Jessica Woodrow Mortuary Practices and Taboos in Long Island, NY [Article #3]

Mortuary Practices & Taboos in Long Island, SENIOR THESIS

Anthropology 191 Spring 2014

Page |2

INTRODUCTION Modern Western society considers itself “scientific.” Our advancements have led to a thorough understanding of the science of bodily decomposition – a science known as “thanatochemistry,” or, more broadly, “thanatology” – and from there to public health initiatives which have had a significant impact on the spread of infectious disease in human populations. It might be expected that such developments would have resulted in the gradual disappearance over time of religious burial rituals and mortuary taboos – after all, even from a social standpoint burial is primarily a means of disposing of highly infectious vectors of disease. Instead, funeral ritual has remained largely unchanged with the exception of the addition of several newly developing burial traditions.

One reason for this disconnect may be that the majority of people who are not involved in the funeral industry have little or no understanding of the hygienic perspective of funeral service, perhaps as a result of what is known in the field of psychometrics as the Flynn Effect: as human populations adapt to increasingly complex cultural environments, the average intelligence quotient score rises while specific detailed knowledge of individual fields of study falls (Neisser 1997).

With the ever-expanding availability of gadgetry, people take greater interest in

entertainment technology than in trade instruments. The end result is that lay people tend to believe that funerals are entirely ceremonial, and few recognize the dangers associated with human cadavers which justify strict governmental regulation for the appropriate disposal of human remains. It would be easy to explain this general ignorance as avoidance, however unlike in certain non-Western societies, people do not generally shy away from the topic of death in our society. Far from being a taboo subject, Westerners allow themselves to be reminded of deathrelated subjects and objects regularly, visiting museums, cemeteries, and other places strongly

Page |3

associated with the dead. If death is not a taboo subject, then the social purpose of funerals cannot merely be to officially separate the dead from the living.

While other taboo-inspired practices related to hygiene have faded from common use or become optional for members of certain societies (ie., menstrual seclusion, Kosher diets, etc.), funeral practices have remained a constant, expected part of the life-cycle in virtually every society on the globe. At the same time, however, those practices have begun to show an increasingly diverse array of characteristics, so that even within a specific denomination rituals may vary so much as to be unrecognizable from one population to another. Funerals, it seems, serve a cultural purpose of social inclusion for the people investing in them, and that purpose is one which informs the only apparent universal taboo in Western mortuary practice: electing not to have a funeral service of any kind for a deceased society member.

To understand relationship between scientific understanding and socioreligious practices, I spoke with funeral industry workers, clergy members and lay people, with the goal of exploring several related aspects of modern funeral practices: first, how much the average lay person understands about what happens to the human body after death; second, what practices are considered “appropriate” and “inappropriate” for a funeral (including funerals for socially excluded, “other” individuals); and third, whether socioreligious perspectives are more informative of modern funeral practices than the scientific perspective which Westerners claim as their cultural standard. The responses indicated overwhelmingly that, whatever the reason for their inception, modern mortuary practices have become a culturally expected expression of memorialization, with the primary purpose of indicating an individual’s inclusion in a particular social group at the completion of his or her life-cycle. The scientific aspect has faded so completely from common knowledge that it is essentially only funeral practitioners and those in

Page |4

positions responsible for maintaining the public health who have even a broad understanding of the basic principles of mortuary hygiene. This is the paradox which my research seeks to explain: why do socioreligious burial rituals and taboos exist in a society which considers itself “scientific,” and how does cultural syncretism operate in a “scientific” society?

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE For thousands of years, anatomically modern humans have been burying their dead as a means of disposing of the bodily remains of society members. A vast amount of research has been devoted to the subject of mortuary practices both in Western and nonwestern society, with the literature generally focusing on either magicoreligious elements or on practical, sciencebased solutions to health concerns; this is a reasonable approach for a discussion of Western society, where a clear divide exists between the two aspects, but such a divide is not necessarily characteristic of all societies across the globe. In order to place the motivations behind modern Western funeral practices in context, it is necessary to understand their longstanding interconnectedness, and the history of their interaction.

First, in order to understand which of our funeral practices (and, where they exist, taboos) developed in response to the basic needs of our species rather than as part of social constructs, it is necessary to discuss the origin of burial practices. Did burial develop as a means for hygienic control, or was it a symbolic expression of grief from its inception? Recent discoveries have confirmed that Neandertals, the first hominid species known to have developed complex social practices, were burying their dead by at least 50,000 years ago. We do not know whether those burials constitute the earliest signs of religious ritual, an awareness of the need for basic sanitation to prevent the post-mortem spread of infectious diseases, or both. While there is still

Page |5

some debate about whether the act of subterranean interment was intentional, evidence strongly suggests that, whether interred or left above ground, Neandertal dead were intentionally relocated and kept away from the rest of the social group.

Strong arguments have been made both for against the idea that Neandertals were the first group to bury their dead. To understand the arguments for and against Neanderthal development of burial practices, it is important to define intentional burial: “[The] major criterion for intentional burial is the existence of an artificially created and/or artificially closed space containing human remains” (Gargett 1989: 323). The validity of the latter as evidence of an intentional burial is key, and the “absence of a visible pit cannot be equated with absence of purposeful inhumation” (Gargett 1989: 325) – if it could, we would be unable to explain several obviously intentional burials which did not incorporate a separate stratum (one of opponents’ criteria for intentional burial). Those who support the theory that Neandertals were the first to develop burial practices site what they consider to be intentionally created or closed burial spaces, usually in the form of pits or crudely sealed caves.

Critics say that although Neandertals have for some time been considered culturally ‘advanced,’ the existing evidence for Neandertal burials might simply be taphonomy, the process by which a living organism enters the fossil record. This view is supported by several examples and is usually related to cave-dwelling: firstly, bears – who, like Neandertals, tended to sleep in caves and were relatively well protected against most predators and the elements – are found in greater numbers than most animals in their fully articulated form; second, cave sleeping would offer an explanation for why the bodies are covered with warm layers of clothing or earth.

These points are all valuable to my research because they help establish the potential dividing line between intentional burial for the sake of hygiene and symbolic burial for the sake of

Page |6

personal connections and emotions; if Neandertal burials were intentional, as they often appear to have been, but did not incorporate symbolism, then such burials help identify the foundational level of understanding required to use burial as a means for meeting basic hygienic needs (Garget 1989).

We still know relatively little about Neandertal social practices, but their burial sites provide some of the only evidence of mortuary practices prior to those of ancient Egypt. That leaves a sizeable gap during which humans began to preserve their dead with naturally occurring chemicals. This raises several important questions. Were early humans safeguarding the health of their social groups when they buried their dead? Were there ceremonial aspects which were enhanced by the extended presence of a preserved corpse? Were the discovery of those resources and of their usefulness for bodily preservation accidental, or was the risk of contamination deemed so worthwhile in the context of their cultural motivation that they invested a significant amount of time to experimenting with various potential preservatives?

Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about those early experiments, but we do know that embalming, a practice which cleanses and preserves human remains, had become common practice by the time of the ancient Egyptians. During this period embalming and burial came to comprise a major component of the religious life cycle for Egyptians, and it is from those rituals that the first funerary text, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, emerges. Egyptian preparation rituals comprised many complicated, labor intensive stages, and introduced the first mortuary items known to have been invented specifically for funereal purposes, Canopic jars.

