Journal Identification = NRP Article Identification = 0651 Date: June 12, 2021 Time: 5:4 pm
doi:10.1684/nrp.2021.0651
REVUE DE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIE
NEUROSCIENCES COGNITIVES ET CLINIQUES
119
Point of view
Rev Neuropsychol
2020 ; 12 (S1) : 119-22
Contextualizing mourning
in a disrupted funeral rituality * Contextualiser le deuil
dans une ritualité funéraire perturbée
Gaëlle Clavandier Sociologue et anthropologue,
Centre Max Weber (UMR 5283), Univ-Lyon, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne
To cite this article: Clavandier G. Contextu- alizing mourning in a disrupted funeral ritu- ality.Rev Neuropsychol2020;12(S1):119-22 doi:10.1684/nrp.2021.0651
T
he COVID-19 pandemic imposed public health measures that had an impact on specific areas of social life. The end-of-life period, the moment of death and the funeral were particularly affected by the breadth of this crisis, which became both a crisis of mortality (an excessof mortality in the context of an epi- demic) and a “funerary” crisis (an upheaval of the normal conditions surrounding final farewells and burials for all types of deaths). The lockdown and its accompanying restrictions, the application of strict preventive distancing measures and the mandatory limitation of travel all had the immediate effect of disrupting the usual course of funeral arrangements for all deaths, on varying scales. In addition to drastic protective measures related to the handling of infected bodies and the need for immediate burial in such cases, the bereaved and all professionals in these sectors were forced to make adjustments or faced insurmountable obstacles affecting the whole funeral process.Questions and issues
While any attempt to draw conclusions would be pre- mature at this point, it is possible to establish some ground plans for future research. I will focus here on funerary ritu- ality in the broad sense of the term, beyond the sacred and religious aspects. This perspective will allow me to test a commonly accepted and widespread idea that circulated in the media throughout the period in question, accord- ing to which bereaved people were facing “pathological”,
“impossible” or “traumatic” grief. On the one hand, it is too
∗This article is an English language translation of the following article: Clavandier G. Contextualiser le deuil dans une ritualité funéraire perturbée. Rev Neuropsychol 2020 ; 12 (2) : 243-6.
doi:10.1684/nrp.2020.0582. Translated by Sarah Novak.
Correspondence:
G. Clavandier
early at this point to verify this notion because mourning is not a state of being but rather a process that develops over a long temporal line, following a series of equally important steps. On the other hand, it is not yet possi- ble to describe its nature, quality and outcome, since the
“closure” of mourning is itself followed by rites of aggrega- tion. Furthermore, focusing exclusively on “bereavement”
could lead us to forget that the deceased−especially their bodies−also have their own roles to play and paths to fol- low. To what extent has the process of bidding farewell to the dead been changed by the COVID-19 pandemic? Will these new conditions have any subsequent effects, particu- larly on the grieving process, and will these effects remain specific to these circumstances?
To further develop this line of questioning, there were three focal points that seemed to characterize this crisis.
First of all, the phase of separation, which is an important stage in funerary rituals, was transformed into a new type of ordeal, both from the point of view of farewells and the treatment of the bodies of the deceased. Second, in the state of emergency, certain gestures or ceremonial acts had to be postponed or abandoned, temporarily or permanently.
Finally, the lockdown period may have created a distortion between the intellectual aspects and the actual practices of bereavement.
To help contextualize these avenues of exploration, let us first make some observations, which can then be put into perspective through a comparison with the “usual” stages of funeral rituality.
Disrupted rituals: bidding farewell and holding a funeral for the deceased
This crisis led to upheavals in the phase of separation, which occurred to varying degrees depending on the insti- tutions, geographical regions, causes of death and family structures involved. There were new complications and
Journal Identification = NRP Article Identification = 0651 Date: June 12, 2021 Time: 5:4 pm
REVUE DE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIE
NEUROSCIENCES COGNITIVES ET CLINIQUES
120
Point of view
obstacles affecting the act of saying a final goodbye to a person while he or she was still alive, and then to his or her
“body” once it was placed in a coffin.
Those who died from COVID-19 or were suspected of having had the virus, and who had “immediate burial”
marked on their death certificates, had to be placed inside body bags, without any embalming, and sometimes with- out being bathed or dressed for burial. In the majority of situations, these bags, once closed, were not reopened for viewing by relatives, despite the application of distancing measures (wearing personal protective equipment and lim- iting the number of people present to two), although at one point during this crisis the authorities recommended that the face of the deceased be shown to family members1. The transportation of the body required the coffin to be closed and therefore sealed, which took place inside the institution where the death had occurred (hospital, nurs- ing home, or at home). These operations had to be carried out within 24 hours of death. More specifically, repatriat- ing bodies to France from abroad, or sending them from France back to their home countries, became impossible and required either a readjustment of the choice of burial or “temporary storage” involving the use of a zinc-plated coffin.
