Spirituality in contemporary funerals
There’s some interesting research work going on at the University of Hull. This is what they’re up to:
This project reflects the growing interest in spirituality which we are seeing in society generally and the changing shape of modern funerals. We are interested, for example, to see what the ‘spiritual' content of a so-called ‘alternative' funeral on the one hand and a traditional Christian or Buddhist ceremony might be; how people, as individuals and communities, express their spiritual feelings and beliefs and the meanings they attach to particular practices and symbols.
Why do they think it's important?
It will contribute to knowledge and theory in a changing field which is also of increasing public concern. It will also assist in refining the practical responses of professionals involved with mourners, and with dying and bereaved people in their creation of ceremonies and rituals which help people in their bereavement.
Here’s how they are doing it:
Subject to gaining the informed consent of all participants, we will first attend the meeting of the funeral director with the family when arrangements for the funeral are discussed. Then we will observe about fifty funerals of different types. At a suitable time after the funeral (perhaps one week) we will interview one or more family members about why they chose the funeral they did, the meaning it had for them and how it helped them with their loss. Finally, having analysed the funerals and family interviews, we propose to interview a sample of funeral directors and celebrants to obtain their views on emerging themes.
You can see how they’re getting on by reading the progress reports at the foot of the web page.
Interesting to note that, having attended 39 out of the fifty funerals they have set themselves, they are no longer finding anything new. For all the talk of grieving people reclaiming funerals from funeral directors and priests and creating life-centred ceremonies as unique as the life lived -- ceremonies which articulate and express the personal and possibly idiosyncratic values and spirituality of the person who has died -- the new paradigm has in most cases evolved into a new bog standard—a palatable, emotionally manageable ceremony served up by a second-rate celebrant comprising a handful of banalities tossed in a Henry Scott Hollandaise sauce, a eulogy spiced with a few nice jokes, the whole washed down with some saccharine Andrea Bocelli. Ritual comfort food.
Starkness and drama. Love and lamentation. The strong sense of a silver cord loosed, a golden bowl broken, a life ended. The emotional reality of a date with eternity. All missing.
Labels: celebrants, ceremony
posted by Charles Cowling at
11:54
15 Comments:
Interesting findings, Charles.
I'd love to hear the BHA's view on 'humanist' officiants using the Lord's Prayer and religious music... isn't that strictly against their - and humanism's - ethos? I myself have been at funerals where the 'humanist' officiant said 'Amen'. Could such officiants be renegades that no longer belong to the BHA?
It's also clear that the Civil Celebrants have their work cut out - this backs up my own findings that many funeral directors equate 'celebrant' with 'humanist' and 'non-religious', thus being unaware of (and not offering their customers a choice from) a whole 'middle ground' of celebrants.
I also wonder why other Funeral Directors (e.g. Frank Stephenson of Beverley) are reluctant to get involved? Surely becoming well known for facilitating 'good funerals' (assuming they do it) would be good for business?
Finally, is the delivery of a 'this was your life' tribute and playing a few comforting songs what us mourners are looking for? Are there some (non-religious) rituals and ceremonies that can help us too?
Gathering people around a hole in the ground and telling them the truth about the person who has died, about the way they died and the way they lived is all we need in the way of new rituals.
Charles, I really appreciate your apparent concern about the 'new' way of doing funerals becoming as bland and meaningless as the old. A crap celebrant is no better than a crap vicar, and an embalmed funeral is as representative of death as an embalmed corpse. Yes, we need something magnificent and awe-ful and beautiful and stirring and transcendent. It's asking a lot, though, of any celebrant or funeral director whose ethos is doing it the family's way when what the family wants is something palatable that won't upset them too much, but which is better than the church's miserable efforts that they're accustomed to.