The Egyptians had a highly developed understanding of complex scientific and mathematic principles and applications, and it is by viewing their funeral customs through the lens of both technological and social development that we find the first known example of a modern

Page |7

contradiction in mortuary practice: the coeval emergence of complex religious ritual and scientific advancement (in the form of hygienic practices) in a single society. Although the Egyptians did not understand the intricacies of microbiology, they did have basic knowledge of the biological hazards associated with above-ground interment of unpreserved human remains, and they began to develop hygienic practices which allowed for their projected cultural preferences. Because the ideal burial site for wealthy Egyptians was technically above-ground (the body was left in a spacious vault rather than covered with earth or sand), it was necessary to develop burial practices which would reduce the health threat to living populations exposed to those sites. It can therefore be said that the primary reason for the development of embalming was to address health concerns; this is a crucial point, because it demonstrates that preservation practices were developed in response to scientific knowledge about the spread of disease.

Cultural factors played an important role in the process, but they developed in tandem with, or one step behind, the preservation practices which allowed them to be carried out safely.

Embalming fell out of practice with the rise of the Roman Empire, however burial traditions continued to develop in Rome and beyond. Burial societies, which still exist today, were formed to ensure that society members would receive a funeral even if they had no family to arrange an appropriate burial; this was an important development, because it indicates that the emphasis had shifted completely to the cultural expression of mortuary practice rather than the scientific, health-related aspect. This shift is indicative of a larger trend across both Western and nonwestern societies, with magicoreligious elements emerging as the primary motivation for modern burial practices among both types of groups. Some authors discuss magical elements in nonwestern society which are rarely considered to be part of the mainstream of Western society: E. E. Evans-Pritchard’s Witchcraft Oracles and Magic Among the Azande (1937) examines in its

Page |8

first chapter the concepts of two physical manifestations of witchcraft, “light” and “substance.”

“Light” is a bodily emanation which a witch sends from his or her body to accomplish a specific task – it is an entirely incorporeal concept, and not a literal act. “Substance” is a kind of residue left after witchcraft has been performed upon a person, and it is often searched for in people believed to have died as a result of witchcraft.

Evans-Pritchard also discusses the concept of

witchcraft as a cause of misfortune, and notes that witchcraft is not always indicated in cases where a taboo is known to have been broken. Taboos have a dominant role in determining cause of death, and the author specifically states that where a plurality of causes of exists, a broken taboo will always be considered the primary cause of death. It follows that such factors may also play a primary role in the social context of mortuary practices.

In some cases, what is taboo in one culture may be socially acceptable or even expected in another. In her 2001 book Consuming Grief: Compassionate Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society, Beth Conklin discusses the act of endocannibalism, the eating of the flesh of a member of one’s social group after their death. As Conklin explains it, endocannibalism is a means by which the Wari’ of the Amazon express grief, a social act which fits their cultural identity as both hunters and prey. For the Wari’, the physical body is only one part of a network of intangible aspects of social life, and the exchange of bodily fluids between members of the group (both family and those not related by blood) serve both to establish new ties and to strengthen existing ones. Wari’ exchange of food – that which sustains the body – further strengthens these ties. It is these two concepts, the exchange of bodies and the exchange of food, which inform their mortuary practices.

The real purpose of endocannibalism, though, is to memorialize the

deceased. By consuming their dead, the Wari’ are able to add their conception of their loved ones to their self-concept, an act which not only expresses deep love and helps alleviate the grief

Page |9

of loss, but also contributes to their personal and social identity. The exchange also allows bereaved group members to find support and strength through inclusion, as participating in endocannibalistic practices allows individuals to transition between old and new identities such as child-to-adult, wife-to-widow, etc. (Conklin 2001). Such transitions are necessary in Western society as well, and while our practices may differ, the motivations behind them are surprisingly similar. It is therefore important to remember that taboos do not exist because certain practices are inherently “bad,” but rather because a particular society rejects them.

In her 1977 article “Expectations about Menstruation among Premenarcheal Girls,” Virginia L. Ernster focuses on culturally acceptable reactions to menstruation and provides information regarding the perceived rules of appropriate menstrual decorum. Though the article does not relate directly to mortuary practice, it does offer insight into the various ways taboos develop in social settings. Ernster notes that the girls she studied (members of Girl Scout troops aged 9 – 14 years old) did not consider menstruating women to be off-limits or polluted, but that they did consider menstruating women somehow incapacitated and volatile (Ernster 1977). This demonstrates a modern trend away from enforcing taboos through cultural practices such as menstrual seclusion or Kosher diets, and replacing those practices with subtler forms of social conditioning. It is possible that similar taboos exist with relation to dead human bodies, and whether they are fueled by religious influence, practical health concerns, or both, such taboos may play a role in modern mortuary practices.

Many factors inform our beliefs and ideas about the dead, and, thus, the existing taboos related to them. A good example which explains how those ideas develop and evolve in modern cultures is the relationship between medical practitioners and the cadavers on whom they practice their techniques: practitioners place psychological ‘barriers’ between themselves and

P a g e | 10

dead bodies, dissociation being necessary for them to focus on the task at hand. This distance is a kind of death taboo, and it can be related directly to practices associated with funeral viewings; embalming and cosmetology facilitate the building of similar psychological barriers which allow mourners to separate their memories of their loved ones from their ideas about dead bodies.

There are longstanding and long-lasting taboos against touching and dissecting bodies for medical purposes, and those taboos apply to both the medical community and the public. Many taboos stem from both accurate and inaccurate understanding of the mechanics of bodily decomposition, and an entire industry has grown to provide merchandise marketed toward consumers seeking to delay the decomposition of their loved ones after burial (Ie., embalming, casket vaults, hermetically sealed caskets, etc. – all of which are commonly available at funeral homes). By understanding the ways in which beliefs and ideas about mortuary practice are shaped, we are able to draw comparisons between perceptions of the value of mortuary goods, their frequency of use, and their actual benefit in practical terms. We may then question why – if evidence suggests that such products do not actually delay the process of decomposition – educated, informed consumers ignore common sense when selecting unnecessary or overelaborate mortuary goods (Roach 2004).

In order to consider the existence and the full impact of death taboos, it is important to understand where they come from, why they develop, and whether they are as pervasive as some experts believe them to be. One commonly accepted but incorrect notion is that death is a taboo subject in modern western society. Although grief has become a private experience, mourning (the operationalization of grief) is still performed publicly. We routinely connect the concept of mourning with the “contemplation of mortality,” and since both take place in the presence of corpses there must be some contemplation of death in the presence of any body (including those

P a g e | 11

in museums); any “interaction” with a corpse therefore facilitates contemplation of death – whether that contemplation be a simple question about what happens to our bodies when we die or a complex philosophical question. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not particularly afraid of death, and therefore there is no reason why the subject of death should be avoided socially. Whether because of the modern medicalization of aging, illness, and death, or because of the “juxtaposition of the personal understanding and the public experience of death,” the modern level of comfort with public acknowledgement or discussion of mortality – up to and including the display of human corpses – indicates that death is far from being considered a taboo subject. An argument can even be made that museums have an obligation to the public to create displays which place funereal concepts and practices into a modern context, so that they reflect contemporary social attitudes toward death and mortuary practices; among the most obvious ways they accomplish this is the tendency to “soften” death, or make it less of an emotional investment, which in turn facilitates more in-depth contemplation of mortality. This obligation makes funerary archaeology important because it “brings death into public and intellectual life,” and therefore although it is controversial, “at the same time [it makes] an enriching contribution to modern society, facilitating a relationship with death, the dead and so the dying” (Sayer 2010).

