The novel approach of the book's authors intrigued me. In case you might find it of interest, too, I have posted below some book excerpts.
It is often assumed, within the modernist discourse of death, that death itself cancels membership. When people are expected to accept the finality and reality of death, this is often what is meant. People are asked to withdraw their investment in relationship with the deceased and to reinvest in other relationships. The metaphor invokes an economy of relationship that invites us to treat people like stocks that we invest in (presumably for own profit). When our relational investments are no longer yielding high returns, we are encouraged to cut our losses and move on. From our perspective, the idea that a relationship ends and that the bereaved need to cease to recognize a loved one as a member of the club of life is a mistake.
...
Remembering conversations are deliberate acts of membership construction. They keep a person's membered status close and current and constantly renew our loved one's presence in our club of life. To remember is to include them in our daily lives, in our conversations, in our celebrations, in our decision-making, and in our resources for living. To remember is to refuse to allow our loved one's memory to go by unnoticed. Remembering may involve keeping a person's voice alive through repeating their words in relation to new developments in life. It may involve consulting the deceased's opinion as a resource for dealing with a new challenge. It may involve keeping in place in family gatherings or rituals for someone who is no longer alive. It may involve telling young children stories about a dead grandparent's life. It may involve committing oneself to living for some value our purpose that a dead love held dear.
...
What is the opposite of remembering? The usual inclination would be to suggest forgetting. However, within the definition of membership that we are speaking about, that is this is too weak
a term. If remembering keeps membership alive and continually activates and calls upon the privileges of such membership in our club of reference, then its opposite is not just a cognitive process. It amounts to the creating of a social division, one that separates people from relationships that are significant for them. In a sense, it tears people from each other's arms. We therefore prefer the term dismembering to describe the processes that separate people from their bonds with each other in the wake of death.
...
Let us list some examples of the ideas we are referring to that can promote dismembering. The idea that it is wrong or unhealthy to maintain a sense of attachment to someone has died makes illegitimate a person's desire to do so. The greater the authority behind the voice that is speaking to this idea, the greater the de-legitimizing power of such an utterance. In the discourse of death and grief, this idea gets articulated as the encouragement to "let go" of the dead loved one. We may also be encouraged to "say good-bye" to the dead person and to accept the "reality" of the death in order to reach "closure" and "move on" from the loss. Each of these ideas works to build distance between us and our loved ones, rather than connection. For some people, this can even feel like cutting off a part of themselves. Hence, the term dismembering has a particular resonance that we find apt.
...
This process of actively reconstructing what will be remembered can begin well before prson dies. Remembering conversations are about more than just planning one's own memorial or selecting which hymns are to be played at a funeral. They can be about asking persons who are dying to select out highlights of life that are worth preserving in memory and ritual observance. The dying person can chart the course of remembering that her or his loved ones will navigate. Participation in conversations before death, not about what will be lost but about what will be remembered, can actually be very heartening and uplifting for the dying person. Such conversations can offer solace in the face of apprehensive or fearful aspects of death. It makes a difference to know that we matter.
...
It can also be of value to talk with persons who are dying about how they would like to be talked about in the future. If we recall that how we story our experience shapes are present and future choices, then speaking about these variations is more than just an exercise in the language arts. For example, me might want to speak with a person who is dying about how they want the story of their death recounted.
Comments