However imaginative we may be, we can't impose our own ideas of ritual on others. It wouldn't work anyway - at my stepfather's funeral (which I arranged and conducted), I suggested a simple candle on the coffin to be extinguished at the committal. My brother's response was, "Alright with me, if you like, but things like that can so easily fall flat." Much as I hate to admit it, he was right (though not in the event, as it happened.) I agree with you though, Rupert. We don't need embarrassing drama on the outside to distract us from the one on the inside that is claiming all our attention when we're being so immediately reminded of our humanity and our intuitive understanding of what's going on. People know what to do, if not how to act, and secular ritual needs to honour that truth. Stand there and say, 'yes, it hurts to lose a being whose existence you can't explain any more than his absence, but celebrating his life doesn't mean pretending to be happy at his funeral.' It's about all I usually do, and people stop me in the street years afterwards to say thank you. A celebrant or funeral director's job is not to mediate between the bereaved and the dead, but to carry the gift of their grief - and their celebration - across the divide in a way that convinces them.
Still, your voice is nagging me, Charles.
Oh yes, and that research project in Hull: I'm concerned that its assumptions are flawed if it thinks Funeralcare's efforts are representative of modern funerals. The funeral director's approach influences the quality of the ceremony, no doubt about it when a family comes to a celebrant with all the misconceptions about what they're 'allowed' to do, and who they can chose to help them do it. I just hope the project's results don't look like another cursory glance at the edges that misleads the public, again.
Tony: I used to be a BHA officiant, and you may be interested to learn that, at an officiants' conference a few years ago, someone asked for a show of hands of those who would not be a BHA member if they were not celebrants. Almost half of us put up our hands... and remember, that's only half of those who could be bothered to go to the conference.
The reality may be - as I admit it was for me - that being part of the humanist network is simply a shortcut to getting work. That's why I resigned in the end, but as long as funeral directors think 'celebrant' and 'humanist' are synonymous, you can't blame anyone for complying if it gives them an easy life. (Well, yes, you can, of course.)
@jonathan: need 'ritual' always be 'embarrassing drama'?
My concern with funerals as solely a 'spectator event' is that they offer little by way of interaction and (hence) facilitation: we sit and hear well-chosen words about Aunt Maude's life and yes, they make us smile, help anchor our appreciation for her life and let us give thanks for having known her. But what of the funeral's role to have us contemplate our own mortality? To create a safe space to have a good cry? To enable us to affirm and demonstrate our support for those who grieve the most? Are these not important too?
Don't get me wrong - many of our funerals are now vastly improved from being 'something that you have to get through', mostly thanks to the great work of celebrants (humanist, civil and independent alike) but I can't help but wonder whether there's still a piece missing.
---
If you have concerns about the validity of the research project it would be good to contact the researchers.
I just spoke to David Wilson who is the manager at Frank Stephenson in Beverley (part of the smallish Warburton Group) and we talked about their lack of involvement in the project. The researchers presented their project to the regional NAFD meeting. Frank Stephenson staff (I don't know if it was David at the time) came to the conclusion that the researchers would find little variation amongst funerals in Beverley (most of which are White, Anglo-Saxon and Christian, starting in the Church, not the Crematorium) and also that he didn't feel that his customers would welcome any follow-up activity (partially due to the high level of support they receive from their community and church).
---
Regarding 'humanist' officiants, it's a shame to see the humanist movement's core beliefs being made fuzzy thanks to the success of their network. I briefly talked about 'humanist' funerals with David and he said (as a committed Christian) that he felt that the value of the Lords Prayer in a non-religious funeral was not so much the content but rather the fact that it is traditional (and, as we know, tradition can bring comfort) and something that most people knew and by saying it they were taking part in a united activity - group recitation of prose as a ritual, if you like.
Which brings me back to my main question. Should there be new rituals that work to unite mourners at a non-religious funeral? Are there poems, sentences we can all say together? Are there group acts we can perform? Must a funeral be an introverted experience for those who attend?
Tony: I have contacted the researchers with my concerns, and an offer of help, and am eagerly awaiting their reply.