It was not until the Civil War that the widespread practice of cadaveric preservation reemerged with a new technique, arterial embalming.

This process has continued almost

unchanged since the 1850’s, and is the preferred technique for a majority of funeral industry workers today. Unlike the ancient Egyptians’ methods, modern preservation techniques were developed to allow an existing cultural standard, funeral viewing, to be met despite unfavorable

P a g e | 12

conditions (Habenstein 2010). Modern funeral practices can therefore be said to demonstrate a complete reversal of cultural and scientific motivation.

Modern funeral practices in Long Island, NY developed after World War II. Prior to that time, a majority of burials on Long Island were conducted in small, privately owned cemeteries on personal property, in modest churchyard graveyards, or in mass burial grounds known as ‘potters’ fields.’ A low population density and an abundance of sprawling farmland meant that most people were buried in family plots, or else on the property of those for whom they worked (Casey et al 2011). After World War II, the GI Bill made home ownership attainable for thousands of returning soldiers, and Levittown, NY (the first of four Levittowns built by the Levitt & Sons building firm) became the first mass-production residential town in America.

With affordable housing on neat, tree-lined streets, the population of Levittown exploded between 1947 and 1951. Similar towns began to spring up all across Long Island, and as the population increased the number of businesses, schools, and churches increased with it. Before long the island began to see larger tracts of land designated as new burial grounds, as those who had relocated from other parts of the country – and whose Levitt homes did not offer the sprawling property required for family plots – sought to purchase graves in public cemeteries (Wyckoff 1978). These are the large cemeteries we see today, easily accessible to the public and visited often by people of all ages, occupations, lifestyles and socioeconomic statuses.

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS The field site for this research project was Nassau County, NY and Suffolk County, NY on Long Island. I conducted my research at a number of locations in this area, including funeral homes, crematories, houses of worship, the Garden City campus of Nassau Community College,

P a g e | 13

and the Hempstead campus of Hofstra University. Multiple subjects were interviewed for the project: funeral directors; crematory office personnel and retort operators; ordained clergy and congregation members at three houses of worship; students at Hofstra University; and students and faculty at Nassau Community College in Garden city, including faculty in the Department of Mortuary Science. I visited two funeral homes, one cemetery, and three houses of worship (two Christian, one Jewish). I made six separate visits to Nassau Community College and Hofstra University, conducting interviews and collecting questionnaire responses from 12 individuals ranging in age from 18 to 44. For additional background research I visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and conducted a thorough internet search to evaluate mortuary merchandise for sale through several e-commerce companies such as Walmart, Costco, Batesville, and Direct Casket.

I worked with several communities for this project, including individuals working in the funeral industry (funeral directors and crematory personnel), mortuary vendors, and ordained clergy at houses of worship. The most important communities I interacted with were the student bodies and faculty at Hofstra University and Nassau Community College, including undergraduate students, Mortuary Science Department faculty and staff, and faculty members from other departments. I chose to conduct the bulk of my research with these communities of lay persons in order to increase the heterogeneity of the study population; having access to a group ranging broadly in age, occupation, lifestyle, and socioeconomic status offered me contextual validation of several conclusions which might have been incorrectly drawn in a more restrictive population sample. Specifically, it was important to spread my focus across a wide range of occupations, rather than focusing exclusively on funeral service industry workers or clergy members, either of whose collective opinions about funeral service might be influenced

P a g e | 14

by factors which do not affect the general population’s common knowledge and attitudes. At Hofstra University I had access to students of traditional college age, while including Nassau Community College (NCC) broadened the age range, as the student body has a much higher percentage of students in the age ranges of 24 – 35 and 35 & up. NCC also provided me with access to students whose lower socioeconomic statuses might preclude their presence on other campuses, and this also increased the heterogeneity of my study population. The female/male participant balance was approximately even (7 of 12 student participants were female).

I began by visiting ordained clergy members. I had several pre-written questions, but the interviews were largely informal and relied upon the insight of my subjects. The interviews sought to answer several questions about each congregation (expanded goals and questionnaires can be found in Appendices 1 and 2): o

In what ways and to what extent are general funeral practices dictated by doctrine?

o

What elements are there in a typical funeral service, and what are the origins of particular practices?

o

What does he/she consider to be the most vital parts of a funeral service (the parts which absolutely should never be overlooked when planning a funeral vs. the parts which are not strictly required but are common)?

o

The types of funeral merchandise commonly purchased, why they are purchased, and how those items contribute to the funeral practices.

Next I made contact with the student body and faculty at Hofstra University and at Nassau Community College by walking around campus and asking for volunteers to participate in a brief interview and to complete a short questionnaire. I asked a series of questions relating

P a g e | 15

to the science-based component of funerals (expanded goals and questionnaires can be found in Appendices 3 and 4): •

Average basic knowledge of embalming, burials, cremations, and viewings.

•

What practices does he/she believe are generally adhered to by the

•

Which mortuary goods/practices does he/she believes are required?

After my visits to the Hofstra and NCC campuses, I spoke with several funeral industry workers and attempted to gain an understanding, from their perspective, of general funeral practices and of common, specific aberrations (ie., perhaps a vast majority of funerals involve a burial, but a specific population generally prefers cremation). I also sought to establish the frequency of sales of particular mortuary items; why he or she believe certain items are purchased at a particular rate; the purpose, use, and necessity of specific mortuary items (practically and ritualistically); and the frequency of embalming practices and other practices which developed in direct response to science-based concerns such as the public health.

Unfortunately, I was not granted access to “potters’ fields,” to speak with the groundskeepers, however through the NCC Mortuary Science department I was able to establish the absolute minimum requirements for the burial of a body in Nassau and Suffolk counties. The NCC faculty was also able to offer insight into how “potters’ field” burials compare with burials arranged by funeral service workers.

DATA & DATA ANALYSIS My research revealed several patterns which lent insight into the question of mortuary practices and taboos. Each group of participants demonstrated similar attitudes toward death and mortuary practices, shared similar beliefs about the purpose of funerals, and had a similar level

P a g e | 16

of understanding of modern funeral practice. Although two of my interview groups were intended to provide a baseline against which to measure student responses, I was surprised to find that clergy members’ and funeral directors’ responses often directly supported the student’s responses – despite a significantly higher demonstrated understanding of the technical and scientific aspects of funeral service. The greatest discrepancy between the responses of funeral service workers and clergy members had not to do with particular traditions of a specific faith, but rather with costs associated with funeral merchandise; this subject was the one least commented upon by students, and a consideration which they stated was of only minor importance when planning a funeral.

