment, and there's lots of evidence that such an idea was invented as a human control technique. Epicurus thought that life was about "attaining the happy, tranquil life, characterized by aponia, the absence of pain and fear, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends" (wikipedia), among other things. Then Budhism and part of psychology collect techniques that improve well being and happiness.

Another timely commentary
[info]2wawa2 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 03:19 am (UTC)
Johann has a keen eye for what matters these days. And his skill of conveying his thoughts in writing is unsurpassed. Well done Johann!
From a fan, always interested in anything you have to say.
Re: Another timely commentary
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 10:48 am (UTC)
Thank you Johann for another thought provoking article.......
A brief account of my experience in life and how I have ended up thinking as I do, In 1973 I lost my 9 year old son, he had been sickly from birth and the event was more or less expected at some point early on in his life, however, on the day, the shock was immense...I was 30 years old at that point and believed in God, I was not a church goer, but still believing in a loving god. however, as I looked down at the corpse of my boy, I became very aware that this body was only so much waste matter, all that remained of a bubbly life, of no value whatsoever, I then wondered about the fact that my god had allowed my boys death, how the "loving" god I then believed in could allow such a thing to happen, especially considering the physical pain he had endured during his short life...I then listened to all the sugar coated explanations put forward by the clergy concerning the loss of loved ones. "gone to a better place," "they would be waiting" etc.etc.
All this had the effect of causing me to examine my beliefs, now, I am agnostic, I still believe in the fact that before something can be created, there has to be a creator, whatever form that may take, but a loving creator? no, I don't think so....one thing that really hit me in those following years is this, we go through life and experience all kinds of events, some good some bad, but death is the only experience that will not actually become an experience to the individual, for it is only on reflection that an event can become that, in death, that is not possible... so my conclusion? why worry about death? there is no point, for be it a good or bad experience, I will not be aware of it...I will never be able to reflect on it in any way at all....
Re: Another timely commentary
[info]xabial12 wrote:
Monday, 9 March 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
what created the creator?

read the god delusion by dawkins- should cure your agnosticity
Re: Another timely commentary
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Monday, 9 March 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
Good question, one I have thought about in some depth over the years. The only answer I can come up with, which by the way, I don't really find to be very satisfactory, is that the whole thing is an ever running serial with no actual beginning and no foreseeable end, at least, not in the way that we are constructed to think.....
I will read the book, thanks for the pointer....
Re: Another timely commentary
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 05:33 pm (UTC)
I have read the god delusion. But I have also read up on the main theories regarding the origin of the universe - and the multiverse - just as extraordinary for our poor brains as the existence of a God.

Also - try Paul Davies: 'The Goldilocks Enigma'. Why is the universie just right for life? Richard Dawkins has described it as one of scientists greatest puzzles.
Death religion life
[info]daisyflowerass wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 04:30 am (UTC)
As an atheist you are making me question my atheist beliefs. Any article you write appears to end up going back to the hammering home the point that religion is outdated superstitous etc. As for Julian Barnes quote about being a grown up and not believing in God is patronising stuff and not a vision of being a grown up I share. However I do agree with you that we need to face or fear of death as a soceity. However a middle class intellectual like yourself going to a museum looking at dead bodies, reflecting on this experience and telling us all to grow up and deal with the fact that we are slabs of meat but go on living and experience the full joys of life within this narrow perspective is extremely narrow minded. My personal experience of having worked in as hospice and old persons home for 4 years (and viewing loads of corpses and dressing them etc) has resulted in me having a much broader openminded and tolerant opinion on people, death and dying and the place that religion plays within that sphere. The reduction of everything to a biological sphere where biology is the centrepoint for every argument about life, death and everything in between is worryingly facist. Biology is easy for journalists to understand but to give us a view on life from a physics perspective where the universe and space collide is probably to challenging for you and you revert back to biology where the concepts are easier to understand. I get that but please go easy on the fascist atheism.
Re: Death religion life
[info]colin7 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 03:53 pm (UTC)
As it would appear that there are no gods - why should Mr Hari pretend otherwise?
If there are no gods shouldn't we just get over it - no matter how horrible reality is?

It is death that gives religion its platform. If there was no death - there would be no religion.
Re: Death religion life
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
A question I'm interest in is whether a healthy, successful atheistic society ever existed? As Europe becomes ever more secular are we entering a huge social experiment?

Having recently buried my grandmother I was very sad to see that death has become commoditised, like almost everything else. I was amazed that the family are actually offered novelty ('personalised') coffins and hired mourners.
Re: Death religion life
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 10:45 pm (UTC)
Have you ever considered that belief might be a gift of a specific awareness - an awareness of life beyond the norm.

If you have a monkey having a bad hair day and show him his image in a mirror. He may recognise himself in the mirror, but he wont know that he is having a bad hair day. The ability for that level of self awareness just doesnt exist in monkeys.

Belief in God is such an awareness in humans - we can call it "God aware" if you like. Its the awareness of being an actor in a play called this life. Many have the gift and some will not.

This may explain why such a large proportion of the population intrinsically believe in God, even with Darwinism and evolution being rammed home day-in, day-out everywhere.
Re: Death religion life
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Monday, 9 March 2009 at 11:49 am (UTC)
hanif001 wrote:
If you have a monkey having a bad hair day and show him his image in a mirror. He may recognise himself in the mirror, but he wont know that he is having a bad hair day. The ability for that level of self awareness just doesnt exist in monkeys..

