Hello. Aries = Phillippe Aries. Deceased. Historian and more.
I did my undergraduate thesis on death, related institutions and ritual --
specifically in relation to the presence of death-affirming alternatives
within the US' death-denying dominant culture. Aries' book is more of a
booklet, as it is a published lecture. It discusses the shift in the Western
familiarity with death: having moved from ever- presence in the private
sphere, coinciding with a sense of comfort/nobility/ control over ones
passing (middle ages) with continuing comment for something like 6 seperate
eras all the way up to the present.
He wrote something to the effect that death has been localized to
institutions (and removed from the home/view); i.e. the hospital, which was
originally a place for the poor <--- and here pls. consider that the poorer
classes were somewhat socially useless by the time they got to the hospital
VERSUS the dead/dying now, who are completely useless as they drain resources
and force scientists/medical professionals to look at the reality of their
very limited power over human life (bec. it incorporates the
spiritual/mysterious which science denies ---> an aspect of "scientism." and
nursing homes, etc.
Death/dying as the final representation of the body --->Foucauldian
understanding of modern culture/structure (in the West): consider along with
almost organic social control written on the body, when the body is no longer
in view... because the locus has changed at the time of dying.... now where
is it written? Is the Foucauldian explanation of structure strong enough to
withstand the absence of the body?? if deah /dying really have been removed?
Or at least, my interpretation/ruminations.
I _would_ beware of another lister's comment regarding Aries' dramatization
and history.
Working on no sleep. I hope this post has been decipherable.
Krista
I did my undergraduate thesis on death, related institutions and ritual --
specifically in relation to the presence of death-affirming alternatives
within the US' death-denying dominant culture. Aries' book is more of a
booklet, as it is a published lecture. It discusses the shift in the Western
familiarity with death: having moved from ever- presence in the private
sphere, coinciding with a sense of comfort/nobility/ control over ones
passing (middle ages) with continuing comment for something like 6 seperate
eras all the way up to the present.
He wrote something to the effect that death has been localized to
institutions (and removed from the home/view); i.e. the hospital, which was
originally a place for the poor <--- and here pls. consider that the poorer
classes were somewhat socially useless by the time they got to the hospital
VERSUS the dead/dying now, who are completely useless as they drain resources
and force scientists/medical professionals to look at the reality of their
very limited power over human life (bec. it incorporates the
spiritual/mysterious which science denies ---> an aspect of "scientism." and
nursing homes, etc.
Death/dying as the final representation of the body --->Foucauldian
understanding of modern culture/structure (in the West): consider along with
almost organic social control written on the body, when the body is no longer
in view... because the locus has changed at the time of dying.... now where
is it written? Is the Foucauldian explanation of structure strong enough to
withstand the absence of the body?? if deah /dying really have been removed?
Or at least, my interpretation/ruminations.
I _would_ beware of another lister's comment regarding Aries' dramatization
and history.
Working on no sleep. I hope this post has been decipherable.
Krista