Funeral Service Workers: My first interview group, funeral service workers, included two funeral directors and a crematory operator. These individuals have worked in the funeral service industry for eight, twenty-two and thirty-nine years. The responses I received regarding funeral merchandise were generally dismissive – the funeral directors expressed a near total lack of concern for which (if any) merchandise was selected, and explained that most funeral homes no longer rely on merchandise to turn a profit. Both the directors and the crematory worker stated that their profit on most merchandise was kept to the minimum necessary to cover the expense of obtaining those items. The exception to this was casket selection, and both directors exhibited pride in the quality and variety of the caskets they provided; one director explained that providing a wide selection of caskets allows people to personalize what they think of as a “final home” for their loved ones, and that the wood species, color, material and finish are often selected according to the personal preferences of the deceased for furniture and household items (ie., “mom liked

P a g e | 17

cherry”). An interesting theme to emerge during these discussions was the concept of a casket as a form of protection for the deceased; both funeral directors asserted that people who choose hardwood are often swayed toward that choice by the notion that it will withstand the elements longer, despite the somewhat obvious fact that caskets rarely serve any purpose beyond shortterm containment. Even the crematory operator, whose job is to incinerate caskets and their contents, explained that he sees more “fancy, carved hardwood” caskets than he does doeskin varieties, doeskin being an easily incinerated, environmentally friendly burial/cremation container. The most interesting part of those conversations came when I asked why people would elect to purchase extravagant caskets with the intention of burning them: the first funeral director answered “you only wear a wedding dress once, but you pick out a nice one, right?”

This theme surfaced many times throughout my interviews with funeral service workers, and it correlates most directly with the responses I received from student participants: it is the idea that funerals should be planned and executed with the same degree of attention to aesthetic beauty and personal significance as any other life-cycle event. Although each of the directors and the crematory employee (who also supervises and conducts cremation services) expressed the popular notion that funerals are for those who mourn rather than for the deceased, they were also quite clear that for most mourners the main concern is to find and include elements that they believe the deceased would have chosen for himself or herself. When in doubt, those planning funerals tend to lean toward the most expensive of relatively low-cost merchandise (stationary, prayer cards, flowers, etc.), and to select from the middle- to high-end of relatively high-cost merchandise (caskets, urns, funeral coaches, etc.). When I asked who those selections benefited, the answers were all the same: the mourners.

P a g e | 18

All the funeral service workers gave similar answers when asked how much value mourners assign to the particular practices and goods associated with their expressed faith: they “totally rely on those things.” One director explained that he has met 60-year olds who had never arranged a funeral and were very surprised by many of the traditional arrangements he suggested, while some 20-year olds seem familiar with each step of the process and need little explanation. Regardless of prior knowledge of faith-based practices, both directors stated that almost all mourners choose to include a majority of the practices suggested by the director at the time arrangements are made, and most questions and complaints relating to cost or extravagance have to do with a vaguely named item on the required general price list, the fee for “arrangements.” This fee covers everything from removing the body from the place of death and transporting it to the funeral home, to refrigeration, to livery, to office supplies and insurance costs – it is the fee which allows the funeral home to cover its overhead costs, and therefore it tends to be one of the most expensive items on a funeral bill.

While some people balk at the arrangement fee and elect to choose only “bare essentials,” both the directors and the crematory employee (who generally charges only one fee for all services combined) stated that most people are not only willing to accept the arrangement fee as reasonable, they often still want to add elaborate merchandise to their bill on top of that amount.

They believed a funeral was the last chance for mourners to let everyone know how much the deceased was loved, and that providing the best material goods is often perceived as the most effective way to do that. This view is supported by research in other cultures as well, where increasing costs associated with expanding funeral industries has led to significant changes in mortuary practices. The Asante in Ghana provide an excellent example of this type of change,

P a g e | 19

which has created an aspect of commercialism previously absent in that culture. Marleen de Witte writes in her 2003 article “Money and Death: Funeral Business in Asante, Ghana”: “[C]ontrary to both popular belief and critique on global commercialization, in Asante the money economy and the social significance of the funeral tradition do not contravene, but rather reinforce each other. The funeral celebration is not wiped away by monetization, nor is it a kind of last defence against it. Indeed, it is exactly through money and commodification that funeral celebrations are expanding, social ties forged, and cultural performances stimulated, albeit in new ways” (de Witte 2003: 558) De Witte goes on to explain that, for the Asante, cultural exchange practices – including both traditional trade and commercial exchange – are absorbed and altered continuously.

New

practices develop in a process known as “cultural bricolage” (de Witte 2003: 555), with objects (money, in the case of Asante funerals) playing a role in shaping new cultural identities.

Whether funeral debt (ayie ase ka in Asante) is taken on to provide an awisiado (a gold necklace presented to orphaned children) or nsa fufuo (liquors exchanged between mourners), the reasons for doing so differ little from an American’s decision to purchase an elaborately decorated casket or an array of expensive flowers (de Witte 2003: 535-537).

A last pattern I noted with funeral service workers was in their responses to my question regarding how simple a funeral can be and still be considered appropriate.

Each of the

participants felt that the dividing line between “appropriate” and “inappropriate” fell not along service or merchandise elements, but rather along the attitudinal spectrum of those planning the funerals. A “negligent” funeral, according to each director, is a funeral planned by a negligent

P a g e | 20

mourner. These may be mourners whose behaviors are dictated by obligation rather than by emotional impulses or sentimentality; while the term does not necessarily imply a lack of feeling, it does denote an unwillingness to display grief through the purchase of funeral goods and services. In some cases, however, mourners may indeed fill their roles only nominally. The directors have both felt it necessary at one time or another to ask a mourner “are you sure you want to go that route?” when the individual planning the funeral requested a direct burial with no clergy, family, or friends. All the participants interviewed were quick to point out that in some instances a mourner is simply too stunned to devote much thought to planning a funeral for a loved one who died unexpectedly, but both the directors and the crematory employee have had mourners say things like “let’s just plant him” and “I want this over with” in tones they describe as unmistakably callous. Some mourners even request that the burial or cremation be conducted by the director or operator alone – without even a single mourner.

It was during this part of the discussion that the participants become the most animated and seemed to be the most interested in our discussion. Each had a story ready about a person they considered the most insensitive client he had ever encountered, and remembered a statement he or she considered particularly cold or emotionally detached. I asked if these reactions might have had anything to do with a general level of discomfort with the subject of death, but no participant believed that to be likely. One director told me: “Death seems like it would be a subject people shy away from, but it’s more specific, not generalized. People don’t have a crippling fear of death in general, they just fear the unknown aspect of arranging a funeral for someone they love. I really doubt most people would refuse to go to a funeral home because they were somehow unconsciously aware of being afraid of funerals – that doesn’t fit with what I’ve seen at all.” When I asked why he felt some mourners elect for the barest minimum possible

P a g e | 21

when planning a funeral he responded: “Because they don’t know the person. Not really. They don’t know the deceased, so they don’t know who to invite. And if you don’t know anyone, you don’t have to impress anyone, I guess.”

Clergy Members: My second interview group comprised four clergy members: a rabbi, a priest, a pastor, and a nun.

