Bereavement means the experience of deprivation and loss (Moller, 1996) and ‘grief is the primarily emotional reaction to the loss of a loved one.’ (Stroebe & Schut, 1998)
Human response to loss is not genetically determined but culturally learned. (DeSpelder & Strickland, 1996)
The article begins by highlighting the socially constructed nature of grieving and responses to loss. As technology has increasingly become part of our culture it too has become part of the digital and material processes associated with death rituals. Bereavement is often closely associated with the material existence of the deceased as friends and family negotiate the sometimes complex practices of dealing with the assets of a loved one. They require ‘decisions about what matters and for whom in terms of custodianship, distribution and disposal (Gibson, 2008; Hallam & Hockey, 2001; Hockey, Komaromy, & Woodthorpe, 2010)
This has been further complicated in the technological age as we create our ‘biography through electronic media’ (Gibson, 2014) and our digital assets have grown exponentially. The older distinctions between public and private spheres have become increasingly blurred and this is in turn impacting responses to death and dying. The material still carry personal and multi-sensory reminders of the deceased – smells, textures, and physical reminders. Whereas, the digital is less tangible and is reliant on devices, networks and websites.
Digital objects of the dead are thus multi-locational and despatialised materialities able to be dispersed/uploaded through communication networks/devices within seconds of time. (Gibson, 2014: 222)
In addition it could be said that online biographies are multi-authored with the potential to disrupt the traditional distinctions in ‘identity boundaries.’ (Gibson, 2014: 223); after our death these interwoven narratives now have the potential to live on publicly in the digital realm.
Social networking sites
There is a further complication in issues of ownership and distribution digitally as the core sites that facilitate these practices like Facebook and Instagram are commercially owned and operated. In building our social repositories and personal archives we are collectively creating value for the platforms on which the data is held. This has become increasingly contested in terms of privacy expectations in recent years with the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandals.
It has taken some time for the social media sites to address what should be done when their members die, statistics vary but it seems to be generally expected that at some point there will be more dead account holders on Facebook than living ones, as the Guardian headline highlighted in 2016, ‘Facebook is a growing and unstoppable digital graveyard.’ Each platform has slightly different means of dealing with deceased users and in most cases some form of memorialisation is possible. This often requires family or friends to negotiate with the provider and to provide evidence of death, like the State social media platforms are becoming growing archives of death certificates.
The State and the corporate social networking sector of Facebook are both mediating the transition from social life to social death or digital afterlife, governing their subjects/users by controlling and demanding information in the process.
Continuing bonds
Social networking sites enable the dead to remain within the communicative network of the living as digital social presences (Walter, Hourizi, Moncur, & Pitsillides, 2012)
This raises questions about mourning work and how traditional hierarchies of mourning are impacted. That is, the tradition has been that the intensity of mourning is directly related to the relational proximity to the deceased. Within a social network these barriers are broken down with distant acquaintances having equal opportunity to express their thoughts as those with the closest relationship bonds.
Regardless of the degree of connected those impacted are faced with the process of ‘renegotiating their sense of self as they face a future deprived of physical contact, conversation, and memory-making.’ (Gibson, 2014: 225)
It seems trite to say that the process of mourning is complex but it is clearly impacted by a wide range of factors such as age, the nature of the death and the past relationship. These wide-ranging social contexts therefore affect the desire for and nature of on-going connection to the deceased. The notion of continuing bonds (Walter et al., 2012) differs from the traditional Western view of mourning in that it is expected there will be a clear end point to the grieving process, a sense of ‘closure’, allowing the bereaved to then move on.
Social media has opened up and made more possible the concept of continuing bonds, indeed more recent services such as DeadSocial has directly enabled the deceased to continue posting after their death based on algorithmic learning during their lives. At this point it is however, only the Executors who have the right to determine what will happen to digital assets. It is also dependent on whether the deceased has left clear wishes in terms of their desires for their digital assets.
Decentralising mourning
Whereas on-going dialogue with the dead in the past may have been internal or vocalised within a private space it has become acceptable to now externalise thoughts and emotions through social media. Using the written form Facebook and others have become ‘the means through which the dead are made aware of the emotions of the living and kept up-to-date about what is going on in their lives. (Brubaker & Vertesi, 2010; De Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Kasket, 2012)
Taking these conversations online allows for them to be accessed by a wider audience even if for the writer it is still felt to be private. Moving into the shared domain could be said to be demystifying grief and mourning, this responds to what Doka (1989) raises as grieving rather than death being the ‘main taboo in modern life.’
…the bereaved often experience social regulation in terms of which relationships will be recognised as grieve-able, as well as how, when and for how long grief is acknowledged. (Gibson, 2014)
This is certainly something I recognise in relation to my own family experiences of loss and grieving and how difficult some family members found the socially accepted notion of ‘time to let go now,’ very hard to navigate and understand.