No, of course ritual need not be embarrassing drama, but it will be unless it comes from the core of those it belongs to. Spectating's a pretty poor second, but you can't rope others into something they don't feel comfortable with, and if that's all they can manage on the day, all you can do is fill the space with love. It's not so much what you do as what you give that includes mortality, tears and support in the occasion.
@jonathan: let us know what the researchers say - I'd be interested in helping out too. I note that the only officiant organisation listed at the project action advisory group page is the BHA - no mention of the AOIC, IOCF or Interfaith. I suppose some of the people named on that page may be [Independent?] celebrants.
As for ritual, I realise that 'it depends' is probably the most common answer to any question asked in funeral service, but the challenge is to use our skills to elicit and create ritual that 'feels right' - not embarrassing - for those who are going to take part. Maybe it's because I'm a kinaesthetic learner (I learn by doing) but IMHO all talk and no action leaves something missing from such an important occasion.
Tony,
there are some very simple core things that we can do together, namely carrying and lowering the coffin. We don't employ any bearers for just this reason, and every funeral we have done in ten years bar one the family have done just that. Obviously, not everyone can do this, although a surprising number can be involved. Yesterday we did a funeral in a local woodland burial site which has a hill to climb. You can ferry the coffin up on a quad bike and trailer, but as the women concerned was not heavy we took it in turns to carry her. 16 people did so in the end, including her ten year old grand daughter and all were profoundly grateful for the experience. It seems to transcend ritual by being both practical and ancient. It also works particularly well for men who might not want to speak in public.
Rupert,
I'm wondering if we're at cross purposes when we're talking about 'ritual' - certainly there is good evidence of social burial rituals dating from the Upper Paleolithic period: I'm not sure how much more 'ancient' you can get. Ritual != Religious.
Having the family carry the coffin is exactly the sort of participation I'm thinking of and I'm glad to hear you make this possible for all your families.
Alas many funeral directors are nervous about allowing families to do this though I don't know whether this is through fear of dropping the coffin, health and safety concerns or just because they're too tightly scheduled.
With cremation - and the stupidly short 'slots' that are allocated to most funerals - the options are more limited.
Perhaps we should have the family lead the cortege to the crematorium porch, rather than stand and wait for the hearse to arrive. This would allow everyone to escort the body, instead of being mere bystanders.
Also, family members should also be responsible for carrying any flowers outside after the service rather than having it done by unseen hands as soon as the curtains have closed. If nothing else, it would ensure that some members of the family get to go near the coffin, which is normally out of reach - socially if not physically - and rarely on the way out of the chapel, and say their goodbyes.
I also think that a family member should be encouraged to witness the charging of the cremator and thus dispel any doubts about what happens behind the scenes. This would help alleviate the anxiety and uncertainty caused by what Dr Tony Walter calls a 'false committal'. If we can do it for Hindus and people of other faiths then why not for everyone?
Just my £0.02.
Tony,
You're right, most funeral directors are nervous about allowing family to carry a coffin, and it does add to our stress having to explain to distracted grief stricken people how they are to do it, but we have one crucial difference; as all of our coffins are from the modern eco alternative market, you can use the handles. Traditional coffins have handles that as well as being aesthetically horrifying aren't load bearing, thus forcing it to be shoulder borne by bearers of a similar height. That tells you a lot about the traditional way.
Tony: Sue Adamson of the research project shares some of my concern about 'bias' resulting from reliance on Funeralcare, but she can only work with FDs who co-operate. The team are interviewing two Civil Celebrants, two independent Humanists and other independent celebrants who responded to the Gaurdian article, but she doesn't yet say how many celebrants she's interviewing represent organizations. She says:
"The research has not progressed entirely as we hoped but we hope that it will nevertheless provide some insights into the nature of spirituality in funerals today."
'Use our skills to ELICIT and create ritual that feels right...' - you've hit the nail on the head. I suppose my concern is that the celebrant movement might run away with its own ideas - it's been done before elsewhere! - and leave the families as spectators to what is simply a different, but still alien, spectacle.