The preliminary purpose of these interviews was to establish a baseline

understanding of practices in each participant’s faith tradition. Each participant explained the basic elements of a funeral service in his or her faith, and then described the funeral service they would expect a congregant to plan for a loved one (interestingly, few or none of the traditional elements named by these individuals were specifically mentioned by student participants, with the exception of a funeral mass for four Catholic participants). The clergy members I spoke with indicated that a vast majority of lay persons rely heavily on the advice and guidance of the church in planning the religious portion of a funeral.

My interviews raised a number of interesting points, but the most important theme (and the most prevalent one) to emerge from this line of inquiry was the balance between tradition and personalization in modern funeral practice. While most of the participants in my other groups focused on the importance of diversity, with particular emphasis on creating one or more unique aspects for each individual’s funeral, the clergy members I spoke with stressed the necessity of having a set of rules or guidelines. Although the degree of rigidity varied from one participant to the next, each felt strongly that funeral practices should be planned and conducted according to a traditional set of rules and along a traditionally established timeline.

Each believed that

P a g e | 22

memorial services and nontraditional practices should be kept separate from traditional religious practices.

Personalization, the idea that a funeral should speak directly to the deceased’s life, was discussed cautiously by each participant.

While none of the clergy members encourages

personalization in traditional funeral service, each acknowledges the necessity of flexibility when helping grieving family members plan a funeral for a loved one. During my interviews each participant expressed the importance of allowing congregants to find their own personal connections to the traditional elements of a service in their faith, and two of the participants noted that this trend applies to all religious practices – not just funerals. One participant, “Sister Judy,” directed me to an article from the Clarion Herald, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, which discusses the growing trend of personalizing Catholic funerals. The article, which cautions against replacing traditional elements of Catholic funeral rites with secular ones, notes that Catholics have begun to gravitate toward the funeral home in seeking comfort, rather than toward the church (Sheehan 2013). Sister Judy acknowledged this trend, but unlike the author of that piece she feels that the shift from church to funeral home may be beneficial to parishes with declining membership numbers.

She stated: “It’s not 1965

anymore, you can’t just command people to do things the ‘right way’ and expect them to fall in step. If you push people too hard about following Catholic rules they don’t really agree with or fully understand or appreciate, well, you might just end up with one less Catholic. It didn’t used to be like that, but now people can look for personal connections to their religion that they wouldn’t have back then. Letting people memorialize a person on their own terms – at the funeral home, I mean – I think that sometimes feels like, now we’ve included everything, the traditional service and the memorial.” Sister Judy explained that she makes a point of attending

P a g e | 23

wakes and memorial services whenever she can, and that she regards church membership as a kind of two-way street: people come to church, but the church can come to them as well.

Sister Judy’s point was reiterated by another one of my participants, a Catholic priest in the same Parish. He noted that “memorializing” people (hosting an event intended to create a single memory which represents a person’s collective life experience) is relatively new among widespread practices, and that, traditionally, memorial services were only held for noteworthy people or for those who did not have any religious affiliations. Although he stressed that the official opinion of the Catholic Church is that a Catholic funeral mass and graveside service should be sufficient for any Catholic person, he told me that he personally feels memorials encourage Catholics to participate more in their religious communities. Funeral home viewings, he says, are events that draw congregants from a particular church together outside their usual meeting place; these meetings, he believes, encourage individuals to consider one another in a different context, a context in which they can grieve, or chat, or laugh, or even eat and drink together. “A funeral is an important part of a person’s journey, the last step taken in this world and the first step in the next one. A wake is something different. It’s a place for all the people in your life to spend a few hours together, to get to know each other, to see if they can see in each other what you saw in each of them. And if you’re Catholic, and if members of your church come to your memorial service or your wake, then that bond becomes a little stronger.”

This theme is an important one, because it speaks to the social aspect of memorialization in funeral practices. While people may feel a need to observe traditions at a time of loss, it is membership within a group of similar-minded people following similar patterns of behavior which makes us feel connected to those traditions. Rabbi Judy noted the importance of Shiva (a Hebrew word meaning “seven” used to denote the immediate mourning period after a loss) and

P a g e | 24

its social implications (Middleman et al 1980). She told me: “There are a lot of traditions associated with sitting Shiva that no one really knows the origins of – removing the sofa cushions, covering mirrors. Covering mirrors is a good one – the best explanation I’ve heard for it came from a [relatively recent] movie. There’s no definite origin that anyone could point to in a book and say, ‘here’s where this comes from.’ We do those things, because we do those things.

And we do them together, because we all know about them whether we know where they come from or not. And if I’m the first person to get to your house after you lose someone, and you don’t know what to do, I can say ‘let’s cover your mirrors.’ It gives us something to do which we would only do in that situation.” Rabbi Judy’s observation applies to religious practices in general, and it has been discussed at great length by anthropologists and sociologists for centuries. In 1916 J. P. Lichtenberger summarized Durkheim’s thesis of religion by explaining the basic assumptions upon which all religions are founded: first, religion is natural and therefore not generally resisted; and second, religion is social and reflects the social group by whom it is practiced (Lichtenberger 1916: 263). Without a social group, then, religion would serve little or no purpose.

Memorialization may be the primary purpose for mortuary practices, with traditional elements acting as the common ground upon which people are drawn together at a time of loss.

This would explain why student participants responded more often with preferences for those funeral practices which reflected their own experiences rather than those of their loved ones.

An interesting question raised during this series of interviews is whether cultures which emphasize individualism less than American culture does have seen similar shifts toward incorporating elements of memorialization in addition to traditional religious funeral practices.

One fascinating example of this is the newly developing tradition of pre-funerals in Japan,

P a g e | 25

ceremonies planned and executed by the elderly celebrating and honoring their own longevity.

Japan boasts one of the longest average life expectancies in the world (Kawano 2004: 155), and until recently desire for long life was a central theme in Japanese culture; as the youth population in Japan has dwindled over the last generation, however, longevity has begun to be seen as an unsustainable burden on Japanese society. In response to growing resentment by young and middle-aged populations, Japanese elderly have begun hosting their own funerals in advance, in order to ensure they receive the respect they deserve for an impressive accomplishment – living into old age. These pre-funerals incorporate an interesting twist on memorialization: rather than allow a family member to dictate which elements of a person’s life will be remembered, the individual selects those things he or she wants to be remembered for and creates an event which showcases them. Although the practice is unusual, the underlying purpose remains very similar to that of modern American memorialization practices: a pre-funeral allows each person to demonstrate those aspects of his life which he believes act as proof of his inclusion in a social group (Kawano 2004).

Student Participants: I had several goals for my student interviews, and each of those goals revealed patterns and similarities relating to both the scientific/technical aspects of funeral practice as well as to the social aspects. Almost none of my participants had ever participated in planning a funeral, and yet each expressed a strong feeling of obligation to have funerals for their loved ones when they eventually pass on. Many had specific ideas of what those funerals would entail, whether those details came from funerals they had attended or simply from seeing funerals through the popular media and press. Interestingly, only those few who had planned one or more funerals in

P a g e | 26

the past came close to expressing a belief in one “right” way to conduct a funeral, and only one person I spoke with, a woman of 47 who has buried a husband and two parents, spoke of her tradition in the concrete sense of being ‘the way funerals are.’

