127
7 Famous Last Words: Conclusion
128
industry largely sets the parameters of the funerary goods and services that are available, the continuation of funerary practices still always depends on the uptake and faithful perpetuation by society. In other words, practices can only persist as long as carriers of these practices continue to engage in them, giving them momentum and normalizing them across society. As social practice theory explains, people tend to do what other people do – a finding that was consistent with my interview data. As certain conventions become normalized across society, families tend to emulate these behaviors, leading to positional standards of consumption (Dwyer, 2009) and unreflective adherence to the societal norms around funerals. Moreover, given the cultural aversion to death, many people are also unprepared and uneducated when it comes to their consumer rights and the regulations around funerals. Thus, environmentally harmful funerary practices persist as individuals follow in the footsteps of industry-produced and socially sanctioned rituals. Although families do not perform these practices themselves, embalming, cremation, and ‘traditional’ ground burial all persist because families continuously outsource funerals to mainstream professionals whose entire business models are built upon these particular practices. Hence, the dominant funeral regime rests upon a mutual dependence between the funeral industry and society, with each relying on the other to ensure the perpetual preservation of these normalized, expected services.
Despite their tendency towards rigidity and permanence, this project also demonstrated that funerary practices evolve and adapt with changing times and with the changing preferences of society. By addressing the second research question, how eco-funerals are challenging the mainstream funeral regime, we saw how even ‘traditionalized’ practices are, paradoxically, in constant flux as each funeral occasion holds the potential for incrementally reconfiguring what is considered ‘normal’ in society. In other words, each funeral contains “the seeds of constant change” (Warde, 2005, p. 141), which can add up to a wave of transformation. The funeral regime first underwent such a transformation with the societal shift towards cremation. Though it is too early to speak of any major transition, the American death system is currently witnessing a process of reconfiguration (Geels, 2011) again, as formerly niche eco-funerals are increasingly accepted into the mainstream industry, while also continuing to spread outside the dominant regime. Thus, green funerals are challenging the mainstream funeral regime by offering options that are ecologically sustainable, financially feasible, and psychologically more soothing to the bereaved than conventional practices have been. According to MacMurrary and Futrell (2019), “society is already embracing pro-environmental attitudes and ecodeath options calibrate well to realign contemporary death systems with these changing
129 worldviews” (p. 12). Therefore, if green burials continue to become more widespread, and if other technologies (including aquamation and body composting) also expand consumer awareness around the ecological impact of funerals, these practices may witness a snowballing uptake into growing communities of practice. However, while a shift towards a greener death system is already slowly underway, the integration of the niche into the mainstream regime may pose additional challenges of commercialization and commodification by the corporate industry, which could undermine the ethos of eco-funerals. Consequently, this project suggested the continuation of small-scale, community-oriented green ‘micro death systems.’
Over time, by bridging local communities of practice and through incremental shifts in the mainstream system, the once locked-in pathway may shift tracks in a new direction. Recall that
“what people take to be normal is immensely malleable […] it is perfectly possible that future concepts will be less resource intensive than those of today” (Shove, 2003, p. 199). With the determined baby-boomer generation forging new pathways in the death realm, we may indeed follow in very different footsteps than previous generations.
While the topic of death continues to conceal many mysteries, this research has illuminated the practices and processes that come after dying, showing how they mutually shape and are shaped by society. The findings from this project also carry potential implications for understanding systems and social practices beyond the death realm, as this project helps to explain the
‘stickiness’ of normalized social practices and the sturdy yet delicate balance required to maintain regimes. Thus, the question “why do environmentally harmful (death) practices persist?” could just as easily be applied to other circumstances with possibly similar outcomes, as it has been done in previous research around unsustainable eating or traveling or heating practices. Nonetheless, previous research has predominantly focused on the habitual behavioral patterns of people in everyday life. This project thus contributes another nuance, as the topic of funerals adds the weighty layer of grief and the burden of tradition. This may add to the unreflective perpetuation of certain practices, as traditions arguably place a degree of societal pressure of adherence to the ‘proper’ modes of action. Moreover, grief hinders rational decision-making capabilities, which may lead funeral consumers to cling to the familiarity of convention, without taking full consideration of alternative options. The findings from this project thereby also support SPT in discrediting the ‘homo economicus’ paradigm, demonstrating that decisions are not made by purely rational actors, but that many other factors contribute to the decision-making process. In the case of funerals, positional consumption, convenience, religion, and societal norms all play major roles in the selection of funerary
130
products and services. Moreover, the research illustrates how intertwined the death system is with other systems, for example the medical regime and the regime of mobility, which points to the complex, tangled nature of regimes and their ‘stickiness’ as they tend to uphold each other. Hence, when researching sustainability transitions of any kind, the adjacent regimes must also be taken into consideration. Furthermore, this project also reveals a fascinating bond between systems and practices, as mainstream death practices persist despite a lack of legal requirements. Although private cemeteries and funeral homes often introduce their own regulations, even the use of funeral directors is not mandatory by law (in most states).
Consequently, the funeral regime is held in place chiefly by the fear of dead bodies, the convenience of outsourcing, the ignorance around funeral consumer rights, the assumptions around legalities, and the familiarity of following the status quo. Just like in many other regimes – especially the food and travel regimes – it is not impossible or illegal to forgo the mainstream system, it is often just inconvenient and, in the case of handling dead bodies, deemed ‘dirty’
and uncomfortable. When studying sustainable transformations, we may thus follow Shove (2003) in asking how many other environmentally harmful practices and entire global systems are maintained by the incessant desire for convenience, cleanliness, and comfort.