Below I have pasted sections from my BSc dissertation advocating humanity to reclaim death and reclaiming death - reclaiming our lives - grabbing the bull by his horns.
Dissertation Title; Surfing the Wave: The Experience of Facing Death
Knowing something conceptual vs learning through embodied grounded experience is different. You have to learn, value, respect, honour and love your own life and death for yourself. I believe it is humans that hinder themselves, and death challenges this, even breaks this. Only then do I believe we are living and only then do I believe we are ready to die.
At the core of human dilemma is the mystery, why must human beings grapple with the responsibility for forging an existence which is destined to dissolve? This is the root question question of existentialism. Given death is both profound and certain, why is it largely ignored in Psychology? Psychology recognises the delicacy and advocates the importance of the child's development, beginning at birth, all the way through childhood into adulthood. Yet death is given little attention, which indicates death is unnatural and insignificant, or that death does not affect human beings. But death is the ultimate natural end of life as humanity knows it. Thus death is markedly significant. Endings and loss are indirect reminders of death. Psychology is aware of the insecurities endings and loss may induce. However, death has generated limited research and understanding into regard to the shadow it casts over all of existence. Just as birth and child are crucial in the development of human beings, a person's 'being-towards-death' can give an insight into the attitudes towards their life. For the continual development-growth throughout adulthood. I believe death has that exact potential. Yalom [2008] once said that death can serve as an 'awakening experience.'
Existential Account of Death
“Is there any meaning in my life that will not be annihilated by the inevitability of death which awaits me?” —Leo Tolstoy [1882/1987, p. 17]
Kierkegaard [1957] believed death anxiety [angst] is the awareness of non-being. Yalom [1980] adds to losing oneself and falling into nothingness. This suggests human being's actual concern with death is far deeper than the concern for biological death itself. Yalom [ibid] found within man’s unconscious self lays a concern for the unknown. Thus what is unknown is uncontrollable and unpredictable. Yalom [ibid] argues that death anxiety takes form in certain psychological manifestations. Yalom [ibid] calls such a manifestation fear of death. Yalom [ibid] also acknowledges overt and covert death anxiety. Fear of death can be split into three distinct categories: existence after death, actual moment of death, and dying. Additionally, Fromm [1976] argues fear of dying is rooted in experiencing life as a personal possession. Yalom [ibid]; May [1950] anxiety seeks to become fear. This gives a feeling of control. If the feared knowable ‘object’ is external, man can realign action in accordance to manage fear in an adequate fashion. Thus anxiety is intrinsically part of existence, for death is inseparable from life. It begs the question; if anxiety cannot be eradicated then why wrestle with it? Why waste the time we are all so desperately trying to save? Existentialists recognise death anxiety cannot be erased, but it can be worked with-- to aid human beings to recognise the responsibility for their own existence, and to live a richer and fuller meaningful remaining life. In effect, man’s terror becomes crucial for his growth [Frankl, 1959]. This is a paradox; can death’s ‘horror’, function to serve as man’s saviour? [Yalom, ibid].
Can Death ‘Save’ Us?
Freidman [1967) claimed the present moment as it is will never come again. There may be similar situations of occurrence, similar dilemmas or experiences yet the unfolding of the present moment continues to unfold and never does it rewind. Thus man is forever coming closer to death. Heidegger [1926] further developed this and proposed two inherent modes of being: forgetfulness and mindfulness. Forgetfulness is the everyday functioning mode of being. This mode is consumed with the ‘superficial’ way that things are. Yet mindfulness of being is fully aware and accepts the reasonability to one’s own existence. Power to change is within this mode. One is simultaneously aware of the possibilities and limitations within existence and feels anxiety in the face of both. Yalom [ibid] believes we are repeatedly reminded throughout our lives of our fate, implicitly and explicitly. Yet it is our choice whether to take notice of life’s ‘hints’ and see death awareness as a possible learning prod for continual growth or not. However, it is not easy or simple to switch from one ‘ontological mode’ to another. [ontos derived from Greek meaning existence]. Rather, man must experience such irreversible suffering and turmoil that crumbles psychological ‘walls’ of resistance and attachments of ‘meaningless’ and superficial concerns and possessions [Yalom, ibid]. Furthermore, Becker [1973] argues to fully transcend oneself, the character structure must be broken to recognise openness to new possibilities. Reality can be lied about, twisted, and manipulated but anxiety on the other hand cannot. When faced, the truth is revealed-- man is a creature destined to evolve consciously in ‘becoming’ yet fade and die consciously. This is a paradox; the truth is both our saviour and our miserableness. But miserableness provides man for the ultimate education--maturity. To become a ‘self’, the self must be broken; to question finitude one has to ‘die’ inwardly. [Frankl, 1969]; Yalom [ibid] advocates if there is no death or if death is denied, life loses its urgency. Therefore it is the urgency of ‘doing’ that death threatens which constitutes meaning to existence. Fear and anxiety keep man on the ground.
Frankl [1959] argues meaninglessness is a primary source of anxiety. However, Yalom [ibid] argues meaninglessness is a substitute for death. Human beings are not intrinsically born into this world with meaning but death always questions meaning. For example, if God was known for certain and this world is a ‘test’ then death is the transition to the next life-no anxiety. Yet death renders what will suffice a ‘safe’ spot in heaven. Fundamentally human beings are continuously in search of meaning-making constitutes Frankl [1969] will to meaning. An abandonment of meaning results in neurosis [Existential frustration] -withdrawal from reality. This also means a withdrawal from the body, Lowen [1967]. Thus humanity derives meaning via the body. But the relationship with death is interwoven. It is easy to argue who is more right than another but when delved into, it is difficult to discern from the two.
Existential Philosophers' Main Arguments on Death Anxiety
Heidegger [1927] believed human beings can only be certain of death happening in the present and live in accordance. Death is always a possibility, in the here and now. Those who claim death to be ‘somewhere’ in the future evade death. According to Heidegger [ibid], this is inauthenticity- forgetfulness of being. Heidegger [ibid] argues death itself does not matter. But ‘being-towards-death’, existing in ‘time’, individuality and singularity is something human beings have to learn to live with: the anticipation of being ready to face our own death. This is authenticity- mindfulness of being; Dasein’s attitude to the possibility of our inevitable demise. Death inspires life. However, Satre claims the possibility of death actually hinders human beings in ‘becoming’. The ‘weight’ of death strips human beings of freedom, taking away uniqueness and meaning to life. [Deurzen and Kenward, 2005].
Empirical Research
Terror Management Theory [TMT] [Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986] suggests much of human beings behaviour is directed by unconscious death-related concerns. Thus the conscious mind develops mechanisms to keep death-related concerns unconscious. Furthermore, Hayes, Schimel, Arndt, & Faucher [2010] suggest Death thought accessibility [DTA] is a crucial ‘tool’ for exploring the role of death under a number of domains. TMT emerged from Rank [1941] argued that creatures have a biological instinct to preserve existence, Frankl, [1959] seeking meaning-making.
Hayes et al. [2010] suggest two broad defence mechanisms: cultural worldview and self-esteem. The cultural worldview ‘prescribes’ how life should be lived. This renders life ‘meaningful’ and ‘purposeful’. This denies the opportunity to think about death explicitly. Mikulincer, Florian & Hirschberger [2003] suggest a third defence-- close relationships. Baumeister & Leary [1995]; Bowlby [1969] have already explored and conceptualised on attachment styles. This defence serves two main purposes: firstly, operates as a protection from concrete threat and provides a symbolic shield against life’s finiteness. This indicates why people find separation distressing and why people evade separating even when the relationship is unhealthy. This implies the very basic need to deny death awareness is rooted in separation anxiety [Mikulincer et al., 2003].
Cultural norms and values give life ‘significance’, and increase self-esteem. According to TMT, consciously reminding people of their death should evoke them to resort to such psychological defences. Wagner [1994]; Wagner & Smart [1997], identified once an activity used to suppress a thought ends, the thought would return to consciousness with greater ease. Taubman–Ben-Ari & Noy [in press] argued for a person to consciously think about meaning in life also meant they would think and understand life’s limitation-- death. Does death question meaning in life? If concrete meaning is established, does this give man a reason and willingness, a ‘purpose’ to die? Man does not want to die for ‘no-reason’; so, does death question the preciousness of life? Therefore meaning gives a sense of ‘completeness’ and ‘wholesomeness.’ Duval & Wicklund [1972] argues behaviour appears to be in parallel with maintaining standards of value-meaning. This further strengthens the relationship between death and meaning, but Taubman–Ben-Ari & Noy [in press] argues further research is still needed to explore possible dynamics-forces of the inter-relationship.
Floyd, Coulon, Yanez, and Lasota [2005] found traumatic experiences had a minimal effect on death anxiety and meaning in life. One would expect after traumatic experiences the distress of death anxiety and meaning-making would increase. The Floyd et al. [2005] study could not support this on a number of accounts. Firstly participants were young adult undergraduate students. There appears to be an age difference in the construction of self. Younger people are more concerned with preserving or protecting their ‘self’ from threats [Rice & Pasupathi, 2010]. Due to their age, it is possible the students’ anxieties were masked by defence mechanisms. Secondly, due to questionnaire limitations, experiential feelings towards meaning-making and death anxiety were not explored naturally and freely enough. This allows the person’s ego too much space and time to protect itself. Gailliot, Schmeichel, and Baumeister [2006] support this, and argue that people who are more orientated towards structure -- ‘control’ in life -- are more likely to be able to ‘control’ the contents that arise in the conscious mind and experience less DTA. However Gailliot et al. [2006] and Gailliot, Schmeichel, & Maner [2007] illustrates when the ego’s defences become self-exhausted -- useless, as in traumatic experiences -- vulnerability to DTA is heightened.
It appears DTA is negatively correlated to self-esteem, thus lower levels of meaning. However, when DTA is high, people with high personal need for structure (PNS) find meaning in structure, and people with low PNS find meaning in novelty. Thus ‘weaker’ ego means less structure-- deriving meaning from the present. The only way to weaken PNS is by breaking attachments. Attachments are ‘ego attachments’, threatening the ego to possible de-attachment is in effect threatening to ‘kill’ the ego. This explains why when attachments are threatened or broken, death ‘becomes’ conscious. But in reality, nothing ‘dies’, rather, the ego is tamed. [Vess, Routledge, Landau & Arndt 2009].
If we have meaning does that mean we accept death? Does that give a reason to die?
Or does that reinforce non-acceptance?
Is surfing the wave, a lifelong battle?
This blog theme originates and is inspired by Jamie Moran