The first series of questions I put to my student participants related to the scientific, technical, and historical aspects of modern American funeral practices. Only one third of participants understood that the embalming process involves the replacement of blood with preservative chemicals injected intravenously, and more than half of the remaining participants believed that all organs were removed entirely rather than being treated internally (Mayer 2009).

With only one exception, each participant stated that embalming is required by either the state or federal government, or both (it is not required by either). None knew that modern embalming was developed during the American Civil War, and only two students guessed within the correct century (Habenstein et al 2010). Most interestingly, no student participant recognized any safety concerns associated with dead bodies, and two specifically stated a false belief that bacteria and viruses “die with the cells” (Mayer 2009).

This first series of questions established a low level of general knowledge about healthrelated aspects of death and mortuary practice. None of the participants were aware of the inherent dangers of prolonged exposure to human remains, and several participants stated that they would be likely to kiss or touch a deceased loved one at a funeral viewing. In an age when governmental regulations indirectly prohibit prolonged contact with unpreserved human remains1, it seems that the general public may have lost its collective knowledge of the dangers of contamination by exposure to the dead. If that is the case, it raises the question of why we continue to bury people at all – if we are unaware that the dead are a danger to the living, then 1 Both federal and state laws define deceased human remains as “pseudo-property.” Only hospitals, coroner/medical examiner’s offices, and licensed funeral homes are permitted to take possession of a deceased person (Gillian et al 2003).

P a g e | 27

why are we so quick to remove them from our presence? The answer may be that funerals are culturally required for most individuals in modern societies, with only the very elderly (who have survived those who might memorialize them) and the social outcasts (whom others refuse to memorialize for one reason or another) left unspoken for.

The second series of questions focused on social aspects of modern funeral practices.

While each participant gave unique answers to my questions about what practices and merchandise he or she considered “necessary” for a funeral, all identified a benefit in allowing individuals to determine which practices were best suited for a particular funeral.

Personalization and diversity were themes which appeared almost immediately in most of my interviews, and each person who named specific practices he or she would want for a loved one’s funeral (waking, burial, funeral mass etc.) was quick to make some statement along the lines of ‘but I know other people don’t all do that.” I received similar responses regarding merchandise, with each person who specifically noted a preference for certain items (flowers, crosses, etc.) quickly pointing out that “most people probably wouldn’t want those things.” Although it is true that no single practice was listed by every participant across the board, this theme of personalization as a means by which to memorialize is not new; a Zogby consumer report released in 2010 by the New York State Funeral Directors Association indicates that more than half of the New Yorkers who participated in the study “find meaning in a eulogy/tribute by family/loved ones, calling hours at the funeral home, a service conducted by clergy or other celebrant, and a graveside service, and will select a casket/urn, calling hours, and a service of remembrance” when planning a funeral for a loved one (Rouzzo 2010: 84) . These are not onesize-fits-all items, but rather highly individualized components to be tailored to reflect the deceased’s preferences as interpreted by the planner.

P a g e | 28

I asked my participants what they considered appropriate attire for a deceased person, and every participant stated that formal wear is the only appropriate attire for someone to be buried in (or cremated – only one participant stated a preference for cremation, but she agreed on the point of formal wear). When asked what items were appropriate to place in a casket to be buried or cremated with the deceased, every participant agreed that any item would be appropriate so long as it was an item which held some important meaning for the deceased. Several participants listed photographs, jewelry, or personal mementos as appropriate items, with photos being named by nine participants. When I asked why those specific items are the most appropriate, each participant noted that personal items like photos and jewelry allow a person to be laid to rest with something that speaks both for them and of them.

When asked which funerals participants would be most likely to attend if they did not know the deceased personally, a trend emerged favoring children and young adults.

Approximately half stated they would attend funerals of older adults and the elderly whom they did not know, but the majority of participants stated that they would be unlikely to attend a funeral for a suicide victim or for a person who had committed a serious or violent crime. I asked why they would not want to attend a funeral for a person who had committed suicide, and the majority of participants stated that it would make them feel as though they were interfering in some way; several participants specifically stated that they believed their presence would make family members uncomfortable, because the family would not want to answer questions about the person’s death – facts which each participant believed was information which in typical circumstances ought to be shared at a person’s funeral. This notion stems from a general belief that sharing details of a person’s death is an important component of the grieving process for those who knew the person; ‘closure’ (sometimes referred to as ‘acceptance’) is the term used by

P a g e | 29

psychologists to describe the final stage of grief at which a mourner recognizes and becomes emotionally accustomed to the idea that a loved one is no longer part of the living world he or she inhabits – until a person reaches this stage he or she will be unable to fully adjust to life without the deceased. Family members of suicide victims often have extreme difficulty reaching this stage, because the very subject of their loved ones’ death is considered an inappropriate topic for discussion (Klicker 2007).

When I asked why participants would not attend the funeral of a criminal, the responses I received varied, but each implied that a criminal was less deserving of memorialization than a person who had not committed any crimes. I asked if a criminal’s family members had a right to arrange a funeral for such a person, and all participants agreed that they did, but that such a funeral was entirely for the benefit of the family rather than for the deceased – more than half noted that family members should have a chance to remember the person “the way they saw them,” implying that the perspective of family members was necessarily at odds with the collective perspective of everyone else.

These last questions about funeral attendance offer an opportunity to consider one of the most important aspects of modern mortuary practice – memorialization. A common theme which emerged over and over again as I conducted my interviews was one which sought memorialization of the deceased from the perspective of, and according to the terms of, the mourners. As I probed more deeply for detailed responses I began to see a perceived pattern whereby those planning funerals should seek to establish their perspective of the life of the person they are burying. Mourners felt, without exception, that a funeral should reflect his or her relationship with the deceased, rather than focusing solely on that person’s life from the deceased’s perspective; whether this tendency stems from a reasonable inability to assume the

P a g e | 30

perspective of the deceased or an emotional need to express a feeling of personal loss, the result is a social event at which others speak to the deceased’s inclusion in one or more groups. None of my participants suggested that a person might leave specific instructions for his or her own funeral, and when I asked how they would feel if they discovered a loved one had left such instructions, a majority of them expressed that they would be unhappy with such an arrangement because it would not allow them to participate.

These answers suggest that memorialization is less an opportunity to allow a person’s loss to speak for itself (whether plainly or exaggeratedly) than it is a chance to express to those in attendance the planner’s devotion to the traditions (or innovations) he or she includes when making arrangements. It is possible that such arrangements are a projection of the funeral the planner would want, or that the planner wants to assert the deceased’s inclusion in the same social group he or she is a member of.

If that is the case, then it would seem that

memorialization is not a summation of a life lived as a member of a social group, but rather an assertion of the planner’s participation in that group by way of demonstrating adherence to social customs.

CONCLUSION Modern funeral practices developed in response to both health concerns and increasingly complex social relationships. Today, we consider ourselves a “scientific” society, and yet our understanding of the physical sciences, medicine, public health, and infectious disease models have not coincided with a decline in religious burial rituals or mortuary taboos. While we might expect our society to have grown somewhat calloused and desensitized to death and dying, particularly considering our level of comfort with the general concept (Sayer 2014), instead we find that funeral rituals remain commonplace and, in some cases, have even increased in recent

P a g e | 31

years. This change is better understood in the context of social knowledge: as our society continues to develop and succeed, the need for the average citizen to physically handle deceased members of his or her social group becomes less common – where there is no need for skill, there is no need for foundational knowledge.

