The Importance of Mourning and Burial

Mourning and burial deal with the denial of the loss of self and the powerless sensation that accompanies it. They are parts of the psychohistory of mankind’s response to death with an early childhood psychodynamic determinant. Mourning is a very special and reasonable process. Someone who has been loved is someone with whom we have identified. Psychologically they are in some ways a part of us. Mourning is about giving up a part of oneself while still remaining intact. When mourning is completed, then there is return to a full life. Remembrances of the deceased— anniversaries of their death, pictures, mementos, gravesites, and so forth—are a means of making the bereaved feel more intact.

Some of the world’s greatest human constructions, such as the pyramids, attest to the importance of burial and the afterlife in all cultures. The collection of valuables to be interred with the properly prepared body, the slaughter of humans and animals to accompany the individual into their afterlife, and the extensive religious activities and liturgy involving so much of the living prove the “vital” importance of this activity.

Page 158

There are certain common elements related to burial in the history of the world. First, and most important, is the actual burial of the individual. Three elements have been universally part of this first step: one, a burial “deep” in the ground; two, a stone or heavy object placed upon the grave; and three, a notation made of who lies beneath the surface.

Upon their death other living things, such as cattle, horses, and pets, have been eaten or discarded in some waste site. Only in the more recent history of mankind has there been burial of some pets (particularly by the wealthy). Why then would humans be buried? Why then would a stone or heavy object be placed on top of the grave? Why would they have to mark the spot with their name? If we think in terms of early childhood, the concept that death is not forever (in a sense does not exist), then what must be the problem that such extensive effort and resources must be devoted to this burial activity? If the individual is not permanently “gone,” they can return. Therefore, if it was only a very positive concept, then the universal response would be to somehow mummify the recently dead and keep that individual in the house with you awaiting that time when they eventually would return and join you. Since that is not the case, what is taking place? Even in those societies where mummification was important, the body was still housed separately in a prison of stone.

Since the preceding is what has been taking place throughout history, we must assume that there is a fear of the dead returning and being angry with us. Therefore, the protection we might provide ourselves would be some of the following: One, to indicate how sorry and pained we are that they have died. Two, how we devote so much of our time after their deaths to saying kind and wonderful things about them. (The adage is to not speak ill of the dead.) Three, that we will devote time, energy, and resources in their name. Fourth, that we will put them in a container that they cannot get out of and, to be sure, to put that container deep in the ground so that it will be too hard for them to get out. Fifth, we will put weights (stone) on top of that site to make it even more difficult for them to return. Finally, number six is that we will mark the site and watch it carefully to make sure that all is serene.

The many stories in every culture of the world of the “undead” returning attest to this universality. Almost invariably in the mythology of the undead returning, they are somehow seeking “vengeance” on the living. But what is the vengeance that the “undead” need to express? What has been done to them, for which they are seeking vengeance?

Since the universality of these qualities and experiences in the history of mankind indicates their early childhood dynamics, the likely answers become more obvious. In fact, we can recognize this in our work with patients in psychoanalysis. Perhaps the most difficult thing for an analysand is to say everything in their mind, just as it comes to their mind; particularly their hostile and destructive fantasies towards their parents. Even though they are sophisticated adults, they respond as if those thoughts and feelings are the same as action and behavior. In early childhood, thoughts and feelings (impulses) are the same as behavior. As children grow and become adults they recognize that thoughts and feelings are not the same as behavior. However, part of them still feels that way. Those conflicted love and hate feelings from early childhood about one’s parents remain. In fact, it is very common for individuals to feel guilty about angry thoughts and feelings, and even to try to validate their guilt and need for self-punishment. This subject applies to many other elements in society and throughout history. Here we see its application to the death of a “loved one.”

Therefore, mankind has been dealing with two elements: One, the very frightening aspects of loss of self and the powerlessness that goes with it; and two, the fear of retaliation for one’s angry thoughts and feelings that have caused or contributed to that other person’s death. By various adult activities we “work through” our mixed feelings for those who have died (“left us”). We become closer to the positive loving feelings we have for every human being (especially those we have loved). We feel closer to our friends and family in dealing with the death of a loved one. Our mourning connects our humanity to all others. The fears of the child within have thus become creative. Thus, two major conflicts of childhood can be resolved by sublimation in the burial and mourning rituals.

Page 159