Hmmm, Have you ever thought that maybe the monkey is fully aware of his/her "bad hair day"? but is just not that preoccupied with what he/she looks like, so, he/she simply doesn't care?
Re: Death religion life
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Monday, 9 March 2009 at 11:53 am (UTC)
There is a very, very... remote possible that animals are just fooling us when we observe them, then revert to highly intelligent mode when we are not watching them, but very, very... unlikely :-)
Yes, but don't let it overtake life
[info]dhammadinna_9 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 07:07 am (UTC)
'Nobody wants to discuss death'? Every day we're seeing another article about end-of-life issues and euthanasia; someone has even died on television.

I agree that people must face the fact of death and find, in their own various ways, meaning in life in the face of it.

The danger is that value is gradually being assigned equally to death and to life, with the former being no big deal -- just another interesting, 'sensitive' telly show. Thus, politically, any right to life can be dismissed as the product of religious fundamentalism, and the day comes closer when that right is openly deemed dependent on economic utility.

Dare I say that life is preferable to death? That death, although inevitable and usefully illustrative of the impermanence of all compounded things, is sad? This is not because of any religious or secular dogma. It's because a world in which life, and every living creature, are valued, and death regretted, will be a safer, more loving, and altogether happier world.
Good lord
[info]dreadpiratemel wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
Going to Body Worlds, as thousands upon thousands of people have done in our our, erm, death-shunning culture, and then having a chat with people who think Body Worlds is gross, is probably a good jump-off point for an article this self-contradictory and pointless.

Every culture deals with death in a way full of taboos and symbols and ways to help the survivor cope with the loss. There are good historical and emotional reasons for that. Our way now includes mainstream pop events like 'Six Feet Under', 'Dead Like Me', Body Worlds, 'The American Way of Death', and it also includes viewing corpses of our close family before funerals - or if you're Catholic, viewing the corpse of everyone whose funeral you show up to. Luckily we often get the chance to not have to do that until we're older these days.

So I doubt, in the first place , that we're remarkably uncomfortable about death as a culture- but on top of that, thinking the economic exploitation of Jade Goody's last days or of artfully posed and dismembered Body World corpses is tasteless and objectionable is a seperate issue altogether. That should be bleedingly, embarassingly obvious, and the fact that it wasn't for Hari makes this article come off as an over-intellectualized excuse for morbid voyeurism.

No matter what your relgious beliefs of lack thereof, only an ass could disrespect the opinion that each individual's death is an event with such huge personal emotional resonance for their loved ones that it's quite natural to feel there's something private about an individual's decease and subsequent corpse, and hence that there's something repellent about the economic exploitation of an individual's decease and subsequent corpse.
not better or worse - just different
[info]wormery wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
I think you are perhaps guilty of reverse racism by assuming our western culture is unhealthy in the way in treats death and inferior to those in the developing world - who, let us not forget, see more death because their countries do not work as well and more people die young or as children or in childbrith. You presume they have a healthier attitude. They do not - just a different, more primitive attitude. Enough with the white guilt already!

But yes, most have not seena dead body - I did, age 11 - and many just brush death under the carpet. Perhaps because of my life experience I never have and have never been frightened of death either - Epicurus made the best argument why it's irrational to be scared of death. As a consequence of an awareness of death, I have never been a careerist and have always been independent - I am very aware it can all end at any time - so my life has been richer for losing a lot of people.

Oh and Jim Crace is a superb writer - 'the gift of stones' is a wonderful poetic read.
make death friendly
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 11:17 am (UTC)
if we had a death-friendly society, where each adult would have to accept the responsibility of freely choosing the time of their departure, then we would all be the happier and healthier without having to allay fears by gazing at human meat on slabs or in bottles;
as it is we are stuck with C of E and other unelected religious fanaticists and social busybodies who project their own deep fears of death onto all the rest of us in the name of protecting the delicate sensibilities of those who would be left behind; what nonsense - if i have a pet which has terminally lost the will to live and cannot be cured of it i can lovingly arrange for it to be helped along its way; but i cannot do that for a 'higher animal' such as a terminally ill elderly human being, where there would be the added reward of being able to consult with them and hear their wishes rather than having to make the decisions for them;
DRAWING UP OF A LIVING WILL SHOULD BE A CONDITION OF DRAWING THE STATE PENSION!
ChildishMistakes
[info]peds31 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
Bring out your dead,but not the aborted one's.All this false liberal society has done is swap its death penalty.
Hear Hear
[info]cunningtourist wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 04:41 pm (UTC)
Most of Asia and India knows what Johann has commented on here, and I often hear people saying or writing that life in Asia is viewed as less precious than in the West. I think it is the other way around. I'm in Bangkok at the moment and I don't see any parents feeding their kids a plate of French fries for dinner. the place is packed but I don't see people walking carelessly into each other or any ongoing aggression. Death is the only certainty in life - oh, and taxes.
Re: Hear Hear
[info]peds31 wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 05:02 pm (UTC)
Not spent anytime in a Thai prison then,hope you never have to cunningtourist.How much did last nites young lady cost, 1000 baht.
Enjoy the Land of smiles but dont bullshit.
Life is short
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:41 am (UTC)
See how quickly life goes? Another day and we are gone.
Respect for the dead
[info]sjt30 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 02:04 pm (UTC)
Does this mirror the changing face of respect for the dead? How we demonstrate this and whether it is influenced by religion, historical precedent, peer pressure. I wonder whether the concept of respect revolves around a desire to be respected at the time of one's own death or perhaps more cynically the vested interests of the funeral industry clinging to its Victorian heyday?

Steven
Jade Goody again
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 05:27 pm (UTC)
Johann, at some point you're going to have to write an article without mentioning Jade Goody. Move on man, the rest of us have.

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion