Spontaneous Memorialization Analysis
Spontaneous
Memorialization
Spontaneous Memorialization Death has become highly impersonal in the United States and is seen as “culturally invisible.” In the past, the bodies of those who died used to be prepared by someone within the family or community and their lives were then celebrated by a larger group of people. Today, however, corpses are sent off to funeral homes, then mourned over with a relatively closed off service at either a church or funeral home. With emerging advancements in technology, medicine, military tactics, and aspects of everyday life, it’s clear that over the last fifty years, the United States has devoted a great deal of money and time in order to control death. As our emphasis shifted from the number …show more content…
of people alive to the quality of life lived, lives lost due to causes other than old age or risky behaviors shake personal lives as well as those of the culture and society as a whole. Tragic, unexpected deaths result in questioning of both personal and cultural standing. Senseless deaths that have no easily determined rationale are deeply personal for those who are not even directly related to the event, and these losses complicate the mourning process, increase anxiety, change cultural values and threaten the persistence of society. A spontaneous memorialization is a public means of coping with unforeseen circumstances and is a method of restoring balance to society. In the United States, it has been said that the spontaneous memorialization is not needed.
Our technologically advanced, secular society may push rituals into the realm of becoming completely obsolete – the reason being that they serve no purpose. Because we are so individuated, the sense of community needed for such a ritual is said to be nonexistent, and some even go so far as to say that these rituals may not even be possible in our country. Through a tangible structure, sentiments and motivations are intertwined in order to satisfy needs that people may not even know they had. Despite criticism claiming these rites are unnecessary, authors Haney, Leimer, and Lowery, in their article “Spontaneous Memorialization: Violent Death and Emerging Mourning Ritual,” assert that rather than being caused by the fact that we don’t need death rituals, it’s actually because of inadequate traditional rituals. “If the formalism of more traditional rituals is perceived as failing to capture the distinct meaning of an individual life or the extent of loss felt by survivors, those survivors may be more likely to alter and customize standard ritual practices to inject personal meanings” (Haney, Leimer & Lowery, …show more content…
1997). The spontaneous memorialization is known as an adjunct ritual that gives an opportunity to mourn for those not directly affected by the death.
Spontaneous memorials are mementoes such as crosses, flowers, teddy bears, and flags left at the site of death, or something directly related to the victim, and all of them are characterized by multiple connected characteristics. Spontaneous memorials are individualistic, yet public displays that are not usually organized; the participants choose how much or how little they take place in the adjunct ritual. Rather than being held at a stationary location, spontaneous memorials are typically found at the site of death or at a place that’s somehow meaningful to the victim or victims. Those who take place in the adjunct ritual are not typically set in stone; the boundaries of who is allowed to contribute are significantly extended. The objects that make their way to these memorials can be religious, secular, or highly personal instead of just being religious as in the customary funeral rites. Instead of simply meaning something to the deceased, these objects are meaningful in some way to the mourner specifically and can be used to convey emotions such as anger that are typically ignored in traditional funeral customs. There is no structure, and the memorial changes as people make their way to the site over differing periods of time. Finally, the rituals address more than just the death of the individual and seek to address the issues of
threatened security, altered social order, and the fate of cultural values we hold dear. There is no expectation of violent demises in the United States, and there is an inability to deal with a forced encounter with death. After basic human necessities are proven to be susceptible to some outside force, the memorial is used to lessen the threat by reaffirming values held close to the hearts of Americans, in turn promoting safety and justice. Functioning as a representation of our innate fear of death, the memorial is responsible for transferring the value of the individual to that of the society as a whole. Due to the mass media, spontaneous memorials are immediately brought to the limelight whenever something drastic occurs, and the ideals of the country as a whole are expressed visually. A perceived tragic flaw to the rapid spread of information via television, internet, or radio is that it implies that the deaths not publicly recognized have had less of an impact, thus diminishing the value of the individual. On September 11, 2001, the United States was irreparably changed forever. Now over ten years later, the nation is still picking up the pieces and attempting to mend the hearts of those that lost loved ones during the disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, while still unclear, possibly the White House. Although the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, as well as those at Columbine and Oklahoma City generated memorials, “no event has generated public remembering on the global scale of the events of September 11” (Greenspan, 2003). Greenspan, in her article, “Spontaneous Memorials, Museums, and Public History: Memorialization of September 11, 2011 at the Pentagon,” told the tale of the spontaneous memorial that emerged at the Pentagon. Following the terrorist attacks, the spontaneous memorial emerged at two trees overlooking the Pentagon wall destroyed during the attempt to destroy the country. Framed photographs of victims sometimes accentuated with poetry or letters to the deceased, origami cranes, candles, bouquets of flowers, American flags and teddy bears collected into a mass of nearly fifty individual items as visitors came to pay their respects for the recently departed. Due to the fact that they are both publicly displayed nature and frequently mentioned or portrayed by mass media, historians are now questioning whether or not museums are responsible for making a record of these memorials. Historians face ethical concerns regarding whether or not the items can be removed in the first place, and how to even determine what should be included in an archive and what should not. Some reason that instead of taking the items themselves, large images of the memorial site would suffice. Risking altering the explanation of the mementos, some museums have specifically chosen not to include any of these mementos, instead including debris from the crashes like twisted steel and beams from buildings, uniforms of rescue workers, and objects recovered from the desks of employees that worked at the various buildings during the attack, as seen in the National Museum of American History’s tribute to 9/11. Used as a temporary relief center for those helping rescue victims, St. Paul’s Chapel in New York City amassed thousands of mementos. When their efforts ceased, however, the items were placed in a storage center. The debates on what to do with the materials ranged from opting to use them in commemorative works, using them for possible research in the future, or becoming part of a permanent memorialization. The Center for Military History has collected some of these mementos from the first couple of months following the attack, but these items remain in storage as curators still question whether or not the items should be displayed. In order to mark the one year anniversary of the attack, the American History Museum created an exhibit of twisted steel, a crushed fire truck door, and a piece of the “Missing” wall originally found at Bellevue Hospital in New York City that “family members unintentionally created when they posted signs inquiring about lost loved ones” (Greenspan, 2003). This “Missing” wall, owned by the City Museum of New York, has become much more meaningful as it travels from one location to the next. Haney, Leimer, and Lowery argued that spontaneous memorials are absolutely vital to society in order to deal with the uncomfortable confrontation with death as a result of tragic and unexpected occurrences. These losses complicate the mourning process, increase the discomfort of those affected both directly and indirectly, and threaten our cultural values and maintenance of society. Due to mass media, they found that escaping the devastating event is impossible, and the memorials are a means of coping. As a result of the most devastating and planned event our country has faced in a long time, Greenspan has proven the point of Haney, Leimer, and Lowery, that although some believe spontaneous memorials serve no purpose in our culture, they are absolutely vital parts of our culture and are sometimes our only way of comfortably dealing with such devastating events. By determining whether or not to include mementos from memorial sites, historians show that despite being an individuated society, the United States will come together in the face of disaster, and the plight of those affected deserves to be seen worldwide.
Greenspan, E. L. (2003). Spontaneous memorials, museums, and public history: Memorialization of September 11, 2011 at the Pentagon. The Public Historian, 23(2), 129-132. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/tph.2003.25.2.129.
Haney, C. A., Leimer, C., & Lowery, J. (1997). Spontaneous memorialization: Violent death and emerging mourning ritual. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 35(2), 159-171.
Memorialization
Spontaneous Memorialization Death has become highly impersonal in the United States and is seen as “culturally invisible.” In the past, the bodies of those who died used to be prepared by someone within the family or community and their lives were then celebrated by a larger group of people. Today, however, corpses are sent off to funeral homes, then mourned over with a relatively closed off service at either a church or funeral home. With emerging advancements in technology, medicine, military tactics, and aspects of everyday life, it’s clear that over the last fifty years, the United States has devoted a great deal of money and time in order to control death. As our emphasis shifted from the number …show more content…
of people alive to the quality of life lived, lives lost due to causes other than old age or risky behaviors shake personal lives as well as those of the culture and society as a whole. Tragic, unexpected deaths result in questioning of both personal and cultural standing. Senseless deaths that have no easily determined rationale are deeply personal for those who are not even directly related to the event, and these losses complicate the mourning process, increase anxiety, change cultural values and threaten the persistence of society. A spontaneous memorialization is a public means of coping with unforeseen circumstances and is a method of restoring balance to society. In the United States, it has been said that the spontaneous memorialization is not needed.
Our technologically advanced, secular society may push rituals into the realm of becoming completely obsolete – the reason being that they serve no purpose. Because we are so individuated, the sense of community needed for such a ritual is said to be nonexistent, and some even go so far as to say that these rituals may not even be possible in our country. Through a tangible structure, sentiments and motivations are intertwined in order to satisfy needs that people may not even know they had. Despite criticism claiming these rites are unnecessary, authors Haney, Leimer, and Lowery, in their article “Spontaneous Memorialization: Violent Death and Emerging Mourning Ritual,” assert that rather than being caused by the fact that we don’t need death rituals, it’s actually because of inadequate traditional rituals. “If the formalism of more traditional rituals is perceived as failing to capture the distinct meaning of an individual life or the extent of loss felt by survivors, those survivors may be more likely to alter and customize standard ritual practices to inject personal meanings” (Haney, Leimer & Lowery, …show more content…
1997). The spontaneous memorialization is known as an adjunct ritual that gives an opportunity to mourn for those not directly affected by the death.
Spontaneous memorials are mementoes such as crosses, flowers, teddy bears, and flags left at the site of death, or something directly related to the victim, and all of them are characterized by multiple connected characteristics. Spontaneous memorials are individualistic, yet public displays that are not usually organized; the participants choose how much or how little they take place in the adjunct ritual. Rather than being held at a stationary location, spontaneous memorials are typically found at the site of death or at a place that’s somehow meaningful to the victim or victims. Those who take place in the adjunct ritual are not typically set in stone; the boundaries of who is allowed to contribute are significantly extended. The objects that make their way to these memorials can be religious, secular, or highly personal instead of just being religious as in the customary funeral rites. Instead of simply meaning something to the deceased, these objects are meaningful in some way to the mourner specifically and can be used to convey emotions such as anger that are typically ignored in traditional funeral customs. There is no structure, and the memorial changes as people make their way to the site over differing periods of time. Finally, the rituals address more than just the death of the individual and seek to address the issues of
threatened security, altered social order, and the fate of cultural values we hold dear. There is no expectation of violent demises in the United States, and there is an inability to deal with a forced encounter with death. After basic human necessities are proven to be susceptible to some outside force, the memorial is used to lessen the threat by reaffirming values held close to the hearts of Americans, in turn promoting safety and justice. Functioning as a representation of our innate fear of death, the memorial is responsible for transferring the value of the individual to that of the society as a whole. Due to the mass media, spontaneous memorials are immediately brought to the limelight whenever something drastic occurs, and the ideals of the country as a whole are expressed visually. A perceived tragic flaw to the rapid spread of information via television, internet, or radio is that it implies that the deaths not publicly recognized have had less of an impact, thus diminishing the value of the individual. On September 11, 2001, the United States was irreparably changed forever. Now over ten years later, the nation is still picking up the pieces and attempting to mend the hearts of those that lost loved ones during the disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, while still unclear, possibly the White House. Although the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, as well as those at Columbine and Oklahoma City generated memorials, “no event has generated public remembering on the global scale of the events of September 11” (Greenspan, 2003). Greenspan, in her article, “Spontaneous Memorials, Museums, and Public History: Memorialization of September 11, 2011 at the Pentagon,” told the tale of the spontaneous memorial that emerged at the Pentagon. Following the terrorist attacks, the spontaneous memorial emerged at two trees overlooking the Pentagon wall destroyed during the attempt to destroy the country. Framed photographs of victims sometimes accentuated with poetry or letters to the deceased, origami cranes, candles, bouquets of flowers, American flags and teddy bears collected into a mass of nearly fifty individual items as visitors came to pay their respects for the recently departed. Due to the fact that they are both publicly displayed nature and frequently mentioned or portrayed by mass media, historians are now questioning whether or not museums are responsible for making a record of these memorials. Historians face ethical concerns regarding whether or not the items can be removed in the first place, and how to even determine what should be included in an archive and what should not. Some reason that instead of taking the items themselves, large images of the memorial site would suffice. Risking altering the explanation of the mementos, some museums have specifically chosen not to include any of these mementos, instead including debris from the crashes like twisted steel and beams from buildings, uniforms of rescue workers, and objects recovered from the desks of employees that worked at the various buildings during the attack, as seen in the National Museum of American History’s tribute to 9/11. Used as a temporary relief center for those helping rescue victims, St. Paul’s Chapel in New York City amassed thousands of mementos. When their efforts ceased, however, the items were placed in a storage center. The debates on what to do with the materials ranged from opting to use them in commemorative works, using them for possible research in the future, or becoming part of a permanent memorialization. The Center for Military History has collected some of these mementos from the first couple of months following the attack, but these items remain in storage as curators still question whether or not the items should be displayed. In order to mark the one year anniversary of the attack, the American History Museum created an exhibit of twisted steel, a crushed fire truck door, and a piece of the “Missing” wall originally found at Bellevue Hospital in New York City that “family members unintentionally created when they posted signs inquiring about lost loved ones” (Greenspan, 2003). This “Missing” wall, owned by the City Museum of New York, has become much more meaningful as it travels from one location to the next. Haney, Leimer, and Lowery argued that spontaneous memorials are absolutely vital to society in order to deal with the uncomfortable confrontation with death as a result of tragic and unexpected occurrences. These losses complicate the mourning process, increase the discomfort of those affected both directly and indirectly, and threaten our cultural values and maintenance of society. Due to mass media, they found that escaping the devastating event is impossible, and the memorials are a means of coping. As a result of the most devastating and planned event our country has faced in a long time, Greenspan has proven the point of Haney, Leimer, and Lowery, that although some believe spontaneous memorials serve no purpose in our culture, they are absolutely vital parts of our culture and are sometimes our only way of comfortably dealing with such devastating events. By determining whether or not to include mementos from memorial sites, historians show that despite being an individuated society, the United States will come together in the face of disaster, and the plight of those affected deserves to be seen worldwide.
Greenspan, E. L. (2003). Spontaneous memorials, museums, and public history: Memorialization of September 11, 2011 at the Pentagon. The Public Historian, 23(2), 129-132. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/tph.2003.25.2.129.
Haney, C. A., Leimer, C., & Lowery, J. (1997). Spontaneous memorialization: Violent death and emerging mourning ritual. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 35(2), 159-171.