In modern Western society, then, people have come to view funeral practice from an almost entirely ceremonial perspective. Funeral directors and other industry-related workers make up the vast majority of individuals familiar with the technical aspects of mortuary practice, and they acquire that knowledge for monetary gain rather than social inclusion or personal edification.

The rules and regulations associated with mortuary practice are trade-related

knowledge, with so few members of society seeking that information that the basis for those regulations is largely unknown – in other words, ignorance of the rules implies ignorance of the motivation for those rules. My use of the word ‘ignorance,’ however, should not be taken to imply that Westerners avoid the subject of death; on the contrary, we remind ourselves regularly of our fragility not only through exposure to historical artifacts, but also through the arts, which often treat life, death, and social customs as major themes with which to depict the human condition. Since the subject of death is not taboo, there must be some other reason for our continued reliance on religious and social mortuary practices.

In Western society, ceremonial funeral practices have maintained a prevalent role in social life-cycles while hygiene-related practices have taken a second-place position, outside the domain of common, general knowledge. The symbolic meanings of ceremonial funeral practices have been adapted time and again to suit increasingly diverse social groups, so that rituals with similar meanings may appear to be entirely different in their execution, while rituals which seem identical may have vastly different cultural significance. Greek tradition, for instance, calls for

P a g e | 32

coins to be placed over the eyes as payment for the safe passage of a loved one’s soul into the afterlife; in the Christian tradition coins over the eyes served to weigh down the lids (in modern funeral homes a device known as an ‘eye cap’ is used to accomplish the same purpose). In Christian cemeteries it is common to see flowers left on graves as a sign of remembrance; in a Jewish cemetery you are more likely to find a small pile of stones, but the purpose is the same (NACMS 1994). The shift from practical hygienic practice to symbolic representation is the most important indication that funerals have come to serve a primarily social purpose, and it is for this reason that a direct burial (the immediate interment of a deceased human body without a ceremony) is considered by clergy members, funeral directors, and lay people alike to be inappropriately austere as the scientific perspective has faded from our collective understanding of the purpose of funeral practices, our tendency to operationalize cultural ideals has led to a transition from practicality to representation.

This need to have our cultural standards reflected directly through practice may be the cause for the development of increasingly commercially-driven funeral practices. My research showed that individuals planning funerals believe that elegance, beauty, and wealth can act as symbolic representations for their depth of feeling for a deceased member of their social group. I would argue that this is especially important in the context of memorialization, because an individual’s memorialization of another person is a direct expression of his or her desire to leave a lasting impression at the time of his or her own death. Memorialization is a simple yet crucial cultural adaptation which reflects the Western ideal of individualism, and thus cultural syncretism allows us to safeguard social groups while simultaneously pursuing that social ideal.

P a g e | 33

P a g e | 34

WORKS REFERENCED Casey, Edwin F. and Liz Mathewson 2011. Tales from the Granite Orchard. Canadensis, Pennsylvania: Haddon Road Press.

Conklin, Beth A. 2001. Consuming grief: compassionate cannibalism in an Amazonian society. Austin: University of Texas Press. de Witte, Marleen 2003. "Money And Death: Funeral Business In Asante, Ghana."

Africa 73(04): 531-559.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Ernster, Virginia L. 1977. "Expectations about Menstruation among Premenarcheal Girls." Medical Anthropology Newsletter 8(4): 16-25.

Gargett, Robert H., L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Yuri Smirnov, Ralph S. Solecki, Paola Villa, Thomas Weber 1989. “On the Evidence for Neandertal Burial.” Current Anthropology 30(3): 322 – 330.

Gilligan, T. Scott, and Thomas F. H. Stueve 2003. 10th Rev. Ed. Mortuary Law. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Foundation for Mortuary Education.

Habenstein, Robert W. 2010. 7th Ed. William M. Lamers. History of American Funeral Directing. Milwaukee: Bulfin.

Kawano, Satsuki 2014. "Pre-Funerals in Contemporary Japan: The Making of a New Ceremony of Later Life among Aging Japanese." Ethnology 43(2): 155-165.

Klicker, Ralph A. 2007. Funeral Service Psychology & Counseling. Buffalo: Thanos Institute.

Lichtenberger, J.P. 1916. “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life by Emile Durkheim.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 66 (Preparedness and America's International Program): 263.

Mayer, Robert G. 2009. Embalming: History, Theory & Practice. 4th Ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical.

Middleman, Ann D., Morris, R., Eisenberg, M. 1980. 1st Ed. A Death in the Family.

Westbury, NY: Community Reform Temple Ritual Committee.

National Association of Colleges of Mortuary Science 1994. Types of Funeral Services & Ceremonies (Religious, Fraternal, Military, Miscellaneous). Dallas: Professional Training Schools, Inc.

P a g e | 35

Neisser, Ulric 1997. "Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests: Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial." American Scientist 85(5): 440-447.

Roach, M. 2004. Stiff: the curious lives of human cadavers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Rouzzo, P., Graham, K., eds. 25 Oct. 2010. “NYS Funeral Directors Association releases Groundbreaking Zogby Survey on Consumer Attitudes toward Funeral Practices and Customs.” Funeral Home & Cemetery News, Nov. 2010: 84.

Sayer, Duncan 2010. “Who’s Afraid of the Dead? Archaeology, Modernity And The Death Taboo.” World Archaeology 42(3): 481-491.

Sheehan, Pete 22 Oct. 2013. "Trend toward 'personalized' funerals can miss mark. Clarion Herald. <http://clarionherald.info/clarion/index.php/special-sections/eternal-life/2707-trendtoward-personalized-funerals-can-miss-mark>. Accessed 28 Apr. 2014.

Wyckoff, Edith Hay 1978. The fabled past: tales of Long Island. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press.

P a g e | 36

APPENDIX 1 Interview Goals: Group 1 (Clergy Members) •

This line of questions allowed me to establish how many congregation members know the purpose and origin of each portion of the funeral practices: o

In what ways and to what extent are general funeral practices dictated by doctrine?

o

Do congregants follow these practices rigidly, or is any degree of personalization allowed on a case-by case or family-to-family basis?

o

What portion of his/her congregation is believed to be entirely informed of those practices (as determined by adequate knowledge to make arrangements for a funeral without assistance)?

•

What elements are there in a typical funeral service? o

Explanations of particular practices and their origins.

o

Are there connections between clergy and funeral service workers (ie., preferences for services in a church vs. in a funeral home)

o

•

Does he/she have strong feelings about various funeral merchandise 

Is it necessary?



Does it add to a service, and in what way?

Are there any particular practices he or she considers to be generally followed by most funeral homes, and if so does he or she approve or disapprove of any of them?

•

Additional Questions: o

Aftercare: what types/forms of counseling or support are offered to bereaved congregants (ie., talk-therapy counseling, group counseling, etc.)