This research project does not actually depend on co-operative (with a small c) Funeralcare or any other species of FD. A funeral ceremony is outside the competence of most FDs and none of their damn business—with the exception of the tiny minority of ‘intellectual’ undertakers who involve themselves in both the care of the body and the creation of the ceremony. Effcare has co-operated in order to assert its control over the entire process and over celebrants who are, let us remind ourselves, freelancers who work for relicts, not FDs. It will not be long (watch this space) before, such is the dependency culture in the celebrant community, the undertakers are contracting them exclusively, making their control complete. This research project ought to have worked primarily with celebrants, ordained and secular.
You make a very good point indeed, Jonathan, about celebrants charging off with their own ideas. It is observable that the besetting vice of FDs is, amongst the less bright majority, self-importance, and among the intelligent majority, paternalism. I have just lost one of my great heroes to this vice. The problem here is the problem I face at midday today: a relict who said to me on the phone last night, “We’ve no idea what happens now; you’ll have to tell us what to do.” I hope, through assiduous eliciting, to put her back in control and me in my place. But it is not difficult to see how the easy habit of knowing best can become entrenched.
Funeral directors and celebrants pride themselves on doing all they can for people, lightening the load, being indispensable. They are well meaning, no doubt about it.
Oh, and spectators are much easier to work with.
Looking at this matter eyeball to eyeball, I think we have to conclude that people get the funerals they deserve.
I just hope the Hull research project's results aren't published before it has been repeated, with a different set of assumptions and a different methodology, ten or twenty times around the country.
P.S: "Ritual - Procedure regularly followed." (C.O.D.)
It's the following bit that's the trouble.
@rupert: if people were made more aware of the importance of carrying coffins you can be sure that all coffin manufacturers would be swift to implement handles that work! Because we mourners aren't demanding it, they're not providing it.
@jonathan: I wonder if there is scope for talking to Hull about formalising and sharing the data gathering stage and getting the likes of you and I to conduct research around the country, leaving them to crunch the numbers? I'd happily sit in a crem for a day or two and observe and record... and if not them, then perhaps us students at the University of Life (and Death) should do it ourselves.
@charles: I suppose the project researchers went via FDs because they are (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be the gatekeepers of the relationship with the bereaved and therefore one arrangement with one FD can potentially grant the researchers access to all the subjects they need. Perhaps their admission that it's "not all progressed entirely as they hoped" is because they've realised that the lack of diversity they're seeing could be down to their method of subject recruitment. Shadowing an FD in Leeds, for example, would have allowed them to observe and document a lot more diversity than you'll ever find in Hull.
@jonathan (again): what did the rest of the COD definition say? Wikipedia (I know, I know) has a lot to say about the 'social' function of ritual, but perhaps there's a better word - suggestions welcome. Over the years I've seen the same ritual performed in different funerals by different celebrants and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't -as ever, one size does not fit all. But surely that doesn't remove the need for ritual - it just confirms that we need to learn to create (preferably through elicitation) different rituals from which the family can choose. And I still reckon that one of those rituals could be something that we say together that acknowledges the loss, gives thanks for the life lived, wishes the deceased safe passage (if appropriate), affirms our responsibility and willingness to take care of each other, and encourages us to take stock of our own lives.
Tony (again):
The idea of 'something we say together' just sounds like an alternative liturgy or prayer to me - it would have me clamming up to be asked to recite something along with the rest of the congregation, even if I'd written it myself. 'Ritual' to me is something you don't contrive in that way but create for a specific event - a birthday party, a night on the piss, a funeral, a family reunion etc., and I can't see how we could have something prepared in advance. It's not a matter of giving people choices, but of helping them choose.
"Ritual - a prescribed order of perfoming rites; related to 'Rite' - a religious or solemn observance or act; an action or procedure required or usual in this; a body of customary observances characteristic of a church or a part of it. From Latin, 'ritus - usage; rivua - a stream, literally 'flowing'.' "
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home