This access to social grieving also carries complexities as it can cause tensions between families and friends, particularly where family members may choose to close an account, these ‘competing parties …may value such media objects quite differently.’(Gibson, 2014: 231) The point of deletion of an account may for some re-ignite the initial feeling of loss when someone dies.
Transitional objects
Gibson argues that social media platforms could be regarded as ‘transitional objects.’ (Winnicott, 1951) As originally conceived by Winnicott transitional objects allowed the child to start to negotiate the external reality of the world, determining the ‘me not me’ relationship. The transitional object allows the child to manage the anxieties of separating from their primary caregiver and forming their independent identity. The most common transitional objects are blankets or teddy bears, and once they have lost their purpose they may be discarded, potentially to be regain their power at some point in the future when they become a transitional object for the bereaved.
Bereaved people may search and cling before finally letting go; but it is now coming to be recognised that it may also be necessary to let go before there can be a genuine and lasting keeping hold. (Walter, 1997)
On this basis a social media account may for friends and colleagues provide an important transitional object where they don’t have access to more personalised material objects that are held within the immediate family. This highlights the complex relationships that can evolve with these online accounts ‘as they put into question divisions between mine and yours, alive and dead, subject and object. (Gibson, 2014: 233)
Conclusion
Social media is having an impact on grieving and mourning practices and has raised questions about traditional boundaries such as private and public. It highlights the importance of us as individuals to make clear our wishes in terms of our digital assets and the views we have on our digital afterlife. This raises an interesting parallel between decisions that those closest to someone may have to make in relation to medical intervention. Turning off medical assistance is a ‘ritualised rite of passage’(Gibson, 2014: 233), which may need to be reflected in digital practices, that point at which a decision is made to delete an account. This is more complex than the medical situation in that the digital biography and its platforms will have different meanings for those in the network.
This highlights the importance of ‘digital memory objects’ (Gibson, 2014: 234) to those who may not have access to the physical objects of those closest to the deceased.
The absence of reciprocity positions them as the shared – the cipher and space of projection for the living keeping themselves alive to the dead. (Gibson, 2014: 234)
The collective nature of our digital objects also transcend the intimacy of physical objects, they obviously do not have the same physical boundaries or space limitations. Both can be mobile but the corporality and intimacy varies, ‘part of sharing digital remains within an online social network is about keeping them accessible and negotiable within that network by non-deletion.’ (Gibson, 2014: 235)
Observations
The research and findings covered in this article have helped to provide more depth to the issues I have been exploring through Assignment Four and Five. It has highlighted the concept of materiality in relation to both physical and digital objects. It has also reinforced my thinking around dialogue and co-authoring where on our death we may have a digital afterlife but will have no part in how the narrative (in all forms) will evolve.
This also links to my explorations of creative destruction and how new objects could emerge from the interventions of others. The concept of letting go is a useful one in relation to creative practice, it could be said that my increasing interest in Decollage is in part about exploring a loss of control and being willing to lose the integrity of the original pieces.
References and citations
Brubaker, J. R., & Vertesi, J. (2010). Death and the social network. Paper presented at the Proc. CHI Workshop on Death and the Digital.
De Vries, B., & Rutherford, J. (2004). Memorializing loved ones on the World Wide Web. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 49(1), 5-26.
DeSpelder, L. A., & Strickland, A. L. (1996). The last dance: Encountering death and dying: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Doka, K. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: recognising hidden sorrow. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Gibson, M. (2008). Objects of the dead: Mourning and memory in everyday life: Melbourne Univ. Publishing.
Gibson, M. (2014). Digital objects of the dead: Negotiating electronic remains. In The social construction of death (pp. 221-238): Springer.
Hallam, E., & Hockey, J. (2001). Death, memory and material culture: Unknown Publisher.
Hockey, J., Komaromy, C., & Woodthorpe, K. (2010). The matter of death: Space, place and materiality: Springer.
Kasket, E. (2012). Continuing bonds in the age of social networking: Facebook as a modern-day medium. Bereavement Care, 31(2), 62-69.
Moller, D. W. (1996). Confronting death: Values, institutions, and human mortality: Oxford University Press.
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1998). Culture and grief. Bereavement Care, 17(1), 7-11.
Walter, T. (1997). Letting go and keeping hold: A reply to Stroebe. Mortality, 2(3), 263-266.
Walter, T., Hourizi, R., Moncur, W., & Pitsillides, S. (2012). Does the internet change how we die and mourn? Overview and analysis. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 64(4), 275-302.
Winnicott, D. W. (1951). Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena. In D. Winnicott (Ed.), Collected Papers: Through Paediatrics to Psychoanalysis (pp. 229 – 242). London: Tavistock.