As a result, relatives of people with COVID-19 who were hospitalized or in convalescent homes were not always able to be with them at the end of their lives, and some were unable to see their family members one last time before their coffins were sealed. Throughout the lockdown period, the official recommendations, which were determined by governmental decrees, had to navigate between the two requirements of protecting public health, first and foremost that of medical personnel, in order to maintain the continu- ity of public health services, and of taking into account the emotional distress generated by these conditions. This dou- ble constraint resulted in the production of regulatory texts during the pandemic period that were controversial and that varied considerably, and, in the field, it led to the applica- tion of procedures that could potentially result in unequal treatment.
For non-COVID-19-related deaths, regulations were more flexible, particularly with respect to mortuary care for bodies. However, embalming was forbidden, which made it difficult to present bodies at funeral parlors. And since travel and gatherings of people were severely limited, contact was restricted both before and after a person’s death.
For all deaths, funeral services had to be adapted or were sometimes rendered entirely impossible. While cere- monies, especially religious ones, continued to be allowed, access was limited to only 20 people. It was difficult to hold any civil burial ceremonies until the shelter-in-place orders were lifted because the spaces reserved for these cer- emonies in crematoriums were closed to the public and access to cemeteries was very limited. There are reports
1Information provided by hospital morgues.
that it was impossible to enter cemeteries during burials.
For cremations, which were more frequent2, relatives could not enter the site and had to leave the body in the mortuary room or after the ceremony or make their farewells in the parking lots of these establishments, which was a break with normal practices. In addition, there were delays in returning the ashes of the deceased to their families, particularly in the most intensely affected regions, and urns had to be stored in crematoriums. Thus, the preservation of ashes (interring the urn in a burial plot, sealing it onto a tombstone or deposit- ing it in a columbarium, etc.) or their dispersal (scattering them on open ground or in a memory garden) was deferred.
Therefore, even though funeral activities were able to take place, death certificates were drawn up and burials and cremations were authorized, their temporality was nonethe- less changed. This resulted in emergency situations for those who had died from COVID-19, but also in the suspension of time itself around outbreak sites, with cremations for non- COVID related deaths being delayed for up to two weeks.
Separation as the first step in funeral rituality
In view of these findings, it is important to emphasize the specificity, from an anthropological point of view, of the rites and practices of separation that form the first stage of funeral rituals. Traditionally, in the same way as theRites de pas- sage[1]of which they are a part, funeral rites follow three sequences: separation, marginalization and aggregation or, in other words, farewell, mourning and remembrance, if we consider them from the point of view of the living. These three sequences create a link between the status and the trajectory of the deceased (his or her body and soul) and those of the bereaved, with temporal dimensions (prelim- inary, introductory, post-liminary), spatial dimensions (the metaphor of a house, with rooms, thresholds and doors) and statutory dimensions (loss of former status, absence of any consolidated status, lifting of prohibitions, acquiring a new status).
The secularization of mores has caused traditional funeral rituals to change considerably and to become more profane and pluriform. Nevertheless, the above models and descriptions remain relevant from the perspective of the stages and gestures of bereavement and their symbolism.
From this point of view, mourning is one step among oth- ers (a part rather than a whole), and the grieving process (and the bereaved him or herself) is connected with the fate reserved for the body and the soul or spirit of the deceased (for the process of mourning is not merely a labor of the psyche but also an intersubjective and collective labor that follows certain norms). This step is nonetheless central, in the literal sense, and is particularly sensitive because it is
2 Crematoriums report having experienced greater activity, beyond the excess mortality attributable to COVID-19.
Journal Identification = NRP Article Identification = 0651 Date: June 12, 2021 Time: 5:4 pm
REVUE DE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIE
NEUROSCIENCES COGNITIVES ET CLINIQUES
121
Point of view
uncertain. It is a marginal or liminal phase or could even be described as a threshold, because neither the deceased’s kin nor the deceased have acquired a stable status and posi- tion yet. The body disintegrates, the soul or the immaterial person contained in it is likely to wander, and the bereaved are affected (in the sense of impacted from a statutory point of view and also from an affective, emotional point of view).
The status of the deceased, the conditions of his or her death and final separation from the living: all of these elements foreshadow and help determine what follows. The image of the “unquiet dead”, people whose deaths were of an especially disturbing and thereby dangerous origin and out- come (childbirth, lightning, suicide, etc.), encapsulates the complexity of unusual situations.
Although rituality and funeral practices have been trans- formed, the disruption of final farewells to the deceased and of funerals is still likely to have serious effects, especially if the deceased’s last wishes cannot be followed.
Nonetheless, more informal and local recommendations and responses may exist to help overcome these fundamen- tal difficulties; this is where we can observe the plasticity of funeral rituals, practices and narratives. Any situation that disturbs the normal course of rituality will inspire adjust- ments and accommodations. The study of religious and regulatory precepts, along with the analysis of crisis situ- ations, including mass deaths, indicates that such actions can help compensate for exceptional situations.
Work on violent deaths, wars, genocides, bombings, accidents and natural disasters reveals specific responses and modalities that can vary over time. “Secondary” funeral ceremonies, commemorative ceremonies, such as exhuma- tions, the handling of human remains and reburials are common. These delayed actions show that funeral rituality and more broadly mortuary and funeral practices are nei- ther fixed nor unified. They also indicate that we should not merely look at a given moment, but rather promote long-term studies of collective efforts and life trajectories.
The uniqueness of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it generated public health measures that affected deaths due to the virus, or suspected of being caused by it, but that these containment measures also affected “ordinary”
deaths, thus blurring the lines between different categories.
These measures, despite degrees of excess mortality that differed between metropolitan and overseas territories, were applied everywhere on French soil in the same way, even though the first findings in the field showed significant variations.
Paths for further reflection
Considering, first of all, the wide variety of situations involved and the ways in which they overlap, the difficulty of analyzing them in real time without having previously described them in detail, and finally the likelihood of long-term adjustments occurring for funeral practices in any situation of mass death, it seems that prudence and
careful discernment are the most appropriate posture for researchers to take at this time. This is all the more important because there is high social demand and media pressure urging us to jump to conclusions or to propose unequivo- cal keys for understanding the situation, which would be performative and would effectively guide policy and public and private actions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has put researchers in a diffi- cult situation because few precedents exist in contemporary times. The characteristics of this crisis interweave issues related to a mortality crisis arising from a pandemic, and issues related to public health measures and the contain- ment of the population, resulting in a potential “funeral”
crisis. As a result, few stable benchmarks exist or are trans- ferable to the analysis of the current situation.
One of the aspects that we are discovering is the new relationship to time that such a crisis implies. An emer- gency situation requires emergency responses, and time itself, along with gestures and and the creation of narratives, moves faster. This is what is usually observed following nat- ural disasters or bombings. Mobilizations, testimonials, acts and speeches follow on the heels of the event, as if in “reac- tion”. However, for the COVID-19 pandemic, the passage of time hung upon the daily announcement of the number of deaths or was suspended by the shelter-in-place measures that shattered people’s usual temporal and spatial markers.
Thus, for example, the spontaneous movements of remem- brance that can be observed following other events did not take place here. It cannot be ruled out, on variable scales (individual and collective), that these unresolved times and spaces may eventually be caught up or compensated for in the months that follow. This remains to be seen. Sub- stitutional or staggered bereavement practices could be the spontaneous work of bereaved persons, or even be arranged by funeral professionals or by the public authorities who are currently studying their feasibility.
Another new aspect, which is nevertheless related to what is mentioned above, is that the bereaved now had more time for creating narratives, including “bereavement”
narratives, than for actions, which were hampered by the lockdown measures. The issue of symbolization thus shifts from an anthropological point of view, through ges- tures, into the intellectual realm.During the shelter-in-place period, there was widespread “distancing” (video confer- ences, photographs, recorded video messages, etc.) of the types of interactions that in ordinary times would have been unmediated. The various media used to enable this type of contact, not by choice, but by necessity, may have helped relieve some of the resulting distress. It will be interesting to study their modalities and possible effects.
Moving further along, we can hypothesize from these anthropological considerations, which for the moment have only been sketched out summarily, that these disrupted or unfinished goodbyes and final partings are likely to create situations in which grieving itself is difficult or even impos- sible. However, at this stage, there is no need to impose categories such as “pathological mourning” borrowed from
Journal Identification = NRP Article Identification = 0651 Date: June 12, 2021 Time: 5:4 pm
REVUE DE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIE
NEUROSCIENCES COGNITIVES ET CLINIQUES
122
Point of view
medical terminology, which could potentially pathologize the social realm; nor should these situations be designated by unequivocal categories, such as that of “impossible mourning”. On the contrary, it is essential to remain atten- tive to the gradation of reactions (in different varieties of situations), to the necessary shift away from the dimension of concrete practices, and to long-term trajectories.
Thus, the conditions surrounding the final farewells and ultimate separation between the dead and the living will undoubtedly have an impact, lasting or not, on the process of bereavement, though not to such an extent that it would be described as “pathological”, “complicated” or “impossi- ble” if it does not take place within a limited time frame as identified in the WHO International Classification of Dis- eases. It is not mourning itself that is pathological from the outset; it is rather the situation that requires adjustments, and some of these adjustments take time. In other words, while it is necessary to be extremely vigilant on an individ- ual level regarding the appearance of signs of post-traumatic stress and the early signs that tend to indicate that someone’s grieving process is going to involve “complications”, it is
also important that this category of “pathological”, “com- plicated, impossible or forbidden” mourning not be made into an all-encompassing social category to be applied to all bereaved people from this period, at the risk of “making them unwell” by describing them as such.
The excess mortality associated with COVID-19 is not the only funeral-related issue to consider in this crisis. The conditions of final goodbyes and funerals during this period are equally eloquent. From this point of view, it is essential to situate funeral rituality and mourning within a longer- term perspective, and to recognize the adjustments, possible recoveries or compensations, and secondary developments that may occur within this process. Doing so will involve gathering primary sources, including testimonies, from the lockdown and from the period after it was lifted, and estab- lishing research fields through observations and interviews in the coming months.
Conflicts of interest None.
Reference
1.Van Gennep A. Les rites de passage. (1st edition : 1909). Paris : Picard, 1981.