P a g e | 37 o

What does he/she consider to be the most vital parts of a funeral service (the parts which absolutely should never be overlooked when planning a funeral vs. the parts which are not strictly required but are common)?

o

Are there any factors which he/she believes may have led to the construction of the funeral practices of his or her religion (ie., health concerns or other practical needs, relevant mythological components, etc.)?

â&#x20AC;˘

When I was permitted to speak directly to members of the congregation I sought to establish: o

How many congregants are fully aware of those practices?

o

For those who are not fully aware, how much they do know?

o

How does the average congregantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge correlate with the responses by the clergy?

o

The general level of understanding of the science-based component of funerals according to their traditions as they relate to burial, cremation, and the viewing of bodies.

o

The types of funeral merchandise commonly purchased, why they are purchased, and how those items contribute to the funeral practices.

P a g e | 38

APPENDIX 2 PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE for ORDAINED CLERGY MEMBERS Mortuary Practices & Taboos The following control questions are designed to establish an understanding of funeral practices in your faith/tradition, and of the origins of those practices. These questions will be used to help determine the breadth and depth of knowledge of study participants.

•

Walkthrough of a typical funeral service: o Please describe those parts of the funeral service which are typically followed, in chronological order where applicable: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In what ways and to what extent are general funeral practices dictated by doctrine? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o Do congregants follow these practices rigidly, or is any degree of personalization allowed on a case-by case or family-to-family basis? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o What portion of your congregation do you believe is entirely informed of those practices (as determined by adequate knowledge to make arrangements for a funeral without assistance)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o Are there connections between clergy and funeral service workers (ie., preferences for services in a church vs. in a funeral home)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o Do you have strong feelings about the use of funeral merchandise? _____________________________________________________________________________ _  In your opinion, is it necessary? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __  In your opinion, does it add to a service, and in what way? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __

P a g e | 39 •

Are there particular practices which you believe are generally followed by most funeral homes (practical or ceremonial), and if so do you approve or disapprove of them? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Additional Questions: o Aftercare: what types/forms of counseling or support do you provide for bereaved congregants (ie., talk-therapy counseling, group counseling, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o What do you consider to be the most vital parts of a funeral service (the parts which absolutely should never be overlooked when planning a funeral vs. the parts which are not strictly required but are common)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o What are some factors you believe may have led to the construction of the funeral practices of your religion (ie., health concerns or other practical needs, relevant mythological components, etc.)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Are there any funeral practices in other religions which you would consider unacceptable in your own tradition? Why? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Are there any funeral practices in your own tradition which you believe would be unacceptable to others, either generally or in another specific tradition? If so, why do you believe this to be the case? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __

P a g e | 40

APPENDIX 3 Interview Goals: Group 2 (Students) •

Average basic knowledge of embalming (its necessity and the basic process), burials (reasons for burial, necessity of burial, etc.), cremations (how a cremation is performed, details such as temperature requirements, etc.), viewings (safety concerns related to touching bodies or being near a body, how closely they believe the unseen portion of a body resembles the seen portion, etc.).

•

What practices does he/she believe are generally adhered to by the public (to establish whether individuals perceive others of different faiths and cultural groups to participate in ceremonies or rituals specific to his or her religion – in other words, to see how many people believe that “everyone” does what he or she does)?

•

Which mortuary goods/practices does he/she believes are required?

•

Which mortuary goods/practices are available but not necessarily required?

•

Are there any mortuary goods of which he/she may be aware of but would not purchase (ie., a Jewish individual who is aware of prayer cards but would not purchase them for a Jewish funeral)?

•

Would he/she be more or less likely to attend various types of funeral services (ie., after a suicide, after the death of a child, etc.)?

•

How does he/she feel about certain individuals having traditional funerals (ie., suicides, executed criminals, etc.)?

P a g e | 41

APPENDIX 4 PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE for STUDENTS Mortuary Practices & Taboos The following questions are designed to gauge the depth and breadth of funeral practices in the Long Island, NY area. There is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions.

•

Please explain, in your own words, the process of embalming a human body as you understand it. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • When did embalming become common in the United States? In your opinion, why did it become common? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, is embalming necessary for a funeral/viewing/burial/etc.? Why? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, why do we bury people? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, is burial necessary? Why? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

Please explain, in your own words, how a cremation is performed. Please include any details you can think of. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Are there any safety concerns associated with touching bodies or being near a body? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, how closely does the unseen portion of a body at a funeral viewing resemble the seen portion? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

P a g e | 42

_____________________________________________________________________________ ____ • What are the funeral practices generally adhered to by the average individual/family on Long Island? (Ie., which practices apply to more or less everyone? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Which practices are you aware of that do not apply to the average individual or family? (Please be specific) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, which mortuary goods are necessary or required for a funeral? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, which mortuary goods are available but not necessarily required? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Are there any mortuary goods of which you are aware but would not purchase for a funeral you were planning? (Ie., religious paraphernalia, printed service materials, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

In your opinion, what types of clothing would be appropriate for displaying a person at a viewing? What types would be inappropriate? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • In your opinion, what types of good are appropriate or must be placed in the casket before a burial or cremation? What types of goods would be inappropriate to place in the casket? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • On a scale of 1 through 10, how likely would you be to attend the following types of funeral services for an individual you know? (Please circle one) o Suicide: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o Death of a child: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o Death of a criminal: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o Death of a very young adult (18-25): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o Death of an elderly person not related to you: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

P a g e | 43

Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ o

•

How do you feel about certain individuals having traditional funerals (ie., suicides, executed criminals, etc.)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __

APPENDIX 5 PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE for FUNERAL SERVICE PROVIDERS The following control questions are designed to establish an understanding of funeral practices in the Long Island, NY area, and of the origins of those practices. These questions will be used to help determine the breadth and depth of knowledge of study participants.

•

Which items are frequently sold in or through your funeral home? (Please circle Y or N for each item that you provide) o Caskets Y N o Prayer Cards Y N o Flowers Y N o Death notice/obituary Y N o Thank you cards/other stationary Y N • Are there any items for which you do not charge? If yes, what are they? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Are there any items whose cost is passed along to the consumer directly without any price markup? If yes, what are they? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • Which mortuary items do you sell most frequently? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __

P a g e | 44 •

Why do you believe those items are purchased more frequently? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • What is the purpose, use, or necessity of those mortuary items (practically and ritualistically)? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ • How frequently do you embalm? (Please provide the approximate percentage of cases in which embalming is performed) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

Which funeral practices do you believe developed in direct response to science-based concerns such as the public health? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

Which do you believe developed as a result of social or religious influence?

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

How much value do you believe mourners assign to certain practices (Ie., viewings, embalming, cremation) and mortuary goods (Ie., caskets, prayer cards, flowers)? In your opinion, do they believe certain practices or goods to be necessary for a funeral?

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ •

What is the simplest funeral you would consider appropriate? In your opinion, at what point does “simple” cross the line into “inappropriate” or “negligent,” or is there no such line?

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __

P a g e | 45 â&#x20AC;˘

Are there any practices or goods which mourners often obviously or explicitly prefer not to discuss in detail? Are there any practices or goods which you refuse to offer/carry or discuss, and why?

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __ â&#x20AC;˘

Please describe, as if to a mourner planning a funeral in your establishment, how the embalming process is accomplished.

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __